Political So now what

Political discussions within
Houndoc said:
"The results are similar to our other work on illegal immigration and crime in Texas. In 2018, the illegal immigrant criminal conviction rate was 782 per 100,000 illegal immigrants, 535 per 100,000 legal immigrants, and 1,422 per 100,000 native‐born Americans"



The mythical tie between immigration and crime

Research by Stanford’s Ran Abramitzky and co-authors uncovers the most extensive evidence to date that immigrants are less likely to be imprisoned than U.S.-born individuals.
siepr.stanford.edu siepr.stanford.edu
Click to expand...

shortstraw8 said:
I will assume the studies that showed low violent crime rates are from 2017-2020 when all stats were lower for a reason or slightly before like 2014-2016 which were the best years for obama.
Click to expand...
My post before about tax costs suggested someone would share a politico or cato article, I bet that stanford is based on the same wiley/willey(can't remember and can't find it) criminology report.

Criminal Noncitizen Statistics

Securing America's Borders
www.cbp.gov

FACTSHEET: Final FY23 Numbers Show Worst Year at America’s Borders—Ever – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov homeland.house.gov

Which just circles back to illegal immigration cost the tax payers.
Statistically, yes they commit less crime that native born but currently the illegal population is low compared to native born.

There is a reason why it is not just the US gov that says illegal immigration is bad and have strict policies on it.

Now back to studying -- told myself I wouldn't get caught up in this again.
 
This whole issue is an interesting psychology experiment. No one here advocating for illegal immigration believes in anarchy.

Sure there is some racism against Hispanic people, but that is not required to motivate a person to protect the country we live in from illegal entry.
You can just believe in the simplest principles like you don't have a right to enter my home or property without my permission and while there illegally, you don't have a right to my food, my clothes or my bed. My children can do those things because I'm responsible for them. My neighbors children cannot, because I'm not responsible for them. Would I take in my neighborhood if they needed a place short term, absolutely, but with my permission. They can't just come in.

I'm also not an evil person for not wanting you in my home, eating my food or sleeping in my bed. It's just mine and I'd like to keep it. I can also believe that and still offer to have you sleep in my garage which is a whole lot better for you than being outside. These aren't contradictory views. I and many other people hold these views not because we hate Hispanics or liberals, but because we believe in the most basic principles required to have a society, like basic property rights. Again, I'm baffled that this concept is beyond comprehension for people here that are very intelligent.
 
glockman said:
No one here advocating for illegal immigration believes in anarchy.
Click to expand...
Not to say too much but from what I have read no one is really advocating here FOR illegal immigration.

The debate that I see tends to get lost when one side believes that the other is fighting FOR what is ultimately only a small portion of the debate, and usually expressed as being FOR a very negative or illegal thing.

The real debate is what should be done about it. I actually agree with the mindset that there should be escalated penalties for people being here illegally committing violent crimes (felony level) I think of them similar to "aggravated" level or even hate crimes (which I am generally opposed to) however the debate really boils down to what can we do to make it more simple or easier for those that have come here to not drain the system.

Hounddoc is saying that even if they come here illegally (because the system is so broken that it is basically impossible for them to come here legally) that they should be allowed a work visa to get them earning and hopefully avoid using .gov benefits. I would generally support this idea. Another thought or benefit of this is, in theory it should make it much easier for the .gov to track those that are here with no ill will towards us. If someone is found to not have signed up they get the boot immediately.

I find it some what funny how everyone thinks the the system needs a major overhaul yet that is usually never the focus of the debate. While I don't support how we allow so much illegal crossing to happen with not nearly the deterents we should have, my bigger pet peeve is so much .gov services and $ being thrown to automatically help people that are not helping themselves(legal or illegal). Find out who wants to help themselves first then work on getting rid of the rest.

One of my ideas for immigration reform is simply create levels of "citizenship". Work visas being the lowest. No real .gov benefits, just the right to be and work here....pretty much anyone wanting to stay here and earn $ for their family is eligible. Green card is next and this means you plan to stay long term and are doing more skilled level work. This entitles you to education in public school (assuming that the people at this level are earning higher wages and paying taxes and possibly even extra taxes could be levied to pay) continue upward until you can become a citizen. Each level has a certain time period and certain fees/taxes assesed you must work through before being eligible for the next level, if you are not applying for a certain level right off the bat
(college educated starting at level 3 or whatever)

Any person here illegally not at least attempting to follow these rules should be deported and if any violent crime (or smaller crime) should be levied heavier penalties against these individuals.

Just my thought with an idea on how to possibly help with both the immigration reform and the illegal crossings.
 
Last edited:
Pike2350 said:
Not to say too much but from what I have read no one is really advocating here FOR illegal immigration.

The debate that I see tends to get lost when one side believes that the other is fighting FOR shat is ultimately only a small portion of the debate.

The real debate is what should be done about it. I actually agree with the mindset that there should be escalated penalties for people being here illegally committing violent crimes (felony level) I think of them similar to "aggravated" level or even hate crimes (which I am generally opposed to) however the debate really boils down to what can we do to make it more simple or easier for those that have come here to not drain the system.

Hounddoc is saying that even if they come here illegally (because the system is so broken that it is baimsically impossible for them to come here legally) that they should be allowed a work visa to get them earning and hopefully avoid using .gov benefits. I would generally support this idea. Another thought or benefit of this is, in theory it should make it much easier for the .gov to track amthose that are here no ill will. If so.eone is found to not have signed up they get the boot immediately.

I find it some what funny how everyone thinks the the system needs a major overhaul yet that is usually never the focus of the debate. While I don't support how we allow so much illegal crossing to happen with not nearly the deterents we should have, my bigger pet peeve is so much .gov services and $ being thrown to automatically help people that are not help themselves. Find out who wants to help themselves first then work on getting rid of the rest.

One of my ideas for immigration reform is simply create levels of "citizenship" work visas being the lowest. No real .gov benefits, just the right to be and work here....pretty much anyone wanting to stay here and earn $ for their family is eligible. Green card is next and this means you plan to stay long term and are doing more skilled level work. This entitles you to education in public school (assuming that the people at this level are earning higher wages and paying taxes and possibly even extra taxes could be levied to pay) continue upward until you can become a citizen. Each level has a certain time period you must work through before eligible for the next, if you are not applying for a certain level right off the bat
( college educated starting at level 3 or whatever)

Any person here illegally not at least attempting to follow these rules should be deported and if any violent crime (or smaller crime) should be levied heavier penalties against these individuals.

Just my thought with an idea on how to possibly help with both the immigration reform and the illegal crossings.
Click to expand...
Dude. I'm on board for all of that. Immigrants are what made this country great. They have to be invested in it though. I really like the tiered citizenship. The more you invest into being here permanently, the more you get in return.
 
glockman said:
This whole issue is an interesting psychology experiment. No one here advocating for illegal immigration believes in anarchy.

Sure there is some racism against Hispanic people, but that is not required to motivate a person to protect the country we live in from illegal entry.
You can just believe in the simplest principles like you don't have a right to enter my home or property without my permission and while there illegally, you don't have a right to my food, my clothes or my bed. My children can do those things because I'm responsible for them. My neighbors children cannot, because I'm not responsible for them. Would I take in my neighborhood if they needed a place short term, absolutely, but with my permission. They can't just come in.

I'm also not an evil person for not wanting you in my home, eating my food or sleeping in my bed. It's just mine and I'd like to keep it. I can also believe that and still offer to have you sleep in my garage which is a whole lot better for you than being outside. These aren't contradictory views. I and many other people hold these views not because we hate Hispanics or liberals, but because we believe in the most basic principles required to have a society, like basic property rights. Again, I'm baffled that this concept is beyond comprehension for people here that are very intelligent.
Click to expand...
I think this is a fair comparison, but I think it misses the issue for a decent amount of people seeking asylum here.

If you are at work, and a neighbor that you generally have a good relationship with has their home overtaken violently by the hoa, and they sneak into your home to save their family from violent harm or mprisonment, and this act poses no risk to your family since you are in a much more powerful and benevolent hoa with substantial resources (although perhaps poorly managed), do you still think the "right" thing is to tells them to **** off? Maybe not the the thing you most "want" to do, but the deontologically right or even Christian thing to do?

Arguing about crime rates amongst immigrants kind of feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water some times. Of course it costs money. Of course there are going to be some bad seeds in that population. But that's the price we pay to be "Christian" and the leaders of the free world. If you don't like being a part of that, move somewhere else ;) (legally).
 
Cody said:
I think this is a fair comparison, but I think it misses the issue for a decent amount of people seeking asylum here.

If you are at work, and a neighbor that you generally have a good relationship with has their home overtaken violently by the hoa, and they sneak into your home to save their family from violent harm or mprisonment, and this act poses no risk to your family since you are in a much more powerful and benevolent hoa with substantial resources (although perhaps poorly managed), do you still think the "right" thing is to tells them to **** off? Maybe not the the thing you most "want" to do, but the deontologically right or even Christian thing to do?

Arguing about crime rates amongst immigrants kind of feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water some times. Of course it costs money. Of course there are going to be some bad seeds in that population. But that's the price we pay to be "Christian" and the leaders of the free world. If you don't like being a part of that, move somewhere else ;) (legally).
Click to expand...
I get there is nuance. I'm not advocating that we build machine gun nests on a boarder fence. It seems like starting with zero tolerance for the worst offenses (forceable felonies after people are here) should be the easiest common ground to find. I think you have to start there with the least nuanced issue and work towards the most complex. Arguing about how much crime illegal immigrants commit is an exercise in futility when we can reasonably state that we should tolerate none of it.

And for the record, I'm not a Christian and I probably rate pretty low on the compassion scale. I'm likely higher on the Asperger scale.
 
glockman said:
My ancestors where both pioneers and immigrants. Hard to separate the two for me.
Click to expand...
I get that, but I'm willing to bet the immigrants in your family didn't get a credit card loaded with tons of cash and free room and board provided by NGOs funded by our tax dollars, which is what I'm getting at.

I'd bet that 90% of the current "immigrants" wouldn't be heading this way that deal wasn't currently on the table.
 
Herzog said:
Disagree. Pioneers made this country great. People who wanted to cut out a new life with hard work and integrity.

What we see now is an influx of handout seekers. Major difference.
Click to expand...
So a "pioneer" was seeking a better life and "colonizing" a new and unpopulated land? And an "immigrant" is the same thing, but coming to an already populated land that belongs to someone else?

This kind of feels like one of those government spins that you would rage against ha ha. Western settlers were "pioneers" and weren't seeking a better life. They didn't take any handouts (like claiming dominion over previously occupied lands), and always operated with the utmost dignity and respect for other people. Ya, that's how it was.

I think we're to the point where we can all agree that the means by which western "pioneers" settled this land wasn't exactly something to be glorified. We took this land for ourselves, against the will of the people that were already here. I don't know that there is really any way to sugar coat it, but we should certainly not forget it.
 
Cody said:
So a "pioneer" was seeking a better life and "colonizing" a new and unpopulated land? And an "immigrant" is the same thing, but coming to an already populated land that belongs to someone else?

This kind of feels like one of those government spins that you would rage against ha ha. Western settlers were "pioneers" and weren't seeking a better life. They didn't take any handouts (like claiming dominion over previously occupied lands), and always operated with the utmost dignity and respect for other people. Ya, that's how it was.

I think we're to the point where we can all agree that the means by which western "pioneers" settled this land wasn't exactly something to be glorified. We took this land for ourselves, against the will of the people that were already here. I don't know that there is really any way to sugar coat it, but we should certainly not forget it.
Click to expand...
So if you really subscribe to all that "white guilt" bullshit, there still is a lesson to be learned there. Don't let people "colonize" the land you inhabit. Got it.
 
Herzog said:
So if you really subscribe to all that "white guilt" bullshit, there still is a lesson to be learned there. Don't let people "colonize" the land you inhabit. Got it.
Click to expand...
What did I say about white guilt? What's the accepted non-woke version of those events then? The point of history is to learn from it. I don't feel guilty about what a bunch of religious weirdos did 500 years ago. But I don't pretend it didn't happen either.

But I will bite. Specifically, what's the lesson then? What is your differentiator between pioneer and immigrant? Please explain.

Don't let people colonize the land you in habit lol. That's like telling Elizabeth Smart she shouldn't have gone and gotten herself kidnapped. She deserved it for being so stupid!
.
 
If you are being invaded/colonized whatever you should defend yourselves and protect your borders, land, resources, ect. Just as the Indians tried to do. Our federal gov is not doing that, nor have the for decades.
 
shortstraw8 said:
Statistically, yes they commit less crime that native born but currently the illegal population is low compared to native born.
Click to expand...

Crime rates are population based, the ones I linked to was convictions per 100,000 population.

You take the lower crime rate and the smaller population and it shows clearly that the risks of violent crime by illegal immigrants is overblown by those using immigration as a political tool.
Herzog said:
What we see now is an influx of handout seekers. Major difference.
Click to expand...

I would dare say that is not true. Most immigrants are likely as or more willing to work hard (doing necessary jobs many of us would not want) than citizens.

The current laws just don't let them.
 
Houndoc said:
Crime rates are population based, the ones I linked to was convictions per 100,000 population.

You take the lower crime rate and the smaller population and it shows clearly that the risks of violent crime by illegal immigrants is overblown by those using immigration as a political tool.


I would dare say that is not true. Most immigrants are likely as or more willing to work hard (doing necessary jobs many of us would not want) than citizens.

The current laws just don't let them.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about immigrants. That name implies they came in legally and yes they can work in the U.S. I deal with real immigrants who are trying to get E2 visa's. They are very available but there are fairly stringent requirements. That's an example of "the law letting them" work.

Laws shouldn't let them work, they are Illegal. Laws should allow them to be sent back if they broke the law which they did if they are illegals.

Some want to protect the borders and others don't. That's all this boils down to. It's not holier to be on the open border side. It is funny when non religious folks (who usually make fun of religion) use being like Jesus as a way to shame Christians and as an excuse to have open borders.

Good fences make good neighbors. It's that simple. Unless you use a fence like Nate has!
 
I just renewed my Utah Concealed Carry permit today. They now require you to watch a video about suicide prevention in order to renew your permit. Not only does the video state several thing "You must do" that are not legal requirements, but the last section talks about people restricted from possessing or owning firearms. Guess who is on that list? Anyone in the US illegally. Maybe the State legislature could start prosecuting those gun crimes before they try to enact a waiting period or safe storage law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top