freeman2 wrote:As for df's comment that I would not call the border secure if an illegal alien harmed a relative, I agree with Denison that is not a good argument It doesn't upset me,, but I don' think an argument that personalizes a situation in an attempt to appeal to emotion is effective.

I didn't think it would upset you, but it certainly seems inappropriate to talk about someone's family possibly being raped/injured/murdered, even if it does give a nice rhetorical flourish.

It is emotional blackmail because it's an attempt to prompt guilt, or suggest guilt.

And, now, here's where I find DF's argument is still lacking (once he drops the above) - It would be useful to have a lot of stats, that could be used to demonstrate the whole picture. Not becuase we seek to ignore or diminish the issue of victims. On the contrary, let's see how many victims there are, and get some real research done.

Doctor Fate wrote: If you ask that group (or those related to them in the cases of those who have been killed), I don't believe they would say the border is secure and nothing more needs to be done. They would also not agree that the current ICE policy is sufficient.

Hmm. If people came over the border years ago, there's another horse analogy I can invoke, involving gates and bolts.

There is also a difference between opposing all extra measures ("nothing more needs to be done", and opposing particular ones that have unintended consequences or can be abused. I think there is more that can be done.

For example, you can invest more in the ICE (if it's failing to find people or deal with them, then it may needs more resources). You can strengthen border policing, although you have to recognise that the law of diminishing returns applies and that there are two very long land borders and an awful lot of coastline to 'police' if you want total control of the border.

Or, you could make it easier for legal immigration, which would reduce the incentive for illegal entry and allow enforcement to deal with a smaller pool of illegals.

Usually, it's conservatives who are wary about giving the government too much power over individuals, but it seems on a hot-button issue like immigration, that does not apply quite so much. Laws that allow the imprisonment of people who are legal, but just can't satisfy an officer of that fact, are a risk. This was pointed out when the Arizona laws of Prop 100 (2006) and the more recent legislation.

It would also be useful to know how much use those laws have actually been in dealing with illegal immigration.

danivon wrote:

freeman2 wrote:As for df's comment that I would not call the border secure if an illegal alien harmed a relative, I agree with Denison that is not a good argument It doesn't upset me,, but I don' think an argument that personalizes a situation in an attempt to appeal to emotion is effective.

I didn't think it would upset you, but it certainly seems inappropriate to talk about someone's family possibly being raped/injured/murdered, even if it does give a nice rhetorical flourish.

It is emotional blackmail because it's an attempt to prompt guilt, or suggest guilt.

Rubbish.

It is one thing to be analytical and to view things as if they exist in a hermetically sealed bubble. However, the number of lives drastically altered, ruined, or ended as a result of the criminal actions of illegal aliens is no small matter. That has to be factored into the equation.

And, now, here's where I find DF's argument is still lacking (once he drops the above) - It would be useful to have a lot of stats, that could be used to demonstrate the whole picture. Not becuase we seek to ignore or diminish the issue of victims. On the contrary, let's see how many victims there are, and get some real research done.

Again, how much do you want? This is just the penal cost in California--about a billion dollars. That does not count the cost of the crimes they committed or the crimes of those who have yet to be caught. You have entire gangs, like MS 13, that are heavily populated with illegal aliens.

Let's put it another way: if one is determined to be a criminal, why not come to a country where one can actually make a lot of money?

Doctor Fate wrote: If you ask that group (or those related to them in the cases of those who have been killed), I don't believe they would say the border is secure and nothing more needs to be done. They would also not agree that the current ICE policy is sufficient.

Hmm. If people came over the border years ago, there's another horse analogy I can invoke, involving gates and bolts.

Does it have anything to do with murder, mayhem, or rape?

There is also a difference between opposing all extra measures ("nothing more needs to be done", and opposing particular ones that have unintended consequences or can be abused. I think there is more that can be done.

For example, you can invest more in the ICE (if it's failing to find people or deal with them, then it may needs more resources).

But, we have a President who has unilaterally changed the immigration laws of this country. His executive order was unconstitutional and it, in essence, would allow members of MS 13 or other criminal groups who have yet to be convicted to stay in the US.

I'm not for breaking up families, deporting skilled people, etc. However, when our stated policy is to not deport someone because they've obtained a GED, that's too low a bar. And, the President ought not violate the law he swore to uphold.

Or, you could make it easier for legal immigration, which would reduce the incentive for illegal entry and allow enforcement to deal with a smaller pool of illegals.

I am also in favor of this.

Usually, it's conservatives who are wary about giving the government too much power over individuals, but it seems on a hot-button issue like immigration, that does not apply quite so much. Laws that allow the imprisonment of people who are legal, but just can't satisfy an officer of that fact, are a risk. This was pointed out when the Arizona laws of Prop 100 (2006) and the more recent legislation.

Enforce the laws on the books. That's all anyone can ask--other than actually putting a proposal on paper, which the President failed to do.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

freeman2 wrote:As for df's comment that I would not call the border secure if an illegal alien harmed a relative, I agree with Denison that is not a good argument It doesn't upset me,, but I don' think an argument that personalizes a situation in an attempt to appeal to emotion is effective.

I didn't think it would upset you, but it certainly seems inappropriate to talk about someone's family possibly being raped/injured/murdered, even if it does give a nice rhetorical flourish.

It is emotional blackmail because it's an attempt to prompt guilt, or suggest guilt.

Rubbish.

It is one thing to be analytical and to view things as if they exist in a hermetically sealed bubble. However, the number of lives drastically altered, ruined, or ended as a result of the criminal actions of illegal aliens is no small matter. That has to be factored into the equation.

Which is why it would be useful to have that number. When ricky replied to your use of the same concept, you teated him like an idiot. Please don't assume you can patronise all of us.

Doctor Fate wrote: If you ask that group (or those related to them in the cases of those who have been killed), I don't believe they would say the border is secure and nothing more needs to be done. They would also not agree that the current ICE policy is sufficient.

Hmm. If people came over the border years ago, there's another horse analogy I can invoke, involving gates and bolts.

Does it have anything to do with murder, mayhem, or rape?

As it's an analogy, it can be applied to all kinds of things. That is the beauty of analogy. So it applies as much to the literal case (locking the stable door after the horse has bolted) to your argument - if someone illegally entered the US years ago, and is later a caught as criminal, closing up the border now won't retrospectively help the victims.

danivon wrote:Which is why it would be useful to have that number. When ricky replied to your use of the same concept, you teated him like an idiot. Please don't assume you can patronise all of us.

1. I've never teated anyone.
2. rickyp lives in his own universe.
3. I have cited numbers. Would you like all 50 States and every single murderer, rapist, thieve, and drug dealer? Contact the FBI.

As it's an analogy, it can be applied to all kinds of things. That is the beauty of analogy. So it applies as much to the literal case (locking the stable door after the horse has bolted) to your argument - if someone illegally entered the US years ago, and is later a caught as criminal, closing up the border now won't retrospectively help the victims.

1. Not deporting illegal aliens because the President says so will lead to more criminal actions by illegal aliens already here.

2. Not closing the border will ensure we have more criminals entering the country.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Not deporting illegal aliens because the President says so will lead to more criminal actions by illegal aliens already here.

But hasn't this President deported at a higher rate than his predecessor, according to freeman2 ? Or are you still determined to swat off that stat as not being emotive enough?

2. Not closing the border will ensure we have more criminals entering the country.

You can't hermetically seal it. There are border controls, but they are imperfect. You can spend a lot more money on trying to improve that control, but it will never get to perfect and will cost more. So, please don't pretend that the border is 'open' now or that it's simple to 'close' it.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. I've never teated anyone.

A typo. 'treated'. You know that, but hey, I'll apologise for my large fingers.

2. rickyp lives in his own universe.

Yet he was pointing out your confused argument, and was not off on a flight of fancy. Enough ad-hom.

3. I have cited numbers. Would you like all 50 States and every single murderer, rapist, thieve, and drug dealer? Contact the FBI.

But you didn't. You pointed to a link showing the number of people in jails in CA who are illegal immigrants, and the dollar cost. That doesn't tell us how many victims there are, particularly of the high crimes you are concentrating on.

Here is an article describing the rising number of deportations while at the same time the border patrol has apprehended a far less number of border crossers (from 1.2 million in 2005 to 340,000 in 2011)http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/as-deportations-rise-to-record-levels-most-latinos-oppose-obamas-policy/

55% of aliens deported in 2011 had committed a crime. http://www.i
ce.gov/removal-statistics/

So there are fewer immigrants trying to get in, we are deporting more of them, and we are concentrating on getting rid of criminal aliens.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Not deporting illegal aliens because the President says so will lead to more criminal actions by illegal aliens already here.

But hasn't this President deported at a higher rate than his predecessor, according to freeman2 ? Or are you still determined to swat off that stat as not being emotive enough?

You have either taken asinine to a new level or you are just being dishonest.

The statistics freeman2 presents are not the complete picture. They tell us nothing about the lives that are being permanently changed or ended by illegal aliens. That's not emotion; it's fact.

2. Not closing the border will ensure we have more criminals entering the country.

You can't hermetically seal it. There are border controls, but they are imperfect. You can spend a lot more money on trying to improve that control, but it will never get to perfect and will cost more. So, please don't pretend that the border is 'open' now or that it's simple to 'close' it.

I'm not pretending about anything. There are many things we can do to make illegally migrating here less inviting--if we just applied the Mexico standard, for example.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:3. I have cited numbers. Would you like all 50 States and every single murderer, rapist, thieve, and drug dealer? Contact the FBI.

But you didn't. You pointed to a link showing the number of people in jails in CA who are illegal immigrants, and the dollar cost. That doesn't tell us how many victims there are, particularly of the high crimes you are concentrating on.

Those are numbers. So, what do you want? How many victims there are? That's ridiculous. I am already pointing to how many are in our system in the largest State. Again, I'm not the FBI.

How many rapes, murders, cases of mayhem and vehicular manslaughter should we accept as "tolerable?"

We know gangs are helping illegal aliens get into the country:

Gangs along the border. Along the Southwest border, U.S.-based gangs assist in the smuggling of drugs, arms, and illegal immigrants and serve as enforcers for Mexican drug trafficking organizations’ interests on the U.S. side of the border. Gangs also pose a growing problem for law enforcement along the U.S.-Canada border—smuggling drugs, cigarettes, firearms, and immigrants.

By paying the gangs, they are furthering gang violence. More details here.

Again, what is acceptable? What should Americans simply shrug at? The questions you are asking are beyond reasonable--who could possibly compile such data, especially when we have many major cities who won't even check into legal/illegal status? Here's a Congressional study:

The data provided to the House Judiciary Committee by DHS includes 276,412 records of charges against illegal and criminal immigrants identified by Secure Communities between October 27, 2008 and July 31, 2011. There are 159,286 unique individuals in the database and 205,101 unique arrest incidents.
Of those released, CRS found that about 17% of illegal and criminal immigrants, or 26,412, were rearrested on criminal charges. These 26,412 recidivists accounted for a total of 42,827 arrests and 57,763 alleged violations.
The categories of crimes charged include nearly 8,500 DUI (14.6%), over 6,000 Drug Violations (10.9%), more than 4,000 Major Criminal Offenses (7.1%), which includes murder, assault, battery, rape, and kidnapping, nearly 3,000 Theft (4.9%), and over 1,000 Other Violent Crimes (2.1%), which includes carjacking, child cruelty, child molestation, domestic abuse, lynching, stalking, and torture.
These crimes committed by both illegal and legal immigrants include 59 murders, 21 attempted murders, and 542 sex crimes.
Of those rearrested, nearly 30%, or 7,283, were illegal immigrants. Since 46,734 illegal immigrants were released, this means they have a recidivism rate of 16%. These illegal immigrants should have been deported but the Obama administration’s lax immigration policies released them back into our communities.
The crimes charged against these illegal immigrants include nearly 2,000 DUI (11.9%), over 1,400 drug violations (8.8%), and more than 1,000 major criminal offenses and violent crimes (6.9%), including murder, assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, domestic abuse, lynching, stalking, and torture.
These crimes committed by illegal immigrants include 19 murders, 3 attempted murders, and 142 sex crimes.

Again, no matter how many Obama has deported, how many more should have been?

The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday blasted President Obama for his new immigration policy in the wake of a recent report revealing thousands of illegal aliens committed crimes after being arrested and released.

The report, issued by the independent Congressional Research Service (CRS), found that 15 percent — 7,283 of 46,796 — of the people who the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency determined were in the country illegally had committed crimes or civil violations after the government opted not to deport or detain them.

“President Obama’s reckless amnesty agenda is dangerous and deadly for Americans,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in a statement. “Rather than protect the American people he was elected to serve, President Obama has imposed a policy that allows thousands of illegal immigrants to be released into our communities.”
The most severe crimes committed by illegal immigrants who were released over a nearly three-year period included 19 murders, 142 sex crimes, and 46 instances of grand theft or grand larceny.

A spokeswoman for ICE pointed to the nearly 400,000 illegal immigrants the administration removed last fiscal year and said many of those cited in the CRS report were released by local law enforcement officials before ICE could take any action.

“Many of the individuals cited in the report were not removable under current law or were released by local officials before ICE could respond,” said ICE’s press secretary Barbara Gonzalez.

freeman2 wrote:Here is an article describing the rising number of deportations while at the same time the border patrol has apprehended a far less number of border crossers (from 1.2 million in 2005 to 340,000 in 2011)http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/as-deportations-rise-to-record-levels-most-latinos-oppose-obamas-policy/

55% of aliens deported in 2011 had committed a crime. http://www.i
ce.gov/removal-statistics/

So there are fewer immigrants trying to get in, we are deporting more of them, and we are concentrating on getting rid of criminal aliens.

Right. No jobs = fewer crossing the border looking for work. Duh.

So what that 55% had committed a crime? That means they had the opportunity to commit a crime before they were deported. Why? Is that the standard? It's cool if you're illegal as long as you don't commit a crime?

It's pretty simple: President Obama broke the law by unilaterally changing immigration law. He failed to lead on immigration and instead has done everything he can to give backdoor amnesty to those who are here illegally in an attempt to pander to the Hispanic community.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:3. I have cited numbers. Would you like all 50 States and every single murderer, rapist, thieve, and drug dealer? Contact the FBI.

But you didn't. You pointed to a link showing the number of people in jails in CA who are illegal immigrants, and the dollar cost. That doesn't tell us how many victims there are, particularly of the high crimes you are concentrating on.

Those are numbers. So, what do you want? How many victims there are? That's ridiculous. I am already pointing to how many are in our system in the largest State. Again, I'm not the FBI.

And yet below that you did finally find some figures on particular crimes and types of crime. It wasn't 'ridiculous', it was a sensible question. So thank you for the link to the Congressional study.

How many rapes, murders, cases of mayhem and vehicular manslaughter should we accept as "tolerable?"

They are all intolerable, regardless of the immigration status of the criminal. But who said that they were "tolerable"? Asking for data is not the same as saying it's ok. Yet more emotional blackmail.

Shouldn't the real question be whether illegal immigrants are committing crimes at a higher rate than U.S. citizens? If the rate is the same then what's all the fuss about? Therefore, looking at individual cases involvoing illegal immigrants would be pretty much trying to promote hysteria over immigration problems. If the rate is higher, you have a good point. So, yeah, numbers are the key

And by the way you can be deported for committing a crime and be here legally. There are many crimes that can get you deported (firearms convictions, drug crimes, domestic violence, aggravated felones) even if you are here legally. So your assumption that the crimes were committed by illegals is ill-founded.

Freeman, I expect that the data will suggest that they are, for two reasons:

1) Many illegals are caught as a result of being picked up for a crime. Those who keep their heads down and avoid contact with the authorities won't show up. However, they are also less likely to be involved in felonious crimes, as part of that behaviour.

2) As DF observes, there are cross border gangs involved in the drugs trade and other criminal organised crime. People who are smuggling contraband into the USA, or are dealing with it in the USA, are likely to be illegal immigrants because either the act of entry is more than one crime, or because legal entry would carry a high risk of arrest.

I suppose what I'd like to know is how many lives were saved by the law that allows someone like Ms Torres to be held without bail for so long. It would also be interesting to see what the rates of crime were like before 2008.

danivon wrote:I suppose what I'd like to know is how many lives were saved by the law that allows someone like Ms Torres to be held without bail for so long. It would also be interesting to see what the rates of crime were like before 2008.

I know we often had prisoners with immigration holds, but we did not place them. In this case, obviously, the local authorities did this. If the facts are as you've laid them out, I think she has a great case. "Bad faith" is not going to play well with a jury so all involved are going to be in a world of hurt. That alone should restrain government. I'm also confident new guidelines will be promulgated to prevent that (different situation, but the Rodney King beating changed many policies--local governments don't like losing millions of dollars in lawsuits).

Doctor Fate wrote:I know we often had prisoners with immigration holds, but we did not place them.

Please clarify for me what this means. Are you saying that in the past, law enforcement at a state/local level did not always ensure that illegal immigrants were deported?

In this case, obviously, the local authorities did this. If the facts are as you've laid them out, I think she has a great case. "Bad faith" is not going to play well with a jury so all involved are going to be in a world of hurt. That alone should restrain government.

I thought that the US used more stringent measures than hoping that a jury would take the 'right' path?

I'm also confident new guidelines will be promulgated to prevent that (different situation, but the Rodney King beating changed many policies--local governments don't like losing millions of dollars in lawsuits).

Certainly litigation can often be a more effective change to behaviours than statute law. Of course, it does appear that Maripoca is a bit of a maverick county when it comes to law enforcement.