|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis on furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment.
You're sarcasm sounds a lot like trolling and racism. Or just being an edgelord because you made a dumb post and don't know how to recover.
|
On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis on furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment.
Obviously you are being sarcastic, so I am going to assume you are trying to make the point that the opposite of what you said here is true. Let's go at it line by line:
1) Having worked on construction jobs, a lot of the time the latinos (who may or may not have been legal, I didn't ask) were the hardest-working people we had. Sometimes you could even tell who was (probably) illegal, because they kept their head down and worked harder than anyone else because they didn't want to draw any attention to themselves. So yeah, I would say that in that sort of culture, I would expect the children of illegal immigrants to grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for their families. If they were lazy, they would starve, because people like you certainly aren't looking out for them.
2) Does every person in our workforce need a college education? I'm going to go with no. As a person with a college education, I would also prefer it that way. There are millions of jobs out there that do not require higher education, and I would prefer if they weren't filled with people who are over-educated because it devalues the time and expense I put into mine. People in my generation seem to have the opinion that they are above many jobs that illegals would do gladly, so it seems like a win-win to me.
3) What old bad habits? What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you suggesting that Trump was right to imply illegal immigrants are all violent criminals or something? I don't even know what you mean by this.
4) Illegals have a huge competitive advantage in the workplace environment, that's one of the reasons why people hate them so much. They are willing to do the jobs you don't want to do, for little money. It doesn't get much more competitive than that.
|
On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo
Straight otta DOJ
http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
The number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends
|
On August 25 2015 06:44 Cowboy64 wrote:I understand with the sentiment that no one should be discriminated against for reasons XYZ, and I think the argument has some validity, but I do have to wonder... is it really so important that Big Earl's Diner not refuse service a gay couple? Yes, it's rude, yes it's petty and mean, yes it's silly and outdated... but do we really need to go blast some diner in the middle of nowhere on national television? Does the Federal Government really need to go make sure that Big Earl isn't discriminating against whoever? I just feel like if I was refused service somewhere for whatever reason, I would just leave and find somewhere else to eat. I could understand if we're talking about a grocery store or a gas-station, but why a diner? IDK, just seems like it's reverse bullying.
I am a firm believer in a businesses' right to refuse service to any person for any reason, but also think that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a shitty reason. In this case, I don't think the government should be involved, but the public shaming is totally on point. There are consequences to having opinions, even if you are entitled to have them. In today's world, the consequence to being homophobic is having people call you out on being homophobic. I see no problem with that, but it shouldn't be against the law.
|
On August 25 2015 06:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables. This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. Fewer or less syllables? The way African American replaced Black man and Nigger? You're talking out your ass. You can use a term with more syllables if the original term is offensive. And yes, I think Anchor baby is offensive. EDIT: to clarify, it is offensive, because it implies that the baby was born in order to "anchor" the parents in the US, which is a ridiculous assumption, and paints a large amount of people with a loaded statement.
Children of illegal aliens who's existence makes it more likely said aliens will remain in the United States doesn't have rhetorical power, which is exactly why opponents want anchor baby banned. As a bit of a non-sequitor both African American and Native American are both bad terms, but at least useful because they are pointing to the right reference.
Anchor baby is highly descriptive of the practice and also points to a group who, I admit, are falsely villified. 'Anchor babying' the action is the phenomena, but I can't think of other ones that are nearly as descriptive, while also rhetorically powerful. Or the ones I have are likely to be just as objectionable.
|
United States43251 Posts
On August 25 2015 06:44 Cowboy64 wrote:I understand with the sentiment that no one should be discriminated against for reasons XYZ, and I think the argument has some validity, but I do have to wonder... is it really so important that Big Earl's Diner not refuse service a gay couple? Yes, it's rude, yes it's petty and mean, yes it's silly and outdated... but do we really need to go blast some diner in the middle of nowhere on national television? Does the Federal Government really need to go make sure that Big Earl isn't discriminating against whoever?
Yes.
|
On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfShow nested quote +The number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends
It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants.
|
On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants.
You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal 
|
United States43251 Posts
I think you're somewhat missing his point. If you're arguing that illegal immigrants are innately criminal, in the sense that they're more likely to rape, steal, murder etc, then you're going to need a stronger argument than "well illegal immigration is a criminal act so technically they're all criminals". It's not a huge leap from your argument to reach "hey, ever noticed that 100% of black criminals are black, coincidence!?!? I think not!".
|
On August 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:
I think you're somewhat missing his point. If you're arguing that illegal immigrants are innately criminal, in the sense that they're more likely to rape, steal, murder etc, then you're going to need a stronger argument than "well illegal immigration is a criminal act so technically they're all criminals". It's not a huge leap from your argument to reach "hey, ever noticed that 100% of black criminals are black, coincidence!?!? I think not!".
Illegal immigrants don't have a SS# thus severely limiting their ability to get a job. If they cant get a job, they have to engage in criminal behavior in order to make money. I don't really see the confusion.
|
On August 25 2015 07:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants. You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal
Not convinced? How about this:
http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states cites between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US as a rough estimate. Lets take the 15million number as a conservative lower bound.
Total percentage of illegal aliens incarcerated: 55,000/15,000,000 = 0.36%
US Population: 320million
Number of US inmates: 2.2million.
2.2million/320million = 0.69%
In other words, illegal immigrants are about HALF as likely to commit a crime as an average American citizen.
Now, if we subtract the 65% that are incarcerated for immigration offenses (aka: the mere fact of them being in the US), a regular American citizen is over 5 times as likely to be incarcerated than an illegal immigrant.
|
On August 25 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 07:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.
This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants. You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal Not convinced? How about this: http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states cites between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US as a rough estimate. Lets take the 15million number as a conservative lower bound. Total percentage of illegal aliens incarcerated: 55,000/15,000,000 = 0.36% US Population: 320million Number of US inmates: 2.2million. 2.2million/320million = 0.69% In other words, illegal immigrants are about HALF as likely to commit a crime as an average American citizen. Now, if we subtract the 65% that are incarcerated for immigration offenses (aka: the mere fact of them being in the US), a regular American citizen is over 5 times as likely to be incarcerated than an illegal immigrant.
I can argue like this also. Drunk drivers get in 31% of all car accidents. Sober drivers get the other 69% of car accidents. The majority of car accidents are not caused by drunk drivers therefore we should avoid holding them accountable for their actions and focus on the majority population causing the problem.
You should try to reverse engineer the question and prove how illegal immigrants benefit America.
|
On August 25 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 07:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables.
This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them. I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants. You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal Not convinced? How about this: http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states cites between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US as a rough estimate. Lets take the 15million number as a conservative lower bound. Total percentage of illegal aliens incarcerated: 55,000/15,000,000 = 0.36% US Population: 320million Number of US inmates: 2.2million. 2.2million/320million = 0.69% In other words, illegal immigrants are about HALF as likely to commit a crime as an average American citizen. Now, if we subtract the 65% that are incarcerated for immigration offenses (aka: the mere fact of them being in the US), a regular American citizen is over 5 times as likely to be incarcerated than an illegal immigrant.
Your focusing on the 55k in federal prison and forgetting the 296k in state/local prison.
|
On August 25 2015 07:50 whatisthisasheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 07:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them.
I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants. You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal Not convinced? How about this: http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states cites between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US as a rough estimate. Lets take the 15million number as a conservative lower bound. Total percentage of illegal aliens incarcerated: 55,000/15,000,000 = 0.36% US Population: 320million Number of US inmates: 2.2million. 2.2million/320million = 0.69% In other words, illegal immigrants are about HALF as likely to commit a crime as an average American citizen. Now, if we subtract the 65% that are incarcerated for immigration offenses (aka: the mere fact of them being in the US), a regular American citizen is over 5 times as likely to be incarcerated than an illegal immigrant. I can argue like this also. Drunk drivers get in 31% of all car accidents. Sober drivers get the other 69% of car accidents. The majority of car accidents are not caused by drunk drivers therefore we should avoid holding them accountable for their actions and focus on the majority population causing the problem.
thats not even a good analogy because he's talking of percentages of a subset of the population and you're talking about the entire population of car accidents. so unless the percentage of people who drive sober and then get in a car accident is higher than the percentage of people who drive drunk then get in a car accident the analogy falls apart.
so it would have to look something like this
sober drivers who crash/sober drivers > drunk drivers who crash/drunk drivers.
which isn't right
|
On August 25 2015 07:54 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 07:50 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 07:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:
[quote]
Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants. You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal Not convinced? How about this: http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states cites between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US as a rough estimate. Lets take the 15million number as a conservative lower bound. Total percentage of illegal aliens incarcerated: 55,000/15,000,000 = 0.36% US Population: 320million Number of US inmates: 2.2million. 2.2million/320million = 0.69% In other words, illegal immigrants are about HALF as likely to commit a crime as an average American citizen. Now, if we subtract the 65% that are incarcerated for immigration offenses (aka: the mere fact of them being in the US), a regular American citizen is over 5 times as likely to be incarcerated than an illegal immigrant. I can argue like this also. Drunk drivers get in 31% of all car accidents. Sober drivers get the other 69% of car accidents. The majority of car accidents are not caused by drunk drivers therefore we should avoid holding them accountable for their actions and focus on the majority population causing the problem. thats not even a good analogy because he's talking of percentages of a subset of the population and you're talking about the entire population of car accidents. so unless the percentage of people who drive sober and then get in a car accident is higher than the percentage of people who drive drunk then get in a car accident the analogy falls apart.
Thats the point. Im glad to see somebody gets it
|
somehow I've been lost in this whole conversation.
also my proper comparison isn't that good since I took 2 subclasses where US citizens is the full class.
So I guess if you were trying to compare you'd compare by comparing
drunk drivers/drunk drivers in accidents
with
total drivers/percentage of drivers in accidents.
and unless your less likely overall to get in an acicdent driving drunk it's not a good analogy. so I guess you're trying to claim he's somehow twisting data or manipulating it in some way? If so I'm not sure why you need to rely on an analogy that doesn't immediate connect with what the problem is. because to me their about two different things. the drunk driving one is deals with two sub classes and forgets to factor in the likelihood of each subclass. his argument is around comparing a subgroup to the group as a whole. I can see using the wrong data but assuming the data is accurate I don't see any kind of specific problem with his argument. (regarding the data I'm fine for excluding the ones who are arrested solely for being illegal immigrant because it only applies to one group and doesn't really have much to do with what we're trying to do which is an apples to apples comparison of immigration criminality rates compared to the general population. If where trying to argue about what their legal status is should be it makes no sense to factor what it currently is into the data.)
correction
are illegal immigrants counted in the US census? if their not the analogy is a tiny bit better but I still don't see what's inherently wrong with his stats since yours is comparing both subclasses to the whole and his is comparing rates in the subclasses. so any type of point you're trying to make is hard for me to figure out since like I said earlier I don't see any fundamental problem with how he's assembling his data assuming it's accurate. although it should be noted that his data is only incarceration rates and if you think thats not a good demonstration of actual criminal percentages then you should be arguing that point instead of making analogies
I haven't taken stats in forever so some terminology might be slightly off.
quick summary for anyone to lazy to read the whole thing.
I'm not sure how pointing out the misinterpretation of date that you did shows something inherently wrong with his type of data since their dealing with different things (yours raw percentage his is percentage of subclasses). If you think his raw data is wrong then say that but I don't see any fundamental problem with data interpretation like your example.
|
On August 25 2015 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 07:45 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 07:25 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 07:15 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:57 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:44 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 06:42 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote:On August 25 2015 06:29 whatisthisasheep wrote:On August 25 2015 06:22 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
People. Children of illegal immigrants. Pick one of those or maybe ask. There are a lot of words in the English language, break out a few. The people running for office are supposed to be educated. I am sure they can figure it out. Its an outreach program. To get the votes of the minorities, the Republic candidates must learn to speak in a way that does not insult them or their children them.
I really need to reinstall that script that changes "PC" to "respecting other people". Ok lets call serial killers and child molesters people becuase the terms killer and molester are derogatory towards people of certain socioeconomic status. They still deserve to be treated with equal rights even if they broke the law because we can judge and how dare we for doing so. This is a totally on point argument that doesn't have numerous holes in it. No false equivalency at all. Of course the children of illegal immigrates and exactly the same thing as criminals and child molesters. Those are two groups of people we can compare on a 1-1 basis and find lots in common. Totally the same. Stick mindlessly hyping Trump. We all know that children of illegal immigrants grow up to be hard working people trying to provide for families. They put a heavy emphasis or furthering their education and ingratiating themselves into society. They have a proven track record of successfully reliving themselves of their old bad habits and refining them into useful tools that give them a competitive advantage in today's competitive workplace environment. Statistics or gtfo Straight otta DOJ http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdfThe number of criminal aliens in federa
l prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about
55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal
alien incarcerations in state prison
systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal y
ear 2009 (the most recent
data available), and the ma
jority were from Mexico
. The number of criminal
aliens in federal prisons increased about
7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal
year 2005 while the number of SCAAP cr
iminal alien incarcerations in state
prison systems and local jails increase
d about 35 percent from about 220,000
in fiscal year 2003. The time period
covered by these data vary because they
reflect updates since
GAO last reported on these issu
es in 2005. Specifically,
in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons
was about 27 percent of the total inma
te population from 2001 through 2004.
Based on our random sample,
GAO estimates that the cr
iminal aliens had an
average of 7 arrests, 65 percent were ar
rested at least once for an immigration
offense, and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense.
Immigration, drugs, and traffic violati
ons accounted for about 50 percent of
arrest offenses. About 90 percent of the
criminal aliens sentenced in federal
court in fiscal year 2009 (the most re
cently available data
) were convicted of
immigration and drug-related offens
es. About 40 percent of individuals
convicted as a result of DOJ terrorism
-related investigations were aliens.
SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated
in selected state prison systems in
Arizona, California, Florida, New York,
and Texas were conv
icted of various
offenses in fiscal year 2008 (the most
recently available data at the time of
GAO’s analysis). The highest percentage of convictions for criminal aliens
incarcerated in four of these states wa
s for drug-related offenses. Homicide
resulted in the most primary offense convictions for SCAAP criminal aliens in
the fifth state—New York—in fiscal year 2008.
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate
criminal aliens in federal prisons and
SCAAP reimbursements to states and loca
lities ranged from about $1.5 billion
to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal y
ears 2005 through 2009; DOJ plans to
update its SCAAP methodology for reimbursi
ng states and localities in 2011 to
help ensure that it is current and re
levant. DOJ developed its reimbursement
methodology using analysis conducted
by the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service in 2000 that was
based on 1997
data. Best practices in
cost estimating and assessment of
programs call for
new data to be
continuously collected so it
is always relevant and cu
rrent. During the course
of its review, GAO raised questions a
bout the relevancy of the methodology.
Thus, DOJ developed plan
s to update its methodology in 2011 using SCAAP
data from 2009 and would like to establis
h a 3-year update cycle to review the
methodology in the future. Doing so c
ould provide additional assurance that
DOJ reimburses states and localities for
such costs consistent with current trends It's a bit confusing, but if I read that correctly, 65% of them are in jail for breaking immigration law... well. no shit, sherlock. So if we ignore that 65% then what exactly is left? 90% was for drug-or-immigration offenses (and 50% for drug offenses, so there seems to be a lot of overlap). Meaning that of the 55,000 illegal immigrants in jail, about 5,500 had committed actual crimes. However, we can't really count drug offenses separately, because that's a problem with the war on drugs in general, and inflates all numbers, not just those of illegal immigrants. You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal Not convinced? How about this: http://www.cairco.org/issues/how-many-illegal-aliens-reside-united-states cites between 15 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US as a rough estimate. Lets take the 15million number as a conservative lower bound. Total percentage of illegal aliens incarcerated: 55,000/15,000,000 = 0.36% US Population: 320million Number of US inmates: 2.2million. 2.2million/320million = 0.69% In other words, illegal immigrants are about HALF as likely to commit a crime as an average American citizen. Now, if we subtract the 65% that are incarcerated for immigration offenses (aka: the mere fact of them being in the US), a regular American citizen is over 5 times as likely to be incarcerated than an illegal immigrant. Your focusing on the 55k in federal prison and forgetting the 296k in state/local prison.
Yeah. You're right. However, the statistics in general are a bit more complex. Because the other thing I forgot to take into account is the % of illegal immigrants who are adults (and thus can be jailed in the first place). Turns out that a far higher % of illegal immigrants is adult than the population at large: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-states/ says there are 1.5million illegal immigrant children.
So that means we have a jailable population of 13.5million illegal immigrants (still assuming our 15million from the site cited earlier).
Now, if we exclude the crime that US citizens and legal immigrants can, by definition, not be jailed for: being an illegal immigrant (deftly called immigration crime), that means we have:
35% of 350k = 120k illegal immigrants in jail for "real" crimes.
So 120k/13.5million = 0.89%
As opposed to 0.91% of the US Adult population in jail.
Because there is significant uncertainty in both of the first numbers (total illegal immigrants, and number of children in that population) I am going to call it a wash, but in any case, there is no evidence illegal immigrants are not more likely than anybody else to commit a crime (other than the obvious one of having entered the country illegally).
|
On August 25 2015 08:07 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
somehow I've been lost in this whole conversation.
also my proper comparison isn't that good since I took 2 subclasses where US citizens is the full class.
So I guess if you were trying to compare you'd compare by comparing
drunk drivers/drunk drivers in accidents
with
total drivers/percentage of drivers in accidents.
and unless your less likely overall to get in an acicdent driving drunk it's not a good analogy. so I guess you're trying to claim he's somehow twisting data or manipulating it in some way? If so I'm not sure why you need to rely on an analogy that doesn't immediate connect with what the problem is. because to me their about two different things. the drunk driving one is deals with two sub classes and forgets to factor in the likelihood of each subclass. his argument is around comparing a subgroup to the group as a whole. I can see using the wrong data but assuming the data is accurate I don't see any kind of specific problem with his argument. (regarding the data I'm fine for excluding the ones who are arrested solely for being illegal immigrant because it only applies to one group and doesn't really have much to do with what we're trying to do which is an apples to apples comparison of immigration criminality rates compared to the general population. If where trying to argue about what their legal status is should be it makes no sense to factor what it currently is into the data.)
I haven't taken stats in forever so some terminology might be slightly off.
Maybe I am just having a brain fart but this comparison makes no sense. What you are trying to do in either case is separate all members of a population into two subcategories such that nobody is left out and then compare them for the sake of contrast.
What you want to do is compare sober accidents/sober drivers to drunk accidents/drunk drivers or illegal immigrant criminals/illegal immigrant population to citizen criminals/citizen population. This comparison tells you how much more likely an event is within one subgroup as compared to the rest of the population.
I am not sure of the exact number but I would not doubt that drunk drivers are many times more likely to get in an accident than sober drivers. It also seems that illegal aliens are, discounting their illegal immigration, more law abiding than citizens. Neither of these are surprising to me considering how severe the consequences of otherwise minor infractions can be to illegal immigrants.
There are a lot of reasonable objections to our lacking border security but that all of Mexico is a hive of scum and villainy is not one.
|
On August 25 2015 07:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 06:27 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2015 05:44 cLutZ wrote:On August 25 2015 05:05 Plansix wrote:
You dig deep enough with that term an anchor babies means my grandfather whose mother was from Sweden. She wasn’t a full citizen when she had him and might have been here illegally. But keep using it GOP and telling people it’s not offensive. Because that is totally something you get to decide. If you want to call a descriptive term offensive you need to provide a plausible alternative that is as descriptive and uses the same or fewer syllables. This all just goes back to the old PC debate where its pretty obvious that the term isn't the problem, its that you don't want people to be able to easily convey ideas you disagree with. Fewer or less syllables? The way African American replaced Black man and Nigger? You're talking out your ass. You can use a term with more syllables if the original term is offensive. And yes, I think Anchor baby is offensive. EDIT: to clarify, it is offensive, because it implies that the baby was born in order to "anchor" the parents in the US, which is a ridiculous assumption, and paints a large amount of people with a loaded statement. Children of illegal aliens who's existence makes it more likely said aliens will remain in the United States doesn't have rhetorical power, which is exactly why opponents want anchor baby banned. As a bit of a non-sequitor both African American and Native American are both bad terms, but at least useful because they are pointing to the right reference. Anchor baby is highly descriptive of the practice and also points to a group who, I admit, are falsely villified. 'Anchor babying' the action is the phenomena, but I can't think of other ones that are nearly as descriptive, while also rhetorically powerful. Or the ones I have are likely to be just as objectionable.
Its not really their problem, since the people who keep dropping the term want their votes. They can either stop using it or just keep pissing people off. And there was just as much bitching when people were told to stop referring native Americans as Indians. But those people are not the ones that get to decide that if Indians is or is not offensive. The same thing applies now.
|
On August 25 2015 08:32 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2015 08:07 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
somehow I've been lost in this whole conversation.
also my proper comparison isn't that good since I took 2 subclasses where US citizens is the full class.
So I guess if you were trying to compare you'd compare by comparing
drunk drivers/drunk drivers in accidents
with
total drivers/percentage of drivers in accidents.
and unless your less likely overall to get in an acicdent driving drunk it's not a good analogy. so I guess you're trying to claim he's somehow twisting data or manipulating it in some way? If so I'm not sure why you need to rely on an analogy that doesn't immediate connect with what the problem is. because to me their about two different things. the drunk driving one is deals with two sub classes and forgets to factor in the likelihood of each subclass. his argument is around comparing a subgroup to the group as a whole. I can see using the wrong data but assuming the data is accurate I don't see any kind of specific problem with his argument. (regarding the data I'm fine for excluding the ones who are arrested solely for being illegal immigrant because it only applies to one group and doesn't really have much to do with what we're trying to do which is an apples to apples comparison of immigration criminality rates compared to the general population. If where trying to argue about what their legal status is should be it makes no sense to factor what it currently is into the data.)
I haven't taken stats in forever so some terminology might be slightly off. Maybe I am just having a brain fart but this comparison makes no sense. What you are trying to do in either case is separate all members of a population into two subcategories such that nobody is left out and then compare them for the sake of contrast. What you want to do is compare sober accidents/sober drivers to drunk accidents/drunk drivers or illegal immigrant criminals/illegal immigrant population to citizen criminals/citizen population. This comparison tells you how much more likely an event is within one subgroup as compared to the rest of the population. I am not sure of the exact number but I would not doubt that drunk drivers are many times more likely to get in an accident than sober drivers. It also seems that illegal aliens are, discounting their illegal immigration, more law abiding than citizens. Neither of these are surprising to me considering how severe the consequences of otherwise minor infractions can be to illegal immigrants. There are a lot of reasonable objections to our lacking border security but that all of Mexico is a hive of scum and villainy is not one.
maybe I went a little too far into a certain direction and made my point a bit hard to understand. I agree with you basically.
but yeah see my correction part where I realized I was over complicating it and that U.S. population does not in fact contain illegal immigrants so yeah its 2 sub classes. when he first made the analogy he used sheer percentage of total. I was trying to explain (probably badly) that when you broke it into percentages of subclasses like the illegal immigrant data it falls apart since your more likely to get in an accident if drunk but an illegal immigrant isn't more likely to break the law.
as for the rest I was trying to basically to make the terms in his argument used in the same way as the data in the other argument (basically straight substituting drunk drivers for illegals and criminals for car accidents) so we could see that the conclusion (drunken drivers are no more likely to commit accidents) is clearly wrong so you can't compare the two really on any level and you certainly can't use the drunk driving thing to show some problem with the illegal immigrant argument.
sorry If I confused you. (I blame too many philosophy classes and my need for explaining things beyond the point where I need to. plus it sometimes makes a lot more sense in my head then on paper. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
