StrikeS2ks views on illegal immigration (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Back in 2009, StrikeS2k, in one of our many discussions about illegal immigration, wrote a long analysis that represented his views on the issue. I promised to respond, and failed to do so. I honestly can't remember now my reasons for not responding. But he's bugged me about it ever since. I couldn't find the post in question, but when Rich Conway asked him to produce it in another thread, Strike was kind enough to do so. That allows me to post his views here, and respond in detail. I think we can all agree that the issue of illegal immigration is as vital now as it was in 2009; it's not going away.

The next post will contain Strike's views in detail, and then I will respond.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

 

[timschochet]

The PROBLEMS with Illegal Immigration

1) They ARE a net drain on the system. Anyone who says different is a "progressive" like Timmy here. Hospital emergency rooms are closing at an alarming rate in border states. AFAIK the unanimous reason is the cost of illegals to their bottom line since anyone who walks in to an emergency room has to be treated by law.illegals use the emergency room as their family practitioner and emergency room care is much more expensive than a regular doctor visit. Additionally, there is the cost of educating their children, some US citizens and some not, the cost of incarceration which is significant, the cost of social programs they are entitled to especially if they have kids here, the cost of the extra infrastructure needed to support 10% more people in the country, etc.....FAIR, an organization Timmy mentioned earlier, just came out with their latest study which shows that in CA illegals cost the state 13 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of money, and that's just CA.

2) There are a lot of illegals in prison. People such as Tim pretend that the only law these people break is walking across the border to "make a better life for them self" but they do commit other crimes. Yes, it's not all of them but it's not an insignificant percent either.

3) Latino gangs have become a huge problem due to illegal immigration. Do a search on MS-13, a latino gang that was actually started in the US but does heavy recruiting in Latin America and brings those members here. It's a huge problem in this country and one of the most violent gangs we have of any race.

4) We NEED to have a secure border. Not only do illegal immigrants cross it but terrorists cross it as well. Also, our border agents are continually shot at and put in harms way.

5) Illegals don't assimilate. They form their own communities, don't learn English, and instead of trying to become Americanized they turn their areas in to the same cess pools they came from. Not to mention cultural issues. California now has a huge problem with #### fighting, which is illegal almost everywhere in the US. But it's common in Latin America so in areas with high concentrations of illegals you have a big problem with it. This may sound trivial but #### fighting leads to a lot of other issues, just as prostitution does. Not to mention it's completely inhumane.

6) One of the big problems that isn't talked about much is 2nd/3rd generation illegals. Any kids born of illegals while in this country are automatically US citizens. This should be changed as that was never the intent of this provision but that's another issue. The problem is, in states such as CA these children grow up and are then part of our voting population. They vote in very liberal ways and this, IMO, is one of the reasons CA has gone over the Abyss. These people are now in power and come from a culture where corruption in politics is status quo. About 5 years ago the State/Feds actually arrested basically the entire city council in a Latino community in the Los Angeles area for corruption. This is what they came from in Mexico and other Latin American cultures and, just like we learn what our parents teach us, it flows down the line with the illegals. Many of the people in state power come from this background and they vote for more and more pro illegal measures every year.

7) Identity theft. Illegals are being tied to identity theft more and more. They make up or buy SSN numbers of American Citizens and use it to work here. This causes a myriad of problems for the CITIZEN who actually owns that SSN number. I read about a lady in Iowa who TRIED to go on workman's comp. for a legit injury only to find out she couldn't because she was already on workman's comp!!!! An illegal using her SSN number had been on workman's comp. and then a few months later she got a hefty tax bill from the Feds for the illegal as well.

8) This will sound disingenuous coming from an illegal immigrant opponent but it's true. Our use of illegal immigrant labor for low paying jobs is human exploitation. People think everything is cheaper with the illegal so they don't care if they're being paid under the table in 3rd world wages but it's not only illegal , it's wrong. Anyone who thinks it's ok believes in human exploitation. I don't.

The FALLACIES of fixing the problem

Timmy and other "progressive" open border people cite problems with getting rid of illegals - "We can't deport 20 million people!!!! It's not possible."

1) We don't have to deport them. Go after the employers like we're supposed to. The federal government has a great database that many employers use to verify SSN numbers. Federal agencies are required to use it and many private employers use it as well. It's been in pilot for years and the pilot went very well. Illegal immigration apologists like Timmy here push against the use of this database, saying it can cause delays in employment and mistakes can be made. While this is true the issues in the pilot have been minimal and the benefits certainly outweigh the downside. In addition, targeted raids as have been happening with more frequency the last couple of years make a huge impact. You don't have to go into every workplace. Word spreads fast. If the illegals even THINK you might come after them they get scared. The problem is we do it so infrequently there isn't much threat.

2) If you go after the employers to make it hard for illegals to find work, most will go home. This has been shown by how many have left just due to the economic downturn. Hundreds of thousands of illegals have left in the last year alone due to problems finding work.

3) If you secure the border and go after employers it becomes difficult for the illegal to come back once he's out of the country. So, you've stopped the incoming flow.

4) After you've stopped the incoming flow and most have gone home due to workplace enforcement, you have maybe 10-20% of the problem remaining. Those are the ones we end up deporting. But we can do that as we come across them via local arrest or other means. We don't have to go door to door looking for illegals.

But We NEED them to do jobs Americans won't do!!!!

Another fallacy.

1) I posted a link to a study last year that showed that the average American family will see a $5 YEARLY increase in the cost of fruits/veggies if illegals weren't picking them. People such as Timmy like to suggest that prices would skyrocket if illegals weren't here to pick our fruits. This simply isn't true. This study was by a completely unbiased researcher and was NOT refuted by ANY illegal alien apologists.

2) Being able to hire illegals cheap has delayed the implementation of mechanized devices for picking fruits. We can build a car with robotics but can't pick an apple from a tree? Not true. There's just no reason to deploy such means when illegals are cheap.

3) If we do want/need some immigrant labor we need to be in control of it. We need to secure our border and remove as many as possible. Then we can consider some type of guest worker program if still needed. What we can't have is illegalss just walking across the border with us not knowing who is in our country and being in control of when they come and go.

There simply is no reason NOT to deal with this issue, including getting rid of those already here. Amnesty is not an option because is rewards coming here illegally while millions of people sit in other countries waiting to come here legally.

 

[AcerFC]

um, why not just use the thread where this was already being discussed

 

[timschochet]

Because Strike makes so many different arguments in his post, I am going to respond to each argument separately:

1) They ARE a net drain on the system. Anyone who says different is a "progressive" like Timmy here.

1. I do not believe that they are a net drain on the system. Of course, this is one of the main issues of contention. In the past, I have attempted to provide evidence as to how illegals are a positive on the system, but this evidence has been attacked. But again, here is a 2009 study from the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, entitled, "Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States":

http://www.scribd.com/lee_skevington/d/45414006-Illegal-Immigration-A-Positive-Economic-Contribution-to-the-United-States

The study focuses on the effect of illegal immigration on jobs and wages and the fiscal impact on public services. It's conclusions are in direct contradiction to Strike's assertions here. As we get more specific, I will quote this study in more detail.

2. FWIW, I don't consider myself a progressive. And even though it's not really relevant in terms of right or wrong regarding this issue, I would like to point out that once again Strike is incorrect, and that it's not simply progressives who believe that illegal immigration is a net drain. Plenty of libertarian voices, most notably the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute, have made this same argument for years. And the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a progressive insitution, has also made an argument very close to this.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

serious question: why not just bump the old thread to respond there?

you really love starting new threads this much still?

 

[gsmayes]

who cares about an argument you had with someone two or three years ago.

 

[RCon]

I'm interested and happy to have the conversation here. For those who aren't interested, why not just not open the thread?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Back in 2009, Strike2Strike, in one of our many discussions about illegal immigration, wrote a long analysis that represented his views on the issue. I promised to respond, and failed to do so. I honestly can't remember now my reasons for not responding. But he's bugged me about it ever since. I couldn't find the post in question, but when Rich Conway asked him to produce it in another thread, Strike was kind enough to do so. That allows me to post his views here, and respond in detail. I think we can all agree that the issue of illegal immigration is as vital now as it was in 2009; it's not going away. The next post will contain Strike's views in detail, and then I will respond.

 

[Sinn Fein]

who cares about an argument you had with someone two or three years ago.

new here? This is what timmy does.

 

[RCon]

Because Strike makes so many different arguments in his post, I am going to respond to each argument separately:

1) They ARE a net drain on the system. Anyone who says different is a "progressive" like Timmy here.

1. I do not believe that they are a net drain on the system. Of course, this is one of the main issues of contention. In the past, I have attempted to provide evidence as to how illegals are a positive on the system, but this evidence has been attacked. But again, here is a 2009 study from the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, entitled, "Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States":

http://www.scribd.com/lee_skevington/d/45414006-Illegal-Immigration-A-Positive-Economic-Contribution-to-the-United-States

The study focuses on the effect of illegal immigration on jobs and wages and the fiscal impact on public services. It's conclusions are in direct contradiction to Strike's assertions here. As we get more specific, I will quote this study in more detail.

2. FWIW, I don't consider myself a progressive. And even though it's not really relevant in terms of right or wrong regarding this issue, I would like to point out that once again Strike is incorrect, and that it's not simply progressives who believe that illegal immigration is a net drain. Plenty of libertarian voices, most notably the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute, have made this same argument for years. And the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a progressive insitution, has also made an argument very close to this.

You left out a word in the bolded area, I think.Regardless, I think this is an area where different sources are going to come up with different results.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm interested and happy to have the conversation here. For those who aren't interested, why not just not open the thread?

Sounds like this post came from the "Timschochet's views on starting redundant threads" thread.

 

[Uwe Blab]

Back in 2009, Strike2Strike, in one of our many discussions about illegal immigration, wrote a long analysis that represented his views on the issue. I promised to respond, and failed to do so. I honestly can't remember now my reasons for not responding. But he's bugged me about it ever since. I couldn't find the post in question, but when Rich Conway asked him to produce it in another thread, Strike was kind enough to do so. That allows me to post his views here, and respond in detail. I think we can all agree that the issue of illegal immigration is as vital now as it was in 2009; it's not going away. The next post will contain Strike's views in detail, and then I will respond.

You genuinely seem like an affable enough fellow, Tim, but this has got to be a parody of you, right?

 

[ODoyleRules]

 

[AcerFC]

serious question: why not just bump the old thread to respond there?you really love starting new threads this much still?

I think its time to take away the Start new Thread button from him

 

[timschochet]

AFAIK the unanimous reason is the cost of illegals to their bottom line since anyone who walks in to an emergency room has to be treated by law.illegals use the emergency room as their family practitioner and emergency room care is much more expensive than a regular doctor visit.

Per the report I linked, two separate studies in the past 10 years (Health Affairs, Berk) have demonstrated that illegals are less likely than natives to use public health services, despite the claims of anti-illegals of the opposite. Furthermore, the GAO study in 2004 reported that "until reliable information is available on undocumented aliens and the cost of their care, accurate assessment of their financial effect on hospitals will remain elusive". Finally, Strike's assertions as to this cost being the "unanimous" reason for the cost of illegals is incorrect according to FAIR, which estimated the health care cost of illegals in California to 1.3 billion, while the education cost is 3.2 billion and the incarceration cost is 1.4 billion. Clearly, therefore, the health care cost is not the greatest expense of the three, but the least of the three expenses.

Additionally, there is the cost of educating their children, some US citizens and some not, the cost of incarceration which is significant, the cost of social programs they are entitled to especially if they have kids here, the cost of the extra infrastructure needed to support 10% more people in the country, etc.....FAIR, an organization Timmy mentioned earlier, just came out with their latest study which shows that in CA illegals cost the state 13 BILLION dollars a year. That's a LOT of money, and that's just CA.

Obviously, 3.2 + 1.3 + 1.4 don't add up to 13 billion. But even 6 billion (let's round it up) is a lot of money. I will concede that the border states, especially California, Arizona, and Texas, bear the brunt of the cost of illegal immigrants, and it may be that if we look at these three states alone, the cost of illegals actually outweighs their benefit (possible, though I won't concede this point without further evidence, which is almost impossible to calculate accurately.) But even if this were the case, it is not the case in the rest of the United States where illegals are not present in such large numbers, but where the consumer still benefits by their presence in the border states. Therefore the obvious solution is the reallocation of federal resources to help the border states pay for these high costs.

 

[Nipsey]

 

[snogger]

Because Strike makes so many different arguments in his post, I am going to respond to each argument separately:

1) They ARE a net drain on the system. Anyone who says different is a "progressive" like Timmy here.

1. I do not believe that they are a net drain on the system. Of course, this is one of the main issues of contention. In the past, I have attempted to provide evidence as to how illegals are a positive on the system, but this evidence has been attacked. But again, here is a 2009 study from the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, entitled, "Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States":

http://www.scribd.com/lee_skevington/d/45414006-Illegal-Immigration-A-Positive-Economic-Contribution-to-the-United-States

The study focuses on the effect of illegal immigration on jobs and wages and the fiscal impact on public services. It's conclusions are in direct contradiction to Strike's assertions here. As we get more specific, I will quote this study in more detail.

2. FWIW, I don't consider myself a progressive. And even though it's not really relevant in terms of right or wrong regarding this issue, I would like to point out that once again Strike is incorrect, and that it's not simply progressives who believe that illegal immigration is a net drain. Plenty of libertarian voices, most notably the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute, have made this same argument for years. And the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a progressive insitution, has also made an argument very close to this.

There was a story on the local news here in Minnesota that talked about the "Net Drain":Investigators: Revolving Door

Most of the local heroin supply comes from Mexico, and some of the people who bring it to Minnesota streets are illegal immigrants, like the man police tracked down while FOX 9 cameras were rolling.

During the bust, police found lots of cash, a bag of what's believed to be heroin and a suspect who didn't speak English. Police discovered the man was carrying a Mexican ID and he was here illegally. The man acknowledged it's not the first time he's crossed the border without permission.

"He has been deported from Utah. He had heroin and cocaine charges," said an interpreter who spoke with the suspect.

Officials said this scenario is all too familiar for narcotics officers. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says it has made it a priority to oust those who are in the country illegally and are committing crimes -- but local officers say that just creates a revolving door for repeat offenders.

"It is extremely frustrating because it's just a revolving door," said an undercover narcotics officer.

The FOX 9 Investigators tracked the case of Gonzalo Robles. According to police, he was previously busted in Las Vegas under a different name; however, the charges were dismissed and he was deported.

Robles was picked up again in Denver using another alias. He served some prison time, and was deported again. Last spring, he was arrested in Hennepin County on charges related to possession of heroin. Yet, before he went on trial in Minnesota, ICE put him on a plane, sending him to the Mexican border. A few sunsets later, Robles was back in Minneapolis. In November, he was arrested yet again, this time on charges of selling heroin.

"I've seen people who have been deported two and three times," Stacey said.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed.. No matter how you look at it, without a strong stance against illegal immigration, the cost to tax payers is to much for those that continue to break other laws including illegally crossing the border.

On one hand tax payers continue to pay for flights back to Mexico for people who don't care about the laws.. On the other hand, putting them in prison is a "net Drain" on money that Tax payers pay for the prison systems.

 

[RCon]

If you admit that the analysis on the total net economic effect can't be performed accurately, how can you so confidently state that illegal immigration is a net positive?

 

[timschochet]

serious question: why not just bump the old thread to respond there?you really love starting new threads this much still?

I see this is a huge deal for some people. The reason I started a new thread was because Strike has repeatedly made such a big deal out of this, and repeatedly accuses me of being afraid to respond to him. Since my response is going to have to be long and detailed, I thought it would be better to start a new thread to do so, instead of reviving an older thread which hadn't been opened in over 2 years. What is the difference, anyhow? I find this subject interesting. I enjoy debating and discussing it, and reading various viewpoints. I also think it's an extremely important issue to discuss, and many people have strong feelings about it. That's all.

 

[timschochet]

If you admit that the analysis on the total net economic effect can't be performed accurately, how can you so confidently state that illegal immigration is a net positive?

The cost effect on the three most impacted border states is the element that can't be performed accurately. But I hold that this is overwhelmed in any case by the positive effect on the United States as a whole.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

http://i41.tinypic.com/168al54.jpg

 

[timschochet]

Because Strike makes so many different arguments in his post, I am going to respond to each argument separately:

1) They ARE a net drain on the system. Anyone who says different is a "progressive" like Timmy here.

1. I do not believe that they are a net drain on the system. Of course, this is one of the main issues of contention. In the past, I have attempted to provide evidence as to how illegals are a positive on the system, but this evidence has been attacked. But again, here is a 2009 study from the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, entitled, "Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States":

http://www.scribd.co...e-United-States

The study focuses on the effect of illegal immigration on jobs and wages and the fiscal impact on public services. It's conclusions are in direct contradiction to Strike's assertions here. As we get more specific, I will quote this study in more detail.

2. FWIW, I don't consider myself a progressive. And even though it's not really relevant in terms of right or wrong regarding this issue, I would like to point out that once again Strike is incorrect, and that it's not simply progressives who believe that illegal immigration is a net drain. Plenty of libertarian voices, most notably the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute, have made this same argument for years. And the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a progressive insitution, has also made an argument very close to this.

There was a story on the local news here in Minnesota that talked about the "Net Drain":Investigators: Revolving Door

Most of the local heroin supply comes from Mexico, and some of the people who bring it to Minnesota streets are illegal immigrants, like the man police tracked down while FOX 9 cameras were rolling.

During the bust, police found lots of cash, a bag of what's believed to be heroin and a suspect who didn't speak English. Police discovered the man was carrying a Mexican ID and he was here illegally. The man acknowledged it's not the first time he's crossed the border without permission.

"He has been deported from Utah. He had heroin and cocaine charges," said an interpreter who spoke with the suspect.

Officials said this scenario is all too familiar for narcotics officers. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says it has made it a priority to oust those who are in the country illegally and are committing crimes -- but local officers say that just creates a revolving door for repeat offenders.

"It is extremely frustrating because it's just a revolving door," said an undercover narcotics officer.

The FOX 9 Investigators tracked the case of Gonzalo Robles. According to police, he was previously busted in Las Vegas under a different name; however, the charges were dismissed and he was deported.

Robles was picked up again in Denver using another alias. He served some prison time, and was deported again. Last spring, he was arrested in Hennepin County on charges related to possession of heroin. Yet, before he went on trial in Minnesota, ICE put him on a plane, sending him to the Mexican border. A few sunsets later, Robles was back in Minneapolis. In November, he was arrested yet again, this time on charges of selling heroin.

"I've seen people who have been deported two and three times," Stacey said.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed.. No matter how you look at it, without a strong stance against illegal immigration, the cost to tax payers is to much for those that continue to break other laws including illegally crossing the border.

On one hand tax payers continue to pay for flights back to Mexico for people who don't care about the laws.. On the other hand, putting them in prison is a "net Drain" on money that Tax payers pay for the prison systems.

Snogger, your post here repeats some of the arguments that Strike makes a little later on in his post. So when I respond to those, hopefully that will give you my answer to your point, as well.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Fascinating

 

[Limp Ditka]

http://i39.tinypic.com/98hll3.jpg

 

[identikit]

http://i39.tinypic.com/98hll3.jpg

Sums Tim up perfectly.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I just want to go on record as saying that I did not endorse the starting of a new thread on this issue. In fact, Tim suggested that I do it and I referred him to the previous thread and suggested that he just respond there. I have no control over Tim's actions. Please do not associate me with his thread starting ways. Thank You.

 

[identikit]

I just want to go on record as saying that I did not endorse the starting of a new thread on this issue. In fact, Tim suggested that I do it and I referred him to the previous thread and suggested that he just respond there. I have no control over Tim's actions. Please do not associate me with his thread starting ways. Thank You.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

you didn't even link the earlier thread?

this has to be one of the weirdest shticks I've seen so congrats on that. icy pots indeed.

 

[Parrothead]

Tim is keeping the keyboard manufacturing industry alive and well..

 

[EYLive]

For f--- sake!

Keyboard diarrhea.

Can one of you mods stop this dolt? He's ruining the board.

 

[timschochet]

2) There are a lot of illegals in prison. People such as Tim pretend that the only law these people break is walking across the border to "make a better life for them self" but they do commit other crimes. Yes, it's not all of them but it's not an insignificant percent either.

I've already addressed the cost of incarceration in the border states, and I've conceded that it, along with education and health care, are the three major drains on the state governments. The next question, based on Strike's assertion here, is whether or not illegal immigrants, measured as a group, are more likely or less likely to commit felonies than citizens or those with documents. I would like to point out here that almost all of the "evidence" that those who complain the most about illegal immigrants give on this issue is highly anecdotal in nature: a terrible murder or multiple murders or other violent crimes is presented, and then we learn that the perpetrator of these crimes is an illegal immigrant. From this incident or incidents, we are supposed to make the assumption that illegals tend to be violent criminals; unfortunately, a lot of people do make this assumption.

Actually, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: According to Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html the safest, lowest crime rates in America are almost all in border states, where the illegal immigration problem is the greatest. This includes Arizona, where Jan Brewer used the notion of illegal crime as a justification for 1070. The conclusion to this fact is rather easy to draw: most illegals, fearful of being deported and working incredibly long hours, are actually MORE law-abiding than regular citizens, not less so. Yes, there are exceptions to this, and that's all we ever hear about. But exceptions don't represent the majority.

 

[matuski]

holy hell.

 

[timschochet]

For f--- sake!

Keyboard diarrhea.

Can one of you mods stop this dolt? He's ruining the board.

Thanks for opening the thread. Appreciate your response.

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to take a break for awhile. It's going to take me a long time to refute all of Strike's fallacies. I'll get to them.

 

[GDogg]

I just want to go on record as saying that I did not endorse the starting of a new thread on this issue. In fact, Tim suggested that I do it and I referred him to the previous thread and suggested that he just respond there. I have no control over Tim's actions. Please do not associate me with his thread starting ways. Thank You.

You responding in this thread is a tacit endorsement of this thread. If you didn't want to be associated with it, you should have started a different thread or responded in the previous thread.I can't believe you took this argument to a completely new thread.

 

[17seconds]

*** Official tim Intellectual Jerk Off Thread ***

 

[StrikeS2k]

2) There are a lot of illegals in prison. People such as Tim pretend that the only law these people break is walking across the border to "make a better life for them self" but they do commit other crimes. Yes, it's not all of them but it's not an insignificant percent either.

I've already addressed the cost of incarceration in the border states, and I've conceded that it, along with education and health care, are the three major drains on the state governments. The next question, based on Strike's assertion here, is whether or not illegal immigrants, measured as a group, are more likely or less likely to commit felonies than citizens or those with documents. I would like to point out here that almost all of the "evidence" that those who complain the most about illegal immigrants give on this issue is highly anecdotal in nature: a terrible murder or multiple murders or other violent crimes is presented, and then we learn that the perpetrator of these crimes is an illegal immigrant. From this incident or incidents, we are supposed to make the assumption that illegals tend to be violent criminals; unfortunately, a lot of people do make this assumption.

Actually, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: According to Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html the safest, lowest crime rates in America are almost all in border states, where the illegal immigration problem is the greatest. This includes Arizona, where Jan Brewer used the notion of illegal crime as a justification for 1070. The conclusion to this fact is rather easy to draw: most illegals, fearful of being deported and working incredibly long hours, are actually MORE law-abiding than regular citizens, not less so. Yes, there are exceptions to this, and that's all we ever hear about. But exceptions don't represent the majority.

Tim, there's a lot more to it than simply violent crime. For example, right now there is a huge debate in Los Angeles because they want to violate state law, which requires impounding the vehicle of anyone stopped without a driver's license for 30 days, by allowing illegals to keep their cars if they're pulled over. This despite irrefutable evidence that people who drive without a driver's license cause significantly more traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths. Of course, the illegal immigrant apologists look at such a law as profiling and racist. But it's about safety. And these are the tangential issues that come up because of our current system with regards to illegals. And it's another law they choose to flaunt with regularity, and not just the violent felon type of illegal. The cross the border to make a better life for my family type of illegal has as much disdain for driver's license laws as the violent felon.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I just want to go on record as saying that I did not endorse the starting of a new thread on this issue. In fact, Tim suggested that I do it and I referred him to the previous thread and suggested that he just respond there. I have no control over Tim's actions. Please do not associate me with his thread starting ways. Thank You.

You responding in this thread is a tacit endorsement of this thread. If you didn't want to be associated with it, you should have started a different thread or responded in the previous thread.I can't believe you took this argument to a completely new thread.

All I said was I didn't ask Tim to create a new thread. I even suggested that he respond in the old one before this one was ever created. This thread will exist whether I respond in it or not. Your logic is flawed.

 

[timschochet]

Come on now, you guys, is this all your have? Diarrhea? Intellectual jerk-off? Where's my recipes?

 

[GDogg]

I just want to go on record as saying that I did not endorse the starting of a new thread on this issue. In fact, Tim suggested that I do it and I referred him to the previous thread and suggested that he just respond there. I have no control over Tim's actions. Please do not associate me with his thread starting ways. Thank You.

You responding in this thread is a tacit endorsement of this thread. If you didn't want to be associated with it, you should have started a different thread or responded in the previous thread.I can't believe you took this argument to a completely new thread.

All I said was I didn't ask Tim to create a new thread. I even suggested that he respond in the old one before this one was ever created. This thread will exist whether I respond in it or not. Your logic is flawed.

Is it?Link.

 

[bostonfred]

I'm going to take a break for awhile. It's going to take me a long time to refute all of Strike's fallacies. I'll get to them.

Tim passes slowly

 

[timschochet]

2) There are a lot of illegals in prison. People such as Tim pretend that the only law these people break is walking across the border to "make a better life for them self" but they do commit other crimes. Yes, it's not all of them but it's not an insignificant percent either.

I've already addressed the cost of incarceration in the border states, and I've conceded that it, along with education and health care, are the three major drains on the state governments. The next question, based on Strike's assertion here, is whether or not illegal immigrants, measured as a group, are more likely or less likely to commit felonies than citizens or those with documents. I would like to point out here that almost all of the "evidence" that those who complain the most about illegal immigrants give on this issue is highly anecdotal in nature: a terrible murder or multiple murders or other violent crimes is presented, and then we learn that the perpetrator of these crimes is an illegal immigrant. From this incident or incidents, we are supposed to make the assumption that illegals tend to be violent criminals; unfortunately, a lot of people do make this assumption.

Actually, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: According to Time Magazine http://www.time.com/...2007474,00.html the safest, lowest crime rates in America are almost all in border states, where the illegal immigration problem is the greatest. This includes Arizona, where Jan Brewer used the notion of illegal crime as a justification for 1070. The conclusion to this fact is rather easy to draw: most illegals, fearful of being deported and working incredibly long hours, are actually MORE law-abiding than regular citizens, not less so. Yes, there are exceptions to this, and that's all we ever hear about. But exceptions don't represent the majority.

Tim, there's a lot more to it than simply violent crime. For example, right now there is a huge debate in Los Angeles because they want to violate state law, which requires impounding the vehicle of anyone stopped without a driver's license for 30 days, by allowing illegals to keep their cars if they're pulled over. This despite irrefutable evidence that people who drive without a driver's license cause significantly more traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths. Of course, the illegal immigrant apologists look at such a law as profiling and racist. But it's about safety. And these are the tangential issues that come up because of our current system with regards to illegals. And it's another law they choose to flaunt with regularity, and not just the violent felon type of illegal. The cross the border to make a better life for my family type of illegal has as much disdain for driver's license laws as the violent felon.

FWIW, I don't believe in allowing illegals to keep their cars. That's a dumb idea. But perhaps if we allowed them to obtain drivers licenses and insurance, (which would save our state countless amounts of money) then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[identikit]

I'm going to take a break for awhile. It's going to take me a long time to refute all of Strike's fallacies. I'll get to them.

Tim passes slowly

4 whole minutes.He needs an intervention.

 

[timschochet]

I'm going to take a break for awhile. It's going to take me a long time to refute all of Strike's fallacies. I'll get to them.

Tim passes slowly

Well done.See, now THIS was a creative way to mock me. Bostonfred is great at that.

 

[squistion]

I just want to go on record as saying that I did not endorse the starting of a new thread on this issue. In fact, Tim suggested that I do it and I referred him to the previous thread and suggested that he just respond there. I have no control over Tim's actions. Please do not associate me with his thread starting ways. Thank You.

You responding in this thread is a tacit endorsement of this thread. If you didn't want to be associated with it, you should have started a different thread or responded in the previous thread.I can't believe you took this argument to a completely new thread.

Yeah, right, that's all we need is another thread on this subject cluttering up the board.

 

[RCon]

If you admit that the analysis on the total net economic effect can't be performed accurately, how can you so confidently state that illegal immigration is a net positive?

The cost effect on the three most impacted border states is the element that can't be performed accurately. But I hold that this is overwhelmed in any case by the positive effect on the United States as a whole.

I suspect the opposite is true, and that illegal immigration is a significant net drain. I also admit that any such analysis is, by necessity, biased because it must decide what to count and what not to count.

 

[B-Deep]

tim

did you see this?

JERUSALEM (AP) — He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time. But Sir Isaac Newton was also an influential theologian who applied a scientific approach to the study of scripture, Hebrew and Jewish mysticism.

Now Israel's national library, an unlikely owner of a vast trove of Newton's writings, has digitized his theological collection — some 7,500 pages in Newton's own handwriting — and put it online. Among the yellowed texts are Newton's famous prediction of the apocalypse in 2060.

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-library-uploads-newtons-theological-texts-181458861.html

fascinating stuff!

 

[bostonfred]

Strike2Strike

 

[StrikeS2k]

2) There are a lot of illegals in prison. People such as Tim pretend that the only law these people break is walking across the border to "make a better life for them self" but they do commit other crimes. Yes, it's not all of them but it's not an insignificant percent either.

I've already addressed the cost of incarceration in the border states, and I've conceded that it, along with education and health care, are the three major drains on the state governments. The next question, based on Strike's assertion here, is whether or not illegal immigrants, measured as a group, are more likely or less likely to commit felonies than citizens or those with documents. I would like to point out here that almost all of the "evidence" that those who complain the most about illegal immigrants give on this issue is highly anecdotal in nature: a terrible murder or multiple murders or other violent crimes is presented, and then we learn that the perpetrator of these crimes is an illegal immigrant. From this incident or incidents, we are supposed to make the assumption that illegals tend to be violent criminals; unfortunately, a lot of people do make this assumption.

Actually, the truth is almost exactly the opposite: According to Time Magazine http://www.time.com/...2007474,00.html the safest, lowest crime rates in America are almost all in border states, where the illegal immigration problem is the greatest. This includes Arizona, where Jan Brewer used the notion of illegal crime as a justification for 1070. The conclusion to this fact is rather easy to draw: most illegals, fearful of being deported and working incredibly long hours, are actually MORE law-abiding than regular citizens, not less so. Yes, there are exceptions to this, and that's all we ever hear about. But exceptions don't represent the majority.

Tim, there's a lot more to it than simply violent crime. For example, right now there is a huge debate in Los Angeles because they want to violate state law, which requires impounding the vehicle of anyone stopped without a driver's license for 30 days, by allowing illegals to keep their cars if they're pulled over. This despite irrefutable evidence that people who drive without a driver's license cause significantly more traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths. Of course, the illegal immigrant apologists look at such a law as profiling and racist. But it's about safety. And these are the tangential issues that come up because of our current system with regards to illegals. And it's another law they choose to flaunt with regularity, and not just the violent felon type of illegal. The cross the border to make a better life for my family type of illegal has as much disdain for driver's license laws as the violent felon.

FWIW, I don't believe in allowing illegals to keep their cars. That's a dumb idea. But perhaps if we allowed them to obtain drivers licenses and insurance, (which would save our state countless amounts of money) then this wouldn't be an issue.

We don't prevent it. All they have to do is go home and they can get as many licenses and insurance policies as their home country allows.And, of course, you ignore my point. Regular illegals regularly flaunt many of our laws. This is one example. You choose to focus on one particular type of law - violent felonies. But most illegals break numerous laws regularly. You should at least acknowledge that fact.