4 hours ago, candide said:

Fact is that (excluding illegal entry or stay, of course) violent crime rate is lower among illegal immigrants so, contrary to your claim, they are not particularly a threat to current inhabitants.

Using crime rates as a point of comparison is deceptive.

 

If you add, say, 5,000 new people to a community, the crimes committed by those 5,000 will be......... in addition to.......... the crimes committed the existing population, not instead of!

 

So the fact that the RATE of violent crimes committed by Illegal Aliens is lower, is moot........... because the NUMBER of violent crimes will still go up............. by whatever number of violent crimes the Illegal Aliens commit.

 

----------------

 

In addition to......... NOT........ instead of!

 

------------------

 

Now, if we were comparing the potential impact of 5,000 NEW  Illegal Alien Residents to a town........... to that of, say, 5,000 NEW  Native-born Texan Residents to a town.......... THAT might be a time when comparing RATES would be useful!

 

But if we're JUST adding 5,000 unplanned-for new Illegal Aliens to a community, their "violent crime" contribution to the community is CUMULATIVE, not COMPARATIVE.

 

Yes, statistics suggest the results stand to be better than if a different  5,000 new people joined the community unexpectedly............ but the town will STILL be facing a worse violent crime situation, overall!

 

 

26 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Using crime rates as a point of comparison is deceptive.

 

If you add, say, 5,000 new people to a community, the crimes committed by those 5,000 will be......... in addition to.......... the crimes committed the existing population, not instead of!

 

So the fact that the RATE of violent crimes committed by Illegal Aliens is lower, is moot........... because the NUMBER of violent crimes will still go up............. by whatever number of violent crimes the Illegal Aliens commit.

 

----------------

 

In addition to......... NOT........ instead of!

 

------------------

 

Now, if we were comparing the potential impact of 5,000 NEW  Illegal Alien Residents to a town........... to that of, say, 5,000 NEW  Native-born Texan Residents to a town.......... THAT might be a time when comparing RATES would be useful!

 

But if we're JUST adding 5,000 unplanned-for new Illegal Aliens to a community, their "violent crime" contribution to the community is CUMULATIVE, not COMPARATIVE.

 

Yes, statistics suggest the results stand to be better than if a different  5,000 new people joined the community unexpectedly............ but the town will STILL be facing a worse violent crime situation, overall!

 

 

But that will hold true for legal immigrants too. Or for people from one place to another. What makes undocumented aliens so special.  And your argument that the situation would be worse is nuts. Crime is always measured by rate, not by cumulative totals. Otherwise crime would virtually always be counting as getting worse in any growing community.

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Using crime rates as a point of comparison is deceptive.

 

If you add, say, 5,000 new people to a community, the crimes committed by those 5,000 will be......... in addition to.......... the crimes committed the existing population, not instead of!

 

So the fact that the RATE of violent crimes committed by Illegal Aliens is lower, is moot........... because the NUMBER of violent crimes will still go up............. by whatever number of violent crimes the Illegal Aliens commit.

 

----------------

 

In addition to......... NOT........ instead of!

 

------------------

 

Now, if we were comparing the potential impact of 5,000 NEW  Illegal Alien Residents to a town........... to that of, say, 5,000 NEW  Native-born Texan Residents to a town.......... THAT might be a time when comparing RATES would be useful!

 

But if we're JUST adding 5,000 unplanned-for new Illegal Aliens to a community, their "violent crime" contribution to the community is CUMULATIVE, not COMPARATIVE.

 

Yes, statistics suggest the results stand to be better than if a different  5,000 new people joined the community unexpectedly............ but the town will STILL be facing a worse violent crime situation, overall!

 

 

Following this logic, it would be better that current inhabitants stop having children, as it would reduce the number of criminals! ????

The first people trafficking investigation kicks off, with a Sheriff in Texas of all places:

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article266044016.html

18 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Also, you truly are a liberal.  They use the term "progressive" because it sounds so much different than Communist. 

Are you contending the liberals or progressives are advocating for the abolition of private property and private businesses? I'm sure you wouldn't make such a claim without having sound evidence to back that up. Care to share it with the rest of us?

18 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Settler versus migrant.  Now please tell me the difference between settlers and migrants.  Both came univited but more importantly at the time of the settlers there were NO IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

 

There are immigration laws today.  As mentioned a swarm of humanity as large as the entire countries of Ireland, Norway, and New Zealand have entered ILLEGALLY just since Biden took office.  That is not immigration, that is an invasion.  Immigration is when you fill out the required paperwork, are properly vetted and then approved for entry into the country.  

Someone breaking into your house is not an "undocumented guest" and the fact they were just seeking a better life for themself and their family does not justify their actions.  

I see you're still touting those B.S. numbers from FAIR. What those numbers don't include is the percentage of those who sent back across the border when they were apprehended.

As for your definition of immigration. It seems to be yours alone. Can you share with us a dictionary definition that supports your?

As for your housebreaking analogy. I know you don't hold with communism, but are you asserting that the whole of the United States is private property?

55 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Are you contending the liberals or progressives are advocating for the abolition of private property and private businesses? I'm sure you wouldn't make such a claim without having sound evidence to back that up. Care to share it with the rest of us?

If the progressives could do as you say above I believe they would try.

17 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If the progressives could do as you say above I believe they would try.

Especially because they tend to be better educated and wealthier and would have more to lose under communism?

22 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If the progressives could do as you say above I believe they would try.

Doubt you understand what are the goals of the progressive movement. 

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Doubt you understand what are the goals of the progressive movement. 

Implanting microchips via vaccination in order to control the minds of the populace?

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Are you contending the liberals or progressives are advocating for the abolition of private property and private businesses? I'm sure you wouldn't make such a claim without having sound evidence to back that up. Care to share it with the rest of us?

I think the question you've asked is too black-and-white, and that makes a simple, honest yes-or-no answer nearly impossible.

 

--------------

 

There is, in fact, a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage of people on "The Left" who think there should be no such thing as "private property" or "private business ownership." I've talked with some myself, so I know they exist.. The majority of this tiny group would probably call themselves "Progressives."

 

On the other hand, there is a much, MUCH larger group.......... also on "The Left"........ who would never, ever, speak openly about such draconian changes............ but who would nonetheless love to see those kinds of changes occurring in effect.......... even if it's not done in fact!

 

What they say instead.......... either openly or through their actions........ is..........

 

"We're okay with 'private ownership' of both properties and businesses.......... as long as WE get the final say over what you can and cannot do with them!"

 

Generally, there is very little talk about actual government or communal OWNERSHIP of property and business.........

 

...........But there's a great deal of insisting that there should be top-to-bottom CONTROL over both businesses and properties........... by the government, (or by some other "community-focused" entity!)

 

Ultimately it's about EFFECT.

 

If THE EFFECT is the same............ it really doesn't matter whether it was achieved by falling squarely into neatly pre-defined boxes......... or whether it was achieved in an entirely different way!

 

If the end result is the government.......... or some government-sanctioned agency........... deciding what you can and cannot do with your property.......... and what you can and cannot do in your business....... (regardless of who officially owns it!)......... then THE EFFECT is that of Socialism or Communism............ even while it's not technically 

Socialist or Communist!

 

Thus, I think very, very few people would describe themselves as either "Socialists" or "Communists"........... even while a much, MUCH larger group on "The Left" advocates for things that suggest that is EXACTLY the level of CONTROL they hope to achieve!

 

---------------

 

A person's words are easily edited, their intentions masked........... right up until their actions reveal what they really have in mind!

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just now, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I think the question you've asked is too black-and-white, and that makes a simple, honest yes-or-no answer nearly impossible.

 

--------------

 

There is, in fact, a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage of people on "The Left" who think there should be no such thing as "private property" or "private business ownership." I've talked with some myself, so I know they exist.. The majority of this tiny group would probably call themselves "Progressives."

 

On the other hand, there is a much, MUCH larger group.......... also on "The Left"........ who would never, ever, speak openly about such draconian changes............ but who would nonetheless love to see those kinds of changes occurring in effect.......... even if it's not done in fact!

 

What they say instead.......... either openly or through their actions........ is..........

 

"We're okay with 'private ownership' of both properties and businesses.......... as long as WE get the final say over what you can and cannot do with them!"

 

Generally, there is very little talk about actual government or communal OWNERSHIP of property and business.........

 

...........But there's a great deal of insisting that there should be top-to-bottom CONTROL over both businesses and properties........... by the government, (or by some other "community-focused" entity!)

 

Ultimately it's about EFFECT.

 

If THE EFFECT is the same............ it really doesn't matter whether it was achieved by falling squarely into neatly pre-defined boxes......... or whether it was achieved in an entirely different way!

 

If the end result is the government.......... or some government-sanctioned agency........... deciding what you can and cannot do with your property.......... and what you can and cannot do in your business....... (regardless of who officially owns it!)......... then THE EFFECT is that of Socialism or Communism............ even while it's not technically 

Socialist or Communist!

 

Thus, I think very, very few people would describe themselves as either "Socialists" or "Communists"........... even while the things a much, MUCH larger group on "The Left" advocate for............ suggest that's EXACTLY the level of CONTROL they hope to achieve!

 

---------------

 

A person's words are easily edited........... right up to the point where their actions reveal what they really have in mind!

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

Thank you for sharing no confirmable data at such length.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thank you for sharing no confirmable data at such length.

This is a conversation, not a technical journal. Believe me or don't, as you choose. 

5 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

No you did not. Trump was prosecuting people for ILLEGAL ENTRY.  The fact that the people were or were not violent is both irrelevant and unproven.  The law says if a person is being prosecuted for a crime they are held until the case is adjudicated.  Obama did that 20% of the time.  Trump 100% of the time.  So your answer is to let them all go.  Again, that is being a hyocrite.  You either believe in the rule of law or your don't  There is no middle ground. 

Really? The law says that those accused of  misdemeanors  are held in custody until their case is adjudicated? This is massively, massively false. The opposite is overwhelmingly the case.

It's even false for many felonies. Ever heard of bail?

Stop making things up.

18 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

 

If THE EFFECT is the same............ it really doesn't matter whether it was achieved by falling squarely into neatly pre-defined boxes......... or whether it was achieved in an entirely different way!

 

If the end result is the government.......... or some government-sanctioned agency........... deciding what you can and cannot do with your property.......... and what you can and cannot do in your business....... (regardless of who officially owns it!)......... then THE EFFECT is that of Socialism or Communism............ even while it's not technically 

Socialist or Communist!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had no idea that zoning laws and anti-pollution laws made America a socialist nation. It is truly doomed!

I think the answer is to let them in.  See how they do.  The ones that commit crimes get arrested and deported.

 

Even better, Americans who commit crimes can be stripped of their American passports / nationality and deported - swapped to the countries the immigrants are coming from.  That way you can get rid of the criminal American people and replace them with immigrants who will be better for society. 

 

It will also save money as you won't have to keep American criminals locked up in prison for years.

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really? The law says that those accused of  misdemeanors  are held in custody until their case is adjudicated? This is massively, massively false. The opposite is overwhelmingly the case.

It's even false for many felonies. Ever heard of bail?

Stop making things up.

And just to make it clear. When first time undocumented aliens are taken into custody, if they are charged, they're going to be charged with a misdemeanor. You really believe that those who commit misdemeanors are commonly incarcerated until trial? Stop spreading falsehoods.

Posts containing false or misleading information, comments on moderation and other violations of forum rules have been removed along with replies.

 

 

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Placeholder: "I had no idea." Yep, y'coulda stopped right there. The rest of your post merely proves it.

Well, I'd like to think I wouldn't do it but it's understandable why when you've got nothing you resort to an empty insult instead. To repeat: you've got nothing.

Troll post removed.