From Jerry:
"Moose insists that illegal aliens (7% of the population) are no more "criminal" than the rest of us. non-citizens are 64% of federal arrests"
75 comments:
My first thought is "no duh".
I mean Feds have been arresting ever more people as they try to cross the border illegally and the back log of cases is huge.
Federal arrests are also a very small percentage of total arrests. In 2017, there were 142,000 federal arrests out of nearly 11 million total.
Is an arrest evidence that the person has committed a crime? Is the fact that someone has not been arrested evidence that a person is not a criminal?
--Hiram
The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant
Moose
Moose,
I don't even know where to go with...
"The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant"
I get a sense that they were trying to compare some interesting complicated things.
Did they focus on all foreign born? Legal and Illegal Immigrants?
Of course the Legal Immigrants are fine. They followed the law, stood in line and waited to get here.
The question is what about the Illegal Line Budging Rule Breaking crew?
And how again did they adjust for the fact that violent crime has been dropping in general?
The Marshall Project
Pro Con
Fact Check
Murders: Illegals vs Lettuce
Now we are back where we were before...
How many Legal American Resident deaths, assaults, rapes, etc by Illegal Aliens are acceptable? Since there should be 0...
"Comparing the estimated size of the undocumented immigrant population (10.7 million) and the full U.S. population (327 million), the roughest possible calculation would suggest that about 600 of those homicides would have been committed by undocumented immigrants per year.
That’s not far off another data point we have — the number of convictions of illegal immigrants for homicides in Texas.
Cato Institute senior immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh pointed to a Texas Department of Public Safety website that reported 238 homicide convictions of undocumented immigrants between June 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2018. Based on his communications with the agency, Nowrasteh was able to pinpoint 39 convictions that occurred in Texas in 2018. These are convictions for homicides that occurred in a variety of years, so it’s not perfectly comparable, but it’s a rough estimate.
If you prorate Texas’s 39 homicide convictions to the country as a whole — simply using population — it works out to 445 nationally."
You're asking the wrong question.
Is a person less safe because there are illegal immigrants in this country?
The answer is no.
Moose
Of course I a legal resident am less safe.
There are more people here that may kill me.
As discussed previously, Molly would still be with her family if Rivera was not in our country illegally.
Or do you think the Grim Reaper would have found another way to kill that sweet girl?
From the comments of the other post.
Let's test your theory with some rough numbers.
A. Legal US Residents
(1 mil crimes / 310 mil residents * 100K = 321.5 per 100,000
B. Illegal US Residents
(30K / 11 mil illegals) x 100K = 272 per 100,000
C. Legal and Illegal US Residents
(1.03Mil / 321 mil) x 100K = 320.8 per 100,000
Moose,
You are correct that the rate will drop.
Unfortunately that will not help the 30,000 people who were robbed, beaten or killed who would not have been if the illegal residents were not in the country.
So I understand that there is a major upside for the ~11 million illegal residents that are living in our country...
How do you see it benefiting the Legal Residents of our country?
Here's what I don't get: Why are we so determined to ignore the fact that millions of people are in this country illegally? That they are or are not committing crimes disproportionately to their numbers is irrelevant. Any crime by an illegal alien is an infinite affront to justice, mathematically speaking. That is, 1 crime, divided by the number of illegals who should be here, is a crime rate of infinity! And of course, every single one of them has already committed a crime, though perhaps not a "violent" one. Is that really the measure we want to use for everybody?
Jerry,
I don't think anyone is ignoring that there are ~11 million people in this country illegally.
There is just a big difference of opinion whether:
the benefits (ie low cost flexible hard working labor, extra taxes, warm feeling of sheltering the unfortunate, etc)
out weigh the costs. (ie depression of wages, extra government costs, taking of jobs from legal residents, crimes by illegal residents, etc)
I find it telling that Moose has not answered my simple question.
It is characteristic of liberals that they believe "fairness" and "caring" is measured by how many "benefits" "we" can bestow on the "less fortunate." They also firmly believe that such benefits can be delivered without any cost to anyone.
If your chance of being a victim of a crime is 1:1,000 without illegal immigrants and 1:1,000 with legal immigrants, YOU ARE NOT LESS SAFE IF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE HERE.
You’re as dumb as a rock.
Moose
Moose,
I think Mollie may disagree with your averaging her life / death away as irrelevant.
And...
How do you see it benefiting the Legal Residents of our country?
I mean other than keeping wages and costs lower.
I kind of wonder how much illegal on illegal crime goes un-reported and how that would impact the numbers.
A different spin
More Facts and Data
“How do you see it benefiting the Legal Residents of our country?”
When have I ever argued on this point? I don’t feel the need to change the subject.
Moose
Moose,
That is fine..
You think what Trump etal are doing is terrible... But you have no solutions...
You seem to want us to allow more illegal residents / asylum seekers into the country, but you have no ideas on the impact to legal residents, especially our own poor and low income folks...
Thanks, Moose, for confirming with your ad hominem that you have no valid argument whatsoever.
Even speaking statistically, if illegal immigrants commit even one crime, that is MORE crime than we would have without them, and the record indicates they commit at least as many crimes of the rest of us, even if we ignore the crime they all commit just by being here. See if you can wrap your leftist brain around that and come up with an actual reason why we should allow millions of people to break our laws.
Jerry,
You are exaggerating again, and I have given you a lot of excellent reasons.
- lower labor rates
- workers for dirty jobs
- additional tax revenues
Without exaggerating, why are you concerned that they are coming and here?
Food for Thought
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
“But you have no solutions...”
The solution is to NOT DO terrible things, rather, DO good things.
Moose
And if that leads to even worse consequences for legal residents?
I don’t see the outcome of treating people compassionately and humanely as something to worry about. I suppose that’s a difference in philosophy between you and me.
Thank goodness we didn’t treat all the Ellis Island immigrants the same way we’re treating our southern border immigrants.
Moose
Actually, we treated the Ellis Island folks EXACTLY as we are /trying/ to treat the current flood of southern border crossers, which is according to the law at the time. That current law is hamstrung by liberal court rulings and by overwhelming numbers doesn't alter that fact, except to create problems where there should be none.
And John, would you be appreciative of bookie who paid his taxes, worked without wages (strictly commission), and did a dirty job? As for "lower wages," is it your contention that employers should be allowed to pay an illegal immigrant (or any worker, for that matter) whatever they want no matter how low?
Moose, is it treating people humanely to encourage them to trek 1500 miles away from their ancestral home, culture, native language, friends and family, across a hostile desert, to pay or be preyed upon by criminals, to enter a country illegally where you may or may not be allowed to stay, by law, or where you must continually skirt the law to stay? And to allow children to be dragged along on this perilous, law-breaking journey? Is it inhumane to give them water, food, shelter, health care while their "case" is adjudicated? You have some odd definitions.
“Moose, is it treating people humanely to encourage them to trek 1500 miles away from their ancestral home, culture, native language, friends and family, across a hostile desert, to pay or be preyed upon by criminals...”
Oh, the deafness, the privilege, of having ancestors who did the very same things in the hope of a better life. It just happens that they were white Europeans. But now that brown people are doing it it’s shameful.
I don’t give a flying gig that the laws are now different. We did not treat those arriving at Ellis island the way we are treating those at our southern border. Surely there were criminals among the European immigrants.
Moose
Moose,
"treating people compassionately and humanely"
These people are taken into custody, cared for and fed.
Sometimes the massive numbers of these uninvited guests over whelms the systems for awhile.
They are then given a an opportunity to plead their asylum case before a judge.
If they do not qualify they are given a flight or bus ride to their home country.
What would you do differently?
"I don't give a flying gig [sic] that the laws are now different."
Of course you don't. You don't believe that breaking/enforcing the law is important, and that the law must bend to match your strange idea of compassion.
Jerry,
Allowing the poor and needy to come to our country to work and create a better life for themselves and their family is pretty much everything Jesus supported in compassion.
As I challenge Moose to see the negative consequences.
I challenge you to answer What would Jesus do if he was the gate keeper on the border?
I believe that unjust laws are wrong.
Moose
And I believe that if we were treating them all with dignity and respect we wouldn’t be hearing about the terrible conditions that they are dealing with.
Moose
And I contend we wouldn't be "hearing about the terrible conditions" if Democrats weren't just making $#!^ up. AOC, for example, has been caught red-tongued inventing tales about things she never saw.
WWJD? I believe Jesus would say everybody should follow the law, and that if we want to feed the hungry, etc., we should go THERE and do so.
"unjust laws are wrong"? Who gets to decide, you?
"And I contend we wouldn't be "hearing about the terrible conditions" if Democrats weren't just making $#!^ up."
According to the ACLU, whom I trust more than you:
"Despite the explosive growth in immigration detention in recent years, there are no regulations or enforceable standards regarding detention conditions, including medical treatment, mental health care, religious services, transfers, and access to telephones, free legal services, and library materials. In fact, the vast majority of detainees never receive legal representation, which makes it more difficult not only to succeed in adversarial immigration proceedings, but also to complain about substandard treatment."
What is happening is unjust; therefore, we have a moral obligation to disobey.
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Moose
Moose,
What do you see as "Unjust Laws" here?
Is this change for the better or worse?
By the way, you never answered me when I asked you what you would do if 20 people showed up your door unexpected?
Would you have enough beds, food, etc?
Please remember that this Summer was a huge spike in apprehensions and Congress did not increase funding until Late June.
Of course there was over crowding and shortages when an extra ~100,000 border violators show up in a month.
Hopefully the recent changes will dissuade folks from leaving home until they have permission to enter our country legally.
And hopefully they can make the Immigration Court process more effective and work the back log down.
"By the way, you never answered me when I asked you what you would do if 20 people showed up your door unexpected?"
I would help them in what ever way was within my means.
Now...Why isn't our country doing that?
Moose
"Hopefully the recent changes will dissuade folks from leaving home until they have permission to enter our country legally."
Under current law, you have to come to American soil to claim asylum.
Moose,
You must live in a big house, have a lot of supplies on hand and have quite a bit of cash available.
And if another 20 come tomorrow because they hear how well you are treating the first 20?
Now why isn't our country welcoming everyone who shows up to our door uninvited to come inside and stay?
And the next day? And on and on?
How many do you want us to welcome in and feed per year?
Please remember that there are multiple billions of human on earth who are wishing they were you... Our population is ~320,000,000 including 10's of millions of low educated / low skilled legal residents who are just scraping by.
How many additional low educated / low skilled legal immigrants do you think we should have come in?
Sean, under current international law, you have to apply for the first country you reach, which for most of these folks is Mexico, not the US. And I understood that you COULD apply for asylum at any US embassy? Question: If these folks were NOT apprehended at the border, would they have asked for asylum? Was that really their purpose in coming?
Moose, Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds to "properly" care for that massive influx, invited by our weak enforcement, so "within 'our' means" apparently is fully being done. Our country IS "doing that," and WHY, again?
Sean,
Then let's use the word refugee when someone is seeking asylum while in their home country. :-)
"You must live in a big house, have a lot of supplies on hand and have quite a bit of cash available."
Next time, read what I wrote.
Moose
Jerry,
I think you are confusing Jesus and Ebenezer Scrooge...
"WWJD? I believe Jesus would say everybody should follow the law, and that if we want to feed the hungry, etc., we should go THERE and do so." Jerry
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
Scrooge-"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
Scrooge-"And the Union workhouses." . "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
Scrooge- "If they would rather die," "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." Scrooge
"The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” Jesus
With this in mind...
We know that our neighbors in Central America are suffering poverty, violence, death, rape, etc.
Some of them escape to our Southern Border to ask for shelter...
And Jerry thinks Gate Keeper Jesus would slam it in their face. :-)
Jesus asked "What is written in the law?" Why should we do any less?
We know our neighbors in THIS country are suffering from the crime brought here by others, and by "illegal presence" generally. It is one thing for Moose to say he would gladly let a few thousand of these suffering "neighbors" come live at his house, but it is quite another for him to demand that they split up between yours and mine.
M't:10:5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not
"It is one thing for Moose to say he would gladly let a few thousand of these suffering "neighbors" come live at his house, but it is quite another for him to demand that they split up between yours and mine."
Do you have a degree in misrepresentation and falsehood?
I have limited means to care for a bunch of people showing up at my door, but I would do what I could. This country has greater means than any other place in the world, but we're hardly even trying.
And as long as we're quoting the Bible at each other:
'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
Moose
How about "thou shalt not covet"? You expect ME to subsidize YOUR compassion? That's not how it works. For a long time I have been working with the Hispanic people of South St. Paul. Their English is better than my Spanish, but we work together to make their lives better. I Have never asked if any of them are here illegally. Nor have I asked, but I suspect (and understand why) most of them deeply resent these invaders who are making it more difficult for those already here (and surveys seem to agree).
"This country has greater means than any other place in the world, but we're hardly even trying." Moose, if you believe that (as incredible as That seems) and it bothers you, YOU do something about it. Put YOUR "means" on the line.
"...these invaders..."
Congratulations on using the language of fascists and murderers.
"Moose, if you believe that (as incredible as That seems) and it bothers you, YOU do something about it. Put YOUR "means" on the line."
No. They are coming to our country, not my door. If they come to my door, I will do what I can. As a citizen of this country, I have the right to request that my country do better. You are also welcome to your opinion and your right to ask our country to let people suffer, though it doesn't mean you are correct.
Moose
Jerry,
I think you are misrepresenting the words of Jesus… I don't he was referencing the laws of man...
Do you really think Jesus would slam the gate in their face like you recommend?
And as for the Jews and Gentiles... Most of the asylum seekers are likely Catholic... So not are you only turning your back on another human, you are turning your back on a fellow Christian. :-O
Moose,
Asking the government to do more is fine. However let's get more specific.
What does "success" look like to you?
From above
Please remember that there are multiple billions of human on earth who are wishing they were you... Our population is ~320,000,000 including 10's of millions of low educated / low skilled legal residents who are just scraping by.
How many additional low educated / low skilled legal immigrants do you think we should have come in?
My idea of success includes not being an awful human being, which is why I don't support Republicans.
Moose
Maybe you have to be a Christian who believes in the concept of a "just war" rather than the more simplistic "we are all equal" notion that lets anybody do anything they want. Someplace there has to be rules and reasoning, because we cannot all live pure Christian lives. If I "give all I have to the poor" what do I have left to give to the poor, and what does my family eat?
Our government is NOT a charity, and should not be held to Christian standards (or anybody else's). Our government should enforce the law as written, and if that results in people who break those laws suffering a bit for having done so, well, that's the law. And Moose, to be frank, I think you have a very jaundiced, Democrat-talking-point view of the situation. Like John says, what is your specific proposal that would be better?
I happen to think Trump is doing wonders-- getting international law respected so Central Americans get asylum in Mexico, asking Mexico to stop some of the human, sex and drug trafficking at their border instead of ours, and fixing the seriously flawed Flores agreement so that children do not have to be split from their "parents." Now if Congress would just get that wall built and fix the stupid immigration laws... or do you object to THAT?
Anyway...if you don't want your job taken by a low-education/low-skill undocumented immigrant, then you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and be better educated and higher skilled than they are.
Moose
"Our government is NOT a charity, and should not be held to Christian standards..."
But you align yourself with people who consider this a Christian nation, who try to pass laws based on Christian dogma, who want our government to be Christian....apparently in name only.
Moose
Moose,
It is amusing how Jerry vacillates and squirms. :-)
"Jesus would have built a bigger wall and slammed the gate harder in the face of his poverty stricken Catholics"
However by the way, you still have given no answers...
Just more blaming and name calling...
The solution is to put our brightest and best to the task of figuring out how to house feed and process such a great number of people, treating them with the respect and kindness that is required of us, whether that be Biblically-based or not. It would require money, which the wealthiest country known to mankind certainly has. I imagine the ROI would make the money spent worthwhile, but Republicans don’t spend money to help people. It would require enlisting people with expertise, but this administration has shown over and over again that expertise is not wanted, only deference to the would-be dictator. There are certainly solutions to be found, if only we cared enough as a country to do it, but I don’t have the answers, and neither do you or jerry.
Moose
Moose,
Processing them quickly means that 80% of them will be sent home quicker...
Are you okay with that?
"Who is an asylee?
A person, who sought and obtained protection from persecution from inside the United States or at the border. An asylee is an individual who meets the international definition of refugee – a person with well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. In the U.S., asylum seekers apply for protection from inside the country or at a port of entry.
In contrast, a refugee is a person who applies for protection from outside of the U.S."
What do you see as the Return on Investment for American Tax Payers?
"I imagine the ROI would make the money spent worthwhile"
Moose, we all complain that "Trump" is spending $1 Trillion more than the US government has. How much more is it going to cost to feed, clothe, house and give free medical care and education to every poor person that shows up at our border with a sob story, fake or real? We are not the richest country on earth, we are its biggest debtor. I do not give a whit for your "compassion" so long as you expect "the US" to pay for it.
We must be a pretty stupid country to not be able to figure it out, or we just don't care. I'm not sure which is worse.
Moose
Moose,
Figure what out?
Will you only be happy if we accept all of the world's poor who apply or make it to our border?
Does a country of 1+ billion citizens and huge cities appeal to you?
I have been to many of them and was not impressed. Next week I get to go to a new one Sao Paulo.
Apparently the DEMs are fighting FEMA using some funding to help these people live better while they await their court date.
Moose, we ARE pretty stupid. I have been saying for a long time that high intelligence is not a requirement for high office, and the more I see of AOC, Nadler and the like, the more I think the opposite is true.
We can't even figure out that overspending cannot go on indefinitely.
Or that giving unneeded tax breaks when we are over spending and the economy is booming is even more stupid... :-)
PBS Detention Centers look pretty nice
"more stupid"? Really? I guess part of our problem is we just aren't teaching math in school any more, and most certainly are not using it in our daily political policy-making. For instance, we COULD eliminate the deficit, the national debt, and the "unfunded mandates" of the federal government simply by raising taxes. All it would take would be a 100% federal tax rate for everybody, no exclusions or deductions for anybody, for the next 7 years. Two years ago it would have taken 8, but the Trump tax cut has spurred economic growth. Some might say cutting taxes was stupid, but maybe "more stupid" applies to raising taxes rather than cutting spending?
Oh please, even with stealing all that money from our kids one can barely see a change...
And the cuts were implemented until 2018.
Ways to Pay Off the Debt
5 Debt Myths
And I like this guy
Our problem defined is financial and political. Our financial problem is dire, but there is a financial solution for it.
Our political problem relates to “free” money that is created when money is borrowed and never paid back. Everyone in the U.S. is getting some of this free money. No one wants his free money to end. We vote against politicians who want to end our free money. Our politicians want to get re-elected, and they get a nice piece of the free money, so they vote to allow the deficit spending to continue.
Our political problem is more problematic than our financial problem. It substantially increases the difficulty of implementing the financial solution to our financial problem.
We are at risk. If the world refuses to buy our debt and requires us to pay back our current loans we will face an extremely difficult situation. If this occurs at a time of economic collapse, military confrontation or environmental catastrophe we will be very vulnerable.
Historically, the most common outcome to this situation is:
• Default on the National Debt; bankruptcy.
• Hyper inflation; remember Germany with wheelbarrows full of worthless paper money.
• Massive tax increases; possible tax revolt
• Austerity; paying it back. A long hard road.
The United States is the largest, most successful experiment in democratic government in human history. It will be a shame if we crash it due to fear and greed in the form of irresponsible fiscal policies and irresponsible leadership.
I like that guy, too, but he seems to make it complicated. I may have to read it again. Any way you slice it, government has spent, and continues to spend, too much. Not so much in percentage terms, but on what we "buy" with the spending. For example, "spending" on tax cuts or infrastructure grows the economy, reducing the deficit by increasing tax revenues. Spending on welfare, for people who do not work, increases the deficit. spending on education will eventually decrease the deficit, but ONLY if that education results in a better educated and more productive workforce that is not currently the case.
I think you are correct, that the problem is political, but it is more than that. It is that nobody wants to actually solve the problem, just to blame the other side for causing OR trying to solve the problem, whichever blame game is most convenient.
Not that it would help a great deal (though by 2035 or so it would help a lot, eliminating the deficit), but there is a simple solution-- phasing out Social Security in favor of private accounts. I've done the elaborate math, and the trust fund never goes broke, just keeps getting bigger, and everybody retires with the same or higher benefits. Of course, no politician would EVER propose something so obviously desirable. It would be political suicide. THAT is the problem.
Post a Comment