What should be done about illegal immigration?

Yes. After bawling me out for 10 minutes he made me pay a $1 fine instead of the 25 cents paying that ticket would have cost me.

0 Replies

What did you illegally park? A bicycle?

I mean, I knew life was cheaper in New Mexico.. but a 25 cent ticket? lol

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Based on your own admission then Foxy, it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that YOU might be more willing than the average person to break other laws as well
See how ridiculous that is?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Foxfyre has done her sharing of speeding, jaywalking, wrong ways, and illegal u-turns. She has even included a deduction on her tax return that she knew was iffy. She has driven a car with expired registration (due to procrastination), expired driver's license (due to stupidity), and once changed the date on a parking ticket that earned me an unpleasant session with a judge who took a very dim view of that sort of thing.

At no time in any of these things, however, did I think I was above the law or entitled to escape the penalties required by law. Sometimes I suffered little or no consequences. Sometimes I paid the full penalty required by law. And none of these things was intended to harm anybody or take anything away from anybody or impose on anybody else's person or property.

I didn't get the drift from MacDonald's piece that she was concerned about jay walking and parking tickets. The comments I picked up on in her piece targeted illegal gang activity, rape, murder, armed robbery etc. or even far lesser crimes that do impose on other people's person or property.

The point is, Foxy, that the fact that you have broken these laws doesn't make it any more likely that you are a rapist, kidnapper or murderer... (at least I don't think so)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Based on your own admission then Foxy, it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that YOU might be more willing than the average person to break other laws as well
See how ridiculous that is?

Go back and read what I wrote again, Bill, and you'll see that the discussion is about two different kinds of illegality. One violates rules and regulations that are there for orderly administration, management of facilities and/or safety. Most of us bend these kinds of rules once in awhile but we intend no harm and are intentionally violating nobody's space or property. The discussion is NOT about this kind of stuff and most of us dutifully pay the requisite fine or penalty when we get caught. Unless ridiculously excessive, people don't go to jail or prison for these kinds of things.

The concern is for crimes that intentionally illegally appropriate, damage, or destroy public or private property and/or that intentionally put the life or safety or well being of people at risk or compromise necessary security.

Most actually can see the difference between these two things and do not attempt to make them the same thing.

0 Replies

The point is that there is no credible evidence that people who are here illegally are more likely to commit violent crimes. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary (with the argument about wether illegal immigrants are foreign born).

You are resorting to defamation.

The average illegal immigrant is no more likely to commit crimes like murder or rape than you are.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thanks, Set.

Yes, I've seen some driver licences: those from New Mexico e.g. carry more data on it than any data protection office would allow here.

Ironically, when i got a driver's license in New Mexico in 1982, it was so easy it was almost embarrassing. The lady at the office said to me: "Hey, you didn't check the block which says you're surrendering your out of state license." I said: "Well, i travel a lot, and i wanted to keep that." "Oh . . . OK, do you want to take the test?" "Sure, why not."

She then handed me a sheet with 20 questions. I got 19 out of 20 correct answers in a multiple-choice format. Then i got in the car with a testing officer, and we drove two blocks south, two blocks east, two blocks north, and back to the examining station. She took my photo, laminated it, and when it had cooled off, i was on my way. Total time elapsed was under one hour, and no one asked me for any piece of identification.

Later, when i moved to Ohio, i went through a similar process. There was a sheet with 20 questions, and when i had finished it and handed it in (20 out of 20), i pointed out that there were no questions about axles and vehicle weights. She then asked me i wanted a chauffeur's license--to which i responded with the polite equivalent of "Well . . . yeah." So, i answered 20 different questions (18 out of 20), and then took the road test--in a passenger car. I was not even required to demonstrate that i could drive a truck or a limousine. The road test was a little more difficult, because (i guess), the instructor felt i should demonstrate some driving competence before they handed me a license which would allow me to drive any vehicle in the state. (This was a few years before the Federal CDL program.)

I'm sure that it is, or may be, somewhat tougher now. Nevertheless, it is not a very rigorous project. When i've worked with foreign students, it was common that they knew where to purchase copies of the examination papers so that they could pass the written test without being sufficiently proficient in English to actually read and learn the rules of the road. In fact, when i first went to the licensing bureau in Ohio and asked for a copy of The Rules of the Road, the woman looked at me as though i were goofy, and said she didn't know what i was talking about. Considering how easy the written test proved to be, i can understand why a term like "rules of the road" mystified her.

O'Bill, if you're an illegal immigrant with a family to support, $500-$1000 for a good set of ID ain't cheap.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Based on your own admission then Foxy, it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that YOU might be more willing than the average person to break other laws as well
See how ridiculous that is?

Go back and read what I wrote again, Bill, and you'll see that the discussion is about two different kinds of illegality. One violates rules and regulations that are there for orderly administration, management of facilities and/or safety. Most of us bend these kinds of rules once in awhile but we intend no harm and are intentionally violating nobody's space or property. The discussion is NOT about this kind of stuff and most of us dutifully pay the requisite fine or penalty when we get caught. Unless ridiculously excessive, people don't go to jail or prison for these kinds of things.

The concern is for crimes that intentionally illegally appropriate, damage, or destroy public or private property and/or that intentionally put the life or safety or well being of people at risk or compromise necessary security.

Most actually can see the difference between these two things and do not attempt to make them the same thing.

I would agree... but you do not, apparently, fall into this particular category of "most" as is evidenced by this statement:

Foxfyre wrote:

It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that a person willing to break U.S. laws to be here might be more willing than the average person to break other laws as well.

The act of crossing a border, in itself, does not illegally appropriate, damage, or destroy public or private property and/or intentionally put the life or safety or well being of people at risk or compromise necessary security. Hop a fence into Canada or Mexico and prove this to yourself. :wink: You are contradicting yourself something terrible here... why not just retract the ridiculous statement about logical leaps?

Set, I would say $500 to $1,000 is a relative bargain for pseudo-citizenship when you consider your earning potential increases dwarf that paltry sum. Immigrants with this caliber of Identification are known to file for their Income Tax returns, and receive them, year after year without a problem. Really.

0 Replies

I don't know anything about the source of this site but they do have a lot of interesting graphs, statistics, and links to other stories:
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll just keep posting the links that support my position O'Bill. For now you and eBrown seem to have nothing but emotion and some fuzzy (and I believe less than constructive) notions of compassion to support yours.

Huh? Where is the emotion in pointing out your blatant hypocrisy? Those two quotes (from you) are blatantly contradictory. What does emotion have to do with it?

0 Replies

Sorry Bill, but there is no hypocrisy unless you're reeeeeeeally stretching to salvage an unsupportable point of view, which you are. You're the one who has stooped to liberal methods of deflecting the actual issues with strawmen, all manner of red herrings, and have even resorted to calling us racist, selfish etc. etc. etc. Anybody can pull one comment out of context and try to make it into something that it isn't. You've always been better than that.

Anyway, here's an update on that Hazelton case. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out:
http://penn.live.advance.net/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-47/1174410549172170.xml&storylist=penn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Sorry Bill, but there is no hypocrisy unless you're reeeeeeeally stretching to salvage an unsupportable point of view, which you are.

What are you talking about? The contradictory statements are yours, not mine. Go ahead and try to reconcile these two statements:

Foxfyre wrote:

It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that a person willing to break U.S. laws to be here might be more willing than the average person to break other laws as well.

Foxfyre wrote:

The concern is for crimes that intentionally illegally appropriate, damage, or destroy public or private property and/or that intentionally put the life or safety or well being of people at risk or compromise necessary security.

Most actually can see the difference between these two things and do not attempt to make them the same thing.

I'll bet you can't do so without further contradicting yourself.

Foxfyre wrote:

You're the one who has stooped to liberal methods of deflecting the actual issues with strawmen, all manner of red herrings, and have even resorted to calling us racist, selfish etc. etc. etc.

Huh? Liberals have their own method? Please demonstrate a Strawman or Red Herring if you're going to make such a charge. I haven't resorted to calling anyone anything. I have called it like I see it, while demonstrating the errors in your logic (NOT in lieu of).

Foxfyre wrote:

Anybody can pull one comment out of context and try to make it into something that it isn't. You've always been better than that.

I quoted your entire paragraphs. How does that equate to pulling a comment out of context, exactly? Laughing

Neither avoiding my accurate charge of hypocrisy, nor accusing me of fallacious fouls (without supporting evidence), will make the charge go away. Your two statements, again quoted above, contradict each other. Does it even matter to you that you can't prove otherwise? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OBill...

She called your points "liberal" (a charge that has no answer). I don't know how you are going to win this one.

0 Replies

Bill:

Do you deny that you played the racism card in this thread? You didn't retract it after being called on it nor apologize after being reminded that an apology was due.

The two statements you say are contradictory are not. They are both accurate. In a conversation you don't always elaborate on every point to be made in every paragraph. But to be honorable is to include the whole of a person's revealed position rather than cherry pick something to attack.

The 'liberal' form of debate is to attack a person's character or build strawmen or throw out red herrings or mischaracterize a person's statement or read a whole lot more into it than anything normal people would think was intended and/or generally sidestep any issue that doesn't fit and/or try to deflect anything uncomfortable to discuss.

And, when a person has no more than that to offer as rebuttal, one can only construe that the opinion was formed out of knee jerk emotion rather than based on any kind of fact. If that does not accurately describe your position, then I will apologize for misunderstanding your point of view and will ask you to restate it.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

OBill...

She called your points "liberal" (a charge that has no answer). I don't know how you are going to win this one.

My Sis and Bro-in-law are quite proud to call themselves Liberals, and I can't for the life of me understand why any "liberal" would be insulted by being called one. I'm liberal on several issues, and? Where precisely is the insult?

So in response: So, some of my points are "liberal". Okay; duly noted. Now, try to prove them false. :wink:

0 Replies

Yes, for the record; I think baseless charges against illegal immigrants are racist (for lack of a better word)(Bigoted works better, actually :wink:)... and I expressed as much and have as of yet not seen fit to retract the charges because I believe they are accurate.

You continue to babble about strawmen and red herrings, without presenting any evidence for same. Does this avoidance and attempt at deflection mean you are a liberal? Laughing

Your statements remain contradictory (without answer), and I can't see how rephrasing my position could make it any more obvious... but here:
People passing borders for a better life are not more prone to be criminals against people or property. Simple enough?

You seem to be having trouble with that, since your contradictory statements remain without explanation. Idea

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
OBill...

She called your points "liberal" (a charge that has no answer). I don't know how you are going to win this one.
My Sis and Bro-in-law are quite proud to call themselves Liberals, and I can't for the life of me understand why any "liberal" would be insulted by being called one. I'm liberal on several issues, and? Where precisely is the insult?

So in response: So, some of my points are "liberal". Okay; duly noted. Now, try to prove them false. :wink:

Did you ever hear JFKs definition of liberal? Its Very American... thats the only way I can describe it

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Yes, for the record; I think baseless charges against illegal immigrants are racist (for lack of a better word)(Bigoted works better, actually :wink:)... and I expressed as much and have as of yet not seen fit to retract the charges because I believe they are accurate.

You continue to babble about strawmen and red herrings, without presenting any evidence for same. Does this avoidance and attempt at deflection mean you are a liberal?

Your statements remain contradictory (without answer), and I can't see how rephrasing my position could make it any more obvious... but here:
People passing borders for a better life are not more prone to be criminals against people or property. Simple enough?

You seem to be having trouble with that, since your contradictory statements remain without explanation.

0 Replies

Foxy, suggesting mexican immigrants are prone to crime is bigoted, whether it be in a discussion of borders or not. I've seen no credible evidence that suggests illegal aliens are anymore prone to violent crime than anyone else. Neither have you. Pretending you have, because it will support your selfish desire to not share you country with them is bigotry.

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes, for the record; I think baseless charges against illegal immigrants are racist (for lack of a better word)(Bigoted works better, actually :wink:)... and I expressed as much and have as of yet not seen fit to retract the charges because I believe they are accurate.

You continue to babble about strawmen and red herrings, without presenting any evidence for same. Does this avoidance and attempt at deflection mean you are a liberal?

Your statements remain contradictory (without answer), and I can't see how rephrasing my position could make it any more obvious... but here:
People passing borders for a better life are not more prone to be criminals against people or property. Simple enough?

You seem to be having trouble with that, since your contradictory statements remain without explanation.

Yes simple enough. What you seem to be having trouble with is that to couch the issue in such simplicity is absurd.

Read the pages past if you'd prefer a longer version, sheesh.

Foxfyre wrote:

Racism is a huge strawman in the issue of whether a nation should be able to control who will and will not be allowed to be inside the borders legally. If we cannot have that discussion without it being racist, discussion is futile.

You could have that discussion without being racist... but that's not what has taken place here. Rather, you choose to repeat exaggerated claims against the brown man. Newsflash: That's what racists do. This would fall into the category of Ad Hominem; not Strawman. At no point was your argument recreated in a weaker form for the purpose of disputing it, hence; no strawman was erected. You can learn the definitions to these terms here. I'd avoid using them until then, as your false accusations mostly serve to make you look silly.

Foxfyre wrote:

That all or even most who enter the country illegally do not commit violent crimes against people or property is a huge red herring. It is not the same discussion as the fact that many entering the country illegally are up to no good at all. You have presented no evidence to dispute that fact while a good deal of evidence has been posted to support it. To most reasonable people, it cannot just be ignored.

Again... your accusation is unfounded. There is absolutely nothing irrelevant about countering bogus claims of exaggerated crime statistics with the FACT that most who enter the country illegally do not commit violent crimes against people or property. It is completely relevant and therefore not a Red Herring. Rolling Eyes

Refresh your knowledge base of fallacious terms, please.

Foxfyre wrote:

I accept that you think my two statements are contradictory and I think you are not interested in seeing how they are not.

I wouldn't be repeatedly asking you to were I not interested. Those two statements read VERY contradictory, and will continue to do so until you prove otherwise... if you can... which I doubt.

Foxfyre wrote:

I accept that you think there should be no enforcement of the immigration laws or at least if the illegals make it in, they should be allowed to stay with impunity.

No, I don't think you do. But I appreciate the effort. For the record: Yes... I think we should be evolving towards doing away with the border altogether rather than constructing a Great Wall of Selfishness. Further; I believe said Great Wall of Selfishness is actually against our best interests in the long run, so selfish is only accurate to describe the erroneous perception of the proponents of it's construction.

Foxfyre wrote:

I will continue to believe and say that a nation that cannot or does not protect its borders will in time lose its soveriegnty or at least will lose much or all of its ability to help itself, much less anybody else.

Based on what? Instinct? Reading biased BS from hyper-partisan sources? What? It sure as hell isn't history; because at no point in this nations have we ever seriously protected our borders. Doesn't seem to have done us in yet. Idea

Foxfyre wrote:

The 'liberal' accusation was based on some using emotional, irrational, kneejerk, sanctimonious, judgmental, and "I'm better than you" and "I'm right because you're bad" statements accompanied with personal accusations targeted at those holding opposing points of view rather than a reasoned rationale for holding one's own point of view. The liberal can't articulate much less defend his/her point of view so s/he must attack his/her opponent. Such are the tactics of muddle headed modern liberalism and bear no resemblance to the classical liberalism that reasonable people admire and more often than not embrace.

Foxy, do you realize how ridiculous it is to define "liberal" with this collection of mindless ad hominem directed at anyone who may actually qualify as liberal? Sozobe is a liberal, and resembles your comments NOT AT ALL. Hell, you are more representative of your description than she is. True or false? You may wish to consult a dictionary to find the definition of "liberal" instead of relying on the mindless chatter of imbeciles like Rush Limbaugh. I see not one word of your definition that is unique to liberals. Not one.

Now, to demonstrate the difference between fact and incidental opinion, I'll toss a few at you, for comparison's sake. :wink:

FACT: You live on soil that would be Mexico, if Racists didn't steal it to protect their right to Slavery.

FACT: This country was built by immigrants.

FACT: Our economy now depends on immigrants to cover the shortfalls in Social Security.

FACT: No credible evidence suggests Aliens, legal or otherwise, are any more prone to violent crime than any other human.

FACT: The vast majority of those who cross our borders illegally do so seeking only to provide a better life for their families and/or themselves.

FACT: For decades, the government has virtually turned the blind eye to this activity. Hence, millions of people took advantage to the overall mutual benefit of us all.

FACT: Sending them home, only to have them come back is simply moronic.

FACT: In this capitalist society; more people means MORE opportunity and MORE overall wealth for said society; NOT LESS.

OPINION: Opinions to the contrary tend to stem from racism/bigotry, proven by the holders of same when they parrot bogus information even after they've been shown the error in their ways. This is a sidebar opinion; NOT the thrust of my argument.

OPINION: A truly Great society shouldn't require a Great Wall of Selfishness.

OPINION: My neighbor is less likely to break into my house if he has as much stuff as I. If I can help him achieve this without giving away my own stuff; it is in my own best interest to do so and likely more effective than building an idiotic wall.

0 Replies

Crime is no more an innate trait among mexicans than it is among any other ethnic groups, gringos only think it is true due to centuries of stereo-typing by american made caricatures ranging from "Frito Bandito" to "Carlos Mencia".
One thing though is that mexicans are prone to steal low-paying jobs from gringo americans and that couldn't happen without the help of free market's invisible hand and the lazy asses of the gorda panzona. The bulk of the posts by the anti brown skinned immigrants amounts to just more of the same echando relajo.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know