StrikeS2ks views on illegal immigration (1 Viewer)

[RCon]

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

So you're to blame for this?

Does it really matter whether it's a new thread or a bump of a two-year old thread? If you're not interested, it's still one thread on the front page that you have to avoid clicking.

 

[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.

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

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Strike2Strike

Back to Life, Back to Reality.

 

[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.

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.

This was a rebuttal to your point about a lot of illegals being in prison. Since they're in prison, I'm assuming they committed violent crimes.

 

[Bogeys]

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.

I have seen you make this point repeatedly and don't really understand the relavence. If the illegals weren't here in the first place the number for them would be 0. Why does it matter if you whiz in your own back yard more than some stranger who just does it once....the only law they would be breaking that you wouldn't also be breaking is trespass so it shouldn't bother you by the same logic and you wouldn't call the cops correct?

I think we would agree on some things but probably wouldn't agree on all or the order. IE: I believe in border enforcement/control and a guest worker program and a path to citizenship as long as the latter is the very last thing done and the former is the first.

 

[RCon]

I don't entirely agree with StrikeS2K's views on illegal immigration, but I do believe it's an issue worth looking at. I'm less interested in debating the extent of the problem than in discussing potential solutions. This is where I've criticized timschochet in the past; he'd rather continue the status quo (tacit government approval of unlimited illegal immigration) than compromise on anything other than free and open borders.

 

[RBM]

Thanks for bringing Strike's post some attention....its spot on.

 

[Statcruncher]

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.

No rush, we've all waited years for your reply. A couple more hours of sitting on the egde of our seats won't kill us.

 

[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.

This was a rebuttal to your point about a lot of illegals being in prison. Since they're in prison, I'm assuming they committed violent crimes.

No it wasn't. You rebutted that and I posted expanding on the problem, using the driver's license issue as an example. Your response: Make it legal for them to get driver's licenses. Well, we've decided that you have to be here legally to have a driver's license. Isn't that our option? To decide our own laws? But no, in your world the answer isn't for them to follow our laws but for us to change our laws to suit illegals.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't entirely agree with StrikeS2K's views on illegal immigration, but I do believe it's an issue worth looking at. I'm less interested in debating the extent of the problem than in discussing potential solutions. This is where I've criticized timschochet in the past; he'd rather continue the status quo (tacit government approval of unlimited illegal immigration) than compromise on anything other than free and open borders.

Just out of curiosity, which views of mine don't you agree with? Really just curious.

 

[Statcruncher]

Start a new thread please StrikeS2K, I would hate to see this one get sidetracked.

 

[bostonfred]

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.

This was a rebuttal to your point about a lot of illegals being in prison. Since they're in prison, I'm assuming they committed violent crimes.

No it wasn't. You rebutted that and I posted expanding on the problem, using the driver's license issue as an example. Your response: Make it legal for them to get driver's licenses. Well, we've decided that you have to be here legally to have a driver's license. Isn't that our option? To decide our own laws? But no, in your world the answer isn't for them to follow our laws but for us to change our laws to suit illegals.

You're rebutting whether this is even a rebuttal? Is that considered a rerebuttal, or a debuttal?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Start a new thread please StrikeS2K, I would hate to see this one get sidetracked.

In a couple of years. Don't want to rush anything.

 

[GDogg]

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.

This was a rebuttal to your point about a lot of illegals being in prison. Since they're in prison, I'm assuming they committed violent crimes.

No it wasn't. You rebutted that and I posted expanding on the problem, using the driver's license issue as an example. Your response: Make it legal for them to get driver's licenses. Well, we've decided that you have to be here legally to have a driver's license. Isn't that our option? To decide our own laws? But no, in your world the answer isn't for them to follow our laws but for us to change our laws to suit illegals.

Who is "we?"You don't have to be documented in California to have a valid driver's license. You DO have to be documented in California to have a valid California driver's license.

 

[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.

This was a rebuttal to your point about a lot of illegals being in prison. Since they're in prison, I'm assuming they committed violent crimes.

No it wasn't. You rebutted that and I posted expanding on the problem, using the driver's license issue as an example. Your response: Make it legal for them to get driver's licenses. Well, we've decided that you have to be here legally to have a driver's license. Isn't that our option? To decide our own laws? But no, in your world the answer isn't for them to follow our laws but for us to change our laws to suit illegals.

You're rebutting whether this is even a rebuttal? Is that considered a rerebuttal, or a debuttal?

Timbuttal?

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

I'll trade you Timmy and Strike for 10 Illegals.

No Refunds!

 

[StrikeS2k]

Who is "we?"

You don't have to be documented in California to have a valid driver's license. You DO have to be documented in California to have a valid California driver's license.

We would be the people of CA. If Tim has a problem with the law he should start a movement to get people to lobby their state legislators to change it. But, until that time the people have decided what the law should be regarding this issue.

 

[GDogg]

Who is "we?"

You don't have to be documented in California to have a valid driver's license. You DO have to be documented in California to have a valid California driver's license.

We would be the people of CA. If Tim has a problem with the law he should start a movement to get people to lobby their state legislators to change it. But, until that time the people have decided what the law should be regarding this issue.

The people of California, though, have not decided that you need to be "here legally to have a driver's license."

 

[Clinton]

I'll trade you Timmy and Strike for 10 Illegals.

DEAL!!!Here are your ten illegals.

 

[Dr. Gobbler]

I'll trade you Timmy and Strike for 10 Illegals.

DEAL!!!Here are your ten illegals.

I'll take them! Just wait til Timmy gets a hold of their Desportes de Futbol Hombres forum. We'll see who's laughing then!!!!

 

[RCon]

I don't entirely agree with StrikeS2K's views on illegal immigration, but I do believe it's an issue worth looking at. I'm less interested in debating the extent of the problem than in discussing potential solutions. This is where I've criticized timschochet in the past; he'd rather continue the status quo (tacit government approval of unlimited illegal immigration) than compromise on anything other than free and open borders.

Just out of curiosity, which views of mine don't you agree with? Really just curious.

From the original post that timschochet copied into this thread:* I agree that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US economy.* I'm not sure I agree that gang violence is specifically related to (or can be blamed on) illegal immigration.* I don't really agree that assimilation is a big issue. Over generations, I think the children and children's children do assimilate more than you think.* Identity theft is a problem, but I'm not sure illegal immigration is a primary cause.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Who is "we?"

You don't have to be documented in California to have a valid driver's license. You DO have to be documented in California to have a valid California driver's license.

We would be the people of CA. If Tim has a problem with the law he should start a movement to get people to lobby their state legislators to change it. But, until that time the people have decided what the law should be regarding this issue.

The people of California, though, have not decided that you need to be "here legally to have a driver's license."

Fine. If they have a valid driver's license from their country of origin they can keep their cars. That's really not the issue. The issue is safety.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't entirely agree with StrikeS2K's views on illegal immigration, but I do believe it's an issue worth looking at. I'm less interested in debating the extent of the problem than in discussing potential solutions. This is where I've criticized timschochet in the past; he'd rather continue the status quo (tacit government approval of unlimited illegal immigration) than compromise on anything other than free and open borders.

Just out of curiosity, which views of mine don't you agree with? Really just curious.

From the original post that timschochet copied into this thread:* I agree that illegal immigration is a net negative for the US economy.* I'm not sure I agree that gang violence is specifically related to (or can be blamed on) illegal immigration.* I don't really agree that assimilation is a big issue. Over generations, I think the children and children's children do assimilate more than you think.* Identity theft is a problem, but I'm not sure illegal immigration is a primary cause.

I think you're misinterpreting my points. For example, I don't think I ever said illegals are the primary cause of identity theft. There are a lot of ways that happens. That doesn't mean it isn't a big issue within the context of illegal immigration. Same with gangs. We'd still have gang violence without illegals. But, within the illegal communities gangs are a huge problem, especially MS-13. I think you're familiar with this gang but if you're not you should google it.

 

[The Commish]

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.

I can't tell if this thread is shtick or not. I'm hoping it is, but my gut tells me it's not. I have a question....why are you looking at America's Illegal Immigration issue and only using the border states? That makes no sense.

 

[HellToupee]

preposterous

 

[Nipsey]

http://monkeydyne.com/rmcs/opencomic.phtml?rowid=354470

 

[Clinton]

I'll trade you Timmy and Strike for 10 Illegals.

DEAL!!!Here are your ten illegals.

I'll take them! Just wait til Timmy gets a hold of their Desportes de Futbol Hombres forum. We'll see who's laughing then!!!!

Does anybody want a Timmy? If not, I'm probably just going to drop him.

 

[timschochet]

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.

3. I've already discussed violent crime at length. Gangs that break laws should be prosecuted, obviously. There is no evidence that the removal of illegals would impact this.

4. I don't find the issue of terrorists is compelling, for the reason that, short of a police state, I don't think we can ever police the border enough to deter terrorists. As per border patrols being at risk, every President we have had in the last 20 years has increased the size of the border patrols. I have no problem with this, but I question whether or not our overall policies regarding both immigration and drugs are creating insolvable problems.

5. This statement is largely untrue. Given the chance, most illegals WILL assimilate.

6. There are no 2nd and 3rd generation illegals. All of Strike's complaints in this paragraph could apply to all Latinos. I think this paragraph is unfortunate, and I'm hoping Strike doesn't really mean his implications here.

7. I honestly don't know much about this. If true, it's a rather good argument, one of the better ones I've heard. I'm going to look into it some.

8. Do away with the minimum wage, and this so-called "exploitation" won't be an issue. Whenever you create artificial wages and prices, a black market arises. Illegal immigrants largely make up that black market. Perhaps if there was no artificial setting of wages, there would be less illegals.

 

[HellToupee]

http://monkeydyne.com/rmcs/opencomic.phtml?rowid=354470

 

[timschochet]

http://monkeydyne.co...ml?rowid=354470

These remain very funny to me.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I LOVE ME SOME ME!

 

[timschochet]

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.

I think these points can be combined. It would be an enormous federal cost to enforce these sorts of regulations on employers. It would be much more invasive and restrictive than the worst medical care and environmental restrictions on businesses that conservatives (with justification) complain about. You're talking about a large new government bureacracy here. And in the end the result would be major fraud. It would not reduce the amount of illegals by 80%, as Strike supposes. It would, however, create an inflationary process which the entire country would have to pay for. Terrible, terrible idea.

 

[The Commish]

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.

I can't tell if this thread is shtick or not. I'm hoping it is, but my gut tells me it's not. I have a question....why are you looking at America's Illegal Immigration issue and only using the border states? That makes no sense.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

http://monkeydyne.com/rmcs/opencomic.phtml?rowid=354470

 

[RCon]

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.

I think these points can be combined. It would be an enormous federal cost to enforce these sorts of regulations on employers. It would be much more invasive and restrictive than the worst medical care and environmental restrictions on businesses that conservatives (with justification) complain about. You're talking about a large new government bureacracy here. And in the end the result would be major fraud. It would not reduce the amount of illegals by 80%, as Strike supposes. It would, however, create an inflationary process which the entire country would have to pay for. Terrible, terrible idea.

I couldn't disagree more. It would be very little additional overhead to simply enforce the laws we have on the books regarding employment. If knowingly employing an illegal becomes a $50,000 fine per incident, you'd see it disappear almost overnight. Once the jobs are gone, I think the inflow of illegals would decrease greatly. I also suspect a number of existing illegals would leave. I don't get your "major fraud" argument at all.

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://monkeydyne.com/rmcs/opencomic.phtml?rowid=354470

 

[timschochet]

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.

1. On the one hand, Strike makes the argument that illegals are being exploited, but then he asserts that if they were making proper wages, our prices would be unaffected? That makes no sense. The reason illegals perform these jobs for low wages is to circumvent the artificial minimum wage.

2. If robotics were economical for agricultural, it would be used. To suggest that illegals are preventing this seems absurd to me.

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

Finally, I'm not in favor of amnesty. I believe that every illegal immigrant should be sentenced to a misdemeanor and then be fined $5,000.00 for breaking our laws by entering the country. I think this is a reasonable punishment, and they are not excused for their crime. Once they pay the fine, they can be issued a green card. Further, I believe that we should have tight control over our borders, but that at the same time our immigration should be increased to include anyone who is healthy, not suspected of being a terrorist, and not a violent criminal. Just as it was before 1928.

 

[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.

I can't tell if this thread is shtick or not. I'm hoping it is, but my gut tells me it's not. I have a question....why are you looking at America's Illegal Immigration issue and only using the border states? That makes no sense.

The complaints about the high costs of illegal immigration generally involve the border states. However, the benefits of illegal immigration involve the entire country. I was referring to the border states in response to some of the various issues that Strike raised in connection with the costs of illegal immigration.

 

[StrikeS2k]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

 

[timschochet]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

 

[StrikeS2k]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

You should start a poll thread. Ask what people think is more "reasonable", my stance or yours on this issue.

 

[timschochet]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

You should start a poll thread. Ask what people think is more "reasonable", my stance or yours on this issue.

No need. You'll win big time. I fully acknowledge that my viewpoint on this issue is in the extreme minority.

 

[StrikeS2k]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

You should start a poll thread. Ask what people think is more "reasonable", my stance or yours on this issue.

No need. You'll win big time. I fully acknowledge that my viewpoint on this issue is in the extreme minority.

Then how can you make the statement that *I* am the one who rejects every "reasonable" attempt to gain control. Are you suggesting that your admittedly extreme minority view is more "reasonable" than mine which you seem to acknowledge would win a poll easily?

 

[RCon]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

This is where I suggest that you refuse to compromise. You know that our position is reasonable, yet you still refuse it and insist on something that is unreasonable.

 

[timschochet]

Anyhow, I'm done. I've given my rebuttal in full. Those of you who want to make fun of me, go right ahead. But I doubt most of you who try have the skills of a Bostonfred or Nipsey.

 

[RCon]

Then how can you make the statement that *I* am the one who rejects every "reasonable" attempt to gain control. Are you suggesting that your admittedly extreme minority view is more "reasonable" than mine which you seem to acknowledge would win a poll easily?

The majority is often unreasonable and wrong. Not in this case, IMO, but simply appealing to the majority isn't a good argument.

 

[timschochet]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

You should start a poll thread. Ask what people think is more "reasonable", my stance or yours on this issue.

No need. You'll win big time. I fully acknowledge that my viewpoint on this issue is in the extreme minority.

Then how can you make the statement that *I* am the one who rejects every "reasonable" attempt to gain control. Are you suggesting that your admittedly extreme minority view is more "reasonable" than mine which you seem to acknowledge would win a poll easily?

Frankly yes. I believe that the majority of the American public, including yourself, is unreasonable about this issue.

 

[GDogg]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

This is where I suggest that you refuse to compromise. You know that our position is reasonable, yet you still refuse it and insist on something that is unreasonable.

He said the complete opposite. He knows your position is unreasonable and refuses it and insists on something that is reasonable.

 

[timschochet]

3. I agree we should have more control over this problem. People like Strike however, reject every reasonable attempt to gain control.

This is flat out untrue. ONCE we have dealt with the larger problem I'm not opposed to some type of guest worker program if it is needed. But, I will not even discuss it until we've dealt with the issue of not having control of our border and having 15 million illegals in the country. We got duped once before. You've even acknowledged on numerous occasions that this is a reasonable stance considering what happened in 1986.

From your perspective, it is a reasonable response. From my perspective it is not, because I don't find any of your solutions for "control" to be practicable. IMO, the only practical way to gain control over the problem is a giving documents to the undocumented, and you're opposed to that.

This is where I suggest that you refuse to compromise. You know that our position is reasonable, yet you still refuse it and insist on something that is unreasonable.

I don't agree that your position is reasonable. I agree that it's reasonable for your side to distrust the other side, because all too often those who represent "my side" are disingenous. I don't think I am. But that being said, I do think my solution is the reasonable one, not yours.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Frankly yes. I believe that the majority of the American public, including yourself, is unreasonable about this issue.

So we should leave our borders wide open and at the same time give amnesty to the 15 million already here? You think that's reasonable?