[BigSteve]

He can't get over his hate. He was processed like Bologna by the USA Navy who taught him to find enemies everywhere and intimidate them. And he is retired now.

You need to get over your obsession with me. You seem to have some sick need to attack me whenever you post...

He had a Puerto Rican girlfriend....but knowing Puerto Rican women she probably got fed up with his attitude...lol. I should not mention that. Hee hee.

"Had"? You're pathetic. SHe's still here...

But dudes with issues got to keep going til they are far beyond the pale and seeing who could cope.

That doesn't even make sense...

The best way to prevent entry is to be supporters of a living wage for all people in many nations. Not enough jobs and jobs that don't pay enough to live on is the issue in many many countries.

I fully support that.

But the United States has no responsibility to make that happen. Each country with that problem needs to address it...

Many people in the USA don't make even $12 an hour and can't live in expensive cities like San Diego or San Francisco on those wages. They can't.

Sure they can.

Before moving to Seattle (her boyfriend got a gig with Amazon), my daughter lived there. She made $11.75 an hour, had a roommate and they had a place for three years.

Just another example of you being clueless.

But that aside, what idiot would choose to live somewhere they couldn't afford? If you can't afford to live somewhere, you live somewhere else...

They also should be supporting and starting medical schools who train 20,000 doctors and send them to nations with poverty all over the world to treat people and stabilize communities.

Who should do that?

They should do the same with teachers and farmers. Send them out en masse to help others and shoulder the cost of educating them to do that. It will make a big difference. Instead of complaining.

Who should do that?

[Pants-of-dog]

It would be unconstitutional to deprive people who were rightfully born in the United States, sure, but this can be more narrowly defined.

They say that the second amendment needs to be qualified. Our Founders never envisioned automatic rifles and the dreaded mankiller, the AR-15.

You guys have already set a precedent of us being able to further qualify what the Constitution means to update it with the times.

I can hardly think of an argument that the 14th Amendment seriously means that the children of criminal illegals merit citizenship. That's like saying "My dad broke the law and stole the car, but then he gave it to me, and since I didn't steal it, this is my rightful property since I didn't commit the crime..."

Surely, there's much sympathy to this, though all of the "JOURNALISTS" will surely see your (stupid, moronic, ahistorical) perspective.

Sadly, we can't retroactively do anything about citizens already granted, and every year we grow further from the point of return.

Who knows, though.

I love my country, though, and I know my ancestors and Heaven are on my side, so I am not scared and will fight.

All of this that you wrote here was irrelevant.

This is the only part that addressed my question:

Am I arguing that the US should go back to awarding citizenship on an ethnic basis? No, but I am saying we shouldn't give it to illegals, and I would argue that we should restrict who can enter our country legally a lot more.

This has nothing to do with the founding fathers.

And since no one argued that undocumented migrants should get citizenship, it seems to come out of nowhere.

What conclusion can we draw, though? It seems unlikely that that the lion's share of non-citizen deportables were Frenchmen & Chinese students who got caught stabbing the sheit out of each other in the bar. It seems more likely that, still, the bulk fo the people in the category were the more typical profile of a criminal -- not white, not Asian, and not necessarily on a visa. But really, who knows now? We grant nonsense visas aplenty.

So, I think we can say that, of course, the numbers will change, but how much would they actually shfit away from the conclusion?

And the conclusion can then even be a bit more broadened to show that even our legal immigrants here pose an issue.

You are dismissing the veracity of the whole report over something that is likely not statistically that significant. And the funny thing: if it is very statistically significant, we've got bigger problems.

And you folks are using a paper that was not peer reviewed and has significant errors in it, and you have no idea if the paper even supports its claims if the math were to be corrected.

Hint: Cato looks at it with the more correct numbers and does not come to the same conclusion.

[quetzalcoatl]

That's stupid. No, I wouldn't.

Even if they are less likely, the reality is they still do it. Shouldn't we do everything we can to try to stop a crime?

Logically, if you're looking to get rid of people doing crimes you'd start with whoever is doing the most crimes (proportionally speaking) first.

[BigSteve]

Logically, if you're looking to get rid of people doing crimes you'd start with whoever is doing the most crimes (proportionally speaking) first.

Well, let me play devil's advocate.

Let's say we have a US citizen who murders someone, and an illegal alien who murders someone.

The illegal alien has broken two laws, the US citizen only one.

The illegal alien is responsible for a greater amount of crime and should be dealt with first...

[Tainari88]

One must be brave and love their country to join the military.

Color me shocked that you live in Mexico...

Lol. Yeah, whatever. I love Puerto Rico. The USA has been some freaking abusive piece of shit gov't with Puerto Rico.

Nevertheless, our greatest Nationalist Puerto Rican was a very decorated military guy from the USA armed forces. In fact, he was considered brilliant in every respect. And he gave fiery speeches about kicking out the Americans forever. Why? Why did someone who was thought brilliant in the USA military with huge respect in that place, wind up thinking that the USA needed to get out? Because he loved his country. Just like you love yours.

Here his Don Pedro Albizu Campos military career.

It is that simple. Everyone loves their country BigSteve. The Mexicans love their nation, the Italians love theirs, the Irish love Ireland, etc....

What you fail to understand is how to respect people who are not from your group. You fail there. Because? You are a man with hardly any thought going on. Period.

I love Puerto Rico. I don't love abusive nations invading and bullshitting their way to power.

But once the problems are solved? You make friends and move on in life.

For me humans have a lot in common. If you fail to understand that? You stop being humane.

When you said little kids who were not USA citizens should take a back seat? For me? You are a man with no humanity. A low thinking person. Nothing to be done about that.

You chose your low ways. And your low behavior. It is where your head is at.

[BigSteve]

Lol. Yeah, whatever. I love Puerto Rico. The USA has been some freaking abusive piece of shit gov't with Puerto Rico.

What does Puerto Rico have to do with illegal aliens and the crimes they commit in the United States?

It is that simple. Everyone loves their country BigSteve.

Obviously you didn't love yours. And that's fine. I'd rather you stay there...

What you fail to understand is how to respect people who are not from your group.

You want me to respect those who break our laws and come here illegally.

That's not gonna' happen.

The rest of your post was blithering nonsense, utterly undeserving of comment. All it does is prove that you feel the need to attack me at every turn.

How fucking pathetic is that?

[Tainari88]

You need to get over your obsession with me. You seem to have some sick need to attack me whenever you post...

You feel attacked by what? A gun, or a knife? No. A thought? Apparently if someone contradicts your hot air postings you see that as an attack. This is a debate forum, it is not some place that you will be physically harmed at all if you write something or say something. The problem you got dude, is that you have very shallow or unsubstantiated opinions and thoughts that you find difficult to actually put to the test of some kind of verification. You are an emotionally fueled poster with little of substance. You should work on that. Because if you don't? People will get tired of the flat thoughts. Why come to a forum where the only people posting are about things that are boring and you can read that in Fox News? You come here to deal with people who debate with some thought behind it. I don't know who you are...none of us do. You are your words here. They are your tools. If you don't know how to use your tools for your defense and to make a good case or argument for your point of view? What are you doing here? Wasting time basically. You can always go to Facebook, Twitter or something and get some echo chamber of like minded people who agree with all your one line nothing-interesting-to-say stuff. All, I can tell you that I am not the only one who notice that pattern from you. Lol. No me importa. Me da igual.



"

Had"? You're pathetic. SHe's still here...

Whatever B.S. I really don't care. You are a man who has a mind that is flat as a pancake and doesn't go anywhere. It is from where you come up with crap thoughts all day long. I have no interest in that. Lol.

That doesn't even make sense...

You have a hard time making sense of things because you are not used to thinking with depth. You stay in the surface only. Again, I am not surprised. Maybe Drlee can break things down for you....in terms you can get...so you are not thinking....what is that about. I need to google it. Hee hee.



The rest of your diatribe is a study in the fact that you don't get abstraction, or analysis or even understand allegory or many other things. Again black and white thinking.

It just means you never got a political education Little Stevie. You should get one. If you want to survive this forum without going ballistic someday.

[Tainari88]

What does Puerto Rico have to do with illegal aliens and the crimes they commit in the United States?



Obviously you didn't love yours. And that's fine. I'd rather you stay there...



You want me to respect those who break our laws and come here illegally.

That's not gonna' happen.

The rest of your post was blithering nonsense, utterly undeserving of comment. All it does is prove that you feel the need to attack me at every turn.

How fucking pathetic is that?

Lol. Whatever Admin Notes: Rule 2 Violation Steve I got what I wanted from you. You feel attacked? Good.

You deserve it. Attacked by a 53 year old woman who never touched a gun in her life.

What a big man you turned out to be. Lol.

Hee hee.

You can't even defend yourself with words....

Ave maria.

The illegal aliens are attacking him I imagine....

I thought the military had men with some substance. Admin Notes: Rule 2 Violation

Back on topic.

People come to the USA without legal entry because they are looking for jobs. Period. Most of them come for that.

A small percentage come for other reasons. Period.

If the employers would be held accountable the flow would stop.

It doesn't stop because the employers are bribing the politicians to not enforce e-verify.

Why do they need the íllegals here? Because they are making money.

Can money and dirty money directed to politicians pervert the law and the will of the people. Yes, it can and it does in the US Congress and Senate every day.

How to change that?

That is where everyone has differing opinions.

Got to make it one line stuff. because otherwise certain folks can't cope.

[Verv]

A very lackluster response, but respond we must.

All of this that you wrote here was irrelevant.

This is the only part that addressed my question:



This has nothing to do with the founding fathers.

And since no one argued that undocumented migrants should get citizenship, it seems to come out of nowhere.

You actually ignored the part several posts about how the intentions of the Founding Fathers have a massive impact on how most Americans believe that the Constitution should be interpreted.

To say that the Founding Father's view that America can & should restrict immigration to people who were like them is irrelevant is obtuse, and to propose some false dichotomy that you either go back to exactly as how it was under the FF or it's irrelevant is a terrible argument.

And you folks are using a paper that was not peer reviewed and has significant errors in it, and you have no idea if the paper even supports its claims if the math were to be corrected.

Hint: Cato looks at it with the more correct numbers and does not come to the same conclusion.

We are using a paper to try to get an idea on the amount of illegal immigrant criminal activity. The error in the paper probably does not shift the numbers as far back to some kind of normalcy as you suggest.

We can know this from other reports. For instance, this Daily Wire article outlines some of the information we have available that generally corroborates the far elevated rates of illegal immigrant crime.

We also are quite aware that whatever the Left doesn't want to study is likely of key importance in undermining their position, and the absolute lack of Federal and State level data collection on this speaks volumes .

[Rancid]

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776191773/the-american-dream-and-the-children-of-immigrants

11-minute pod cast about the children of immigrants and the American dream. FUnny enough, I'm exactly that, I've experienced tons of upward mobility compared to my parents.

[Pants-of-dog]

A very lackluster response, but respond we must.

You actually ignored the part several posts about how the intentions of the Founding Fathers have a massive impact on how most Americans believe that the Constitution should be interpreted.

To say that the Founding Father's view that America can & should restrict immigration to people who were like them is irrelevant is obtuse, and to propose some false dichotomy that you either go back to exactly as how it was under the FF or it's irrelevant is a terrible argument.

Again, I asked you three or four times of you have an argument that is based on what the founding fathers thought.

You said you had none.

And now you are bringing them back up, and again, with no apparent argument.

Yes, their ideas had an impact.

But apparently the founding fathers had no impact on anything you wish to argue.

Thus, this is all irrelevant.

We are using a paper to try to get an idea on the amount of illegal immigrant criminal activity. The error in the paper probably does not shift the numbers as far back to some kind of normalcy as you suggest.

Again, for the third or fourth time, the Cato paper looks at how much this shifts Lott’s claims.

We can know this from other reports. For instance, this Daily Wire article outlines some of the information we have available that generally corroborates the far elevated rates of illegal immigrant crime.

Quote the relevant text.

Please note that I have already provided evidence that sanctuary cities do not have more crime, and others have shown that undocumented immigrants commit less crimes. Please address these if you wish to continue this debate.

[Rancid]

bad educations from Florida.

hey hey hey, I got a great education in Florida.

GOoooooooooooo gators!

One must be brave and love their country to join the military.

You could also be looking for a paycheck though. Mercenaries are a thing. Militaires Sans Frontières do exist. NOt as an organization, but just individuals.

Also, LOL @BigSteve for being a one note johnny as usual.

[Tainari88]

@Pants-of-dog one of the highest crime cities in the USA is Memphis, Tennessee and it is not a sanctuary city either.

The issue is about crime? No one likes crime Pants, and no one says they like crime.

But criminals come from every corner of the globe. The USA has a lot and so do other industrialized nations. People have a lot of people going into nations looking for a better life, safety, security, social and economic improvement, a university education, etc. A lot of reasons why people overstay their visas or don't leave nations they entered and have no longer any authorization to stay.

Period.

How to cope with that?

Address the people who love living off the labor of people without documents. It is not hard to figure that out.

To claim that they are all criminals because they flee unemployment?

Did some of these posters defending the position of kick them all out ever break the law in their lifetimes? Did they ever steal a candy bar as a kid from a store? Did they ever smoke a cigarette before the legal age of allowance? Did they ever smoke pot in a state that it was illegal to do so? Did they drink alcohol before 21? Where they publicly drunk? Did they hit a car and never report it? Did they violate a law in any way at any time in their lives?

Where they fleeing civil war, deep poverty, unemployment that was chronic and almost continual for years? Did they flee dysfunctional justice systems and crime that was violent and bloody? Did they flee domestic violence?

What motivates people to leave their homes? Criminals who run drugs and or guns are motivated by money. Why don't you analyze who is greedier and wants more money in terms of crime and greed? Who is the greediest of them all?

Who is criminal?

They are busting a move to the USA:

Why? This is what the caravan people say:

[Verv]

Again, I asked you three or four times of you have an argument that is based on what the founding fathers thought.

You said you had none.

And now you are bringing them back up, and again, with no apparent argument.

Yes, their ideas had an impact.

But apparently the founding fathers had no impact on anything you wish to argue.

Thus, this is all irrelevant.

... They did have an impact on what I am arguing here, and anyone can see it.

Again, for the third or fourth time, the Cato paper looks at how much this shifts Lott’s claims.

But not shifted very much.

Quote the relevant text.

Please note that I have already provided evidence that sanctuary cities do not have more crime, and others have shown that undocumented immigrants commit less crimes. Please address these if you wish to continue this debate.

There's a lot of text there that involves studies and actual numbers of crime by illegal immigrants. Go have a gander -- that's what links are for.

... Sanctuary city crime rates mean very little. Illegal aliens do not exclusively reside in sanctuary cities, for one, and for two, American cities across the board are quite violent.

I would honestly imagine that the illegal alien Hispanic male demographic is less violent and criminal than the black male demographic. Actually, I misspoke, since the illegal alien Hispanic male demographic is actually 100% criminal...

But, if we were to ignore the fact that every single illegal alien Hispanic male is a criminal for his criminal trespass and/or illegal status in America, he would commit less crimes on average than urban blacks in his age group.

So, sanctuary cities will always be dwarfed by cities with high African-American populations.

[Tainari88]

@Rancid said:

You could also be looking for a paycheck though. Mercenaries are a thing. Militaires Sans Frontières do exist. NOt as an organization, but just individuals.

Also, LOL @BigSteve for being a one note johnny as usual.

Many many people join the military for a lot of reasons....that are not about some hokey patriotism. It is about a job.

A steady paycheck. Or I think there was a movie that mentioned that too...hmmm.

I think the problem with Undocumented Aliens and Crime is this:

You give them the truth and they get all Jack Nicholson on you.....

I can't handle that argument, I feel attacked, by a woman, a kitten, a cupcake, etc.

Lol. They can't handle the truth. Life is not black and white....and easy as pie to figure out. You can't handle the truth.

[BigSteve]

[usermention=14245]You give them the truth and they get all Jack Nicholson on you..

Seriously?

You're trying to use a fucking Rob Reiner movie to make your argument?

You wouldn't know the truth if it fell on you...

[Pants-of-dog]

But not shifted very much.

Quote the text from the Cato page that shows this.

[Verv]

Quote the text from the Cato page that shows this.

My basis for saying this wasn't the Cato page. You should pay attention. Try to keep track of the discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, it was.

I mentioned the Cato page and you replied that it did not shift Lott’s numbers very much.

Support your claim. Quote the text.

[late]

"The Nobel prize in economics was awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for “their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty,” the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said in a statement Monday.
“The research conducted by this year’s Laureates has considerably improved our ability to fight global poverty. In just two decades, their new experiment-based approach has transformed development economics.."

They are also a good antidote for Right wing BS on immigration.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/here-ar ... on-it.html