Twinkie,
It is easy to avoid the question of law regarding immigration and why it is not being adequately enforced at the federal level.
It is so much easier to divert with side issues like racism or drug war.
G&P
|
Twinkie,
It is easy to avoid the question of law regarding immigration and why it is not being adequately enforced at the federal level.
It is so much easier to divert with side issues like racism or drug war.
G&P
It may have come down a bit, but not a great deal. Joe has a lot of friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
IntheBox - I see that you are the only other rational person answering on here that can truly see the issue at hand without all the flowery fluff that some other folks like to indulge in.
I'm still politely waiting for someone on here to address the questions that I posed earlier.
1. What other country in the world allows/condones illegal aliens living in their country other than the USA?
2. Where are the other sanctuary cities in the world that allows/condones illegal aliens other than in the USA?
I'll probably drop dead long before anyone can truthfully answer those questions.
Hello twink:Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
I'm a pretty truthful guy, and I'll answer your questions. However, I'll answer them in the context of the current situation, which you conveniently ignore.
1. No other country does that. However, no other country has placed a help wanted sign at their border, like we did.
2. There are no other sanctuary cities in the world, because most other countries enforce their borders, and don't INVITE illegal aliens in. WE, on the other hand, and for the last 50 years, have INVITED them in with the aforementioned help wanted signs. Consequently, the illegal aliens HERE, have established families that will be broken up if you had your way, IF there weren't sanctuary cities, and thank God there are.
That's as truthful as I can get. I'll wait patiently for you to address the salient points I make.
But, while we wait, let me ask you this. 1. How do you propose to (a) find 12 million illegal aliens, and (b) to throw them out?
Now, I realize that is the knee jerk reaction to illegal aliens being here. It's just not physically nor politically possible. Given that we're NOT going to throw them out, I propose that we do, what Charles Krauthammer said we should do, and that's to secure the border, license the illegals, tax them, fine them, and put them at the end of the line for CONSIDERATION for citizenship.
excon
PS> If you want to know WHY I have sympathies for them, I'll tell you that too. Yes, they committed a crime. But, they did it for the most American and the most honorable of intentions. And that's to find a job, work hard, and support their family.
Krauthammer says to secure the border 1st as a prerequisite to the reforms he proposes.
He is saying nothing that hasn't been said before by those of us accused of being xenophobic racists .
He is of course correct . Unless the Feds take border security seriously then they should not criticize the States for taking rear guard action on their own.
Ex, which other crimes can we excuse on good intentions?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well, I wouldn't personally, but you seem to excuse torture, rendition, indefinite detention. Illegal spying, not going after the CIA agents, the telephone companies, the presidents and vice presidents who VIOLATED the law, ALL under the guise that they had the purest of intentions... But, that's you.
Me? I wouldn't do that.
excon
PS> (edited) Pssst. Did you see the part above where I said FINE them. Some criminals pay FINES. It's OK with me if they do to.
****Bangs head on computer keyboard******
Exie - just what part of them being a criminal don't you comprehend? Geeesh. This keeps going way over your head...
Yes, we've put a help wanted sign out but that was for seasonal workers - not for folks to come here and literally live all year round on our welfare dime and bring their families along to bask in our largess and money fountain as they have been doing for years.
It's okay that they come here and then go home in a timely fashion. What part of this don't they understand? All of it.
Anchor babies don't come here due to some help wanted sign..! Nor do the drug dealers and gang members come here due to the help wanted sign. No, they come here to exploit our cities and population and fleece us of all our money.
Consider the fact that for each illegal alien in this country that holds a job (whether taxes are taken out or not from the wages paid) this means that one legal American is denied a job and a means to support his family.
Recently an Albanian cargo ship was stopped in the Russian coastal waters. Onboard was approximately 25 prostitutes. At least 12 had AIDS, 5 Hep C, and the rest were riddled with a veneral disease. All these women were human sex slaves that were trafficked aboard a stolen vessel. These women will all be deported but will sit for at least 3 to 8 years before they are deported.
How to solve this problem? Do like Russia did. They mailed back so many illegal aliens for years that they finally have few to none left in their country. Yes, it was costly and it worked in the end. It did drive up the price of food, gas, etc. but it did get done. Russia does not print fiat money like the USA does.
Don't just "fine" the illegals. Arrest them and deport them. So what's so hard about that?
As far as breaking up families - I don't think so. The legal ones who actually went through the properr immigration steps can definitely stay. But their illegal relatives must go through the same legal steps to come here legally.
In Switzerland the border guards carefully watch the mountain passes for hikers coming into their territory and will radio those closest to the "hikers" and have them stopped and produce their paperwork. You'd be surprised just how many people try to sneak into Switzerland this way every year. They don't put up with illegal aliens and stop them dead in their tracks on the mountain passes. Just why can't the USA do the same on our borders with planes spotting the illegal aliens and the ground personnel stopping them?
P.S. Steve, you're still cute and are a great dancer.
Exie said "But, they did it for the most American and the most honorable of intentions. And that's to find a job, work hard, and support their family."
Exie, your above comment is pointless. If these poor people from other countries just stayed in their country and changed THEIR country and uplifted THEIR country economically then they would have no reason to come here. America is not the end all to end all as it was a hundred years ago.
If you feel that way then why don't we just import all the poor peoples of say Somalia, Kenya, Haiti, South Africa, China, etc. since they can't "find a job, work hard and support their families" in their own countries.
Your argument is hollow and without merit.
Please explain where the honorable intentions part comes into play when an Arizona rancher is murdered on his own property by an illegal alien?
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What do you mean "help wanted ?" Is that LEGAL help wanted or illegal help wanted?
My father, a physician, was recruited here LEGALLY in the 1960s and became a naturalized citizen in the 1970s LEGALLY. My parents had a good life and family, but moved halfway across the world for a better life here. Help has been requested LEGALLY for jobs in IT or healthcare.
Who exactly is wanting "ILLEGAL HELP?"
Is it big corp?
Is it the agri business?
Is it the rich that want nannies to pay cheaply and off the books?
Quote:
2. There are no other sanctuary cities in the world, because most other countries enforce their borders, and don't INVITE illegal aliens in. WE, on the other hand, and for the last 50 years, have INVITED them in with the aforementioned help wanted signs. Consequently, the illegal aliens HERE, have established families that will be broken up if you had your way, IF there weren't sanctuary cities, and thank God there are.
That's as truthful as I can get. I'll wait patiently for you to address the salient points I make.
But, while we wait, let me ask you this. 1. How do you propose to (a) find 12 million illegal aliens, and (b) to throw them out?
Lets start with those illegals in prison. Why do American citizens have to pay for them. They already committed at least 2 crimes. As to the other illegal aliens, we tell them that there are current sanctuary cities willing to have them and that they should move there. Or Arizona should transport all the illegals, at the border, directly to DC, or San Francisco, or New York City, or Los Angeles.
Sanctuary Cities and States Protecting Illegal Aliens in the United States - Undocumented Workers
Quote:
Now, I realize that is the knee jerk reaction to illegal aliens being here. It's just not physically nor politically possible. Given that we're NOT going to throw them out, I propose that we do, what Charles Krauthammer said we should do, and that's to secure the border, license the illegals, tax them, fine them, and put them at the end of the line for CONSIDERATION for citizenship.
Excon
PS> If you want to know WHY I have sympathies for them, I'll tell you that too. Yes, they committed a crime. But, they did it for the most American and the most honorable of intentions. And that's to find a job, work hard, and support their family.
Most Americans would agree also, but that also means doing something now about current and future illegal immigration.
G&P
Hello again, twink:Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
Proper, as in being BORN here. Yup, the baby is a citizen, and the parents are not. They'll BE split up. Come on, twink. Think about the PEOPLE, not the politics. But, you, like smoothy, want to focus on the few who ARE bad guys - not the many who only want to wash your dishes and burp your child while you're at work.
I do, again, challenge your assertion that illegal aliens commit MORE crime than their proportionate representation in the community.
excon
I just read this very interesting article by Frosty Wooldridge that sums up what Inthebox and I have been saying about this topic.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A HAPPY INVASION
By Frosty Wooldridge
May 6, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
This week, in the Huffington Post, Bill Clinton said we need more immigrants to offset our federal deficit.
Post reporter Dan Froomkin said, “Former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants -- not fewer -- to ensure its long-term fiscal future.”
"I don't think there's any alternative for us but increasing immigration," Clinton said. "I just don't see any palatable way out of this unless that's part of the strategy."
I don't know what those people smoke in Washington, DC, but it causes total loss of intellectual and mental aptitude. It's beyond my rational understanding how anybody can think that adding millions of additional immigrants to this country will do anything but swamp the country. We already suffer 20 million Americans out of work and 35 million subsisting on food stamps. We're $12 trillion in debt and Clinton wants to add more immigrants. Go figure!
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A HAPPY INVASION
But it doesn't end there! In a round-house discussion on TV last week, the imminent and inane journalist Eleanor Clift, totally out of touch with reality, said of illegal immigration into America, “It's a happy invasion.”
In the same moment, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan told the round table, “There are more illegal aliens in Arizona than Americans serving in the United States Army. That's an invasion.”
“It's a happy invasion!” blurted Clift.
One of the other speakers exclaimed, “If we don't have English as a unifying language, we could lose our American culture.”
Eleanor Clift shows exactly why this country simmers, boils, rots, seethes and disintegrates before our eyes. Such elites don't possess the brains that God gave a goose. They don't understand the boiling factors now undermining this country on multiple levels.
They don't understand why more Americans than ever before own guns to protect their communities and homes. Clift and others like her don't get it!
If it's a 'happy invasion', do you see anyone celebrating 9/11 with those immigrants that drove planes into the Twin Trade Towers? How about the 'happy invasion' of an immigrant by the name of Nadal Hasan who shot 42 Americans at Fort Hood, Texas and killed 13? If it's so 'happy an invasion' why do we all have to press '1' for English and '2' for Spanish? If it's a 'happy invasion' why do we suffer honor killings, beheadings, female genital mutilation, arranged marriages and a growing number of killings such as the sniper attacks by John Muhammad?
Does that 'happy invasion' include four officers shot in the back of their heads last year in a town near Seattle, Washington as they drank coffee on break by Muslim Clarice Clemmons? Does that 'happy invasion' include Denver, Colorado bomber Najibullah Zazi attempting his blowing up New York subways? Or, how about that Faisal Shahzad trying to blow up Times Square this week? Is that a happy invasion?
Just what does Clift mean by 'happy invasion'? How about the $100 billion drug smuggling annually by 'happy invaders'? What about the 57,000 cars stolen in Arizona annually by more of those 'happy invaders'? Did Clift know that Arizona boasts the nation's new kidnapping capitol? How happy can that be? Or, yes, MS-13 gangs now operating in 44 states to deal drugs to our kids must be a 'happy invasion'! Wow! How happy can you get Ms. Clift?
Does that mean that Detroit, Michigan's 76 percent dropout rate from their high schools dominated by immigrants provides Americans there a 'happy invasion' of educational excellence? Or, that city's 50 percent illiteracy rate as reported by NBC's Brian Williams? How about 400,000 anchor babies 'happily invading' our hospitals to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars annually? To be exact: $346 billion annually of citizens' money to pay for illegals across 15 federal agencies. Happy Ms. Clift?
You and your 'happy invasion' go over like somebody poured the Gulf of Mexico oil spill onto a McDonald's Happy Meal. Americans want to throw-up when they hear such balderdash from Washington insiders like Ms. Clift.
Next time you attend another round-table Washington DC discussion, Ms. Clift, give us more examples of your version of this 'happy invasion' by Muslims, Mexicans and other 'happy invaders' so we can understand your deeper meanings.
Mr. Clinton: go smoke another joint, and please inhale this time!
Frosty has been speaking about all the illegal aliens in this country for years and years. Nothing would please him more than if the USA would stop allowing/condoning all this criminal activity. He documents how these individuals are a DRAIN upon the USA's economy - not a HELP to our economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As for anchor babies - they were "granted" instant citizenship due to being born here. There is no other country in the world that does this instant citizenship if you are born there. Not one. We need to treat the anchor babies as noncitizens as their parents are not citizens. The anchor baby law must be changed.
As for breaking up families - the parents CHOSE to come here and have the kid here. The kid is the victim here, not the parents. As for breaking up families - so be it. The mother and her kid can choose to go "home" and not stay here. What's so hard about that?
As for your second assertion that illegal aliens commit more crime - I'll be back later to post numerous citings of such statistics which prove my statement to be correct.
Hello again, twink:Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
Just make sure you don't quote FAIR as your source, like smoothy did. Besides, I don't want citings and statistics. I want STUDIES. Bring me one of THEM, and we can talk.
excon
Okey Dokey how about this quote:
To give you an idea of "how much crime," as noted in Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Full Swing, in April 2005, the GAO released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
Of the 55,322 illegal aliens studied, researchers found that they were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.
They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.
49% had previously been convicted of a felony, 20% of a drug offense; 18% a violent offense, and 11%, other felony offenses.
81% of the arrests occurred after 1990
56% of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
Note the last two points – they mean the perpetrators were "previously deported." Regardless, ALL those crimes would have never happened, i.e. were preventable, with serious deportation of the illegal aliens already here and proper border security to prevent both entry and re-entry.
In reviewing those numbers, note that the study only sampled about 21% of the incarcerated illegal aliens. To get the full extent of the collateral damage, we need to extrapolate the average number of offenses out across all 267,000 incarcerated illegal alien criminals. Doing so results in some 1,288,619 crimes!
Don't the MSM and illegal alien supporters continually tell us that illegal immigration is a "victimless crime" and that they are only here to do the work Americans don't want to do? Since each crime has a victim, 1,288,619 sounds like a lot of victimization to me. Maybe they are also referring to doing the "work" that American criminals don't want to do. Also keep in mind that the 1,288,619 crimes are only the ones committed by the hard core illegal alien criminals that were finally caught and incarcerated. The ones not caught and the new criminals crossing daily are committing more crime every day.
One of the problems in identifying the involvement of illegal aliens in crime, is that NOBODY TRACKS IT as a particular demographic statistic. While the INS keeps track of all sorts of demographic data for the illegal aliens that were actually arrested and deported and puts it in the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the judicial system does not track it. As noted in Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens - No government agency tracks crimes by illegals, not even attacks on police so nobody really knows how many illegal alien criminals there are or how many crimes they are actually committing. Many simply fall through the cracks.
If we assume illegal aliens commit crime at the same rate as citizens in the general population, an assumption that may grossly underestimate their involvement as we will see later, we can estimate the number of crimes being committed by illegal aliens. To do this, we note the number of illegal aliens in the population and apply the percentage representation in the population to the total number of crimes committed.
The current population of illegal aliens ranges from a generally accepted low of 12 million to a few estimates in the 25-30 million range. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use a relatively lower estimate of 15 million in a population of 300 million which is a 5% representation. It is worth noting that many official government figures use a bit lower number. If in fact accurate, a lower number of illegal aliens in the general population would actually increase their disproportionate involvement, something that is probably occurring anyway as we shall see latter.
According to FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Crime in the United States (CIUS) 2005, for the Estimated Number of Arrests and applying a straight 5% illegal alien participation component we now get:
CRIMES (actual arrests) Number In USA by illegal aliens
Total 14,094,186 704,709
Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 14,062 703
Forcible rape 25,528 1,276
Offenses against family & children 129,128 6,456
The last column is the estimated criminal collateral damage being inflicted by illegal aliens for 2005 as a straight proportional percentage basis of the population. Similar collateral damage would have been inflicted in 2006 and you can expect about as much in 2007.
Using a simple cost-benefit analysis, is this much crime acceptable to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?
You probably wouldn't think so if you were one of the 704,709 victims. Again, keep in mind, this is the collateral damage being inflicted PER YEAR with a 5% participation rate. If the number of illegal aliens is greater than 15 million the number of crimes goes up. If the participation rate is greater, the number of crimes goes up.
Continued below...
In trying to figure out who is actually committing the crimes and whether the 5% straight participation is valid, interestingly, as noted in The Tarpit blog, Hispanics/Latinos, by far the largest component of illegal aliens, become "White, Caucasian, or Other" perpetrators in Arizona. The same thing in Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, and probably other states as well. Even the FBI doesn't seem to want to know as neither the nationality of the perpetrator nor a Hispanic/Latino category is even present in either their Uniform Crime Reports or Victims and Offenders Supplement.
When I inquired of Justice Department as to why they didn't want to know if Hispanics or foreign nationals were committing any crime, their response was:
"The Uniform Crime Reporting Program was mandated by Congress to collect and publish the crimes that are reported to police agencies for statistical purposes, not investigative purposes.
The elements of race and ethnicity built into the UCR Program adhere to the guidelines established by DIRECTIVE NO 15, RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING. Those guidelines are set by the Office of Management and Budget, and as federal agency in the capacity of overseer of the UCR Program, the FBI is required to abide by those guidelines. For UCR purposes there are four racial categories: White; Black; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander. The term Hispanic is an indicator of ethnicity, and the UCR Program does not currently collect information on ethnicity."
I also asked the Justice Department what categories the foreign national terrorists and the 2,752 Americans killed by foreign nationals on 9-11-2001 fell into but did not get a response.
While the Justice Department tracks nearly every conceivable aspect of crime, evidently, Congress only wants to know what crimes "White, Black, American Indian, and Asian" Americans are committing Interestingly, however, ethnicity is very important for establishing minority status and preferences but totally unimportant for determining who is committing crimes. Crimes being committed by illegal aliens, aka foreign nationals, are not tracked.
While we are on the subject of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Jim Kouri notes in Crime Statistics and the Itsy Bitsy Yellow Polka Dot Bikini:
"Yet the public is generally unaware that the UCR system is essentially a voluntary system; there is no federal legislation that requires States or local jurisdictions to report their crime data to the FBI.
The voluntary nature of the UCR, of course, affects the accuracy and completeness of the data. Although the FBI devotes a great deal of attention to the quality of the data it publishes in CIUS, it cannot mandate agencies to provide data on time (or at all)."
Thus, if anything, the FBI underreports crime.
Continued below...
In any case, it would appear that other than what the INS reports when foreign nationals are deported, NOBODY IS TRACKING CRIMES COMMITTED ON US SOIL BY FOREIGN NATIONALS. Given the serious of the crimes and large participation by mostly Hispanic, illegal alien, a.k.a. foreign national, criminals it almost seems as if the various government agencies don't want you to know. Also, I could not find any investigative reporting by the MSM on the issue. If even a small number of those 704,709 crimes were committed against members of the media or politicians maybe we would have heard something but the silence is deafening.
As noted in a September 2006 article, Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens, in WND
"While no government agencies specifically track crimes by illegal aliens, there have been some efforts to quantify the loss. Last December, Mac Johnson set out to investigate the number of homicides perpetrated by illegal aliens. Since the federal government would not provide any useful information, he contacted all 50 statehouses. Three months later, he had fewer than a dozen responses. Only one state, Vermont, provided any useful information.
He then set out to statistically estimate the number of murders by illegal aliens based on available crime data and conservative estimates of the actual number of illegal aliens in the country – which, of course, nobody really knows.
He found that between 1,806 and 2,510 people in the U.S. are murdered annually by illegal aliens. If he's right, that would represent between 11 percent and 15 percent of all murders in the U.S.":
Using the mean of Mr. Johnson's range, that means there are 2,158 murders committed annually by illegal aliens – crimes that never would have happened if they weren't here. This is part of the collateral damage of tolerating illegal immigration.
Note that at 2,158 murders that would be 15.3% of all the murders reported by the FBI, which would be about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population. Whether illegal aliens are committing three times as many of the other crimes as well is unknown because NOBODY IS TRACKING IT. Regardless, keep that "three times" in mind because it will come up again.
At this point it is worth noting that Representative King states in Biting the Hand That Feeds You , referenced in the INTRODUCTION and often quoted all over the internet, that illegal aliens are responsible for 4,380 murders. I believe Congressman King based his numbers on two GAO reports (d05337r and d05646r) on the number of incarcerated illegal aliens and the total number of incarcerated prisoners and applying the resulting percentage to the FBI's reported number of crimes. Based on this estimate, illegal aliens would be responsible for about 31% of the murders, a rate that is about 6.2 times their representation in the population. While there are indications that this number may be more accurate, nobody really knows because NOBODY IS TRACKING IT.
Returning to the FBI's crime list and a straight 5% prorated share committed by illegal aliens, some 704,709 yearly crimes, each of these crimes has both a personal and economic impact. You can easily imagine the personal devastation on the individual and families as they ask "why me?" Since all these crimes would not have happened if there were no illegal aliens in the country, the unfortunate answer is that "because we as a nation and people have tolerated, and in many cases aided and abetted, illegal immigration."
The economic burden which these crimes impose on their victims and society have costs. As noted earlier there has been a tremendous increase in the law enforcement budgets and each caught criminal needs to be incarcerated at about $25,000 per year. How much more law enforcement is spending as a direct consequence of illegal aliens is unknown but reviewing the expenditure graphs, note that the rate of the expenditures increases after around 1989 which correspond with the large increase in the illegal alien population.
In any case, with 267,000 illegal aliens incarcerated, as of 2003, just the incarceration costs at $25,000 per inmate per year is $6.7 BILLION per year. I'll take a wild guess that you didn't realize we were spending that much. Do you have any better ideas on what we could be spending $6.7 billion a year on rather than providing three meals a day and color TV to a bunch of illegal alien prisoners? While you think about that, here is anther one to ponder: how much money would we have saved since 1980 if there were still only 9,000 incarcerated illegal aliens rather than 267,000?
As extensive as these direct costs are, there are also indirect costs imposed on the victims, including loss of income and property, uncompensated hospital bills, and treatment for resulting emotional and psychological trauma.
As noted in the abstract of the report Victim costs of violent crime and resulting injuries, by Miller, Cohen, and Rossman:
"This DataWatch estimates the costs and monetary value of lost quality of life due to death and nonfatal physical and psychological injury resulting from violent crime. In 1987 physical injury to people age twelve and older resulting from rape, robbery, assault, murder, and arson caused about $10 billion in potential health-related costs, including some unmet mental health care needs. It led to $23 billion in lost productivity and almost $145 billion in reduced quality of life (in 1989 dollars). If associated deaths and cases resulting in psychological injury only are included, costs average $47,000 for rape, $19,000 for robbery, $15,000 for assault, and $25,000 for arson. Considering only survivors with physical injury, rape cost $60,000, robberies $25,000, assaults $22,000, and arson $50,000. Costs are almost $2.4 million per murder. Lifetime costs for all intentional injuries totaled $178 billion during 1987-1990."
Note that those costs are in 1989 dollars. Using the CPI index to adjust for 2006 dollars, multiply those numbers by 1.62 which means each rape costs society an average of $76,140 and each murder costs some $3.9 million. Thus just the 2,158 murders committed by illegal aliens burdened our society with $8.4 BILLION in costs.
The report tabulates the various costs for each crime as follows:
You may find similar summarized totals from the Justice Dept. in a summary Cost of Crime.
Again, applying the CPI increase, the total costs in 2006 dollars would be $289 BILLION. If illegal aliens were responsible for just 5% of it then that would be $14.4 BILLION.
For a comprehensive look at the cost of crime, see a report by Professor David Anderson, The Aggregate Burden of Crime, which reports that the net annual burdened costs of crime is actually far higher. The report notes that in 1999 the costs exceeded $1 trillion. In 2006 dollars that would be $1.62 TRILLION. 5% of that would be in excess of $81 BILLION.
I cannot copy all of this article as it is too long. But do me a favor, Exie, please read this entire article and THEN we'll talk, OK? It does refer to the US studies done by our government... the GAO. I guess maybe that's not good enough a source, huh?
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impac...ion_crime.html
Your friend,
Twink
Hello my friend, twink:
I read the article. It's not a study. It's biased. It's the opinion of its author P.F Wagner and somebody by the name of Dan Amato. It's not authoritative. The author is NOT a researcher, nor an academic. The website gives NO credentials of these individuals. They're just people with opinions similar to your own.
Nope, it doesn't convince me. I'm surprised it convinces you.
excon
Not that I have any sympathy for illegal aliens but that statistic you quoted seems to have too many naughts that is 14 trillion arrests. That is one million arrests for every illegal alien in The US. No wonder your police forces are busy.Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
Are we to conclude then that the statistic give above is ficticous?Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It is that attitude that is actually harmful to these illegal immigrants:
1] As illegals do they have the protections that citizen workers have?
- are there OSHA regulations, unemployment, disability, mandated breaks during a work day for those illegals doing back breaking labor in the fields to provide fresh vegetables? Are they modern day slaves picking fruit instead of cotton?
2] Does minimum wage apply to nannies and farm labor?
3] If an illegal has been working here for years do they qualify for social security?
4] Do these illegals really fair better under the "coyotes?"
As an aside, tell me what other country deems you a citizen due to your birthplace, despite the fact that your parents are illegal? I don't know the answer, I have not looked it up yet.
G&P
It is true that an amendment designed to address the citizen status of former slaves and their families has been perverted and is used as a loophole to bypass the legitimate rules established for immigration. (1st paragraph amendment 14)
This actually makes rational reform of the immigration laws more difficult . If illegals knew they couldn't game the system by coming here ,and by having children ,thus making themselve deportation proof ,perhaps there would be less incentive to break the immigration rules.
You make a good point Ex ;clearly we are not in the same world as we were in 1865. There are no more children of slaves alive to concern ourselves about . Perhaps the 14th Amendment itself needs amending .
Like I said in your other posting ;naturalization is not a constitutional issue .We have frequently amended ,loosened and tightened the rules depending on the needs of the country . This 14th amendment requirement impedes our ability to make a rational immigration policy. Illegals know they can game the system because ;as you correctly point out ,we will not break up families . (Quite the opposite... we will consign a newly freed child to a life in the gulag of Cuba rather than separate him from his father )
That issue will be a major factor in any reform that would allow expanding work permits.
Ps . I also can discuss how article one of the 14th amendment was perverted by the courts
Hello again, tom:
It may surprise you that I'm all for getting rid of the anchor baby provision.
excon
I did some more reseach on it ,and there is no need for amendment IF originalist priciples were applied to the 14th.
The author of the citizenship clause was Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI).
During the debate he made it clear that it was a provision for the former slaves and their families .
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also author of the Thirteenth Amendment inserted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the clause . He explained his reason for doing so.Quote:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country
Unfortunately the black robed oligarchs in SCOTUS badly mangled their interpretation of the citizenship clause in a series of decisions that are now considered "precedence".Quote:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Get over it, Tom, when you have a statute on the books people will apply it, times change and what you have just admitted is that the sacrosanct constitution needs to change to preserve the liberty of the real americans. Either persons born in the US and eltitled to become President are citizens or they are not and that other pecular rule needs to go too. You have to decide which side you are on, the rights of the native born to life love and liberty and the presidicency or the rights of the "citizens" of convenience
1. I never said I was opposed to amending the constitution when necessary. That is why the founders added the amendment process.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
2. The Constitution says that only natural born Americans can be President . It doesn't say that everyone born on our shores are automatically citizens . That is a faulty interpretation by SCOTUS . I just demonstrated that the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment never meant that the citizenship clause of the amendment applied to everyone born here .
You know ex, it sure looks like Holder can give Alberto Gonzales a run for his money. Actually I think this administration is looking more like the real dufuses. Our illustrious AG, like our Secretary of State and probably the president, has been criticizing a law he hasn't read.
Let's see, if I've read right the Obama administration's position is the law is racist and unconstitutional, they're not going to cooperate on enforcement and they're going to challenge it in court. But they haven't actually read it yet, they're basing policy on hearsay.Quote:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.
Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.
Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.
"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you're looking for disagreement over here, you ain't going to find any.
excon
I find it interesting that the conversations around immigration usually are either 1) about the pros and cons of "amnesty" or 2) the anchor baby issue. It seems to me that these are secondary issues, the primary issue is securing the borders (all of the borders) against unlawful entry into the US.
Honestly, I'm less concerned by the mexican fruit picker or maid that wants to come and work and make a better life for his/herself and their family than I am about the cartel member, al qaeda operative or general criminal coming across.
Whenever anyone discusses border security it seems the immediate thought is whomever is talking about it is a radical conservative dressed in camo and walking the desert in Arizona with a gun.
It's like a leak in a dyke, forst you plug it with your finger and then you mop up the water--not the otherway round.
I blame the Democrats and the republicans for our lack of border security and I would think that anyone who supports the mexican nationals (who want to come and work here) rights would cast a thought to the poor person in Mexico who can't pay the coyotes (people who transport illegals across the border) the cost of the trip and would rather come legally. Then the anchor baby provision would be less of an issue and ICE could focus on dealing with the problem that exists, without worrying about a tidlewave of new illegals.
Hello ad:Quote:
Originally Posted by adthern
You're right. The idea that we have to "secure" the border FIRST before we talk about the people already here, is NUTS. Well, it's not nuts. It's smart, as long as you can hoodwink the other guy into believing you. In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.
I say that, because I don't know what "secure" the border means. Do you? Does that mean we wait until NOBODY can get in?? Is that what a secure border is?
That ain't going to happen. If we have to wait for that before we do anything about it, nothing will get done. I don't know why the wingers want that.
excon
You're right ex, it is all a political nonsense. There is no reason why you cannot enforce the laws you now have excepting you would come to know what full employment is and this would be very embarrassing for industries that enjoy cheap labour, in fact some industries would have no labour force and of course you would have to have a secure border otherwise you are back where you started. So politically it is better to do nothing, it costs lessQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Actually, I do know what a more secure border is... I mean no one can truly secure the borders completely, but we can do a hell of a lot better job than we do now!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I say, Walls north and south 50-100 feet high and deep woth ground penetrating radar and video and significantly more border agents. Ports, containers and coast guard... 2-3% of shipping containers are actually checked... seriously? That is ridiculous, who thinks that's actually acceptable?
I absolutely think that the borders need to be secured first. Next, a simple immigration system. Step one, you want to come in, Finger print, DNA, Photo, facial recognition on everyone. If you are coming for work, cool, you have to have a job, employer who vouches for you, you receive a temporary work card with a GPS locator in it--random checks by ICE. If you are a tourist, same setup and if you overstay your visa or travel somewhere you aren't cleared for zip your out and banned from reentry.
I know that it may seem draconian, but I don't want to see another plane crash into a building or some slightly smarter guy actually explode a bomb in time square (yes I know he was actually a naturalized citizen--thats a whole other reform discussion).
The Constitution is meant to protect Citizens and arguably those here as guests of the US, not wartime enemies (see Quirin) They certainly do not apply to alien nationals prior to their arrival on US soil so the precautions which would be "violations" of multiple Amendments of the Constitution are not since they are prerequisites to entry. A lot of work for us, yes... but worth it, I think.
Again, the penalties on businesses are far too lenient to be effective, even when they are enforced. If the fine were, $10,000 per day, per employee... well maybe you would make a dent.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It is a circular argument that the politicians have had us wrapped up in so we wouldn't see the real problem, that we are doing nothing. Republicans cry secure the borders, illegals out... but we can't do that until we agree no amnesty for the illegals here... the Dems say the opposite... and each side is polarized and refuses to work together until the question is answered (which they know it never will be).
There are a few basic issues that people need to suck their emotions out of... abortion, gay marriage, and the other hot button issues.
Abortion is a right, nothing you can do about it, its not going to change... you can't get 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4's of the states to agree to a Constitutional amendment against it, so it will remain a states rights issue.
Gay marriage, against it? Why? If it's a religious issue for you... fine, don't allow them to marry in your church. Don't associate with them. But don't ask the Federal Government to start taking religious law into account, dear Gods please don't do that--What if next time its not your religion the law is from? Law and religion should have nothing whatever to do with each other... I am a man married to a woman and could care less if 2 guys/girls want to marry each other, what I do care about is wasting tons of tax money on discussing and fighting about it.
Once you get past those 2 issues... I think, I think... people can find some common ground... maybe?
Doesn't everyone want to be secure? Have a tax code that makes some kind of sense? Get the budget under some control? Fix the economy? I mean I'm just throwing this stuff out there off the top of my head, but it makes sense to Me anyway.
This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China. You conquered Mexico once why you didn't keep it then is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by adthern
As to these other issues these are moral issues
Yeah that Euro thingy has really worked out well. I think if you asked a German you'ld get a different view of that .Quote:
This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China.
They thought they were all going to get the euro and instead they all got the drachma .
Very droll Tom but in fact they bought Greece for 100 billion, nothing really. Now all they need to do is send the Turks home and employ Greeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Obama administration has taken the new Arizona law on its global apology tour, apologizing to CHINA for the law in talks on human rights.
Are you kidding me?? I agree with Powerline, "this is unfreakingbelievable, even for the Obama administration."
Hello again, Steve:
I don't know. I LIKE accountability and truth from my politicians. You don't. S'cool. I like chocolate and I'll bet you like vanilla.
excon
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -Henry Louis Mencken
That's my take on the Arizona law. Bred by fear, and a political quick fix, in an election year. Make it so bad, the Governor has signed a new law banning minority optional education,
Arizona schools superintendent pushes ban on ethnic studies,
As breeding hatred, and insurrection against white people.
That's exactly what we need, another over reaction designed to scare people, in an election year.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 PM. |