Third Party & Independents Archives

The Anti-Incumbency Movement Is Dead

Voting out congressional incumbents failed this year, showing the anti-incumbency movement to be a clear letdown. For some years many groups and their websites have been advocating voting out congressional incumbents as an effective means to reform government and make it work better. Two of the better ones are Vote Out Incumbents Democracy and Tenure Corrupts.

Congress’ average seat retention rate since 1855 is 95.4 percent. There was a 3.6 percent decrease in seat retention in Congress from 99.2 percent in 2004 to 95.6 percent in 2006. But this modest improvement was aimed mostly at Republican incumbents, when what is really needed is a bipartisan approach.

Considering the totally awful public approval of Congress you would think that 2008 would be an historic year for voting out congressional incumbents, especially because it is so easy to blame both Democrats and Republicans for the nation’s woes. Moreover, public interest in politics and this year’s general election were higher than in a long time. And the Internet is awash with passionate statements against incumbents of both parties. So, how have Americans just behaved? How did congressional incumbents do this year?

This year the retention rate was typical at 95.6 percent overall (and unlikely to change significantly when some unsettled races get resolved). Likewise, though most incumbent Republicans were reelected, out of just 20 incumbent seats lost, only one was for a Democrat. Need proof of just how little political competition there is? Consider uncontested House seats that incumbents did not even have to defend, including 32 Democrats and 12 Republicans that did not face a two-party challenger.

As usual, no third-party congressional candidate was elected, with just a few able to hit around 20 percent, mostly when there was only a Democrat to run against, while in the vast majority of cases they stayed in low single digits. In the presidential vote category it looks like just 1.6 million people voted for third-party candidates, compared to 1.2 million in 2004 – not much of an improvement.

In other words, we have once again witnessed the pendulum-effect, where voters may feel strong anti-incumbency sentiments but in only a few cases express them as voting in candidates of the “other” party. So power shifts, but the corrupt status quo two-party system remains.

While I have agreed with the motivations of those leading the anti-incumbency movement I have concluded that there is something so rotten about our political system that there will never be a sufficiently large anti-incumbency vote to have any real impact. This year proves my point.

In the larger picture, the anti-incumbency movement merely serves as a distraction from more sensible approaches for reforming and revitalizing American democracy. It is just another of a seemingly endless array of ineffective and marginalized political reform movements. Until American patriots and dissidents unite behind something a lot more powerful the two-party plutocracy will remain in power.

The core problem is that the public has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe in the two-party system. One major consequence is that they refuse to vote for third-party candidates, so that even when they see what is tragic about our politicians they think the solution as voting for a challenger from the “other” major party. This happens despite the high fraction of voters registered as independents.

The anti-incumbency movement could only be successful if it was truly bipartisan so that voters rejected not only ALL incumbent Democrats and Republicans, but also refused to elect new members to Congress from BOTH major parties. Merely shifting control of Congress from one of the major parties to the other has never worked effectively. Why? Simple, both major parties have been corrupted by the same corporate and other special interests that pervert public policies to serve them rather than the general public.

The problem is that we still do not effective political competition in a nation that prides itself about competition. The two-party duopoly and plutocracy has worked hard to block true political competition. When it comes to congressional elections, gerrymandering has been used as a potent weapon. Gerrymandering of districts by both major parties when they have the power to accomplish it has not only protected incumbents, it has also made it nearly impossible for third party congressional candidates that are on a huge number of ballots to be successful.

Nelson Lee Walker of Tenure Corrupts recently made these sage observations: “I’m coming around to the idea that the bulk of the American people are basically stupid, stupid, stupid! Why? How else can we explain how Congress, which has a 9% approval rating, gets reelected about 95% of the time? Do we ever “throw the bums out”? Listen to these stats: Senate: As of 2008, of 100 Senators, 39 (39%) reelected for 18 yrs or more, 4 over 40 years! House: As of 2008, of 435 members, 143 (33%) reelected for 14 yrs or more, 5 over 36 years! And the longer these guys are in office, the more of them will run unopposed in future elections, since nobody will bother to challenge them. Unopposed races have doubled in the last 20 years, from 40 to 80 seats. And who is responsible for this sad state of affairs? YOU!!! Not your dumb neighbor. Not the media. Not the crooked political system. Just YOU, the typical stupid American! The guy who complains how those crooked politicians are ripping off the country and sending us all down the tubes, and then reelects them!”

In this of all years these critical views are hard to dispute. After all, could it be any clearer that the anti-incumbency movement is a failure? I urge those who have put so much time and energy into the anti-incumbency movement to call it quits and devote themselves to strategies that may be more effective. One option is to work hard to form a new national third party. Another is to support the relatively new nonpartisan attempt by Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org to compel Congress to give Americans what they have a constitutional right to have and what has been requested by the required number of states, and what the Founders believed we would need when the public lost trust and confidence in the federal government: an Article V convention that could consider proposals for constitutional amendments, a number of which could truly reform the structure of our dysfunctional political system.

For too long Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and we “dumb” Americans have let them get away with it, in large part because both Democrats and Republicans have feared (and instilled fear about) such a convention. The same people that keep getting elected to Congress! How’s that for symmetrical infamy?

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 7, 2008 7:29 PM
Comments
Comment #269918

Joel, the sentiment for “anti-incumbency” is a pretty potent force already, and works itself out in many ways.

The pattern of late is for one of the major parties to gain power, lose it, and then make changes which allow them to regain power down the road. Specific policies and politicians come and go, but the wheel keeps on turning.

This isn’t just a matter of two major parties trading power—it’s also a matter of evolution in response to the desires of the public. Anti-incumbency, and what comes with it, is therefore built right into the present system. The Democrats, to cite just one example, are no longer so hell-bent against Second Amendment rights because they know that being so is political poison.

You seem to discount that majorities of people who are anti-incumbent nonetheless see their own views represented in the two major parties.

The problem with being “anti-incumbent” from a third-party standpoint is that it lacks coherent content. We’ve got everything from radical Communists to Nazis in third parties. But even more significant than that is that anyone elected because of anti-incumbent sentiment immediately becomes an incumbent, be they Democrat, Republican, or third party. Anti-incumbents face the problem of the dog that finally catches the car—what do they do next? Simply being “anti” something doesn’t cut it when you have to be for something.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 7, 2008 9:22 PM
Comment #269923

Gerrymandering of districts allows the representatives to choose their electors, rather than the electors choosing their representatives. The census is coming up, so we’ll see what happens again and maybe pay more attention.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 7, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #269946

ohrealy

i wouldn’t count on it.

Posted by: dbs at November 8, 2008 2:00 AM
Comment #269950

Loyal Opp, excellent reply.

The interest in Vote Out Incumbents Democracy founded just before the 2006 elections, was significantly higher this year than in 2006, with many more new members and many more supporters brandishing our Vote Out Incumbents window and bumper stickers around the nation.

The anti-incumbent sentiment these last two elections was sufficient to force the ruling party out and give power to the minority party. But, it also had the effect of dramatic growth in the Libertarian Party candidates on ballots this year compared to previous years, and a similar effect for Green Party candidates in certain regions of the country.

The anti-incumbent movement is garnering more votes for these 3rd party candidates than ever before, and also is evidenced by the dramatic growth in registered Independent voters who now outnumber either Democratic or Republican registered voters nationally.

Joel doesn’t take these facts into account and premised on the notion that the anti-incumbent sentiment failed to oust huge numbers of incumbents from both duopoly parties, he concludes the movement is dead and going ineffective. These conclusions are wrong as evidenced by the facts discussed above.

What the growing anti-incumbent sentiment lacks is a viable Independent Party which gathers a majority of support for its candidates from voters harboring anti-incumbent sentiment. That is the only way the anti-incumbent movement is going to unseat large numbers of incumbents from both the duopoly parties.

Anti-incumbent sentiment ebbs and flows depending on how disappointing government results are, and whether one or another party is the dominant party in control (giving a target for anti-incumbent voters). The transfer of total majority status from the GOP to the Dem. Party in 2 consecutive elections in federal government is evidence of a sweeping anti-incumbent sentiment.

What is needed going forward when government disappoints, is a viable Independent Party alternative to the duopoly parties, which is focused like a laser on the issues the duopoly parties refuse to address. But, it takes time to build such a party and a growing anti-incumbent sentiment over many election cycles.

I doubt Democrats will be able to dampen anti-incumbent sentiment in the long term, and if they don’t, the movement will continue to grow, and the Independent Party will also.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2008 7:11 AM
Comment #269951

Joel, you are right, we are witnessing the pendulum effect. But, that pendulum swung in the other direction by the force of the anti-incumbent sentiment you discount. I think that is the flaw in your argument.

The anti-incumbent movement is just getting started, not dead at all. Jack Gargin started the idea back in the 1980’s. It died a very short few years later. This rebirth of the anti-incumbent movement after the election of GW Bush and the Iraq war, is so very much stronger and growing on many fronts by many different groups, that it seems clear to me that far from dead, the anti-incumbent movement is growing rapidly, and will continue to for many election cycles to come.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2008 7:12 AM
Comment #269953

Great article Joel. Whether you are totally or partially right the result is the same. The status quo remains. Voters have been ping ponging between the two major parties based on their favorite issue, be it the economy or how well their candidate dresses, etc. This election people voted for change and they will get change. They will pay a little more or less in taxes, a road may or may not get built, Cuba may or may not be taken off the bad boy list, etc. There will be plenty of change. But NO reform. The status quo will remain intact. If voters want change the duopoly works just fine. If they want reform then they are going to have to fight somebody. Reform can only, repeat, only come from a new third party with a different attitude about politics. There are approximately 50 third parties out there and none can bring reform. Why? They are founded in the same principles as the existing duopoly. They are looking to change the system, not reform it. Assume a third party comes to power and begins to work on reform of government. How long do you think it would take for the moneyed interest to turn that party into a mirror image of the duopoly? The solution is a new third parties with a different attitude about politics. A party that acts as a fourth branch of government by authorizing party members to provide oversight of other party members who become elected to state or federal positions. If an elected official strays to far from the Party’s agenda then members may be called to vote as to whether that official should be rejected from the Party. Such a Party would provide a platform for reform of government and KEEP IT THAT WAY. Shame on the Alaskan Republican Party for holding up Steven’s as a viable candidate. In a Party with a different attitude Steven’s would be history by now. Shame on the Alaskan people who’s idea of a good Senator is one who brings home the most bacon. Shame on us all.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2008 9:56 AM
Comment #269956


Voting out incumbents and third party movements are so hamstrung by the system that they don’t have any chance at success.

The two parties have the voters, many of whom are more than willing to return incumbents like William Jefferson and Ted Stevens to office. One could easily make the argument that next to George Bush, the incumbent most responsible for the condition of our economy and government is Sen. Mitch McConnell. The voters of Kentucky chose to reelect him.

The two parties have the money, more than two billion dollars this election cycle.

The two parties have control of the media and the election process.

Posted by: jlw at November 8, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #269957

True. The duopoly, oligarchy or copocracy, whichever you prefer, are in complete control of the government. There isn’t a law on the books that doesn’t have the big business stamp of approval on it. And thats right down to how many stiches a legal baseball must have. Howsumever, the founding Father’s gave us an out. The vote. For instance I voted for Nader. He was the only candidate that put up a REAL reform issue, abolish Corporate Personhood. Thomas Jefferson didn’t expect us to wring our hands in gloom and doom. He expected us to fight, a revolution every 20 years or expect to lose the Republic, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2008 12:55 PM
Comment #269959

If more voters paid attention to the primaries in their states we could elect better representatives. Voter turnout for primaries in my district are woefully low, usually less than 20%.

Such low turnout in the primaries gives great leverage to those who do vote, such as 5 to 1 in my area. My one vote represents the voice of 5 of the total electorate.

Sadly, when such few voters pay attention in the primaries it is us who do vote who control who will become the candidates in the general election. This is hardly representative of the total electorate and runs along party lines.

Working within the two major parties at the primary level is the key to changing our representation. But, how do we generate more interest and more voting at this level?

Here’s a question for all of you to ponder. Is it necessary to identify the party of the candidate on the ballot in primary elections and thereby encourage the voter to select the candidate by party…rather than by some reasonable knowledge of the candidate?

For example, with no party affiliation identification associated with the candidates name on the ballot it would force the voter to know something about the candidate. If they didn’t, then their vote would become just a random pick. And, if the random pick won, would we be any worse off?

Of course, this alone wouldn’t increase the number of voters in the primaries, but it may result in better candidates in the general election. Silly idea…?

Posted by: Jim M at November 8, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #269967

Jim M. What you are suggesting would seem to make the Parties irrevelant. And, while it’s permitted to think outloud you should not expect the duopoly to be receptive to your idea. It’s a little to close to being a reform issue. Why the low voter turnout? Consider why the blacks made an effort to get to the polls this time. They had a reason. They think Obama might pay some attention to them. Many see voting as a waste of time, voting for the leser of two evils,etc. If the people were given something to vote for, like a new third party(s) with built-in citizens’ oversight for elected officials then they might rally. There has to be something put forward that will give people REAL hope for REAL reform. People realize there is no accountability for politicians. Use Phil Gramm and his wife for example. They set up the ENRON loophole, along with a whole lot of other complicit folks, left government to work for the very businesses that benefited from the loophole and are living happily thereafter. Their loophole allowed big oil and hedgefund mgrs. to drive gas prices. Phil did have to step down as McCain’s economic adviser as the heat got to hot. Well, your congressperson has not moved to close the loophole which was put in around 2000. And, the Gramm’s live happily everafter while we suffer through the recession. A new third party with a different attitude would reject from the party folks that might act like the Gramm’s. Voter’s would like that. Reform is possible.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #269974

gomer pyle-
Look, Republican Judges have have been running unopposed for quite some time now in Harris County. It’s called competition.

Everybody-
First, let’s be clear on something.

Get Third Parties in, change the constitution, regardless, one thing will still be true: Most Americans would rather be able to leave government to do its job by itself. It’s got nothing to do with the “duopoly”. It’s the natural division of labor. We hire these people to take care of these things for us.

The trick of things is, of course, you can’t necessarily leave these people alone, or they get funny ideas. Of course, if you have to ride them, maybe they shouldn’t be in there.

So, there’s a tension between leaving them to do their job so you can get on with your life, and paying attention to them so they don’t ruin it.

I don’t blame people for being comfortable with folks they know, who don’t seem to be bad people. That’s why most incumbents stay.

It took some education on my part before I knew enough to be really ticked off with Bush. Rather than go for an abstract anti-incumbent approach, my approach has been to find things out and relate them to people. The real issue is what people know and what will push them past the threshold towards voting them out.

Going beyond that, the two party dominated system limits choices to some degree, but it doesn’t eliminate them. Primaries can change the game, but there as in the general, knowledge is important; knowledge is power.

As for the third parties? Well, that’s the thing. First, do people know what they stand for, and knowing, can they bring themselves to agree with them? Everybody’s got that fantasy that if people knew their point of view, that they’d agree. But really, aren’t we being naive if we assume that?

To redeem government and keep on the side of good, a simple change of parties is insufficient. We have to change our attitudes, change people’s awareness, and finally have the humility to recognize where we may have to do some convincing, or recognize that our views just might not sell with people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2008 3:16 PM
Comment #269979

And why are people this way?
“In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories “in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products…manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry.”“
Our schools where designed to produce workers —not thinkers. So it would seem to me if we want to change the system — we must start at the schools.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm

—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 8, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #269981

On my ballot in Colorado I had 16 yes 16 presidential candidates to choose from. For my representative in the USHOR I had 2, a repub and a dem to choose from. The incumbent for the USHOR lost her reelection bid by a 56% to 44 % margin. The district is 40% repub, 31%unaffiliated and 29%dem. I guess my point is the anti-incumbent movement is small but growing, I would not count it out yet however until their are more choices on the ballot I don’t see how it can grow to the level needed to put fear into our elected officials.

The Independent parties will not accomplish much were they to ever win the presidency unless they had others in the Congress behind them. The smaller parties need to focus on offices other than president if they are to be perceived as real parties. The growth of the independent parties will determine the success of the anti-incumbent movement IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 8, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #269986

Stephen D. you said:
Get Third Parties in, change the constitution, regardless, one thing will still be true: Most Americans would rather be able to leave government to do its job by itself. It’s got nothing to do with the “duopoly”. It’s the natural division of labor. We hire these people to take care of these things for us.

Pretty much the point I am trying to make. If we have new third parties with a different attitude we won’t each have to sift every piece of political news to determine if we are being slimed or not. These new parties will have what I euphemistically refer to as Virtual Officers. They will brief new candidates on the parties’ rules and agenda. They will act as political cops on the beat. They will be watching for an elected officials to stray from the agenda put forth by party MEMBERS. They will watch for any ethics no no’s like the Steven’s gig. Perceived problems they surface will be reported to the voters over the Internet. Likewise voters may raise the flag as well. If X percent of voters register proforma complaints on the Party’s website against and incumbent an automatic email is sent to voters notifying them of a mandatory up/down vote required for the offending official. If that official doesn’t garner a favorable majority of 66% of the vote then that official is rejected from the party and will no longer be supported for any future political endeavors. People do need to be informed, as they should be, but mostly they would need to participate in the mandatory vote on notification.
I don’t favor changing the Constitution. We just need to reform government and back out some of the laws, many of which were put in illegally or under a cloud, such as Corporate Personhood, Money is Free Speech, agreements with foreign nations impinging on our sovereignty, etc. We need to restore the Constitution, reclaim our sovereignty and the democratic principles that we once lived by. Joel Hirschhorn wrote the book on that, “Delusional Democracy”. Highly recommended if you haven’t read it.
J2T2: Third parties in my country received 1.5% of the vote. Nationwide was not much different. While it was reported that about 30% of the voters profess to being so-called Independent Voters they cast their votes in this election for the lesser of two evils and pulled the lever, once again, for the duopoly. Doesn’t bode well for third parties or REAL reform.
I have a website up, www.demreps.com if you want to get a feel for a third party with a different attitude or see what a REAL reform agenda looks like. Your comments would be appreciated.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 8, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #270029
Loyal Opposition wrote: Anti-incumbents face the problem of the dog that finally catches the car—what do they do next? Simply being “anti” something doesn’t cut it when you have to be for something.
You’ll hear that a lot.

The problem with that logic is:

  • (01) that the goal should not be to merely vote out incumbent politicians.
    The goal should not merely be “anti” incumbent.
    The goal should be to vote out bad incumbent politicians.
    Now, who can list 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that deserve re-election?
    The problem is that too few voters delusionally believe that THEIR incumbent politicians are not the bad incumbent politicians, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.
    That is largely because of a clever partisan mechanism in which voters rarely have any challenger(s) in THEIR own party to vote for, and too many voters put THEIR party above all else. That clever mechanism helps explain why incumbent politicians enjoy 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
    Some voters say that the alternatives candidates are all worse.
    But is that really true ?
    To hear some of these voters tell it, all of the alternatives are NAZIs , radicals , and nutcases (i.e. all worse).
    How can the alternatives always be worse 90% of the time?
    The real reason is more likely because none of the alternatives are from THEIR party.
    After all, partisan loyalties are powerfully strong, which is why voters rarely (if ever) have any challenger(s) in THEIR own party to vote for.
    Since too many voters put THEIR party above all else, and most (if not all) politicians know this all too well, incumbent politicians enjoy very high (85%-to-90%) re-election rates, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.
    That’s only one of many clever mechanisms and unfair advantages (One-Simple-Idea.com/FAQ.htm#UnfairAdvantages) that make the incumbent politicians’ cu$hy, coveted incumbencies more secure.
    So, why not consider challengers, instead of repeatedly rewarding the incumbent politicians with re-election?
    How bad do things have to get before enough voters will finally bite the bullet and oust the bad politicians?
    Doesn’t repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians with re-election simply not only allow, but empower) them to grow more corrupt and powerful?
    Are the alternative challengers really worse?
    How much worse can things get?
    If we keep rewarding the existing incumbent politicians with re-election, we will find out out much worse things can get.
    Also, if you don’t like any of the candidates, then vote for a non-incumbent (i.e. challenger).
    Do not let the incumbent grow stronger and more powerful.

  • (02) that it is an exaggeration to portray most challengers running for offices as nut cases and NAZIs. And even if the challenger becomes a bad politician, vote them out too.

  • (03) It is less important who you vote for, than whoever it is clearly understands that their career will be very short if they are irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and/or corrupt too. And, if in doubt, vote ‘em out !

  • (04) that a vote for an incumbent is a vote of approval and the status quo.

  • (05) that repeatedly rewarding bad incumbent politicians with re-election isn’t working, is it?

  • (06) that repeatedly letting the two main parties simply take turns being the IN-PARTY/OUT-PARTY isn’t working, is it?

  • (07) that incumbent politicians become bad when they are repeatedly rewarded for it.

  • (08) that the problem isn’t so much who is elected to office as much as it is that they are repeatedly rewarded for being irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and incompetent.

  • (09) that the voters, when things finally get bad enough, won’t be too choosy who they oust from office (as in year 1933).

  • (10) that there is no other (peaceful) way to send a loud and clear message to Congress.

  • (11) that there is no other (peaceful) way to put an end to the cycle of decades of corruption and the painful consequences.

  • (12) that there is no other way to peacefully force government to be transparent, accountable, and responsible too.

  • (13) that it ignores the fact that incumbent politicians ignore the voters when the incumbent politicians are rewarded for it.

  • (14) that well-meaning newcomers to Congress can never get any real reforms when they are always vastly out-numbered by long-time incumbent politicians.

  • (15) that most in Congress are FOR-SALE, and 99.7% of voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more (one-simple-idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm).

  • (16) that there is no other way to reduce the significance of the circular, distracting, petty, partisan warfare, which irresponsible incumbent politicians love to fuel.

  • (17) that there is no other way to reduce the excesses of the “IN PARTY”, and the foot-dragging and obstructionism of the “OUT PARTY”, and send all parties a loud and clear message to start solving problems, instead of ignoring problems and allowing them to grow in number and severity.

  • (18) that it ignores the much-needed balance of power between government and The People, instead of between Republican and and Democrat politicians, who simply take turns using and abusing the voters, and only carry the water for their big-money-donors.

  • (19) that it ignores the possibility that it can discourage waste, pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, corruption. And, perhaps it will encourage Congress to finally pass some badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that Congress has refused to pass for many decades (e.g. campaign finance reform, tax reform, election reform, balanced budget, term-limits, One-Purpose-Per-BILL, immigration reform, etc.)

  • (20) that it overlooks the least inexpensive solution. There is no need to shower politicians with money for their campaign war chests. Besides, most of us can not compete with the wealthy, since a tiny 0.3% of all eligible U.S. voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more. Your $50, $100, $150 donations are wasted. When 5% of the total U.S. population has 60% of all wealth, the majority of Americans can not come close to out-spending the few wealthy that abuse vast wealth to control and influence government. Not when a mere 1% of the U.S. population has 40% of all wealth. Government should not be FOR-SALE. Voting about FOR-SALE incumbent politicians (which is most, if not all of them) would short-circuit that abuse (among others).

  • (21) that it ignores the fact that we are running out of time, and voting out bad incumbent politicians is the fastest way to solve the problem. The fiscal picture is disturbing. It can not last much longer. The economy of the past years was an illusion funded with massive irresponsible borrowing, debt, spending and money-printing. The total federal debt is $23 trillion. The $10.6 Trillion National Debt is so large, the federal government and the Federal Reserve are creating the $429 Billion (and more) per year to merely pay the interest on the National Debt.

  • (22) it ignores the instant cures for the “jelly-brain” disease that some pandering politicians are almost immediately stricken with shortly after being elected to office, which makes them forget many (or all) of their campaign promises (i.e. “read my lips”, “no nation building”, etc.).

  • (23) it ignores the savings to the voters and tax payers, since it reduces the cu$hy pen$ion$ that each congress person will receive after only a few terms in Congress.

  • (24) it ignores the probability that it will encourage more and better challenging candidates to get on the ballots and give us more choices.

  • (25) it ignores the fact that it would reduce the effects of Gerrymandering.

  • (26) it ignores the benefit of unpredictability, which reduces the big-money-influence on a government that is already too FOR-SALE.

  • (27) it ignores the fact that a vote for a challenging candidate is a vote for changing the way things are. Even if you don’t like any of the candidates, do not reward the incumbent by re-electing that person you already know to be irresponsible. Vote for a challenger, because rewarding the existing incumbent by re-electing them allows them to grow more powerful, corrupt, irresponsible, and more difficult to oust from office.

  • (28) it ignores the fact that it would help to create peer pressure among the politicians’ own ranks within Congress. Something that barely exists now (if at all). The bar is set so, so, so very low. Often, even if convicted of a crime, they are above the law and able to get pardons and commuted sentences (even after some pleaded guilty, such as Dan Rostentkowski).

  • (29) it ignores the fact that it might be fun to finally see the truly bad, career politicians finally get the boot? It creates immediate term-limits; why wait for Congress; Congress will never pass term-limits, along with many other much-needed common-sense reforms. It immediately eliminates the truly bad career politicians, which we know includes most (if not all) in Congress, based on the fact that no one can list 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that deserve re-election. Can you?

  • (30) it ignores the fact that it is the only thing we haven’t yet tried (not lately, anyway; not since 1933) that we were supposed to be doing all along, always. We were never supposed to keep re-electing irresponsible incumbents due to blind party loyalty, partisan brainwashing, laziness, complacency, apathy, ignorance, or distracting petty partisan warfare.

  • (31) it overlooks the fact that voting out bad politicians is the one simple, common-sense, responsible thing that voters were supposed to be doing all along; always.

  • (32) that voters will do it anyway, eventually, when failing to do so becomes too painful.

There are many good reasons for not repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election.

The problem is that too many voters believe THEIR politician should be re-elected, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.
The problem is that too many voters really don’t have a clue, haven’t done sufficient (if any) research, are too blindly loyal to THEIR party, and are too “partisan centric” instead of “principle centric”.

And the problem is perpetuated by the clever partisan mechanism in which voters rarely have any challenger(s) in THEIR own party to vote for, and too many voters put THEIR party above all else. That clever mechanism helps explain why incumbent politicians enjoy 85%-to-90% re-election rates … at least, until that eventually becomes too painful for enough voters.

Third parties and organization would be great, but it isn’t necessary, and it wasn’t necessary in year 1933 (and other periods before and since of increased anti-incumbent sentiment).
What is necessary is alreadly inherent in the system.
It is already up to the voters.
The voters have a simple choice and voters will most likely make the choice again; the one simple thing that is needed to make government more transparent, accountable, and responsible, when failing to do so for so long finally becomes too painful.
At the moment, the voters are simply not yet feeling enough pain and misery to motivate them to earnestly examine their bad voting habits.
But they will, because too many voters still do not realize the painful consequences areadly on the way, due to decades of economic deterioration, which was of the voters’ own making.
That is what will finally motivate voters to oust hundreds of incumbent politicians from office.
That’s a lesson voters will have to learn the hard way again.

Any way, that’s where things are most likely headed.
Pain and misery (i.e. misery index) will be the catalyst.
It’s only a matter of time before enough unhappy and suffering voters do the one-simple-thing they were always supposed to do, as they did in year 1861, 1875, 1891, 1895, 1911, 1915, 1933, 1949, and 1995 (when 100 to over 200 hundreds incumbent politicians in both main parties were ousted from office).

Voting Guidelines…

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #270030

CORRECTION: Now, who can list 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that deserve re-election?
The problem is that too few many voters delusionally believe that THEIR incumbent politicians are not the bad incumbent politicians, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #270032

Dan-
In my view, you’ll never get total anti-incumbency votes, even in the worst of times. Essentially the reason would be that if things got to the point where nobody was trusted to run things, we’d probably see armed revolution or some more minor version of it, and the “duopoly” would be the least of our concerns.

You can talk about a delusion, but that’s harsh, not to mention counterproductive. Like I said before, there’s a division of labor aspect to this: people want to be left to lead their own lives, for the most part. What else is freedom than the lack of need to be concerned about undue interference in one’s life?

What people have learned in recent times is that it’s sometimes a matter of picking your poison. Sometimes government infringing on certain people’s freedom to act is necessary to prevent somebody else from inhibiting your freedom to act.

That’s the constant, multipolar balancing act going on. Most of the time, the politicians know and keep an eye on where that wind is blowing, and keep themselves sailing in that direction. Not always the best, but when people figure that out, the wind often shifts of its own accord.

Even now and then, though, a party or other private organization gets so powerful as to be able to force change beyond what electoral mandate will allow. That, or they’ll just get so stubborn that the overload the weight rating of America’s patience.

But never has that dissatisfaction been so complete as to prompt total disregard and the subsequent alliance with a new third party.

You can harangue people about it, but folks have their own standards as to who stays and who goes, and the pressures and conflicts caused by that tend to see themselves released, sooner or later, by the relief valves of our democracy. The behavior or the Republicans in this last decade did its absolute best to test the system to its limits, and look at the result: the party is in a shambles.

And that was what Democracy is designed to do: reward those who don’t buck their constituents will, toss out those who do. Most politicians get it, or don’t have to get it.

I know the whole turnover thing seems like the only solution for you, the same way a wholesale constitutional convention looks the same way for Joel, but the system was really designed to give people most of their satisfaction short of such cataclysmic change.

You know the trick of it is, a person doesn’t have to list even four congresscritters they wish to re-elect. They only have to list three: the representantive and two senators they’re eligible to vote for.

The best course of action is to make the actions of these three particular people a going concern, something they’re kept apprised of. The rest, really, is their choice, regardless of your feelings.

The other 98 senators or 433 representatives have been made, by constitutional design, none of their damn business on election day. Any strategy that seeks to shake things up will have to act on a local level, and with the cooperation of these specific constituents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2008 7:08 PM
Comment #270033

434, pardon me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2008 7:09 PM
Comment #270053

Stephen, you make an excellent case for the status quo. Agree completely. Each of us comes with an inherent moral code that helps to decide how much they will tolerate before taking some action. You said: “Essentially the reason would be that if things got to the point where nobody was trusted to run things, we’d probably see armed revolution or some more minor version of it, and the “duopoly” would be the least of our concerns.” To many it is clear that Bush went into Iraq for big oil. He was intent on going into Iran but ran out of time and world leaders turned against him (The Tyranny of Oil by Antonia Juhasz). He didn’t do this in a vacuum. Congress was complicit. Bush has been trying to force the Iraqis into signing away control of 80% of their oil fields to private companies for development. What have you heard from the democratic congress about that? Congress is complicit in so many areas. They abrogated their oversight responsibility by giving Bush fast track trade authority. A violation of the Constitution. Congress was complicit in facilitating Bush with the FISA law, again violating the Constitution. Bush signed an Executive agreement with the WTO as it would violate the Constitution if the Congress signed a trade treaty. Bush has put all the legal stuff required to meld the US, Can. and Mex into a European Union. What has been the response of your Congresspersons? They are complicit. It is a sovereign issue that violates the Constitution. According to the Constitution Congress cannot subjugate the US to a foreign national but they have and continue to do so. Small things like taking 500,000 acres of Texas farmland by eminent domain to build the NAFTA superhighway. What have you heard from you Congressperson on this? Silence speaks volumes. Another tact; campaign finance. Why does congress continue to allow corporations and conglomerates to contribute large sums to their campaign coffers? Because, it is the law. With Corporate Personhood, corporations are humane, becoming law, under a cloud, in 1886, and Money is Free Speech, the more money you have the more free speech you have, becoming law it is perfectly legal, as intended by Congress, for these large donors to give. So, there is something like 72 lobbyist for each of the 535 legislator’s. Right there in Washington with them 24/7, attending to every need, junkets, dinners, etc. How do you stack up against that? A wonder your rep has the time to correspond with you. He/she doesn’t. A GS-6 will send you a canned message if you are lucky. How might we change the situation? Through change promised by Obama? Or through reform of government? Do you think Congress would ever abolish Corporate Personhood or Money is Free Speech? Our government has been bought and paid for many times over. We don’t live in a Republic or a Democracy. We have oligarchy rule. Every law that you live by, like how many stitches are required on a legal baseball, has been approved or changed by the oligarchy or it wouldn’t be on the books. Another tact. Wondering why asphalt is in shortage at the moment? A 1996 document from Texaco: “As observed over the last few years and as projected into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gas production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.” Big oil has bought governments, caused the killing of thousands of people, used banks and hedgefunds to drive gas/oil prices, closed brand gas stations, drove thousands of Independent stations into bankruptcy, just whatever is necessary to keep oil production low and control the price to the consumer. I’m sure you are aware of the ENRON loophole worked into law by Wendy and Phil Gramm. Phil dumped the loophole into an 11,000 page appropriations bill but didn’t vote for the bill himself. Sly I guess. That bill created the ENRON event and of late, the $4/gal gas event and helped lead us to the recession. Phil dumped it in in 2000 and it’s still on the books. What is your Senator doing about that? What is your tolerance level for such a government? I want reform of government and I’ll get none of it by ping ponging between the duopoly.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #270056

None of the comments change my view. The central problem with virtually all social and political movements is that they refuse to face reality when, after sufficient time, it becomes clear that they will not really succeed and achieve their central goal. They simply continue on as totally marginalized movements and, in one sense, do more harm than good by fragmenting the dissident fraction of the population so that no movement ever gathers enough public support to overturn the status quo establishment. Every movement needs metrics to measure its success in some objective way. For the anti-incumbency movement I believe looking at reelection rates for congressional incumbents is one fine, objective metric, especially because there are a huge number of third-party candidates for congressional seats.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 10, 2008 10:02 AM
Comment #270061

Joel, but only one measure. You can’t get a meaningful picture of the civil rights movement by number of African Americans with jobs, nor a meaningful picture of the economy by only the GDP.

Your simple one paradigm measure fails to take in the whole picture of a complex social behavior across time and political context. And because of your one simple measure, you reach a false conclusion, just as a GDP number taken in August of 2007 would have revealed an incredibly false view of the economy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2008 11:05 AM
Comment #270064

Stephen D. said: “What else is freedom than the lack of need to be concerned about undue interference in one’s life?”

But as we are about to learn in the most painful way, freedom without responsibility and due diligence carries the very high price of no choices in the end.

Surely, we can ask intelligent human beings to take proactive and prophylactic actions to prevent national failure which seriously reduces everyone’s choices and opportunities. That is what the anti-incumbent movement is about.

The vote’s primary purpose is to remove officials from office. Left to their own devices, officials will pass rules and laws to allow them to remain in office in perpetuity, like the King George government we overthrew here in the colonies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 10, 2008 11:11 AM
Comment #270073

Points well taken. And, who in their right mind would think that another third, fourth, fifth, Party would make any difference when viewed in light of the two major parties. Go back to the Constitution, Jefferson and other Founder’s. The Founder’s advised us that at some point moneyed interest would threaten the Republic. They also gave us the tools needed to chip off the barnacles that threaten the ship of state. Now, outside of outright rebellion, that’s ALL we have. The right to vote and Article V. Voting rights can be used to vote out incumbents, vote in third parties or vote on referendums. That’s it. When you think of all the political discord, zillions of organizations lambasting this issue or that issue with little to nothing to show for it what then is the political solution? In order to reform the system we must first define what is wrong with the current system. ACCOUNTABILITY! How can we address accountability through our vote? Easy. Establish new third parties with a different political attitude. Parties that provide members with a way to put accountability into the political equation. Parties with built-in citizens’ oversight for elected and appointed officials. Parties with regulations structured like a mini-Constitution whereby the regulations can only be changed with a 66% majority vote. Such a Party would provide a platform for REAL reform of government and KEEP IT THAT WAY!

We can’t look to government for reform. Can you imagine a Congressperson standing on the floor and requesting to submit a bill to abolish Corporate Personhood? Self immolation! Article V won’t be coming to my town anytime soon. And right now voters are still willing to promote the two majors.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #270081
Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- In my view, you’ll never get total anti-incumbency votes, even in the worst of times.
That’s not the point, but yet another attempt to mischaracterize and confuse the issue.
  • (1) No one ever claimed total (i.e. 100%) anti-incumbency voting would ever occur (and it never has occurred).
  • (2) The goal (not mine any way) is not mere random and arbitrary anti-incumbent voting. The goal is to vote out only bad politicians. Now, who can name 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent? Why do you constantly fail to see the difference?
  • (3) Voting out 10%, 20%, 30%, or even 39% (as occurred in year 1933) is probably enough to send a loud and clear message to Congress as a whole to clean up their act.

Or do you think only Republicans should be voted out of (and/or only Democrats should be voted into) office?
Have you looked at many Congress persons voting records?
You might be surprised to see that many Congress persons in BOTH parties vote the same way.
You might find that the problem really isn’t only all Republicans.
However, that delusion is partly why the two main parties simply take turns being the IN-PARTY/OUT-PARTY, while maintaining 90% re-election rates.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Essentially the reason would be that if things got to the point where nobody was trusted to run things, we’d probably see armed revolution or some more minor version of it, and the “duopoly” would be the least of our concerns.
Revolution or civil war could happen and if it did, it still would not require a perfect 100% anti-incumbenct sentiment.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can talk about a delusion, but that’s harsh, not to mention counterproductive.
The truth often is harsh, and the truth is never counter-productive.

Someone has to tell the truth, because the voters’ whining and complaining about corruption, and giving dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress, but subsequently rewarding Congress with 92% re-election rates is proof positive of the wide-spread self-delusion.

Joel Hirschhorn is right when he calls it delusional.
There are several reasons for that delusion, but the end result is still wide-spread self-delusion.
Some people may find that harsh, but those that do are probably very partisanly loyal to their party, and they don’t want to hear the truth.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Like I said before, there’s a division of labor aspect to this: …
I don’t think that is relevant.

Politicians have a job to do, and voters have a job to do also.
Voters must understand that they must be more involved, more informed, and more responsible, or voters will most certainly suffer the painful consequences of failing to make incumbent politicians responsible and accountable too.

Unfortunately, too many voters fail to care and/or understand that ignoring government invites corruption, which grows and grows, until it finally becomes too painful.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … people want to be left to lead their own lives, for the most part.
True. Too many voters fail to understand that they can’t ignore government, because it invites corruption and many other manifestations of unchecked greed, and most voters will be those that suffer the most for bad government and the voters’ own irresponsibility, complacency, apathy, selfishness, and laziness. The voters have the government that they elect, and deserve.
Stephen Daugherty wrote: What people have learned in recent times is that it’s sometimes a matter of picking your poison.
Is that working?

No, it obviously isn’t, and the wide-spread belief that only punishing Republican incumbent politicians, and rewarding Demcorat politicians will bring about any significant reforms or change is truly delusional. But, perhaps enough voters will become less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry as a result of the perpetuation of these 10 abuses.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Sometimes government infringing on certain people’s freedom to act is necessary to prevent somebody else from inhibiting your freedom to act.
?
Stephen Daugherty wrote: That’s the constant, multipolar balancing act going on. Most of the time, the politicians know and keep an eye on where that wind is blowing, and keep themselves sailing in that direction. Not always the best, but when people figure that out, the wind often shifts of its own accord.
People will figure it out when they finally take the time to think about it, which will most likely happen (if ever) when failing to do so finally becomes too painful.

At the moment, too few voters get it, as evidenced by the voters’ whining and complaining about government corruption, and giving dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress, but subsequently rewarding Congress with 92% re-election rates. When enough voters figure it out, when they are finally feeling enough pain, they will most likely do what voters did in year 1933, when they voted out 206 members of Congress (both Democrats (59) and Republicans (147)).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Even now and then, though, a party or other private organization gets so powerful as to be able to force change beyond what electoral mandate will allow. That, or they’ll just get so stubborn that the overload the weight rating of America’s patience.
That’s right.

It’s a cycle. When government corruption due to the voters’ own negligence finally becomes too painful, they will most likely oust hundreds of incumbent politicians in all parties. But if the voters fail to do that, the voters risk things getting much worse, similar to the Civil War.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But never has that dissatisfaction been so complete as to prompt total disregard and the subsequent alliance with a new third party.
That is because:
  • (1) organizing a third party is a gargantuan and costly effort that isn’t necessary anyway.
  • (2) while there’s nothing wrong with creating another party, a third party is not necessary, as demonstrated by the unhappy voters of year 1933 who ousted a whopping 206 members of Congress.
  • (3) while there’s nothing wrong with creating another party, a third party is not necessary, because parties consist of voters, and the voters are what must change before voters can ever hope to change their own government, and government won’t become more transparent, accountable, and responsible until enough voters become more responsible, and stop rewarding bad incumbent politicians with 92% re-election rates (which will most likely happen when failing to do so finally becomes too painful).
  • (4) in the end, the true self-correction mechanism is not the motivation provided by any party, but the pain and misery resulting from the voters’ own bad voting habits. Repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with re-election will create the corruption and oppression that will create the pain and misery that will finally provide the motivation for enough voters to stop repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with re-election. That does not require another party.
  • (5) education is what is truly needed to make the cycle of corruption less severe. Perhaps the Civil War could have been avoided had there been better education. Perhaps we can avoid another Civil War with better education about the Civil War and the abuses that can cause civil wars (such as these 10 abuses: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm), which many voters are not even aware of; especially the abuses within the monetary system).
Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can harangue people about it, but folks have their own standards as to who stays and who goes, …
I am not forcing anyone to read this, nor forcing anyone to vote any specific way, but merely provide reasons and emphasis on education which is needed to improve voting standards. Voters can get their education the smart way, or the hard and painful way, but it is their choice.

You can call it haranguing if you like, but the fact is that the only people that will mostly likely see it as haranguing are partisan loyalists who will feel threatened by it.
After all, who else would have a problem with the idea of voting out only bad politicians that have proven to be irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent? Now, who can name 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent? Why do you constantly fail to see the difference?

  • (1) Voters can vote as they please, but I want to try to persuade voters to not repeatedly reward bad incumbent politicians in Congress with 92% re-election rates. What’s wrong with that?

  • (2) You obviously want voters to vote for Democrats, as evidenced by your previous statements:
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the green party for George W. George Bush (43) getting elected?

  • The disdain for anything not-Democrat is all too clear.

    In my opinion, recommending the voting-out of bad politicians makes a lot more sense than fueling and wallowing in the circular partisan warfare, and telling voters

  • Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].

  • since parties are not even necessary, which voters will most likely prove eventually, as they did in year 1933.

    In the end, pain and misery (the built-in self-correction mechanism) will provide the motivation for enough voters to improve their voting habits and standards.
    When that happens, most voters, as in year 1933, won’t care much who gets ousted from which party, because enough voters will finally realize that most (if not all) in Congress are corrupt, FOR-SALE, irresponsible, and/or incompetent, and repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with re-election is not only crappin’ in their own nest, but getting crapped on too.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The behavior or the Republicans in this last decade did its absolute best to test the system to its limits, and look at the result: the party is in a shambles.
    What you constantly fail to understand is that the IN-PARTY is almost ALWAYS more corrupt.

    Give it time, and the new IN-PARTY (Democrats) will abuse their advantage too.
    That’s how the Democrats became the OUT-PARTY.
    Remember?
    BOTH main parties simply take turns trying to get away with as much as possible, without becoming the OUT-PARTY.
    But power corrupts, and the IN-PARTY always loses power.

    Unforunately, the OUT-PARTY is always perceived as less corrupt, but it is almost equally corrupt, conniving, obstructionist, and determined to sabotage the IN-PARTY’s plans, regardless of whether those plans are good or bad for the nation.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: And that was what Democracy is designed to do: reward those who don’t buck their constituents will, toss out those who do. Most politicians get it, or don’t have to get it.
    If only that were really true … at least, before things become too painful.

    Most voters are not even aware of most issues or positions of THEIR incumbent politicians.
    At the moment, most voters whine and complain about corruption, and give dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings to Congress, but subsequently rewarding Congress with 92% re-election rates.
    That paradox is likely to continue until it finally becomes too painful.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know the whole turnover thing seems like the only solution for you, the same way a wholesale constitutional convention looks the same way for Joel, but the system was really designed to give people most of their satisfaction short of such cataclysmic change.
    False.
    • (1) Mere turn-over and random, arbitrary anti-incumbent voting is not my goal, despite the constant partisan motivated attempts to mischaracterize the simple and sound logic (of not repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election) as something else completely different.
    • (2) I do not see a Constitutional Convention as the fix for everything, nor possible, until voters have enough pain and misery to motivate enough voters to demand more responsible and accountable government. However, had Congress obeyed Article V, and allowed the 38 different states (4 more than required) who filed 81 (or more) Article V applications requesting a Balanced Budget Amendment, the U.S. may not have the economic disaster and massive debt of nightmare proportions that we now have today. Another serious issue is the violations of the U.S. Constitution: One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm
    • (3) Also, I never said the system was designed badly.
    • (4) The problem is not that complicated. The problem is excessive corruption and too many voters who allow and/or empower it … at least until it finally becomes too painful. When it finally becomes too painful, voters will most likely do what unhappy voters did in year 1933. One way to avoid more pain and misery is to simply stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election. That’s the issue and it is completely sound in logic, despite the constant attempts to mischaracterize the goal as a mere arbitrary, anti-incumbent solution. If you have a problem with the goal to simply not elect bad politicians, then you have to explain how rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election is a good thing.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You know the trick of it is, a person doesn’t have to list even four congresscritters they wish to re-elect. They only have to list three: the representantive and two senators they’re eligible to vote for.
    The issue is not listing only which Congress persons one voter can vote for.

    The issue is how many Congress persons are sufficiently transparent, accountable, responisible, honest, and competent?
    It seems odd indeed that no one has been able to name more than 3 or 4 out of 535, and then lost their determination to defend the Congress persons voting records when revealed.

    Besides, voters would be wise to pay more attention to what all Congress persons are doing (including the Speaker of the House, heads of committees, appointments, etc.).

    But you missed the point completely.
    Too many voters give Congress 9%-to-18% approval ratings, but then reward THEIR incumbent politicians with 92% re-election rates?
    Why?
    How do you reconcile that obvious contradiction?
    The point is that blind, delusional, partisan loyalties are at the root of the problem and being capitalized on in a major way, because of a very clever mechanism (by design) used to maintain very high re-election rates:

      • Voters rarely (if ever) have any non-incumbents (i.e. challengers) in THEIR own party to vote for.
        Since too many voters put THEIR party above all else, and most (if not all) politicians know this all too well, incumbent politicians enjoy very high (85%-to-90%) re-election rates, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.

    Regardless, while voters can only vote for their 2 senators and representative, voters would be wise to try to learn more about all of their Congress persons, and what their associations and alliances are with other Congress persons, and write, FAX, and communicate to all Congress persons. For example, some web-sites FAX and send communications to Congress persons on specific committees to either praise, analyze, and/or complain about various BILLs. All voters would be wise to try to become more aware of what their government is doing, or risk learning about it later, the hard way.

    Unfortunately, the sad fact is, very few voters actually ever research THEIR politicians’ voting records.
    And the challenge still stands.
    Who can name 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are not irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent?
    What does it mean if no one is either able or willing to list at least 50, eh?
    For many years, no one has yet been able to name but 4 or 5 incumbent politicians they thought were responsible enough to be re-elected (usually THEIR own incumbent politicians), and subsequently didn’t care to defend those politicians’ voting records when they finally saw them.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The best course of action is to make the actions of these three particular people a going concern, something they’re kept apprised of. The rest, really, is their choice, regardless of your feelings.
    I never said it wasn’t their choice, despite the dishonest attempt to mischaracterize it that way.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: The other 98 senators or 433 representatives have been made, by constitutional design, none of their damn business on election day.
    Just because voters can not vote on others’ Congress persons does not mean voters would be unwise to ignore those other Congress persons, but whether voters do or not is their choice.

    This so called righteousness about who we can and can’t vote for is an obfuscation to distract from the issues of:

    • (1) blind and delusional partisan loyalties rooted in selfishess and self delusion,

    • (2) and the obvious contradiction offered as evidence, in which too many voters give Congress 9%-to-18% approval ratings, but subsequently reward THEIR incumbent politicians with 92% re-election rates?

    • (3) and the clever mechanism that (by design) capitalizes on blind partisan loyalties and maintains very high re-election rates by rarely (if ever) allowing any non-incumbents (i.e. challengers) in THEIR own party to vote for. Since too many voters put THEIR party above all else, and most (if not all) politicians know this all too well, incumbent politicians enjoy very high (85%-to-90%) re-election rates, despite dismally low 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Any strategy that seeks to shake things up will have to act on a local level, and with the cooperation of these specific constituents.
    False. National movements that begin in one county, district, or state, can spread to others. Therefore, local focus only is too limiting. Many organizations have a focus on local, state, and national levels. Therefore, trying to shake things up only at the local level is probably a recipe for failure. There are many ways to communicate and influence policy at other levels too, and can start and end at different levels.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at November 10, 2008 12:11 PM
    Comment #270095

    Well, don’t know how much more the ole Constitution can stand. When violations occur and the people acquiesce it’s not so good. For example, the WTO agreement has been around since Clinton. And, while it violates our Constitution Congress is treating the agreement as legal. The longer this goes down stream and more laws are invoked and enforced the harder it becomes to unwind the WTO from our laws at some point. That’s the way Europe was Unionized. One small chip at a time for over 40 years. And, some countries are still fighting against it. But, to late to turn it around, sorry. That’s the way it’s been in this country starting with Corporate Personhood. Chipping away until today we no longer live in a democracy. A corpocracy or an oligarchy for sure. The further the canoe floats downstream the harder it is to paddle back.

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2008 2:49 PM
    Comment #270097
    Joel wrote: The Anti-Incumbency Movement Is Dead … None of the comments change my view. The central problem with virtually all social and political movements is that they refuse to face reality when, after sufficient time, it becomes clear that they will not really succeed and achieve their central goal. They simply continue on as totally marginalized movements and, in one sense, do more harm than good by fragmenting the dissident fraction of the population so that no movement ever gathers enough public support to overturn the status quo establishment. Every movement needs metrics to measure its success in some objective way. For the anti-incumbency movement I believe looking at reelection rates for congressional incumbents is one fine, objective metric, especially because there are a huge number of third-party candidates for congressional seats.
    Joel,

    It’s not totally dead.

    It’s just on hold, until the voters’ pain threshold is reached.
    Now that the voters missed this opportunity to oust bad politicians, the voters will have to endure the painful consequences.

    It may be several more years before enough voters are feeling enough pain to motivate them to stop rewarding bad politicians with re-election, but it will happen.
    It isn’t so much a matter of “IF”, as much as it is now only a matter of “WHEN”.

    Unfortunately, the voters probably won’t figure it out soon enough to avoid a LOT of unnecessary pain and misery, and there’s a lot of pain and misery already on the way ( One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm ), and a bad situation could get much worse if rampant borrowing, creating money out of thin air, bail-outs, and spending continues, and results in crashing the U.S. Dollar ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk&feature=related ).

    I agree that re-election rates this last election were higher (about 92%), and that’s not good.

    The incumbent politicians’ (in Congress) 9%-to-18% approval ratings, with 92% re-election rates (in Congress) is the ample PROOF that voters are delusional.

    It proves how truly powerful partisan loyalties can be, and how extremely effective the follow are for maintaining high re-election rates:

    • (01) the No-Same-Party-Challenger(s) mechanism which works wonderfully to keep re-election rates high.

    • (02) Fueling the circular partisan warfare, which helps prevent voters from ever considering candidates in the OTHER party.

    • (03) Fueling the circular partisan warfare to distract voters from the truth, more important issues, the incumbent politicians’ own malfeasance, and keep voters partisan-centric instead of principle-centric.

    • (04) Fueling the circular partisan warfare to pit voters against each other on moral and unresolvable issues (abortion, gay marriage) that may never be resolved, while ignoring the more important and solvable issues.

    • (05) Fueling the circular partisan warfare to pit voters against each other so that a majority can never exist to oust incumbent politicians from office.

    • (06) The straight-party-ticket button/lever which makes it easy for the lazy and blindly-partisan voters, which also works wonderfully to keep re-election rates high.

    • (07) Pandering and bribing voters with their own tax dollars, tax breaks (which turns out to make taxes more regressive), more cradle-to-grave entitlements, lies and more empty promises that can’t possibly be fullfilled with such massive debt of nightmare proportions, and pressing problems growing dangerously in number and severity.

    • (08) Despicably pitting voters against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion for illegal aliens costing tax payers an estimated $70 Billion to $327 Billion per year in net losses ( One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens )

    • (09) Numerous unfair incumbent advantages.

    • (10) 99.7% of voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of all eligible voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more ( One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm )

    • (11) Resistance any and all campaign finance reform.

    • (12) Gerrymandering.

    • (13) Over-complication to hide malfeasance, reduce transparency, and increase opportunities for self-gain (HHmmmm … about time for another raise, eh (like the 9 raises for Congress between 1997 and 2007, while U.S. troops went without armor, adequate medical care, and are forced into 2, 3, 4 or more tours in Iraq and Afghanistan)?).

    • (14) Selective enforcement/violation of the U.S. Constitution (e.g. ignore Article V of the U.S. Constitution so that Term-Limits, Campaign Finance, and other amendments can never be considered by the states).

    • (15) Hide and distort economic statistics (e.g. understate inflation to reduce the Social Security cost-of-living increases: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Measurement ) to either paint a picture that is either rosier or worse than realiity to make THEIR party look good, or to fuel the partisan warfare, all of which helps to increase incumbents re-election rates.
    That is why incumbent politicians enjoy very high re-election rates.

    The deck is so stacked, the only possibility for fixing it is either:

    • (a) voters become more responsible and peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable too (by not repeatedly rewarding THEIR incumbent politicians with re-election)

    • (b) or waiting for things to deteriorate into civil unrest, civil war, or worse.

    Any way, high re-election rates are not likely to last forever.
    Eventually, probably within the next 4-to-8 years, when voters have crapped in their own nest long enough; when incumbent politicians have crapped on the voters long enough; and when enough voters are finally deep in debt , jobless , homeless , hungry , and in pain, most voters will most likely wise-up and do what most voters did in year 1933, when most unhappy voters booted a whopping 206 members of Congress.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at November 10, 2008 2:55 PM
    Comment #270111

    Dan-
    I know there will never be a literally total anti-incumbent election, in part because elections before that would likely have let off that steam.

    Most people will just vote for people who are familiar and seem to be doing a good job. In my view, then, the problem of bad incumbents is a problem of them not knowing enough about their leaders to excite the passion to see a change.

    And that? You have to do it where it counts. You can talk about a movement sweeping aside bad incumbents, but to end their tenure, you have to get the people of their district or state to agree with that, or its over before it begins.

    So, essentially, as far as the national offices go, there’s only four votes that matter: President, the at-large elected Senators, and the person’s representative. As such, I made three votes this election. One was for Barack Obama, who represented a different party from the current president, the second was for Rick Noriega in his race against incumbent John Cornyn, and the third was for the Libertarian opposing incumbent Ted Poe in the district I call home.

    As Texan, though, I can tell you that this time that I wasn’t part of the majority. Obama won, but not in my state. Rick Noriega lost, as did Ted Poe’s challenger.

    Yeah, the truth hurts sometimes. Here’s another truth that sometimes hurts: you can communicate the truth poorly, provoking a reaction other than that desired. Yet another one: we don’t always know the truth, so we can confidently proclaim BS, and be fools for it.

    One more painful truth: however right you may think you are, this system is set up to allow people to live and think and vote in ways you disagree with. No one person can dictate by law what is right or wrong to everybody.

    The Problem of Freedom is not a solvable one, even by the removal of that freedom, because ultimately even people in the worst dictatorship have freedom within their own skulls, and an ability to act collectively, and frost-heave the cracks in the system open. You can’t force people to go your way.

    You can, however, with skill and art, thought and study, make one alternative more attractive to those people. This comes easiest, and most pointlessly among the choir that surrounds you among your partisans. The real trick is convincing people beyond the normal range of your particular species of voter.

    You talk of a national movement, but really, it has to be a number of discreet movements. Like the polls show us, though opinion about congress in general is low, you ask them about the representatives or senators they do know, and they often either like them, or don’t know much about them one way or another. The opinion about congress in general rarely moves voters. It’s the individual officials in their districts that really count.

    The key is, most people just do their jobs, and go about living their regular lives. We hire these people to make these decisions for us, to specialize in this field so we don’t have to take time from doing our jobs and living our own lives to worry about such things.

    People have to motivate themselves, ultimately, for this to work. You can’t force motivation. They either got to want it, to think it is important, or they will not turnout, or turn out to vote against the incumbent.

    I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. Considering the advent of computerized redistricting and the complex gerrymandering that has created, a reversal of more than fifty seats in the last two election, and a senate shift of more than eleven seats indicates a strong political shift in the country.

    And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. There’s a sort of selection effect at work here, since I happen to be a pundit for that side; but then, that is my right. However, I stand by most of your quotes. I do think voters should ally with Democrats. But if they think we’ve done a rotten job after they put that trust in us, they should kick us to the curb. I believe in competition.

    As far as third parties winning offices, I’m saying that in the end, a third party’s ability to truly challenge power at the top depends on its ability to field known quantity candidates that people will feel comfortable, even confident voting for. If all the third parties do are deliver close elections to the other side not allied to them, you’re damn right they’ll be made fringe. Who wants to vote against their interests?

    You folks talk about duopolies, but here’s the plain truth: in any system where a plurality or absolute majority rules, the rise of a two party system is inevitable, because any group that splits their vote, though they have a majority otherwise, will lose to those who get the most votes.

    I don’t disdain third parties. I just think when you run you should run to win. Ideally, a third party should have no real loyalties to the ideology of either of the two parties; it should appeal with its own overall gestalt of ideology, one not easily imitated by one side or another. It should be seeking to build constituencies in state legislatures, governorships, and other offices.

    But we should recognize this: as soon as they get power, compromise will become necessary. They will be the in-party. Corruption becomes a possibility. Incumbency becomes theirs.

    What will anything you do change? Not much, practically, or situation-wise. Practically, you’re pushing a plan that most people aren’t normally motivated to fulfill. Situation-wise, it’s pretty simple: power inevitably forces compromise and invites corruption with those who take it on. But third parties will have to be more aggressive than they are right now to get elected.

    Ultimately, you’re doing a fine job of expressing your opinion, but expression of opinions isn’t what politics is about. It’s about the realization of one’s goals. Our system makes this the norm: people must compete to form majorities. It also makes each representative and Senator accountable to only a small cross section of the Ameircan people. To win, you must create majorities. But if the majority of the people don’t take third parties seriously, or don’t see enough wrong with their congresscritters to feel it necessary to kick the bums out, you won’t win.

    Generalizations don’t help. Cynicism doesn’t help. Focus on the number of parties rather than the actual outcomes of policy doesn’t help. A movement of national scope with no local depth will not help. A third party that only hurts an associated ideology instead of creating its own center of gravity in politics won’t help either.

    A single county delievered Indiana to Barack Obama. A few hundred votes in Florida gave us Bush. All politics is local, even when its national. Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power. Americans were motivated this election to change the landscape, and change it they have.

    If you don’t like that, want to take it in a different direction, you have a lot of convincing to do. It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House. If the big parties aren’t spared, why should the little ones be?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2008 4:34 PM
    Comment #270114

    I dunno Stephen, your logic and ideology leaves me beside myself. I’m concerned about the loss of national sovereignty, infringements on the Constitution, and the democratic principles we used to live by. Concerned about corruption, pervasive and incidious, at the highest levels of government. I tend to write about those things and not so much about Sara Palin clothes debacle or Bama’s preacher. I see political parties as expendable if they ain’t hackin it. I really believe Jefferson in that “a few blithering idiots can start a revolution”. Here is the response from my rep. Eric Cantor when asked what his position was on Article V Convention.
    “Thank you for contacting me with regard to Article V of the United States Constitution. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
    Article V of the Constitution lays out the process by which amends to the document can be made. Amendments may be proposed by the Congress or by a nataional convention called for by at least two-thirds of state legislatures. You may be assured that I will keep your thoughts about Article V in mind during my time in the House of Representatives.” I doubt if he would give such a glib answer to ExXon or Boeing. Sure, it was wrote by a GS-6 staffer but that doesn’t change the gravity of his response to me. I’m concerned with things like the border issue. It is a violation of the Constitution to fail to carry out immigration/border enforcement. To facilitate the entry of millions of people coming illegally into this country is a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution defines it as an invasion. I agree generalizations and cynicism doesn’t help. I like cold hard facts.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 10, 2008 6:35 PM
    Comment #270118

    Roy Ellis, Thank you!

    Stephen Daugherty, ditto what Roy Ellis said above.

    Enjoy your IN-PARTY status for now, because it is only temporary.

    It doesn’t matter who the IN-PARTY is.
    They will crap in their own nest before too long.
    Then the IN-PARTY/OUT-PARTY switch places.
    You don’t seem to understand that.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.

    Posted by: d.a.n at November 10, 2008 8:20 PM
    Comment #270124

    Roy Ellis-
    America’s sovereignty means that it is capable of making and breaking agreement with other countries. All treaties must be signed by the president and ratified by the Senate to be binding.

    You can unilaterally make claims about infringement of the constitution, but that doesn’t make them so. I don’t like the lax immigration enforcement, but I don’t think such bad enforcement is ipso facto constitutional, and there is nowhere where the language of the constitution presents poor immigration enforcement as an invasion.

    I think far too many people try to appeal to the constitution and a supposedly strict construction of it as way of putting their arguments over the top. Say something like Immigration regulations are the law, and therefore the executive branch is obligated to carry it out. Don’t go out on a limb saying the constitution defines it as an invasion. I recall no such description.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You don’t have to draw this dramatic arc to come to the conclusion that immigration reform is needed, is a duty of the executive. But unless you get beyond the angle of xenophobia, what you’re not going to recognize is that economic conditions will lead many coming across our borders to break our laws in this regard, and those same conditions are going to make it difficult for these people to pay fees of hundreds of dollars, put in place by folks who want an emphasis on middle class folks immigrating, rather than huddled masses.

    If what we want is control of our borders, do we try to beaver dam the Mississippi, or take the obscene effort necessary to throw a Hoover dam in front of it…

    Or do we create a system of locks and navigation that defuses the conflict between those trying to make a better life and a legal immigration system put together to turn them back?

    I’ve got something of a conservative streak when it comes to law. Sometimes you have to play around with the rules to make them work, but the least trouble in their implementation comes from approaching things calmly, and not jumping up to higher and more drastic levels of solutions before trying out some simple, effective, smaller scale remedies.

    This Article V thing seems to rub me the wrong way for the same reasons. In my view, it’s ridiculously simple: you have to get a consortium of thirty-four states together to get a convention. You start messing with cumulative numbers, and you get a huge increase in complexity without an accompanying increase in clarity. The Calling of the convention before was the combined effort of the colonies. They put that question to the states and the states went forward with it together.

    All too often, there’s this impatience with small or modest reforms. People run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to change the world with one act, not realizing that A) Things rarely happen that way, and B) those attempts are sometimes what causes the most political and constitutional trouble for those trying to push them.

    You like cold, hard facts? Here’s what they tell me: government, the private sector, and the average person work best together when roles and expectations are well-defined on all sides, and when they aren’t engaged in some zero-sum turf battle.

    All this anger and hyperbole strikes me as irrelevant to the question of making the argument at best, if not counterproductive.

    Dan-
    I’m all too aware of the issues at hand, about the IN-PARTY status. My party’s been in and out on several levels during the time I’ve watched politics. I also remember the corruption and selfishness that brought our previous majority down. I do not take our political position for granted in any way, shape or form. I believed after the 2006 campaigns that my party would be in a better position if it had stood up to Bush more. But they didn’t, and 2008 shows us modest gains. We’ll have to see how Congress and our new president face the challenges ahead. Hopefully they’ll understand one important fact: reality is the best shaper of public opinion. Do right by Americans and they’ll do right by you.

    You can sneer at my acceptance of one party over another, but I have few illusions of where my party an go if it fails to maintain a positive relationship with voters.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 10, 2008 10:53 PM
    Comment #270126

    Stephen D.,

    You seem to accept the current system as adequate and appropriate. Our current system is NEITHER what the founding fathers intended in their wisdom, nor, a direct democracy incorporating the referendum wisdom of a direct democracy.

    We have a corrupt hybrid with the introduction of Political Parties, determining who the candidates and elected officials are, and once elected, the political parties shield those officials and market, advertise, and outright deceive the people about their performance, competence, and effectiveness.

    The only way political parties can work for the best interests of the nation, is if the members of that party, the registered voters, have a vested interest and input into the selection of candidates and objective review of existing party incumbents. Those mechanisms are NOT in place, and thus, the parties neither protect the people’s interests nor proffer candidates (with some exceptions), who are the best, brightest, and most dedicated to the people’s and nation’s interests.

    I spent time in the Democratic Party and 98% of the supporters/voters, rubber stamp what the party officials put before them, without ever taking an objective evaluative interest, nor even asking for that opportunity. And where is the review process by the parties of the candidates they have previously put in office? Where is the revocation process in which the Party targets its own incumbents for unseating after demonstrating their corruption, ineptitude, or ineffectiveness in meeting party voter objectives and standards. Non-Existent, Stephen D.

    Which makes your party as corrupt as the GOP that just reelected Ted Stevens in Alaska. To change that, the Democratic voters themselves must, from within the Party, insist on the measures and processes I outline above. But, we both know, they won’t in a majority. Which is why I choose to vote independent of any Party as do 40+ million other Americans.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at November 11, 2008 5:06 AM
    Comment #270135

    Stephen, you don’t understand where I’m coming from. I’m trying to start a revolution. Now how can I do that by using watered down statements like “America’s sovereignty means that it is capable of making and breaking agreement with other countries. All treaties must be signed by the president and ratified by the Senate to be binding.” Good grief! A sovereign issue is one where the government attempts to subjugate the US to rules, laws, regulations of a foreign nation. So, let me say this about that. The US government is subjugating itself to the rules and regulations of the WTO violating our sovereignty. Knowing that they could not get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate the US joined WTO by Executive Agreement. This allowed for only a simple majority vote, limited debate and no amendments please. WTO regs state that the US is to subject all U.S. federal, state, and local laws and practices that affect trade to international review by WTO. To allow any WTO member to challenge any federal, state or local law as trade-impending. (That is why if your small town tries to reject a Wal-Mart the city will find not only Wal-Mart lawyers at their doorstep but WTO lawyers as well). To give the WTO judicial process final jurisdiction over all trade disputes. On and on – sovereign issues. Here is an interesting one – That the US will have one vote while the EU has as many votes as there are member states. Free Trade at its essence. Regarding NAFTA. “Eliminate sovereign immunity as a defense.’ Just like that – forget sovereignty, that was history! NAFTA failed to get enough senate votes for a treaty so Clinton signed it into law as an Executive Agreement. Create a new judicial forum in which private companies could pursue claims against host nations for breaches of NAFTA obligations. New judicial panels that work outside each country’s judicial system, operate in secret, with the authority to impose fines on the three governments, with no appeal to national courts including the US Supreme Court. Allow 67 job categories to take jobs anywhere in the three participating nations and relocate themselves and their families anywhere they wished in the three nations. Mexicans can own 100% of property in the US while US citizens can own only 45% property rights in Mexico. The US government has never, never made a trade agreement beneficial to the US citizen. Trade has been used mostly as a tool for foreign aid or foreign affairs. Not only have they badly violated our Constitution and national sovereignty they have put us $70 trillion in debt, haven’t had a positive trade deficit since the mid 70’s and we sit here doling out taxpayer dollars to billionaires. Yup, a revolutionary here! The WTO/Brazil is supposed to be suing us for $4B over cotton subsidies. The US gives the US farmer a cotton subsidy while agreeing to WTO rules not to give cotton subsidies. So the US taxpayer gives the farmer a cotton subsidy and the WTO sues the US taxpayer for $4B. Yup, a true revolutionary! Interesting to see what happens when with this when/if Congress ever takes it up. Maybe it’s a done deal, Who knows?
    Immigration – “Congress shall provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.” Well, let me say this about that. If the supreme court can make the stretch that Corporations are human or that Money is free speech then I have no problem with declaring the illegal entry of millions of people coming in to this country as an invasion. Failure of the Executive to follow US law and repel the invaders is an impeachment offense. At least in the mind of a revolutionary. Don’t want nice soft words and liberal phrases anymore Stephen. They failed to get me anywhere in the debate 30-40 years ago. Don’t know how Jesus did it. Have a nice day!

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 11, 2008 12:14 PM
    Comment #270136

    David R. Remer-
    I have faith in the framework that those who began this nation created. If you read in between the lines of what I’m saying, you’ll find that I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t remove the corrupt or incompetent from power. Instead, I’m telling Dan that his notion of using broad based bias against incumbents will not work unless it attaches itself to the individual voter, and the candidates they are able to vote for.

    This is a Republic where the selection of members of congress was deliberately distributed to many communities. Any push to redeem this system MUST deal with its distributed nature, or its doomed to fail.

    The question then becomes one of delivering a message to the voters, and successfully persuading them to reach the conclusion we would set out.

    The Democrats I deal with do not want to trade bad Republicans for equally bad Democrats. We want more Democrats, but we also want better.

    Trust me, most Democrats are not impressed with what the incumbents have done. We’re looking to put the pressure on our leaders to serve the public good.

    We chose Obama for the same reasons you did: we’re looking to change not merely personnel, but the situation in Washington.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2008 12:20 PM
    Comment #270138

    Good points David. You said: “I spent time in the Democratic Party and 98% of the supporters/voters, rubber stamp what the party officials put before them, without ever taking an objective evaluative interest, nor even asking for that opportunity.” I’m sorry about that but I can understand you wanting to serve somehow. Good Grief! The laws of the land are derived the same way. Legislator’s don’t read the bills, nor could they, it’s not possible. Some bills get changed going between the House and the Senate. They spend 95% of their time working on corporate welfare bills and have little problem with a simple majority vote on a 10,000 page bill containing hundreds of other bills and earmarks relating to who knows what?
    Please let’s not call this operation a Democracy or a Republic. Insulting, even unto a child.

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!


    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 11, 2008 12:28 PM
    Comment #270145

    Roy Ellis-
    Let’s call it a Republic. Let’s call it a Democracy. The more we lower expectations of what can be done, the more those who meet such low expectations can do their damage.

    The problem is twofold: one of attitude, and one of ignorance. If we look at the main part of our government and say there’s no hope for it, then we’ve already undermined much of our motivation to get involved, or to get others involved. Secondly, if folks don’t know there’s a problem, or don’t know the full character of the problem, then naturally, they’ll be unmotivated there as well.

    Americans deserve better, and they know it.

    If you think the solution is to raise a third party to rival them, then you have to put the horse in front of the cart. Hoping for things to get so bad that people just randomly pick third parties is hoping for both the unlikely and the far too short term.

    What really needs to be done for the third party is to create a distinct political presence, something that’s not merely a reaction to the other parties, but which carries its own identity.

    I would suggest bootstrapping the party up through local and state offices. People don’t just vote for party, they vote for the abilities. Popular support is a critical part of any strategy to take a party nationwide. Unless and until third parties can demonstrate that they’d be good at running government, nobody’s going to trust them to run higher offices.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 11, 2008 1:25 PM
    Comment #270169
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: Instead, I’m telling d.a.n that his notion of using broad based bias against incumbents will not work unless it attaches itself to the individual voter, and the candidates they are able to vote for.
    That is yet another mischaracterization of my position.

    I advocate broad-base bias against “IRRESPONSIBLE” incumbent politicians.
    Not merely some random, arbitrary bias against all incumbent politicians.

    That’s an important distinction some people have trouble understanding; especially people that are severely blinded by partisan loyalties.
    Now, why can’t anyone name at least 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (of 535) in Congress that are responsible and/or competent enough to deserve re-election?
    How about 20?
    Gee, should that be so difficult?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- I’m all too aware of the issues at hand, about the IN-PARTY status.
    Good.

    Enjoy it while possible, because it won’t last long; especially with the hole we’re in now. In a few months, most voters will forget about George W. Bush (43), and voters will most likely blame the IN-PARTY.

    That may not be fair, but that’s the way it is, so Congress had better pull its head out of its ass, stop these abuses, stop crappin’ in the nest, and stop crappin’ on the voters.
    And constantly blaming everything on Republicans, and fueling and wallowing in the partisan warfare isn’t going to work much longer.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can sneer at my acceptance of one party over another …
    That’s not really the issue.

    Everyone has some partisan leanings.
    What some people may sneer at is blind, delusional, and misplaced partisan loyalties.
    How should people regard a pattern and history of statements that constantly demonize Republicans and appear to be potentially misplaced partisan loyalties:

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: They [voters] should be allying with us [Democrats].

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I do think voters should ally with Democrats.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … as I don’t like to hear people get down on my party, …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: In my opinion, the proper people to run this party are the voters who elect Democrats.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- If third parties can’t win offices, what good are they to the voter?

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers [independent/3rd party voters] only ensures being fringe…

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your [independent/3rd] parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Republicans have the choice, which I gladly let them have, of doing scuzzy things so they can make the Democrats look bad …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th] congress a do-nothing congress … {Why? What did do-nothing Congress accomplish since 7-NOV-2006 ?}

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think you’re underestimating the results of this last election. {We’ll see, since 95% of incumbents were re-elected.)

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the Green party for George W. Bush (43) getting elected?

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t disdain third parties.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s what Democrats like myself had to do, after all, to take back the majorities and the White House.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have significantly shifted the balance of power, despite all the barriers the Republicans put in place to keep their power.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: And yes, I obviously want voters to vote for Democrats. {Really? No kiddin’?}

    HMMMMMmmmmmmm … speaking of “sneering”, how would you characterize those comments above which demonstrate an obvious disdain for anything not-Democrat ?

    And what would your numerous writings in the Democrat column reveal about your disdain for Republicans?

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but I have few illusions of where my party can go if it fails to maintain a positive relationship with voters.
    HHMMMmmmmmm …

    Especially after all of the years of mimicry, pretzel imitations, and contortions to defend Democrats and demonize Republicans, or anything not-Democrat, despite the fact that there are truly few (if any) important differences between the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY, as evidenced by the IN/OUT-PARTY apparently only taking turns at crappin’ on the voters, which has thorougly been confusing the majority of voters for decades, who haven’t yet figured it out either.

    Here’s what I’d call a good example of rationalization and obfuscation to pave the way for mediocrity and explain Obama’s position on illegal immigration:

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t like the lax immigration enforcement, but I don’t think such bad enforcement is ipso facto constitutional, and there is nowhere where the language of the constitution presents poor immigration enforcement as an invasion.

    Thousands of Americans would disagree. Especially the thousands of Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens: VOIAC.org

    Perhaps you should read the constitution more carefully.
    Especially since past experience has already revealed some great difficulty understanding the “plain and obvious” language of the U.S. Constitution (e.g. Article V: FOAVC.org).
    For example, Section 4 of Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    • The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

    If neither the mention of “invasion” or “domestic violence” in the Constitution is convincing enough, there are federal and state laws against illegal immigration.

    Some people would most certainly characterize 12-to-20 Million illegal aliens as an invasion.
    Especially when more Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3 years than all U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the last 5 years.
    Especially when 29% of all incarcerated in our prisons (and not for merely one border trespass) are illegal aliens (Source: GAO-05-337).
    Especially when incarcerated illegal aliens in a study group of 55,322 illegal aliense were arrested an average of 13 times each.
    Especially when illegal immigration costs Americans an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion annually in net losses: One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens

    I find such rationalizations, obfuscations, and ignoring illegal immigration as despicable as the incumbent politicians who despicably pit Americans citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion. Using falsified documents, drivers’ licenses, and Social Security numbers is a felony. Obama said in a debate that he wants to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: … however right you may think you are, this system is set up to allow people to live and think and vote in ways you disagree with.
    Who ever said it wasn’t? That’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: No one person can dictate by law what is right or wrong to everybody.
    No kiddin’ ? Gee, thanks for letting us know that. Again, that’s quite a talent for stating the obvious. Why say it? Where did anyone ever say otherwise? Why the difficulty in understanding the difference between debate and the individual right of choice? You are very partisanly loyal. That’s your choice. Why worry about it even if some people suspect it is a misplaced loyalty? That’s your choice. That’s all voters’ choice.

    There’s also no need to feel threatened by others’ promoting their recommendations, as you also argue yours

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I do think voters should ally with Democrats.

    We’re able to recognize someone making a recommendation. It’s not an order that anyone must follow. So why try to portray others’ recommendations as failing to know the difference?

    • (1) Your goal is to persuade people to vote for Democrats.
    • (2) My goal is to persuade people to stop rewarding irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent incumbent politicians with 85%-to-95% re-election rates. Also, my goal, via education and logic, is to persuade people to do it sooner than later, because the longer voters vote irresponsibly, the more irresponsible government will grow, and the more pain and misery there will be that the voters bring onto themselves.

    People can try to mischaracterize my goal as arbitrary, too simple, hopeless, or whatever, but eventually, that is exactly what most voters will most likely do, as most unhappy voters did in year 1933, when they ousted a whopping 206 members of Congress (59 Democrats, 147 Republicans): One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm#GreatDepression

    In my opinion, and I hope I am wrong, Congress will continue to disappoint for many years to come.
    Voters may have sabotaged their next President/VP with 95% of the same incumbent politicians.
    If that’s true, voters will hopefully figure it out eventually, as they did in year 1933.
    Unfortunately, that revelation will also require considerably more pain and misery to provide sufficient motivation to vote more responsibly.
    But if that is what is needed, more pain and misery is now most likely already in the pipeline.
    Pain and misery is the alternative form of education, but learning the hard way is at least equally (if not more) effective as learning the smart way.

    Without sufficient levels of Education, Transparency, and Accountability, Power Corrupts, and absolute power Corrupts absolutely.

    • Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability

    • Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability

    • Virtue = the source of moral and ethical judgment; a sense of right and wrong; a sense of caring. A good conscience and Virtue is not merely knowing what is right or wrong, but caring enough to do what is right, and provides the motivation to seek the balance of Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Power required for any successful society, government, or organization;
    • Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
    • Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
    • Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
    • Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , and deserve, at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at November 11, 2008 5:42 PM
    Comment #270171

    Stephen, you can put lipstick on a pig but….. A corpocracy or an oligarchy, take your choice. When the government, in secrecy (even paying their own transportation to meetings to ensure no audit trail) and with no debate, public or otherwise, lays in place the groundwork for a Northamerican Union…..that’s the pig part.
    You said: “What really needs to be done for the third party is to create a distinct political presence, something that’s not merely a reaction to the other parties, but which carries its own identity.” Now that is something I agree with. I refer to that distinction as “a Party with a different political attitude. A Party with built-in citizens’ oversight whereby, if politicians stray to far from the Party’s agenda they are subject to a vote by the membership and may be rejected from their Party.” (www.demreps.com) I would suggest that is way to radical for you but, you must admit, it does put ACCOUNTABILITY into the political equation. In my county 32 voters out of some 4500 voted third party. A dismal 1.5% nationwide. That’s the very reason Joel felt compelled to write his post that began this thread. There ain’t much roots to the grassroots. It may seem like we are sitting and waiting for the walls to fall but not so. I, and many others, are bloggin every day, working to educate voters on issues, making the discord resonate with as many as we can reach. I keep my website current, keep the motor running. I’d like to say time is on our side but the way things are going at the present…..dunno? I am hopeful I can find a few blithering idiots and get this revolution started.

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 11, 2008 6:52 PM
    Comment #270189

    Stephen D. said: “I have faith in the framework that those who began this nation created. “

    Well, that is your first mistake. Because that framework no longer exists. The founding fathers never intended political parties when drafting the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended that the Senate be elected by the intellectual elite of the State Legislatures, not the less educated, vastly less informed, and mostly disinterested general public. Finally, the founding fathers intended for the House of Representatives to be elected by the literate, vested landowners with a real stake in what their representatives do in Congress.

    That framework you refer to was lost long ago. This hybrid system almost entirely controlled by political party bosses, whose sole reason for existence politically is the acquisition and maintenance of power, is proving a complete failure in addressing our nation’s future and its challenges.

    As I said before, Obama’s greatest obstacle to setting the nation on a more positive future path will be the Democratic Party itself. Obama is a pragmatist seeking a better America for his daughter. The Democratic Party leadership, if given a choice to between what’s right for the nation or what will keep them in power, will choose their power every time. We will see this play out again, and again. We are already seeing this play out in the auto industry, where bankrupting the nation further is the path of least resistance to keeping power by bailing the Big 3 out with tax dollars, instead of the vastly more prudent and sound course of soliciting private sector buyers of the Big 3, which will replace the Big 3’s management structure with better, and save future tax payers inordinately crippling higher taxes down the road.

    The Democratic leadership is choosing reelection in 2010 based on job retention, over the long term fiscal, financial, and economic health of the nation in the long term through replacement of ownership and management of the Big 3 with new management with vastly superior long term business acumen and philosophy.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at November 12, 2008 8:57 AM
    Comment #270191

    Way more sinister than that David. What we have running the government is pseudo politicians. Their real job is with private industry, Boeing, Lockheed, UBS (my buddy Phil), etc. Our politicians at the top level of government either came from big business or are headed for big business when. Revolving door. Goes way beyond the struggle to remain in office as a career. These folks, like my buddies Wendy and Phil, are simply participating in on the job training while working in government. The Executive is even sicker. Look no further than Paulson. Handing out billions to his wall st. buddies but we can’t know where the money goes or how it is spent. The corpocracy has hollowed out government by setting up these quasi-government or Independent agencies that serve the corpocracy. Well, you get my drift.
    Stephen, lemme try another one. We The People. Did not –
    elect to go into Iraq
    elect to join the Northamerican Union
    elect to support the SPP
    elect to join the WTO
    elect to join NAFTA, CAFTA, etc
    elect to save the world from poverty through globalization
    elect to suffer an invasion to solve the world’s economic problems
    elect to bailout the billionaires who have worked so long and hard to break the back of the middle class
    elect to refuse border enforcement to curb the violence and $40B annual drug trade
    elect to do away with anti-trust and merger them up
    elect to drive the cost of education and healthcare beyond the reach of millions
    elect to abolish usury laws
    elect to allow unregulated (secret) hedgefunds to leverage at 90:1
    elect to allow big oil to establish their own (secret) trade organization
    elect to compete the middle class worker against the cheapest labor in the world


    Yup, I could crash the server with my grievances (well since d.a.n. hasn’t been able to do that I guess I am exhibiting some exuberance). But, you get my drift. Secrecy is the great friend of tyranny. Viva Jean Monnet, etc.

    Damn, this is good. Think I’ll put it in my local paper!

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 12, 2008 9:43 AM
    Comment #270193

    This one grievance arrived to late to include in my post. I’d like to include it as an ‘add on’.
    From DOWNSIZE DC:
    D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

    Quote of the Day: “Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds.” — John Perry Barlow

    Subject: Bailout bill contains buried provisions to invade your privacy

    Do you think the IRS should set up undercover operations to entrap unsuspecting taxpayers?

    Do you think the IRS should release your confidential tax returns to law enforcement and intelligence agencies upon request?

    If you answered “No!” to either question, you’re out of luck. Before its October recess, Congress passed a bill giving the IRS these powers.

    You may ask, “Why didn’t Downsize DC oppose this bill?”

    As a matter of fact, we wrote against it virtually non-stop for two weeks!

    Don’t remember?

    That’s understandable. These provisions are buried in Sections 401 and 402 of Division C in H.R. 1424, the Bailout bill.

    The Bailout, or “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act,” has a wild history. In just twelve days it morphed from …

    * A three-page proposal by the Bush Administration
    * To a 110-page amendment attached to an unrelated bill that was rejected by the House
    * To a 422-page bill passed by Congress and signed into law.

    The Library of Congress’s summary of the bill is nearly 6,200 words, or 14 pages! (The final Public Print version of the bill, in smaller fonts, is 169 pages.)

    In other words, the bailout bill went from bad to worse, in the space of just a few days, and the final price tag included not just $700 billion, but your privacy rights as well.

    Next week, we’ll explain how the One Subject At A Time Act would have prevented the Bailout bill from passing. This week, however, we’ll note how things would have been different under the Read the Bills Act.

    * Because the Bailout bill would have gone through a full reading before a qorum in each chamber, Congress would have had incentives to make it as understandable and as brief as possible, with few unrelated provisions and earmarks.
    * Because there would have been a seven-day waiting period before voting on passage, members of Congress would have had time to really consider the arguments for and against it.
    * Because the bill would have been posted on the Internet during those seven days, Congress would have had an incentive to cut out objectionable parts, such as giving the IRS more power.

    Under the Read the Bills Act, Congress would be prevented from spending only a few days to write and pass 400+ page bills costing nearly a trillion dollars. The Read the Bills Act would also make it harder for Congress to attach completely unrelated provisions, such as giving the IRS increased powers to invade your privacy.

    Please use our Educate the Powerful System to demand that your Representative and Senators introduce the Read the Bills Act.

    In your personal comments, tell them about the IRS provisions in the Bailout bill. Ask them if they knew about these provisions when they voted on the bill. Ask them if this bill was really passed with the “consent of the governed,” given that members of Congress didn’t read and couldn’t understand the bill.

    Please also place a Read the Bills Act Coalition button, banner, or tower-ad on your blog or website. This will raise awareness of the Read the Bills Act. In return, your site will be linked at DownsizeDC.org and be mentioned in a Downsizer-Dispatch reaching over 24,000 subscribers. For more information, write to rtbacoalition@downsizedc.org.

    This week we welcome Worldwide Sawdust to the Coalition.

    Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC army.

    James Wilson
    ASsistant to the President
    DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 12, 2008 10:21 AM
    Comment #270204
    Roy Ellis wrote: We The People did not:
    • elect to go into Iraq
    • elect to join the Northamerican Union
    • elect to support the SPP
    • elect to join the WTO
    • elect to join NAFTA, CAFTA, etc
    • elect to save the world from poverty through globalization
    • elect to suffer an invasion to solve the world’s economic problems
    • elect to bailout the billionaires who have worked so long and hard to break the back of the middle class
    • elect to refuse border enforcement to curb the violence and $40B annual drug trade
    • elect to do away with anti-trust and merger them up
    • elect to drive the cost of education and healthcare beyond the reach of millions
    • elect to abolish usury laws
    • elect to allow unregulated (secret) hedgefunds to leverage at 90:1
    • elect to allow big oil to establish their own (secret) trade organization
    • elect to compete the middle class worker against the cheapest labor in the world
    Roy Ellis, good list.

    The federal government is FOR-SALE, corrupt, and out-of-control, and it will be extremely difficult (and painful) to remedy.
    Especially when so many voters repeatedly reward Congress with 85%-to-95% re-election rates: One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm
    That is, we are all cuplable, but it will probably be most of the voters who suffer the painful consequences for so many decades of fiscal and moral bankruptcy.
    Usury, predatory lending, uncapped ARMs, 35% credit card interest rates, fraud, and other manifestations of unchecked greed, were all a HUGE part of what created and exacerbated the deteriorating economy.

    That is mostly the fault (in order of degree) of:

    • Wall Street, lending/mortgage corporations, their lobbyists, the Federal Reserve (a dishonest, usurious, inflationary, pyramid scheme), member banks, and other banks, which used usurious, predatory (if not criminal) lending practices, created massive toxic debt and numerous hazardous, risky, and exotic investment vehicles (e.g CDSs, SIVs, ABSs, CDOs, subprime CDOs, squared CDOs, CPDOs, SPVs, VIEs, etc.), and then ignored those growing prolems;

    • then Congress which was an accomplice to all of it, and also ignored the growing problems;

    • then the Executive branch for pushing home ownship which created bad loans.

    • then many borrowers and homeowners who foolishly signed up for loans they couldn’t afford.

    • then voters for repeatedly rewarding THEIR incumbent politicians for all of it.

    Roy Ellis, The difference between (a) you and too few others, and (b) too many partisan loyalists, is that you understand that more of the same is not working, and won’t work, until enough voters also understand it is not only not working, but creating more fiscal and moral bankruptcy, which leads to more pain and misery.

    I believe most Americans believe things can and should be better than they are.
    However, most Americnas obviously don’t know HOW to make things better.
    Unfortuately, too many Americans do not yet see the correlation between worsening fiscal and moral bankruptcy, and the voters’ propensity to reward THEIR politicians with 85%-to-95% re-election rates.
    It’s not hard to understand.
    Americans are not really that unintelligent, are they?
    Therefore, there must be another reason:

    • self delusion

    Thus, the goal is trying define the root reasons for that delusion, and try to persuade voters that the real problem is not only:

    • (1) too many irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and incompetent incumbent politicians,

    • (2) but also, too many voters that either don’t know it; won’t admit it; or don’t care; … at least until it becomes too painful.

    Partisan loyalties and bad voting habits can have several root causes (e.g. ignorance, greed, laziness, self-delusion, insanity, complacency, apathy, selfishness, greed, lust for power, prejudice, etc.).

    Regardless, it almost always includes some self-delusion, because some partisan loyalists refuse to believe that they are doing the same thing over-and-over (which some people might even define as insanity), much less that it will eventually yield an improved result, when in reality, it is actually the path to more pain and misery.

    It is easier, but ONLY for a limited amount of time,:

    • (01) to let THEIR party do their thinking for them, assume that THEIR party has already carefully thought most things all through, and is truly lookin’ out for them, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary and the voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress. The truth could be embarrassing, which explains the reluctance to face the truth.

    • (02) to simply blame the OTHER party, rather than admit few (if any) real differences of any importance.

    • (03) to pull the party-lever, than do the work to research voting records, deeds, and official positions and policies. Many voters don’t even know who their Congress persons are, much less their voting records.

    • (04) like water running down-hill, to choose the path of least resistance, which lazily ignores the inevitable consequences which eventually results in more pain and misery.

    • (05) to conform to group-think.

    • (06) to be partisan-centric, or person-centric, rather than principle-centric, educated, and informed.

    • (07) to wallow in the circular, distracting, partisan warfare, and portray the OTHER party as evil and the root of our problems. Naturally, many politicians are experts at fueling the circular partisan warfare, and capitalizing on many voters’ laziness, and propensity to pull the party-lever. Who among us has never pulled the party-lever? The party-lever was one of the many clever mechanisms that help maintain very high re-election rates for incumbent politicians. Another very clever mechanism is the No-Same-Party-Challenger(s) mechanism. Since so many voters have been brainwashed to hate politicians in the OTHER party, they are more likely to re-elect the incumbent in THEIR party, despite the voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress. Often, even convicted felons (such as Ted Stevens) and indicted politicians (such as William Jefferson caught red-handed with dirty money hidden in his freezer) are repeatedly rewarded with re-election.

    • (08) to emphasize insignificant differences or indeterminable issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc.), to exaggerate and grow the partisan divide, to fuel the partisan warfare, rather than work at unity to solve other problems that most voters already agree upon (i.e. both the problem and solution).

    • (09) to ignore the important issues even THEIR own politicians are wrong about (e.g. illegal immigration, regressive taxation, unnecessary wars, etc.), or sacrifice previous held principles by mimicing a pretzel while trying to somehow rationalize, minimize, and/or justify.

    • (10) to not only ignore, but empower and enhance the many other clever mechanisms and unfair advantages that help maintain 85%-to-95% re-election rates for incumbent politicians.

    • (11) to rationalize blind partisan loyalty with the excuses:
      • that the OTHER party is worse (which isn’t likely to any significan degree, except for the usual shift of abused power and obstructionism available to the current IN-PARTY/OUT-PART);

      • that things are getting better when they are actually getting worse; or that things are still getting worse is the fault of the OTHER party;

      • that change takes a long time and it is unrealistic and unfair to expect more improvment (thus, lowering expectations and rationalizing the lack of results);

    • (12) for too many voters to blame anything but themselves … at least until that becomes too painful.

    • (13) to refuse to try to name 50, 100, 200, or merely 268 (half of 535) incumbent politicians in Congress that are not irresponsible, corrupt, FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent, and deserve re-election, despite voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress. It is easier to pretend that the problem is everyone else’s incumbent politicians, and/or ONLY the OTHER party.

    David R. Remer wrote: We are already seeing this play out in the auto industry, where bankrupting the nation further is the path of least resistance to keeping power by bailing the Big 3 out with tax dollars, instead of the vastly more prudent and sound course of soliciting private sector buyers of the Big 3, which will replace the Big 3’s management structure with better, and save future tax payers inordinately crippling higher taxes down the road.
    Excellent solution and an excellent point about the need for new management, rather than bail-outs that will probably fail !

    Most Americans are tapped out, deep in debt, losing income via inflation and job loss, and losing their homes.
    The federal government is the spender of the last resort.
    The danger we face today is the massive debt ($10.7-to-$23.5 Trillion National Debt, and $54-to-$67 Trillion nation-wide debt, if including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching) that we already faced before the credit crunch occurred (due to mistrust and a myriad of huge and complex, toxic debt and derivatives of which no one is knows the true severity and danger).

    QUESTION: How much money will the federal government have to borrow and create out of thin air?
    ANSWER: A LOT ! ! ! Trillions.

    This may be our last chance to get it right, or millions of Americans many suffer many years of painful consequences.
    And it may already be too late?
    It may already be unrealistic to believe Congress will now suddenly turn over a new leaf.
    Especially since voters recently rewarded most (95%) incumbents in Congress with re-election again.

    If that money is not spent correctly, and steps aren’t taken toward realistic long term sustainability (instead of unsustainable, exponential growth that creates bubble after bubble), a mixture of:

    • massive nation-wide debt,

    • more inflation of food and energy (possibly, hyperinflation which would crash the currency and make a bad situation much worse);

    • more deflation of homes and land;

    • falling incomes;

    • more foreclosures;

    • more unemployment in an economy that is 70% consumer driven and experiencing a major decrease in demand;

    • continuance of these 10 abuses,

    • and numerous other pressing problems
    … all culminating simultaneously, have a strong possibility of creating a very long and deep recession, or a depression, or worse. Anyone who still thinks the economy is “fundamentally sound”, or that Americans are merely suffering a “mental recession”, or still don’t believe we currently are not in a “recession”, is truly delusional, in denial, and out of touch with reality.

    At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at November 12, 2008 12:24 PM
    Comment #270207

    Thanks Dan. I gotta go rake leaves. Hold me up if a DemRep comes along.

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 12, 2008 12:45 PM
    Comment #270245

    Dan-
    Not everybody has the intense interest in politics that we do. Calling on people to name fifty congresscritters… I mean, that’s some serious research. I could probably name many folks, but I don’t memorize much less keep in mind every member.

    You’re a smart enough guy, but sometimes you overcomplicate things. Keeping track of four or five people in depth, folks you actually vote for, is what people need to do. If everybody keeps a closer eye on those who do respresent them, who they do have a vote on, then effect overall will be good.

    I don’t see things in terms of blame. I see things in terms of responsibility. Yes, we will get blamed for more. We’re a bigger target. But if we do our jobs, if we do our best, people will appreciate our efforts. What bothered people about Bush was that he would never acknowledge his mistakes, take responsibility, and let go of failing policies before things came to a crisis.

    On the subject of immigration enforcement, you can get all melodramatic about it, but we have laws, and they should be enforced. The problem comes when you try to enforce them after years of lax response to the problem.

    But twisting and broadly misinterpreting the language of the Constitution doesn’t do much good. The Constitution already gives congress and the executive branch the authority to regulate and manage naturalization, to determine who can and cannot become a citizen, and how. You do not need to cite some part of the Constitution that deals with a military invasion by an army in order to deal with this.

    If you are truly conservative about the constitution, truly a strict constructionist, then such rhetorical excesses will not figure into your interpretation. An invasion is an invasion, a flood of illegal immigrants is a flood of illegal immigrants. The founding fathers clearly distinguished between the two.

    On the subject of licenses? First, just how do you expect the person at the counter in the DMV, DPS or whatever department to distinguish between illegal aliens and regular citizens. They aren’t ICE agents. In the meantime, getting a license and keeping it means demonstrating that you can actually drive. If illegal immigrants are to drive, and they will until you catch them with people qualified to suss them out, you might as well make sure they can drive.

    Do I need to cite the constitution with melodramatic flourishes aimed at equal rights and all that other stuff? No. There is a simple, practical argument. I don’t lean on the constitution to give the overbearing force to every argument.

    Roy Ellis-
    First, you must get your arguments on better footing. So often, the approach of those on the third party seems to be one of arrogance; if you don’t agree with me, you’re just some dupe or moron. If that is how you approach people, where are going to get the people to start the party up?

    The Republicans are in desperate straits now because they’ve become dependent on rural voters with certain cultural views to maintain their party’s strength. The trouble is, America is mostly urban and suburban.

    If you don’t get your ducks in a row with your arguments, they’ll have you for lunch. These people don’t want conspiracy theories or push-button topics. They want their country fixed. Democrats have won this election because they have consistently put forward an image of being the party that’s got its act together.

    David R. Remer-
    The literal, point for point framework no longer exists, but the essential superstructure still does. This is still a government with checks and balances.

    As for the Big 3? Well, I don’t see how we can let them collapse. But think strategically. I think what we’re going to do is say, okay, you want a bailout? You pay for it by improving mileage and emissions. You pay for it by making plug-ins and electrics available much sooner. No more being a technological millstone around the country’s neck.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2008 7:40 AM
    Comment #270255

    Stephen, good buddy, you just don’t understand where I am coming fron. You can’t ‘fix’ this country until you REFORM the government. Change ain’t worth the powder to blow it to hell. REFORM is needed and we won’t be getting NONE of that. The status quo works just fine for the duopoly, the corpocracy, the oligarchy, the oiligarchy. Re immigration; we are 40 years into this problem. Being nice ain’t going to cut it. First, amnesty for 3-4M and now gearing up for another 10-20M. I can only repeat myself; if the Supreme Court can make the stretch that corporations are human then I sure as hell can suggest to you that we are suffering an economic and cultural invasion. The time for nicities is when we start collecting registration for a new third party. Right now I am working on the REVOLUTION. That’s what I’d like for you to understand.

    Otherwise, we have the government we deserve!

    Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 13, 2008 10:50 AM
    Comment #270275

    Roy Ellis-
    No revolution succeeds or succeeds for long without public support. As for whether my party’s Change works, we’ll see. But I’ll tell you this: most Democrats want things really changed. We supported our party in this past election to get the people we needed to get in office to overcome the Republican’s obstinance.

    What happens from there? I don’t rightly know yet, but This guy is arguing that Obama’s election represents a historical reboot of America, on par with the election of Lincoln and FDR.

    God I hope so. As for the government we deserve? I believe the fundamental principle of Democracy is that we will never get the government we deserve merely on accident; it’s something we must fight for. Well, people are fighting, and if we don’t get it from Obama, we’re going to get it from somebody.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 13, 2008 3:24 PM
    Comment #270287
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Calling on people to name fifty congresscritters… I mean, that’s some serious research. I could probably name many folks, but I don’t memorize much less keep in mind every member.
    It’s not that difficult.

    I could list the voting records of 50 Congress persons with an hour (perhaps less), and then read them in an hour or two.
    It’s not necessary to read everything, since it’s not hard to quickly see that most (if not all) have voting records full of supporting and/or voting on pork-barrel, subsidies, corporate welfare, waste, unnecessary wars, shamnesty BILLs for illegal aliens, regressive taxation, Gerrymandering, constitutional violations, against election reform, irresponsible spending, and cu$hy perkS and raises for themselves (e.g. 9 times between 1997 and 2007 while our troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and are forced into 2, 3, 4, or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan).

    And today, when voters give Congress 9%-to-18% approval ratings, but then reward Congress with 95% re-election rates, it is a perfectly valid question and/or exercise.

    Besides, for years, no one has even provided more than a 3 or 4 names.
    I’ve looked at the voting records of almost all in Congress (prior to the last election of 4-NOV-2008), and the percentage of voting records that I thought were acceptable (in ALL political parties) was very small, and that is largely because almost all (if not all) support or vote on pork-barrel, subsidies, corporate welfare, waste, unnecessary wars, shamnesty BILLs for illegal aliens, regressive taxation, Gerrymandering, constitutional violations, against election reform, irresponsible spending, and cu$hy perkS and raises for themselves (e.g. 9 times between 1997 and 2007 while our troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and are forced into 2, 3, 4, or more tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan).
    I think the reason is because the number of incumbent politicians that are not FOR-SALE, corrupt, irresponsible, and/or incompetent is very small.
    But anyone, feel free anytime to try and disprove it.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re a smart enough guy, but sometimes you overcomplicate things. Keeping track of four or five people in depth, folks you actually vote for, is what people need to do. If everybody keeps a closer eye on those who do respresent them, who they do have a vote on, then effect overall will be good.
    No, it’s not that complicated.

    That is a typical obfuscation.
    Today, it is not hard to see voting records for all Congress persons all in one place.
    Here’s a good place to do it: OneTheIssues.org
    Also, it’s not necessary to do all 535.
    Just do a few dozen, and extrapolate (i.e. based on a percentage).
    See, that’s not so complicated.
    The sad fact is, too few voters even know who their Congress persons are, much less the Congress persons’ voting records.
    It’s sad indeed, when that information is now so widely available.

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t see things in terms of blame. I see things in terms of responsibility. Yes, we will get blamed for more. We’re a bigger target. But if we do our jobs, if we do our best, people will appreciate our efforts.
    Good luck. How’s that gonna happen with 95% of the same Congress?
    Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of immigration enforcement, you can get all melodramatic about it, …
    Tell that crap to the survivors of the Americans murdered by illegal aliens.

    Tell that crap to the U.S. police that have been murdered by illegal aliens.

    How will it feel if someday, you or one of your loved ones are victims of crime by illegal aliens (crimes that should have never occurred)?

    I’m sure the survivors of the following murdered policemen and women will find your comment as despicable as the despicable incumbent politicians who despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion:

    • Dallas, Texas: Police Officer Brian Jackson became another open borders statistic on Nov. 13 when he was shot and killed by illegal alien Juan Lizcano Lizcano had become drunk and went to the home of his ex-girfriend 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.
      “From Day One, he just enjoyed police work and took pride in it. And he always wanted to learn everything he could. He was very dedicated,” Officer Carcone said. “He went above and beyond. “He’d stay late. He’d cover anybody. He was always looking to help everybody he could.” Jackson was 28 and had worked previously as part of an ambulance team. He had gotten married just two months ago.

    • The murder of Kris Eggle, a park ranger in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona on August 9, 2002, was little noted by the media, although the press has paid considerable attention to the deaths of illegal aliens on the border. By contrast, Ranger Eggle was shot down by Mexican drug dealers who were using Organ Pipe as a route for their smuggling. Only 28 when he was murdered, Eggle was a valedictorian and an Eagle Scout who joined the National Park Service because he loved the outdoors. (Organ Pipe is considered to be the most dangerous of the national park system: 200,000 illegal aliens and 700,000 pounds of drugs were intercepted at the park in 2001.) The Eggle family is determined that his death will not be forgotten by working for real border control, including a Washington press conference with Tom Tancredo in the fall of 2002. The Eggles have a family website, www.kriseggle.org, to inform interested parties about what they are doing.

    • Los Angeles, CA.: The lives of many law enforcement officers have been lost at the criminal hands of violent illegal aliens. One such was David March, a Los Angeles, California County Sheriff who was killed when he pulled over a car for a routine traffic stop. The driver was a dangerous Mexican drug dealer, Armando Garcia, who had been deported twice and has a long history of violent crime. After shooting Sheriff March twice in the head, Garcia was able to escape and is believed to be in Mexico, where officials refuse to send him back for trial. Garcia is also wanted for two attempted murders. At least one member of Congress, Adam Schiff, has called for President Bush to insist that Mexico extradite violent felons. Furthermore, the Attorneys General for all 50 states wrote to Ashcroft and Secretary of State Colin Powell to demand action on the extradition issue.

    • It has been a decade since Oregon State Police Trooper Bret Clodfelter was murdered by an illegal alien, but the crime has not been forgotten. Trooper Clodfelter of Klamath Falls had arrested three Mexican men for being drunk and disorderly, then offered them a ride and was murdered for his generosity. The prosecuter sought the death penalty, but one dissenting juror meant Francisco Manzo-Hernandez got life in prison instead. To add to the tragedy, Clodfelter’s widow Rene committed suicide a year after her husband was murdered. The couple had been married just over a month when the murder occurred.

    • Officer Sheila Herring was lost to a bullet from an illegal alien in an early morning altercation at a Norfolk bar on January 16. The accused man, Mario Roberto Keen, a citizen of Jamaica, had reportedly shot a man in the bar after which the police were called. When several officers arrived, Keen opened fire and shot Officer Herring who died later in surgery. Keen was shot and killed at the scene. He had been sentenced to five years in prison in 1990 for selling cocaine and was later deported. Keen attempted to re-enter the United States in New York in 1997, but was reportedly barred from entering. It is not known when Keen succeeded in entering the U.S. But back to Sheila Herring: from all accounts she was an excellent police officer and loved her job. She had been a cop in Detroit for ten years before moving to Virginia. She was 39 and had an 18-year-old daughter.

    • Phoenix Police Officer Robert Sitek was shot four times 4/12/03 during a traffic stop altercation with an illegal alien that became violent. Sitek and his partner David Thwing were on routine patrol when a red truck cut off their squad car, and when the officers stopped the truck the driver began shooting. Officer Sitek was in cardiac arrest by the time he reached the hospital and lost a considerable amount of blood. Shooter Francisco A. Gallardo was a “Mexican citizen who had recently completed a seven-year prison term for aggravated assault.” He had been deported after his release but had returned to Arizona. Gallardo was shot and killed as he tried to escape by Officer Thwing.
      Medical Update, June 5, 2003: Officer Rob Sitek has had a slow but gradually successful recovery from injuries that surely would have been fatal to most. At nearly two months after the shooting, he has pulled out of a three-week coma, is still unable to walk but is determined to do so and eventually return to work.

    • Marc Atkinson was just 28 when he was shot and killed in a 1999 ambush by an illegal alien from Mexico. Officer Atkinson was a five-year veteran of the Phoenix Police Force, and was survived by his wife Karen, infant son and two siblings. The killer, Felipe Petrona-Cabanas, had around a pound of cocaine in his car when apprehended with two other Mexican nationals. The three came from a farming area in the state of Guerrero near Acapulco, and said they came to the United States to work but couldn’t find any. A notable detail in the case is how an armed citizen, Rory Vertigan, came to the aid of the shot officer and helped apprehend the Mexicans, who certainly would have escaped over the border if they could have.

    • Officer Kenneth Collings of the Phoenix Police Department was killed in 1988 during the arrest of two robbery suspects at a local bank when one opened fire. One of the robbers, Ismael Conde, was quickly arrested but the other, Rudy Romero, escaped to Mexico. Romero was caught in southern Mexico in 2000 and brought back to stand trial. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office credits help from the Phoenix Police Department, the FBI, the Attorney General for the Republic of Mexico, and the Mexican Federal Agency of Investigation — a rare and welcome act of extradition from our southern neighbor. In March 2003, Romero was sentenced to 98 years in state prison.

    • Officer Hugo Arango of the Doraville (Georgia) Police Department was murdered by an illegal alien Bautista Ramirez May 13, 2000 — there’s no dispute about those facts. But the June trial has not been a pretty picture as admitted cop-killer Ramirez pleaded self-defense because he thought Officer Arango would kill him otherwise, saying “if I don’t kill him, he’s going to kill me.” The prosecution contends that Ramirez shot the police officer simply to avoid arrest. The original altercation occurred outside a nightclub, when Arango approached Ramirez, then 19, and his cousin. Ramirez was an illegal alien from Mexico, and possessed a concealed gun. Also injured by Ramirez was nightclub manager David Contreras, who survived being shot in the face. Update, June 25, 2003: Bautista Ramirez was found guilty of the murder of Officer Arango, as well as of carrying a concealed weapon and aggravated assault against David Contreras, who was blinded in one eye in the attack. Evidently the jury was not impressed with the defense strategy of blaming the victim. The jury decided Ramirez should get life in prison (with the possibility of parole) plus 20 years for shooting Contreras and one year for gun possession. According to the strange math of sentencing, the convicted cop killer could be out in 46 years or less.

    • Oceanside Officer Tony Zeppetella was a rookie cop, who had been in the department just over a year, when he was shot three times and killed in a credit union parking lot by Adrian George Camacho, a Mexican illegal alien with a long criminal record. Officer Zeppetella was married with a six-month-old child. He was born in Whittier and enlisted in the navy after he graduated from high school in 1994. Tony Zeppetella was 27 years old when he was killed. The accused killer had been deported several times, and his criminal record lists drugs, illegal firearms possession and gang activity. Camacho fled the scene of the shooting to the home of his ex-wife’s parents, and was taken into custody only after a four-hour standoff.

    • Adriana Sanchez is a desired target for identity thieves because of her Latino name. The young woman had already passed a credit history check in order to get hired as a Los Angeles police officer, so she was surpised to find that someone in Atlanta had stolen her identity and had rung up $70,000 in debt. Sanchez, who works as a public information officer for the LAPD, felt a personal affront as well as ripped off, remarking, “You feel like you’re being violated… . She even had my mom’s address.” Investigators familiar with identity theft have noticed that thieves look for similar names to rip off. The LAPD officer’s ID was stolen by someone named Adriana Sanchez-Palacios, who was charged in September for fraud and identity theft because the crime victim in this case knew exactly what to do. The problem of identity theft has gotten so bad that some companies are offering identity theft insurance.

    • Border Patrol Agent James Epling died in performing his duties along the Mexican border, apparently drowning in the Colorado River in pursuit of several illegal aliens and was last seen along the shoreline as he followed the foreigners. He was the seventh Border officer to die in the line of duty in Yuma. Agent Epling was just 24 and was the father of three, going on four. His father-in-law is a retired Border Patrol agent from the McAllen, Texas, sector. Just before disappearing, Epling had pulled a Chinese woman illegal alien out of the river. Three other Chinese were taken into custody the night of the disappearance, along with one Mexican believed to be the smuggler. Although there has been no evidence of foul play actually found, the smuggler can be charged in the death.

    • Denver police officer Robert Bryant was struck down in a hit-and-run as he was flagging down speeders near a school at around 3 in the afternoon January 22. There were numerous witnesses who said the driver gunned the engine of his Chevy S-10 pickup and purposely ran down Bryant, who was wearing a bright orange vest. The driver, a Mexican with no identification, was caught when he ran a red light a few blocks away and crashed into a car driven by an elderly man, who was also injured. Officer Bryant received serious injuries including a femur fracture but is expected to recover. Those who saw the incident say it is a miracle that he wasn’t killed The Mexican driver apparently was drunk or on drugs, according to investigators and was injured in the crash.

    • Officer Will Seuis a motorcycle patrolman in Oakland, California, was killed on his ride home by an illegal alien. Fortunately some witnesses on the highway immediately phoned 911 and the accused hit-and-run driver, Carlos Mares, was quickly caught. Mares was driving his truck with a commercial load. A sixteen-year veteran of the Police Department, Officer Seuis was remembered at his funeral as a hard-working cop who had received 33 letters of appreciation from citizens, including one from a motorist he had ticketed. He had been in traffic enforcement since 1998, and was a member of the department’s 20-member precision motorcycle drill team. Seuis left a wife, Michelle, and two daughters. The accused killer has a history of traffic convictions. It’s curious that illegal alien Mares has his own business, Mares Trucking.

    • Officer Michael Gordon lost his life to a drunk driving illegal alien. The Chicago policeman was in the driver’s seat of his squad car when it was struck by Luis Calle, a Guatemalan whose blood alcohol level was 0.177, twice the legal limit. Another officer, John Delcason, sustained injuries and was in fair condition in the hospital a few days after the incident. Luis Calle died a few hours after striking the police car. Michael Gordon is survived by his wife and four children. Several of his relatives have also been police officers, including his father, brother, uncle and cousin. Before entering the police department, Gordon joined the 81st Airborne right after high school, serving in Bosnia and Korea. As a policeman, he asked to be assigned to a tough part of Chicago because he wanted to do more than just write tickets.

    • We must add the name of Brandon Winfield to the list of police officers murdered by illegal aliens. On Thursday, Oct. 14, Officer Winfield was checking out a disabled vehicle on State Route 423, south of Marion, Ohio, and apparently felt he was helping a stranded motorist. Details of the murder are not exactly clear, but Winfield was found shot in the head in his patrol car which had run off the road. The police are now searching for Juan Carlos Cruz who is considered armed and dangerous. Another suspect, as yet unnamed, is being held and is believed to be an illegal alien. Deputy Winfield was married and had two sons, ages 2 and 3. The photo shows him with his three-year-old son Landon.

    • There is an estimated 3.6 to 12 or more homicides per day by illegal aliens. Even if the lowest estimate (3.6) is used, the rate is double the norm. If it is 12 homicides per day, that is 6.7 times the norm.

    • More: One-Simple-Idea.com/CrimeVictimsOfIllegalAliens1.htm , VOIAC.org , ImmigrationsHumanCost.org

      In addition, not even including the untold cost of homicides and other crimes by illegal aliens, there are estimated net losses of $70-to-$327 Billion per year (One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm) for Americans due to illegal immigration due to numerous burdens on:

      • burden on education systems: www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researchf6ad

      • burden on healthcare systems: www.sendemback.org/essays/authors/madelein/medicine.htm

      • burden on hospital systems (www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693); 84 hospitals closed/closing in California (www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693); 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp); same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.!

      • burden on welfare systems (www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html); over 32% of illegal aliens collect welfare

      • burden on Medicaid system;

      • burden on Social Security and Medicare systems;

      • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;

      • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;

      • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;

      • burden on prison systems; 29% of state and federal prisoners (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens (www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c);

      • 2.3 million displaced American workers; partly because half of all illegal aliens that don’t pay taxes, and greedy employers that don’t pay unemployment taxes, Social Security, Medicare taxes, etc.;

      • voter fraud; burden on voting systems; an estimated 3% of all votes being cast are by illegal aliens (www.youtube.com/watch?v=On4jctZLlc8);

      So, does that mean you support another amnesty BILL like the last Comprehensive Immigration Reform BILL defeated JUNE-2007 ?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … we have laws, and they should be enforced. The problem comes when you try to enforce them after years of lax response to the problem.
      That is only a problem of a fraction of illegal aliens that are truly innocent, and may have come to the U.S. illegally as a child, are now adults, and are no longer dependent on anyone.

      But it doesn’t justify giving up, and passing another shamnesty BILL, which will make the problem worse, as the shamnesty of 1986 did, which increased illegal immigration from 3-to-4 Million to 12-to-20 Million. It doesn’t justify despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion.

      The solution:

      • (01) Secure the borders immediately
      • .
      • (02) Stop ignoring existing laws now. Immediately begin to enforce the existing laws to prosecute illegal employers.

      • (03) Then pass a BILL to provide a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons, which are some persons that were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S., and are no longer dependent on their parents. This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.

      • (04) Require deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).

      • (05) Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires. Prosecute violators.

      • (06) Pass an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for illegal alien births. Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports.

      • (07) Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

      • (08) Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare.

      • (09) Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

      • (10) Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

      • (11) Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

      • (12) Provide pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

      • (13) With no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, education, etc.), the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

      • (14) Lastly, voters must recognize that nothing is likely to ever improve as long as voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians to (despicably) pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

      But a blanket amnesty could quadruple the problem again, as millions more illegal aliens flood across the borders to get their amnesty too.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But twisting and broadly misinterpreting the language of the Constitution doesn’t do much good.
      Nonsense. There’s no twisting. But the usual obfuscation, construction, twisting, re-interpretations, and yet another pretzel imitation is not at all surprising.

      What part of “and against domestic violence” isn’t clear in Section 4 of Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:

      • The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Constitution already gives congress and the executive branch the authority to regulate and manage naturalization, to determine who can and cannot become a citizen, and how. You do not need to cite some part of the Constitution that deals with a military invasion by an army in order to deal with this.
      Why not. It’s applicable.

      Besides, I also wrote above:

      If neither the mention of “invasion” or “and against domestic violence” in the Constitution is convincing enough, there are federal and state laws against illegal immigration.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you are truly conservative about the constitution, truly a strict constructionist, then such rhetorical excesses will not figure into your interpretation. An invasion is an invasion, a flood of illegal immigrants is a flood of illegal immigrants. The founding fathers clearly distinguished between the two.
      That conveniently overlooks the part which states: “and against domestic violence”.

      So it doesn’t matter.
      Either way, it is illegal.
      Besides, “invasion” is exactly what many would call it.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of licenses? First, just how do you expect the person at the counter in the DMV, DPS or whatever department to distinguish between illegal aliens and regular citizens. They aren’t ICE agents.
      Is that a serious question?

      Or is the next version of a pretzel imitation?
      So you also believe illegal aliens should be given drivers’ licenses?

      To answer your question, they should be arrested, fingerprinted, fined, and deported.
      Crossing our borders illegally once is only a misdemeanor.
      But driving illegally is a more serious crime, which should probably result in deportation (especially if it isn’t the first offense).
      At the very least, the first offense should result in an arrest, fingerprinting, and a fine.

      What do you think will happen to a U.S citizen for driving without auto insurance, much less no drivers’ license?
      How is giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses going to help identify illegal aliens better?
      By having “ILLEGAL ALIEN” printed on the drivers’ licenses?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In the meantime, getting a license and keeping it means demonstrating that you can actually drive. If illegal immigrants are to drive, and they will until you catch them with people qualified to suss them out, you might as well make sure they can drive.
      Unbelievable !

      Is this your new pretzel imitation act?
      So existing laws should be ignored?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t lean on the constitution to give the overbearing force to every argument.
      Of course not. Instead, simply ignore or re-interpret the Constitution, and become a pretzel in the process.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Democrats have won this election because they have consistently put forward an image of being the party that’s got its act together.
      Yeah right!

      Let’s see how long that smug, partisan, self-righteous, self-satisfaction lasts.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: David R. Remer- The literal, point for point framework no longer exists, but the essential superstructure still does. This is still a government with checks and balances.
      That is questionable.

      As long as voters still have the right to vote, and get an accurate vote count, there’s a chance to make government more transparent, responsible, and accountable.

      However, there are numerous (and growing) abuses chipping away at the voters’ ability to sustain an adequately functional federal government, as voters are increasingly being influenced and controlled (or more precisely, tricked and manipulated) into making incumbent politicians’ incumbencies more secure:

        Unfair Incumbent Advantages:
      • (1) Perk$ of Office: Incumbents have more party support and resources to draw upon. Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.

      • (2) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.

      • (3) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.

      • (4) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place. Also, have you ever noticed that there is rarely (if ever) more than one candidate from any party. This is one of the clever mechanisms used to perpetuate the two-party duopoly, and the incumbent politicians’ high re-election rates; by capitalizing on voters’ blind-party-loyalties and reluctance to vote for anyone not in THEIR party. This is why many politicians love to fuel the partisan warfare. It is extremely effective.

      • (5) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Unfortunately, government is FOR-SALE. Hence, incumbents have many unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers). A tiny 0.3% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contribute 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more. What chance does the remaining 99.7% of all eligible U.S. voters have against that. In 2004, total federal campaign donations (of $200 more more) totaled about $2.4 billion. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually, the incumbent). Government is FOR-SALE. Too many incumbent politicians spend too much of their time campaigning, peddling influence, filling their campaign war-chest$, voting themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises (9 times between 1997 and 2007), and other irresponsible behavior, instead of solving the nation’s most pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.

      • (6) The No-Same-Party-Challenger(s) mechanism: Since so many voters have been brainwashed to hate politicians in the OTHER party, they are more likely to re-elect the incumbent in THEIR party, despite the voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress. Often, even convicted felons (such as Ted Stevens) and indicted politicians (such as William Jefferson caught red-handed with dirty money hidden in his freezer) are repeatedly rewarded with re-election.

      • (7) Lack of Transparency and Accountability: We are being lied to about a lot of things, such as: false intelligence about WMD; inflation rates; the monetary system; GDP statistics; debt; etc., etc.,

      • (8) Fuels Complacency, Apathy, Futility: As a result of all of the abuses and nefarious mechanisms above, the electorate becomes increasingly complacent, apathetic, discouraged, and/or disaffected. As a result, corruption grows worse, and economic conditions continue to deteriorate.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 13, 2008 5:56 PM
      Comment #270340

      Dan-
      Do you think most people have the time or inclination to get this deep into politics? I could probably come up with a list of Representatives and senators I know, but then, I read blogs like this every day. You and I obsess about these things, and find interest in them that far exceeds most people’s.

      Give people a break. A lot of them spend time doing things that are useful and fun for them.

      What could really be useful is doing something like muckraking journalism, going beyond mindnumbing lists and tables to something a person can sit down and read. and not have their eyes glaze over.

      As for immigration? The clause you cite has generally been used to justify intervention of federal troops in different places. The Findlaw link here confirms that this is the interpretation which is standard

      This is what I mean by melodrama. Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders? For the sake of a generally peaceful, if illegal immigration of people mostly looking to get jobs?

      This is not an invasion. I am certain that if you look into how an invasion is defined in international law, you’d find that they’re not typically talking about movement of civilians.

      You can rain down all the insults you want to, but illegal immigration is essentially a law enforcement problem. I also, though, think it’s a policy problem. We’ve priced many hard working people out of the market for citizenship, but economic need and the demand coming from long coddled businesspeople keeps them coming. I bet you that if we reduced the fees to start the process, a whole lot more people would do it the right way.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2008 4:42 PM
      Comment #270347

      Votes and profits.
      Hypocritical!
      Your comments are a slap in the face of Americans who have suffered the consequences of illegal immigration.
      It’s despicable and hypocritical.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 14, 2008 7:12 PM
      Comment #270358
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders?
      A few murders?

      I expect laws to be enforced.
      What part of that do you not understand?

      More Americans were murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3 years, than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq in the last 5.7 years (4197 as of 14-NOV-2008, since 19-MAR-2003).

      Your comments are truly despicable and hypocritical. Comments that rationalize and minimize (i.e. calling it “a few murders” and “melodrama”) the illegal immigration problem is truly disgusting.

      Tell that crap (i.e. giving drivers’ licenses and amnesty to illegal aliens) to the survivors of the thousands of Americans murdered (including numerous policemen and policewomen) and harmed by illegal aliens every year.

      Your comments clearly indicate a disrespect for the constitution, existing laws, and survivors and victims of illegal immigration for votes and/or profits, disguised as compassion and/or naivete for illegal aliens merely looking for work. Many don’t merely come here to look for work, and once here, almost all of them break other laws, use false documents, 32% receive welfare, 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, and cost American tax payers an estimated $70-to-$327 Billlion per year in net losses.

      And you and Barack Obama want to give them drivers’ licences and another amnesty?

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 15, 2008 11:05 AM
      Comment #270378

      The known number of murders in 2007 is 14,831. And your argument doesn’t rely on hard data, but instead a mathematical extrapolation, based on population percentages here, estimated numbers of illegals in the country, and murder rates in other countries.

      In other words, the number is not a reflection of how people would behave, but rather how you think they will behave, and the numbers you think might arise from that behavior. You would like to claim that as solid fact, but it isn’t. Where are the real statistic to confirm it?

      Comparing the casualties of the Iraq war to this is also erroneous. To wit: the population of US soldiers in Iraq during the surge was about 160,000. 904 soldiers were killed in Iraq that years. Assuming such numbers for the sake of simplicity, the violence against US soldiers killed 565 soldiers for every 100,000. That was nearly 95 times the homicide rate in the united states for the same year, which was 5.9 homicides per every 100,000 people. The rate is an important indicator because it speaks to the level of violence.

      For the sake of Dramatic intent, you’re comparing the number of soldiers killed to that extrapolated number in America that represents how many people you think have been killed by illegal aliens. You reference on your site the murders in Texas, Arizona, and California. Texas has a murder rate this last year of 5.9, which matches the national average.

      Arizona has a rate of 7.4, which more or less means that only one and a half more people are killed above the national rate per hundred thousand, or fifteen people per every million citizens. California only loses .3 more people per hundred thousand, or three more people per every million. The worse offender would be New Mexico, not listed on your site, which had a murder rate of 8.2, or 2.3 persons killed per hundred thousand more than elsewhere. Still, that’s only 23 more people killed there for every million, and rate of homicide about 69 times less severe than our soldiers faced during the height of the surge violence.

      I think you need a little perspective on what real violence is before you start making offhand comparisons to war. Maybe in strict count, if we give your numbers more credibility that they deserve, illegal aliens have killed more people than the Iraq war during that three year period. But even then, the real level of violence is ridiculously lower in America, as opposed to Iraq, even now, that the argument, while fine as overwrought hyperbole, fails utterly on the substance. By my calculations, your life is at least 40 times safer here than in Iraq, even if you live in that battlefield called New Mexico.

      If we really get down to it, illegal immigrants are not a substantially greater threat to people’s lives than any other folks here.

      I know you’re going to call me names because of what I’m saying, allege that I’m some big fan of unconditional amnesty, or something like that, but I don’t view things in the hyped-up, emotional terms you do. Yes, there is an immigration problem. Part of dealing with it is bulked up enforcement beyond the borders. Another part of it is making it harder to counterfeit legitimate documents. But I think one of the most important parts is lowering the fees on applications for legal immigration. It is a general rule that somebody wanting to come here to make a living (I think any legal immigrant should be obligated to hold down a job to remain here) is not going to have a lot of money to their name to pay for such things. We currently charge people something about 900 dollars for an application. In a world where most people don’t make that in a year, that means there will be all too many people with the motive but not the means to immigrate legally, and given economic conditions in the rest of the world, that will often be enough motivation to break our laws, without the kind of malicious intent you seem intent on painting these people with.

      What’s more important? Engaging in a latter-day kind of protectionism, or gaining people’s cooperation in creating an enforceable immigration process?

      I want a system that works. Immigrants, legal immigrants are a net gain for this country. I want tougher enforcement, but I want us to enforce sensible laws as well. Some kind of amnesty may be necessary to clear the decks of the wreckage of the last decade or two of policies. But I don’t want it unconditional. I want it clear that those who take such amnesty will have to hold down work, will have to pay a debt to society for their illegal status. I want to work from both sides of the problem, reducing the demand for illegal labor by cracking down on those who encourage illegal immigration and exploit it, and decreasing the supply of it through reforms that make legal immigration easier.

      For years, people having “gotten tuff” on certain problems, without much solving them. Rather than getting tough, my opinion is that we should get smarter on the matter. If you want to wave the bloody shirt all the time trying to paint me as some sort of degenerate to win this argument, that’s your call.

      But I think you’re wrong on the facts, and wrong on the approach, and that what we need is to treat this as what it is, rather than turning this and every other policy problem into some sort of war that has to be fought and won with aggression, all compromise and moderation painted as cowardice in the face of the enemy.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2008 1:37 PM
      Comment #270389

      Stephen, Again, I’m sure the thousands of Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens will find your comments to be truly despicable and hypocritical. Any comments that rationalize and minimize (i.e. calling it “a few murders” and “melodrama”) the illegal immigration problem is truly disgusting.

      The government won’t reveal (if it even knows) the numbers of Americans murdered by illegal aliens, but even the most conservative estimates place it double the norm for the U.S.

      Just because the numbers are not tracke by teh government doesn’t mean the numbers aren’t bad. Even if the numbers were equal to the norm for Americans, those are crimes that shouldn’t have happened. That increase in population of criminals should not have happened. No pretzel imitation can obfuscate that fact.

      You also ignore enormous evidence that crime and murder are more common amoung the more impoverished, less educated, and less skilled, which describes most illegal aliens.

      Besides, there are studies that show illegal aliens committing a wide variety of crimes at higher rates. A GAO study of 55,322 illegal aliens, there was an average of 13 arrests per illegal alien.

      You also conveniently ignore the fact that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, despite illegal aliens being only 4-to-6.6% of the U.S. population.

      So, tell that crap wanting to give drivers’ licenses and amnesty to illegal aliens to the survivors of the thousands of Americans murdered (including numerous policemen and policewomen) and harmed by illegal aliens every year.

      But why should anyone be surprised by your comments, based on other examples of disrespect for the laws and the Constitution?

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 15, 2008 3:26 PM
      Comment #270397

      Most estimates are MUCH higher than my the estimate of 3.3 homicides per day (some as high as 12 per day; some as high as 25 per day when including deaths by drunk illegal alien drivers).
      Some estimates (such as this, from Steven King, U.S. Congressman (IA-5)) place the figure much higher (as high as 4380 to 9125 per year; or 12 to 25 homicides per day).
      This organization estimates the number to be about 2100 homicides per year (5.75 per day).

      However, it is not necessary to exaggerate.

      Based on GAO Report 5646, the lowest estimate of 3.6 homicides per day is almost double the norm.

      Of course, the federal government doesn’t really want Americans to know the real numbers. They will probably be shocking when they are eventually determined.

      I based the very conservative 3.3 homicides per day on the GAO Report 5646 that was a study of 55,322 illegal aliens in Texas, Artizona, and California. They committed were 5,992 homicides. What ever the rate is, it’s too high.

      Increased crime rates is a typical result of massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration. Figures are hard to find directly, but it can be conservatively estimated using data from two sources:

      • (1) By the end of 2005, there were an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. With existing data, and using the murder rates in Brazil, Mexico, Salvador, China, and 39 other nations, and the Census Bureau estimate of 8.7 million illegal aliens (in the year 2000), and assuming those crime rates are the same here as in those nations, then the total annual homicides in the U.S. by illegal aliens are between 1408 to 2510 homicides.
        The total U.S. prison population in year 2004 was 2.2 million.
        The average stay in prison for each illegal alien is 21 months (i.e. more than 1 year, which simplifies the annual calculations).
        29% of all federal prisoners are illegal aliens (extrapolating, that is about 638,000 of 2.2 million incarcerated nation-wide).
        Some estimates place that percentage of illegal aliens at 33%, but let’s use the smaller 29% for now.
        In 2004, there were 16,528 homicides in the U.S.
        The U.S. population is about 300 million (as of NOV-2006).

      • (2) In GAO Report 5646, for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (imprisoned for many different crimes), there were 5,992 homicides by illegal aliens over a period of 57 years by illegal aliens in the 55,322 study group (only in CA, TX, and AZ; between 1947 and 2004).
        That is an average homicide rate of 105.12 homicides per year (i.e. 5992 homicides/57 years).
        The study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (in only CA, TX, and AZ) is only 8.67% of the total of number of incarcerated illegal aliens.
        Therefore (638,000 / 55,322) = 11.53 which means the study group of 55,322 was 11.53 times smaller than the total incarcerated illegal aliens.
        So, multiplying 11.53 times the average annual homicide rate of 105.12 = 1212 homicides per year by illegal aliens.
        That is a bit conservative, since most crimes started occurring after 1990.
        But, that number of 1212 helps corroborate the number 1408 estimated above based on homicide rates in the nations of origin of most illegal aliens.
        But, let’s only split the difference: 1310 = (1212 + 1408) / 2 .
        Therefore, 1310 homicides per year / 12 million illegal aliens = 0.0001092 homicides per illegal alien per year.
        16,528 homicides per year / 300 million U.S. citizens = 0.000055093 homicides per U.S. citizen per year.
        1.9814 = ( 0.0001092 / 0.000055093 ) times more homicides per day by illegal aliens.
        Even if the smallest estimate of 1212 homicides per year is used, the average is: 1.83 = ( 1212 / 12 million ) / 0.000055093

      Therefore, by the most conservative estimate , and the data from GAO Report 5646, the homicide rate by illegal aliens is about double that of by U.S. citizens.

      Also, the estimate of 1310 homicides per year (3.59 per day) by illegal aliens is very conservative, and did not even exclude the total homicides by illegal aliens from the total of all 16,528 homicides for year 2004 for the calculation of homicides by U.S. citizens.

      When more data is available, it will most like be much worse than these very conservative estimates based on GAO Report 5646.

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 15, 2008 5:21 PM
      Comment #270398

      More:

    • www.cairco.org/issues/issues_crime_colorado.html

    • www.house.gov/forbes/newsroom/enewsletter/2006/06022006.htm

    • www.oregonir.org/ors_181.850.htm

    • legal-immigration.com/legal-immigration/2007/01/04/costs-of-incarceration-of-illegal-immigrants/

    • www.defendcoloradonow.org/docs/cost_study_dr_2006mar28.pdf
    • Posted by: d.a.n at November 15, 2008 5:31 PM
      Comment #270406

      Dan-
      Critique the message, not the messenger. You can beat me up all you want to, but your arguments depend upon facts, theories, and the methods by which you derive them.

      If we know the number of murders to be fourteen thousand, what does it tell you when Rep. King is giving you results that say two thirds of those murders are committed by illegal aliens?

      In your argument on your site, you posit a murder rate based on an average of fifty seven years worth of statistics. Why look at the average? The average is not real. Look at recent years of crime, and you’ll see the trend is that crime is down from the early nineties and eighties. Murders are down by five thousand since 1995.

      That’s important once you look at the number of murders for the last few decades, and the the murder rate per capita.

      It’s especially interesting to look at that, for two reasons. If you look at the past ten years, you’ll find that the average of the rates of those ten years is 5.78 murders per hundred thousand people. The ten years before that, from 1997 back to 1988 give a number of 8.65. 1987 back to 1978 averages to 8.88, 1977 back to 1968 gives us 8.61.

      But those are deceptive averages, for the most part. Our murder rate in this current decade has never risen above 1998’s.

      During a five year period during the previous decade to that, though (which averaged 8.65, remember) it never dropped below nine. The other years pull the average down.

      From 1978 to 1982 the that same kind of violence occurs, even topping 10.2 murders for every 100,000 people. The average is pulled down by the low numbers.

      The problem with averages shows itself even more clearly if you average the last thirty years. It comes to 7.51 If we are to take that rate as indicative of the level of violence we are experiencing now, we have to ignore every murder rate for the last twelve years to make that argument!

      If I were to say that the average violence for the last ten years is down from the average of the last thirty years, I would be correct. But if I said that, in studying violence in 1980 that we should throw out that extraordinary peak of violence and subsitute an average of the five years before and and after, I would have a lot of explaining to do.

      In using statistics, their meaningfulness depends on their relationship to the real world. Context matters. How we derive something, and where and how we use that derivation to form conclusions is critical. What differentiates a scientific and trustworthy analysis from one that is not are the methods of gather and drawing conclusions from the data.

      The issues I have raised are based on a substantively supported sense of mine that your numbers are faulty, calculated in ways that do not guarantee any true relationship between your derived numbers and whatever their real counterparts are. You may be right, but if you’re correct, you’ll be correct the way a stopped clock is: by coincidence, not correspondence and consistent correlation.

      The funny thing is, I’ve told you before that I have no problem with reducing illegal immigration. This assumption you derive that I somehow like the idea of people circumventing legal immigration channels, is just your imagination. I just don’t subscribe to your sense of what the solutions are. But I do want an effective solution to the problem.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2008 7:57 PM
      Comment #270442
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Critique the message, not the messenger.
      I am.

      I wrote:

      d.a.n wrote: Comments that rationalize and minimize (i.e. calling it “a few murders” and “melodrama”) the illegal immigration problem is truly disgusting.

      Does that disturb you? (that’s a question).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can beat me up all you want to, but your arguments depend upon facts, theories, and the methods by which you derive them.
      Nonsense.

      I’m addressing your comments.
      If that is disturbing, then perhaps one should ask themself why?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If we know the number of murders to be fourteen thousand, what does it tell you when Rep. King is giving you results that say two thirds of those murders are committed by illegal aliens?
      I never asserted two thirds (e.g. 67%) of the nation’s 16,528 homicides in year 2004 were by illegal aliens.

      The exact number is unknown, but the lowest estimate is probably closer to 1,310 , and that is 8.0% of the total of 16,528 homicides, and that is higher (if not more) than the norm ( [(16,528 - 1,310 homicides)/300 Million Americans ]= 5.0% .

      The lowest estimate of 1,310 is a very conservative number that few agree with, and claim to be much larger.
      Even using the lowest estimate of 1,310 homicides per year, it still proves that point that illegal aliens comit (per capita) more homicides than the U.S. norm. Almost all estimates claim it is much higher.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In your argument on your site, you posit a murder rate based on an average of fifty seven years worth of statistics. Why look at the average? The average is not real. Look at recent years of crime, and you’ll see the trend is that crime is down from the early nineties and eighties.
      False.

      The numbers of illegal aliens did not start growing in larger numbers until after year 1990.
      Therefore, the increased time-span of 57 years (from 1947 to 2004) helps reduce the severity of the current problem which has been getting worse since the 1990s.
      The increasing crime rates by illegal aliens is also corroborated by the fact that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, despite 12 Million illegal aliens being only 4.0% of the U.S. population (about 300 Million).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Murders are down by five thousand since 1995.
      So what? Just because Americans are committing fewer homicides does not mean illegal aliens are comitting fewer homicides.

      Especially since 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, despite 12 Million illegal aliens being only 4.0% of the U.S. population (about 300 Million).

      • _____HOMICDES__________
      • 26,000 |————————
      • 25,000 |-x-xx—————-
      • 24,000 |x-x-x—————-
      • 23,000 |x——x—————
      • 22,000 |——-x—————
      • 21,000 |———x————-
      • 20,000 |———x————-
      • 19,000 |———x————-
      • 18,000 |———-x————
      • 17,000 |————x——x-x
      • 16,000 |————-xxxx-x-
      • 15,000 |__________________YEAR
      • ______1111111111222222
      • ______9999999999000000
      • ______9999999999000000
      • ______0123456789012345
        Violent Crimes (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0299.pdf , www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm):
      • YEAR _ Total _____ Homicide _ Rape ___ Robbery _ Assault ___ Homicide Rate/100K
      • 1980 _ 1,345,000 _ 23,000 ___083,000 _ 566,000 _ 0,673,000 _ 10
      • 1985 _ 1,328,000 _ 19,000 ___088,000 _ 498,000 _ 0,723,000 _ 08
      • 1990 _ 1,820,000 _ 23,000 ___103,000 _ 639,000 _ 1,055,000 _ 09
      • 1991 _ 1,912,000 _ 25,000 ___107,000 _ 688,000 _ 1,093,000 _ 10
      • 1992 _ 1,932,000 _ 24,000 ___109,000 _ 672,000 _ 1,127,000 _ 09
      • 1993 _ 1,926,000 _ 25,000 ___106,000 _ 660,000 _ 1,136,000 _ 10
      • 1994 _ 1,858,000 _ 23,000 ___102,000 _ 619,000 _ 1,113,000 _ 09
      • 1995 _ 1,799,000 _ 22,000 ___097,000 _ 581,000 _ 1,099,000 _ 08
      • 1996 _ 1,689,000 _ 20,000 ___096,000 _ 536,000 _ 1,037,000 _ 07
      • 1997 _ 1,636,000 _ 18,000 ___096,000 _ 499,000 _ 1,023,000 _ 07
      • 1998 _ 1,534,000 _ 17,000 ___093,000 _ 447,000 _ 0,977,000 _ 06
      • 1999 _ 1,426,000 _ 16,000 ___089,000 _ 409,000 _ 0,912,000 _ 06
      • 2000 _ 1,425,000 _ 16,000 ___090,000 _ 408,000 _ 0,912,000 _ 06
      • 2001 _ 1,439,000 _ 16,000 ___091,000 _ 424,000 _ 0,909,000 _ 06
      • 2002 _ 1,424,000 _ 16,000 ___095,000 _ 421,000 _ 0,891,000 _ 06
      • 2003 _ 1,384,000 _ 17,000 ___094,000 _ 414,000 _ 0,859,000 _ 06
      • 2004 _ 1,360,000 _ 16,000 ___095,000 _ 401,000 _ 0,847,000 _ 06
      • 2005 _ 1,391,000 _ 17,000 ___094,000 _ 417,000 _ 0,863,000 _ 06

      Homicide rates per 100K have been about 6 for the last decade.
      So what?
      That proves nothing, since 12 Million illegal aliens out of a nation of 300 Million isn’t likely to change the nation-wide rate much, which is why the rate per 100K has been 6 for a decade.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Our murder rate in this current decade has never risen above 1998’s.
      So what? Just because Americans are committing fewer homicides does not mean illegal aliens are comitting fewer homicides.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The issues I have raised are based on a substantively supported sense of mine that your numbers are faulty, calculated in ways that do not guarantee any true relationship between your derived numbers and whatever their real counterparts are. You may be right, but if you’re correct, you’ll be correct the way a stopped clock is: by coincidence, not correspondence and consistent correlation.
      Nonsense.

      Obfuscation won’t explain away:

      • 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, and they aren’t there merely for trespassing our border.

      • 5,992 homicides by 55,322 illegal aliens between 1947 and 2004 in Texas, California, and Arizona.

      • 5,992 homicides / 57 years = 105.11 homicides per year (on average between 1947 and 2004).

      • 5,992 homicides / 55,322 illegal aliens = 10.83%

      • 13 offenses on average per illegal alien

      The fact is, the problem is serious, but some people will turn themselves into a pretzel trying to minimize and rationalize an issue, rather than admit being wrong.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The funny thing is, I’ve told you before that I have no problem with reducing illegal immigration. This assumption you derive that I somehow like the idea of people circumventing legal immigration channels, is just your imagination.
      Nonsense. Your comments above argued the logic of giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I just don’t subscribe to your sense of what the solutions are. But I do want an effective solution to the problem.
      False.

      Your comments above (and in numerous other threads) argued for giving drivers’ licenses and anmesty to illegal aliens?
      Also, in many other threads, you argued against border security too.

      Regardless of the reason, it is wrong:

      • If it is for votes, it is wrong.

      • If it is for profits, it is wrong.

      • And if it is for compassion, it is a severely misplaced compassion.

      Such severely misplaced compassion is offensive to many Americans; especially to the thousands of American victims and survivors of victims of crime by illegal aliens every year.
      • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? 84 hospitals closed in California due to illegal aliens; (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp) In Dallas, Tx., 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas, TX., are illegal aliens; same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.

      • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?

      • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?

      • Where is the compassion for displaced American workers and the outrage at the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?

      • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens and tax payers the pay the high costs of incarceration, deportaiton, law enforcement, and trials (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising? Are all illegal immigrants sexual predators or murderers? No, of course not. Most just see better opportunities offered by America. But, per capita, illegals commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. We also shouldn’t fail to mention their contribution to illegal drug and gun trafficking, adding to America’s crime problem.

      • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been?

      • Where is the compassion for the people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)?

      • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?

      • Where is the compassion or all the victims in South Carolina which had the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens. in fact, South Carolina is submitting a Constitutional amendment with regard to illegal immigration.

      • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?

      • Where is the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?

      • Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? 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-girfriend 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. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. These are crimes that should have never happened.

      • Where is the compassion for Min Soon Chang, killed by Jorge Hernandez, aka Jorge Soto. He 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! Don’t you wonder why illegal aliens aren’t deported instantly after being arrested for drunk driving?

      • Where is the compassion for 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.”

      • Where is the compassion for female victim in Atlanta,GA. who was raped by Miguel Carrasco in front of her four year old child and two minors.?

      • Where is the compassion for a child under age 14 who was a victim of lewd acts by Zacarias Camacho ?

      • Where is the compassion for the 16 year old sodomized and murdered by El Salvadoran Oswaldo Martinez raped?

      • Where is the compassion for every fathers nightmare like illegal alien Jose Ramirez who 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.

      • Where is the compassion for the child used by illegal alien Jose Raul Pena (earlier deported for cocaine possession), his own daughter, as a human shield in an hours-long Los Angeles shootout with police? Pena and Suzie were both killed. During the incident, Pena used a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol which had been stolen last year in a burglary in Oregon. His office at the car dealership contained a bag of cocaine and a half-drunk bottle of Tequila — consistent with the illegal Pena’s previous deportation for cocaine possession. Videotape captured images of Pena shooting at the police while holding his daughter, yet his relatives are questioning not only whether he used his daughter as a shield, but whether he was even armed at all, according to the Los Angeles Times.

      • Where is the compassion for Esmerelda Nava, age 4, was recently strangled, molested and killed by an illegal alien who had been deported in 2003. The accused killer is Cornelio Rivera Zamites, who had been residing in Gainsville, Georgia. Esmerelda went with her parents to visit the 24-year-old Zamites. At some point late Saturday night, the child’s mother realized the girl was missing. A police officer found her body early the next morning in nearby woods. An article of Zamites clothing was close by and he was gone. Zamites had been deported for driving under the influence, as well as having no license or insurance. At least his illegal status was duly noted.

      • Where is the compassion for victims killed on the nation’s highways every year? Our highways have become far more dangerous since they have been turned into smuggling thruways for criminals.

      • Where is the compassion for 19 year old Travis Smith of Mesa, Arizona, was killed in 2002 by a carload of illegal aliens being smuggled to Pennsylvania? The accident occurred near Monticello in southeastern Utah, as the car driven by illegal alien smuggler Isidro Aranda-Flores plowed head-on into Smith’s 1966 Mustang. The smuggler apparently fell asleep at the wheel.

      • Where is the compassion for all those murdered in L.A. where 95% of all warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens?

      • Where is the compassion for the 16 year old girl gang raped by an MS-13 gang member Reinaldo Ramos?

      • Where is the compassion for these Americna police man and women murdered by illegal aliens?

      • Where is the compassion for all of these thousands of (www.immigrationshumancost.org)victims ? (estimated 3.3 to 12 (or more; up to 25 homicides by some estimates) per day (the estimates keep rising)!). Even if the lowest estimate (3.3) is used, the rate is almost double the norm. If it is 12 homicides per day, that is 6.7 times more homicides. This is why border security and enforcement of existing laws is important, and giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is not only stupid and irresponsible, but despicable. Especially when it is trivialized and minimized as “melodrama” and “a few murders”.
        • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders?

      I want the existing laws enforced, and the 1st step is to prosecute illegal employers.

      Border security is needed, regardless of who does it (state, federal, or both).
      Border states can not be expected to bear the entire cost.

      Before trivializing the murder of Americans as “a few murders”, and fighting for illegal aliens rights to have amnesty and/or drivers’ licenses, one may want to think about the American victims and survivors of victims of crime by illegal aliens every year.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2008 2:53 PM
      Comment #270458

      Dan-
      There’s only so often you can talk about slaps in the face of the victims of illegal immigration, pretzel-like logic, or anything like that before it becomes quite clear what you’re implying about the other person.

      You’re trying to win by painting my responses as the result of some moral deficit. At some point, you might be targeting the message, but it’s clear you want the shrapnel and the blast to reach the messenger.

      Me, I think that kind of argument is pointless. Many people who have been dead wrong have made the same appeals you do. Well-meaning or not, there are some ways to come to a conclusion that tend to yield faulty conclusions as a result, and correct ones merely by chance. I would prefer to pin you on that, where you can be provably wrong.

      Take this fact:

      5,992 homicides by 55,322 illegal aliens between 1947 and 2004 in Texas, California, and Arizona.

      I don’t have to explain that away. The 55,322 illegal aliens were part of a recent study by the GAO. Some of the the 5992 homicides between 1947 and 2004 are attributeable, but only a few, relatively speaking.

      5,992 homicides / 57 years = 105.11 homicides per year (on average between 1947 and 2004).

      Averages should not be treated like real numbers. They are statistical derivations, useful in certain ways, but not in others. You cannot derive a true proportion between the crime rate in general, an the crime rate in the particular community in question by using an average, any more than you can find a bullet by averaging all the coordinates on a target where they’ve hit. Find today’s numbers and compare them to today’s numbers. Or if you’re going to compare an average to another number, compare averages to averages, apples to apples, oranges to oranges. (After all, there isn’t anybody out there who’s eleven percent murdered, now is there?)

      5,992 homicides / 55,322 illegal aliens = 10.83%

      Apples to oranges. the first number is a generalized number, one that can be applied to the immigrant community as whole. The second number is the number of the aliens in the prison system surveyed for that study. Which brings me to:

      13 offenses on average per illegal alien.

      that 13 offense on average, is applied to a prison population, which yo then stretch to fit over a general population which would most likely not fit the pattern of convicts, anymore than the average person would fit the pattern of a convict.

      You’re making invalid arguments. That’s all there is to it. You may mean the best, but you’re doing it wrong.

      I’ve given my reasons for why I think denying drivers licenses is a poor idea. Here’s one more: drivers license information is often important for tracking people down. Drivers licenses also require people to keep up standards of driving. Do you really want millions of people going under the radar, especially since you’re looking to enforce immigration law? You have to look at the situation from more than just this perjorative, vengeful manner.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I just don’t subscribe to your sense of what the solutions are. But I do want an effective solution to the problem. False.
      Your comments above (and in numerous other threads) argued for giving drivers’ licenses and anmesty to illegal aliens? Also, in many other threads, you argued against border security too.

      You do understand you’re contradicting an offered opinion. You think you can really tell me what I believe, or are you simply seeing no other point of view as true enough to meet your high standards? Mister, I’m not lying to you. I’m not telling you what you want to hear, but I do want a secure border. Now I’m not going to critique your message in such a way as to cast doubt on your sincerity. It’d be a stupid argument anyways. But would you be so kind as to not question my sincerity on the basis of a political difference?

      You reference that seventy percent figure. You know, they don’t actually ask about status. Like you, they infer it. But you should note that one article you cite paints a different picture than the scary one you posit, one which shows the complication of the issue. The Snopes article, if you read it to the end, tells us that the notion of women hightailing it over the border to have anchor children and running on back is a myth, that most undocumented mothers are part of families that are of mixed status, and which have been here for years. Most of them have jobs, pay taxes (for benefits, Ironically enough, they’ll never be eligible to collect themselves) And many of them have better payment histories than their counterparts.

      The problem of undocumented workers, and non-citizens roaming free in the country is indeed a problem. But I don’t think its necessarily the kind of problem you’re making it out to be. It’s obviously a security problem, not because all, most, or even many of these people can exploit these securitie holes, but because a few can, and will.

      The immigration problem may not be immigrants themselves, but the system that forces them to be burdens, and discourages them from being citizens through high fees they can’t pay.

      Don’t you think most of these people would rather be resonsible citizens who don’t have to look over their back? But tell me, can some poor guy from Mexico afford 900-something dollars to apply? If we made it 100 dollars, or something like that, Do you think the coyotes running these people would get more business, or less? Better yet, reduce it even further, and use taxpayer dollars to fund immigration rather than funding the walls. Put the sons of bitches who exploit these people out of business!

      As for healthcare? Well, here’s the problem: emergency healthcare is not the place to pitch that battle. Doctors are obligated by oath to treat people in emergencies. What does it benefit us to refuse people such care? The epidemic we prevent could be our own. These people will show up at an emergency room, along with all the other people who are indigent, to receive that emergency care. We’re witholding benefits now, only to be forced by sheer human decency and federal law to treat them when they show up later in worse condition.

      Treat this like a war, and more casualties are what you’ll have. Treat this with better maturity, less fear and loathing, and the solution, while not ideologically ideal, might help put the problem to bed.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2008 7:21 PM
      Comment #270462
      Stephen Daugherty wrote:d.a.n- There’s only so often you can talk about slaps in the face of the victims of illegal immigration, pretzel-like logic, or anything like that before it becomes quite clear what you’re implying about the other person.
      I did not address you, but if the shoe fits …

      I wrote:

      d.a.n wrote: Comments that rationalize and minimize (i.e. calling it “a few murders” and “melodrama”) the illegal immigration problem is truly disgusting.

      d.a.n wrote: Again, funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they are doing, and acuse others of petty, blind partisan loyalties, when they themselves are most likely one of the most perfect examples of that very thing they accuse others of being, and in the process, constantly turn themselves into a pretzel trying to rationalize, explain, and defend the indefensible.

      Anyone that finds that disturbing may want to ask themselves why? If the shoe fits?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re trying to win by painting my responses as the result of some moral deficit. At some point, you might be targeting the message, but it’s clear you want the shrapnel and the blast to reach the messenger.
      Nonsense.

      I’m critiquing the message. If that bothers the author of the message, then perhaps they should ask themselves why?

      I wrote:

      d.a.n wrote: Before foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, while arguing for amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, one may want to think about the thousands of American murder victims and their survivors, and the tens of thousands of other crimes by illegal aliens every year.

      Did I address you? No. Of course not.

      Anyone offended by that comment might have a guilty conscience? If the shoe fits?

      Besides, I do not have to directly address others’ character (which would violate the rules of participation).
      All that is necessary is to show people a mirror (as in their own many comments).
      If someone finds their own comments offensive, then they may want to ask themselves why?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Me, I think that kind of argument is pointless.
      Then why continue this?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Many people who have been dead wrong have made the same appeals you do. Well-meaning or not, there are some ways to come to a conclusion that tend to yield faulty conclusions as a result, and correct ones merely by chance. I would prefer to pin you on that, where you can be provably wrong.
      Nonsense.

      The facts are what they are, and no amount of obfuscation can change that.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … 5992 homicides between 1947 and 2004 are attributeable, but only a few, relatively speaking.
      More of that “only a few” murders eh?

      What part of 5,992 murders is so hard to understand?

      Comments that trivialize murders as “only a few” murders of Americans is offensive.
      Especially when more Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3 years than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq in the last 5.7 years.
      Not only strange, but truly offensive and disgusting how anyone could trivialize thousands of murdered Americans as only “a few murders”

      Stephen Daugherty wrote:
    • 5,992 homicides / 55,322 illegal aliens = 10.83%
    • Apples to oranges. the first number is a generalized number, one that can be applied to the immigrant community as whole. The second number is the number of the aliens in the prison system surveyed for that study.
      Nonsense.

      It’s a very simple, straight forward ratio of homicides to illegal aliens in the study group.
      That’s all.
      And unless some illegal aliens comitted multiple homicides (which is likely), up to 10.83% of those 55,322 illegal aliens were incarcerated for homicide.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re making invalid arguments. That’s all there is to it. You may mean the best, but you’re doing it wrong.
      Nonsense.

      All of those numbers (e.g. 13 offenses per illegal alien, 8 arrests per illegal alien, etc.) are from the GAO Report 4656.

      If anyone has a problem with GAO Report 4656, they can take it up with the GAO (Government Accountibility Office).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve given my reasons for why I think denying drivers licenses is a poor idea.
      Many Americans find the idea of giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens offensive, disgusting, despicable, and totally stupid.

      What part of that is so hard to understand?
      Why should the survivors of thousands of Americans murdered every year by illegal aliens want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses or anmnesty?
      What sort of nonsense is that?
      OHHHhhhhhh … right … since that’s what Obama said he wants to do, eh? Is that it?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Here’s one more: drivers license information is often important for tracking people down.
      Nonsense.

      Fingerprints are better. Anyone driving without a drivers’ license (much less no auto liability insurance) should be arrested, finger-printed, and asked to provide proof of citizenship. If they can not provide proof of citizenship, they should be arrested and held for deportation. Especially since they may have warrants for other crimes (which is often the case, as evidenced by the GAO Report 4656 of 55,322 illegal aliens with an average of 8 arrests). Especially when there are also millions of falsified documents all over the nation.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Drivers licenses also require people to keep up standards of driving.
      Nonsense. Many illegal aliens do not have auto liability insurance either. What happens to a U.S. Citizen without auto liability insurance?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do you really want millions of people going under the radar, especially since you’re looking to enforce immigration law?
      No, and giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses doesn’t make illegal aliens any less illegal.

      What part of illegal is so difficult to understand?
      Giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is total, complete, idiotic, asinine nonsense, and offers no benefits at all, since finger prints, and a few other biometrics (e.g. photo, eye color, height, weight) and proof of citizenship are all that are needed to track anyone. Especially when there are millions of falsified documents all over the nation.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You have to look at the situation from more than just this perjorative, vengeful manner.
      Nonsense.

      Vengence isn’t the goal.
      There’s a much more important goal:

        Stopping the murders by illegal aliens of thousands of Americans and police men and police women does not equate to vengence, but foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, while arguing for amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens is truly disgusting and despicable.

      What part of that is so difficult to understand?
      How can anyone so callously and despicably equate vengence with not wanting thousands of fellow Americans murdered by illegal aliens?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You think you can really tell me what I believe, or are you simply seeing no other point of view as true enough to meet your high standards?
      Nonsense.

      Your comments above speak for themselves (and in numerous other threads), which argued for giving drivers’ licenses and anmesty to illegal aliens? Also, in many other threads, your comments argued against border security too. And your comments trivialized thousands of murdered Americans as “a few murders”.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You do understand you’re contradicting an offered opinion.
      Nonsense.

      There are no contradictions. Your comments are making a case for drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens.
      Many other comments argue against border security.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Mister, I’m not lying to you.
      Doth protest too much.

      Who said you were lying?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not telling you what you want to hear, …
      Who said you were ?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but I do want a secure border.
      Really?

      How? By giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses and amnesty? Lot of good that will do.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now I’m not going to critique your message in such a way as to cast doubt on your sincerity.
      Good.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’d be a stupid argument anyways.
      Has that ever stopped you before? (that’s a question).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But would you be so kind as to not question my sincerity on the basis of a political difference?
      I never did that.

      There’s no need.
      All that is necessary is to show people a mirror (as in their own many comments).
      If someone finds their own comments offensive, then they may want to ask themselves why?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problem of undocumented workers, and non-citizens roaming free in the country is indeed a problem. But I don’t think its necessarily the kind of problem you’re making it out to be.
      Right. Thousands of murdererd Americans every year? As you wrote, it is …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: “a few murders”
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The immigration problem may not be immigrants themselves, but the system that forces them to be burdens, and discourages them from being citizens through high fees they can’t pay.
      Right. So the solution is to give them drivers’ licenses?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Don’t you think most of these people would rather be resonsible citizens who don’t have to look over their back?
      Where’s the compassion for Americans?
      • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? (www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693) 84 hospitals closed in California due to illegal aliens; (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp) In Dallas, Tx., 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas, TX., are illegal aliens; same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.
      • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?
      • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-paid, under-class (practically slavery) ?
      • Where is the compassion for displaced American workers and the outrage at the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?
      • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens and tax payers the pay the high costs of incarceration, deportaiton, law enforcement, and trials (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising? Are all illegal immigrants sexual predators or murderers? No, of course not. Most just see better opportunities offered by America. But, per capita, illegals commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. We also shouldn’t fail to mention their contribution to illegal drug and gun trafficking, adding to America’s crime problem.
      • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been?
      • Where is the compassion for the people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)?
      • Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?
      • Where is the compassion or all the victims in South Carolina which had the highest rate of violent crime (excluding D.C.) of any state in the U.S. and it is largely due to illegal aliens. in fact, South Carolina is submitting a Constitutional (www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005567.html) amendment with regard to illegal immigration.
      • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of over $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?
      • Where is the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?
      • Where is the compassion for all of the U.S. policemen murdered by illegal aliens? 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-girfriend 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. In Denver, Colorado, an illegal deliberately ran over a Denver polceman in a school cross walk “breaking his legs along with severe internal injuries. This is not anectdotal. This tragedy has occurred over and over in many cities across the U.S. These are crimes that should have never happened.
      • Where is the compassion for Min Soon Chang, killed by Jorge Hernandez, aka Jorge Soto. He 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! Don’t you wonder why illegal aliens aren’t deported instantly after being arrested for drunk driving?
      • Where is the compassion for 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.”
      • Where is the compassion for female victim in Atlanta,GA. who was raped by Miguel Carrasco in front of her four year old child and two minors.?
      • Where is the compassion for a child under age 14 who was a victim of lewd acts by Zacarias Camacho ?
      • Where is the compassion for the 16 year old sodomized and murdered by El Salvadoran Oswaldo Martinez raped?
      • Where is the compassion for every fathers nightmare like illegal alien Jose Ramirez who 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.
      • Where is the compassion for the child used by illegal alien Jose Raul Pena (earlier deported for cocaine possession), his own daughter, as a human shield in an hours-long Los Angeles shootout with police? Pena and Suzie were both killed. During the incident, Pena used a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol which had been stolen last year in a burglary in Oregon. His office at the car dealership contained a bag of cocaine and a half-drunk bottle of Tequila — consistent with the illegal Pena’s previous deportation for cocaine possession. Videotape captured images of Pena shooting at the police while holding his daughter, yet his relatives are questioning not only whether he used his daughter as a shield, but whether he was even armed at all, according to the Los Angeles Times.
      • Where is the compassion for Esmerelda Nava, age 4, was recently strangled, molested and killed by an illegal alien who had been deported in 2003. The accused killer is Cornelio Rivera Zamites, who had been residing in Gainsville, Georgia. Esmerelda went with her parents to visit the 24-year-old Zamites. At some point late Saturday night, the child’s mother realized the girl was missing. A police officer found her body early the next morning in nearby woods. An article of Zamites clothing was close by and he was gone. Zamites had been deported for driving under the influence, as well as having no license or insurance. At least his illegal status was duly noted.
      • Where is the compassion for victims killed on the nation’s highways every year? Our highways have become far more dangerous since they have been turned into smuggling thruways for criminals.
      • Where is the compassion for 19 year old Travis Smith of Mesa, Arizona, was killed in 2002 by a carload of illegal aliens being smuggled to Pennsylvania? The accident occurred near Monticello in southeastern Utah, as the car driven by illegal alien smuggler Isidro Aranda-Flores plowed head-on into Smith’s 1966 Mustang. The smuggler apparently fell asleep at the wheel.
      • Where is the compassion for all those murdered in L.A. where 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens?
      • Where is the compassion for the 16 year old girl gang raped by an MS-13 gang member Reinaldo Ramos?
      • Where is the compassion for these American (One-Simple-Idea.com/PoliceVictimsOfIllegalAliens1.htm) police man and women murdered by illegal aliens?
      • Where is the compassion for all of these thousands of (www.immigrationshumancost.org)victims ? (estimated 3.3 to 12 (or more; up to 25 homicides by some estimates) per day (the estimates keep rising)!). Even if the lowest estimate (3.3) is used, the rate is almost double the norm. If it is 12 homicides per day, that is 6.7 times more homicides. This is why border security and enforcement of existing laws is important, and giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is not only stupid and irresponsible, but despicable. Especially when it is trivialized and minimized as “melodrama” and “a few murders”.
        • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But tell me, can some poor guy from Mexico afford 900-something dollars to apply? If we made it 100 dollars, or something like that, Do you think the coyotes running these people would get more business, or less? Better yet, reduce it even further, and use taxpayer dollars to fund immigration rather than funding the walls. Put the sons of bitches who exploit these people out of business!
      See questions above.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for healthcare? Well, here’s the problem: emergency healthcare is not the place to pitch that battle. Doctors are obligated by oath to treat people in emergencies. What does it benefit us to refuse people such care?
      Nobody said anything about prohibitingt emergency health care for anyone?

      But such a lame obfuscation is not at all surprising.
      So, are you now also advocating health care, along with drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens?
      Again, see the questions above.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The epidemic we prevent could be our own. These people will show up at an emergency room, along with all the other people who are indigent, to receive that emergency care. We’re witholding benefits now, only to be forced by sheer human decency and federal law to treat them when they show up later in worse condition.
      That’s quite a stretch.

      They are already spreading diseases that used to be under better control.
      The solution is to stop illegal immigration, deport all criminal illegal aliens, not give them drivers’ licenses, amnesty, or free health care.
      Again, see the questions above.
      Where is the compassion for Americans?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Treat this like a war, and more casualties are what you’ll have.
      Wow. That’s what McCain said. Sounds like some of that Repubican wedge issue crap and fear mongering.

      War ain’t necessary.
      First of all, stop the illegal employers, and most will leave voluntarily.
      Deport the criminals right away.
      And secure the borders, but perpetual internal enforcement is necessary too.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote:Treat this with better maturity, less fear and loathing, and the solution, while not ideologically ideal, might help put the problem to bed.
      I agree.

      And threatening of war is fear mongering.
      Giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is stupidity.
      Showing more compassion for illegal aliens than fellow Americans is severely misplaced loyalty.
      Wanting to reward illegal immigration with amnesty is lunacy and the reason the problem quadrupled after the shamnesty of year 1986.
      And trivializing the murders by illegal aliens of thousands of Americans and police men and police women, and foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, trying to equate it with mere vengence or loathing, while arguing for amnesty, health care, and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, is disgusting and despicable.

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2008 9:35 PM
      Comment #270496

      Dan-
      You did not address me? You did address my arguments, and continued to use ad hominem arguments. You may find my views disgusting, despicable or whatever, but I don’t, and for me and those who don’t agree with you, those arguments do precisely squat.

      You’re not critiquing the message. You’re defaming it. A critique would require analysis, which you don’t bother to provide, instead substituting a whole bunch of vitriol directed at the character of what I am saying.

      I did not say that 5992 murders is a few. I said that only a few of them could have been committed by the prisoners addressed in the GAO study.

      I also claimed that those numbers do not represent the proportions in the general community of illegal aliens. Here are my premises for that conclusion:

      1)The proportion must be representative of our current and/or recent times. That means many of the 5992 murders are simply inapplicable. Nor does it help to use an average which simply blurs any number of distinct years worth of violence together.

      I made that point earlier by demonstrating how years below and above the average could exceed or undershoot the overall average. The 10.5 murders per 1000,000 people in 1980 was hidden in an average that was closer to eight. Somebody researching this specific year would be ill-served by citing the average.

      The proper numbers for illustrating the violence inflicted by illegal aliens in recent times are the raw numbers for such murders for the recent years, or the current one, if you’re being that specific.

      2) The population from which the sample is drawn must be representative. If you draw your sample from the general population beyond illegal immigrants, it won’t reflect the true proportions within that community. But if you only draw your conclusions froma study group within the prison population, your rate will not reflect the actual rate either.

      The proper target population are illegal immigrants as a whole. Any other number will be biased by improper sampling. The survey would have to be random as well, to iron out any differences that might come from clustered responses in one place.

      3) The rate must then be interpreted in proper socio-economic context, that is, according to their level of poverty, their status as immigrants, and so on and so forth. Poverty is often an aggravator of crime rates among a population, so this confounding factor must be filtered out, as much as possible.

      My arguments are not for complication, but rather for the removal of complications which would interfere with the validity and soundness of your argument. Your improper time-frames, your averaging, your use of a nonrandom subset of that population, as opposed to a fuller, confound and twist the results. The only nonsense here, in my belief, are your improperly derived results.

      Nonsense. Fingerprints are better. Anyone driving without a drivers’ license (much less no auto liability insurance) should be arrested, finger-printed, and asked to provide proof of citizenship. If they can not provide proof of citizenship, they should be arrested and held for deportation. Especially since they may have warrants for other crimes (which is often the case, as evidenced by the GAO Report 4656 of 55,322 illegal aliens with an average of 8 arrests). Especially when there are also millions of falsified documents all over the nation.

      Security Expert Bruce Schneier disagrees with you. Yes, they will falsify documents. You think that would stop if you suddenly denied anybody who couldn’t prove their citizenship a license? No. They’d just seek it out another way, or go without. You’d be back where you started.

      It’s not difficult to understand: drivers licenses are one of the most complete set of records we have. Encouraging people to contribute to those records without fear of deportation means We’ll get more honest responses.

      Your approach seems to be to treat these people as a dangerous threat. Trust me, though, if these people were that kind of threat, you would see violence and disruption far greater than we’re seeing now. You can wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims, but most of these people keep their heads down and just do their work. Otherwise, how do you think they’d remain here? If these people were all so obvious, they’d be caught by now.

      The real threat are the security holes. Fix those, go easier on the people, get them document so you don’t have this big blindspot. Make sure, then, that you have better internal and border enforcement of the laws

      But also, make it easier to do things the right way, so people won’t feel so motivated to do it in the way that harms our security. The truly problematic folks, the folks who really have to sneak around, will be easier to focus on.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2008 2:22 PM
      Comment #270510
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- You did not address me?
      Correct. Only the comments.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You did address my arguments, …
      I addressed comments only.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You did address my arguments, and continued to use ad hominem arguments.
      False.

      Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they engage in themselves.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You may find my views disgusting, despicable or whatever, …
      I expressed my general opinion about giving drivers’ licenses and amnesty to illegal aliens, about false/misplaced compassions, and about how disgusting and despicable it is to pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits.

      If that bothers anyone, then perhaps they should ask themselves why?
      If that offends or distresses anyone, then perhaps they should stop repeatedly reading and responding to it?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You may find my views disgusting, despicable or whatever, but I don’t,
      Of course. No doubt about it.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You may find my views disgusting, despicable or whatever, but I don’t, and for me and those who don’t agree with you, those arguments do precisely squat.
      Maybe. If so, then why get so upset and distressed?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re not critiquing the message.
      False.

      I critiqued comments only, and any attempts to prove otherwise will fail.

      I wrote:

      d.a.n wrote: Comments that rationalize and minimize (i.e. calling it “a few murders” and “melodrama”) the illegal immigration problem is truly disgusting.

      Does that general statement or any others explicitly address anyone in particular? No.

      If that upsets anyone, they may want to ask themselves why?

      I wrote:

    • And threatening of war by by/for/with illegal aliens is fear-mongering.

    • Giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is stupidity.

    • Showing more compassion for illegal aliens than fellow Americans is severely misplaced loyalty.

    • Wanting to reward illegal immigration with amnesty is lunacy; especially since the illegal alien problem more than quadrupled after the shamnesty of year 1986.

    • And trivializing the murders by illegal aliens of thousands of Americans and police men and police women, and foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, trying to equate it with mere vengence or loathing, while arguing for amnesty, health care, and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, is disgusting and despicable.

    • Again, if that upsets anyone, they may want to ask themselves why?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re defaming it.
      Nonsense. I’m addressing comments. Anyone that personalizes it and attributes things to themselves may want to ask themselves why?

      If anything, someone else is critiquing the messenger instead of the message, as demostrated by these numerous statements:


      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- … You’re not critiquing the message.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You may find my views disgusting, despicable or whatever, …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You did address my arguments, and continued to use ad hominem arguments.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … You had better be prepared …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to badmouth us …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You had better come at us with good evidence …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, … we’ve told you no, we aren’t satisfied with facts you‘ve provided.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: For me, that means putting opinions like yours to the test …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: you‘re trying to win in front of me and everybody else …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can get all patronizing about that, …
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Facts, Dan. Facts. Not your opinions, not your conclusions, not your claims, facts. …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Get out of pundit mode, and start treating this …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You‘re flinging an ad hominem argument at me …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , You‘re wasting your time.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You just want people to bow down to your case, as if they should obligated to think in your terms.
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be frank with you, you‘re no better than the people you criticize.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Jeez man, if that’s respect, I’d hate to get on your bad side!

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your attacks on the fact that I do have some party association, have done little to convince me that I should abandon them.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , First, you don’t respect people’s right to have other opinions… .

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve tried to do you the respect of not merely flatly contradicting you

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n , Now you‘re trying my patience …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: To be brutally honest, you‘re not telling me much about modern politicians I don’t already know.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve been rather cross about your tendency to call the new [110th elected 7-NOV-2006] congress a do-nothing congress …

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I told you that you shouldn’t do it [i.e. call the 110th Congress the “Do-Nothing Congress”], and you‘re free to agree or not to agree with what I’m telling you to do.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: The only nonsense here, in my belief, are your improperly derived results.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims …

      HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm …

      So … WHO, if anyone, is critiquing the messenger?
      Funny how some people accuse others of the very thing they engage in themselves.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: A critique would require analysis, which you don’t bother to provide, instead substituting a whole bunch of vitriol directed at the character of what I am saying.
      I’ve addressed comments, issues, and concepts only; not anyone in particular.

      Nothing more. Read through this thread carefully, because I am not the one repeatedly using the word “you” as some people do.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I did not say that 5992 murders is a few.
      False.

      I listed numerous muders of policemen and women, other Americans, the 5,992 murders in GAO Report 4656, and the estimates of murdered Americans, and … :

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders?

      Seems pretty clear.

      That comment clearly trivializes the murders of thousands of Americans per year as “a few murders”, so trying to deny it now isn’t credible, to say the least.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I said that only a few of them could have been committed by the prisoners addressed in the GAO study.
      False. Up to 10.83% of 55,322 is not “only a few”

      Some of the 55,322 illegal aliens in GAO Report 4656 comitted 5,992 murders.

      Also, unless some of the 55,322 illegal aliens comitted multiple homicides, up to 10.83% (i.e. 5,992 of the 55,322 comitted homicides).
      That’s a fact.
      What is so difficult about to understand ?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I also claimed that those numbers do not represent the proportions in the general community of illegal aliens.
      That is not known, or easily provable.

      However, border states, which have much larger illegal alien populations, probably have a much larger numbers of crimes by illegal aliens than non-border states.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: My arguments are not for complication, but rather for the removal of complications which would interfere with the validity and soundness of your argument.
      Nonsense. Obfuscation and pretzel imitations do not change the facts of GAO Report 4656.

      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your improper time-frames, your averaging, your use of a nonrandom subset of that population, as opposed to a fuller, confound and twist the results.
      Nonsense.

      Again, anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the GAO (Government Office of Accountability).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The only nonsense here, in my belief, are your improperly derived results.
      Nonsense.

      The calculations are very simple and straight forward, I did not write the GAO Report 4656, and anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the GAO (Government Office of Accountability).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not difficult to understand: drivers licenses are one of the most complete set of records we have. Encouraging people to contribute to those records without fear of deportation means We’ll get more honest responses.
      Nonsense. Documents and drivers’ licenses are too easy to falsify, and totally worthless.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your approach seems to be to treat these people as a dangerous threat.
      False. Only the dangerous criminals.

      Most illegal aliens are not comitting violent crimes, but many are, as evidenced by the thousands of Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Trust me, though, if these people were that kind of threat, you would see violence and disruption far greater than we’re seeing now.
      The threat is already very serious, as evidenced by the thousands of Americans murdered every year (VOIAC.org). More Americans were killed in 3 years by illegal aliens than U.S. troops killed in Iraq in the last 5.7 years. That’s no merely …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote:“a few murders”.
      … or …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: “a gallery of victims”
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims, but most of these people keep their heads down and just do their work.
      Not all, and that’s the issue.

      Many illegal aliens (tens of thousands per year) are comitting serious crimes (thousands of murders per year), which should not be excused.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Otherwise, how do you think they’d remain here?
      They remain here mainly due to:
      • despicable politicians that despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes.
      • despicable politicians that despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits (archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/31/92649.shtml).
      • despicable politicians that try to disguise their true selfish and despicable motives as compassion.
      • and people who have more compassion (though severely misplaced) for illegal aliens than their fellow American citizens, or blindly follow THEIR political party and politician(s).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If these people were all so obvious, they’d be caught by now.
      Nonsense. Government isn’t trying, due to votes and profits disguised as compassion for illegal aliens, or people that have more compassion for illegal aliens than their fellow Americans.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The real threat are the security holes. Fix those, go easier on the people, get them document so you don’t have this big blindspot. Make sure, then, that you have better internal and border enforcement of the laws.
      The real threat is:
      • the greedy illegal employers, which serve as magnets, but shift huge costs to tax payers due to burdens on edudation systems, health care systems, emergency rooms, prisons (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), law enforcement, welfare systems (32% of illegal aliens receive welfare), Medicaid, Medi-CAL, insurance, millions of displaced jobs, disease, and voter fraud (an estimated 3% of votes are by illegal aliens).
      • insufficient (almost non-existent) internal enforcement of existing laws by both state and federal governments. Border states should not have to bear the entire cost of border security alone.
      • insufficient border security; since the first amnesty of 1986, 3 million illegal aliens has grown to 12+ million illegal aliens;
      • the despicable politicians that despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes.
      • the despicable politicians that despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits.
      • the despicable politicians that try to disguise their true selfish and despicable motives as compassion.
      • the people who have more compassion (though severely misplaced) for illegal aliens than their fellow American citizens, or blindly follow THEIR political party and politician(s).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Security Expert Bruce Schneier disagrees with you.
      He’s in Michigan. Has he been to California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or Florida?

      Fingerprints are better. Anyone driving without a drivers’ license (much less no auto liability insurance) should be arrested, finger-printed, and asked to provide proof of citizenship. If they can not provide proof of citizenship, they should be arrested and held for deportation. Especially since they may have warrants for other crimes (which is often the case, as evidenced by the GAO Report 4656 of 55,322 illegal aliens with an average of 8 arrests). Especially when there are also millions of falsified documents all over the nation.

      Bruce Schneier is entitled to his opinion, but his argument is truly ridiculous, since drivers’ licenses are very easily falsified, and millions of illegal aliens already have millions of fake drivers’ licenses. So Bruce Schneier’s opinion on drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens isn’t very credible.
      Especially since Bruce Scheier wrote about drivers’ license printers being stolen (www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/10/drivers_licence.html).
      Especially since Bruce Scheier wrote about “How to Create the Perfect Fake Identity”. What’s up with that?
      Especially since Bruce Scheier testified before Congress that:

        The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. The new U.S. $20 bill was forged even before it was released to the public. We can raise the price of forgery, but we can’t make it impossible. REAL IDs will be forged. And, as I will show below, the fact that a REAL ID is a more valuable identification document than a driver’s license means that it is more likely to be forged.

      So giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens is not only useless, but can make things worse by confusing matters with more falsified documents.
      Fingerprints, photos, and other obvious biometrics (e.g. eye color, height, weight, hair color, etc.) are more useful.
      Besides, why would an illegal alien want to become less anonymous, when they can use fake drivers’ licenses?
      In my opinion, I think the motive to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is yet another way to turn something that is illegal into something that is legal, and make it ever more difficult to deal with the growing illegal immigration problem.

      Also, 18 of the 19 perpetrators of the WTC attacks on 11-SEP-2001 (some who were illegal aliens and/or had violated several immigration laws), possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and/or 21 ID cards (source: www.9-11pdp.org/press/2004-12-03_factsheet.pdf), and all 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake; source: www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1202.html). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because 12-to-20 million illegal aliens have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally; anonymously; spawnning widespread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents; and giving rise to the fastest growing crime in America: identity theft.

      • Giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is foolish, if not completely stupid.
      • Threatening of war by by/for/with illegal aliens is fear mongering.
      • More compassion, if genuine, for illegal aliens than fellow Americans is severely misplaced loyalty.
      • Wanting to reward illegal immigration with amnesty is lunacy and the primary reason the illegal immigration problem quadrupled after the shamnesty of year 1986.
      • And trivializing the murders by illegal aliens of thousands of Americans and police men and police women, and foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, to “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, trying to equate it with mere “vengence” or “loathing”, while arguing for amnesty, health care, and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, is disgusting and despicable.

      Solution:

      • (01) Secure the borders immediately;

      • (02) Stop ignoring existing laws now. Immediately begin to enforce the existing laws to prosecute illegal employers.
      • (03) Then pass a BILL to provide a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons, which are some persons that were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S., and are no longer dependent on their parents. This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.

      • (04) Require deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).

      • (05) Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires. Prosecute violators.

      • (06) Pass an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for illegal alien births. Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports.

      • (07) Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

      • (08) Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare.

      • (09) Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

      • (10) Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

      • (11) Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

      • (12) Provide pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

      • (13) With no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, education, etc.), the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

      • (14) Lastly, voters must recognize that nothing is likely to ever improve as long as voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians to (despicably) pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 17, 2008 5:42 PM
      Comment #270518

      Dan-
      You derive your 10.83 percent through faulty methods. so you can say “false” or “nonsense” with all the authority you can muster, but that doesn’t change. It’s not a fact. It wouldn’t even be a fact if you were right with the derivation. It’d just be a very good estimate.

      But it’s not a good estimate. And that’s the problem. I don’t like basing political discussions on faulty information, or worse, bad arguments.

      Take this drivers license argument. Tell me, if they’re forging documents already, what good will it do to add one more document to forge? Just give people licenses when they show they’re qualified, and give the right information.

      The Drivers License thing is just a political football. The ability to actually stop illegal aliens from driving is absolutely NIL. It won’t do one damn bit of good.

      Now, take the Iraq war argument.

      Good heavens do I hate it. For one thing, our soldiers have not bled, left limbs and friends behind in Iraq to become a ready-made rhetorical devices for people trying to claim that one thing or another is worse than the Iraq war.

      Let me put it to you plainly, as I did before: a soldier in Iraq during 2007 was 95 times more likely to get killed than the average person in America was. If that is the likelihood to be killed by anybody, then what chance does the average person have of being killed by an illegal immigrant?!?!?

      Yes, some people have been. But it’s not a threat to anybody’s life on par with what our soldiers have faced in Iraq.

      On the subject of drivers licenses?

      You know, you and others have this habit of confusing control with security. You’re saying, if I deny illegal aliens drivers licenses, that’ll discourage them. If I deny them education, deny them healthcare…

      You never think to yourself, gee, aren’t we going to have to get pretty invasive in people’s lives, raise the bureaucratic complexity of all these processes, even start demanding that the average person prove their citizenship if they’re pulled over without their wallet.

      In many of these cases, you would probably have to prove that these people were not citizens. It can become problematic in certain circumstances, especially if the mix of illegals and legals in a family is the the way it is.

      You can talk about depriving people of licenses, he says, but will that actually work? Or will they just fake the documents needed, get it anyways, and now have a de facto proof of status?

      He wrote about the stolen printer with a bit of humor because the person who stole it got caught when they couldn’t work it and called tech support! He wrote about how to create the perfect fake identity, with no serious intention of telling people everything about what to do; he was just making a point about the “data shadow” that follows us around, and in many quarters is more important than we ourselves are!

      What I like about Bruce, and what earned a place among my blogs of honor was his sensible, skeptical appreciation of the way security really works. You want to assign him a motive, but in truth, he’s just telling you that what people do, typically, when you say, you must have these documents to get a drivers license, is that they forge the documents, and get the card anyways.

      The DMV, DPS, or whatever you call it are not the places to fight this battle.

      The place to fight this battle is with the immigration system itself. Make real, documented immigration easier, cheaper, and more efficient, and beef up the pitifully understaffed internal enforcement apparatus to clean up those who still are coming in illegally.

      All this talk about walls and other stuff just strikes me as more of the same rhetoric that got us into this trouble in the first place. We don’t need to get tougher, we need to get smarter. We do need to get our immigration laws well enforced, but we can’t be under the illusion that xenophobic policies will translate unreasoning fear into working policy.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 18, 2008 12:10 AM
      Comment #270523

      Stephen D, you wrote: “All this talk about walls and other stuff just strikes me as more of the same rhetoric that got us into this trouble in the first place. We don’t need to get tougher, we need to get smarter. We do need to get our immigration laws well enforced, but we can’t be under the illusion that xenophobic policies will translate unreasoning fear into working policy.”

      Strange to me that you would think it xenophobic to try and get control of our borders from illegal crossing, drug smuggling, and the potential for terrorist entry. You, me, and the government has had 40 years to get smarter and get this worked out. I don’t believe another 40 years would make any difference.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 18, 2008 9:07 AM
      Comment #270536
      Stephen Daugherty wrote:d.a.n- You derive your 10.83 percent through faulty methods. So you can say “false” or “nonsense” with all the authority you can muster, but that doesn’t change. It’s not a fact.
      False.

      Calling facts “faulty” is nonsense.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not a fact.
      False.

      GAO Report 4656 clearly stated that some of 55,322 illegal aliens were charged with 5,992 homicides.
      That’s a fact from the GAO Report 5646.

      And the ratio of 5,992 / 55,322 == 10.84% is another fact.
      The fact is, unless some of the 55,322 illegal aliens were charged with multiple homicdes, the 5,992 homicides / 55,222 illegal aliens means that up to 10.84% of the 55,322 illegal aliens were charged with homicide.
      That’s a fact too.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote:It’s not a fact.
      It wouldn’t even be a fact if you were right with the derivation. It’d just be a “very good estimate”. It is both a fact as stated and a “very good estimate”.

      It was already obvious that 55,322 illegal aliens charged with crimes between years 1947 and 2004 is a sampling, since government fails to track crime by illegal aliens on a nation-wide basis.
      There’s no deception.
      Facts are facts.
      Estimates are estimates.
      Belaboring the obvious differences as some deception is yet another lame obfuscation as part of a non-stop pretzel imitation.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote:It’s not a fact.
      But it’s not a good estimate. And that’s the problem. Nonsense?

      This is a fact based on data from GAO Report based on 5,992 homicides / 55,222 illegal aliens (which means up to 10.84% of the 55,322 illegal aliens were charged with homicide).
      What exactly is not factual about that statement?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote:It’s not a fact.
      I don’t like basing political discussions on faulty information, or worse, bad arguments. Nonsense, since blind partisan bias and bad arguments is exactly what has been repeatedly observed countless times in many pretzel imitations.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Take this drivers license argument. Tell me, if they’re forging documents already, what good will it do to add one more document to forge? Just give people licenses when they show they’re qualified, and give the right information.
      Nonsense.

      Giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens is illegal in most states.
      Many illegal aliens already have fake drivers’ licenses.
      Drivers’ licenses are easy to forge, and are therefore useless.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The Drivers License thing is just a political football.
      Only for people that looking to turn into a pretzel trying to argue the non-existent beneifits of giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The ability to actually stop illegal aliens from driving is absolutely NIL. It won’t do one damn bit of good.
      Nonsense.

      The solution to stopping illegal aliens is:

      • (01) Secure the borders immediately;

      • (02) Stop ignoring existing laws now. Immediately begin to enforce the existing laws to prosecute illegal employers.
      • (03) Then pass a BILL to provide a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons, which are some persons that were brought into the U.S. illegally by their parent(s) when young and have lived over N years of their life in the U.S., and are no longer dependent on their parents. This will be a painfully difficult and costly process, but one that will only get more costly and difficult until the borders are secured and the illegal employers are stopped from employing illegal aliens. Another broad amnesty is not the solution. Our politicians already failed to secure the borders and enforce existing laws after the last amnesty of 1986, so they can not be trusted again, and must first secure the borders and enforce existing laws before considering a path to citizenship ONLY for the truly innocent persons.

      • (04) Require deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).

      • (05) Require ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires. Prosecute violators.

      • (06) Pass an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate automatic citizenship for illegal alien births. Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports.

      • (07) Deny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education.

      • (08) Deny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare.

      • (09) Deny ALL illegal aliens driver’s licenses.

      • (10) Deny ALL illegal aliens college tuition.

      • (11) Verify ALL voter’s citizenship, before permission to vote. Biometrics could be helpful.

      • (12) Provide pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S.

      • (13) With no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, education, etc.), the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.

      • (14) Lastly, voters must recognize that nothing is likely to ever improve as long as voters reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and empowering irresponsible incumbent politicians to (despicably) pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Now, take the Iraq war argument. Good heavens do I hate it.
      Really. Then perhaps some people should follow their own advice …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want change, maybe the change is stepping back and not letting people stir up your emotions so easily.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: For one thing, our soldiers have not bled, left limbs and friends behind in Iraq to become a ready-made rhetorical devices for people trying to claim that one thing or another is worse than the Iraq war.
      Nonsense.

      Comments that trivialize murders as “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, or to merely “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, while trying to argue for the rights, amnesty, and welfare for illegal aliens.
      And this is a fact.

      • As many (if not more) Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3.5 years than all U.S. troops killed (4201 as of 17-NOV-2008) in Iraq in the last 5.7 years.
        It is disgusting and despicable that anyone could callously trivialize thousands of murdered Americans as only “a few murders”
      • , mere “melodrama”, or to merely “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, while trying to argue for the rights, amnesty, and welfare for illegal aliens.

      The relevance of that fact is that illegal immigration is more deadly to more Americans than Iraq.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Let me put it to you plainly, as I did before: a soldier in Iraq during 2007 was 95 times more likely to get killed than the average person in America was.
      False.

      As of 17-NOV-2008, 4201 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq in the last 5.7 years (out of about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq), which is about 737 U.S. troops killed per year.
      Annually, the lowest estimate of Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens is 1310 per year.
      A U.S. Troop in Iraq is 1320 times more likely to be killed than an American in the U.S. by an illegal alien.
      But that was never the issue.
      The issue is quite simply that more Americans are murdered by illegal aliens than U.S. troops killed in Iraq per year.
      As many (if not more) Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3.5 years than all U.S. troops killed (4201 as of 17-NOV-2008) in Iraq in the last 5.7 years.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Why would anyone try so hard hard to trivialize the murders of American citizens as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, or to merely “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, while trying to argue for the rights, amnesty, and welfare for illegal aliens?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If that is the likelihood to be killed by anybody, then what chance does the average person have of being killed by an illegal immigrant?!?!?
      Iraq is a nation of 26 Million. The U.S. is a nation of 305 Million. 130,000 U.S. Troops is 0.50% of the total population of Iraq (i.e. 130,000 U.S. Troops / 26 Million population of Iraq = 0.50%). 12 Million illegal aliens is the 0.39% of the total 305 Million U.S. population (i.e. 12 Million illegal aliens / 305 Million U.S. population = 0.39%) Yet …
      • As many (if not more) Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 3.5 years in the U.S. than all U.S. troops killed (4201 as of 17-NOV-2008) in Iraq in the last 5.7 years. It is disgusting and despicable that anyone could callously trivialize thousands of murdered Americans as only “a few murders”
      • , mere “melodrama”, or to merely “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, while trying to argue for the rights, amnesty, and welfare for illegal aliens.
      Illegal aliens in the U.S. are more deadly to Americans than Iraq is to U.S. Troops. What part of that is so difficult to understand?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … what chance does the average person have of being killed by an illegal immigrant?!?!? Yes, some people have been. But it’s not a threat to anybody’s life on par with what our soldiers have faced in Iraq.
      False.

      Illegal aliens have murdered more Americans in the last 3.5 years in the U.S. than all U.S. troops killed (4201 as of 17-NOV-2008) in Iraq in the last 5.7 years.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of drivers licenses? You know, you and others have this habit of confusing control with security.
      Nonsense.

      Drivers’ license for illegal aliens is nonsense when illegal aliens already have fake drivers’ licenses, and prefer it that way (i.e. prefer the anonymity). Again, fingerprints and simple biometrics (photo, eye color, hair color, height, weight, etc.) are much more accurate forms of identification.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re saying, if I deny illegal aliens drivers licenses, that’ll discourage them. If I deny them education, deny them healthcare…
      More nonsense.

      How about enforcing the laws, instead of arguing for the violation of the laws?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You never think to yourself, gee, aren’t we going to have to get pretty invasive in people’s lives, raise the bureaucratic complexity of all these processes, even start demanding that the average person prove their citizenship if they’re pulled over without their wallet.
      More nonsense, riduculous obfuscation, and turning into a pretzel to defend the indefensible, since people are already fingerprinted, and photographed when arrested, and drivers’ licenses are easy to forge (and therefore, useless).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In many of these cases, you would probably have to prove that these people were not citizens.
      True. That is a problem, but not impossible to solve. It is not a huge problem for most real citizens, since:
      • Citizens can provide the state, city, date, and hospital where they were born, in which birth records can be requested (similar to the process in which colleges and universities confirm eduational degrees).
      • Citizenship is easy to corroborate when people also have parents, siblings, grand parents, and relatives that also have U.S. citizenship too.
      • Citizens have Social Security numbers. Social Security numbers can not be obtained without a birth certificate from the hospital (and can be verified with the hospital, city, and/or state). The Social Security verification system is over 90%+ accurate (www.heritage.org/research/immigration/bg2192.cfm), and discrepancies are not difficult to resolve for the other reasons stated in this list.
      • Proving citizenship is not difficult for most true U.S. citizens. For the few instances where some people do not know their state, city, date, and hospital where they were born, do not know their Social Security number, or any relatives, parents, siblings, and relatives, previous addresses, employment history, or do not know their own name as if suffering from complete amnesia, then the government has the burden of proof and must investigate such cases. What will most likely be discovered in many cases is that illegal aliens have already been arrested and/or deported, have arrest records and fingerprints on file already. No doubt, some illegal aliens may succeed in continued residence as citizens in the U.S. due to lack of proof, but that’s the price we pay for lax enforcement. However, most investiagations are not that complicated since a great deal of information can be determined from employment history, previous addresses, and purported birth dates, birth places, parents, siblings, relatives, employment history, etc.
      Proof of citizenship and accurate IDentification is important for the following reasons, and giving up on the idea is not an option, because:
      • (01)Greedy employers of illegal aliens will constantly import cheap labor, and numerous costly burdens will be shifted to U.S. tax payers for: increased crime rates (One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Crime2); i.e. the most conservative estimates place the crime rate by illegal aliens at about 1.9 times higher than the norm;
      • burden on education systems;
      • burden on healthcare systems;
      • burden on hospital systems;
      • burden on welfare systems;
      • burden on Social Security system;
      • burden on Medicaid system;
      • burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;
      • burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;
      • burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;
      • burden on prison systems; 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens;
      • voter fraud; burden on voting systems;
      • (02) in close elections, an estimated 3% of votes coming from illegal aliens is a growing problem that undermines democracy;
      • (03) it allows politicians to continue to despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes (One-Simple-Idea.com/VoteDemocrat.gif).
      • (04) it allows politicians to continue to despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits. A continue influx of illegal aliens keeps labor costs low.
      • (05) a continual influx of illegal aliens for votes , profits, or misplaced compassion is growing the U.S. population faster than most (if not all) other nations (5 million per year).
      • (06) continuual influx of the less educated, more impoverished, and less skilled is a burden on all social services and systems.
      • (07) there is no net benefit to the nation from the continual influx of illegal aliens. The net losses to U.S. citizens for all of these burdens is estimated to be $70-to-$327 Billion per year.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It can become problematic in certain circumstances, especially if the mix of illegals and legals in a family is the the way it is.
      True. But giving up is not an option, because another amnesty like the amnesty of 1986 will quadruple (or worse) the problem again, as occurred after the amnesty of 1986.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can talk about depriving people of licenses, he says, but will that actually work? Or will they just fake the documents needed, get it anyways, and now have a de facto proof of status?
      Of coruse they will still use fake documents. Especially the criminal illegal aliens. Anonymity has obvious advantages for criminals in a nation that toleratans 12+ million illegal aliens.

      Some illegal aliens have been deported 17 (or more times). For exmaple, consider

    • 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. Jorge Hernandez had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported 17 times!
    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: He [Bruce Scheier] wrote about the stolen printer with a bit of humor because the person who stole it got caught when they couldn’t work it and called tech support! He wrote about how to create the perfect fake identity, with no serious intention of telling people everything about what to do; he was just making a point about the “data shadow” that follows us around, and in many quarters is more important than we ourselves are!
      Facination how some people can obfuscate, rationalize, twist, and make excuses for everything, regardless of how twisted they become (like a pretzel) in the process.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: What I like about Bruce, and what earned a place among my blogs of honor was his sensible, skeptical appreciation of the way security really works. You want to assign him a motive, but in truth, he’s just telling you that what people do, typically, when you say, you must have these documents to get a drivers license, is that they forge the documents, and get the card anyways.
      A drivers’ license is one thing.

      While not ideal, faking citizenship is more difficult, since:

      • real citizens can provide the state, city, date, and hospital where they were born, in which birth records can be requested (similar to the process in which colleges and universities confirm eduational degrees).

      • Citizenship is easy to corroborate when people also have parents, siblings, grand parents, and relatives that also have U.S. citizenship too.

      • Citizens have Social Security numbers. Social Security numbers can not be obtained without a birth certificate from the hospital, and can be verified with the hospital, city, and/or state. The Social Security verification system is over 98% accurate, and discrepancies are not difficult to resolve for the other reasons stated in this list.

      • Proving citizenship is not difficult for most true U.S. citizens. For the few instances where some people do not know their state, city, date, and hospital where they were born, do not know their Social Security number, or any relatives, parents, siblings, and relatives, previous addresses, employment history, or do not know their own name as if suffering from complete amnesia, then the government has the burden of proof and must investigate such cases. What will most likely be discovered in many cases is that illegal aliens have already been arrested and/or deported, have arrest records and fingerprints on file already. No doubt, some illegal aliens may succeed in continued residence as citizens in the U.S. due to lack of proof, but that’s the price we pay for lax enforcement. However, most investiagations are not that complicated since a great deal of information can be determined from employment history, previous addresses, and purported birth dates, birth places, parents, siblings, relatives, employment history, etc.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The DMV, DPS, or whatever you call it are not the places to fight this battle.
      It’s one of many places to fight the problem.

      But if it isn’t the place to fight the problem, then what’s the point of fighting for the right for drivers’ license for illegal aliens?
      Why are some people so eager to give more and more rights to illegal aliens?
      Why do some people have more compassion for illegal aliens who disrespect their laws, than fellow Americans who simply want existing laws enforced and recognize that the true villians are not illegal aliens merely looking for work, but the true villians are the politicians and bleeding heart Americans who despicably (or due to severely misplaced compassion) pit Americans citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and (severely misplaced or false) compassion for illegal aliens?

      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Giving drivers’ license to illegal aliens is stupid and provides no benefit.
      Illegal aliens that can’t pass a drivers’ license test will still use fake drivers’ licenses, and none of the drivers’ licenses prove anything, and possibly make things worse.
      Besides, states and local governments can control whether they want to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens (or not), and many states are rescinding the practice: www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-29-illegal-immigrants-licenses_N.htm

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The place to fight this battle is with the immigration system itself. Make real, documented immigration easier, cheaper, and more efficient, and beef up the pitifully understaffed internal enforcement apparatus to clean up those who still are coming in illegally.
      It does not need to be cheaper. There are costs associated with immigration, and tax payers shouldn’t be forced to foot more of the bills. Also, the U.S. already allows millions to immigrate legally per year. Before ignoring over-population, perhaps it would be wise to ask China and India about all of the wonderful advantages of over-population: One-Simple-Idea.com/Environment1.htm
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: All this talk about walls and other stuff just strikes me as more of the same rhetoric that got us into this trouble in the first place.
      Then why write …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but I do want a secure border.
      So, which is it?

      How?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We don’t need to get tougher, we need to get smarter.
      We need both, and giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens is not only not smart, but stupid.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We do need to get our immigration laws well enforced, . . .
      By giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses? Amnesty? Free health care? Welfare? Education? Jobs?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We do need to get our immigration laws well enforced, but we can’t be under the illusion that xenophobic policies will translate unreasoning fear into working policy.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but we can’t be under the illusion that xenophobic policies will translate unreasoning fear into working policy.
      AHHhhhhhh … the usual, lame EXCUSE # 04 of XENOPHOBIA and Racism (see below).

      I was wondering how long it would take to get around to that. How revealing.

      Common excuses used by defenders of illegal aliens:

      • EXCUSE # 01: Tradition:
        MYTH: As George George Bush (43) said: “We are a land of immigrants”. We can not pull up the drawbridge now, unless we dismantle the Statue of Liberty. Otherwise, we are all hypocrites.
        TRUTH: This is a common ploy. Yes, we are a land of immigrants. Mostly legal. We are enriched by legal immigration; not by massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration. Who would allow large numbers of uninvited persons to come live in your home, use your food, utilities, and space. So, why would you let them come into your community, uninvited, and use your schools, hospitals, ERs, Medicaid, welfare, highways, and vote in your elections?

      • EXCUSE # 02: Economics:
        MYTH: The U.S. will crumble without illegal aliens. We need immigrants to pay the Social Security of the Baby Boomers when they begin to retire. Immigrants do jobs citizens won’t do. Who would pick our produce? Who would make the beds and wash the dishes?
        TRUTH: This is another common myth, since illegal aliens are costing U.S. tax payers a net loss of at least $70 billion per year. $70 billion will pick a lot of vegetables and fruit, eh? Guarded and electronically monitored fences along all U.S. land borders would cost about $10 billion per year. How does that compare to the $70 billion per year in net losses to U.S. taxpayers?

      • EXCUSE # 03: Humanitarianism:
        MYTH: You are selfish to put the needs of poor citizens ahead of more desperate people in other nations, by denying them entry into our country. The U.S. is obligated to share with others. Large-scale immigration is a significant way for the U.S. to help the impoverished people of the world.
        TRUTH: It is also selfish to forget to show compassion for your fellow citizens that go without because illegal aliens have stolen from and burdened our welfare, Medicaid, education, healthcare, hospital, E.R., Medicare, Social Security, law enforcement, prison, insurance, and voting systems. Also, without the sovereign right of nations to control their own borders and immigration, people in places where things are not as good will always descend upon places where things are better, ruining it for everyone. We can be enriched by controlled immigration, but massive, uncontrolled immigration (legal or not) is a recipe for disaster, chaos, increased crime, racism, resentments, and societal disorder.

      • EXCUSE # 04: Diversity / Racism / XENOPHOBIA:
        MYTH: You are a racist and xenophobe if you don’t want wide-open borders and have any problems with unchecked immigration.
        TRUTH: That is the old stand-by: Call those opposed to illegal immigration racists. Racism and xenophobia has nothing to do with it, since illegal aliens are of all races from all over the world. Diversity is good, but massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration itself leads to racism due to chaos, resentments, increased crime, societal disorder, and increased competition for a slice of a shrinking pie. Massive immigration (legal or not) causes many societal problems. Greedy corporations and illegal employers of illegal aliens use the constant influx of illegal aliens to depress wages and boost their own profits. Pandering politicians do it for votes, despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes. The net losses due to illegal immigration are estimated between $70 billion to $326.7 billion. Also, crime rates by illegal aliens are estimated to be two or more times higher (a common societal result of increased poverty, less skills, and less education).

      • Increasing diversity through immigration is necessary to be true to our civil rights principles. Opposition to illegal immigration is racist. We are obligated to accommodate millions of immigrants per year because our strength is our diversity; the diversity of immigrants made America great. And, Christopher Columbus was the first illegal alien, and we stole the land from the Indians.

    • EXCUSE # 05: Irredentism:
      MYTH: We have no right to secure U.S. borders, because U.S. borders are illegitimate to start with. The U.S. really belongs to the Indians and other neighboring nations, to start with.
      TRUTH: This is another lame argument. By that logic, we should all give back all of our nations to the original inhabitants, or their ancestors. This lame argument is just one of many that demonstrate how weak all of the pro-illegal alien arguments really are.

    • EXCUSE # 06: Cornucopianism:
      MYTH: The free market and technology will save us. We are the land of plenty. Besides, we need illegal aliens to grow out of our massive debt problems. They will become new tax payers, and we can grow our way out of debt.
      TRUTH: Even if that were true, does it justify exploitation of an under-paid under-class? To attempt to remedy our own debt problems? This simply does not make sense, since illegal aliens are costing U.S. taxpayers net losses of over $70 billion per year. Besides, how can importing massive numbers of uneducated and impoverished improve the economy. 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare. 29% of all incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails (nationwide) are illegal aliens. How will technology resolve that?

    • EXCUSE # 07: Globalism:
      MYTH: We live in a global economy now, requiring new global solutions. Securing the U.S. borders is futile, since it is inadequate to deal with globalization.
      TRUTH: This is a complete non-sequitur. Secure borders and a global economy have little (if anything) to do with each other. Nations have the sovereign right to secure their borders, and that is necessary, because without it, massive numbers of people from places where things are not as good would invade places where things are better, ruining it for everyone. We can not immigrate our way out of our fiscal and economic problems. Especially with increasing competition abroad, growing corpocrisy and corporatism within government, and an increasingly irresponsible, elitist, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way government.

    • EXCUSE # 08: Practicality:
      MYTH: It is not possible to deport 12+ million illegal aliens.
      TRUTH: There is no need to deport illegal aliens. We can help deport those that volunteer to be deported, but once the magnets are eliminated, illegal aliens will leave voluntarily. They should not be starved out. So, we should be provide $500 (per person) and pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S. That may cost as much as $12 billion, but it is a one-time cost, and it is still miniscule compared to the current annual losses of $70 billion (and climbing, year after year).

    • Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but we can’t be under the illusion that xenophobic policies will translate unreasoning fear into working policy.

      Fear? Such as this ?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Treat this like a war, and more casualties are what you’ll have.

      Wow!

      That’s what McCain fear mongered about too.
      Sounds like fear-mongering to me.

      Roy Ellis wrote: Strange to me that you would think it xenophobic to try and get control of our borders from illegal crossing, drug smuggling, and the potential for terrorist entry. You, me, and the government has had 40 years to get smarter and get this worked out. I don’t believe another 40 years would make any difference.
      Yes, very strange, to say the least.

    • War isn’t necessary, and threatening of war by/for/with illegal aliens is truly disgusting and despicable fear mongering.

    • Giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is stupidity.

    • Showing more compassion for illegal aliens than fellow Americans is severely misplaced loyalty.

    • Wanting to reward illegal immigration with amnesty is lunacy, and the very same reason the illegal immigration problem quadrupled after the shamnesty of year 1986 (which John McCain voted for).

    • And trivializing the murders by illegal aliens of thousands of Americans and police men and police women, and foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, to “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, trying to equate it with mere “vengence” or “loathing”, while arguing for amnesty, health care, and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, and characterizing the opposition as racists and xenophobes, is disgusting and despicable.
    • At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 18, 2008 12:50 PM
      Comment #270543

      CORRECTION …

    • EXCUSE # 04: Diversity / Racism / XENOPHOBIA:
      MYTH: You are a racist and xenophobe if you don’t want wide-open borders and have any problems with unchecked immigration. Increasing diversity through immigration is necessary to be true to our civil rights principles. Opposition to illegal immigration is racist. We are obligated to accommodate millions of immigrants per year because our strength is our diversity; the diversity of immigrants made America great. And, Christopher Columbus was the first illegal alien, and we stole the land from the Indians.
      TRUTH: That is the old stand-by: Calling anyone opposed to illegal immigration racists and xenophobes. Racism and xenophobia has nothing to do with it, since illegal aliens are of all races from all over the world. Diversity is good, but massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration itself leads to racism due to chaos, resentments, increased crime, societal disorder, and increased competition for a slice of a shrinking pie. Massive immigration (legal or not) causes many societal problems. Greedy corporations and illegal employers of illegal aliens use the constant influx of illegal aliens to depress wages and boost their own profits. Pandering politicians do it for votes, despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes. The net losses due to illegal immigration are estimated between $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year. Also, crime rates by illegal aliens are estimated to be two or more times higher (a common societal result of increased poverty, less skills, and less education).

    • Posted by: d.a.n at November 18, 2008 3:31 PM
      Comment #270560

      Give up Stephen, you guys are hoggin the bandwith.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 18, 2008 10:17 PM
      Comment #270567

      Roy Ellis-
      It should be strange to me that I would think getting control of the borders is a bad thing, since I don’t.

      What I don’t like is all this hype and hysteria about the subject, because people are thinking in terms of control, in terms of dramatic gestures, and voter-aimed spectacles, rather than feasibility or effectiveness. Take this wall. In an era of faked documents, overstayed visas, and jet air travel, how effective can a wall be? Let’s not forget the Great Wall of China failed to prevent the Mongols from taking over.

      Dan-
      I took a fresh look at the data. And well, you’re still wrong.

      I looked into the linked GAO report, and the 5992 number wasn’t convictions but arrest offenses. For convictions, in the population, the number was just 13. You’ll see disclaimers saying that arrests do not mean prosecution, conviction, or incarceration.

      You’ll also see a disclaimer at the front of the information from the study that says the following:

      Results of our analysis pertain only to our study population. Results cannot be
      generalized to all illegal aliens that may have been arrested and therefore cannot be
      interpreted as representing arrest or offense rates for all illegal aliens.

      The whole point of what I’ve been trying to say to you is this: You’ve been getting the scope of your claims all wrong, mixed data from different time periods. You don’t mind this, I think, because you just don’t have the background to know why you should care. I know enough about science and statistics to know that one’s sampling of data, and the strength of what that data can be said to represent are important to the quality of the conclusions.

      By the way, I did ask you about the time period of the study, and I think they gave that as about 2004. Find the crime rate for those states then, for both categories of people, and you might have something to work off of.

      That rate based on 5992 still will not work. That was arrest offenses, not conviction, prosecutions or anything else. In fact, the number of convictions seems to be less than one percent.

      But even if it was right, the survey itself says it’s not representative of the community of illegal alien as a whole. And if it isn’t, what are you doing estimating the level of illegal immigrant violence from it? It’s beyond the scope, the meaningfulness of the information.

      And that is where I’m going to end this comment. Have you considered the fact that all these comments are on record, should anybody care to reference them? It’s not like its going to walk away. You do not have to republish this information in every comment. One thing I’ve learned about information in my studies of information theory, is that the freshest information is the most valuable, and the more you clog the system with old stuff, the less you’ll get your good stuff noticed.

      Good night.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 19, 2008 12:20 AM
      Comment #270579

      Fair enuff, and I will end with this comment. People have been transiting the border for at least 10,000 years with little or no reason to impede. Even during the war with Mexico the border remained open to crossings. Somewhere around the 60’s you started to hear of a complaint or two regarding foreigners coming in and having babies to gain them citizenship. At some point laws were put on the books that made it illegal for people to enter this country without proper consul documentation. Those laws were generally enforced at air and sea ports and a few border checkpoints. The border remained open and lightly patrolled. With Regan came the notion of “free trade” and globalization, following in the footsteps of Europe, and the era of “greed is fashionable” began. Government began to facilitate the relocation of business overseas. With a stroke of the pen Regan gives citizenship to the 3-4M illegals residing in the country with a promise to control further immigration. The opposite happened. From what once was an agriculture based foreign workforce, business sought and facilitated the import of illegals. Government was not only complicit in failing to enforce immigration laws but also facilitated the entry of illegals. With Clinton and Bush 1 NAFTA came to fruition, the notion of a NorthAmerican Union was floated and a globalized world was realized with the creation of the IMF, WTO, and the World Court. Something like 20 work visa programs were established along with student visas and other types and no one is ever checked to see if they left the country on expiration of their visas. Business is now seeking 6 year temporary stays for foreign temp workers. Citizens began to realize the effect globalization would have on their quality of life. Foreigners were seen holding jobs in every sector such as law, medicine and government. At the same time the cost of an education was advancing at 10% yearly. People were streaming into the country with no documentation and receiving citizen like benefits. Eventually illegals formed the majority of workers in certain trades like construction and hospitality. To solve a so-called 60,000 nurse shortage the government wants to import Filipino natives while at the same time the universities are turning away 40,000 qualified nursing applicants yearly. The people have awakened to the gravity of the situation. They realize they are competing with the cheapest labor in the world. They watch middle class jobs being taken by illegals at $10/hr wages. They watch the outsourcing of middle class jobs to foreign entities. They are concerned when our largest export is used plant machinery to China. They are aware it is going to get worse. “Alter US immigration laws to allow professionals in sixty-seven professions to take jobs anywhere in the three participating nations and relocate themselves and their families anywhere they wish in the three nations.”
      The government has achieved all this and brought us to the current recession without having told the people how they are expected to survive in a globalized world beyond stating that “Americans need to be retrained.”
      Highly ironic that the US gov (taxpayers) is being sued for $4B by WTO/Brazil for cotton subsidies (taxpayer dollars) which were given to cotton farmers. Now they are bailing out the auto industry with funds to retool and get going again. The government is trying to solve a problem they created. They facilitated foreign auto manufacturers setting up in the US and importing foreign cars through unfair trade agreements. The government doesn’t expect the bailout to work. Who in their right mind would expect a US manufacturer to compete with the world’s cheapest labor. It’s just another tactic in the grinding down the wealth of this country and of the middle class worker to get to a globalized economy.
      I’ve said nothing of the $40B drug trade and related wars raging across the border. The 9-11 commission recommended tightening security at all gateways and adopting a single ID card. Hundreds of millions were spent on their recommendations yet the border remains and we have no ID card.
      While I personally would like to see the border sealed, Bush impeached and globalization nixed, I recognize that the democrats will be able to grant amnesty, continue with globalization and will probably tear down the sections of fencing that was built. Wal-Mart & China will continue building their Mexican seaport and Texas will take the 500,000 acres of farmland and get to work on their 12 lane superhighway. A lot of people aren’t there yet and will continue the fight to seal the border.
      I wrote this little ditty some time ago and hope you will find it amusing.

      WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF GLOBALIZATION + 40 YEARS

      If you take ‘globalization’ to its logical conclusion somewhere down stream, what might our world be like? Let’s take a well needed vacation to, say, Kenya in 2050. You get in your car and head for the airport. Except for the color, your car looks like all the other cars on the road because it has been determined that one model of car can be manufactured for less. You get on your plane and you know exactly where you want to sit, as you know the layout well. That’s because all the planes are the same, except the color. The wings are made in Europe, the engines in Asia, and the rest in America. You know, the northsouthmiddleamerica. It was determined that it’s more efficient to manage aviation if all the planes operate the same. Cuts down on training for all involved. When you get up in the air you fly at the same speed as all the other planes. See, a computer in Tibet, the only remaining cheap labor market in 2050, controls the speed and route for all the flights that are in the air at any one time. On arriving in Nairobi you head for the Stanley Long Bar for a cool one, only to find that it’s been replaced by a 43 story hotel. So, you try the Lemon Tree restaurant and can’t believe what you find. A McDonald’s has replaced the restaurant and a tall statue of Ronald McDonald stands where the lemon tree once grew. So, you have a #6 chicken and retire for the evening. Next day you rent a car and head for the bush. It’s comfortable to drive as it’s just like the one you have at home, except for the color. Wonder of wonders, the roads to the bush are not dusty or muddy. They are just like your roads back home. Fifty foot, well groomed right-of-ways, with concrete drainage infrastructure. Even the signage is the same, except for the color. Makes it easy to drive and it’s cheaper to manufacture that way. You head for the Rift Valley and your mind wanders to a thatched roof motel alongside a river or lake. You arrive, with big expectations and find your hotel is 43 stories of steel and glass. Looks like the hotel back in your hometown and the one in Nairobi, except for the color. Puzzled by this you check in and try to find someone who speaks English. Well, its not called English anymore. It’s called ‘one world’. So you ask the attendant if he speaks ‘one world’ and, wonder of wonders, everyone there speaks the same language. In fact, you notice they have your mannerisms, even seem to have the same knowledge level as you. That’s because education, culture, etc. is taught from the same textbooks. Also, it’s way cheaper to manufacture them in one language. First question you ask is, what happened to the thatched roof venue and why does a hotel in the bush need to be 43 stories tall. They remind you that some years ago it was determined that some countries had to many people and some to few. So people were spread out across the world to balance things out. It was determined that for a balanced population a 43-story hotel building was needed for each locality. And, they are cheaper to build that way. After dinner you watch CNN WorldWide for a couple of hours and hit the sack. Next day you find a guide and head for the bush. On the way you try to find some commonality with your guide and start a discussion in ‘one world’. You find he makes $4.73 an hour as a guide, which is the same as a fishing guide charges on Lake Anna back in Virginia. He tells you his brother is a welder and makes $5.10 and hour, same as your welder neighbor back in Virginia. You tell him you work as an engineer and make $8.23 an hour. He relates that his neighbor is an engineer working for Microsoft and he makes $8.23 too. Seems to be pretty well accepted around the world that wages are fixed for each skill or trade, except in Tibet. You ask him what an executive or CEO makes. He doesn’t know and you don’t either so you just go quite for a few miles. As you enter the valley you expect to see native hut villages but all you’ve seen is small Jim Walters style homes, all different colors, along the highway. People seem to be wearing Nike tennis shoes and those slinky nylon sports shirts and shorts with the holes punched in them for airflow. All different colors. You see nobody standing around on one foot much less drinking cows blood through a straw. With some chagrin you ask, where are the lakes with the pink flamingos? Dried up he says, because of over population. He related that the balanced population delivered to his area was just too much for the natural environment to handle. As you turn to head back to the hotel you note that you’ve seen no wild life. No, he said, our balanced population included a lot of Asians and before their culture could be changed they ate all the wild life. Disgusted with your vacation you cut it short and start thinking about going back to work. After boarding your plane for the return trip you sit back and think about the highlights of your vacation. You wonder if the textbooks they use are different colors. Seeking solace, sanity and friendship you pop on the video screen and click on demreps.com. A relaxing smile comes to your face … . .

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 19, 2008 11:16 AM
      Comment #270581
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Roy Ellis, It should be strange to me that I would think getting control of the borders is a bad thing, since I don’t.
      What I don’t like is all this hype and hysteria about the subject, because people are thinking in terms of control, in terms of dramatic gestures, and voter-aimed spectacles, rather than feasibility or effectiveness. Take this wall. In an era of faked documents, overstayed visas, and jet air travel, how effective can a wall be? Let’s not forget the Great Wall of China failed to prevent the Mongols from taking over. Did you get that Roy? You, me, and others are merely falling for “hype and hysteria” and having any disdain for thousands of murdered Americnas per year, not wanting to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, health care, and cheaper immigration fees is mere “loathing”, “vengeful[ness]”, “fear” mongering, “melodrama”, “hype and hysteria” “xenophobia”, and racism.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Take this wall. In an era of faked documents, overstayed visas, and jet air travel, how effective can a wall be? Let’s not forget the Great Wall of China failed to prevent the Mongols from taking over.
      Border security does not require a wall. That’s yet another lame obfuscation/exaggeration to undermine the enforcement of existing laws.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- I took a fresh look at the data. And well, you’re still wrong.
      Nonsense.

      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability (GAO).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I looked into the linked GAO report, and the 5992 number wasn’t convictions but arrest offenses… . You’ll see disclaimers saying that arrests do not mean prosecution, conviction, or incarceration.
      I never claimed the report included convictions.

      Especially since many illegal aliens get out on bail and never return to court: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/12/gingrich-urges-hill-to-end-shield-for-illegals/
      Never mind that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens, when 12 Million illegal aliens is less than 4% of the U.S. population.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’ll also see a disclaimer at the front of the information from the study that says the following: Results of our analysis pertain only to our study population. Results cannot be generalized to all illegal aliens that may have been arrested and therefore cannot be interpreted as representing arrest or offense rates for all illegal aliens.
      I never claimed otherwise.

      It still does not explain away the fact that 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. And the fact is, many illegal aliens are released on bail and never return to appear for their court cases.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The whole point of what I’ve been trying to say to you is this: You’ve been getting the scope of your claims all wrong, mixed data from different time periods.
      False. The report is very clear, and am simply relating the contents of GAO Report 4656.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You don’t mind this, I think, because you just don’t have the background to know why you should care.
      HHHHMMMmmmm … and now who is resorting to critiquing the messenger, instead of the message? Figures. That’s typical when some people get frustrated by getting twisted into a pretzel with lame obfuscations.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I know enough about science and statistics to know that one’s sampling of data, and the strength of what that data can be said to represent are important to the quality of the conclusions.
      Yes, we know …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.
      It must be nice to know “all about” everything.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … what are you doing estimating the level of illegal immigrant violence from it? It’s beyond the scope, the meaningfulness of the information.
      Nonsense.

      Estimates were clearly presented as “estimates”, estimates are justifiable, since the government either fails and/or chooses to provide more accurate information. The estimate of 1212 homicides per year (3.32 per day) is the lowest estimate. Many other estimates place the number much higher (12 to 25 homicides per day). But even by the most conservative estimate of 1212 homicides per year, the homicide rate is above the norm by about 82% (i.e. 1.82 times the norm):

        In 2005, 29% (638,000) of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. Total numbers of all incarcerated are 2.2 million. The GAO Report 4656 of 55,322 illegal aliens in TX, CA, and AZ were charged with 5992 homicides between 1947 to 2004 (57 years). That is an average of 105.12 homicides per year. 55,322 illegal aliens is 8.67% of all 638,000 incarcerated illegal aliens. Thus, the number of homicides by illegal aliens is 105.12 x (638,000 / 55,322) = 1212 homicides per year. Total U.S. homicides in 2004 was 16,528 (or 45.25 per day).

      That is a reasonable estimate, and most estimates place the numbers much, much higher.

      We can not know the real numbers since the government and media fail and/or choose not to report and track that information.

      At any rate, it is a serious problem, and thousands of Americans are being murdered by illegal aliens every year.
      For example, yesterday, in Houston, an illegal alien out on $35,000 bail for murdering 25-year-old U.S. Navy veteran failed to appear before court.

        A Houston Chronicle investigation found dozens of cases in Harris County involving suspected illegal immigrants who posted bail and absconded on criminal charges, including murder, aggravated sexual assault of a child and drug trafficking. The Chronicle examined arrest and immigration records for 3,500 inmates who told jailers that they were in the country illegally during a span of eight months starting in June 2007, the earliest immigration records available. The review found at least 178 cases involving suspects who absconded, meaning they had their bails revoked for missing court dates or allegedly committing more crimes. Of those, 30 cases involved felony charges and two-thirds had initial bails set below $35,000 — the minimum recommended in the county’s bail schedule for illegal immigrants accused of felonies.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: And that is where I’m going to end this comment.
      Figures, but understandable. Getting all twisted into a pretzel trying to obfuscate and defend the indefensible can be tiring. Better to give up.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Have you considered the fact that all these comments are on record, should anybody care to reference them?
      Yes, and I would be ashamed if I trivialized the murders by illegal aliens of thousands of Americans and police men and police women, and foolishly and callously trivialize the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, to “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, trying to equate it with mere “vengence” or “loathing”, while arguing for amnesty, health care, and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, and characterizing the opposition as “xenophobic” racists, is disgusting and despicable.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not like its going to walk away.
      Good.

      I hope as many people as possible read it. I’m sure many will find comments very interesting that despicably trivialize the murders of thousands of Americans and police men and police women per year, by illegal aliens, and foolishly and callously trivializes the murder of thousands of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, to “wave the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims”, trying to equate it with mere “vengence” or “loathing”, while arguing for amnesty, health care, and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, and characterizing the opposition as “xenophobic” racists, is disgusting and despicable.

      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: But unless you get beyond the angle of xenophobia, what you’re not going to recognize is that economic conditions will lead many coming across our borders to break our laws in this regard, and those same conditions are going to make it difficult for these people to pay fees of hundreds of dollars, put in place by folks who want an emphasis on middle class folks immigrating, rather than huddled masses. {Disdain for thousands of murdered Americnas per year is mere “xenophobia” and racism?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of immigration enforcement, you can get all melodramatic about it, but we have laws, and they should be enforced. The problem comes when you try to enforce them after years of lax response to the problem. {Thousands of murdered Americans per year is mere “melodrama”, “xenophobia”, and racism ?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is what I mean by melodrama. Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders? For the sake of a generally peaceful, if illegal immigration of people mostly looking to get jobs? {Thousands of murdered Americans per year is “only a few murders”?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: The 55,322 illegal aliens were part of a recent study by the GAO. Some of the the 5992 homicides between 1947 and 2004 are attributeable, but only a few, relatively speaking. {5,992 murdered by illegal aliens is only a few?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problem of undocumented workers, and non-citizens roaming free in the country is indeed a problem. But I don’t think its necessarily the kind of problem you’re making it out to be. {Thousands of Americans murdered each year by illegal aliens is not a problem?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to wave the bloody shirt [of Americans murdered by illegal aliens] all the time trying to paint me as some sort of degenerate to win this argument, that’s your call. {Paint you as “some sort as a degenerate”? Apparently, no one’s help is required to accomplish that. Peoples’ own comments speak for themselves.}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Comparing the casualties of the Iraq war to this [Americans murdered by illegal aliens] is also erroneous. {More Americans murdered in 3.5 years by illegal aliens than U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 5.7 years is “erroneous” and irrelevant?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Treat this [illegal immigration] like a war, and more casualties are what you’ll have. Treat this with better maturity, less fear and loathing, and the solution, while not ideologically ideal, might help put the problem to bed. {HHMMMmmmm … who is doing the fear mongering by warning of “war” by/for/with illegal aliens?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: We do need to get our immigration laws well enforced, but we can’t be under the illusion that xenophobic policies will translate unreasoning fear into working policy. {Thousands of murdered Americans per year is mere “melodrama”, “xenophobia”, and racism ?}
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for healthcare? … What does it benefit us to refuse people [illegal aliens] such care?
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’ve given my reasons for why I think denying drivers licenses is a poor idea.
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: You have to look at the situation from more than just this perjorative, vengeful manner. {Disdain for thousands of murdered Americnas per year, not wanting to give them drivers’ licenses, amnesty, health care, and cheaper immigration fees is mere “loathing”, “vengeful[ness]”, “fear” mongering, “melodrama”, “hype and hysteria” “xenophobia”, and racism?}
      Posted by: d.a.n at November 19, 2008 11:42 AM
      Comment #270582

      CORRECTION for 1st paragraph:

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Roy Ellis, It should be strange to me that I would think getting control of the borders is a bad thing, since I don’t. What I don’t like is all this hype and hysteria about the subject, because people are thinking in terms of control, in terms of dramatic gestures, and voter-aimed spectacles, rather than feasibility or effectiveness. Take this wall. In an era of faked documents, overstayed visas, and jet air travel, how effective can a wall be? Let’s not forget the Great Wall of China failed to prevent the Mongols from taking over.
      Did you get that Roy? You, me, and others are merely falling for “hype and hysteria” and having any disdain for thousands of murdered Americnas per year, not wanting to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, health care, and cheaper immigration fees is mere “loathing”, “vengeful[ness]”, “fear” mongering, “melodrama”, “hype and hysteria” “xenophobia”, and racism.
    • Posted by: d.a.n at November 19, 2008 12:04 PM
      Comment #270591

      Yes, Dan, I’ve been getting it for forty years. If you are not for a globalized world then you are … all of the above. I do think they’ve won with the 111th congress. Jeff Sessions can’t carry it all by himself. It will be pushing impossible to back us out of it in 4 or 8 years.
      We are going to get a first hand look at globalization, open borders and all the rest. Better hang on to grandma’s gold teeth.

      Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 19, 2008 2:35 PM
      Comment #270621

      Roy Ellis-
      The one reason why I hate emotional arguments is that people fill in the details with imagination rather than observation.

      The truth of globalization is that nobody is playing the game on a fair, level playing field. That said, there are good reasons to pursue globally oriented trade and business strategies. The age of protectionism is over.

      Which means what exactly? We keep some priorities in mind. There’s no reason to reject foreign labor that is more efficient, but there’s also no reason to discourage innovation or encourage outsourcing of jobs either. We need to keep a stake in certain lines of business, and recognize that it is not in our national interests to inport everything.

      I’m not for an ideological approach one way or another; just practical, and beneficial to this country. What works, and what works for America.

      I am not for open borders. I just think a lot of what is advertised as being able to close those borders can’t. I’m for being more clever, not using more brute force methods.

      Dan-

      You, me, and others are merely falling for “hype and hysteria” and having any disdain for thousands of murdered Americnas per year, not wanting to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, health care, and cheaper immigration fees is mere “loathing”, “vengeful[ness]”, “fear” mongering, “melodrama”, “hype and hysteria” “xenophobia”, and racism.

      To be blunt, you are falling for the hype and hysteria. Smart people can do that. They can buy into what to other people might seem rather foolish ideas, because their philosophy convinces them of something that’s not really true.

      Do I have disdain for thousands of murder Americans a year? No, I just don’t think the bloodbath you’re portraying is accurate, so I’m not going to respond as if it is.

      I don’t mind giving illegal aliens licenses because the alternative is not much different in the end result, aside from the negatives of having fewer concentrated records and more drivers who haven’t passed a test on the road. False papers will render it a meaningless gesture.

      I dont’ mind giving them healthcare because it is foolish in epidemiological terms to allow any large group of people to go without it. Imagine a large pool of people who get ill, don’t see doctors, congregate together, etc. Those populations become breeding grounds, and barring the unlikely event you actually succeed in tossing millions of people out, it’ll become a public health problem for everybody. Besides, have you considered the ethical implications of asking doctors not to treat patients in need?

      More to the point, though, our emergency rooms are required to treat people who come in with severe injuries and illness. We’ll not really save money, we’ll just spend more of it somewhere else.

      As for cheaper immigration fees, the whole idea is to encourage legal immigration. Just what is the point of discouraging it? People want to seek the opportunities that the riches of this country offer. That is a powerful motivator. The question is, do you want to motivate them more to go the legal route, or the illegal?

      The upshot of doing things this way is that it gets these people under labor laws, like other resident aliens. It documents them, gets them in the system. It also, if your theory is that being an illegal alien makes you less respectful of the law, removes that particular moral hazard. Isn’t this what you want?

      Your claim of convictions is implicit, in that you don’t distinguish between murders and accusations of murder. The report itself is careful to make that distinction. Why aren’t you?

      You also don’t make the distinction that the disclaimer on applicability makes.

      Essentially, you’re saying that we should consider the crime rate in terms of this populations study of inmates. You generalize that crime rate outwards, parade around a set of example of people martyred to the illegal immigrants and demand action.

      Your implication seems to be that we need to make immediate, decisive action because of those facts you present.

      Well, here’s where we run into the trouble: the study’s not applicable to the general population of illegal immigrants. You can’t use it to make generalizations about the illegal immigrant population, how they’re more lawless, and then turn around and say that the study’s not applicable. You’re relating the information, but doing so improperly.

      I don’t think you fully appreciate the nature of your mistakes. You don’t have the scholarly background that might red-flag your inferences as shaky. Take a look at this:

      In 2005, 29% (638,000) of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. Total numbers of all incarcerated are 2.2 million. The GAO Report 4656 of 55,322 illegal aliens in TX, CA, and AZ were charged with 5992 homicides between 1947 to 2004 (57 years). That is an average of 105.12 homicides per year. 55,322 illegal aliens is 8.67% of all 638,000 incarcerated illegal aliens. Thus, the number of homicides by illegal aliens is 105.12 x (638,000 / 55,322) = 1212 homicides per year. Total U.S. homicides in 2004 was 16,528 (or 45.25 per day).

      You made a number of mistake. First, the data is all for one year I found no reference to a 57 year period, but relying on your information before, I argued with you on that point. Second, the number you employ so erroneously isn’t charging, it’s arrest offenses. Being arrested for murder is not being charged or indicted. The distinction is important because when they turn around and look at the number of convicted illegal aliens in that group for that crime, they only come up with 13.

      But what makes that worse is the limited scope of the study, and the limitations on the information. I sincerely believe that there are more than 13 murderers in that population. However, some folks are listed by their longest sentences, a fact that makes determine overall crimes a bit problematic.

      The argument cannot recover from those assumptions. Not knowing the real numbers doesn’t obviate the need to rely on real numbers, and good inferences. You don’t get to make something up or engage in poor scholarship just because you’re deprived of real numbers. Also, not acknowledging the limits of the scope in the study, as the study itself does, can be the source of all kinds of mischief in the conclusions one makes.

      They’re going out of their way to say: This does not apply to the population at large. In other words, don’t make any claims about the general illegal alien population based on this information. And why not? Because nobody in their right mind would go to a prison to estimate the incidence of crime for citizens in this country. Quite naturally, you’d see more than your average number of murderers, thieves and other miscreants in that sort of survey. If you want good numbers on the general population, you perform your study among the general population.

      On the subject of where I ended the comment, I had to get to bed, so that I could get to work in the morning. Neither you nor Roy are that important in my life that I’d prioritize otherwise.

      When I told you your previously published comments are not going to walk away, did you not take the hint that you don’t need to reprint all your blockquotes, tables, and past quotes again and again?

      Even if you were just offering this as an oral argument in a debate, I’d feel compelled to tell you to move on. People are not so stupid or lacking in memory that they must be perpetually reminded of each and every point. I mean, from the looks of it, you’re saving any number of paragraphs from things I said months ago. I’m a pretty zealous arguer, and I save nothing.

      Do yourself a favor and give people the news, not the history book. Save people the eyestrain so they can absorb your newest argument.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 19, 2008 6:37 PM
      Comment #270681
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Roy Ellis- The one reason why I hate emotional arguments is that people fill in the details with imagination rather than observation.
      Nonsense.

      It’s the facts that bother some people, and make their obfuscations and pretzel imitations more difficult.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not for an ideological approach one way or another; just practical, and beneficial to this country. What works, and what works for America.
      Such as giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses, and another amnesty, which may more than quadruple the problem again as the shamnesty of 1986 did?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I am not for open borders. I just think a lot of what is advertised as being able to close those borders can’t. I’m for being more clever, not using more brute force methods.
      Nonsense.

      Your comments have repeatedly shown disdain for border security and have never offered any credible methods for making the borders more secure.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- To be blunt, you are falling for the hype and hysteria.
      Nonsense.

      Nothing like critiquing the messenger instead of the message, eh?
      Funny how some people whine about ad hominem arguments and then do that very thing.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …
      No ? !

      Wow. Just as suspected. How revealing is that?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I just don’t think the bloodbath you’re portraying is accurate, so I’m not going to respond as if it is.
      Even by the smallest estimate of 1,212 homicides per year, that is 86% above the norm.

      Thousands of Americans are murdered each year by illegal aliens, and you have no disdain for that?
      Because you don’t believe it?
      I’m sure all of the survivors and victims of crimes by illegal aliens (voiac.org) will find your statements very interesting, to say the least.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t mind giving illegal aliens licenses ….
      Of course not. That’s quite obvious.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t mind giving illegal aliens licenses because the alternative is not much different in the end result, …
      Then why waste the time and money to do it?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: False papers will render it a meaningless gesture.
      Duh! That point was already offered several times.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I dont’ mind giving them healthcare because it is foolish in epidemiological terms to allow any large group of people to go without it.
      More bleeding-heart, nonsense.

      Importing millions of more impoverished, less educated, less skilled, non-english-speaking, and more diseased is not helping this nation one bit.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Imagine a large pool of people who get ill, don’t see doctors, congregate together, etc. Those populations become breeding grounds, and barring the unlikely event you actually succeed in tossing millions of people out, it’ll become a public health problem for everybody. Besides, have you considered the ethical implications of asking doctors not to treat patients in need?
      Stop the illegal employers and most illegal aliens will leave this country.

      Then we can deal with those still here, but rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty, non-emergency health care, drivers’ licenses, welfare, jobs, and education is not the solution, and will repeat the mistake of the amnesty of 1986, which more than quadrupled the problem of 3-to-4 million illegal aliens to 12+ million illegal aliens (today).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: More to the point, though, our emergency rooms are required to treat people who come in with severe injuries and illness. We’ll not really save money, we’ll just spend more of it somewhere else.
      Again, stop the illegal employers, and millions of illegal aliens will self-deport, and the savings to U.S. tax payers will be huge, since illegal immigration costs American tax payers an estimated $70 Billion (lowest estimate)-to-$327 Billion ( one-simple-idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens ) per year in net losses.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for cheaper immigration fees, the whole idea is to encourage legal immigration.
      We already allow over 1 million per year to immigrate legally.

      Another 1 million are born here by an illegal alien. 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens ( www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp , www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962723/posts ).

      We can’t let everyone in.
      Especially since they are filling up our prisons too (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens).
      The U.S. population is already growing by 5 million per year (one-simple-idea.com/PopulationUS.gif)!

      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Just what is the point of discouraging it?
      We can’t let everyone in. We already allow over 1 million per year to immigrate legally. Especially since they are filling up our prisons too (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens). The U.S. population is already growing by 5 million per year!

      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: People want to seek the opportunities that the riches of this country offer. That is a powerful motivator. The question is, do you want to motivate them more to go the legal route, or the illegal?
      Again, we can’t let everyone in.

      You can not make the pie any bigger.

      What part of that is so difficult to understand?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The upshot of doing things this way is that it gets these people under labor laws, like other resident aliens. It documents them, gets them in the system. It also, if your theory is that being an illegal alien makes you less respectful of the law, removes that particular moral hazard. Isn’t this what you want?
      What a load of crap.

      But watching yet another pretzel imitation is somewhat entertaining.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your claim of convictions is implicit, in that you don’t distinguish between murders and accusations of murder. The report itself is careful to make that distinction. Why aren’t you?
      There’s no deception, and there was never any statements whatsoever with regard to convictions versus charges. There is a difference. Sometimes, people are found not-guilty. So what? Are we to believe most of the 29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons that are illegal aliens are innocent of the crimes they are charged with? Not likely.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You also don’t make the distinction that the disclaimer on applicability makes.
      False.

      The disticion is very clear in the GAO Report 5646 which was linked to.
      Therefore, assertions of deception are more reaching, desparate, circular nonsense, all with the objective to trivialize the crimes by illegal aliens, since …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Essentially, you’re saying that we should consider the crime rate in terms of this populations study of inmates. You generalize that crime rate outwards, parade around a set of example of people martyred to the illegal immigrants and demand action.
      GAO Report 5646 speaks for itself.

      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your implication seems to be that we need to make immediate, decisive action because of those facts you present.
      We have enough facts.

      What part of “illegal” is so difficult to understand?

      But then, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Well, here’s where we run into the trouble: the study’s not applicable to the general population of illegal immigrants.
      Nonsense.

      A study group of 55,322 illegal aliens in 3 states (TX, AZ, CA) over a 57 year period (1947 to 2004) is a very applicable and a very good representative estimate of what is going on in border states.
      Obviously, most northern states don’t have the same problem as border states, but that is changing to. Chicago and New York City are huge sanctuary cities, and have fast growing populations of illegal aliens.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You can’t use it to make generalizations about the illegal immigrant population, how they’re more lawless, and then turn around and say that the study’s not applicable. You’re relating the information, but doing so improperly.
      Nonsense.

      GAO Report 5646 speaks for itself.
      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t think you fully appreciate the nature of your mistakes. You don’t have the scholarly background that might red-flag your inferences as shaky.
      More pathetic nonsense and more desparate critiquing of the messenger instead of the message, fueled by the deparation and frustration of being twisted into a pretzel to rationalize and defened the indefensible, such as …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …
        In 2005, 29% (638,000) of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens. Total numbers of all incarcerated are 2.2 million. The GAO Report 5646 of 55,322 illegal aliens in TX, CA, and AZ were charged with 5992 homicides between 1947 to 2004 (57 years). That is an average of 105.12 homicides per year. 55,322 illegal aliens is 8.67% of all 638,000 incarcerated illegal aliens. Thus, the number of homicides by illegal aliens is 105.12 x (638,000 / 55,322) = 1212 homicides per year. Total U.S. homicides in 2004 was 16,528 (or 45.25 per day).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You made a number of mistake. First, the data is all for one year I found no reference to a 57 year period, but relying on your information before, I argued with you on that point.
      More nonsense.

      5,992 homicides / 57 years = 105.1 homicides per year (on average).
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?
      Thus, that is yet another false and nonsensical assertion, and further questions the credibility of your numerous nonsensical statements.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Second, the number you employ so erroneously isn’t charging, it’s arrest offenses. Being arrested for murder is not being charged or indicted. The distinction is important because when they turn around and look at the number of convicted illegal aliens in that group for that crime, they only come up with 13.
      No one ever said charges equate to convictions.

      The problem with getting convictions is that many illegal aliens get out on bail (even illegal aliens charged with murder) and never show up for court.

      For example (www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6116355.html), yesterday (18-OCT-2008), in Houston, an illegal alien out on $35,000 bail for murdering 25-year-old U.S. Navy veteran failed to appear before court.

        A Houston Chronicle investigation found dozens of cases in Harris County involving suspected illegal immigrants who posted bail and absconded on criminal charges, including murder, aggravated sexual assault of a child and drug trafficking. The Chronicle examined arrest and immigration records for 3,500 inmates who told jailers that they were in the country illegally during a span of eight months starting in June 2007, the earliest immigration records available. The review found at least 178 cases involving suspects who absconded, meaning they had their bails revoked for missing court dates or allegedly committing more crimes. Of those, 30 cases involved felony charges and two-thirds had initial bails set below $35,000 — the minimum recommended in the county’s bail schedule for illegal immigrants accused of felonies.

      A lack of convictions also doesn’t mean they are all innocent does it?
      But, that’s not surprising since …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But what makes that worse is the limited scope of the study, and the limitations on the information. I sincerely believe that there are more than 13 murderers in that population. However, some folks are listed by their longest sentences, a fact that makes determine overall crimes a bit problematic.
      More nonsense.

      The average stay in jail for those 55,322 illegal aliens was 21 months. Are illegal aliens incarcerated for 21 months on average without any convictions?
      Think about that.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The argument cannot recover from those assumptions. Not knowing the real numbers doesn’t obviate the need to rely on real numbers, and good inferences.
      Convictions numbers too would be great.

      However, what part of “illegal” is so difficult to understand?
      What part of 29% of all incarcarated in federal prisons being illegal aliens is so difficult to understand?
      Why insist upon trivilizing a serious problem. Ohhhh, that’s right …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You don’t get to make something up or engage in poor scholarship just because you’re deprived of real numbers.
      Nothing was made up, and critiquing the messenger instead of the message is not making your comments more credible.

      But, such behavior is understandable, because pretzel imitations can be very frustrating; especially for peopel who have a propensity for it.

      GAO Report 5646 speaks for itself.
      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability.
      Even the lowest estimates are cause for valid concern, except perhap for someone who …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Also, not acknowledging the limits of the scope in the study, as the study itself does, can be the source of all kinds of mischief in the conclusions one makes.
      Nonsense. Just the sort of nonsense one would expect from someone who …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: They’re going out of their way to say: This does not apply to the population at large.
      It still has meaning.

      Convictions will certainly be lower, but that does not justify trivialization of the problem, such as …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In other words, don’t make any claims about the general illegal alien population based on this information.
      Nonsense.

      GAO Report 5646 speaks for itself.
      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability.
      Telling other people what to do is interesting; especially for someone who writes …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: And why not? Because nobody in their right mind would go to a prison to estimate the incidence of crime for citizens in this country.
      And that is exactly what the GAO did.

      GAO Report 5646 speaks for itself.
      Anyone who has a problem with the facts should contact the Government Office of Accountability.

      And you’d have us believe most of these 55,322 illegal aliens, who have spent 21 months in jail (on average), are innocent?
      First of all, they are all guilty of one crime: illegal trespass of our borders.
      Often, more than once, which is a felony.
      For exmaple, consider

    • 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. Jorge Hernandez had been arrested 3 previous times for drunk driving in 3 other states, and he had been deported 17 times!
    • GAO 5646 stated

      • 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;

      Trying to make us believe all of those arrests above (despite no accompanying conviction information) are all meaningless is truly laughable.

      That will become all to clear when we finally do have more accurate information.

      But, then, many of your comments are entertaining; especially as those comments attempt to twist and turn, obfuscate, and turn into a pretzel trying to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Quite naturally, you’d see more than your average number of murderers, thieves and other miscreants in that sort of survey. If you want good numbers on the general population, you perform your study among the general population.
      More nonsense, obfuscation, and pretzel imitations to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of where I ended the comment, I had to get to bed, so that I could get to work in the morning.
      Oh goodness gracious. We really want to know all about that.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Neither you nor Roy are that important in my life that I’d prioritize otherwise.
      Of course not. But what appears to be important to some people is resorting to all manners of obfuscation, twisting, contorting, and pretzel imitations to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible, no matter how ridiculous it is … as if no one will notice it.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: When I told you your previously published comments are not going to walk away, did you not take the hint that you don’t need to reprint all your blockquotes, tables, and past quotes again and again?
      The most recent are the most important. Besides, some people appear to have short memories.

      If you don’t like, you don’t have to read it, much less continuously respond to it with all kinds of obfuscation, twisting, contorting, and pretzel imitations to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Even if you were just offering this as an oral argument in a debate, I’d feel compelled to tell you to move on.
      This propensity for telling other people what to do is fascinating.

      Perhaps people should practice what they preach.
      Anyone who does like what is written here does not have to read it, much less continuously respond to it, by telling other people what to do, and with all kinds of obfuscation, twisting, contorting, and pretzel imitations to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: People are not so stupid or lacking in memory that they must be perpetually reminded of each and every point.
      Obviously, that’s not the case with everyone.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I mean, from the looks of it, you’re saving any number of paragraphs from things I said months ago.
      People shouldn’t flatter themselves too much.

      I don’t save what other people write, except for their excerpts that are embedded in my own responses.
      Everything I write is in a file created by a special editor with special search capabilities, indexing, formatting, sorting, tagging, and bookmarking capabilities.
      I do not type comments directly into the Comments: box, because the server can lose the comment, and it’s hard to view in such a small box.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m a pretty zealous arguer, and I save nothing.
      That’s your choice.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do yourself a favor and give people the news, not the history book. Save people the eyestrain so they can absorb your newest argument.
      Do yourself a favor and stop telling other people what to do.

      Anyone who does like what is written here does not have to read it, much less continuously respond to it, by telling other people what they should do, and spewing all kinds of obfuscation, twisting, contorting, and pretzel imitations to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible.

      If you don’t like it, then why do you repeatedly respond to it, over and over, many times on the same subjects?

      By the way, before criticizing others, and telling other what to do, perhaps some people should first consider their own bloviating

      Yukon Jake wrote:
      • Stephen Daugherty wrote: Frankly, I’ve never been fond of politics or bloviating on the topic

      Your posts are usually the longest of anyone besides d.a.n. and that’s only because he cites so much data in his posts. For someone who is not fond of politics (or bloviating), you have somehow managed to write 1,000,000+ words on the topic since I first stumbled on watchblog.

          : )

      It’s funny how some people repeatedly accuse others of the very things they excel at.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 20, 2008 1:20 PM
      Comment #270727

      Dan-
      This seems to be the form of your argument:

      I say something here.

      Then you call it nonsense or wrong here. Maybe you say I’m arguing in pretzel twists. Mind you, you only say this, you never demonstrate it. Or maybe you call it an obfuscation.

      I wouldn’t waste my time telling you lies, since you so obviously have your own grasp on the truth. If I actually agreed with your take on things, I wouldn’t bother correcting you over and over again.

      The most dangerous word in politics is “will” in the future tense verb version of that word. Everybody’s got their idea of what people will do, about what a policy will do. But such predictions are subject to the conditions on the ground. So far, though, as we’ve toughened border security, it’s not done a whole lot of good.

      Would you prefer people be running around with fake licenses that have no counterpart in the records, licenses whose “issuance” required no test of driving skills? After 9/11, licenses were one of the main avenues of tracking down the identities and activities of the Terrorists.

      Security wise, it’s smarter to encourage the creation of real IDs, with (at least some) real information behind them, rather than false IDs with no real informational value.

      As far as immigration goes, I see no problem in encouraging it by legal routes. This is a country of three hundred million people. The increase is not even in the high single digits. This country survived just fine, in fact became the nation we know today after a long period of such immigration. We survived the growth the last time, became a better, more interesting nation for it.

      There’s not a difficulty of understanding here. I am not stupid, nor am I ignorant of history. Your basic arguments are arguments I simply do not agree with. It doesn’t take stupidity to disagree with you, regardless of what you think.

      On subject of that study, you’ve done a poor job of really presenting the information.

      First, we’re not talking about 5992 homicides, but rather that many homicide arrest offenses Actual convicted murderers, not merely arrested, numbers 13.

      An average is worse than useless, because even if we were talking about actual murders, we’re not talking about all the murders, only the ones committed by those who were in prison, state or federal, at the time of the study. Anybody who was released or died in prison before this period would be excluded. If you were trying to establish a true average death toll, you’d need to go back in time through the statistics.

      If you’re unwilling or unable to do that, you’re essentially unwilling or unable to do the grunt work to substantively prove a crime rate among the prisoners.

      Which brings me to the fact that a direct quote out of the study says that it’s improper to use the rate of criminal activity in the report to establish crime rates for the general undocumented population. It’s a bit like holding a Presidential election poll in a country club, then trying to convince people that its statistics about public opinon actually apply to the general population.

      Yes, a lack of convictions doesn’t exonerate them all. But neither does it mean that illegal aliens are responsible for every crime they’re arrested for. The system does make mistakes.

      I do write longer entries and comments than most people. When I want to directly respond to somebody, point by point, I’ll just use Wordpad, which preserves the tabs and other formatting, and I’ll tile the two windows vertically.

      I write directly into the box. Always have. I’ll usually cut and past directly from the source, but otherwise, I generate all my own text and html coding.

      I guess it’s part habit, part check. I can feel when I’m getting too long on a comment, and my rear usually feels it as well.

      It kind of helps that this isn’t automatic. I’ve found it’s better to write organically, because it compresses the meaningful information into more condensed language. You’d be interested to see all the paragraphs I delete and modify and re-write from scratch. I write long because I come to my style of blogging most admiring journalistic style and rules. I’m an essayist at heart, and I enjoy reading and writing full length articles.

      So, I don’t go for short one-paragraph responses. However, I’m not out to make my comments a trial to read. I break up long passages into paragraphs. I link to, rather than publish graph information.

      And because I write these myself, I can feel the weight of the comment, as the comment wears on.

      Do you actually fully read these comments? Read through one, and compare it to an article in a magazine. Which would you rather write?

      We can be interesting to ourselves, but are we interesting to others? I aim to be that kind of interesting.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 21, 2008 1:47 AM
      Comment #270761
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- This seems to be the form of your argument: I say something here. Then you call it nonsense or wrong here. Maybe you say I’m arguing in pretzel twists. Mind you, you only say this, you never demonstrate it. Or maybe you call it an obfuscation.
      Yep. That’s right.

      When arguments for the PROs of giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses are so out numbered by the CONs (in my opinion), it most indeed looks like a obfuscation and yet another pretzel imitation.
      That’s what happens when one paints themself into a corner; this time by trying to prove there are more PROs than CONs for giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.
      The argument that illegal aliens with valid drivers’ licenses will make us all safer is very lame in my opinion.
      If fact, it is dangerous, because giving illegal aliens valid drivers’ licenses makes it very easy for illegal aliens to obtain other additional documents, based upon the false premise of U.S. citizenship. For example, all of the 9/11 hijackers had driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s identification cards, which they then could use when opening bank accounts, renting housing, and boarding planes.
      Giving illegal aliens legal documents is also sort of idiotic, since they are ILLEGAL.
      Should we also give them a Social Security Number, welfare, Medicaid, Medi-CAL, set up bank accounts, send their children to our schools, use our hospitals, give them jobs, and let them vote in our elections too?
      OHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … they already have that too.
      And half of all illegal aliens don’t pay any income or Social Security taxes either.

      The attack on 11-Sep-2001 was perpetrated by several illegal aliens; 18 of the 19 terrorist hijackers on 11-SEP-2001 possessed 13 state-issued drivers’ licenses and 21 other ID cards and ALL 19 hijackers had obtained Social Security numbers (some real, some fake). The terrorists very simply tapped into an enormous market for fraudulent documents that exists because 12+ million people have successfully breached our borders and now reside here illegally. Their presence has spawned widespread document and identity fraud that threatens our ability to distinguish illegal aliens from U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents. Yet, Barack Obama wants to give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- I wouldn’t waste my time telling you lies, since you so obviously have your own grasp on the truth. If I actually agreed with your take on things, I wouldn’t bother correcting you over and over again.
      Correcting what exactly?

      We’ve yet to see even one fact refuted.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The most dangerous word in politics is “will” in the future tense verb version of that word. Everybody’s got their idea of what people will do, about what a policy will do. But such predictions are subject to the conditions on the ground. So far, though, as we’ve toughened border security, it’s not done a whole lot of good.
      What toughening of border security?

      What’s been done for border security thus far is extemely miniscule compared to what is needed.
      A fence is worthless if it is not also patrolled.
      The purpose of a fence is only to provide a delay, make trespass inconvenient and more time consuming, and possibly funnel trespasses to fewer locations.
      It’s useless without being patrolled also.
      And a third or half of a unpatrolled fence is even more worthless.
      Where fences have been implemented, they did cut down on border trespasses.
      But current border security is severely under-staffed and under-equipped.
      Unfortunately, the federal government can find hundreds of billions for bailing out the banks, corporations, Wall Street, corporate welfare, pork-barrel, and waste, but can’t find $8 Billion per year to secure the borders. Currently, border states are hit the hardest, but the problem is spreading to other states. Perhaps when enough other states are experiencing the same net losses as the border states (due to burdens on schools, hospitals, ERs, health care systems, prisons, welfare, etc.), them perhaps they’ll begin to care about it. Obviously, the state of Montana, with a population less than half that of Fort Worth, Texas could probably care less about illegal immigration.

      However, equally, if not more important than border security is stopping the greedy illegal employers.
      Stopping the illegal employers would have the most effective impact on reducing the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S.
      Stop the illegal employers, using SSN Verify (98% accurate), and most illegal aliens will self deport.
      In fact, due to the bad economy and huge decrease in home building, many illegal aliens are already leaving the U.S.
      Border security alone is not enough.
      Internal enforcement of existing laws is required too.
      When things get bad enough, when voters are tired of paying $70-to-$327 Billion in net losses per year, and tired of being murdered, then perhaps enough voters will demand existing laws be enforced.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Would you prefer people be running around with fake licenses that have no counterpart in the records, licenses whose “issuance” required no test of driving skills?
      Yes.

      Because using a fake drivers’ licnese is a felony and grounds for deporation.
      A valid drivers’ license does not make anyone a good driver, since passing a test to get a drivers’ licenses is very easy. They probably even give them in dozens of different languages.
      A drivers’ licenses does not even remotely prove someone has adequate driving skills, so that is yet another truly silly and lame obfuscation, and a perfect example of yet another pretzel imitation while trying to defend the indefensible.

      Again, giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens is dangerous, because it makes it easier for illegal aliens to obtain other additional documents, based upon the false premise of U.S. citizenship. For example, all of the 9/11 hijackers had 13 state-issued driver’s licenses and 21 other IDentification cards, which they then could use when opening bank accounts, renting housing, and boarding planes. Drivers’ licenses are used to get on airplanes, so why make it easier for illegal aliens to get on air planes?

      There are no good reasons (IMO) for giving illegal aliens valid drivers’ licenses, and that is why MOST Americans and most states oppose it.

      Giving illegal aliens valid drivers’ licenses makes it easier for illegal aliens to live here illegally, and that is the real goal of many proponents who want to give illegal aliens valid drivers’ licenses, and try to disguise there nefarious motives as being helpful, or compassionate, or making us safer.

      The excuse that illegal aliens will use fake documents if we don’t give them real documents is also asinine.
      Using fake documents is a felony, and that crime should not be eliminated by giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: After 9/11, licenses were one of the main avenues of tracking down the identities and activities of the Terrorists.
      Again, this is what is meant by turning into a pretzel trying to defend the indefensible.

      Did that stop their heinous crime?
      In fact, if those states had not given the hijackers drivers licenses, bank accounts, Social Security Numbers, and other documents to provide a false premise of citizenship, it may have made it more difficult for the hijackers to get on air planes on 11-SEP-2001.

      Finger-prints and obvious biometrics (height, weight, hair color, eye color, photos, etc.) are better.
      Drivers licenses are too easily faked, and worthless.
      Besides, many illegal aliens will not use real drivers’ licenses or anything that would allow themselves to be tracked.
      Many have more than one fake ID.
      That is, they like the anonymity.
      Many illegal aliens are arrested numerous times, giving different names and different fake IDs, which is readily resolved with their fingerprints (or other methods of IDentification) reveal that they are wanted for other crimes in other places.

      That point is, anonymity breeds crime, by providing opportunities for evading IDentification for other crimes.
      That’s why finger-printing and other common-sense biometrics are better.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Security wise, it’s smarter to encourage the creation of real IDs, with (at least some) real information behind them, rather than false IDs with no real informational value.
      The most reliable form of IDentification is biometrics.

      Whenever someone receives a drivers’ license, they should have to provide their fingerprints too, along with the photo, height, weight, eye color, and hair color.
      The FBI has an Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification database System (IAFIS) which can search a huge database of digitized fingerprints in less than 2 hours.
      Other biometrics would be a good idea too, as soon as they can be implemented (e.g. Iris scan).

      Drivers licenses by themselves are worthless, since they also serve as “breeders” for gettting more documents and the capability to get on air planes, get SSN numbers, open bank accounts, rent housing, etc., etc., etc.

      These 11 states foolishly issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens (Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and West Virginia), and some of them are considering rescinding that practice because it serves as a magnet for illegal aliens (yet another good reason not to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses).

      Proponents of giving drivers’ licenses sheepishly allege that giving illegal aliens drivers licenses will allow them to obtain insurance for their cars, thus cutting down on the hit-and-run accidents that have become endemic in Los Angeles and other cities where illegal immigrants are concentrated. It’s very unlikely many will buy insurance and it is hard to predict how many will or won’t when their very presence in the United States reveals a willingness to disregard our laws in the first place.

      Regardless of the stretching, contorting, and pretzel imitations to try to PROmote the idea of giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens, the PROs are severely out-numbered by the CONs.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As far as immigration goes, I see no problem in encouraging it by legal routes.
      The U.S. already allows 1 million per year to immigrate legally. That’s plenty, if not too much already. It needs no encouragement.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is a country of three hundred million people.
      The U.S. population is over 305 Million and growing by 5 million per year.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The increase is not even in the high single digits.
      So you think population growth is a good thing? So good that it should be double-digit ?

      Perhaps you should ask China and India about all of the wonderful advantages of over-population?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: This country survived just fine, in fact became the nation we know today after a long period of such immigration.
      Legal immigration.

      There are limits to resources.
      The world population is growing by 211,000 per day (77 million per year)!
      The U.S. population has doubled since year 1950.
      Do you really want it to double again?
      Have you ever seriously looked at the amount of land per person? And not all of the land is usable.
      In 1959, there were 12.16 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 3 billion people).
      In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
      By 2039, there may be only 2.81 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 13 billion people).
      In 2006, there was only 1.15 acres of arable (farmable) land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).
      By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e. 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people).

      Why do you want to import the poorest, less educated, and less skilled, by the millions per year?
      We can’t make the pie larger.
      We can’t let everyone come here.
      Over-population exacerbates all other problems.
      Can you name one advantage of over-population?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We survived the growth the last time, became a better, more interesting nation for it.
      Controlled, limited, legal immigration is OK.

      But massive, uncontrolled, immigration (legal or not), is not OK, because it creates chaos, societal disorder, and burdens on existing citizens. And today, 12+ million illegal aliens are costing U.S. tax payers net losses of an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year, not to mention the untold cost of thousands of Americans murdered and victimized annually by illegal aliens. Legal immigrants also, most of the time (on average), are a wash when considering all services received, and contributions to the economy. Thus, with 305 Million people today, why do we need more people? Especially when we have 6.5% unemployment.

      Let everyone all over the world become a citizen who wants to come here, and you will have chaos, if not civil unrest, or worse.
      It won’t be long before no one will want to come here anymore.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: There’s not a difficulty of understanding here. I am not stupid, nor am I ignorant of history.
      Doth protest too much.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your basic arguments are arguments I simply do not agree with. It doesn’t take stupidity to disagree with you, regardless of what you think.
      Doth protest too much.

      I’m sure only one’s self can make one look stupid.

      My help is not needed for that.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: On subject of that study, you’ve done a poor job of really presenting the information.
      Nonsense.

      Just refer to the GAO Report 5646.
      Anyone who has a problem with the facts of GAO Report 5646 (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html) should contact the Government Office of Accountability.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: First, we’re not talking about 5992 homicides, but rather that many homicide arrest offenses Actual convicted murderers, not merely arrested, numbers 13.
      False.

      GAO Report 5646 stated:

      • Convictions: Federal Prison Illegal Alien Inmates:


      • Offense: Homicide;

      • Number: 13;

      • Percent:

      Notice only the words “Federal Prison”?
      The number of 13 convictions was ONLY for federal prisons, and did not include all State and local prisons.
      Surely you did not really believe that 5,992 arrests for homicide over 57 years resulted in only 13 convictions?
      Total homicide conviction data for all federal, state, and local prisons is not available anywhere that I am aware of, but it is unlikely that all of those arrested for those 5,992 homicides are innocent.

      GAO Report states the following, which shows that there are many more illegal aliens in state and local jails than in federal prisons:

      • Arrests for Homicide;

      • Total offenses: Number: 5,992;

      • Offenses for illegal aliens in federal prisons: Number: 1,156;

      • Offenses for illegal aliens in state prisons and local jails: Number: 4,836;

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: An average is worse than useless, because even if we were talking about actual murders, we’re not talking about all the murders, only the ones committed by those who were in prison, state or federal, at the time of the study. Anybody who was released or died in prison before this period would be excluded. If you were trying to establish a true average death toll, you’d need to go back in time through the statistics.
      More nonsense.

      5,992 / 55,322 = 10.83% is a mere ratio to relate 5,992 homicide offenses to the size of the study group of 55,322 illegal aliens of a period of 57 years, and only for a portion of all illegal aliens in some states (Texas, Arizona, and California).
      These facts were clearly disclosed many times.

      Between year 1947 and 2004, there were 5,992 arrests for homicide for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens in Texas, Arizona, and California (with an average stay in jail of 21 months).
      5,992 / 55,322 = 10.83% is a mere ratio to relate homicide offenses to the size of the study group.
      That’s all.

      All it means is that during a 57 year period, up to 10.83% of the 55,322 illegal aliens in the study group were charged and incarcerated for homicide.
      Of course, the exact ratio is unknown since some illegal aliens may have been charged for more than one homicide.
      You are not making any sense when you say that ratio is useless.
      It’s merely an ratio of homicide offenses-to-illegal aliens in the study group.
      If it bothers you so much, then forget it.
      Put it out of your mind.
      Nevertheless, among the 55,322 illegal aliens in the study group, 5,992 of the offenses for which some of the 55,322 illegal aliens were charged, was homicide.

      The total number offenses in 57 years was 691,890.
      The ratio of homicides to all offenses is less than 1% ( 5,992 / 691,890 ).
      That ratio is right out of the GAO 5646 Report.
      Do you have a problem with that ratio too?
      What is rather disturbing is the ratio of total offenses to total illegal aliens.
      691,890 offenses / 55,322 illegal aliens = 13 offenses per illegal alien (on average).
      And the total number of arrests was 459,614.
      That ratio is right out of the GAO 5646 Report too.
      Do you have a problem with that ratio too?
      Thus, the ratio of arrests to 55,322 illegal aliens is 8 arrests per illegal alien.
      That ratio is right out of the GAO 5646 Report too.
      Do you have a problem with that ratio too?
      If so, then contact the Government Office of Accountability. They wrote the report.

      Now, as for my own estimates, I wanted to see if the reports floating around of 12 to 25 homicides per day by illegal aliens made sense.
      I have seen no proof of those estimates, but I can not disprove them either without more nationwide data which may never be availabe.
      Since more data is hard to find, an estimate can be conservatively determined using data from two sources:

      • (1) By the end of 2005, there were an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. With existing data, and using the murder rates in Brazil, Mexico, Salvador, China, and 39 other nations, and the Census Bureau estimate of 8.7 million illegal aliens (in the year 2000), and assuming those crime rates are the same here as in those nations, then the total annual homicides in the U.S. by illegal aliens are between 1408 to 2510 homicides (www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10663).
        The total U.S. prison population in year 2004 was 2.2 million.
        The average stay in prison for each illegal alien is 21 months (i.e. at least 1 year, which simplifies the annual calculations based on an annual average).
        29% of all federal prisoners are illegal aliens (extrapolating, that is about 638,000 of 2.2 million incarcerated nation-wide).
        Some estimates place that percentage of illegal aliens at 33%, but let’s use the smaller 29% for now.
        In 2004, there were 16,528 homicides in the U.S.
        The U.S. population is about 300 million (as of NOV-2006).

      • (2) In GAO Report 5646, for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (imprisoned for many different crimes), there were 5,992 homicides by illegal aliens over a period of 57 years by illegal aliens in the 55,322 study group (only in CA, TX, and AZ; between 1947 and 2004).
        That is an average homicide rate of 105.12 homicides per year (i.e. 5992 homicides/57 years).
        The study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (in only CA, TX, and AZ) is only 8.67% of the total of number of incarcerated illegal aliens.
        Therefore (638,000 / 55,322) = 11.53 which means the study group of 55,322 was 11.53 times smaller than the total incarcerated illegal aliens.
        So, multiplying 11.53 times the average annual homicide rate of 105.12 = 1212 homicides per year by illegal aliens.
        That is a bit conservative, since most crimes started occurring after 1990.
        But, that number of 1212 helps corroborate the number 1408 estimated above based on homicide rates in the nations of origin of most illegal aliens.
        But, let’s only split the difference: 1310 = (1212 + 1408) / 2 .
        Therefore, 1310 homicides per year / 12 million illegal aliens = 0.0001092 homicides per illegal alien per year.
        16,528 homicides per year / 300 million U.S. citizens = 0.000055093 homicides per U.S. citizen per year.
        Therefore, ( 0.0001092 / 0.000055093 ) = 1.9814 times more homicides per day by illegal aliens.
        Even if the smallest estimate of 1212 homicides per year is used, the average is: ( 1212 / 12 million ) / 0.000055093 = 1.83 times more homicides per day by illegal aliens.

      By the most conservative estimate , and the data from GAO Report 5646, the homicide rate by illegal aliens is about double (1.83 times) that of U.S. citizens.
      Therefore, the articles claiming 12-to-25 homicides per day (4380 to 9125 per year) by illegal aliens appears much too high to me, which would equate to 6.6 times to 13.8 times the norm.
      The seem most likely impossible.

      At any rate, GAO Report 5646 is disturbing, and even by the most conservative estimates, the rate of homicides that appears to be 1.83 times higher than the norm is disturing too.
      This is not so far fetched, since crime is more prevelent in populations where there is more poverty, and less skills and education.
      This is not so far feteched if you’ve seen the high crime rates near the borders and in border states.
      And even if the rate is perfectly equal to 1.0 times the norm, these are thoudsand of additional homicides that should have never happened.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you’re unwilling or unable to do that, you’re essentially unwilling or unable to do the grunt work to substantively prove a crime rate among the prisoners.
      Nonsense.

      I’ve actually done a pretty good job to show that some claims of 12-to-25 homicides per day by illegal aliens can’t possibly be true.
      However, the most conservative estimates are still disturbing, and these are all crimes that should have never occurred.
      And before foolishly and callously trivializing the murder of Americans as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, while arguing for amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, one may want to think about the thousands (per year) of American murder victims and their survivors, and the tens of thousands of other crimes by illegal aliens every year.
      That is, people are quite justified to wonder about a statement such as …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Which brings me to the fact that a direct quote out of the study says that it’s improper to use the rate of criminal activity in the report to establish crime rates for the general undocumented population.
      Of course. Only estimates are possible without more data. Belaboring what is already known does not change the seriousness of the situation, and even the most conservative estimates are alarming. But that’s not hard to believe when there are reports of homicides by illegal aliens in the news almost daily (the most convservative estimates of 3.3 homicides per day by illegal aliens).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Yes, a lack of convictions doesn’t exonerate them all. But neither does it mean that illegal aliens are responsible for every crime they’re arrested for. The system does make mistakes.
      True.

      No one ever disputed that.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do you actually fully read these comments? Read through one, and compare it to an article in a magazine.
      Yes, I almost always read all of it carefully. How could you possibly assume otherwise when your comment has been addressed almost line-by-line?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We can be interesting to ourselves, but are we interesting to others? I aim to be that kind of interesting.
      Good.

      But it might be good to aim higher, and try not to get painted into corners, or turn into a pretzel trying to obfuscate and defend the indefensible; especially when it is suspiciously, if not blatantly partisan biased, and bordering on blind and partisan loyalty, or misplaced loyalty or compassion.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 21, 2008 6:57 PM
      Comment #270812

      Dan-
      Fifteen Pages to respond to just over three. That’s the figure I came up when I cut and pasted your latest comment and mine into Microsoft Word.

      Fingerprints and other biometrics require previous records to exist. Most of the time, in this country, a person only has to offer up such information when they are arrested or sign up for a background check, or immigrate or enter the country legally.

      To employ fingerprints, you have to, to be fair, ink and print or scan the fingers of everybody who comes to get a new license. Then you have to wait to see what comes back, as the search goes on through the database. This, while tens of thousands of other people are doing the same.

      Fingerprints scanners can become smudged with the previous user’s dactylogram, which would cause subsequent prints to read incorrectly, or even read as the previous owner’s prints! Ink prints have to be scanned, which causes additional issues in terms of keeping equipment clean, but also primary issues with the prints being properly taken, not smudged or incomplete.

      Conceiveably, though, a person without fingerprints on record with AIFIS would be, by default, considered citizens. However, many first time offenders also lack prints in the system, so they would get legitimate licenses that could be offered as proof of their citizenship.

      That is, unless you obligated every person in the United States who was a citizen to get fingerprinted. Hello big brother, my old friend…

      As for your statistics?

      First, lets address the period. The raw information in the report tells us that this period does not indicate the depth of record keeping from which the study is made. It represents the length of time the longest resident prisoner has stayed there. To average by that number gives us a result that’s inherently nonsensical, considering your numbers only represent current population.

      Second concern goes a little like this: the 5992 does not map one-to-one with that many murders. First, not all murders have one victim and one murderer. More than one person can be involved in a single murder, and a single murderer can kill more than one person. Second, we have no way of establishing whether each one of these person even killed somebody to begin with. The 5992 number doesn’t represent trials or prosecutions, much less convictions. It just indicates what they picked the person up for, just before they found out they had an undocumented person on their hands.

      We therefore have no way of accurately establishing how many people actually died at an illegal alien’s hands on an average year.

      Third, you’re not spreading your nets far enough to make your claims, not even among the people relevant to your average rate.

      A lot of people have left prison on their feet or in a box during that man’s tenure. You’re only getting a partial sample of any of them. The 55,322 doesn’t represent all the illegal aliens who have gone through those prison, just the current residents. Selecting 5992 real murders out of those numbers to derive your crime rate would be misleading to begin with.

      But it gets worse, if, as I’ve indicated, you’re not able to establish that many murders.

      So, here’s the score:
      You only have one year of real data in the study, not 57, and its on the 55,322 current residents, not that years murders.

      57’s simply the length of stay for the longest serving prisoner, which has no relevance to that murder rate.

      Your 5,992, if we were speaking plainly, would show us the murderer rate if it came from 57 actual years of records. That is, if we could be sure they were actual murderers, which we can’t be.

      But even if we could be sure, that 5992 would not correspond one-to-one with actual murders. Multiple suspects could commit one murder, and one suspect could commit multiple homicides.

      And even if you could argue from 57 years of records citing the records of all the people who went through the prison system, and murders and murderers corresponded uniquely to each other, the study itself was not built with the sampling necessary to reach conclusions about the general population of Illegal aliens.

      Long story short, even if your crime rate was valid, it would be valid only inside the prisons. And it’s not, for many reasons, so you rate is valid nowhere. It’s nonsense. Make up a number, and its got just as much of a chance of being right as the one you’re giving us.

      No murder should ever happen, but you could make the same argument of any immigrant group, legal or not; just adding population makes it so that more murders will occur. If we deport American mothers, that will certainly reduce the number of murders, since they are responsible for adding more people to the population, of whom some will commit murders.

      The issue of national sovereignty is enough by itself to motivate me to believe that we need to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. I’m not for the status quo in any shape or form.

      Better funded and staffed enforcement, coupled with reforms designed to encourage immigrants to do their immigration through legal channels are the solutions I believe will do the job best.

      Most other solutions seem to increase government power and bureaucracy without offering effective results to justify the trade-off, if such trade-offs are justifiable in the first place. So I don’t support them.

      You, in your political fervor, try to make it a partisan thing on my part. It’s not. This is my personal belief. But if you want to view everything through the lens of the two-party system, that’s your business.

      This is my last post on this. I think I’ve made my points abundantly clear. I don’t see the value of repeating myself here; I am on the record with the facts that invalidate your calculations. If you want to play a game of rhetorical spin, making accusations of partisan bias, go ahead, but it won’t change what the original report said and how it said it.

      There. Two and a half pages to answer fifteen.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 22, 2008 8:59 PM
      Comment #270849
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Fingerprints and other biometrics require previous records to exist. Most of the time, in this country, a person only has to offer up such information when they are arrested or sign up for a background check, or immigrate or enter the country legally… . … That is, unless you obligated every person in the United States who was a citizen to get fingerprinted. Hello big brother, my old friend…
      I don’t see a problem with getting fingerprints.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for your statistics? …
      Glutton for more twisting, contorting, and pretzel imitations, eh? OK …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: First, lets address the period. The raw information in the report tells us that this period does not indicate the depth of record keeping from which the study is made.
      False statement # 1.

      The time period is very clearly stated in GAO Report 5646 to be from year 1947 to 2004 for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (which is only a small portion of all illegal aliens ever incarcerated over that 57 year time period). Thus, your comment makes no sense.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It represents the length of time the longest resident prisoner has stayed there.
      False statement # 2.

      Where did such a stupid idea come from?
      The GAO Report 5646 clearly stated that the average period of incarceration in prison was 21 months.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: To average by that number gives us a result that’s inherently nonsensical, considering your numbers only represent current population.
      False statement # 3.

      The 55,322 number is not the “current” population, nor the total population. 55,322 is only a small portion of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens incarcerated over a 57 year period (between years 1947 and 2004). That is very obvious since the average time of incarceration is 21 months per illegal alien. You clearly did not read the report very well, and you have made three assumptions that are clearly false.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Second concern goes a little like this: the 5992 does not map one-to-one with that many murders. First, not all murders have one victim and one murderer. More than one person can be involved in a single murder, and a single murderer can kill more than one person.
      Of course some illegal aliens may have been charged with more than one homicide. That was already acknowledged several times above.

      But that’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Second, we have no way of establishing whether each one of these person even killed somebody to begin with.
      True. We don’t have the conviction data. However, that doesn’t mean they are all innocent either. Especially not with an average length of incarceration of 21 months.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The 5992 number doesn’t represent trials or prosecutions, much less convictions.
      No one ever said it did.

      However, the legal system is very slow, and convicitons can take years and/or decades to obtain (if ever) after an arrest.
      It is unlikely that most of those charged with those 5,992 homicides are innocent.
      Especially with an average incarceration time period of 21 months.
      It’s also safe to say that some of the guilty were set free too, due to lack of evidence, but that’s a little detail you prefer to ignore.
      At any rate, 5,992 arrests for homicide for a study group of 55,322 incarcerated is alarming.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: We therefore have no way of accurately establishing how many people actually died at an illegal alien’s hands on an average year.
      Nonsense.

      Estimates are possible, even if all of the data is not available.

      While GAO Report 5646 is not ideal, it provides a pretty good estimate.
      And my estimates, along with a couple of others, place the homicide rate much lower than some articles of 12-to-25 homicides per day by illegal aliens.
      My estimate, along with this estimate, places the estimate much lower at about 3.3 homicides per day by illegal aliens, which is about 1.83 times the norm.

      But again, even if the homicide rate was equal to (1.0 times) the norm, it’s still too many, since none of them should have occurred at all.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Third, you’re not spreading your nets far enough to make your claims, not even among the people relevant to your average rate.
      Nonsense.

      A study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period is a fairly large net, and can provide a fairly good sample.
      Especially with an average incarceration period of 21 months per illegal alien, which justifies some annual estimates (which would be less meaningful if the average incarceration periods were a very short period of time, such as a few days or months). The other important point about an average stay of 21 months is that it is very unlikely that innocent people are incarcerated on average for 21 months without a conviction (despite the absence of accompanying conviction data).

      Also, most of the crimes stated after year 1990. So mixing omitting data from as early as year 1947 only serves to dilute and reduced the increased crime rates starting after year 1990. A mere visit to Los Angeles , Tuscon, AZ, Laredo, TX, or many other border cities makes this all too obvious. Crime rates are high, which is not hard to understand due to poverty, and people with less education and skills.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: A lot of people have left prison on their feet or in a box during that man’s tenure.
      So? That’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re only getting a partial sample of any of them.
      No one ever said an estimate was 100% accurate. However, you appear to be forgetting an average incarceration period of 21 months per illegal alien.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The 55,322 doesn’t represent all the illegal aliens who have gone through those prison, just the current residents.
      False statement # 4.

      I’m actually surprised by such and ignorant statement.

      The 55,322 number is not the “current” population, nor the total population. 55,322 is only a small portion of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens incarcerated over a 57 year period (between years 1947 and 2004) for varying periods of time, which averaged 21 months per illegal alien.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Selecting 5992 real murders out of those numbers to derive your crime rate would be misleading to begin with.
      Nonsense.

      The GAO Report states that some illegal aliens were incarcerated for 5,992 homicide offenses.
      We don’t have the conviction data, because that can take a long time.
      Some murderers may also be released due to lack of evidence.

      However, if you want to believe most (or all) of the illegal aliens charges with those 5,992 homicides are innocent, you go right ahead and believe that.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: A lot of people have left prison on their feet or in a box during that man’s tenure. .
      Duh!
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re only getting a partial sample of any of them. .
      That’s right.

      The study group is of 55,322 illegal aliens is only a portion of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) that have been incarcerated for that period of time between 1947 and 2004, and only in some prisons, and only in some states (TX, AZ, CA).

      Again, that’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: A lot of people have left prison on their feet or in a box during that man’s tenure. You’re only getting a partial sample of any of them. The 55,322 doesn’t represent all the illegal aliens who have gone through those prison, just the current residents.
      False statement # 5.

      Those 55,322 are not the current residents. Especially when the average period of incarceration is only 21 months. It is merely a portion (a study group; a sample) of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) that have been incarcerated for that period of time between 1947 and 2004, and only in some prisons, and only in some states. You are obviously confused.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Selecting 5992 real murders out of those numbers to derive your crime rate would be misleading to begin with.
      Nonsense.

      Maybe you are confused, because you obviously do not understand the data, and have obviously made 5 false statements above, and 3 false statement below.

      Again, the 5,992 homicided offenses are for a period of 57 years between 1947 and 2004.
      Some of the 55,322 illegal aliens were charged with those homicides.
      The average stay in prison is 21 months (stated in GAO Report 5646).
      Thus, annual estimates are justified.
      That is, 5,992 homicide offenses over a 57 year period yields an average estimate of 105.12 homicides per year.
      Also, 5,992 / 55,322 means that upto 10.83% of those illegal aliens were charged with homicide (regardless of whether they were ever convicted).
      However, since most of the crime started in the 1990s, the data for the 42 years from 1947 to 1989 dilutes thd data such that averages for the last 18 years is probably much worse.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: But it gets worse, if, as I’ve indicated, you’re not able to establish that many murders.
      Nonsense, since your facts are all wrong, as proven above.

      While conviction data is not available, is is very unlikely all of those arrested for 5,992 homicides were innocent.
      Especially with an average period of incarceration of 21 months per illegal alien.
      We don’t have the conviction data, because that can take a long time, and some murderers may also be released due to lack of evidence.

      However, if you want to believe most (or all) of the illegal aliens charges with those 5,992 homicides are innocent, you go right ahead and believe that.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, here’s the score: You only have one year of real data in the study, not 57, and its on the 55,322 current residents, not that years murders.
      False statement # 6.

      Total nonsense. You obviously did not read the report.

      The study group for GAO Report 5646 was for 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period (1947 to 2004), with an average stay in prison of 21 months per illegal alien.
      Therefore, you comment makes no sense whatsoever.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: 57’s simply the length of stay for the longest serving prisoner, which has no relevance to that murder rate.
      False statement # 7.

      57 years is the time period for 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated between year 1947 and year 1950.
      You clearly have a very messed up understanding of the data in GAO Report 5646.
      This pretzel imitation is getting worse and worse, in a desparate attempt to obfuscate and twist the facts into something completely different.
      You credibility is declining fast.
      I’m actually surprised to see such obvious factual flaws in your comments.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your 5,992, if we were speaking plainly, would show us the murderer rate if it came from 57 actual years of records. That is, if we could be sure they were actual murderers, which we can’t be.
      False statement # 8.

      It did come from 57 years of arrest records for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens.

      As for convictions, not all of that data is available, which has been acknowledged repeatedly.
      However, if you want to believe most (or all) of the illegal aliens charges with those 5,992 homicides are innocent, you go right ahead and believe that.
      While conviction data is not available, is is very unlikely all of those arrested for 5,992 homicides were innocent.
      Your comment above already acknowledge that …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Yes, a lack of convictions doesn’t exonerate them all. But neither does it mean that illegal aliens are responsible for every crime they’re arrested for.

      When the actual data finally becomes available, it’s quite likely it will be disturbing, to say the least.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Multiple suspects could commit one murder, and one suspect could commit multiple homicides.
      Duh!

      That has already been acknowledged.
      That’s the purpose of the words “up to” in:

      • Up to 10.83% (i.e. 5,992) of 55,322 is not “only a few”.

      But again, that’s quite a talent there for stating the obvious.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: And even if you could argue from 57 years of records citing the records of all the people who went through the prison system, and murders and murderers corresponded uniquely to each other, the study itself was not built with the sampling necessary to reach conclusions about the general population of Illegal aliens.
      Nonsense.

      The offense records are for 57 years for 55,322 different illegal aliens.
      What part of that is so difficult to understand?
      There is no doubt that rates will vary from year to year.
      For example, crime by illegal aliens increased sharply after 1990 (not long after the shamnesty of year 1986).
      Therefore, if anything, the rates for the last two decades are probably more damning than the previous 3 decades.
      That is, 5,992 homicide offenses over a 57 year period yields an average estimate of 105.12 homicides per year.
      However, since most of the crime started after year 1990, the data for the 42 years from 1947 to 1989 dilutes that average, and the average for the last 18 years is probably much higher.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Long story short, even if your crime rate was valid, it would be valid only inside the prisons.
      So what? The data was only for a specific selection of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period.

      However, in my opinion, it is justifiable to make estimates based on such a large sampling of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period.
      The fact is, since most crimes started after 1990, the estimates are very conservative.
      That is, the real rates are probably much worse.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: And it’s not, for many reasons, so you rate is valid nowhere. It’s nonsense. Make up a number, and its got just as much of a chance of being right as the one you’re giving us.
      Nonsense.

      I think what distresses you so much is that the situation is really worse than my most conservative estimates.
      You’d love to prove it wrong, but you can’t, and the data that is available makes my estimate hard to explain away, despite the desparate pretzel imitations to obfuscate, contort, and twist the facts and discredit GAO Report 5646 and a few ratios and estimates from their data.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: No murder should ever happen, …
      Then why write
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Are you calling for the president or congress to station the military at our borders for the sake of a few murders?
      Why trivialize the murder of thousands of Americans by illegal aliens as only “a few murders”, mere “melodrama”, while arguing for amnesty and drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens?.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: No murder should ever happen, but you could make the same argument of any immigrant group, legal or not;
      The issue is not about legal immigrants.

      The issue is about illegal immigrants.
      Funny how people in the pro-immigrant crowd always get the difference confused (another of many lame obfuscations).

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … just adding population makes it so that more murders will occur. If we deport American mothers, that will certainly reduce the number of murders, since they are responsible for adding more people to the population, of whom some will commit murders.
      Such ridiculousness and obfuscation such as that only serves to prove how weak your arguments are.

      But the pretzel imitations are entertaining.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The issue of national sovereignty is enough by itself to motivate me to believe that we need to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
      How? By giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I’m not for the status quo in any shape or form.
      Right. That’s why you and Obama want to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Better funded and staffed enforcement, …
      That part I agree with completely (as do most Americans).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … coupled with reforms designed to encourage immigrants to do their immigration through legal channels are the solutions I believe will do the job best.
      Bad idea, because we already let 1 Million people immigrate legally per year, so the only way to make it legal is to let everyone come here legally, which is a recipe for disaster. Especially in a nation where so many services are available to anyone in the nation, regardless of whether they are here legally or not. The net losses and costs to U.S. tax payers are already huge ($70-to-$327 Billion per year).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Most other solutions seem to increase government power and bureaucracy without offering effective results to justify the trade-off, if such trade-offs are justifiable in the first place. So I don’t support them.
      Right. Give them drivers’ licenses and amnesty, and watch the problem quadruple again, as it did after the shamnesty of 1986.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: You, in your political fervor, try to make it a partisan thing on my part.
      Regardless, giving illegal aliens drivers’ licenses is stupid, and saying
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …
      is strange to say the least, and trivializing the murder of thousands of Americans by illegal aliens as only “a few murders”, and mere “melodrama” makes your position quite clear.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s not. This is my personal belief. But if you want to view everything through the lens of the two-party system, that’s your business.
      With regard to your comments, that is usually very accurate. After all, Obama and your party want to do the same things (i.e. give illegal aliens drivers licenses and another amnesty, etc.). If that is a mere coincidence (again), then I stand corrected.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is my last post on this.
      That’s understandable. Twisting, contorting, pretzel imitations can be very tiring and stressful. We will miss the entertainment.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think I’ve made my points abundantly clear.
      Yes, you have. This is your most revealing comment
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …
      You also made it clear that you want to:
      • give drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens because you think it will make us safer.
      • make it easier to allow more people to immigrate to the U.S., despite 1 million per year that already immigrate legally. Sure, let’s just let everyone in, eh?
      • give illegal aliens another amnesty. That’s brilliant. Let’s quadruple the problem and again, just like after the amnesty of 1986. Yeah, that’s real smart.
      And your comments trivialize the murder of thousands of Americans by illegal aliens as only “a few murders”, and mere “melodrama” makes your position quite clear.

      Yes, that’s all pretty clear.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t see the value of repeating myself here;
      Then why do it over and over and over?
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I am on the record with the facts that invalidate your calculations.
      What facts? You made 7 false statements above and proved nothing at all.

      In addition, it was most interesting and revealing to see this comment

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you want to play a game of rhetorical spin,
      Gee. Funny how some people accuse others of the very things they excel at themselves.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … making accusations of partisan bias, go ahead, but it won’t change what the original report said and how it said it. There. Two and a half pages to answer fifteen.
      Seven (7) of your rebuttals are based on false statements (above).

      You clearly do not understand GAO Report 5646.

      But what more can be expected when

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Do I have disdain for thousands of murdered Americans a year? No, …

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 23, 2008 7:46 PM
      Comment #271030

      Dan-
      Okay, I take it back. I will respond to this. 13 to respond to two and a half, but as usual, you’re not taking the hint.

      I bring up these concerns not to quibble my way towards winning the argument because I believe that undisciplined use of data and studies undermine proper policy formulation.

      It’s like boxing at shadows. You’ll expend a whole bunch of blood, sweat and tears for less effect, or even counterproductive results.

      One of the most grievous sins of the passing administration was their reckless attitude with information and assumptions. I am therefore very strict about such things, and about the assumptions that can be made.

      First, we have to see where the population number comes from.

      To obtain information to answer these objectives, we identified a population of 55,322 aliens that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Department of Homeland Security determined, based upon information in its immigration databases, had entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.

      That was what qualified you to be part of a study: be an illegal alien in jail during that fiscal year. is this sampling supposed to be representative of all Illegal Aliens, or even just of illegal aliens who are criminals?

      No.

      Results of our analysis pertain only to our study population. Results cannot be generalized to all illegal aliens that may have been arrested and therefore cannot be interpreted as representing arrest or offense rates for all illegal aliens.

      5992, your number of murders, comes from arrest offenses. Can we generalize the number of murderers reliably from this number? No, we’re told not to.

      Note: Not all arrest offenses would have resulted in a prosecution, a conviction, or an incarceration.

      That’s right under the table listing arrest offenses.

      As for 1947? We were both wrong.

      To determine the number of arrests for our study population of illegal aliens, we totaled the number of unique dates of arrest for each unique FBI number contained in the FBI criminal history records we obtained. The earliest arrest record was in 1947, the latest October 28, 2004.

      In other words, we’re not dealing with the length of the prison sentence, nor the extent of the survey’s population, just arrest records. The first paragraph tells us what the scope was. This tells us the earliest record involved.

      The reason its important to mention the scope is because it defines the nature of the study and what it actually says. I was off by a little, but I was right that this survey did not have the scope of 57 years of complete records, which would allow us to reliably produce an accurate arrest rate for murder.

      Without a population of peers each year, every year, you can’t establish an average arrest rate for murder.

      Given the warning about arrests not necessarily meaning convictions or incarcerations, and the limiting of the scope to those in prison during fiscal 2003, and adding the logical uncertainty of the relationship of number of murders to number of murderers, it becomes impossible to derive a reliable murder rate from the 5992 number, at least by using your methods.

      The further inconvenient fact that this is not even supposed to represent the crime rate of exterior populations bears mentioning.

      So why am I hard on you here? Because I am sick to death of people putting passion ahead of reason in interpreting data like this. One of the big reasons we’re in Iraq and we’re in trouble with the markets is the deceptive use of math and statistics. Numbers, when pulled from reliable relationships with the real world can become the means to insulate and delude people.

      If, as you insist, the reason people keep voting incumbents in is that they are not faced with the right amount of pain, then you should be concerned about these kinds of effects and minimizing them. Many incumbents play on fears, using data methods like yours, convincing people that there’s something catastrophic going on. Or they hide things in statistical loop-de-loops, trying to explain away discrepancies by claiming any number of unfounded excuses why the data looks the way it does.

      Only with proper disciplined collection and interpretation can the numbers tell us any part of the truth, and can we understand that truth in its applicable context.

      Otherwise, we’re chasing mathematical and statistical phantoms, rather than holding people accountable for how bad things are, and rewarding people for how bad things aren’t.

      Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 26, 2008 6:31 PM
      Comment #271041

      I wonder…if every incumbent who was up for reelection during the past six years had been replaced, how much better (worse) off we would be right now?

      The question is ridiculous on the surface, because such conjectures are too subjective, and not supported by any number, data or fact…but I’d be willing to bet, we’d be in about the same boat we’re sinking in right now.

      My reasoning…incumbency, by itself, can be either good, in the case of someone who puts country above self…or bad, in the case of someone who puts self above country. Granted, most Americans see this glass as half empty, but maybe that’s because most Americans are pessimists? Or because we’ve been sold on pessimism by vociferous nay-sayers.

      Those who have achieved the necessary credentials to be elected to high office are already infused with those properties that make them good or bad people…just replacing all incumbents seems like a horrible waste of time, energy and resources.

      It is too bad we are not better seers when we go into the voting booth.

      Posted by: Marysdude at November 27, 2008 4:51 AM
      Comment #271042

      Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

      Posted by: Marysdude at November 27, 2008 4:54 AM
      Comment #271050
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Okay, I take it back. I will respond to this. 13 to respond to two and a half, but as usual, you’re not taking the hint.
      Despite …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: This is my last post on this. I think I’ve made my points abundantly clear. I don’t see the value of repeating myself here …
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I bring up these concerns not to quibble my way towards winning the argument because I believe that undisciplined use of data and studies undermine proper policy formulation.
      Interesting, coming from an expert at the misuse of data and statistics.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s like boxing at shadows. You’ll expend a whole bunch of blood, sweat and tears for less effect, or even counterproductive results.
      Exactly.

      Funny how some people fail to pratice what they preach.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: One of the most grievous sins of the passing administration was their reckless attitude with information and assumptions. I am therefore very strict about such things, and about the assumptions that can be made.
      That’s really funny, based on the dozen (or more) false statements below, demonstrating a complete misunderstanding and/or obfuscation, contorting, and twisting of the facts of GAO Report 5646:
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: First, lets address the period. The raw information in the report tells us that this period does not indicate the depth of record keeping from which the study is made.
        False statement # 1, since the GAO Report 5646 clearly stated the period was between 1947 and 2004.
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: It represents the length of time the longest resident prisoner has stayed there.
        False statement # 2, since the GAO Report 5646 clearly stated that the average period of incarceration in prison was 21 months. Never did GAO Report 5646 state that the longest stay for any prisoner is 57 years. Many people were incarcerated for varying periods of time between years 1947 and 2004.
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: To average by that number gives us a result that’s inherently nonsensical, considering your numbers only represent current population.
        False statement # 3, since the 55,322 number is not the “current” population, nor the total population, but is only a small portion of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens incarcerated for varying periods of time (averaging 21 months per incarceration) over a 57 year period (between years 1947 and 2004).
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: The 55,322 doesn’t represent all the illegal aliens who have gone through those prison, just the current residents.
        False statement # 4. Such a ridiculous statement is surprising. The 55,322 number is NOT the “current” population, nor the total population. 55,322 is only a small portion of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens incarcerated for varying periods of time (21 months on average per incarceration) during a 57 year period (between years 1947 and 2004). How could it possibly be the current population unless they ALL were in prison for 57 years? ! ?
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: You’re only getting a partial sample of any of them. The 55,322 doesn’t represent all the illegal aliens who have gone through those prison, just the current residents.
        False statement # 5, since 55,322 is NOT the number of current residents. It is the number of illegal aliens in the study group that were incarcerated for varying periods of time (incarcerated 21 months on average) for a 57 year period between 1947 and 2004. It is only a portion (a study group; a sample) of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) that have been incarcerated for that period of time between 1947 and 2004, and only in some prisons, and only in some states (CA, AZ, TX). You are obviously confused.
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: So, here’s the score: You only have one year of real data in the study, not 57, and its on the 55,322 current residents, not that years murders.
        False statement # 6, since the study group for GAO Report 5646 was for 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period (1947 to 2004), with an average stay in prison of 21 months per illegal alien. What part of that is so difficult to understand?
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: 57’s simply the length of stay for the longest serving prisoner, which has no relevance to that murder rate.
        False statement # 7, since the 57 year is the time period for 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated for varying lengths of time (21 months on average) between year 1947 and year 1950. You clearly have a very messed up understanding of the data in GAO Report 5646, and no amount of obfuscation and pretzel imitations is getting change the facts. It is starting to look like a very desparate attempt to obfuscate and twist the facts into something completely different only to win an argument.
        Stephen Daugherty wrote: Your 5,992, if we were speaking plainly, would show us the murderer rate if it came from 57 actual years of records. That is, if we could be sure they were actual murderers, which we can’t be.
        False statement # 8, since the data does indeed come from 57 years of arrest records for a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens. The number of convictions is not known, but an average incarceration period of 21 months is not an encouraging, some murderers are probably never convicted due to lack of evidence, many are never caught and arrested, and convictions can take years and decades of more time and money. Also, 29% of all people currently incarcerated in federal prisons today are illegal aliens. The GAO Report 5646 Report does not include conviction information, but 5,992 (10.83% of 55,322 which is only a portion of all illegal aliens arrested in some states in the 57 time period) illegal aliens arrested for homicide over a 57 year period (105.12 homicide arrests per year on average) is not merely …
        • Stephen Daugherty wrote:“a few murders”.
        • … or waving …
        • Stephen Daugherty wrote: the bloody shirt of a gallery of victims“a gallery of victims”
        • … or mere melodrama …
        • Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of immigration enforcement, you can get all melodramatic about it, …
        • I’m sure the thousands of victims and their survivors of crimes by illegal aliens will find that sort of trivialization and severely misplaced compassion for illegal aliens quite fascinating.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: First, we have to see where the population number comes from.
      Anyone who has a problem with the facts of GAO Report 5646 (www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html) should contact the Government Office of Accountability.

      As you may or may not know, the GAO was not exactly run by people (e.g. David Walker) who kow-towed to the Bush Administration.

      Stephen Daugherty quoted from GAO Report 5646:
        To obtain information to answer these objectives, we identified a population of 55,322 aliens that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Department of Homeland Security determined, based upon information in its immigration databases, had entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003. We then analyzed selected data contained in the criminal history record, commonly referred to as the rap sheet, of these illegal aliens maintained within the Federal Buruea of Investigation’s (FBI) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). To assess the reliability of immigration databases used to make the determination about and illegal alien’s legal status, we discussed internal control processes for ensuring data quality with responsible ICE staff and found the data to be reliable for purposes of this report.
      That’s yet another lame (to say the least) attempt to obfuscate the data, because you omitted the next sentences from the paragraph on page 2 (which have been included above in in bold italics).

      Clearly, GAO Report 5646 that explains that NOT all data was only from illegal aliens incarcerated during fiscal year 2003.
      The reported convictions (on page 28) for 308,168 illegal aliens that were BOTH convicted and incarcerated during year 2003.
      That’s a separate issue.
      The sentence that you conveniently omitted, explains that they also “analyzed selected data in the criminal history record” (from the FBI), which (also corroborated by page 28; see below) was between years 1947 and year 2004.

      Besides, it is obviously unlikely that 55,322 illegal aliens would still in jail in year 2003 for a total of 57 years (since the year 1947).
      Especially since the report also states that the average time of incarceration is 21 months per illegal alien.

      If you had read further to page 28, the report is more precise and states:

        Total population of illegal aliens used in our analysis: 55,322
        To determine the number of arrests for our study population of illegal aliens, we totaled the number of unique dates of arrest for each unique FBI number contained in the FBI criminal history records we obtained. The earlies arrest record was in 1947, the latest October 28, 2004. The criminal history records contained several hundred thousand different literal descriptions of arrest offenses.

      So again, you are grasping at straws with these repeated attempts to obfuscate and twist the data.

      Again, the study group (sample) consisted of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated between year 1947 and 2004 from some states (e.g. CA, TX, AZ), which is also only a portion of all illegal aliens incarcerated in those states.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: That was what qualified you to be part of a study: be an illegal alien in jail during that fiscal year. is this sampling supposed to be representative of all Illegal Aliens, or even just of illegal aliens who are criminals? No.
      False statement # 9, since the data is not only from year 2003, and the report clearly stated that it included arrest record data stretching from year 1947 to year 2004 (see page 28). So once again, you have failed to understand the data.
      Stephen Daugherty quoted from GAO Report 5646: Results of our analysis pertain only to our study population. Results cannot be generalized to all illegal aliens that may have been arrested and therefore cannot be interpreted as representing arrest or offense rates for all illegal aliens.
      I appreciate that disclaimer.

      However, that does not necessarily disqualify others who may try to make estimates from the data, provided they make it clear that it an “estimate”.
      By they way, GAO 5646 does contain some conviction data on page 28 that is quite damning:

      • GAO Report 5646 Page 28:
        Number of convicted criminal aliens (incarcerated in Federal Prison as of 27-DEC-2003): 46,063
        Number of convicted criminal aliens (incarcerated in State and Local Prisons for 1 year between 1-JUL-2002 and 30-JUN-2003): 262,105
        Yikes! ! ! That’s 308,168 illegal aliens that were BOTH convicted and incarcerated about the same time during year 2003 ! ! !

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: 5992, your number of murders, comes from arrest offenses. Can we generalize the number of murderers reliably from this number? No, we’re told not to.
      Nonsense. It was already disclosed that the 5,992 number is for arrests and not convictions. However, as you can see above, the number of convicted and incarcerated illegal aliens is 308,168 ! ! !

      At any rate, I’ll see if I can find more arrest and convictions data.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Note: Not all arrest offenses would have resulted in a prosecution, a conviction, or an incarceration. That’s right under the table listing arrest offenses.
      True. Sometimes there are mistakes, and sometimes criminals go free due to lack of evidence. Besides, you are ignoring the huge number of convictions (see page 28).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for 1947? We were both wrong.
      False statement # 10. See page 28 of GAO Report 5646, which clearly states …
        Total population of illegal aliens used in our analysis: 55,322 To determine the number of arrests for our study population of illegal aliens, we totaled the number of unique dates of arrest for each unique FBI number contained in the FBI criminal history records we obtained. The earlies arrest record was in 1947, the latest October 28, 2004. The criminal history records contained several hundred thousand different literal descriptions of arrest offenses.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: In other words, we’re not dealing with the length of the prison sentence, nor the extent of the survey’s population, just arrest records.
      False statement # 11, since the average period of incarceration is 21 months, and based on the large number of convicted and incarcerated illegal aliens (308,168) through year 2003 (see page 28), hundreds of thousands (probably most) were convicted ! Such a huge number of convictions is not “just arrest records” !

      This is too easy.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: The first paragraph tells us what the scope was. This tells us the earliest record involved.
      Yes, the earliest arrest record was from 1947. It was never stated that the person was still in jail as of 2003. Those are separate conviction numbers. Not arrests. Besides, it is ridiculous to think 55,322 illegal aliens have all been incarcerated between 1947 to 2003 or 2004. Also, it was disclosed many times that the average period of incarceration is 21 months.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: I was off by a little, …
      A little? You’re still way off.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but I was right that this survey did not have the scope of 57 years of complete records, which would allow us to reliably produce an accurate arrest rate for murder.
      False statement # 12, since you even quoted the fact above (from GAO Report 5646) that historical arrest records from 1947 to 28-OCT-2004 were used (see page 28).
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Without a population of peers each year, every year, you can’t establish an average arrest rate for murder.
      True. Only estimates can be made. And based on the huge number of convictions for 308,168 illegal aliens incarcerated through year 2003 (see page 28), the estimates are probably fairly accurate.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Given the warning about arrests not necessarily meaning convictions or incarcerations, and the limiting of the scope to those in prison during fiscal 2003, and adding the logical uncertainty of the relationship of number of murders to number of murderers, it becomes impossible to derive a reliable murder rate from the 5992 number, at least by using your methods.
      Only estimates can be made. But page 28 most certainly does include a huge number of convictions. In fact, the number of convictions for 308,168 incarcerated illegal aliens (during year 2003) is quite damning.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: So why am I hard on you here?
      Hard on me? Looks to me like you are digging that hole your in deeper and deeper. You have a dozen or more false statements above. That’s not giving your comments much credibility. Especially when it start to appear as though it is mere obfuscation and twisting of facts to avoid admitting a mistake.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Because I am sick to death of people putting passion ahead of reason in interpreting data like this.
      The facts are the facts.

      308,168 convicted illegal aliens incarcerated in year 2003 is not mere “melodrama”.

      If you don’t like the data, then you’ll need to find evidence that the data is false. Good luck.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: One of the big reasons we’re in Iraq and we’re in trouble with the markets is the deceptive use of math and statistics.
      That’s true. But there is more a motive to hide crime levels by illegal aliens, than to reveal it. Your comments are a perfect example of that.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Numbers, when pulled from reliable relationships with the real world can become the means to insulate and delude people.
      Only if misused. If accurate, the data is useful to inform and educate people.

      The problem exists, and it is not as trivial or benign as your comments would have others believe.
      308,168 convicted illegal aliens incarcerated in year 2003 is not a trivial matter, and trying to trivialize it is insulting to the many victims and their survivors.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: If, as you insist, the reason people keep voting incumbents in is that they are not faced with the right amount of pain, …
      Yes, that is a sad but true statement far too often.
      Stephen Daugherty wrote: … then you should be concerned about these kinds of effects and minimizing them.
      Minimize what effects?

      Minimize the effects of illegal immigration?
      I’m not sure what it is that should be minimized.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Many incumbents play on fears, using data methods like yours, convincing people that there’s something catastrophic going on.
      OHHhhhhhh … so it is fear-mongering for the Government Office of Accountability (GAO), by reporting that 308,168 convicted illegal aliens were incarcerated in year 2003?

      So, 5,992 arrests for homicde from a study group of 55,322 illegal aliens (only a portion of all illegal aliens arrested) is fear mongering?
      So, we are supposed to believe most of those arrested were innocent?
      Especially when there were 308,168 convicted illegal aliens incarcerated in year 2003?

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Or they hide things in statistical loop-de-loops, trying to explain away discrepancies by claiming any number of unfounded excuses why the data looks the way it does.
      Exactly. It sounds very much like someone who knows all about obfuscating, contorting, and twisting the data, but getting all twisted into a pretzel in the process.

      Again, if you don’t like the data in GAO Report 5646, you need to take that up with Government Office of Accountability (GAO).
      Just because I state 5,992 homicide arrests / 55,322 illegal aliens in a sample study group is 10.83% ratio of homicide arrests per illegal alien, does not necessarily mean that all were convicted. It is simply a ratio of arrests and illegal aliens in a study group. There is no deception, and you have proven none, despite the many obfuscations and over a dozen false statements in your comments. So, it seems a bit strange to see admonishments of others facts, when you have botched so many of your own.

      Stephen Daugherty wrote: Only with proper disciplined collection and interpretation can the numbers tell us any part of the truth, and can we understand that truth in its applicable context. Otherwise, we’re chasing mathematical and statistical phantoms, rather than holding people accountable for how bad things are, and rewarding people for how bad things aren’t.
      I agree.

      Perhaps some people should practice what they preach.

      Marysdude wrote: I wonder…if every incumbent who was up for reelection during the past six years had been replaced, how much better (worse) off we would be right now?
      A little better, probably. But only voting out all bad politicians only once in a while is not likely to change much, or send a loud and clear message to Congress.
      Marysdude wrote: The question is ridiculous on the surface, because such conjectures are too subjective, and not supported by any number, data or fact…but I’d be willing to bet, we’d be in about the same boat we’re sinking in right now.
      Perhaps, because we are already in a very deep hole, and there will be no easy and painless solutions.

      But, how is rewarding Congress with 95% re-election rates better, despite dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress?

      Marysdude wrote: My reasoning…incumbency, by itself, can be either good, in the case of someone who puts country above self…or bad, in the case of someone who puts self above country. Granted, most Americans see this glass as half empty, but maybe that’s because most Americans are pessimists? Or because we’ve been sold on pessimism by vociferous nay-sayers.
      I don’t think Americans are pessimists or overly cynical. If anything, I think they are mostly optimistic. Perhaps too much. What is needed is a realistic balance.
      Marysdude wrote: Those who have achieved the necessary credentials to be elected to high office are already infused with those properties that make them good or bad people…just replacing all incumbents seems like a horrible waste of time, energy and resources.
      We should not simply replace “all incumbents”.

      We should remove only the irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt, and incompetent incumbents.

      Replacing bad politicians with more responsible politicians is a “horrible was of time, energy and resources” ?
      Really?
      Sadly, it appears most voters agree with you, since they repeatedly reward Congress with 95% re-election rates better, despite giving Congress dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings.

      Marysdude wrote: It is too bad we are not better seers when we go into the voting booth.
      Voters don’t need to be seers or clairvoyant.

      Voters need to study voting records and issues more closely.

      But, unfortunately …

      • too many voters (40% to 50% of all 200 million eligible voters) don’t even bother to vote at all.

      • too many voters don’t even know who their congress persons are, much less their politicians voting records.

      • too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible politicians for all of it with 95% re-election rates.

      • too many voters refuse to vote for challengers because the challengers belong to the OTHER party … a clever situation incumbent politicians capitalize on it;

      • too many voters wallow in the paritisan warfare, while ignoring more substantive issues; and the incumbent politicians capitalize on it.

      • too many voters fuel the paritisan warfare, while ignoring more substantive issues; and the incumbent politicians capitalize on it.

      • too many voters fuel the blame game, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, then ever admit THEIR own party is little (if any) better; in THEIR mind, the OTHER party is evil, and they love to fuel that partisan warfare, rather than admit the painful truth; and incumbent politicians capitalize on it;

      • too many voters refuse to vote out THEIR incumbents for fear of the OTHER party’s incumbents getting re-elected; thus, the incumbent politicians capitalize on it with high re-election rates;

      • too many voters blindly and lazily pull the party-lever, with out even knowing the candidates on the ballot, much less the candidates’ voting records; and incumbent politicians capitalize on it.

      • too many voters put THEIR party above the nation, and incumbent politicians capitalize on it.

      • too many voters merely vote for the candidate (usually an incumbent) that spends the most money, who wins 90% of the time.

      Voters are free to make their choice, and they would be wise to give much more consideration to their voting habits now, rather than later, when the consequences of their negligence become MUCH more painful. The voters can learn the smart way, or the hard way. But one way or another, they will get their education, and some painful lessons are already in the pipeline.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 27, 2008 1:42 PM
      Comment #271179

      Here’s the break-down to date for re-election rates and party-seat retention rates (some results are still pending):

      464 members (464 / 535 = 86.7%) of Congress were re-elected (378 (223(D)+155(R)+0(I)) in the House + 86 (46(D)+ 38(R)+2(I))in the Senate).

      There were only 71 members ousted from Congress (57 (13(D)+44(R)) in the House + 14 (3(D)+11(R) in the Senate).

      NOTE: There are 5 of 6 seats still To Be Determined in the Senate, and 4 of 4 seats still To Be Determined in the House.

      At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

      Posted by: d.a.n at November 30, 2008 11:20 AM
      Post a comment