Are Americans Ok With Illegal Immigrants Coming Into Their Country?

whiteflame

TKDB said:

@whiteflame

You're entitled to your opinion.

As are you, though a caveat is that you don't seem to think I'm presenting my opinion. You seem to think that I'm a mouthpiece for some organization that just loves them some illegal immigrants. In other words, we don't have an opinion, we're just puppets by your estimation, correct? The other caveat is that you seem to believe very strongly that what you're presenting is not opinion. Hate to burst your bubble, but you're presenting a view on the issue as well. You're saying that the cost of illegal immigrants vastly outweighs their benefit (with some evidence, though I will note that you refuse to engage with any contrary evidence we've presented), that a wall will be an effective deterrent (without evidence), that anyone who disagrees with you is part of some broad propaganda-based effort to support illegal immigrants (without evidence)... I could go on.

In general, though, I don't know what it is about you that makes you so willing to present what are often insulting points of view about others, to which you get responses that you are essentially unwilling to address. You tell us we're all puppets who don't think for ourselves, and when we respond, you say we're entitled to an opinion you clearly believe we don't actually hold. You tell us that illegal immigrants are more prone to criminal activities than anyone else, and when I ask how you would tackle that problem or @MayCaesar points out that your argument applies just as well to other groups, you outright ignore the argument (until this very last post, which I'll get to shortly) and latch onto some other words said in the post, most of which you've blatantly misinterpreted. You've told me repeatedly that you come here to foster discussion, yet whenever we try to engage with you to any degree and further that discussion, you either drag it back to previous points or you outright ignore what was said. Sorry to tell you, but that's not fostering discussion. It's the reason why so many of our previous discussions have met dead ends; people simply aren't willing to do this ad nauseum until you eventually decide it's worth your time to engage with us.

As for the article, I will say that it's good to see you challenging one of the arguments presented in this discussion more directly, though apparently the only means by which you're willing to do so is by presenting the entire text of an external article (you really don't have to post the entire thing - just give us the relevant bits and post the link, it saves space). I have three problems with it. First, it's not comparing the numbers effectively between illegal aliens and citizens/legal residents, particularly on homicides. It does, however, compare total apprehensions, which leads to my second problem: it doesn't specify what those apprehensions are for. If these are all apprehensions for specific crimes committed in the US and not just for being an illegal immigrant, then I'd say you probably have a decent point about their criminal activity. I don't see a clear breakdown of reasons for arrest, though, so that muddies your point. Third, I can't help but notice that the only real comparison is apprehensions, for which the author assumes every single one of these people is guilty. There is no comparison of total convictions, though even that may be somewhat misleading, as a conviction may be overturned in the future or may have come under duress. Apprehensions are a far worse measure, though, because they can largely be the result of racial profiling and the person in question can walk away without a conviction. That's important because you assume that apprehensions and actual criminal activities are at a 1:1 ratio, but neither you nor the author of that article make any effort to show that that is true.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Yes, and if you worry every day about the possibility of being murdered, sexually assaulted or robbed, then you probably should check with a psychology specialist. Violent crime exists, but the probability of a given individual to become a victim of a crime is negligibly small. I have lived in some of the most criminal countries of the world and was only attacked once, and that was because I literally was walking through a mafia den.

Crime is also not specific to illegal immigrants, although it is very much possible that the crime rates among them are higher, since they come from a much less developed culture.

What is more likely is that you overplay the crimes of illegal immigrants, and downplay the crimes of other categories of people, in order to further your narrative. In other words, a simple confirmation bias. Every time an illegal immigrant commits a crime, you say, "Aha, I told you they are dangerous", but every time someone else commits a crime, you say, "Crime happens, nothing to see here".

None of what you so far have said in this thread indicates that crime committed by illegal immigrants is in any way worse than crime committed by other people. You talk about things that apply to everyone, and then proceed to criticise a particular subgroup of people. The logic is broken here.

TKDB

@whiteflame

I don't live in a bubble, I live in the same world that you do?

In the United States, that is, and has been, plagued by some of the very crimes committed by some of the illegal immigrants, career criminals, first time offenders, and so on, and so forth?

And, I will not pander, cater, or coddle to any of the illegal immigrants, who broke the very laws of this country, and they don't deserve to be catered, pandered or coddled.

I can almost guess that some watch the same news channels that I have, while some are having their breakfast, lunch, or dinner, day in and day out? 

(CNN, MSNBC, Fox news, NPR, ABC, CBS, and or CBS?

Along with the Washington Post newspaper, The New York Times, and The National Review.) 

From the above news media outlet providers, which of them from your individual stance, is publishing any anti illegal immigrant, and immigration propaganda, or is being misleading?

I believe, I understand Nancy Pelosi's, and Chuck Schumer's stances, because they get just as much news media outlet time, as they do from some of the newspapers, and from some the internet news coverages as well. (And I have already shared those articles, that have mentioned them through their individual news stories.)

If I'm being educated by the same news media outlets, via TV, newspapers, and internet news coverages, that are educating some of the very participants of this same website, point out which of them are publishing any anti illegal immigrant, immigration propaganda, or being misleading?

TKDB

@MayCaesar

Did you go over the below information?

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/07/22/alien-crime-wave-in-texas-611234-crimes-2993-murders/

ULE OF LAW

Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders

BY J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS JULY 22, 2015

The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is the most familiar example of a crime committed by an alien.  But an unreleased internal report by the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides.

PJ Media obtained a never-before-released copy of a Texas DPS report on human smuggling containing the numbers of crimes committed by aliens in Texas.   According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.

The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws.

The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails: 

From October 2008 to April 2014, Texas identified a total 177,588 unique criminal alien defendantsbooked into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified through the Secure Communities initiative, in which Texas has participated since October 2008.

There are almost certainly more criminal aliens who haven't been identified as aliens.  The 177,588 criminal aliens identified by Texas through the Secure Communities initiative only can tag criminal aliens who had already been fingerprinted.  Arrests of illegal aliens who have not been fingerprinted prior to arrest are not included in these arrests numbers derived from the Secure Communities initiative.

That means that the already stratospheric aggregate crime totals would be even higher if crimes by many illegal aliens who are not in the fingerprint database were included.

The Secure Communities initiative is an information-sharing program between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Presumably, both departments would have data on the number of fingerprint searches conducted that revealed a criminal act involved an alien.

Texas has been ground zero in illegal alien crossings into the United States.  The Texas DPS report shows that in the Rio Grande Valley, 154,453 illegal aliens were apprehended in 2013. 

Other Texas sectors saw approximately 86,000 illegal aliens apprehended.  All other sectors combined on the southern border only saw approximately 170,000 illegal alien apprehensions in the same time period.  The Obama administration releases a sizable portion of the illegal aliens captured.

The criminal aliens identified by the Texas Department of Public Safety have been responsible for the most heinous types of crimes -- and in astonishing numbers. From the Texas DPS report:

A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults.

One such murder was committed by Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez. Vasquez confessed to killing his wife with a hammer in Laredo.

The increasing flood across the border combined with the existence of sanctuary cities bolstered by Obama administration policies allowing the release of the most violent criminal aliens has fueled these crimes.

The House Judiciary Committee has passed the Davis-Oliver Act, introduced (S.1640) in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and in the House (H.R.1148) by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), which would address many of these issues.

Yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldaña about the 104,000 criminals that ICE released in 2013, and the 68,000 criminals against whom ICE refused to start deportation proceedings.  Saldaña calls it "good news" that only 30,558 criminal aliens were released by ICE in 2014.

@MayCaesar:

"None of what you so far have said in this thread indicates that crime committed by illegal immigrants is in any way worse than crime committed by other people. You talk about things that apply to everyone, and then proceed to criticise a particular subgroup of people. The logic is broken here."

I'm sorry, are you maybe in a way trying to, downplay the crimes committed by the illegal immigrants, and say that their crimes are no worse, than the crimes committed by the career criminals, offenders, and first time offenders? 

The illegal immigrants, broke the law by coming into the US illegaly for one, and then, they broke the same laws that the criminals and offenders broke as well? 

I wonder what the families of those who have lost loved ones, because of the crimes committed by some of the illegal immigrant criminals, and to the criminals and the offenders born here in the United States, may think of, or view your way of thinking?

whiteflame

@TKDB

I never suggested you live in a bubble. You, however, suggested that we all are incapable of forming our own opinions and are solely presenting the views of others as a form of propaganda. You refuse to even acknowledge that portion of my responses.

To be clear, I feel that a crime committed by an illegal immigrant is no more or less wrong than the same crime committed by a US citizen. Criminals are criminals, regardless of where they come from and how they got here. You appear to be elevating the crimes of illegal immigrants over those same crimes committed by US citizens. Care to explain why? Similarly, you've argued that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone than other populations. I've already responded extensively to your one piece of support for that argument. Care to defend it?

I never said anything about pandering/coddling/catering to illegal immigrants. I did say a lot about xenophobia and its negative effects. Care to respond to any of that instead of straw-manning my argument over and over?

I watch and read a variety of news, yes. I try to keep myself informed as best I can. I'd say that many of those news sources, if they're not adequately assessing the given information, can be providing information that is biased or misleading. Liberal news media is likelier to come out in defense of illegal immigrants to some degree, and/or against certain border security measures. Conservative news media is likelier to come out against illegal immigrants and for pretty much any border security measure. Both of them will cherry-pick their data to support their conclusions, ignoring data that challenges their assumptions. I've given you a paragraph of response to your previous source explaining how it is misleading in an effort to show that illegal immigrants are more damaging than they actually are. I'm not going to go out and find specific evidence of other biases, mainly because I'm quite certain you're not going to even read it, let alone respond to it. Bias in media is nearly pervasive, and the notion that your side is somehow not biased or misleading at all is an effort to insulate yourself from reality.

You pretend you understand the other side because you claim to read and watch a lot about the views of individuals like Pelosi and Schumer, but there are so many problems with this. First, they aren't representative of everyone's views on the debate who differ from yours, so even if you did understand them, they only tell you how those two think, not how anyone else does. Second, based on the articles you're providing, you're getting your information from largely biased sources who want to paint both of their views in a bad light. In doing so, you only understand a negative outlook on their views, not their views directly. Third, just because you understand how they think one one or two issues doesn't mean you understand the entirety of their stances. In fact, it's quite clear you don't, because you're largely assuming that they don't want to do anything about illegal immigration when both of them have made quite clear that they do.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

I only see some raw statistics for illegal immigrant crimes in the article; I do not see any comparative analysis with crimes committed by other people. I can just as well write an article citing, say, the crime statistics among ice cream lovers - and argue that the ice cream lovers threaten national security.

On the absolute scale, 2993 homicides and 7695 sexual assaults throughout 6 years over the state with the population of nearly 30 million people is a drop in the ocean.
Roughly speaking, this statistics corresponds to 2 homicides and 5 sexual assaults per year per ~350,000 people. Should this scare me? Well, I get behind the wheel of my car roughly 600 times a year, and every time I do, my life is at orders of magnitude bigger risk than this - and that still does not scare me.

Living in fear created by media scares is pretty common nowadays, and it is also very unhealthy. The look at cold facts, coupled with understanding of basic statistics, can put your mind at ease pretty quickly, but you must be willing to do this and drop your presuppositions, which is hard for many people.

TKDB

Where is your evidence @MayCaesar to support your claims?

"Living in fear created by media scares is pretty common nowadays, and it is also very unhealthy. The look at cold facts, coupled with understanding of basic statistics, can put your mind at ease pretty quickly, but you must be willing to do this and drop your presuppositions, which is hard for many people."

Here are some of the media:
CNN, MSNBC, Fox news, NPR, ABC, CBS, and or CBS.

Along with the Washington Post newspaper, 
The New York Times,
and The National Review?

Back your claims up?

Show the website, who from the above news media outlets, are who you're supposedly talking about, when it comes to the fear created by media scares being pretty common nowadays? 

TKDB

@whiteflame

"You appear to be elevating the crimes of illegal immigrants over those same crimes committed by US citizens."

"Care to explain why?"

"Similarly, you've argued that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone than other populations."

I didn't do any of the above.

So you can run with your thoughts on what I didn't do, as much as you choose to. 

whiteflame

TKDB said:

@whiteflame

"You appear to be elevating the crimes of illegal immigrants over those same crimes committed by US citizens."

"Care to explain why?"

"Similarly, you've argued that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone than other populations."

I didn't do any of the above.

So you can run with your thoughts on what I didn't do, as much as you choose to. 

If that's so... then why are you using sources that clearly function based on these assumptions? The article you just posted talked about crime rates among illegal immigrants, claiming that the number of arrests is higher among those populations than it is among legal residents. Do you disagree with the article, and if so, why did you bother posting it? What was the point? Regarding elevation of crimes, you've spent the entirety of this discussion and much of your posts elsewhere focused on how much harm illegal immigrants do populations on the border. You've focused your attention entirely on their criminal activities, claiming that the fact that they commit these crimes is sufficient reason by itself to build a wall. That comes with an inherent and underlying assumption: that the people on that side of the wall are committing worse crimes than those on this side of the wall. Are you not functioning under that assumption? If not, tell me again what your basis is for building a wall and, more broadly, why you think illegal immigrants are net harmful to the US? If you don't function under these assumptions, then why do you keep citing criminal statistics? What are you trying to prove, if not that illegal immigrants are either doing more harm through their crimes or are more crime-prone?

I'm seriously at a loss. I thought I at least had a general idea of the logic your argument was trying to use, but if you're pulling out these assumptions, I have no clue what your logic is.

TKDB

@whiteflame

Why don't you question those websites, over how they are presenting to the public as a whole, and present them with your questions, instead of posing them to me? 

"If that's so... then why are you using sources that clearly function based on these assumptions? The article you just posted talked about crime rates among illegal immigrants, claiming that the number of arrests is higher among those populations than it is among legal residents."

RULE OF LAW

Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders

BY J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS JULY 22, 2015 

There's the website, and the author of the article, and please, feel free to pose your questions to the author?

https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/democrats-immigration-policy-even-more/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/democrats-immigration-policy-even-more/

From the National Review

IMMIGRATION

Three Reasons the Left Wants Ever More Immigrants

By DENNIS PRAGER

January 30, 2018 2:50 PM

There's that website as well, and the author or that article, please feel free to pose your questions to that author as well? 

@whiteflame

"I have no clue what your logic is."

What is your logic, based on the theme of this forum based on?

My logic: Is pro community, pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, pro American, and pro IRCA law.

whiteflame

TKDB said:

@whiteflame

Why don't you question those websites, over how they are presenting to the public as a whole, and present them with your questions, instead of posing them to me? 

...You are seriously unbelievable. THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT. You presented these sources to defend it. Much to my chagrin, I aimed to take both your arguments and the sources you used to defend them seriously, engaging with the points you were making, the reasoning you're using to support them, and the evidence supporting that reasoning. When you presented them here, and I know this will shock you, they became a part of YOUR argument. They're not just some point presented by someone else somewhere else when you provide them in support of your argument. They become part of your argument, and we respond to them with that in mind. If you don't like them or don't wish to defend them, then I have to ask, why do you bother quoting them en masse? If all you want us to do is know about the wide world of information available to us on other sites, why not just list the links, tell us to go check them out for ourselves, and present absolutely no argument yourself? Instead, you seem compelled to give us homework, proclaiming that we should take any issues with your evidence up with the authors of that evidence rather than seeking to defend your own points.

But no, I apologize. I apologize for assuming that you cared enough about defending your argument to actually, you know, defend it. I apologize for assuming that, when you presented large amounts of information from a source and requested responses, that you actually cared enough to defend your usage of those sources. I apologize for assuming that your argument was based on evidence that you had read and understood rather than evidence that you only care enough about to tell us that we should go engage with it elsewhere. Truly, I'm sorry for taking you seriously and considering your points as actual arguments rather than a series of assertions that you had no interest in supporting or defending. Thank you for setting me straight.

TKDB

@whiteflame

"...You are seriously unbelievable. THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT. You presented these sources to defend it."

And your strategy is to apparently do what, talk it down, or to verbally tear a news story apart, that maybe isnt going along with your individual points of view? 

Do you disagree with rhe National Review story? 

Do you disagree with the PJ media story? 

Do you get upset at any of the National news media outlet stories, that may not go along with your individual points of view, and then demand from those news media outlets to explain themselves to you? 

Again, My logic: Is pro community, pro law abiding, pro family, pro kids, pro American, and pro IRCA law.


"Truly, I'm sorry for taking you seriously and considering your points as actual arguments rather than a series of assertions that you had no interest in supporting or defending. Thank you for setting me straight."

Do you take real life seriously?

Do you take the crimes committed by both the illegal immigrants, and the career criminals, along with the offenders, and the first time offenders seriously?

Innocent people are getting hurt, maimed, crippled, or killed, by all of the above, each year, in the United States, and that's plenty to be serious about, when families across the country are getting affected by all of the above, day in, and out, isn't it? 

I know that some of the ranchers who live along the Border, take their livelihoods seriously.

And I'm almost certain, that millions of Americans, across the country, want a barrier of some type along the areas of the border as well.

And the reality, of 200 GoFundMe pages, and US citizens donating their own money, is a reality as well. 

whiteflame

@TKDB

To respond to your earlier question, my logic is that illegal immigrants are largely here to stay simply because there are so many of them and because there is no way to absolutely stop them from coming to this country. I presented that in my first post, to which you still haven't responded. As for your logic... I don't think you understand what I'm requesting. Simply stating your position on the issue isn't a debate. A debate requires back and forth. It requires the presentation of reasoning and evidence. I assumed that you understood that, though every time we challenge what suffices as reasoning and evidence from you, you defer. Your reasoning and evidence are other peoples' reasoning and evidence, so any response we give to you doesn't require your defense. For all your talk about how the rest of us are mouthpieces of some broad pro-illegal immigrant group, you seem to hold very little in the way of personal reasoning or support for your own positions.

My "strategy" is what's known as debate. I know this may be hard for you to fathom, but when you debate, each side presents reasoning and evidence, and each side then does what they can to either challenge or co-opt the opposing reasoning and evidence. That's literally how debate works. When I see a problem with the logic or evidence presented in a given source, yes, I will challenge it. And I've already explained why, specifically, I find both of those sources to be problematic. There are plenty of sources in support of my side that I find similarly problematic. If a news outlet presents solid evidence that clearly supports a position I currently oppose, I will consider it and probably alter my perception of the topic. 

But this isn't about personal disagreement. It's not about what sources I find believable and what ones I don't. It's about the fact that I've been trying (clearly in vain) to have a reasonable debate with you where we discuss the issues. That requires that each of us present arguments and defend them. An argument is, once again, composed of an assertion, reasoning and evidence. You present all three, and then refuse to defend the latter two, claiming that they stand so long as we don't directly challenge the author. Maybe you just really don't understand this, but I'll reiterate: when you present these things as part of your argument, they become part of your argument. That logic, the story that is your argument, is complete only if it has all those parts. Your refusal to defend them, and your deferring to the original authors, shows a complete unwillingness to support your own logic.

Yes, I take real life seriously. Yes, I take crimes committed by anyone seriously. I find it absurd to the extreme that you're asking these questions when the entirety of this discussion was and is supposed to be based on what illegal immigrants are doing to worsen our country. I can both accept that crimes that harm other people are bad, and view illegal immigrants as not substantially contributing to that problem. Apparently, you can't, and all I've been trying to do from the outset is understand why. Apparently, that's asking far too much. Continually pointing to ranchers harmed by traffic across the border doesn't tell me how illegal immigrants who are already here are causing excessive harms. Continually pointing to the existing desire to build a wall among a substantial (but still a minority) portion of the population doesn't answer anything, either. You keep ignoring the issue and presenting irrelevant responses because, when it comes down to it, all you care about is presenting the same issue over and over, an issue we're all agreed is a problem. You can't take "yes, you're right" for an answer. You can't move onto the very question you've posed in this forum. Like usual, you can't ever focus on the claim you're making in a discussion because the only claim that matters to you is this one.

whiteflame

@TKDB

Then again, maybe I should view your statements that we should go talk to the authors of these articles as concessions of your inability to defend these arguments. After all, if they’re not your points and you’re clearly not able or willing to understand them well enough to defend them, you can’t be blamed for deferring to their knowledge. If they know better, then I see absolutely no reason to continue arguing these issues with someone who is unwilling to either interpret or understand what they argue well enough to debate it.

TKDB

@whiteflame

The way I debate, is based upon how I see things.

I don't make excuses for anyone who has broken laws in this country, by coming into it illegally.

Just as I don't make excuses for criminals, or offenders. 

I believe those ranchers, more than I'll believe anything that a pro illegal immigrant supporter states.

The ranchers are and have been living with the illegal immigrants tresspassing on their properties for years now.

And it's sad and embarrassing that any of the immigrants, who have and had, made their individual choices to come into the US illegaly.

And then to hear them being platformed, and defended, by some of the pro illegal immigration, and immigrants? 

John_C_87

Again this discussion on what should be seen as a state of the union issue on two topics Immigration through the southern border one and Drug War two. The statistic of crime are of use but not really the focus of the necessary steps needed to find or developed a more fluid response to judicial separation of the two different types of argument states along a border face.

Again TKDB

The question I am asked are Americans okay with illegal immigrants coming into their country? The truth of this matter is not all person who immigrate are criminal before the act of just crossing the border takes place. Again this kind of policy is kind of like the set up for a child’s game “Red rover Red Rover, I dare you to come over.” The basic principle of legality was avoided by the creation of law in the first place. The overall state of the Union here is to bring traffic of immigration from South America up to a standard that is equal or better than the understanding we have between states in the Union and highway traffic.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Where do you see the illegal immigrants being "defended" in this thread, for example? "Defended" from what? I only have seen a couple of people on this website (and no people in this thread) state that, perhaps, all immigration should be legal, hence removing the issues related to "illegal immigrants" whatsoever. Even that hardly can be called "pro-illegal immigration", since such a position does not support those who perform illegal entries, since illegal entries become physically impossible.

You created a boogeyman that, as all statistics shows, has a negligible effect on our society. And then you call everyone who is not scared of your boogeyman "pro-illegal immigration". Do you not see how silly your position is?

It is much like me talking about how we would all die if a 100 km-wide asteroid hit the planet. And then those who retort with, "The chances of that are so low, it is not something to talk about" - I would call "pro-asteroid apocalypse". Would this be reasonable? I thought so.

whiteflame

@TKDB

That’s just it: you don’t debate. You said it best yourself when you said that you believe your own side so strongly that even giving other views their due is impossible for you. However, if that was all you were doing, we could still have a substantive discussion.

What makes that impossible is that you function as though your argument is already proven true. In combination with the belief that we’re all wrong, that ensures that you don’t care to do anything more than present, assert, and reassert your points over and over. We’re all automatically wrong, and you’re so obviously correct, so why bother having a substantive discussion? If all facts against you aren’t meaningful and all facts for you require no defense, where’s the debate supposed to happen? 

Again, you don’t seek nor want a debate. You only want to make clear to the rest of us that we’re wrong, ignore our points, and reassert your certitude again and again.

Have fun doing that without me.

TKDB

@MayCaesar ;

"You created a boogeyman that, as all statistics shows, has a negligible effect on our society."

I didnt create a boogeyman, the murdering illegal immigrants who killed innocent people, created victims.

Do you view the 2,993 murders committed by some of the illegal immigrants is a negligible number of murders to you?

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/07/22/alien-crime-wave-in-texas-611234-crimes-2993-murders/


From PJ Media:

RULE OF LAW

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders"

The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is the most familiar example of a crime committed by an alien.  But an unreleased internal report by the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides.

PJ Media obtained a never-before-released copy of a Texas DPS report on human smuggling containing the numbers of crimes committed by aliens in Texas.   According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.

The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws.

The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails:"

TKDB

@whiteflame

"You said it best yourself when you said that you believe your own side so strongly"

Are you saying that those ranchers who live on the border, are maybe making things up?

They deal with theft, cars, trucks, horses being stolen, and in one of the videos, there is a tree, one on of their properties, where sexual assaults have happened. 

And you make the comment, about believing my own side so strongly?

Illegal immigrants committing murders, and apparently sexual assaults, how do you view those crimes? 

TKDB

@John_C_87

Build a barrier, put a roving force along those barrier sections, and maybe, the drug trafficking, the human trafficking, and the caravans might see a substantial reduction?

I'm pro Border wall, pro community, pro family, pro IRCA law, and pro law abiding.

TKDB

From CNN:

"Border rancher sides with Trump on wall."

TKDB

From Wall Street Journal:

Arizona Border Ranchers Torn in Support for Trump's Wall.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;
I raise you an additional wall both at over 6 deep, plus holding water in the form of canal, several gates to act as bridge for wildlife and such. Pushing into the pot a desalination water plant or two, and a couple water turbine electric power plants, alternative energy wind mills, along with solar cell farms. The worlds largest canal, tunnel, and power accumulator. All this as a constantly patrolled area of waterway that is independent as a global answer to many international issues.


Good new bad news ranchers. Are stable water conditions a plus big enough for them as incentive for the loss of some land? Okay and for the wonder of looking out over the distance and watch a massive cargo tanker glide across the horizon.

John_C_87

both walls at over 6 stories deep. sorry.

John_C_87

I'm not debating the wall is a good or bad idea, I'm saying it is illegal and fixing the issue it creates with the use of eminate domain financing. A fence to keep cattle north of the border built on tax money is out of the question. A watering whole to keep them north of the border is not out of the question when presented in the right way. It just cost a little bit more.

TKDB

From USA TODAY:

"The Wall: Violence on ranchers' land."

John_C_87

Okay. Lovely, beautiful, wonderful film. The hard truth is the ranchers issue is not the American issue, or worlds issue if that matters. A fence worthy of investment, it is still just the rancher’s issue, and the rancher simply shares that problem with other ranchers and home owners along the border. I get it the fence is the wrangler’s solution with two benefits of their own problems, and the lie to a County about national security is a good excuse to get the dumb Yankee to believe the idea has merit and is not just some horse piss perfume smell over the stank of cow manure.

I’m a dam Yankee! And know better. I want something that will bring Mexico to the table of Constitutional union, we are in the middle of a World War, if we the people are putting up legal acquisition of land and resource. I am not going to set that as unworthy of direct attention. The idea of nourishing ranchers as investors had been nourished with real-estate that did not exist as a constant property in reality along a beach does not sit well.

Some people believe getting at a destination first is the object of win. It not.

TKDB

@John_C_87

 "Okay. Lovely, beautiful, wonderful film. The hard truth is the ranchers issue is not the American issue."

The illegal immigrants have been tresspassing into the country illegally for years now, and you're saying that:

"The hard truth is the ranchers issue is not the American issue?" 

I'm sorry, but how do go about saying that the ranchers problems, aren't an American issue, when their properties, are of American soil? 

You sadly, have an odd way of how you apparently view the lives of other Americans who are a part of the same country that you, and I are a part of?

 And the 300 sanctuary cities acros the United States, are what, Sanctuary city issues, and maybe not as well, an American issue? 

TKDB

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5991376642001/#sp=show-clips

From Fox news:

"Ranchers on the souther border explain what it's like to live without a border wall"

"Jan. 19, 2019 - 3:41 - Ranchers Fred and Peggy Davis explain why they think a border wall is necessary; invited Speaker Pelosi to visit their ranch and the border back in 2014."

TKDB

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/us/ranchers-near-mexico-weigh-in-border-wall-shutdown-talks.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/us/ranchers-near-mexico-weigh-in-border-wall-shutdown-talks

From Fox news:

US ranchers near Mexico weigh in on border wall, shutdown talks

NOGALES, Ariz. -- Ranchers on the border like Jim Chilton own thousands of acres of land – and they are increasingly concerned about the situation right in their backyard.

Their stories are being heard in Washington as a GOP House delegation made a visit to the Arizona-Mexico border this week. The officials met with Border Patrol agents and visited ranchers like Chilton, and his wife, Sue.

Jim and Sue Chilton have had deer cameras at their border ranch for five years. Sue Chilton said in the past five years, she has not seen women and children crossing the border — it’s been mostly men.

It's the first time in history Border Patrol says congressmen have visited this part of the border--the wall that stops about a mile-and-a-half from the Sasabe, Ariz., Point of Entry. (Fox News)

“Our route through us is a drug and human smuggling route...as the cartel is squeezed at the points of entry, they will send more and more of their traffic between the points of entry because that is currently the weak link…no apprehension, no surveillance,” Sue said. 

Some who live along the border say this is why a wall is needed – they see first-hand the issue paralyzing Washington right now.

“What's the cost of not securing the border? Billions. Think of the drugs coming into this country, the poison,” Chilton said.

For this particular part of the tour, they stopped after that mile-and-a-half—only to see vast, rugged landscape and another fence made of barbed wire, sticks, and rope—with just a slipknot connecting the barbed wire to the steel poles where the wall ended. (Fox News)

Republican members of Congress toured the border this week and met with Border Patrol agents. They were shown parts of the border that had barbed wire or just a rope holding fences together. Suddenly, the wall ends and it's just vast, open land.

Border agent Art Del Cueto said 40 percent of the illegal drugs smuggled into the U.S. came through this part of the border.

TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON BORDER WALL, AS POLLS SHOW VOTERS TURNING AGAINST HIS SHUTDOWN STRATEGY

“It’s not a problem that affects just the border,” Del Cueto said. “It's not a problem that affects just the congressional leaders within border states because the drugs that are coming through here are going into the United States further into the country. And it’s a big deal.”

He said smugglers and drug dealers simply go around barriers.

Del Cueto said 40 percent of the illegal drugs smuggled into the US came through this part of the border. (Fox News)

Del Cueto said the term border wall has become an explosive issue. But to him, it’s exactly what’s needed.

“I think the issue that a lot of people have is they hear the word wall and they stay focused on brick and mortar—we need something because I can tell you right now this ain't cutting it,” Del Cueto said. “So, this is basically what you have dividing us here.”

U.S. Customs agent Patricia Cramer, who also serves as president of the Arizona chapter of the port of entry employee union, said there are “so many” migrants coming in—that the agency doesn’t have the space and staffing to process them all, which leads to people violating and abusing the immigration system.

A rancher shows the congressmen and their staff a part of his ranch on the border where sticks, steel, and barbed wire separate his ranch from Mexico. (Fox News)

“There has to be a stop to it,” Cramer said. “I hope that Congress works with the president.”

But Nogales Police Chief Roy Bermudez said while a wall at the border would delay – but not stop – migrants from crossing, the focus of the immigration talks should be adding more agents and buying better technology.

A rancher shows the congressmen and their staff a part of his ranch on the border where sticks, steel, and barbed wire separate his ranch from Mexico. (Fox News)

Bermudez said in the 34 years he’s been in the city, he’s seen different types of walls and fences that have eventually been damaged.

'WE NEED THAT WALL': TEXAS RANCHER WILLING TO GIVE UP SOME OF HIS LAND FOR BORDER BARRIER

“At the end of the day, that's only a barrier and barriers are going to be jumped, are going to be dug, people are going to go through them,” Bermudez said. “Technology and boots on the ground is what's going to get the job done. Not really a wall that would just create a barrier that's going to be jumped.” 

There needs to be a tall barrier of some sort to help cut down on the trafficking, and the drug trafficking.

Unless some don't maybe view those issues as problematic, and just view it as a (rancher problem,) or maybe, a problem for others to deal, as long as it's not going on in another part of the United States, where other's arent being affected by the crimes of human trafficking, or drug trafficking? 

Or a tall barrier, of some sort, might affect the illegal immigrants migrating into the United States, to provide some of the businesses in the US who are utilizing those illegal immigrants for cheap labor, under the table? (This activity, is I believe, breaking the law, because it violates the IRCA law, doesn't it?)

Or a tall barrier, of some sort, might affect some of the 300 Sanctuary Cities across the country, who are apparently giving sanctuary to those same illegal immigrants? 

I've shared the link to that law 3 times now, and have mentioned it, 6 times now, and I believe that none who oppose the Border wall, has even attempted to present a counter argument, specifically in regards to the IRCA law?

I wonder why the IRCA law, is getting the silent treatment, when it comes to the illegal immigrant, immigration conversations?

Reagan signed the IRCA law into affect in 1986, and yet again, no one in this forum, I believe has brought it up, but me? 

TKDB

From Fox news:

"Meet one of the ranchers who invited Speaker Pelosi to tour the border."

Zombieguy1987

@TKDB ;

Just throwing the off topic arguments I see.

Just keep making a fool out of yourself. It's entertaining

 

TKDB

@Zombieguy1987

The theme of the forum is this:

"Are Americans Ok With Illegal Immigrants Coming Into Their Country?"

The American ranchers in the video, don't appear to be OK, with the illegal immigrants coming into the United States illegally via the southern border?

So those videos are very on topic. 

And if you think differently, please point out which video, or videos that are off topic? 

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

The theme of the forum is this:

"Are Americans Ok With Illegal Immigrants Coming Into Their Country?"

The American ranchers in the video, don't appear to be OK, with the illegal immigrants coming into the United States illegally via the southern border?

So those videos are very on topic. 

And if you think differently, please point out which video, or videos that are off topic? 

If they're sooooo "On topic" then explain why other people besides me mark as irrelevant? 

TKDB

@Zombieguy1987

"If they're sooooo "On topic" then explain why other people besides me mark as irrelevant?"

Maybe you value your own private property, differently then they do? 

Maybe you're OK, with your car, or truck, or your own home being broken into or burglarized, by some of the illegal immigrants? 

Because, some of the ranchers in the video, have lived through that.

Do you maybe view this information as irrelevant as well?

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave In Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders"

@John_C_87

@whiteflame

@MayCaesar ;

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave In Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders"

Do the three of you maybe view the above as irrelevant also? 

Zombieguy1987

TKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

"If they're sooooo "On topic" then explain why other people besides me mark as irrelevant?"

Maybe you value your own private property, differently then they do? 

Irrelevant N.E.X.T.!

Maybe you're OK, with your car, or truck, or your own home being broken into or burglarized, by some of the illegal immigrants?

 Irrelevant N.E.X.T.!

Because, some of the ranchers in the video, have lived through that.

So, because a few ranchers were robbed by immigrants=Wall?

Do you maybe view this information as irrelevant as well?

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave In Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders 

@John_C_87

@whiteflame

@MayCaesar ;

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave In Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders"

Do the three of you maybe view the above as irrelevant also? 

whiteflame

@TKDB

I view the article as relevant, but insufficient to make the point you were trying to make. Actually, the same holds true for a great deal of your sources, including everything you’ve posted on the ranchers. So, for the last time, I will explain why that is.

Your rancher example tells us that there are problems at the border. It tells us that peoples’ property is violated and they are physically harmed. We have all conceded this point. What we have not conceded is two points you’re using this to argue.

1) We have not conceded that this problem can be solved by building a wall. Similarly, we have not conceded that, even if a wall did have some solvency, the wall would be net beneficial.

2) We have not conceded that incidence of crime and violence along the border tells us something about an increased propensity of illegal immigrants towards criminal and violent acts. 

Several of us, myself included, have presented reasons why we do not concede those points and have problems with your arguments in support of them. I will not repeat my points again, I’ve spent far too much time doing that already. If you didn’t read them, as I suspect you didn’t, and if you don’t read this post, as I suspect you won’t, I’m not going to make any further efforts to draw your attention to those points. If your goal is to just keep posting the same, already conceded, argument again and again, you can go right ahead and continue your exercise in futility.

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Do the three of you maybe view the above as irrelevant also? 

I can't answer for whiteflame and Maycaesar, I do not see it as irrelevant. The basic principle and legal precedent simply are not the same and are split by constitutional application to legislation. At least that would be a state of the Union address.

TKDB

@John_C_87

I'm sorry, but you have an odd way of explaining yourself.

"The basic principle and legal precedent simply are not the same and are split by constitutional application to legislation. At least that would be a state of the Union address."

What does the above from you have to with the below? 

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave In Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders"

Why aren't you addressing the murders/ crimes? 

TKDB

@whiteflame

You say what you want.

I'm pro rancher, pro US citizen, pro IRCA law, pro community, and pro family, and pro Border wall.

That's my position.

whiteflame

@TKDB

A position, I will reiterate, you have not defended in any meaningful way. You’ve presented reasons why you are pro-rancher. That’s it. The rest of this you have consistently failed to defend. If you don’t think you have to do so, then I have to ask: why are you here?

TKDB

@whiteflame

You're entitled to your opinion, and I live my life according to my position:

I'm pro rancher, pro US citizen, pro IRCA law, pro community, and pro family, and pro Border wall.

whiteflame

@TKDB

That doesn’t answer my question. What are you doing here? If your goal was just to present your views and proclaim us all wrong to disageee with you, it wouldn’t make sense for you to keep on after the first round of posts. If you actually wanted to debate, you’d defend your points and read ours. Why bother with all this if your only goal is to proclaim yourself holier than thou simply because you care enough about the needs of ranchers to put literally everything else aside?

TKDB

@whiteflame

"That doesn’t answer my question.,

Yes, it did.
But you disagreed with it, so be it.

The illegal immigrants have murdered 2000 plus innocent people, and it's shame.

"What are you doing here?,

I'm an American, I'm not OK with the illegal immigrants coming into the US and murdering innocent people.


"If your goal was just to present your views and proclaim us all wrong to disageee with you, it wouldn’t make sense for you to keep on after the first round of posts.,

Show me where I did any such thing? 

If you actually wanted to debate, you’d defend your points and read ours.

 I did, and have, but you again disagreed with it, so be it.


"Why bother with all this if your only goal is to proclaim yourself holier than thou simply because you care enough about the needs of ranchers to put literally everything else aside?"

 Show me your evidence, where I "proclaimed myself holier than thou?"

Show me, the quotation? 

whiteflame

@TKDB

...Do you honestly not understand that you've dropped almost every argument we've presented? Seriously, I can't think of a single point you've directly responded to throughout this discussion, or any of the previous ones we've had. At best, you've had some tangential responses, followed by repeating the same point, over and over, after I had long since conceded the argument you'd made.

So, no, you haven't answered the question. You've stated your beliefs (and restated them, and restated them again, and again, and again, and again...), but not what it is you're doing here. Why are you bothering to post in this forum when you refuse, again and again, to address a single point we're making? If your only response to that is that you have a point to make and you'll keep on making it... then what is your endgame? What are you hoping to get out of presenting the same stance over and over again without defending it in the slightest? 

No, I'm not going back through this and all the previous forums to find examples of where you've told us repeatedly that we are wrong for siding with illegal immigrants over ranchers and those at the border (despite the fact that that's not what we're doing, and we've told you that many, many times). And no, I'm not going back through those same forums to find all the examples of you stating that your position is inherently better than ours because you care about these people and we don't (despite the fact that, again, that's not what we're doing, and we've, again, told you that many, many times). You have a fantastic habit of being able to selectively read our posts. I'm not doing extra work that you will similarly ignore.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

Since you like going by the absolute numbers, let us use the statistics from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Texas

According to this, the homicide rate in Texas in 2010 was 4.9 per 100,000 people per year.

From the statistics you linked, the alien homicide rate in the same period was approximately 2,993 / 6 years / 30,000,000 = 0.0000166 per person per year = 0.000017 * 100,000 = 1.7 per 100,000 people per year.

So, the number of homicides committed by aliens is 1.7 per 100,000 people per year, while the number of homicides committed by non-aliens is 3.2 per 100,000 people per year.

By your logic, we must solve the problem of crime coming from non-aliens. I propose building a wall and deporting everyone except for aliens.

---

Oh, and your source actually contradicts itself. Nowhere in the body of the article does it mention 2,993 murders committed by "illegal aliens". It mentions 2,993 murders committed by aliens, and a completely different statistics is related to illegal aliens.

Does the fact that your source makes a claim in the title that contradicts the evidence it itself presents disturb you in any way? Or are the facts not that important to you when it comes to politics?

whiteflame

MayCaesar said:

Does the fact that your source makes a claim in the title that contradicts the evidence it itself presents disturb you in any way? Or are the facts not that important to you when it comes to politics?

Since I am absolutely sure he won't answer your question (almost certainly, he will just restate his point about the ranchers for the 50th time), I'll answer in his place: @TKDB doesn't care about the evidence he's providing. He doesn't care to defend it because he feels it's so obvious and true on its face that there's no need to defend the specifics of it. He doesn't care about the accuracy of his claims, he just believes himself to be so thoroughly vindicated and certain in his views that any and all evidence is entirely besides the point.

TKDB

From Fox news:

"We need that wall: Texas rancher willing to give up some of his land for border barrier."

TKDB

@whiteflame

You make this comment to me, and then you fail to provide a quotation to support your claim?

1) First example: "Why bother with all this if your only goal is to proclaim yourself holier than thou simply because you care enough about the needs of ranchers to put literally everything else aside?"
 
 Show me your evidence, where I "proclaimed myself holier than thou?"

Show me, the quotation? 

But you come back with this mess?

"...Do you honestly not understand that you've dropped almost every argument we've presented? Seriously, I can't think of a single point you've directly responded to throughout this discussion, or any of the previous ones we've had. At best, you've had some tangential responses, followed by repeating the same point, over and over, after I had long since conceded the argument you'd made.

So, no, you haven't answered the question. You've stated your beliefs (and restated them, and restated them again, and again, and again, and again...), but not what it is you're doing here. Why are you bothering to post in this forum when you refuse, again and again, to address a single point we're making? If your only response to that is that you have a point to make and you'll keep on making it... then what is your endgame? What are you hoping to get out of presenting the same stance over and over again without defending it in the slightest? 

No, I'm not going back through this and all the previous forums to find examples of where you've told us repeatedly that we are wrong for siding with illegal immigrants over ranchers and those at the border (despite the fact that that's not what we're doing, and we've told you that many, many times). And no, I'm not going back through those same forums to find all the examples of you stating that your position is inherently better than ours because you care about these people and we don't (despite the fact that, again, that's not what we're doing, and we've, again, told you that many, many times). You have a fantastic habit of being able to selectively read our posts. I'm not doing extra work that you will similarly ignore."

And this extra mess from you?

"Since I am absolutely sure he won't answer your question (almost certainly, he will just restate his point about the ranchers for the 50th time), I'll answer in his place: @TKDB doesn't care about the evidence he's providing. He doesn't care to defend it because he feels it's so obvious and true on its face that there's no need to defend the specifics of it. He doesn't care about the accuracy of his claims, he just believes himself to be so thoroughly vindicated and certain in his views that any and all evidence is entirely besides the point."

"And no, I'm not going back through those same forums to find all the examples of you stating that your position is inherently better than ours because you care about these people and we don't (despite the fact that, again, that's not what we're doing, and we've, again, told you that many, many times). You have a fantastic habit of being able to selectively read our posts. I'm not doing extra work that you will similarly ignore."

2) Second example: "And no, I'm not going back through those same forums to find all the examples of you stating that your position is inherently better than ours because you care about these people and we don't"

And you apparently like to put your word's in my mouth for the second time above as well, to apparently get your individual point across?

The above is the second time that you, whiteflame has done that, isnt it? 

"Illegal Alien Crime Wave In Texas: 611,234 Crimes, 2,993 Murders"

2,993 murders committed by the illegal immigrants, and I guess, you want to make me a villain, so be it then?

 Have a good day.