bbauska wrote:Logically:

Given: It is illegal to enter the United States w/o authorization.
Given: Aliens are entering w/o authorization

If/then: If aliens are entering the US w/o authorization, then that is an illegal act
If/then: If aliens have committed an illegal act, then they are illegal aliens.
If/then: If illegal aliens are/have committed illegal acts via the illegal entrance to the United States, then they are criminals.

Show me where the logic is faulty. I do not like/trust Trump. Look at the issue and show where he is faulty.

Just because the great statistician and logician from Toronto does not like what is said does not make it false. I am making an assumption, but I will guess that you can decipher if/then statements. Show me where the logic is false. If the logic is true, then just say that it is, but that you don't want to hear it.

So what was Trump saying about rapists, then?

Breaking one crime does not mean you will break all the rest. How many people exceed the speed limit? Criminals all, but that does not extrapolate.

Life is not Euclidean geometry...the fault in your logic is when you make the leap that because an illegal alien committed a crime in crossing the border that they are now criminals. I suppose a criminal could be defined as someone who has committed at least one criminal act, but there is certainly an implication that a criminal is one who is in the habit of committing criminal acts. So you're either saying something trivial (illegal immigrants have committed a criminal act and are lumped into the class of anyone who has ever committed a criminal act, without saying that implies they are more likely to commit more criminal acts in the US) or you are alleging something that you have neglected to prove (that someone committing a criminal act in coming to the US to make a better life for themselves and their family is thereby more likely to commit a criminal act in the US than the average person). Logically speaking, that is...

Looking at the facts of what Mr. Trump said, there is not any falsehoods. Has anyone found any? Sure there are extrapolations. But the facts are true. If not, what is false, Danivon

freeman3 wrote:Life is not Euclidean geometry...the fault in your logic is when you make the leap that because an illegal alien committed a crime in crossing the border that they are now criminals. I suppose a criminal could be defined as someone who has committed at least one criminal act, but there is certainly an implication that a criminal is one who is in the habit of committing criminal acts. So you're either saying something trivial (illegal immigrants have committed a criminal act and are lumped into the class of anyone who has ever committed a criminal act, without saying that implies they are more likely to commit more criminal acts in the US) or you are alleging something that you have neglected to prove (that someone committing a criminal act in coming to the US to make a better life for themselves and their family is thereby more likely to commit a criminal act in the US than the average person). Logically speaking, that is...

Very true. However, a person who does commit a crime, and is in the active commission of a crime (unauthorized entry into the US) is a criminal.

You are the lawyer. Is someone who is violating the law a criminal? I haven't been to the 101 level courses at university...

crim·i·nal
ˈkrimənl/
noun
noun: criminal; plural noun: criminals
1. a person who has committed a crime.
(Right off of definition of criminal on Google)

Yes... What I pointed out Brad is that you're taking advantage of the two senses of the word: (1) A criminal is one who has committed any crime, and (2) a criminal is one who commits crimes, has a propensity to commit crimes. You define the illegal alien as being a criminal in the first sense and then want the reader to also believe that he qualifies under the second sense. Those are two separate distinct meanings /senses of the word. As I said before either you are saying trivial or something unproven about illegal immigrants. But you can't by definition prove that because an illegal immigrant has committed a crime by crossing the border that they are more likely to commit a crime here. You can't prove it apriori.

freeman3 wrote:Yes... What I pointed out Brad is that you're taking advantage of the two senses of the word: (1) A criminal is one who has committed any crime, and (2) a criminal is one who commits crimes, has a propensity to commit crimes. You define the illegal alien as being a criminal in the first sense and then want the reader to also believe that he qualifies under the second sense. Those are two separate distinct meanings /senses of the word. As I said before either you are saying trivial or something unproven about illegal immigrants. But you can't by definition prove that because an illegal immigrant has committed a crime by crossing the border that they are more likely to commit a crime here. You can't prove it apriori.

I agree. They are being a criminal in the transit across the border. I said nothing about rape et. al.

There are (And I am sure you agree) some who transit illegally across the border who do commit heinous crimes, yes?

Sure. But the issue is whether illegal immigrants are committing crimes at a higher rate than the general population, right? Otherwise we could just as easily say there are a lot of people named Tom out there...we know some of them have committed serious crimes...so if we deport all Toms we'll be better off. My gosh, if we deported everyone... our crime rate would be zero!

freeman3 wrote:Sure. But the issue is whether illegal immigrants are committing crimes at a higher rate than the general population, right? Otherwise we could just as easily say there are a lot of people named Tom out there...we know some of them have committed serious crimes...so if we deport all Toms we'll be better off. My gosh, if we deported everyone... our crime rate would be zero!

That is the question. Does anyone have any data on that?

bbauska wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Sure. But the issue is whether illegal immigrants are committing crimes at a higher rate than the general population, right? Otherwise we could just as easily say there are a lot of people named Tom out there...we know some of them have committed serious crimes...so if we deport all Toms we'll be better off. My gosh, if we deported everyone... our crime rate would be zero!

That is the question. Does anyone have any data on that?

http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

Among the findings:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population. However, DHS has not provided a detailed explanation of how the estimates were generated.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/

10. "The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US"

This is false. The "verify" link leads to yet another transcript of Lou Dobbs speaking with Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. This one is dated June 12, 2006, and Rector says, "Hispanics in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-Hispanics."

Rector said Hispanics, not illegal immigrants, as the e-mail alleges. Considering there are 45.4 million Hispanics in the country, and an estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants, the distinction is notable. Rector’s statistic for all Hispanics is correct, according to a 2003 report from the Justice Department.

Let me be clear. I d not think that illegal aliens commit MORE crime that citizens. I think that ALL criminals should be incarcerated (probably more than most, if not all of those who disagree with me on Redscape), regardless of nationality. That being said, if an illegal alien commits a crime, and they should not be in the country, that is a mark against the immigration system. If a citizen commits a crime, and they have been released or did not show up for a judicial appt (bail et. al.) then that is a mark on the judicial system.

I don't care where they come from. I don't care why they commit crimes. If ANYONE is committing illegal acts. They need to be incarcerated, deports, executed, whatever.

Should the illegal immigrant who killed Steinle have been in the country?

bbauska

That is the question. Does anyone have any data on that?

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f ... nd-crime-0

i gave you this before...
from it:

A 2007 study by University of California, Irvine, sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut, found that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.
The 3.5 percent incarceration rate for native-born men age 18-39 was five times higher than the 0.7 percent rate for immigrant men in 2000{Figure 5}. Among male high-school dropouts, 9.8 percent of the native-born were behind bars in 2000, compared to only 1.3 percent of immigrants.
In 2000, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison. Among male high-school dropouts, 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexicans and 0.6 percent of foreign-born Salvadorans and Guatemalans were behind bars in 2000

.

You think Trump bothered to actually research any of the claims he made?

RickyP,
We both agree that Trump is being loose with the facts. But with every lie there is a bit of truth. Examine the truth, if you would. A person who comes into the country illegally IS A criminal.

I don't like Trump anymore than you do. Let's not make him the crux of this issue.

Should the person who killed Steinle have been in the US? Should he have been protected by the "Sanctuary city" laws? Should he have been turned over to authorities?

I think immigration is too lax, and needs to be more restricted. Crimes like this against Miss Steinle strengthens my belief in that.

bbauska

I don't like Trump anymore than you do. Let's not make him the crux of this issue.

What issue exactly?
[b]Illegal immigration[/b]? Could be solved if employers were required to ensure that employees were properly documented. With financial consequences and criminal charges to executives who fail, and repeatedly fail to properly provide employee documentation. (If there is no employment for economic refugees that don't follow the rules they won't illegally cross the border.)
Do you think corporate America will play along? There's been enormous resistance to the costs of this and to the enforcement of this in industries like meat packing and agriculture.

Or is the issue:
What to do with illegals in country, who have been working and who have established themselves?
If its up to Trump or his ilk you round them up and deport. them.
All 13,000,000
Which is unrealistic. (Imagine if it costs a $1,000 a person to deport them. A cost that can easily be arrived at... )
So how do these people get treated? Do they continue to live in fear of being discovered and deported or should they be given a route to citizenship?
American companies that employ many of these people would probably support a path to citizenship.

Or is the issue something else? I'm unclear as to how you are parsing this....The mere fact that people are crossing the border, and that they are doing so illegally, isn't a simple cut and dried problem. The "swatting at mosquitoes" or "draining the swamp" analogy is operative.
Arresting and rounding up "illegals" is swatting at mosquitoes....
There are a few answers to "draining the swamp"

Bombastic Buffoons like Trump don't care about facts, or actual living conditions of people. Its far easier to demonize them. And, he has become the issue with his nonsense.

rickyp wrote:How Hispanics actually react:

Such claims were “absurd”, said Lisa Navarrete, a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organisation
Navarrete said the claim that Mexicans seeking work in America were rapists was “offensive”.
“This is an exceedingly silly man, who has no idea what he’s talking about,” she said.
Navarrete said although Trump’s statements had “no basis in fact”, they fitted in with a perception of the party he sought to represent.
“Part of the reason why Latinos are so alienated from the Republican party these days is there’s a sense that there are people who actually believe [what Trump said],” she said.

And when other republicans don't call him on his BS they make the path to the presidency that much easier for Hillary.

Good night.

Using La Raza as a bellwether is like using Al Sharpton. Puh-leeze. La Raza believes much of the western US should be returned to Mexico, so . . . yeah, good source.

freeman3 wrote:Sure. But the issue is whether illegal immigrants are committing crimes at a higher rate than the general population, right? Otherwise we could just as easily say there are a lot of people named Tom out there...we know some of them have committed serious crimes...so if we deport all Toms we'll be better off. My gosh, if we deported everyone... our crime rate would be zero!

I believe it is a civil code violation to enter illegally, not a criminal violation.

rickyp wrote:Do you think corporate America will play along? There's been enormous resistance to the costs of this and to the enforcement of this in industries like meat packing and agriculture.

A bit disingenuous. It's not just big business and the Chamber of Commerce. It's also the Democratic party. They want the issue and the future (they believe) clients/voters.

So, the reason the problem doesn't get solved is because only about 25% of our politicians have any interest in solving it.

If its up to Trump or his ilk you round them up and deport. them.
All 13,000,000

Source?

4 years ago, he blasted Romney for being too harsh vis-a-vis immigration, so I would love to see where Trump said, "Deport them all."