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 06:22 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.
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.
You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal
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.
You should try to reverse engineer the question and prove how illegal immigrants benefit America.
You mean like how immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances? And how this positive impact would be even bigger if unautorized immigrants were provided with a simple path to legalization?
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.
Funny, once you compare the numbers for people who are foreign-born to those for people who were born in the U.S., your whole argument pretty much falls apart.
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.
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.
You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal
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.
You should try to reverse engineer the question and prove how illegal immigrants benefit America.
You mean like how immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances? And how this positive impact would be even bigger if unautorized immigrants were provided with a simple path to legalization?
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.
Funny, once you compare the numbers for people who are foreign-born to those for people who were born in the U.S., your whole argument pretty much falls apart.
Ok I give up you win I lose. I hope that morally satiates the void in your life. I dont have a Green Card in this fight so ill leave it up to Trump.
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.
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.
You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal
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.
You should try to reverse engineer the question and prove how illegal immigrants benefit America.
You mean like how immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances? And how this positive impact would be even bigger if unautorized immigrants were provided with a simple path to legalization?
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.
Funny, once you compare the numbers for people who are foreign-born to those for people who were born in the U.S., your whole argument pretty much falls apart.
With all these EPI and Brookings floating around, we should get some Cato and Heritage to match, if you ask me.
On August 25 2015 06:34 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
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.
You argue the same way big tobacco argues nicotine is not addictive and climate deniers argue global warming isnt real. I admire your zeal
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.
You should try to reverse engineer the question and prove how illegal immigrants benefit America.
You mean like how immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances? And how this positive impact would be even bigger if unautorized immigrants were provided with a simple path to legalization?
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.
Funny, once you compare the numbers for people who are foreign-born to those for people who were born in the U.S., your whole argument pretty much falls apart.
Ok I give up you win I lose. I hope that morally satiates the void in your life.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
So your problem with a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation is that the people who break the law get punished for it (certainly not by directly going to jail, by the way)? In other words, you don't like laws? Because what you're denouncing is the entire foundation of the legal system.
Also, the justification for the law is that it is deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just like it is deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on skin color. That's justification enough.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
And that is indeed a fair criticism of non-discrimination laws. Although usually businesses would be fined, rather than owners being jailed (I think. I don't know the history on that part very well.). Laws need to narrowly target discrimination so that there isn't mission creep into other areas, but anti-discrimination laws do need to exist without the need for imminent threat.
The problem with having to demonstrate there is an imminent threat is that by then you've already created the worst case scenario and it becomes very hard to undo. And likely, the local judges are included in that threat and thus make it harder for a local threat to be neutralized.
There are still areas where discrimination is commonplace around this country. Many of those areas were forcibly de-discriminated decades ago, but the problems still exist. So the idea is to root out discrimination early before it can sink in.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
Jailing racists and homophobic people that deny service based on their actions sound great. I am pretty feed up with the big push to bring back racism in the US. I have zero problems with this. Bring it on. Life is about choices. Racism, sexism and homophobia having legal protections due to "freedom of religion" or whatever other excuse to be a shitty person they think up is not part of a free society. Or more importantly, you can't open your doors to the public welcoming in everyone expect for the races, religions and sexual orientations you don't approve of.
And no slippery slope argument. We all know that's not a real argument. We have jailed racists before and forced them to serve people and government didn't come to take all our other rights the next day.
I would rather our country not jail people simply for their opinions. Racists and homophones and the like can be defeated in the court of public opinion. However, laws should protect people from said people. But punishing people for their thoughts and opinions is the very essence of totalitarianism and is something that we should all be against, I am surprised to see you advocating such a thing.
I know it gets tiring to have to fight against the ignorant and bigoted, trust me I know, but you can't allow yourself to lose your principles otherwise you are no better than them.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
And that is indeed a fair criticism of non-discrimination laws. Although usually businesses would be fined, rather than owners being jailed (I think. I don't know the history on that part very well.). Laws need to narrowly target discrimination so that there isn't mission creep into other areas, but anti-discrimination laws do need to exist without the need for imminent threat.
The problem with having to demonstrate there is an imminent threat is that by then you've already created the worst case scenario and it becomes very hard to undo. And likely, the local judges are included in that threat and thus make it harder for a local threat to be neutralized.
There are still areas where discrimination is commonplace around this country. Many of those areas were forcibly de-discriminated decades ago, but the problems still exist. So the idea is to root out discrimination early before it can sink in.
Its fair, but I do think you vastly undersell the risks. In Denver, for instance, the city council is trying to deny a permit based on Chick-Fil-A's beliefs in spite of no demonstrable differences in their service record (actually better than non-religious places like KFC, McDs, etc).
Also, I think you did point to a significant problem with your own approach: that being that in a corrupt and intolerant area the policy isn't actually implementable anyways. Which means that the only purpose it really serves is harassing bigots where they are not politically powerful.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
So your problem with a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation is that the people who break the law get punished for it (certainly not by directly going to jail, by the way)? In other words, you don't like laws? Because what you're denouncing is the entire foundation of the legal system.
Also, the justification for the law is that it is deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just like it is deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on skin color. That's justification enough.
I would say the government needing to demonstrate a strong (compelling, important, define your own term) interest and a reasonable relation between the law and that end should really be a more commonplace requirement, especially when not everyone (or everyone's beliefs) are being treated equally.
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.
The problem happens when every diner in an area follows Big Earl's lead. For example, if you were a black man in the deep south back in the 50s. Nearly all the businesses were owned by white people and almost all those businesses would refuse black people. So if you just wanted to get a bite to eat on your way to/from work, you couldn't stop at any of the diners along the way. Instead, you'd have to go way out of your way just to find someone who would serve you.
In turn, you become less and less likely to live in that area because it becomes increasingly hard to do so. That creates pockets of racism where even being a tolerant person hurts you. For example, if you own a diner and allow black people in an area where there's some major racism, then the racist white people (who make up a large portion of the population) start to avoid your diner. You very likely find out that you can't support your diner financially because you're only serving a minority population that is often impoverished and being driven out of the area. So eventually, by being tolerant, you get driven out as well.
The concern isn't the one jerk in the tolerant area, although the law ends up falling on him too. The concern is that everyone in an area is a jerk and in turn a larger pocket of jerks is created. That's why anti-discrimination laws are needed.
I think that there is a lot of ignoring the negative consequences of such a law that you are ignoring (such as jailing non-compliant people), and that the logic you are going through could justify almost any intervention in businesses. Thus, I would say you need to demonstrate there is an imminent threat of the "worst case" that you illustrate to justify such a law.
Jailing racists and homophobic people that deny service based on their actions sound great. I am pretty feed up with the big push to bring back racism in the US. I have zero problems with this. Bring it on. Life is about choices. Racism, sexism and homophobia having legal protections due to "freedom of religion" or whatever other excuse to be a shitty person they think up is not part of a free society. Or more importantly, you can't open your doors to the public welcoming in everyone expect for the races, religions and sexual orientations you don't approve of.
And no slippery slope argument. We all know that's not a real argument. We have jailed racists before and forced them to serve people and government didn't come to take all our other rights the next day.
The argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws is a slippery slope argument. I am, however, glad you are honest in your desire to jail people that disagree with you.
On August 25 2015 12:05 Kickstart wrote: I would rather our country not jail people simply for their opinions. Racists and homophones and the like can be defeated in the court of public opinion. However, laws should protect people from said people. But punishing people for their thoughts and opinions is the very essence of totalitarianism and is something that we should all be against, I am surprised to see you advocating such a thing.
I know it gets tiring to have to fight against the ignorant and bigoted, trust me I know, but you can't allow yourself to lose your principles otherwise you are no better than them.
They can have ideas, that is no problem. The thought police are not coming for them. Its owning a business and then trying to enforce by only serving people they approve of. White only bars are illegal. Same with gay only bars(there are gay bars, but they serve everyone). The law prohibits people from discriminating business practices, which includes not serving gay people. And if they don't want to comply with court orders to do so, they can go to jail just like all the racists before them.
All opinions were not created equal. The opinion that some gun store is a Muslim Free Zone(thanks Florida) is not legal protected.
On August 25 2015 12:08 cLutZ wrote:
The argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws is a slippery slope argument. I am, however, glad you are honest in your desire to jail people that disagree with you.
Glad to see you are all about legal protected bigotry and discrimination in business practices. They are in the world and denying services that they offer to others because they don't like a specific minority. To bad its its still illegal to do so and has been since the government forced racists in the south to serve black patrons.
And lets be clear, the racists of the world would deny blacks service if they didn't know that the government would come for them.
Why do you think it's a problem Clutz if a city council denies a commercial license to Chick-Fil-A? Isn't that just a free association of people exercising their rights to determine who they let in to their city? Chick-Fil-A can go elsewhere can't it? Isn't that the closest thing you can get to "the court of public opinion?" If Denver citizens don't like it they can vote other people onto the city council.
Freedom of association is the opposite. If Chick-Fil-A and random airport patrons want to associate, and the government prevents that, that is an infringement on freedom of association. You are basically fundamentally misconstruing the concept.
I am pretty sure there was no airport in his example and the Chick-Fil-A was not built yet. Hence issuance of the license. It is a town deciding what businesses they would like moving it. The government isn't stopping people from getting chicken fromm an existing Chick-Fil-A.
That is what protests are for if the town really wants them to leave. Until they go out of business.
Chick-Fil-A is free to associate outside of Denver city limits (or the airport it seems) in this case. Free association does not mean that you are able to roll up into any neighborhood you want and do anything you want. Chick-Fil-A is applying for a limited spot in a public space. Freedom of association is a collective right that includes the right to exclude from membership.
It's honestly pretty confusing to me that you seem to have such a selective reading of a right that conservatives and libertarians love to use in buttressing arguments about the right to discriminate.
On August 25 2015 12:43 IgnE wrote: Chick-Fil-A is free to associate outside of Denver city limits (or the airport it seems) in this case. Free association does not mean that you are able to roll up into any neighborhood you want and do anything you want. Chick-Fil-A is applying for a limited spot in a public space. Freedom of association is a collective right that includes the right to exclude from membership.
EPT
