Immigration Reform: Demographics the Decider

Immigration reform in Congress must come now. Rapidly changing demographics in the United States will soon make future proposals that are anything short of national suicide impossible.

Illegal immigration into the United States continues to top the charts. The Senate is finally gearing up for a high-stakes debate on immigration and borders.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) is currently striking a compromise in the Senate between the two major immigration reform bills already proposed: The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act [S. 1033] introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act [S. 1438], introduced by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

A disturbing part of the legislation is the "gold card" program for illegal immigrants. The Star-Telegram reports:

Senate Judiciary Committee staff members who explained key provisions of Specter’s bill on Monday said that the measure would create a "gold card" program for illegal immigrants who entered the United States before Jan. 4, 2004. It also would create a guest-worker program to bring in more foreign laborers

Applicants for the gold card would undergo a background check by the Homeland Security Department, then be eligible for two-year work visas that could be renewed indefinitely, committee aides said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging their boss. The workers wouldn’t participate in the Social Security system but would contribute to future savings through worker investment accounts.

If Congress fails to reform immigration now, how will they in the future? With illegal and legal immigrants pouring into the United States at record speeds, would they vote for politicians willing to severely restrict immigration to controllable levels and secure our porous borders? Part of politics is the art of compromise. Therefore, it is no surprise that any immigration legislation passed in the Senate contains a guest worker program. Politicians think this gives them an edge in elections. After all, illegal immigrants may be able to vote. Not to mention children of illegal immigrants become legal citizens automatically equipped with the right vote when they are of age.

The majority of illegal immigrants in the United States are Hispanic. Our immigration reform will be shaped by there demands. Although rule of law states that any illegal immigrant in the United States should be deported, reality dictates the futility of this measure when an increasing amount of local and state (even federal) government officials throughout the southwestern part of the country sympathize with the millions of illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America. When millions of illegal aliens and their legal relatives keep you in power and support you, why would you allow federal immigration officials to deport them?

The Senate is approaching its last chance to vote for immigration legislation that still applies to a part of the country that may soon not be part of its jurisdiction.

Posted by Mike Tate at March 14, 2006 11:09 PM
Comments
Comment #133460

What is so wrong with a spanish-speaking, latino America?

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #133462

Aldous,

Do you speak Spanish well enough to communicate when Spanish becomes the official language of America?

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #133464

There are partisans on the Right so desperate for a winning issue, I suspect any compromise will be unacceptable. And, knowing we’ll hear the same demagogue in anger as expressed by Rocky, I doubt you’ll care how much it hurts the Republican Party.

When millions of illegal aliens and there legal relatives keep you in power and support you, why would you allow federal immigration officials to deport them?

Funny Mike, how you seemed to have left out those agri-business/corporations who employ many of those undocumented workers? Many of whom are generous contributors to Bush and the GOP!

Or, do their interests play no part in Bush’s decision?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 14, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #133467

Bert, my man… Rocky is a liberal. Sarcastic Liberal too.

Posted by: Aldous at March 14, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #133481

Aldous
There’e nothing wrong with spanish speakin, Latino Americans. Just as long as they can speak English too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 15, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #133483

WE MUST close the borders before we can begin to have a reasonable guest worker program.. any worker who is worth his saltn could get a sponsor and agree to become an ENGLISH speaking american/. LAW abiding american citizen from now on……

Posted by: lily at March 15, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #133485

Immigration continues to be a weak point for this administration and administrations in the recent past. Several things are ironic to me regarding this issue:

(1) Many of the same people who complain about out-sourcing are the same ones who essentially support illegal immigration. They say it’s because illegal immigrants take the jobs other Americans don’t want to do. Umm, noooo, they take jobs at a much lower wage than most Americans would do.

(2) No one who supports our current shameful immigration control as yet to put up a coherent argument on why our legal naturalization process is too restrictive or overbearing, especially when comparing the process to the rest of the world.

(3) Most people continue to ignore the security threat our swiss cheese borders allow.

(4) And, for all those people who say Bush has ruined the country, I guess it’s not completely ruined yet, people have tried in the highest numbers ever to get into this country, legally or illegally, during his terms.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 15, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #133486

Yes it is true that people want to come here.. but if we do not close our borders we will soon be a terrible 3rd world country.. because so many of the immigrants do not become americans.. they are not melting anymore…each one wants their own culture .. and that is not AMERICAN

Posted by: lily at March 15, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #133493

Mike:

Good post. However, I think that immigration reform is treating a symptom, not curing the disease. Both need to be done, but doing one without the other at best provides false comfort to the patient. The disease is poor border security. This allows not only illegal immigration, but drug, weapon, and human trafficking of all kinds. I think that illegals immigrants wanting to work are less serious than an illegal crossing involving drugs and or biological weapons.

We must secure the borders first to stop the reoccuring problem, then treat the symptoms of illegals voting, not paying taxes and increased health care costs to the public by illegals. Until the borders are secure, illegals will not be deterred by any means. Our country has too much to offer to be passed up by many who are living in real poverty. And quite frankly if all I had to do was to walk across part of a desert to escape real poverty I would.

I wish everyone that agrees that the border is a real problem would call, write and e-mail their reps in Washington. This issue cannot risk having a lot of political grandstanding for the election cycle just to ignore the threat. These same politicans will be the ones holding hearings to find out why the CIA/FBI allowed terrorists to bring in WMD across the border when all of the signs were there. If our reps cannot or will not recognize the scope of the issue and ACT on it, it is time to elect people that will.

Posted by: submariner at March 15, 2006 5:41 AM
Comment #133500

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. It may be time to change the basis of citizenship form jus solis to jus sangiunus. The former is what we have: anyone born on US soil is a citizen from birth. Jus sangiunus means that only those born of US parents become citizens at birth. This is the law in many countries, and some require one or both parents to be citizens. Either way, there is nothing discriminatory about it, it’s just another way of defininig citizenship. The US has jus sangiunus to the extent that children born to US parents abroad are US citizens from birth, even though they were not born in the US.

2. The border issue. Yes, we have to regain control of our border. This is an elementary requirement of sovereignty, and with terrorism rife, it’s also a very practical one. It’s really a shame that it has been a hostage of politics for decades now.

Posted by: Charles Kovacs at March 15, 2006 7:53 AM
Comment #133503

Aldous,

I have no problem with anyone from anywhere who tries to become an American. Every human being should be treated with respect and dignity, no matter their status in society. But, I am simply writing objective statements about what can/will happen if immigration is not reformed now.

submariner and Charles Kovacs,

You are both correct. Securing the border is the first step. When New Orleans flooded one of the first priorities government officials tried to do was rebuild the levees and then drain the water.

Posted by: Mike Tate at March 15, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #133505

Mike,

“When New Orleans flooded one of the first priorities government officials tried to do was rebuild the levees and then drain the water.”

Ironic, then that there were complaints that illegals were being paid to help in the rebuilding of New Orleans.

Posted by: Rocky at March 15, 2006 8:11 AM
Comment #133521

Ken C.

Your points 2 and 3 above are excellent, and I agree wholeheartedly. Your point #1 confuses the heck out of me. I’ve read it 3 times, and I just can’t understand how “Many of the same people who complain about out-sourcing are the same ones who essentially support illegal immigration.”

Can you explain?

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 15, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #133525

Arr

I think he means that outsourcing is a way of “importing” labor without important immigrants.

Aldous

Latin America is a fine place. The United States is a better place. That is why I don’t want the U.S. to become “like” Latin America and immigrants agree with me (whether they admit it or not). That is why people run, jump, swim and burrow under and over our borders in only one direction.

Et al

Immigration is best if it is truly diverse. When you get a diverse group of foreigners together, they have to become Americans. It happened in New York in 1906 and it is happening in American suburbs in 2006. Our challenge is only with immigrants who come on foot and maintain close ties to their native countries. We should make sure the incentives to learn English and integrate into U.S. society remain strong.

We have to admit that being American is a better thing than remaining separate. We should welcome those who want to join us. Those who want to stay in their own communities should just stay home (if it is so nice).

Posted by: Jack at March 15, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #133539

How about instead of reforming imagration laws, why don’t we just attack the laten border like we are doing over seas, it seems to make sence to most all republicans, If we kill them it would solve the prolbem.
The real reason that there will not be any real reform in the imagration laws now is because if they alow these people to vote they will most likly vote democratic, it makes more sence to most people.

Posted by: Jason at March 15, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #133545

Yet another anti-immigrant fear-mongering post from Mike Tate.

Do you have anything else to say, Mike? Your one note is getting flat.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 15, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #133566

I think Lily said it best, immigrants of yesterday melted in the melting pot. Immigrants of today seemingly don’t want to mesh into American society, they want to create their EXACT same life just on different, more opportunistic soil.

Can you imagine going into Mexico and demanding the public school system teach primarily in English? … and that local police need know English? Why is that concept so absurd when applied to anywhere else in the world, but yet many in America demand that type of thinking here in the States.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 15, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #133567

Arr,

Yes, Jack is correct. How can one be upset at out-sourcing but support the status quo of illegal immigration? Businesses go to India because the work is cheaper. An illegal immigrant will be a roofer, or hang drywall, or work in a field at a much lower wage (even lower than minimum wage) than the vast majority of most Americans, just like the folks in India. I understand many companies benefit from both out-sourcing and illegal immigration, but the fact is both hurt the American worker.

So, to say we don’t need to build a wall or do something to seriously curb illegal immigration, and to wave in your fist in the air over out-sourcing … an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 15, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #133569

Ken,
Actually Ken, Americans would take jobs at those lower wages if there was no socialist welfare system in place. Of course if that were the case, we wouldn’t have that huge drain on the economy, our taxes would be 1/3 of what they are now, and either those wages would be worth more, or they would be much higher. Always remember…”Socialism ALWAYS fails”. It will here just like everywhere else.

Posted by: David C at March 15, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #133577

half of wallmart workers recieve no or very substandard health insurance which usually reguires the workers to go on goverment assistance.wallmart and welfare?

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 15, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #133591

Keep them wedge issues comin’! They’re the only thing that works for the Republicans.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 15, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #133600

David,

I think welfare needs some serious reform. It should not be a “lifetime” benefit. However, like it or not we are a quasi-socialist society. We aren’t entirely socialist but with Social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and other entitlement programs we are quasi-socialist. We have been for some time.

The social security mess is not due to the program itself…it’s due to our “trusted” elected officials raiding the funds for decades. Other programs have good intentions but certainly need to be reformed. A caring society doesn’t mind giving someone a break when they need one….our problem has become that these “breaks” are not breaks at all, but lifetime benifits.

Regarding our boarders: Until they are secured it is an absolute JOKE to talk about our national security. I know this thread is mostly discussing immigration but the two topics are intertwined and, after 9/11, will never be seperated again. This crap about “we are fighting the terrorist over there so we won’t have to fight them over here” is nice for sound-bites but does absolutely NOTHING for security. It’s kinda like playing a football game with an offense only while ignoring the defense…..you might win and you might not but one thing is for sure….you’re going to get scored on (hit) a lot!

If I’ve heard; “we haven’t been hit yet” once I’ve heard it a thousand times. Again, that’s good for sound-bites but does nothing for our security. It’s akin to saying, “I found it in the last place I looked”…of course you did; why would you keep looking after you’ve found what you are looking for? So, keep on saying we haven’t been hit again because it is true…until we are hit again.

Posted by: Tom L at March 15, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #133612

David C.

No argument from me!!!

Posted by: Ken C. at March 15, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #133635

I live in Houston and this area is becoming majority Latino through both immigration and birth rates. Most of the illegals come here for economic reasons. I think building a “berlin wall” or ” great wall” would be would be as effective as they both were. Obviously, they weren’t.

Isolationism is not an effective solution. Economic development of Mexico, and Central America are the keys to immigration issues. Education of the Latino population is the key to maintqaining our democracy irregardless of the demographics.

Language evolves with time and demographics. We may be speaking Spanglish some time in the future. This post sounds a little “white knightish” with it’s fear of Latinos.

Posted by: gergle at March 15, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #133644

First and foremost, let’s recognize what the real problem is: greed and laziness.

The Truth is the Republican party has not recognized that there is a floor, enforced by the standard of living, to what Americans are willing to and able to accept in terms of wages. The Businesses themselves make it impossible to survive in America without falling into abject poverty. Eliminating minimum wage or shipping jobs overseas doesn’t solve this problem. In fact, it makes it worse by eroding the consumer base and its buying power.

The Siren call of overseas workers should be cautiously regarded. First, many of those workers charge that little because of differences in infrastructure. That is, they don’t have to pay for our sewers, our utilities, and our other systems Second, many of those wages are artificially depressed by government actions, as is the case with Chinese Labor. Third, any time you get money flowing into a market, people are going to be able to buy more, and sooner or later, the market forces wages up to pay for the more expensive society that arises there.

Ultimately, we can’t compete on price because we expect more of our society. If we are willing to live in squalor and decay, we can do what the Republicans apparently want us to do.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 15, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #133649

Why even have a border? I personnely believe we should force Mexico to join the U.S. and make it a state! Know we have control of almost all of the coast lines minus Canada who we own now. The border has gotten smaller now only having to worry about central america. It makes perfect since. All hard working Mexicans get the benifets american workers get. Perfect!!

Posted by: Easy at March 15, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #133682

If the Washington Elite really wanted to get rid of illegal immigration all they would have to do is get rid of CAFTA and NAFTA. Instead, it looks like they rather have a police state.

Posted by: jeez at March 15, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #133707

LawnBoy,

Why not attack my message, instead of me?

;)

Posted by: Mike Tate at March 15, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #133744

National Guard on the border. Problem solved. End of discussion. Kudos to the DEMOCRATIC Governor of Arizona, from a right wing bomb thrower. That’s one female Democrat I would consider voting for for President.

Posted by: Duano at March 15, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #133748

Why are so many Americans becoming such xenophobes. I’ll bet soon that all of us will join the Know-Nothing-Party; the main thing about immigration is that it IS taking the jobs that MOST Americans DO NOT wish to take. The only reason that Americans would want the jobs that the immigarants take, is because they are not educated to take on a better job that brings better wealth. It’s very simple, those better educated will get better jobs that those less educated. The reason why so many Americans are so desperate in getting the crappy jobs the immigrants get, is beacause of our great education system and how much our gov’t cares about it.(Yes, I am being sarcastic) An employer is always looking for a more efficient worker, and if the worker is an immigrant, big deal; the fact is that he or she got the job because they did do it better.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 15, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #133749

Immigration reform, and other badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms are unlikely until voters peacefully force government to be responsible, by, first, voting out all of the irresponsible incumbents?

Bought-and-paid-for incumbents will only pay lip-service to the problem, because their big-money donors don’t want any reform, or limits on cheap labor. They don’t care about the numerous Americans that are victimized every day by illegal aliens.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #133751

When Republicans talk about removing Government Assistance and such, I am always reminded of Nancy Reagan and Stem-Cell Research…

Nancy Reagan was against Stem-Cell Research because it was killing fetuses.

Then one day a guy named Ronald got sick…

And miraculously Nancy became a Stem Cell Believer…


I would believe Jack and Ken C’s position more if I didn’t know that they would demand the same Socialist Assistance if THIER families got in trouble.

Posted by: Aldous at March 15, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #133753

greenstuff,

You failed to mention the word ILLEGAL immigrants. It’s not that Americans don’t want to hang drywall or put on a roof, it’s that they don’t want to do it for $4 an hour. Until recently, there wasn’t the kind of competition from illegals and construction was a lucrative trade to get into. I’m all for immigrants coming in through the PROPER CHANNELS, but when they break our laws to get into our country, then get paid under the table and don’t even pay taxes, we have a problem. No other country on this planet allows people to come across their borders whenever they want. Why should we be any different?

Posted by: Duano at March 15, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #133754

greenstuff,

What about the negative costs?
There is a price for that cheap labor for corporations.
It’s not cheap after all.
Not for the average American.
Have you considered the problem from all angles?

I live north of Dallas, TX. On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policemen was murdered by an illegal alien. Try to explain your position to Brian’s family, and the many other victims of crimes that should have never happened.

If you think illegal aliens pose no threat to American citizens, then please read the following.
These are crimes that could have been prevented:
[X] On 13-Nov-2005, Brian Jackson, a Dallas policeman was shot and killed by an illegal alien, Juan Lizcano. Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girl-friend to threaten her. As the police pursued Lizcano after he fled the woman’s home, he shot Officer Jackson, who died later in the hospital. Officer Jackson was remembered by his fellow police as someone who loved his job and always went the extra mile.
[X] Then, there is Jorge Hernandez, a.k.a. Jorge Soto, who killed Min Soon Chang, an 18-year-old college freshman, in a terrible head-on wreck while Hernandez was driving drunk. He had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported to Mexico 17 times! Why aren’t illegal aliens aren’t deported instantly after being arrested for drunk driving?
[X] Debbie Thomas, who was the mother of three, was killed in a head-on collision on Christmas Eve 2003 when her car was struck by a car being driven in the wrong direction by illegal alien, Narciso Garcia-Jimenez. He later escaped from his hospital bed and is still at large. The car he drove had no inspection sticker and was registered to another person. When Debbie’s mom learned that her daughter’s killer survived and escaped after being treated at the hospital, she said she felt “angry, bitter and sad, all at once.”
[X] In Atlanta, Georgia: Mexican Miguel Carrasco raped a female victim in front of her four year old child and two minors; California Mexican Zacarias Camacho committed lewd acts upon a child under 14; El Salvadoran Oswaldo Martinez raped, sodomized and murdered a 16 year old; MS-13 gang member Reinaldo Ramos convicted of 2nd degree sexual offense for brutal gang rape of 16 year old girl.
[X] Jose Ramirez is every American father’s nightmare. The illegal alien beat up a 15-year-old girl after whistling at her. He broke her nose, fractured a bone in her face and produced cuts requring 30 stitches. The man worked in construction in Spotsylvania, Virginia, where the attack occurred, and resisted arrest to the point where police had to taser him.
[X] more

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #133757
First and foremost, let’s recognize what the real problem is: greed and laziness.

Yep. Laziness is a basic human trait, but it is immoral to surrender to it completely.

Most people are law abiding when there is transparancy (i.e. visibility) and accountability (i.e. consequences).

Many reforms are badly needed, but no reforms are possible without first replacing all irresponsible incumbents with newcomers (many that want to pass reforms). Incumbents always outnumber newcomers, and incumbents will not allow any reforms that will reduce the incumbents power, reduce opportunities for self-gain, or reduce their chances to retain their incumbency.

The Problem and The Solution:

Responsibility = Power + Education + Transparency + Accountability
Corruption = Power - Education - Transparency - Accountability

Laziness is at the root of the problem, but laziness works for corrupt politicians, and works against voters.

Corrupt politicians have power by virtue of their office, and their laziness works for them, because they can simply create more opportunities for self-gain by simply do nothing, or actively creating more chaos. And, politicians get paid while doing this. So, incumbent politicians spend their time, on the job, making their incumbency more secure. Incumbents have many unfair advantages.

But, voters laziness works against them, because their lack of motivation to observe and monitor politicians, and go vote them out takes time and effort, and voters don’t get paid for their time or effort.

So, the corrupt incumbent politicians have an advantage.

But, voters can restore a balance of power, if they will simply vote wisely and do the one simple thing voters were supposed to be doing all along: vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always.

Or, learn the hard way (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #133759

Duano,
Well you see, the reason why there is illegal immigration is because America’s immigration system is so screwed up that it takes a lot of work and money to get into the United States “legally.” Now when most of the illegal immigrants are entering the United States for work and money, the idea to enter legally becomes harder and almost impossible for them. Also who are we to say that someone may not enter the country, this “land” isn’t ours and was obtained through genocide of the natives. The very first Americans were immigrants also; it seems to me that some of us are being selfish and don’t want to share the American dream to anyone but oursleves.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 15, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #133761

d.a.n,
You make it sound as if illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal ones or even Americans. Just because someone enters the country illegally doesn’t make them more prone to commit a crime. The 9/11 eleven attacks were committed by people who entered the country legally, not illegally.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 15, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #133780
You make it sound as if illegal immigrants commit more crime than legal ones or even Americans.

No. However, people that shouldn’t even be here at all is one obvious source of crime that should not exist.

Just because someone enters the country illegally doesn’t make them more prone to commit a crime.

No? No drivers’ license. No insurance? But, what about the large number that commit crimes? Have you researched any of this? Please explain your pleas for illegal aliens to the victims of their crimes.

The 9/11 eleven attacks were committed by people who entered the country legally, not illegally.

Wrong. There were illegal. Some were on FBI watch lists. Unfortunately, the Federal Bureau of Incompetence was unable to connect the dots.

So, this is your justification? That’s your case? Tell it to the numerous victims of crimes by illegal aliens.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #133782
Just because someone enters the country illegally doesn’t make them more prone to commit a crime.

Oh….not to mention that they committed a crime when they trespassed our borders.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #133806

Yes…anyone who enters this country are criminals and should all be sent to jail for seeking a better way of life.
Also the 9/11 hijackers did enter legally. However they entered by exploiting the immigration legal system; nevertheless the U.S. Gov’t offially stated that the 19 hijackers entered the country LEGALLY.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 16, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #133814

Greenstuff,

Yes, you contradicted yourself. On one hand you say legal immigration is too hard, then you come back and say “Well, the 9/11 hijackers did it!” … apparently it’s not too hard, in fact it’s a joke compared to most other 1st world countries where citizenship is halfway desirable.

And we have one illegal immigrant come in and take a job for 2 bucks leass an hour than an American would, but then he gets in a car wreck and we spend $250,000 in taxpayer money trying to get him back to life in some ER. Where’s the gain in that???

Posted by: Ken C. at March 16, 2006 3:48 AM
Comment #133815

Aldous,

Uhh, I have Health Insurance like 260 to 270,000,000 other Americans … not sure what you’re getting at. And I’m for stem cell research with a restrictive, watchful government eye in the background. There’s too many sick people out there, even with so called medical degrees, who I do not trust at large.

And, by the way, PRIVATE funding for stem cell lines is legal. There are no limits on how much you can give to such a cause. California proposed a $4 BILLION program as I remember correctly … THE LARGEST PROGRAM IN THE WORLD!!

How much have you given to the cause by the way? … you know, since we’re throwing stones and all.

Posted by: Ken C. at March 16, 2006 3:55 AM
Comment #133823

—Ken C,

“Many of the same people who complain about outsourcing are the ones who support illegal immigration”

You mean like Lou Dobbs, right?

—JACK,

“Latin America is a fine place” but then you went on to say that you don’t want to see America become like Mexico?

Ever seen a donkey show before? Cat-tossing?

—DAVIDC,

“Americans would take jobs at those lower wages if there were no socialist welfare system in place”

David, do you mean the kind of welfare DuPont Chemicals is getting or the kind Verizon is getting? You’re getting me confused here. I sure hope you don’t mean the kind of socialist welfare package United Airlines or AOL is getting or es-specially the kind Halliburton KBR gets because that is just privelege right there. 99% of all welfare is corporate and more often than not they don’t have to pay it back for ten or more years with continued extentions.

—‘EASY’,

Heyyyy George W. Bush is that you?!! Welcome to Watchblog! I like the name Easy, it’s befitting—commie!

Here’s my idea:

We build a 70 foot wall at the border, then hire 10,000 illegals to paint big red arrows on it every 50 feet pointing to the entrance that say “

Posted by: Translator at March 16, 2006 5:29 AM
Comment #133824

Whoops! For some reason the last line didn’t take.

…paint big red arrows on it every 50 feet pointing to the entrance that say in Spanish and English “GO AROUND”.

Posted by: Translator at March 16, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #133826

Also on the wall a schedule of all the things they are missing on Telemundo right now.

Posted by: Translator at March 16, 2006 5:45 AM
Comment #133841

To Aldous:
I read your reply in another post and you complained about our national security.
In this post you ask why shouldnt America become spanish speaking.
I cant tell where you are from by your name, but are You American?

Posted by: cls at March 16, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #133843

Jack,

Immigration is best if it is truly diverse.
So the 19th and early 20th century immigration was a bad period, eh? Immigration consisted almost solely of white Europeans.

d.a.n.,
I’m sure the families of the crime victims you cited would feel MUCH better about losing their loved ones if the killers were American citizens, eh?

All,
The real reason most Americans fear immigration is that the immigrants aren’t like us. They don’t look like us. They don’t talk like us. They don’t behave like us. Pretty soon, there’ll be more of them than there are of us. And then we’ll be the “them” and they’ll be the “us”.

And this is EXACTLY the same fear of immigrants that every generation of Americans has had, starting when the Indians saw the Mayflower approaching and said “there goes the neighborhood.”

Every person in this country is either an immigrant or the descendant of one. Let’s get over our subtly racist fears of “them.”

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #133853

The drugs flow across the border in one direction. The money flows in the other direction. Problem? And yes, greenstuff, I am a little selfish on this issue. It should mean something to be an American citizen. Isn’t it unfair for the all people who have jumped through all the hoops to get here just to let people come across the border without paying a penny? What about those “them” that we are so racist against? Why does an immigrant from Zimbabwe have to go through so much more than one from Mexico? Racism?

Posted by: Duano at March 16, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #133869

The folks (and Democrats) aren’t afraid of immigrants or immigration. The problem is illegal immigrants, and those who are legal wanting to change the US to their ideas rather than become Americans. It’s one thing to offer some things in a dual translation, but to require it so some folks don’t have to learn the language of their chosen country is just wrong!

Posted by: womanmarine at March 16, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #133884

I don’t care why they are coming here, if they
come here illegally they are breaking the law and
should not be rewarded with some means of attaining citizenship down the road. We should
deny them any kind of benefits such as food stamps, education and yes even health care. Take all that away and they will most likly go home.
We should secure our borders, maintain our culture, and reqire everyone who comes here to speak english.

Posted by: John Manderson at March 16, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #133910
Why not attack my message, instead of me?

Actually, I was addressing the message. The fact that it is the same message that you always pound on fruitlessly. I’m not attacking you at all, just the monotony of your message.

Besides, I’ve successfully shown in the past that your rhetoric cannot stand up to logical review. Why should I waste my time repeating the exact same objections to the exact same arguments?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #133911

There is actually some research to immigration actually lowers crime rates.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #133914

My child needed extra help in school but was told there was no money in the budget. Apparently there is money in the school budget for spanish- english translators. Also are we going to wait for another 9/11 perpertrated by someone who snuck in through the mexican border because everyone knows that’s the way to get into the U.S.?

Posted by: Linda Sellers at March 16, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #133918

So many of articles about immigration (like this one) are just fear mongering bordering on veiled racism, instead of being level headed. “oh noes! The brownies are coming! Lock up your children! They break laws! Save your money! They’re coming to take your job! And they..gasp..SPEAK A CRAZY MOON LANGUAGE!!! Run for the hills!!”

Seriously I’m a legal immigrant and oppose illegal immigration, but this kind of talk I just find insulting. I’ve always said that if you leave cheese lying all about the house you’ll get mice. Likewise if we continue to have companies employ illegal immigrants unpunished then we will continue to have illegal immigrants. Sure you can come down on the immigrants, but just like a mouse problem for every one you catch there’ll be a bunch of others you didn’t. Taking out the food source is a much easier solution than taking out each and every one.

So really congress must make a decision. Is cheap labor something they want to keep or not? If not then close the borders and come down hard on the employers of illegals. If so, then start a migrant worker program where we let immigrants in and have them documented and paying taxes for short periods of time. If they overstay, the fines for both employer and immigrant should be prohibitive.

Still I think that many forget that America should be the land of opportunity and close the doors on immgrants both legal and illegal in one fell swoop. What would have happened if the native americans threw the pilgrims out because they didn’t have visas? Or what if america closed its borders in the mid 1800s. Most of us wouldn’t be here. All our american ancestors were at one point a stranger in a strange land an immigrant. I don’t see why americans so quickly forget this.

Posted by: chantico at March 16, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #133919

a person wrote in another blog. good fences make good neighbors, ( definition) ( because good neighbors respect one another’s property) on that premise, why is it so difficult to grasp the difference between illegal immigration and legal immigration? legal immigration works because it was earned. illegal immigration does not work because it was unearned.think about it how do you feel when you earn something by your hard efforts , or getting something unearned . most tend to respect it more when it was earned.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 16, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #133921

“think about it how do you feel when you earn something by your hard efforts , or getting something unearned . most tend to respect it more when it was earned.”

As a legal immigrant I know very well what you’re talking about, and that’s the crux of the reason why I oppose illegal immigration. However, most people opposing illegal immigration would like to stop legal immigration as well or auotmatically lump those who are legal as illegal.

Posted by: chantico at March 16, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #133922

Chantico:

So really congress must make a decision. Is cheap labor something they want to keep or not? If not then close the borders and come down hard on the employers of illegals. If so, then start a migrant worker program where we let immigrants in and have them documented and paying taxes for short periods of time. If they overstay, the fines for both employer and immigrant should be prohibitive.

Well put. I suspect 90% of those worrying about this are really worrying about the illegal immigration, not the legal. Just my take on it.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 16, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #133932

Ken C.,

you contradicted yourself. On one hand you say legal immigration is too hard, then you come back and say “Well, the 9/11 hijackers did it!” … apparently it’s not too hard

The reason why the 9/11 hijackers got through immigration so easily is because they had the money and the support from a vast terrorist organiztion. Hmmm…let’s see, who’s got a better chance to enter America legally, a destitute uneducated Mexican or a unknown terrorist, who is entering from a closely allied country of America, and is being backed up by a large underground terrorist organization which can infiltrate practically nation in the world.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 16, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #133944
d.a.n., I’m sure the families of the crime victims you cited would feel MUCH better about losing their loved ones if the killers were American citizens, eh?

What an utterly callous and asinine statement. How revealing?

Of all the things I’ve read at watchblog, that statement just about takes the cake.

Please try and explain that logic to the families of the victims.

The statement is so absurdly illogical, because it ignores the increased crime, disease, and burden on healthcare, education, law enforcement, prison, legal, welfare, and insurance systems, by illegal trespassers.

Do you think you’d be saying that if it was your daughter that was killed by a drunk driving illegal alien, or a hit and run driver fleenig from a crime, with no insurance or driver’s license, and had already been arrested and released 7 times for drunk driving?

Legal immigation is OK (within some limits).
Illegal trespassing is not OK.
That does not equate to xenophobia.

The law is being broken.
Corrupt and dysfunctional government allows it.
Both are a slap in the face of many victims of increasing crimes by illegal aliens that should have never happened.

To imply that crime by illegal aliens is no different than crimes by American citizens, or does not increase crime, is completely obfuscatory, insulting, and irresponsible.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #133945
The statement is so absurdly illogical, because it ignores the increased crime… by illegal trespassers.

d.a.n.

Please look at the link I provided at March 16, 2006 02:08 PM. What do you think?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #133947

I can’t believe that you neo-con traitors are helping the terrorists! Before you talked about illegal immigration on this blog, they had no idea that you could get into this country from Mexico. Each and every one of you will be responsible for the lives that will be lost when they figure this out. I can’t believe you hate America so much that you want Americans to die just so that you can retain your power by making Democrats look bad on illegal immigration. And you don’t have a plan for fixing it anyway.

-Satire alert- Just replace “immigration” with “wiretapping” and you get what I’ve been reading from the right for way too long. Sorry for the off topic-ness. Please, carry on.

Posted by: Brian Poole at March 16, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #133954

d.a.n,

You’re the one who’s using the deaths of these people for political purposes, not me.

I’m sure that an organization like the one you cited (the Center for Immigration Studies, which says on its own web page that it “seeks fewer immigrants”) can be trusted to be objective with its statistics, can’t it?

All,
I don’t think anyone here would have any objections ot illegal immigration at all if the “trespassers” were Caucasian and spoke perfect English. Think about it - is your issue with the fact that they’re illegal, or with the fact that they aren’t like you?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #133961

That’s interesting, even if it was true, it could only apply to legal immigration, since illegal immigation counts as a crime in itself.

Legal immigration is OK.
Illegal immigration is not OK.

So, LawnBoy, are you saying we should just open the borders wide open? Or, should we have controlled immigration? You can’t have controlled immigration without border control. Take your pick.

If you have no border control, and you let tens of millions immigrate annually (which is what would happen), we will be overrun, and our schools, prisons, healthcare, hospital, welfare, and law enforcement systems will all be burdened to the point of collapse. They are already being burdened.

You would not allow a stranger to come into your home uninvited, use your food and home.
Why would you allow illegal aliens to come here uninvited, and use our hospitals, welfare, schools, etc. ?

Immigration is OK, but only if the numbers are controlled. There are countless examples of nations overrun by illegal aliens, and the problems it causes when it is in excess.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #133964
That’s interesting, even if it was true, it could only apply to legal immigration, since illegal immigation counts as a crime in itself.

That’s really convenient. Illegal immigration must be stopped because it causes crime! What crime? Itself!!!

I really think that if we’re going to talk honestly about the costs and benefits of an activity, we can’t start with the assumption that the activity itself is a cost.

So, LawnBoy, are you saying we should just open the borders wide open?

I’m saying that logic and facts should lead the debate, not assumptions and emotional ploys.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #133965
d.a.n, You’re the one who’s using the deaths of these people for political purposes, not me.
Wrong. There’s nothing political about it at all. What part of illegal do you not understand?
I’m sure that an organization like the one you cited (the Center for Immigration Studies, which says on its own web page that it “seeks fewer immigrants”) can be trusted to be objective with its statistics, can’t it?
I don’t vouch for the organization. But their goal is legal, controlled immigration. And, if you’ll notice, they show crimes by people of all races and origins. So, playing the race card is just a clever, overused distraction.
All, I don’t think anyone here would have any objections ot illegal immigration at all if the “trespassers” were Caucasian and spoke perfect English. Think about it - is your issue with the fact that they’re illegal, or with the fact that they aren’t like you?
So, now you want to play the race card? That’s just another pathetic attempt to cloud the issues and obscure the facts. I don’t care what their race is. Illegal means just that. To bring race into this is as underhanded and irresponsible as saying:
I’m sure the families of the crime victims you cited would feel MUCH better about losing their loved ones if the killers were American citizens, eh?
Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #133970

LawnBoy,
It is really reaching to say illegal aliens reduce crime. Why?

Not only do they commit a crime by coming here illegally, but:
[] How many drive around without drivers’ licenses and no auto-insurance?
[] How many show up in our emergency rooms and can’t pay?
[] How many, since they don’t have and can’t afford auto insurance, flee from the scene of the accident?
[] How many enroll their children in our schools, driving property taxes through the roof?
[] Have you got any idea what’s going on in south Texas?
[] Do you know how many illegal aliens are in our prisons for crimes other than being here illegally?

I’m stickin’ to the facts, and that one cherry picked article, which is only a theory as far as I can tell, is not nearly enough to convince me that illegal aliens are not increasing crime.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #133973

d.a.n.,

At least my link talks about crime (a specific one, homicide). The CIS article you linked to doesn’t even address crime, yet you use it to support your claim that illegal immigration increases “crime, disease, and burden on healthcare, education, law enforcement, prison, legal, welfare, and insurance systems, by illegal trespassers.”

I guess it comes down to the different focus. The study I referred to suggests that illegal immigration might reduce the rates of violent crime. You focus on the assumption that illegal immigration increases non-violent crime.

I don’t really have a cross to bear either way in the argument. I’m just trying to point out that your assumptions and rhetoric might not be supported by reality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #133975

d.a.n,
You say you’re sticking to the facts, so how come you won’t stick to the facts from the article by the New York Times. It seems to be backed up by reliable sources and statistics. I really don’t see why you seem to have such a hatred for illegal immigrants, they aren’t here in America to commit crimes; they here to seek a better way of life.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 16, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #133981

Elliotbay:

I don’t care what they look like. Illegal is illegal is illegal. I can only speak for myself, but I know friends who feel the same. Please don’t make everyone out to be racist who is against the people in this country illegally, no matter where they came from.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 16, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #133982

Brian Poole:

Brilliantly funny post!! Thanks for the laugh. Now you need to clean my screen ROFL.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 16, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #133988
d.a.n, … how come you won’t stick to the facts from the article by the New York Times. It seems to be backed up by reliable sources and statistics.
greenstuff, I’ve been researching illegal immigration for years, and that is the only article I have ever seen that says immigration reduces crime. That is one article, and the facts are not at all conclusive. In fact, the article itself does not assert it as a fact; only as a possibility. It doesn’t matter, it is illegal, and it does cost.

Also, the study was in Chicago? Have any of you been to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California ? If not, you don’t know what you’re talking about.


I really don’t see why you seem to have such a hatred for illegal immigrants,

Who ever said I hate them? That’s an old trick. Turn it into a race issue, or a hate issue, but ignore the overwhelming facts. So, who is biased?

…they aren’t here in America to commit crimes; they here to seek a better way of life.
Really? Then what about all of the crime? Why do they abuse our systems? Why do they drive around without drivers’ licenses and insurance? Why do they shoot our policemen? They even vote in our elections with false IDs. And you have the gall to say they don’t want to commit crimes? Hell, they committed a crime when they trespassed into this country illegally.

Perhaps you should do more research. I have and there is overwhelming facts to show the that illegal immigration has a negative impact on this nation, and I’ll be more than happy to provide hundreds of links to back up each and very conclusion.

Legal immigration is OK.
Illegal trespassing is not OK.
There’s a difference, and it does not equate to:
(1) xenophobia
(2) hatred
(3) racism

Those are just clever detractors to derail the debate…especially when people are losing the debate.
____________________________

d.a.n.,
At least my link talks about crime (a specific one, homicide). The CIS article you linked to doesn’t even address crime.

Huh? I linked to lots of crime above. Tell ya what. For every article or study you can find that says illegal aliens reduce crime, I will find 5 reputable sources that prove otherwise (many be government studies).

… yet you use it to support your claim that illegal immigration increases “crime, disease, and burden on healthcare, education, law enforcement, prison, legal, welfare, and insurance systems, by illegal trespassers.”
Yes. Because it is true. If you research it, you will draw the same conclusion. And, please do not try to twist the stance against illegal immigration as racism, xenophobia, or hatred of anyone different.
I guess it comes down to the different focus. The study I referred to suggests that illegal immigration might reduce the rates of violent crime. You focus on the assumption that illegal immigration increases non-violent crime.
Lawnboy, I read it. It can’t draw that conclusion. Not conclusively. The article itself only suggests the possibility. The data and stats are not conclusive. And, the study was in Chicago? Also, there has been a drop in crime for quite some time (since 1993). It is due to many factors, and illegal immigrants is not the reason, and the article could not prove that, and never said it was definitive. Also, that’s the only article I’ve ever seen that suggests illegal aliens do not increase crime. Especially when the numbers don’t add up. Do you realize how many illegal aliens are in our prisons for crimes other than illegal trespassing our borders?
I don’t really have a cross to bear either way in the argument. I’m just trying to point out that your assumptions and rhetoric might not be supported by reality.
That is where your assumption is incorrect. It is not mere assumptions or rhethoric on my part. I have researched it thoroughly and observed it for years (living in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and speding a lot of time in California and Arizona too). I’ve also lived in Chicago, and other states, and most of those northern states and cities do not really understand the problem in the south and have not witnessed the magnitude of it first hand. Go to Los Angeles and almost any border city and tell me there isn’t a crime wave by illegal aliens.

The problem is that our systems (e.g. schools, hospitals, welfare, voting, transporation systems, etc.) are abused by illegal aliens. Some will say they pay taxes too. Well, not much. Mostly only sales tax. Not much property tax to fund the schools they use. Not much income tax to support everything else, since many are paid under the table.

In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990.

More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. 36% percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time.

(Sources: US Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National Security Institute, National Association of Chiefs of Police, US Department of Justice)

Please read the following, and do some research, and you will undoubtedly come away with a different opinion. Anyone who thinks illegal immigration is a good thing, in the millions, as now exists, is uninformed. The costs is not just in dollars, but Americans’ lives too.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #133991

You guys can kick this around all you want but the fact is we are in a hispandemic. If we dont get rid of the wishey washey politicans who cant or wont read the handwriting on the wall, our american culture is fini wa loo. We (republicans and Democrats) must vote in a bloc against anyone who stands for anything less than complete shut down of the borders and the immediate deportation of all illegals men women and childern. I am not a bigot but rather a rational thinking american. We didn’t build this country from the ground up for a people who dont enter legally and wont speak our language. They will only drag us down to their level. Our programs health care, welfare etc. are here for us. After all we are the ones paying for them.

Posted by: JC at March 16, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #133995
At least my link talks about crime (a specific one, homicide). The CIS article you linked to doesn�t even address crime.


Huh? I linked to lots of crime above.

Perhaps, but the CIS article which you connected to increased crime by putting it right before the word “crime” didn’t discuss crime.

And, please do not try to twist the stance against illegal immigration as racism, xenophobia, or hatred of anyone different.

I didn’t think I was doing that.

Please read the following…
I looked at it, and it’s a list of anecdotes. In other words, it doesn’t prove anything.

Lists of anecdotes never do.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #133996

“we are in a hispandemic”
niiiice. real nice.

Posted by: chantico at March 16, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #134007

d.a.n,

A lesson in logic. If you want to prove that “A” causes “B”, you have to show more than just a relationship between them (e.g., that “A” happened before “B” and there is a causal relationship between them). You ALSO have to prove that NOTHING ELSE could cause “B”. You attributed three crimes to illegal immigration. Can you prove that those crimes would not have been committed if the perpetrators had been LEGAL immigrants? If not, your thesis that illegal immigration causes more crime is disproven. In fact, it sounds like you’re trying to prove that ANY immigration causes higher crime.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 16, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #134017

ElliotBay,
A lesson in logic.
If you want to prove “A”, you have to provide some facts.
I have and can provide mountains of evidence.
You can’t win because the facts are not on your side.
So you resort to the obfuscation .
You want to play with words.
I just speak the truth, and you want to play games.
How revealing?
As before, give me some facts, and for every fact you provide, I’ll find 5 times as many to disprove what it (that is, if you persist that illegal trespasser is a good thing).

So, ElliottBoy, you want me to prove illegal aliens create more crime? OK.

Unfortunately, I can only show one or two links per post. Here are a couple:

Illegal Aliens

Have either one of you been a victim of crime by illegal aliens? What states do you live in?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 16, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #134021

d.a.n.

I agree with you on this issue. and most everyone has glossed over the trespassing point that you made. No sooner would someone allow other than a family member, free access to their home. In other words, if having ILLEGAL immagrants is so virtuos, then would they allow johnny usa to break and enter their house and eat the food, drive the car and use the bathroom just because they are taking out the trash and doing the dishes? or mowing the lawn. I laugh at those that blame corporations for this when it is actually small or micro-businesses that employ these hard working individuals. Plus the government is hanging a huge carrot with all of the free services that are there for the taking from us the produceres of tax dollers.

Posted by: ScottP at March 16, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #134022

Tom L,
The Soviet Union was a socialist, and not even quasi, society, before it collapsed, and then they weren’t. The farther we go torwards socialism, the harder and more painful it will be to correct it and return to liberty and Capitalism. Saying we can’t change now because we are too far down the road just won’t cut it. We are NEVER too far down the road to correct that mistake, because we have seen the pain when a completely dependent society is suddenly converted to freedom. It is painful, but just as a recovering addict has to go through the pain to get their freedom, countries must do the same. Trust me when I tell you, that process is painful, and absolutely worth it.


As for the border and illegal immigration situation, I could not agree more. If we don’t place a value on our culture and society, we should not expect anyone else to.

Posted by: David C. at March 16, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #134029

d.a.n,

…they aren�t here in America to commit crimes; they here to seek a better way of life.
Really? Then what about all of the crime? Why do they abuse our systems? Why do they drive around without drivers’ licenses and insurance? Why do they shoot our policemen? They even vote in our elections with false IDs.

Do you really believe that illegal immigrants come to the USA to commit crime? If you really do believe that immigrants want to get into the USA so that they can go around killing cops and rigging elections, and not so that they can find a better way of life for themselves and their family, then your a Xenophobe. You have a huge fear of foreigners entering the country because you have a warped idea that they are all criminals.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 16, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #134031
Have either one of you been a victim of crime by illegal aliens?

The fact that you think this would prove your point just proves Elliot’s point instead.

If I provided you a list of illegal immigrants that came to the U.S. and never committed a violent crime and were saintly, and another list of crimes committed by citizens, would I win the arguments because I would have more anecdotes than you do?

You have linked to the same website eight times so far, and yet it no more proves your point the 8th time than it did the first time.

A true discussion of this (or any) issue would be based on a comparison of large studies, not individual cases. It would look at all crime, not just the ones you want us to focus on. It would look at the causes and advantages and disadvantages of the issue, not just a single-minded focus on the disadvantages. It would require input from all parts of the country, not just the parts of the country that you want to focus on.

In other words, the links you have provided tell interesting emotional stories, but they are not the basis of good policy.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 16, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #134044

“Can you prove that those crimes would not have been committed if the perpetrators had been LEGAL immigrants? If not, your thesis that illegal immigration causes more crime is disproven.”

as a point of logical fact, a failure to prove a thesis does not, in fact, disprove it. you have not so much as proven the null hypothesis, much less the antithesis. thus, you have at best reached an impasse.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 17, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #134049

WELL WE BLOCKED THE PORTS DEAL AND THE DEMS AND LEFTYS ARE STILL CRYIN! YET FACTS BE KNOWN EVEN MORE DANGER LINGERS AROUND OUR BORDERS AND AT OUR OWN FRONT DOOR! AND HOW ABOUT CHINA THEY RUN THE LEFT COST PORTS!AND FINGOLD WANTS TO SINSUR THE PREZ AND LEFT COAST WANTS HIM EMPEACHED AND YALE LETS IN THE TALIBAN WHILE 1 OF HIS PALS RUNS OVER 9 PEOPLE AT UNC. MEANWHILE THE NEWS FOLKS KEEP TOUGHTIN THE ALMIGHTY RATINGS POLL AND MEANTIME THE POOR OLE DEMS HAVE NO SOLUTONS JUST PISS MOAN AND GROAN THE PREZ ISNT WEARING HIS TIE RIGHT OH WHAT WILL WE DO ANY SAIN PERSON WOULD FIX IT WHILE THE DEMS SAY WE WOULD DO IT BETTER DONT KNOW CANT SAY HOW BUT WE COULD DO IT BETTER????? WHY CANT SOME ONE BRING TREASON AND TRECHERY CHARGES ON SEN FINGOLD OR NANCY P OR CHUCKIE SHUMER NOT TO MISS KERRY THE COWARD OR BUCKET MOUTH DEAN AND DONT FORGET OUR GREATEST COWARD TEDDY BOY KENNEDY YOU KNOW THE DUDE THE KILLED MARY JO! SAD SAD

Posted by: ALLEN STEPHENS at March 17, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #134050

hi there, are you related to F.A. STEPHENS SR who was on blog site when god is a monster date march 13 2006 at 6.40 pm???

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 17, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #134122

d.a.n,
Your oft-repeated link contains no statistics that prove anything. All it contains (as Lawnboy pointed out) is a list of anecdotes. Anecdotal evidence is not the same thing as empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

As for demanding that I offer proof: sorry, dude, YOU’RE the one who says he has proof that illegal immigration causes higher crime. So the burden of proof is on you. And so far you have offered nothing aside from some snide remarks about my motives and some anecdotes.

diogenes,
You are correct. I should have used “unproven” instead of “disproven”.

All,
The total length of the US-Mexican and US-Canadian borders is about 5,100 miles. If you think we should stop ALL illegal immigration, consider the cost of defending a border of that length. And consider the increased cost of additional surveillance on our nation’s ports (there are increasing numbers of illegal Asian immigrants being smuggled in through our ports). Consider the cost of additional scrutiny at our airports to weed out phony visas & passports. Consider the additional expense of finding and exporting every foreigner who came in with a valid visa that has since expired.

Bottom line: stopping all illegal immigrants will (in my opinion) cost about as much as the War on Iraq. And, given the track record of the Bush League, it will probably be about as successful. Are you willing to have your taxes increased for such a result?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 17, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #134125

good point. reforms are needed, but we cannot trust their realization to this administration. moreover, if we wish to secure our nation, then we must stop attempting to secure the ever-deteriorating iraq. we can wait it out and ‘stay the course’, or we can impeach now.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 17, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #134153

Imagine you came home from work, and found a stranger living in your house.
Would you ask him to leave?
Or, would you instead just legally adopt him and give him the run of the place?
Of course you wouldn’t.

So, all statements by those arguing in support of illegal aliens reveal their hypocrisy.

Most Americans want the borders secured and illegal trespassing of our borders stopped.

greenstump wrote:d.a.n. Do you really believe that illegal immigrants come to the USA to commit crime?

Not violent crime. However, they are committing a crime when they trespass illegally. So yes in that obvious case. That statement is just another weak, lame tactic to extrapolate to the ridiculous, obscure the facts, and cloud the issues.

LawnBoy wrote: You have linked to the same website eight times so far, and yet it no more proves your point the 8th time than it did the first time. A true discussion of this (or any) issue would be based on a comparison of large studies, not individual cases.

LawnBoy, I linked to many different sites. But, you’d like to see more? Okey Dokey. Here that are. I updated this web-page just for you and greenstuff. Please read all of it (as I have), and you might learn something.

In fact, due to the many here that seem to think illegal trespassing is OK, this topic deserves much more emphasis.

So, much more time should be devoted to this important topic. So, please return often to this web-page to see the frequent updates.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #134158
d.a.n. I agree with you on this issue. and most everyone has glossed over the trespassing point that you made. No sooner would someone allow other than a family member, free access to their home. In other words, if having ILLEGAL immagrants is so virtuos, then would they allow johnny usa to break and enter their house and eat the food, drive the car and use the bathroom just because they are taking out the trash and doing the dishes? or mowing the lawn. I laugh at those that blame corporations for this when it is actually small or micro-businesses that employ these hard working individuals. Plus the government is hanging a huge carrot with all of the free services that are there for the taking from us the produceres of tax dollers.

Thank you Scott. You, me, and most Americans (70%) understand this, and want an end to illegal trespassing.

Unfortunately, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for government, pressured by their big-money puppeteers (e.g. Walmart), greedily lure illegal aliens here for sub-minimum wage jobs.

Also, National Security is a bit of a joke when borders and ports are damn near wide-open.

See the following for more about the human and monetary cost of illegal aliens.

This topic of discussion has come up here many, many times, and I have yet to find anyone with a credible argument to accept and allow illegal trespass into our nation.

Sure, it would be nice if everyone on the planet could come and go anywhere, anytime.

But, no nation condones it. Nations have a sovereign right to secure their borders. The people of a nation own that nation.

We built this nation. We have public services, and benefits. But, that is all threatened and costly if we have to give it away to millions (about 20 million now) of illegal aliens too.

This is exacerbating the heatlh care crisis.
Illegal aliens are:
(1) burdening our health care systems;
(2) burdening our education systems;
(3) getting federal grants to our universities;
(4) driving without drives licenses or insurance;
(5) driving without auto insurance;
(6) burdening our prison systems;
(7) burdening our security agencies;
(8) burdening our law enforcement system;
(9) bringing disease with them.
(10) burdening our welfare systems.
(11) burdening our Social Security system.
(12) burdening our Medicare system.
(13) burdening our Medicaid system.
(14) fraudulently voting in our elections.
(15) committing crimes that should have never happened;

There is a cost for illegal immigration.
Especially when the magnitude of it is large.
The costs can be measured in lives and money.
Massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigaration creates chaos and societal disorganization.

Also, since our society provides so many entitlements and services to citizens, it naturally lures illegal aliens here, if there is no way to restrict them to U.S. citizens only.

And, the common argument use that illegal aliens pay taxes too, while true, fails to point out that those taxes fall way short of the cost.

Personally, I don’t really care about rounding up the aliens already here. But, if they are caught committing a crime, they should be deported or imprisoned (depending on the crime), and border security should ensure they don’t return (not to mention, providing national security). So, the name calling (i.e. xenophobe) by some people is just their desire to use a big word, cloud the issues, obscure the facts, and their way to deal with their frustration that 70% of Amercians (and most people of any nation) want legal immigration; not illegal immigration.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #134163
LawnBoy, I linked to many different sites.

No, you linked to just four different web pages in the course of the thread, but you linked to them over and over, as though repetition implies truth. None of the pages rise to the standard of presenting intelligent, non-emotional, non-anecdotal analysis of the issue.

I updated this web-page just for you and greenstuff.

Wow. You responded to my complaint about being sent to a list of anecdotes by sending me to a different list of anecdotes. How did you update it for me? By adding more anecdotes?

So, all statements by those arguing in support of illegal aliens reveal their hypocrisy.

Or, it reveals the weakness of the analogy. And since argument by analogy is always a logical fallacy, I’m not going to worry about it.

lame tactic to extrapolate to the ridiculous, obscure the facts, and cloud the issues.

Considering your use of argument by analogy, argument by anecdote, proof by repetition, and argument that illegal immigration increases crime because it is itself criminal shows that you know what you’re talking about when you point out a lame tactic.

Remember, I don’t really have a position on this issue. I’m just annoyed by your persistence at bad debate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 17, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #134166
ElliotBoy wrote: d.a.n, Your oft-repeated link contains no statistics that prove anything.

ElliotBay,
Wrong. Look above. Or look here.
You want proof? Enjoy. Please feel free to show me proof (if you have any) to discount any of the numerous links to studies, reports, GAO reports, etc., showing the cost in humans lives and money caused by illegal aliens. Maybe if you’re lucky, you can find a few cherry-picked articles to support illegal immigration?

EliottBay wrote: All, The total length of the US-Mexican and US-Canadian borders is about 5,100 miles. If you think we should stop ALL illegal immigration, consider the cost of defending a border of that length.

Wrong again. Also, the two borders are 2000 and 4000 miles (to the south and north, respectively, not 5100).
Securing the borders would not be that costly. Not as costly as securing the sea ports.

The military can and should secure the borders and coasts, because national security and defense is the basic purpose of the military. Securing our borders, the right of any sovereign nation, is not isolationism or xenophobia. It is simply national security and defense.

IT CAN BE DONE:
The military could easily secure the borders with resources we already have. We could simply position a mere  1% of the total 2.6 million active military, guard, and reserves along the borders where they could be more effective toward the goal of national security and defense. The U.S./Canada border (about 4000 miles) and the U.S./Mexico border (about 2,000 miles) could both (about 6,000 miles) be secured with 1,200 posts (spaced about 5 miles apart; denser in some areas than others) with 20 soldiers per post, which would only require 26,000 soldiers (about 1 every 1218 feet).

ElliotBay wrote: And so far you have offered nothing aside from some snide remarks about my motives and some anecdotes.
Please see this. Is this what you’re looking for?

BTW, Your statement (below) was the first addressed to me. So, ain’t that the pot callin’ the kettle black?

ElliotBay wrote: d.a.n., I am sure the families of the crime victims you cited would feel MUCH better about losing their loved ones if the killers were American citizens, eh?

Elliot, I know some illegal aliens. Would you mind if they come stay with you a while? Should the get your permission first, or may they just come on over and make themselves at home ?

Uuummmm Huh. That’s what I thought.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #134173

LawnBoy,
You could not have possibly read all of it already.
So, you just ignored it.
It is not merely anecdotal.
There are countless reports, studies, and from countless sources.

That’s OK. You’re entitled to your opinion.
Don’t want to debate any more? Fine.
But, it was you, greenstuff, and ElliotBoy that addressed me specifically. Now you’re upset because I don’t agree with you?

So far, I’ve been called a xenophobe, I hate foreigners, I fear foreigners, etc.

Classic.

LawnBoy wrote: …I’m just annoyed by your persistence at bad debate.

Look whose talkin’ ?

If you’re annoyed by my debate and offerring of proof, then there is an easy solution. Don’t read it. Don’t debate. Do something different. Nobody is forcing you to continue it.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #134180

LawnBoy,
You may need to “Refresh” or “Reload” (depending on your browser), or you will still see the previous (cached) web-page…not the new page with 79 links (and growing fast) to GAO reports, studies, etc.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #134181

d.a.n,
I am not trying to cloud my arguments with “big words” or by “obscuring the facts” but by telling the truth.
However, you seem to reason your arguments by feeding off the fear of all Americans that illegal immigrants come to this nation to vote and screw up our elections, since so many Americans care so much about voting, and that these people will break into one’s house and murder their family.
You’re using (be ready, I am going to use a “big word”!!!) XENOPHOBIA, fear of foriegners, to scare people into your side. These illegal immigrants aren’t murderers or drunk drivers but destitute people who have fallen on hard times and want a better way of life. After all, hasn’t the United States always been a land for the oppressed and poor to seek better opportunities.
Also these countries where most of the illegal immigrants come from (i.e. China and Mexico), don’t accept their own people back so the United States is left to deal with them; thus many that are caught are kept in holding places where they don’t do any work but are feed and clothed by the U.S. gov’t.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 17, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #134183
You could not have possibly read all of it already.

Oh, you meant that I should follow all the links that are put in a list of bullets without context?

Yeah. Like that would happen.

I scanned the actual text, and the part about crime is anecdotal evidence. That’s all. You flatter yourself if you think that sending someone to a link farm is going to be seen as something useful.

So, you’re right that I didn’t follow all the links that were included as a seeming bibliography. I read the page. And the page as it reads is exactly what I described it as.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 17, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #134186

greenstuff,
There ya go again.
I’m not a xenophobe and I’m not using xenophobia to make an argument.
Crime is just one part of a huge problem.
Also, one life lost is one too many.
I agree that most illegal aliens are just looking for work.
But, that does not make it OK.
Especially since I have to foot the bill by increased costs of taxes, property taxes, healthcare, law enforcement, prisons, etc.

greenstuff,
Let’s be clear.
(1) Are you saying illegal aliens should be allowed to come and go here as they please?
(2) Should we have wide open borders? If that’s the law, then fine. I’ll live by it. Perhaps that’s not a bad idea. That will put an end to many entitlement systems.
(3) Should we give amnesty to illegal aliens?
(4) Should we give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens? What if they can’t afford auto-insurance like the rest of use have to carry by law?
(5) Should illegal aliens be able to enroll their children in our schools ?
(6) Should illegal aliens be able to use our welfare? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
(7) Should illegal aliens have to pay income tax (many are off the books now) ?
(8) If we deport criminals back to Mexico, what’s to keep them from coming back (if there is no border security)?
(9) Should illegal aliens be able to come here, and their children automatically be U.S. citizens at birth?
(10) What about the immigrants that play be the rules, and immigrate legally? Is it fair to them to let illegal aliens have the same benefits?
(11) Should illegal aliens be able to vote in our elections?

greenstuff,
As stated above, I’m not too interested in deporting existing illegal aliens, until they commit crimes. But, I believe we have the right to secure our borders. Any sovereign nation has that right. It’s equivalent to your right to lock your doors at night when you go to bed.

So, those are substantive issues.
And LawnBoy, ElliotBay, feel free to answer any of them. I’d be very interested in hearing your viewpoints on each?


Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #134187
So, you’re right that I didn’t follow all the links…

Fine.
You asked for reports, studies, etc.
I provided plenty.
I really didn’t think you’d read any of it anyway.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #134191
Fine. You asked for reports, studies, etc. I provided plenty. I really didn’t think you’d read any of it anyway.

You threw me to a page with 80 links at the bottom of a page without context or explanation.

How about this: I’m right. I’ve done all the research. Check out this. It has everything you need to be shown that I’m right. Please ignore the fact that I’m not telling you what you’re looking for there, because it’s your fault if you don’t find it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 17, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #134193

How Much Do Illegal Aliens Cost U.S. Taxpayers?

Federal, state and local governments spend billions of dollars each year educating, caring for and incarcerating illegal immigrants. Until the federal government fortifies the border, taxpayers will have to continue to foot the bill for a variety of social services offered to illegals.

Education: Taxpayers are being forced to pay for the schooling of the children of illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants who take low-paying jobs don’t pay enough in taxes, if they pay at all, to reimburse taxpayers the $5,000-plus annually it takes to educate each of their children.

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually— enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide.

In California, the $2.2 billion spent on the education of the children of illegal immigrants for one year could:
Pay the salaries of 41, 764 teachers, or 14 percent of California’s teachers.
Pay for California’s class sizes to remain capped at 20 students for a year, with $300 million to spare.
Buy books, computers, and other instructional equipment for 346, 689 classrooms, 79 percent of all classrooms in California.
Fully fund California ‘s free lunch program for almost two years.

Emergency Health Care: Taxpayers are forced to provide emergency health care for illegal aliens and their children who do not have insurance.

Emergency health care for illegal aliens along the southwestern border is already costing area hospitals $200 million a year, with perhaps another $100 million in extended care costs.

Hospitals must provide emergency treatment to all who walk through the door, regardless of their citizenship status or ability to pay. In 2001, America ‘s hospitals provided nearly $21 billion in uncompensated health care services.

Hospitals in California rank first in the country in expenditures for providing health care to illegal immigrants.

The Center for Medicaid Services at the Dept. of Health and Human Services reported that for FY 2001, the health care costs for illegal immigrants in California were over $648 million. California paid 47 percent of these costs, or $304,785,368, for this mandate.

Population Crisis: In California, we are in the midst of a population crisis that is already affecting every aspect of life in our state and will continue to get worse.

An estimated 7 million illegal immigrants were residing in the United States in January 2000.
It is now, in 2005, 28 million !
This is double the size of the illegal immigrant population in January 1990 and constitutes 2.5 percent of the total U.S. population of just over 281 million.

More than one third of the 3.5 million total increase in illegal immigration since 1990 occurred in California and Texas.

California has the highest number of illegal immigrants residing in its borders. The estimated number of illegal alien residents in California was about 2.2 million, or nearly 32 percent of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

CRIME:
15% of California ‘s prison inmates are undocumented aliens, costing the state more than $500 million annually.

Welfare and Government Assistance: Fraudulent Social Security cards, driver’s licenses and birth certificates are being bought by thousands of illegal immigrants each year. These false documents are used by individuals to get millions of dollars worth of welfare, public housing and Social Security benefits.

… more …

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #134194
You threw me to a page with 80 links at the bottom of a page without context or explanation.

OK. I’m adding context and descriptions to each now. Stay tuned. : )

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #134201

Bin Laden is hiding out in the United States! He shaved his beard, bought loud shirt, cowboy boots, learned to speak spanish, walked across mexican border and is currently hanging out at your local Walmart where no one will ask questions!

Posted by: grumpysister at March 17, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #134204
How about this: I’m right. I’ve done all the research. Check out this. It has everything you need to be shown that I’m right. Please ignore the fact that I’m not telling you what you’re looking for there, because it’s your fault if you don’t find it.

Funny. But, weak.
I can’t give you all the data on one screen.
Only a separate web-page can provide the mountains of data.
Each link has countless pertinent studies, reports, GAO reports, etc.
Of course you don’t have to click on any of it.
I didn’t really think you ever would anyway.
But, the facts are there.
It’s not just anectdotal.
But, then you really can’t know that, since you admit to ignoring it.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #134213

________________________________
an·ec·dot·al (nk-dtl) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
also an·ec·dot·ic (-dtk) KEY or an·ec·dot·i·cal (—kl) KEY Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” (C. Claiborne Ray).
________________________________

BTW, anectdotal is sufficient when the number of anectdotal cases become large enough.

For example:
_________________
[] 80,000 illegal aliens are rapists, murderers, drug dealers
_________________
[] there are currently 28 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (700,000 more just since 01-Jan-2006).
_________________
[] 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration and the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year.
_________________
[] Year 2005: GAO Report - Convictions: Federal Prison Illegal Alien Inmates: Almost 90 percent of
this portion of our study population was convicted of immigration or
drug offenses:

Offense: Drugs;
Number: 3,978;
Percent: 21%.

Offense: Unknown;
Number: 1,183;
Percent: 6%.

Offense: Weapons, explosives, arson;
Number: 251;
Percent: 1%.

Offense: Fraud, bribery, extortion ;
Number: 185;
Percent: 1%.

Offense: Burglary, larceny, property crimes;
Number: 95;
Percent: 1%.

Offense: Assault;
Number: 41;
Percent: [] And that’s just federal convictions. The numbers for many states run into the hundreds of thousands and millions. For example:
Criminal offense: Homicide;
Total offenses: Number: 5,992;
Total offenses: Percent: 1%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 1,156;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: … more …
_________________
[] Ninety-eight percent of illegal aliens in the GAO total study population were arrested for two or more offenses:
_________________

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #134214

Let’s get some definitions clear here.

1) Who we are: We are not “a nation of immigrants.” The term “immigrant” was first used by an American geographer in 1789, and became the term our first citizens used to identify those “different” from Americans in that they had not participated in the revolution. The technical truth is that we are a nation of American citizens. Extended ad-absurdum, the “nation of immigrants” fallacy would extend to every nation on the face of this earth; it certainly is nothing “special.” However, the concept has been used by those who have sought to fundamentally change the character of our nation, either out of greed (corporatists/globalists), power-lust (unions/liberals/MSM/Democratic Party Leaders)or utopian ignorance (pure libertarians).

2) Ebb and Flow: It is almost never noted in this immigration discussion that, historically, our land has accommodated influxes rather intolerantly. It has been our good fortune to have had pauses in the flow, either due to war, world economics or Congressional act. These pauses have served as periods of “cultural reset” in which assimilation was imposed upon immigrants, diasporas were broken up, and a large portion (25-30%) of those who had come during the most recent period repatriated to their former homelands.

If anything, this nation has advanced to its current status in the world more as a result of the pauses than because of the influxes.

3) Examples we must learn from: If one wants to see an example of what America might look like if we allow the entire third world to our south to co-mingle with us, sans borders or without enforcement of them, just look at Europe. They’re setting themselves up to lose a bunch of European nations to a “Eurabia” that is quickly becoming more of a fact than a coined-term.

4) Responsibility to Future Generations: The hard reality that nobody is talking about is that not only do Americans have every right to demand and secure legislation and action that reverses the recent inflow for our own benefit, we have a responsibility to do so for the sake of future generations…lest they have good reason to to condemn us for abdicating this reponsibility when some third-world-hell of a post-American-America is brought upon them.

5) Better Lives: Everyone wants them. But nowhere is it written that we must give up even a smidgen of our “better lives,” or those we’d like to pass on to our children, just because a large percentage of the world’s inhabitants live in developing nations but would like to live by our standards - in our neighborhoods - right now. Included in this definition of a “better life” for most of us is not having to learn multiple languages, have our children’s educations undermined by invading “better-life-seekers” or have the demographics that affect us altered in a manner that undermines our ability to elect those who would best represent us.

Posted by: KDaddy at March 17, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #134216

KDaddy,
Thank you. Well said.

… more …

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #134221
BTW, anectdotal is sufficient when the number of anectdotal cases become large enough.

Nope. Anecdotal is never sufficient as proof. Evidence only becomes sufficient for a proof when examined rigorously with controls, comparisons, considering other alternatives, etc. It’s a difference between emotionally compelling and actually meaningful.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 17, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #134225

d.a.n.,
Your mind is so obviously made up that nothing could persuade you to consider the possiblity that you’re overwrought. You’ve apparently confused opinion with fact, and don’t know (or don’t care about) the difference between anecdotal evidence and real, empirical evidence.

You claim to have provided proof that illegal immigration leads to a higher crime rate, but haven’t yet presented any verifiable statistics to back you up - only a set of self-referential URLs that repeat the same anecdotes over and over and over again. Repeating the same story over and over doesn’t magically turn it into empirical evidence, d.a.n.

I have never said that illegal immigration wasn’t a problem. Unlike you, I don’t get overwrought about it. I think that the cost to secure over 5,000 miles of border (not including the Canada-Alaska border, which is over 1,500 miles by itself), to beef up our port security, to beef up our customs facilities to find false passports and false visas, and to search for and export illegal imigrants already in this country would be more than many if not most Americans would be willing to pay.

And, whether you like it or not, I think race plays at least some role in the issue. Don’t believe me? Then scroll up and find the post from the fellow in here who talked about the “hispandemic” that we suffer from. That wasn’t even thinly-veiled racism, d.a.n.

I call ‘em as I see ‘em. And what I see from your posts, d.a.n, is a lot of emotion, few facts, and not much logic. I admire your passion on the subject, but I wish you could be at least somewhat objective about it.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 17, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #134237

YES I AM THE SAME AS FA STEHENS SR — AND MY POINT FROM EARLYER WAS THAT WE AS AMERICANS SHUOLD NOT CUT OFF OUR NOSE TO SPITE OUR FACES. POINT YOU CANT SAY NO TO ONE AND SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE OTHERS ON IMAGRTION AND TO DO SO WOULD LEAD TO A POLICE STATE WORSE THAN RUSSIA.ALTHOUGH WHEN YOU BREAK AN AMERICAN LAW YOU SHOULD FACE AMERICAN JUSTICE!NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE FROM AND IF YOU DONT LIKE AMERICA FEEL FREE TO LEAVE IT 300 MILLION SEEM TO LIKE IT HERE AND MILLIONS MOR WANT TO COME HERE BUT HERE DIDNT COME FREE THE PRICE FOR MANY WAS PAID IN BLOOD SWEET AND TEARS AND REMEMBER THIS THEY ATACKED US ON SEPTEMBER 11 2001 THEY DECLAIRED WAR ON US FIRST!WE COULD HAVE NUKED THEM AND BROUGHT ON ARMAGEDON OR DO IT THE WAY WE ARE AND HAVE EVERY BODY CRYIN JUST LIKE THEY ARE IM A VET AS WAS MY FATHER B4 ME AND MY DAUGHTER IS NOW AND JUST RE UPED FOR 5 MORE YEARS AND BEING A GOOD DAD I GOT HER A BIGGG GUN- A1M1 ABRAMS SHE IS A MECH WITH 2 TOURS IN IRAQ UNDER HER BELT SO YES I GET ANGRY WHEN SOME JACK ASS REPORTER LEAKS INFO THAT COULD KILL MY CHILD AND YOU BET IM A REPUBLICAN AND I DO SAPORT THE PREZ OF THIS COUNTRY AND THINK THAT IRAN WONT USE THE BOMB IF THEY GET IT THEN THINK ABOUT IT WHEN 150 MILLION OF YOUR NEIBORS ARE DEAD HIND SITE IS 20/20

Posted by: F A STEPHENS SR at March 17, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #134240
ElliotBay wrote: d.a.n., Your mind is so obviously made up that nothing could persuade you to consider the possiblity that you’re overwrought. You’ve apparently confused opinion with fact, and don’t know (or don’t care about) the difference between anecdotal evidence and real, empirical evidence. You claim to have provided proof that illegal immigration leads to a higher crime rate, but haven’t yet presented any verifiable statistics to back you up - only a set of self-referential URLs that repeat the same anecdotes over and over and over again. Repeating the same story over and over doesn’t magically turn it into empirical evidence, d.a.n.

Nope, you, LawnBoy, and greenstuff have the blinders on. And here’s is the proof that you are positively wrong about illegal aliens not increasing crime.

You, ElliotBay wrote:


You claim to have provided proof that illegal immigration leads to a higher crime rate

Here is the indisputable proof of it:
The millions of crimes listed here in the GAO report are crimes by illegal aliens.

If those illegal aliens were not here illegally, those crimes would have never occurred.

Therefore, those are crimes that never should have occurred.

If you can’t see the logic of that, then logic does not work for you, and there’s nothing I can say, nor any amount of evidence that will convince you of reality.

ElliotBay wrote: And, whether you like it or not, I think race plays at least some role in the issue. Don’t believe me? Then scroll up and find the post from the fellow in here who talked about the “hispandemic” that we suffer from. That wasn’t even thinly-veiled racism, d.a.n.
Not by me. Race has nothing to do with it, as far as I am concerned. Because someone above made a race issue of it is anectdotal. : )


ElliotBay wrote:
I call ‘em as I see ‘em. And what I see from your posts, d.a.n, is a lot of emotion, few facts, and not much logic.

Funny, since I have submitted more facts and evidence than anyone on this entire thread. More than you could have possibly or even been motivated to read of since I posted it. There are countless reports and studies to show the negative impacts of massive, unregulated illegal immigration. To dispute it flys in the face of logic.

As of yet, all I’ve seen from anyone else here is one article, not backed up by any other studies (even the author said it was only a theory).

ElliotBay wrote: I admire your passion on the subject,
Yes, I am passionate about what I believe in.
ElliotBay wrote: …but I wish you could be at least somewhat objective about it.
I am fairly objective. Probably more so than most people. If there is some credible logic or evidence to prove me wrong, I’ll admit it. And, I’ll be happy to debate it indefinitely. But, many studies over many decades have shown the very obvious negative effects of massive, unregulated illegal immigration. And it is especially worse when we have systems and services ripe for abuse by illegal aliens, and corrupt government that will not enforce the laws.

Until we live in Utopia, massive, uncontrolled immigration creates chaos and societal disorder.

What about those questions I posted (above).
Where do you stand on those?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #134257

Mike Tate,
Thank you for picking this topic.
Our nation has many serious issues, and this is one of many.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 17, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #134277

d.a.n.,

You bet its a serious one. If I witness the USA’s demise in my lifetime, a backward immigration policy will definitely be one of the main causes.

Posted by: Mike Tate at March 17, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #134287
You claim to have provided proof that illegal immigration leads to a higher crime rate

Here is the indisputable proof of it:
The millions of crimes listed here in the GAO report are crimes by illegal aliens. If those illegal aliens were not here illegally, those crimes would have never occurred.

There’s the problem. It’s not indisputable. Why? It’s the difference between a rate statistic and a counting statistic.

To elaborate, imagine this scenario (I’m not saying it’s realistic):

There are 10,000,000 citizens, and they commit 100,000 violent crimes/year. This is 1 crime/100 citizens.
There are 10,000 illegal immigrants, and they commit 10 violent crimes/year. This is 1 crime/1000 illegal immigrants.

Although the overal number of crimes is increased by the presence of the immigrants, the actual rate (which is what you addressed) is lower.

If you can’t see the logic of that, then logic does not work for you, and there’s nothing I can say, nor any amount of evidence that will convince you of reality.

The reason I don’t see your “logic” is that logic has nothing to do with your argument. Perhaps you’re right overall; I don’t know. You’re just supremely bad at demonstrating it and acknowledging the limits and true implications of the evidence you have.

Funny, since I have submitted more facts and evidence than anyone on this entire thread.

I will give you credit for presenting a lot of facts; I think Elliot went a bit too far with his statement. However, I think you put too much credence on evidence that agrees with your beliefs without considering the proper analysis.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 17, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #134356
Although the overal number of crimes is increased by the presence of the immigrants, the actual rate (which is what you addressed) is lower.

Well, that’s only if illegal aliens are now counted as part of the total population. Since they’re not supposed to be here, they don’t belong in the total.

But, I get your point. Still the data and reports, and GAO reports prove the point that there is not only an increase in crime due to illegal aliens, but an increased rate.

Especially, if you do not exclude the fact that being here illegally is a crime too.
How could the crime rate not increase, when every single one of them commit a crime the instant they trespass our borders?

So, where is the proof that falling crime rates (overall, nationwide) since 1993 are due to illegal aliens? Crime rates in the southern states is high, because of illegal aliens. But, you’d have to live in one of these states for a while, see it first hand for many years to really appreciate the impact. Talk to people from Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Sante Fe, Albequrque. I used to live near Chicago too. The difference is like night and day.

And, have you heard of the drug wars on the Texas border? 27 Americans have been abducted along the border in the last six months. And did you see the crime rates calculated in the GAO report.

The following is just for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (remember that number).

Arrest Offenses: Illegal aliens in our study population were arrested for almost 700,000 offenses, averaging 13 offenses per illegal
alien:

[] Number of illegal aliens in our study population: 55,322.
[] Total number of arrests: 459,614.
[] Total number of criminal offenses: 691,890.
[] Average number of criminal offenses per illegal alien: 13.
[] Median number of criminal offenses per illegal alien: 10.

Interesting, eh? Is that merely anectdotal ?

But, even if you were right about the rate, it would make no difference to me. Since they are are here illegally, any crime they commit is one crime too many, that should have never occurred. It is a slap in the face of those that immigrate legally, and it is a slap in the face of law enforcement (many that have been murdered by illegal aliens) whose job it is to secure our borders, cities, and states. It is the law.

I will give you credit for presenting a lot of facts; I think Elliot went a bit too far with his statement. However, I think you put too much credence on evidence that agrees with your beliefs without considering the proper analysis.
LawnBoy, show me where my facts are wrong. It seems to me, as you admitted above, I have presented a lot of facts. Why is that? Because the evidence is overwhelming. Also, I’ve been researching this problem for years, so it was not a conclusion quickly arrived at. And one should keep and open mind. So, convince me. Show me something to refute the numerous reports. After all, the GAO report above (and below), shows some damning evidence. And if you look at the links provided, you’ll see much, much, more reports (note, many of these are government reports too).

_________________

Arrest Offenses: 45% of illegal alien offenses were for drugs and immigration:

Criminal offense: Drugs;
Total offenses: Number: 166,722;
Total offenses: Percent: 24%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 64,737;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 24%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 101,985;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 24%;

Criminal offense: Immigration;
Total offenses: Number: 144,166;
Total offenses: Percent: 21%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 84,382;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 32%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 59,784;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 14%;

Criminal offense: Traffic violations;
Total offenses: Number: 55,060;
Total offenses: Percent: 8%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 13,290;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 5%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 41,770;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 10%;

Criminal offense: Assault;
Total offenses: Number: 50,958;
Total offenses: Percent: 7%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 14,908;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 6%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 36,050;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 8%;

Criminal offense: Obstruction of justice;
Total offenses: Number: 45,632;
Total offenses: Percent: 7%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 15,064;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 6%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 30,568;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 7%;

Criminal offense: Burglary;
Total offenses: Number: 38,689;
Total offenses: Percent: 6%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 13,156;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 5%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 25,533;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 6%;

Criminal offense: Larceny/theft;
Total offenses: Number: 31,883;
Total offenses: Percent: 5%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 12,206;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 5%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 19,677;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 5%;

Criminal offense: Fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting;
Total offenses: Number: 25,773;
Total offenses: Percent: 4%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 8,564;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 3%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 17,209;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 4%;

Criminal offense: Weapons violations;
Total offenses: Number: 22,263;
Total offenses: Percent: 3%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 7,236;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 3%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 15,027;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 4%;

Criminal offense: Motor vehicle theft;
Total offenses: Number: 20,950;
Total offenses: Percent: 3%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 6,494;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 2%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 14,456;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 3%;

Criminal offense: Robbery;
Total offenses: Number: 15,305;
Total offenses: Percent: 2%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 4,177;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 2%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 11,128;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 3%;

Criminal offense: Stolen property;
Total offenses: Number: 13,415;
Total offenses: Percent: 2%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 4,201;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 2%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 9,214;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 2%;

Criminal offense: Sex offense;
Total offenses: Number: 11,833;
Total offenses: Percent: 2%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 2,501;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Percent: 1%;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 9,332;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Percent: 2%;

Criminal offense: Disorderly conduct;
Total offenses: Number: 8,768;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 2,986;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 5,782;

Criminal offense: Property damage;
Total offenses: Number: 6,478;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 2,238;
Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 4,240;

Criminal offense: Homicide;
Total offenses: Number: 5,992;
Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 1,156;

__________________________

There were 4,000 births last year at the Laredo, TX Medical Center maternity ward. 3997 healthy, screaming new American citizens, of whom, estimates Armida “Armi” Calvillo, chief nurse, about half were born to illegal aliens. Mexican madres giving birth in US maternity wards in order to obtain better care - and blue passports - for their offspring, is as old as the border itself. But in recent months, say staff here, it’s been increasing - in direct proportion, they suggest, to growing crime and insecurity along the border.
________________________________

Have you heard about all the tunnels.
Some are quite elaborate.
They are used for drug smuggling.
And gang, drug wars are rampant along the borders.

Is all of that merely anectdotal?
I don’t think so.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 18, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #134421
LawnBoy, show me where my facts are wrong.

That’s the funny thing. We’ve never claimed your facts are wrong. It’s your selective interpretation of the facts and your redefinition of terms to suit your needs that are logically unsustainable.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 18, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #134592

Nonsense.

Now you no longer want to debate the facts?

Now, you say you never claimed the facts were wrong?

Sure you did. Look above.

You said it was anectdotal and proved nothing.

Then you admitted there was a lot of data to support my data.

Also, if you’re not challenging the data, or if you think it is correct, then what’s the beef?

If the data is correct, why is it logically unsustainable to believe it?

What ever it is you think you are doing, it is ignoring the facts.

The evidence and facts are overwhelming.
It’s not just a matter of interpretation.
It’s not merely anectdotal.
It’s not cherry picked.
It’s not designed to suit my needs.
It is logically sustainable.
If not, where is your evidence?

So, you presented one article, and nothing more to support your assertion. I presented a staggering amount of data, and can provide much, much more. But, you refused to even look at the data, and when you no longer could refute the data, you now switch gears and resort to saying my interpretation of all the data is suspect, and logically unsustainable.

How revealing. And laughable.

You want to discount the overwhelming amount of reports, studies, and history without providing anything to refute it?

Fine.

But, saying that I selectively interpret the facts, while you provide next to nothing to refute any of it is truly the supreme example of being logically unsustainable.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 19, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #134694
Now, you say you never claimed the facts were wrong? Sure you did. Look above. You said it was anectdotal and proved nothing.

I didn’t deny whether the facts were accurate and factual. I argued that they weren’t convincing because they were anecdotal and therefore not as useful as you claim.

There’s no reason to argue with you if you can’t see the difference, and you obviously can’t.

If the data is correct, why is it logically unsustainable to believe it?

That’s not what I’m saying. There’s a difference between accepting that your facts are probably factual and believing your interpretation of the facts. It’s logically unsustainable to make the “inferences” you make given the presented data.

Of course, when you redefine terms like “rate” at your whim, then you can argue anything you want.

There’s no reason to argue with you if you can’t see the difference, and you obviously can’t.

What ever it is you think you are doing, it is ignoring the facts.

Nope. I’m trying to fit the facts in with other facts to build an interpretation that fits all the data and can be logically reasoned. I’m sorry that you’re able to handle debaters that don’t automatically accept everything you say when you argue by anecdote, argue by analogy, argue by repetition, misuse statistics, and employ other logical fallacies.

If not, where is your evidence?

My evidence is the many times in this thread in which you have made claims that aren’t supported by your data. Further, when it has been pointed out, you have claimed that the actual meaning of statistics and data didn’t matter.

When you use the word “rate”, know what it means. When you use anecdotal evidence, know the limitations. When you use an analogy, know that it’s more of a trick than an argument.

But, you refused to even look at the data

No, I didn’t refuse. I looked at what you presented, and all that was there in the content was anecdotal evidence. Then you kept adding a bunch of links. 95% of what you provided had nothing to do with the argument from the perspective I was looking at it. But, I looked at some of what was relevant, and the numbers I saw didn’t prove your points.

I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.

So, now you get huffy that I point out that throwing numbers at me in a mix of bad logic isn’t compelling.

How revealing. And laughable.

It reveals nothing but a distate for assertive bad logic.

But, saying that I selectively interpret the facts, while you provide next to nothing to refute any of it is truly the supreme example of being logically unsustainable.

Just out of curiousity, what do you think my unsustainable position is? I’ve said several times that I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’m just annoyed with the style that you have displayed for months since you joined WB, and this is the first time I’ve ever tried to point out to you how bad your approach really is.

Look to others to present data on why you’re wrong (if such data exists). I don’t even know that I believe you’re wrong. However, you’ve defined the argument such that no one could ever prove you wrong; If every illegal immigrant were a saint that never needed any financial assistance they’d be guilty of increasing the crime rate by their very presence! And rate isn’t defined as per person (as anyone else defines it), but per citizen. And no consideration of the costs and benefits of the argument is possible, because you’ll throw an invalid analogy at them, etc.

My argument here is that I am completely confident in that you are very good at putting together a bibliography, but you are much weaker than you think at presenting a logical and convincing argument.

And that’s logically sustainable.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 19, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #134744

LawnBoy,
What you call a bibliography is overwhelming evidence. Ignore it if you like. But, you already admitted to not reading it, so how would you know it is merely anectdotal, misinterpreted, etc.?

I’m just annoyed with the style that you have displayed for months since you joined WB, and this is the first time I’ve ever tried to point out to you how bad your approach really is.
So, the real issue is you have an axe to grind with me, personally? Perhaps you ought to examine your own debating style? After all, it was you that wrote the following, which again, is quite revealing:
Yet another anti-immigrant fear-mongering post from Mike Tate. Do you have anything else to say, Mike? Your one note is getting flat.

Then you wrote:


Actually, I was addressing the message. The fact that it is the same message that you always pound on fruitlessly. I’m not attacking you at all, just the monotony of your message.
Besides, I’ve successfully shown in the past that your rhetoric cannot stand up to logical review. Why should I waste my time repeating the exact same objections to the exact same arguments?

And Mike Tate never disrespected or engaged you.

So, whose debating style leaves something to be desired?

For some people, no amount of evidence would suffice, no matter how overwhelming it is. Some people simply don’t like anyone who disagrees with them, and get upset whenever someone refutes them with a lot of credible evidence.

About RATE. Even if you exclude the crime of illegal trespass from the totals, it is extremely unlikely the RATE went down, since the GOA report, with a study group of over 55,000 illegal aliens, averaged a total of 10 crimes per person.

That’s damning evidence, and that’s only a very small amount of the total evidence you prefer to call anectdotal, badly interpreted, redefinition of the terms, and amounts to nothing more than clever tactics to cloud the issues.

Why attack other people, such as Mike Tate (above), or me, personally, and try to turn it into something personal?

You said the following …

I’m saying that logic and facts should lead the debate, not assumptions and emotional ploys.

… but, only offered one measely article, that was admittedly a theory by the author.

So, why get huffy when others present data and evidence contrary to your argument?

Just out of curiousity, what do you think my unsustainable position is?
LawnBoy, you said there may be evidence to show illegal aliens decreased the rate of crime. I refuted it, and presented a lot of credible data that you just called anectdotal, even though you admit to not reading it. What else do you want me to say?

But, after all of that, you then wrote:


I didn’t deny whether the facts were accurate and factual. I argued that they weren’t convincing because they were anecdotal and therefore not as useful as you claim.
There’s no reason to argue with you if you can’t see the difference, and you obviously can’t.

Well, I can’t help but smile. : ) .
I understand exactly what you’re saying, and I simply disagree.
And you don’t have to debate it any more if you don’t like.
Just end it if you like.
But, I’d prefer you didn’t go away mad.
If you’d like to continue to debate whether illegal aliens increase or decrease the over all crime rate (even with the crime of trespassing itself excluded), then I’ll be happy to do so.

But, after looking earnestly for data and studies to show that illegal aliens reduce crime rates, only one was found (the one you found), and the author admits that it is theory. So, based on all of that, you tell me your logic is sustainable, and mine isn’t? And, then cloud the issues with RATE, debating style, interpretation, etc. Nonsense.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 20, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #135151
But, you already admitted to not reading it, so how would you know it is merely anectdotal, misinterpreted, etc.?

Let me clarify. I did read some of the many links you put together, but I didn’t read them all. I also had no idea you what you expected me to read at first. You seem not to understand how most people read web pages. If you give someone a link to a page, they read the text of the page, not following every link at the bottom of a page. So, I read the text of the page, and it was a bunch of anecdotes. I went back later after you clarified and looked at some of the links, but I didn’t look at them all.

Further, I wasn’t saying that the linked information was anecdotal or misinterpreted. I was referring to what you say here and what you focused on.

So, the real issue is you have an axe to grind with me, personally?

I didn’t mean it to turn out that way. I started out just curious about how you would react to something I found interesting. Instead of just commenting on it, you pounced: “So, LawnBoy, are you saying we should just open the borders wide open?” I saw that as misdirection and a huge straw man. Things snowballed from there.

It’s not that I have an axe to grind with you. It’s that I was trying to get you to realize that having all the data in the world doesn’t mean that everything you say is correct. You present a lot of information which is supported by good research. You also say a lot of things in your arguments that are just plain invalid.

Unfortunately, you seem to react to meta-discussion about the flaws in your argument with a broad attack with the heavy club of your data. Normally, I’d just leave it (after all, many people say things that are logically invalid), but there’s an aggressiveness to your response that grates.

For example, when you say “If you cant see the logic of that, then logic does not work for you, and theres nothing I can say, nor any amount of evidence that will convince you of reality” after saying something that is itself logically invalid, it’s hard for me just to let it go. In that case, you were both wrong and aggressive. It’s a dangerous combination.

Note that I am not saying that your overall point is wrong - I was pointing out that you were making an invalid comparison. Perhaps I would have let it go, but you accused me of being illogical and disconnected from reality for having the temerity to understand statistics.

Why do you have to accuse me of having blinders on for pointing out that anecdotal evidence is different than emperical evidence?

Perhaps you ought to examine your own debating style? After all, it was you that wrote the following, which again, is quite revealing:
Yet another anti-immigrant fear-mongering post from Mike Tate. Do you have anything else to say, Mike? Your one note is getting flat.

Yep, I said that. And I’ll probably continue saying that until Mike branches out and talks about anything other than how immigration is national suicide. Unlike yours, Mike’s rhetoric often involves strong racist sentiments. He also treats legal immigration as though it were as bad as illegal immigration. And, he often makes really, really bad leaps in logic (there are good examples in the thread I linked to).

So, as long as he continues to make the same bad arguments over and over, I’ll ask him to try a fresh approach. Otherwise, it’s just a repeat of the same bad argument over and over.

For some people, no amount of evidence would suffice, no matter how overwhelming it is. Some people simply dont like anyone who disagrees with them, and get upset whenever someone refutes them with a lot of credible evidence.

And I’ll admit that a lot of the data you linked to is good. That doesn’t mean that everything you say here is valid. That’s a point you seem to miss no matter how much I try to emphasize it.

About RATE. Even if you exclude the crime of illegal trespass from the totals, it is extremely unlikely the RATE went down, since the GOA report, with a study group of over 55,000 illegal aliens, averaged a total of 10 crimes per person.

But that’s not what you said. If you had said this, then I wouldn’t have had grounds to complain. Instead, you said “If those illegal aliens were not here illegally, those crimes would have never occurred” as your (so-called) indisputable evidence that illegal immigration leads to a higher crime rate, mixing a rate stat with a counting stat. If you’re changing your argument now to a better argument, that’s fine. But please don’t pretend that your original argument was an indisputable logical argument that could be disagreed with only by someone for whom logic doesn’t work.

Thats damning evidence, and thats only a very small amount of the total evidence you prefer to call anectdotal, badly interpreted, redefinition of the terms, and amounts to nothing more than clever tactics to cloud the issues.

Some of what you present is very strong. That doesn’t mean that none of what you present is anecdotal, badly interpreted, etc. Please keep your straw men in check.

So, why get huffy when others present data and evidence contrary to your argument?

It’s not that you present contrary evidence. It’s that you refuse to admit that you slip some really bad mistakes in.

Just out of curiousity, what do you think my unsustainable position is?

LawnBoy, you said there may be evidence to show illegal aliens decreased the rate of crime. I refuted it, and presented a lot of credible data that you just called anectdotal, even though you admit to not reading it. What else do you want me to say?

I’d like you to say that you realize that I was presenting evidence that was surprising but shaky, and that I was focusing more on a meta-discussion instead of the main discussion.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you misunderstood my position. I saw this because your responses to me seemed like “What do you mean there’s a logical error in part of what I say? You obviously are illogical, have blinders, are a hypocrite, and wouldn’t mind if someone robbed your house.”

We were talking past each other.

If youd like to continue to debate whether illegal aliens increase or decrease the over all crime rate (even with the crime of trespassing itself excluded), then Ill be happy to do so.

I think you are correct that the direct effect of illegal immigration is an overall increase in crime. I’m intrigued by the idea that there are hidden indirect effects of immigration that lower crime, but more research is needed.

However, I’m not convinced that the cure would be worth the significant cost and expense.

So, based on all of that, you tell me your logic is sustainable, and mine isnt? And, then cloud the issues with RATE, debating style, interpretation, etc.

The difference is that I was saying that the issues of rate, interpretation, etc. were the parts of your argument that were logically unsustainable. Perhaps you were right on the large level, but that doesn’t mean it’s valid to treat anecdotal evidence as solid evidence, etc.

So, do we understand each other better?

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 21, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #135178
I started out just curious about how you would react to something I found interesting. Instead of just commenting on it, you pounced: “So, LawnBoy, are you saying we should just open the borders wide open?” I saw that as misdirection and a huge straw man. Things snowballed from there.

Well, technically, I only asked a question.
But, I agree it snowballed after that.

I apologize for being so adversarial.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 21, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #137302

this is to all the bleeding hearts that say we should provide amnesty for illeagals. fact: this is america, it belongs to americans, we do not have to give it away. what is so hard to understand about that. some times we have to make hard choices, although i do no see the problem with putting a stop to the economic drain, the lack of love that these people have for our country after we take them in, feed them, cloth them, buy them cars, provide wellfare for them, pay for them to have thier children, give them food stamps, not to speak of the cost of filling our jails with them, providing the extra law enforcement, fire protection, paying higher rates on our auto insurance because we pay the cost of them driving without insurance, “in effect paying for thier insurane” the incompatence of these people is unbelivable, they jam our workmans compensation programs to the point that some are going broke because of the fraud the execute, and the incompentence the have in the work place. this alone runs into the billions of dollars lost yealy. they come here with no job skills,no work ethics, they do not learn, they insist on speaking
thier own language, whitch would nt be so bad but the refuse to learn ours. they do not come to be part of our country the way leagal imamigrants do who have made a choice and have made a commetment.most countrys require potential citizens to prove they have something to offer thier country before letting them in. where has our logic gone these people are tearing us down, i wonder what the “bleeding hearts” are going to do when when our country, our values, our heritage, our government, our childrens future is taken away form the inside by outsiders, if we maintain our present course it is a question of if it will happen, without a doubt it is and will happen at the rate we are going some of our chilren are going to live in another country without leaving home! as strange as it may sound to some people
america does belong to americans, i know all the arguments such as “accident of birth”, “our duty to help”, “what if you were them”. all i have to say is i’m not, and all those arguments have validity but validity has nothing to do with reality and a good heart has nothing to do with a warm heart! just in case that last remark needs explainng to some of you “warm hearted” people out thier. a warm hearted person will look at situation with teary eyes and great emotion and make his judgement based on his feelings and whatever emotion he is feeling at that minute not
basing the out come or looking at the end result on anything that may resemble good sense or a solution based on overall effect, i see this almost on a daily basis. the reality my “warm hearted” friends these illeagals are after you and everything you have ever worked for and everything
you may have wished for your children.

are you ready!!

it won’t be that long!!

it’s happening as you read this!!

quick thought: our people in hollywood are a great example of the above. most of them can’t really be held accountable for the things they say because most of the things they say are said without benifit of a brain.

this may cover that thought, no worries no brains!

you know i could really expand on this subject
but have to leave

later:
john

Posted by: john at April 1, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #149787

1. screw illegal immigration slow LEGAL immigration!

Let us look at Australia.In order to become a citizen in Australia you must conclusively prove that you: already have a job,will contribute to society and have a grasp of the english language.

We have a right to restrict who comes in our country legally.

2. Furthermore the quota sysytem is ILLOGICAL and MUST be scrapped. It is wrong that educated, well-off citizens from Western European countries have to wait upwards of seven years yet an uneducated person from a third world country like guatamala can come here after one year

Before any of you fake “compassionate” liberals
try and label me as an immigrant basher take into account my father was an immigrant and I am a dual citizen.

3. NAFTA and CAFTA benefit only big corporations they in fact hurt the average American citizen. Both should be repealed. I don’t want green tuberculosis-laden onions from mexico anyway.

4. Pregnant NON-citizens are literally crossing the border when about to give birth… that baby because he/she was born to NON-citizens on American soil is now a citizen and the the two NON-citizens can stay in this country. Such policy is a travesty! THe laws need to be changed.

5. Because of illegal immigration the poverty level in AMerica has stayed the same the last four years!

6. The mexican government is extremely corrupt. It is also racist.

WE LIVE IN A WONDERFUL COUNTRY, YET IT CANNOT SUSTAIN THOUSANDS OF NONCONTRIBUTING IMMIGRANTS

dont give me the sound bite “American workers dont want these jobs” yes they do want these jobs and even if the statement was true there are only so many openings for unskilled labor

BORDERS LANGUAGE CULTURE

Posted by: levelheadedguy at May 20, 2006 9:28 PM
Post a comment