What should be done about illegal immigration?

Might I suggest to get some insight into the crime rates of Illegal aliens you go to
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=topsearchbox.search&query=Illegal+aliens+and+crime+rates+in+US

0 Replies

I wonder if there are any people on the anti-illegal-immigration side who don't rely on defamatory claims linking illegal immigrants and violent crime.

It would warm my heart if there were even one.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I wonder if there are any people on the anti-immigration side who don't rely on defamatory claims linking illegal immigrants and violent crime.

It would warm my heart if there were even one.

I'm one. I don't think that illegal immigrants are any more likely to cause violent crimes than other immigrants or citizens. But I do think they are less likely to be prosecuted for their crimes due to their status.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Might I suggest to get some insight into the crime rates of Illegal aliens you go to
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=topsearchbox.search&query=Illegal+aliens+and+crime+rates+in+US

That's a very interesting debate technique. The source of these search results are rather interesting...

Of course two can play this game.

Another web search

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
I wonder if there are any people on the anti-immigration side who don't rely on defamatory claims linking illegal immigrants and violent crime.

It would warm my heart if there were even one.

I'm one. I don't think that illegal immigrants are any more likely to cause violent crimes than other immigrants or citizens. But I do think they are less likely to be prosecuted for their crimes due to their status.

Cycloptichorn

Thank you Cyclo. You made my day.

0 Replies

Constitutional Amendment 1 on the Nov. 7 (2006) New Mexico election ballot would remove an amendment adopted in 1921 that prohibited "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning real estate.
"Ineligible aliens" was code language for Asian immigrants, who were excluded from citizenship by the federal laws of the time, according to Jack Chin, a professor of law at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who studies the history of Asian exclusion laws in the United States.
Criminals? yeah I guess so, if they bought/owned land they were criminals. Slant eyes or Mexicans, if they break the law they are criminals.

Thousands of Chinese were recruited to help build the western leg of the first transcontinental railroad. Nine out of ten laborers employed by the railroad on this project were Chinese. However, racism and the scarcity of jobs in the west following the Gold Rush, the completion of the railroad, and the subsequent increase in population non-Asians lead to a series of anti-Chinese statutes that eventually culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Chinese Exclusion Act, which forbade immigration by unskilled Chinese laborers remained on the books until it was repealed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1943.

The repeal of the Act in 1943 did little to increase Chinese immigration because strict quotas instituted under the National Origins Act of 1924, which tied immigration percentages to 1890 population numbers, only allowed for 105 Chinese a year to enter the United States. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 finally ushered in a new period in Chinese American immigration.

The Civil Rights Act restored many of the basic rights that had been long denied to Chinese Americans.

I'm like so totally sure racism was never an issue when enacting such laws and, thereby criminalizing asian immigrants. I'm also sure 6 = 9.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxy, you speed. IAs speed too. How is it any different when he does it? Americans drive drunk. IAs drive drunk too. How is it any different? Your hypocrisy, which you've yet to address is that when an American commits a violation not against people or property (like you), they ARE NOT more likely to commit crimes against people or property. Yet, when an IA commits a violation not against people or property (like border crossing), they ARE more likely to commit crimes against people or property. Stop dancing and address this hypocrisy head on.

I think the kid who breaks into somebody's house is far more likely to be a burglar at some point than is the kid who would not break into somebody's house for any reason. I think the person who commits petty theft has less conscience about committing more serious theft. I think the person who drives drunk is far more likely to hurt somebody than somebody who does not. I think the person who torments or abuses animals is more likely to hurt other humans than is the person who is kind to animals. I think certain kinds of crime, such as jaywalking, are not even remotely an indicator of inclination to violate the property or persons of others.

But yes, the person who speeds innocuously and gets away with it is far more likely to speed again than is the person who doesn't want a second ticket. Once you get tagged for jaywalking, you're much more likely to walk a few extra yards to the crosswalk next time. I guarantee you that after I changed the date on a parking ticket and got caught, I never EVER did that again. Not getting caught can be sweet, however, and is often not an incentive to not repeat the behavior.

Weren't you just misusing the term Red Herring? Look above to see what one looks like. Two paragraphs of parallel babble, that sheds no light whatsoever on either the issue or the hypocrisy I asked you to clear up.

Foxfyre wrote:

The person who crosses a border illegally and suffers no significant consequences is far more likely to do so again, and encourage others to do so, than is the one who finds the experience to be unpleasant.

So the real fear of Amnesty is recidivism? To where? Canada? Laughing

Foxfyre wrote:

I will agree however, that entering the country illegally is not automatically a forecast of more criminal activity.

And therein lies the problem. How do you reconcile the above statement with this one?

Previously 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.

You're getting closer to abandoning this hypocrisy; why not come full circle? Ebrown is correct in identifying the "previous" statement as defamatory.

Foxfyre wrote:

You should agree that there are also far too many people entering the country illegally who have no problem at all being involved in serious criminal activity.

I don't much care for criminals, no. However; I wouldn't arbitrarily punish the many for the crimes of the few. That seems rather un-American to me.

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not sure, but I would bet a steak dinner that there is proportionately a lower violent crime rate among legal immigrants than there is in the whole population of the USA. I would bet tthe same steak dinner that there is proportionately a higher violent crime rate among illegal immigrants than there is in the whole population of the USA.

I wouldn't guess that the actual statistics would be very compelling in either case but then I'd have to arbitrarily try to fit the economic realities in there somewhere so truly accurate comparisons are impossible. Black culture here in the States has a tendency to promote some bad behavior, and I believe it is probably reflected in the Crime Statistics. Even so; I doubt it has a damn thing to do with the color of their skin.

0 Replies

There is some interesting stuff on eBrown's website list once you purge all the stuff trying to make illegal synonymou with legal.

For instance this:

August 31, 2006
Leave Racism Charges Out of Immigration Debate
By Mark Davis
Farmers Branch, Texas.

The name suggests a babbling brook running through fields of freshly baled hay. The reality is Interstate 35 running through blocks of suburban homes and businesses northwest of Dallas.

But there's still plenty of babbling. Farmers Branch has become the latest epicenter for the type of shrill protest that arises whenever anyone suggests getting serious about our immigration laws. First came Hazleton, Pa., where Mayor Lou Barletta pushed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, punishing landlords who rent to illegal aliens and businesses who hire them. English became the town's official language, eliminating polylingual legal documents and signs.

Communities across America are considering doing the same, but it is in Farmers Branch where City Council member Tim O'Hare stepped forward to say that illegal immigrants are responsible for many of the city's problems.

There is nothing in his slate of Hazleton-style proposals that would make life one speck more difficult for the numerous city residents who are English-speaking legal immigrants.

But with annoying predictability, along came the catcalls of racism. The League of United Latin American Citizens and other voices of Hispanic advocacy rushed to slap a clumsy label of bigotry onto anyone agreeing with the new proposals.

"Farmers Branch is now going to be a city of hate," moaned former LULAC national president Hector Flores. "The Statue of Liberty must be crying right now."

Maybe she's just gagging from such ridiculous rhetoric. If Lady Liberty has anything to truly cry about, it is the sad fact that immigration has deteriorated from something that made America great to something that threatens its very future.

In the 50 years from the Industrial Revolution to the Great Depression, millions of people flowed into America dedicated to embracing our culture, learning our language and assimilating into our value system.

Those traits are all too rare today, even among some legal immigrants. Add in millions of people who thwart our nation's laws the moment they arrive, and you have the crisis that faces us today.

Our porous borders are proof that the federal government lacks the spine and resolve to close them to illegals and deport the ones we find. Millions of Americans, starving for reforms that respect our laws and borders, will take whatever they can get, even if it's just some get-tough measures from City Hall.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas seeks to dissuade communities from enacting immigrant-related local measures, arguing that such matters should be addressed in Washington.

Well, wouldn't it be a grand day if her constituents had a lick of hope that something might actually happen? In this mealy-mouthed era of guest worker programs and a "welcoming country," even Republicans cannot be counted on to stand up for effective borders and the rule of law.

Let's have our federal officials butt out of what cities might wish to do in the absence of leadership from beneath the Capitol dome. If towns in Texas or Pennsylvania or anywhere else want to enact measures that deal with a problem Washington doesn't have the stomach for, let's have those debates in those towns.

But let's have them rationally.

All who oppose laws cracking down on illegals must purge all baseless, slanderous reflex cries of racism from their arguments. I know that the vast majority of illegals in America are from Latin America. But in many places (like Farmers Branch, for example), so are the vast majority of law-abiding, English-speaking immigrants who are part of what make their communities and our country great. They are welcomed with open arms by Mr. Barletta, Mr. O'Hare and all of us who want tougher immigration laws.

This is not racial. It is behavioral. And as long as the federal status quo, from the president on down, refuses to provide remedies, local governments will be tempted to pick up the slack.

Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/give_me_a_break.html

0 Replies

Brown
Racism,racism it that your response to anything that portrays illegal aliens in a bad light. Is it racism to enforce the laws of this nation? Brown you are full of horse manure.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxy, you speed. IAs speed too. How is it any different when he does it? Americans drive drunk. IAs drive drunk too. How is it any different? Your hypocrisy, which you've yet to address is that when an American commits a violation not against people or property (like you), they ARE NOT more likely to commit crimes against people or property. Yet, when an IA commits a violation not against people or property (like border crossing), they ARE more likely to commit crimes against people or property. Stop dancing and address this hypocrisy head on.

I think the kid who breaks into somebody's house is far more likely to be a burglar at some point than is the kid who would not break into somebody's house for any reason. I think the person who commits petty theft has less conscience about committing more serious theft. I think the person who drives drunk is far more likely to hurt somebody than somebody who does not. I think the person who torments or abuses animals is more likely to hurt other humans than is the person who is kind to animals. I think certain kinds of crime, such as jaywalking, are not even remotely an indicator of inclination to violate the property or persons of others.

But yes, the person who speeds innocuously and gets away with it is far more likely to speed again than is the person who doesn't want a second ticket. Once you get tagged for jaywalking, you're much more likely to walk a few extra yards to the crosswalk next time. I guarantee you that after I changed the date on a parking ticket and got caught, I never EVER did that again. Not getting caught can be sweet, however, and is often not an incentive to not repeat the behavior.
Weren't you just misusing the term Red Herring? Look above to see what one looks like. Two paragraphs of parallel babble, that sheds no light whatsoever on either the issue or the hypocrisy I asked you to clear up.

I know very well what a red herring is. It is something like comparing treatment of somebody 'illegal' as no different from treatment of somebody 'legal' or the kind of argument that one will reject apples because he once refused an orange. You're the one who threw up my own illustrations of illegal behavior that probably won't lead to intentional harm to property or persons of others as being presumably no different from the car thief, burglar, rapist, or murderer. Not making the distinction between the two makes your argument a red herring.

Your implication that drunk driving is no worse than driving faster than the posted speed is either completely warped and ludicrous or a red herring kind of comparison. You pick.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The person who crosses a border illegally and suffers no significant consequences is far more likely to do so again, and encourage others to do so, than is the one who finds the experience to be unpleasant.
So the real fear of Amnesty is recidivism? To where? Canada?

Foxfyre wrote:
I will agree however, that entering the country illegally is not automatically a forecast of more criminal activity.
And therein lies the problem. How do you reconcile the above statement with this one?

Previously 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.

Plucking a statement out of context so that you can more easily attach a dishonest interpretation to it and attack it is a form of building a straw man. I did give you ample examples of how an unchallenged illegality can easily lead to more illegality.

That entering the country illegally is not automatically a forecast of more criminal activity in no way negates or even challenges the statement 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.

I think even though you have gone over to the dark side, Obill, even you are capable of understanding that and would if you were not so eager to defend your indefensible position on this.

Quote:

You're getting closer to abandoning this hypocrisy; why not come full circle? Ebrown is correct in identifying the "previous" statement as defamatory.

Okay I'll bite. Exactly WHO am I defaming? The person who is cruel to animals and therefore is in the category of those who are more likely to be cruel to people? The petty thief or shoplifter who gets away with it and is likely to be less adverse to bigger thefts? These are all examples I have used. Who am I talking about? Please name the person.

Or have you slipped so deep into the most muddle headed kind of liberalism that you are no longer able to distinguish between stating the obvious and/or stating facts versus intentional unfounded slurs against somebody or unwarranted assumptions?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You should agree that there are also far too many people entering the country illegally who have no problem at all being involved in serious criminal activity.
I don't much care for criminals, no. However; I wouldn't arbitrarily punish the many for the crimes of the few. That seems rather un-American to me.

So far you haven't been willing to punish anybody for any crime committed in the immigration debate. You don't seem to care whether they are criminals or not. You do seem interested in characterizing me in most uncomplimentary ways because I support enforcement of the borders and control over who will and will not be allowed to be here legally.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not sure, but I would bet a steak dinner that there is proportionately a lower violent crime rate among legal immigrants than there is in the whole population of the USA. I would bet tthe same steak dinner that there is proportionately a higher violent crime rate among illegal immigrants than there is in the whole population of the USA.
I wouldn't guess that the actual statistics would be very compelling in either case but then I'd have to arbitrarily try to fit the economic realities in there somewhere so truly accurate comparisons are impossible. Black culture here in the States has a tendency to promote some bad behavior, and I believe it is probably reflected in the Crime Statistics. Even so; I doubt it has a damn thing to do with the color of their skin.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

There are two big flaws in this argument.

1) Yesterdays mainly European immigrants were not different than todays Hispoanic immigrants. A common myth is that none of our European immigrants came legally. This is obviously false. There were many Europeans who came in from Canada for agriculture and crossed our Northern border. There were also thousands of stowaways who would be smuggled in on ships.

Of there are countless Americans who are descended from these illegal Greek, and Jewish, and Irish and Italian immigrants-- and most probably don't know.

2) Yesteredays racists were making the same claim that immigrants don't assimilate

US Rep. Clarance Lea in 1924 wrote:

What is that assimilation that we demand of a naturalized citizen? Assimilation requires adaptability, a compatibility to our Government, its institutions, and its customs; an assumption of the duties and an acceptance of the rights of an American citizen; a merger of alienism into Americanism.

True assimilation requires racial compatibility. Nature’s God has given the world a brown man, a yellow man, and a black man. Whether given to us by the wisdom of a Divine Ruler or by our own prejudices or wisdom we have a deep-seated aversion against racial amalgamation or general social equality with these races. Members of these races may have all the moral and intellectual qualities that adorn a man of the white race.

Many individuals of any race may be superior, by every just standard of measurement, to many individuals of the white race. Yet there is an irreconcilable resistance to amalgamation and social equality that cannot be ignored. The fact is it forms an enduring barrier against complete assimilation. The brown man, the yellow man, or the black man who is an American citizen seeks the opportunities of this country with a handicap. It may be humiliating or unjust to him. You may contend it is not creditable to us, but it does exist. It causes irritation, racial prejudice, and animosities. It detracts from the harmony, unity, and solidarity of our citizenship.

Of course the IRCA amnesty of 1986 proves that Hispanics assimilate just fine. Say what you will about the failure of this amnesty to stop further immigration, but the fact that there are now doctors, lawyers and soldiers who are proudly contributing to US society is undeniable.

But the points you are making were being made nearly 100 years ago. You have cleaned up the language a bit... but it is the same old crap warmed over one more time.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brown
Racism,racism it that your response to anything that portrays illegal aliens in a bad light. Is it racism to enforce the laws of this nation? Brown you are full of horse manure.

Au,

Look up the definition of defamation.

Then go to the website of the Anti-Defamation league. You may find their history... particularly their fight against similar slurs against Jews interesting.

You may also find the work the Anti-Defamation league is doing opposing bigotry in the immigration depate equally interesting.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Brown
Racism,racism it that your response to anything that portrays illegal aliens in a bad light. Is it racism to enforce the laws of this nation? Brown you are full of horse manure.

Au,

Look up the definition of defamation.

Then go to the website of the Anti-Defamation league. You may find their history... particularly their fight against similar slurs against Jews interesting.

You may also find the work the Anti-Defamation league is doing opposing bigotry in the immigration depate equally interesting.

But you have a record of calling everyone that is opposed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION bigots,no matter what their position or their comments.

You seem to want to lump all people opposed to illegal immigration,and ignore the fact that we just want the laws enforced.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Brown
Racism,racism it that your response to anything that portrays illegal aliens in a bad light. Is it racism to enforce the laws of this nation? Brown you are full of horse manure.

Au,

Look up the definition of defamation.

Then go to the website of the Anti-Defamation league. You may find their history... particularly their fight against similar slurs against Jews interesting.

You may also find the work the Anti-Defamation league is doing opposing bigotry in the immigration depate equally interesting.

But you have a record of calling everyone that is opposed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION bigots,no matter what their position or their comments.

You seem to want to lump all people opposed to illegal immigration,and ignore the fact that we just want the laws enforced.

Ebrown has never called me a bigot, and we've been back and forth on this issue for some time. But, that's probably because I don't exhibit the bigoted arguments that many others do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ebrown would have a point if anybody had in any way defamed anybody. Nobody has.

But if you break a law, it should not matter whether you are white, black, brown, pink, polka dotted or striped. The law should apply equally to all people of whatever color and from anywhere. .

Foxfyre,

The claim that people who have crossed a border or overstayed a visa are commiting proportionately more violent crimes is defamatory.

This is defamatory because it unduly inserts hatred and fear into the debate.

I don't that Cyclo, who is against illegal immigration but rejects the claim of a link between crossing a border and violent crime, is using a defamatory or racist argument.

You are using a defamatory argument, not because you think immigrants should not cross the border illegally... but because you then feel the need to paint them as violent criminals.

Stop confusing the issue.

There are reasonable arguments to be made against illegal immigration. And there are racist arguments being made against illegal immigration.

If you didn't bolster your argument with points designed to raise fear and hatred, we wouldn't be having this current discussion.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

But you have a record of calling everyone that is opposed to ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION bigots,no matter what their position or their comments.

You seem to want to lump all people opposed to illegal immigration,and ignore the fact that we just want the laws enforced.

That is absolutely not true MysteryMan.

I am saying that arguments linking immigration crimes (i.e. crossing the border or overstaying a visa) with violent crimes (i.e. rape and murder) are defamatory and based on bigotry.

I have said it multiple times. I have even started a separate thread saying it... and I will say it again.

Being against illegal immigration does not make you a bigot.

If Foxfyre et. al. would stick to the argument that immigrants shouldn't break the law to come here, I would accuse no one of bigotry.

It is the defamatory and inflammatory comments... which are designed to raise fear and hatred, far beyond what is an appropriate response for crossing a border, that I am calling bigotry.

Cyclo was willing to reject the link to violent crime. Foxfyre refuses.

I understand the difference between rational argument and bigotry.... do you?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
ebrown would have a point if anybody had in any way defamed anybody. Nobody has.

But if you break a law, it should not matter whether you are white, black, brown, pink, polka dotted or striped. The law should apply equally to all people of whatever color and from anywhere. .

Foxfyre,

The claim that people who have crossed a border or overstayed a visa are commiting proportionately more violent crimes is defamatory.

This is defamatory because it unduly inserts hatred and fear into the debate.

I don't that Cyclo, who is against illegal immigration but rejects the claim of a link between crossing a border and violent crime, is using a defamatory or racist argument.

You are using a defamatory argument, not because you think immigrants should not cross the border illegally... but because you then feel the need to paint them as violent criminals.

Stop confusing the issue.

There are reasonable arguments to be made against illegal immigration. And there are racist arguments being made against illegal immigration.

If you didn't bolster your argument with points designed to raise fear and hatred, we wouldn't be having this current discussion.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is true that people are entering the USA illegally in large numbers. This is a fact. It is not defamatory to say so nor does it even target any particular people who are doing this.

Absolutely correct.

Quote:

It is true that statistics seem to support a proportionally greater incident of violent crime committed by illegals than is proportionally attributed to the population as a whole. Again this does not target any particular group or race but refers to those who are here illegally. it is not defamatory to say so.

Absolutely incorrect. Of course the burden of proof in defamation is on you... but OBill and I have both posted links with supporting evidence.

This is exactly the difference I am trying to make.

Your first comment states proven facts that are not inflammatory and get to the bottom of the debate.

Your second comment is designed to increase hatred and fear by linking an entire group of people with barbaric violent crimes.

0 Replies

Good evening to yall. I have no desire to get into the spitting match but I did want to say this:
The debate thus far seems to slosh around and between talk about illegal aliens and legal immigrants.
Illegal aliens: Is it unlawful to cross into the US from some other country without permission? Yes. Does it happen a lot? Yes. Has it been happening for a hundred or two years? Probably. Can it be stopped? Probably not.
We can build fences and we can punish employers needing laborers and the government can continue to promise a system to verify workers' status, but it probably won't work. Hunger is a strong motivating force.

Legal immigrants: Foxfyre posted a column by Mark Davis of the Dallas Morning News entitled Leave Racism Out Of The Immigration Debate.
Three sniippets from his column: "...English-speaking legal immigrants..." and "...law-abiding, English speaking immigrants..." and "...embracing our culture, learning our language and assimilating into our value system..."

My German immigrant grandmother never learned to speak English. My dad spoke only German until he was eight. Would Mr Davis and the towns of Hazelton PA and Farmers Branch TX allow them to live there?

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know