- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Illegals commit crimes at rates 'not substantially greater' than citizens
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:14 pm to ManBearTiger
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:14 pm to ManBearTiger
TLDR
1
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:16 pm to DawgsLife
quote:The dataset's sole purpose was to look at incarceration rates, not crime rates.
How did it misinterpret the data?
So if you looked Charles Manson, he would still show up as incarcerated so using his data point in the middle of 2000's to infer crime rates would not be possible.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:17 pm to efrad
You're spouting bullshite about incentives. They do not fundamentally have any respect for our laws, as they break them in pepertuity by existing here. That's "incentive" enough to disregard a plethora of other laws they deem to be an impediment to any goal they might have.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:17 pm to ballscaster
quote:
quote:
Here is my problem with your scenario. I am guessing your solution is amnesty?
It has already been given at least twice before. If all we are going to do is give them amnesty every time what is the point?
Internal revenue.
That's what you meant? we could get more revenue by letting them in and allowing them to magically become citizens?
Ask yourself this....how many advanced countries have no immigration laws? Do you know the answer?
Also, why do countries have immigration laws when they could just allow everybody in and make money?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:18 pm to ballscaster
Troll; did RA
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:20 pm to ManBearTiger
So you call names, then RA when somebody makes fun of you for calling names? 
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:20 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The dataset's sole purpose was to look at incarceration rates, not crime rates.
So if you looked Charles Manson, he would still show up as incarcerated so using his data point in the middle of 2000's to infer crime rates would not be possible.
And ordinarily I would see your point. However, the article was taking a very narrow frame of time. Four years. And then they compared those crime rates during that 4 year time frame and compared both communities.
Sure, if you were comparing statistics gleaned from a 50-60 time frame as you are saying it would be flawed. however, from a 4 year period?
Am I misunderstanding you?
ETA
They actually took statistics from a 7 year period (Federal) and a 4 year (State and extrapolated from there.) However, both sets showed a higher rate. A much higher rate.
Again...maybe I misunderstand what you mean?
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:21 pm to DawgsLife
quote:No, that's not what I meant. I mean he people who are here now. Whatever costs us the least, let's do it. I've always had this stance, and it gets oddly downvoted, which makes little sense.
That's what you meant? we could get more revenue by letting them in and allowing them to magically become citizens?
Ask yourself this....how many advanced countries have no immigration laws? Do you know the answer?
Also, why do countries have immigration laws when they could just allow everybody in and make money?
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:22 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
But, that's also true of a murder where it is a crime of passion - once "clear" of the murder scene, the person has every incentive to lay low to avoid getting caught.
"Aside from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
That's absolutely true. Because this person will lay low, you agree that going after this person isn't necessarily exclusively to prevent additional homicidal crimes of passion from this specific individual, right? The purpose is essentially to make good on the public's obligation to ensure that homicides are an action of low benefit, high risk to the individual committing the crime. Making good on this obligation prevents future homicides from other individuals.
Which brings me back to illegal immigration, like I said, I am not for amnesty, I am for continued deportation of these individuals when they are caught. Continuing to deport them when caught ensures that committing crimes while in the U.S. is a high risk, low reward action! But does it make fiscal sense to spend a ton of money up front to seek them out in under every rock and in every corner of the country to round them up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes? I have yet to see evidence they we should.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:23 pm to ballscaster
No, I RA'd for your lack of substance. My name calling is laden with substance refuting your chimpish pablum.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:26 pm to efrad
quote:
But does it make fiscal sense to spend a ton of money up front to seek them out in under every rock and in every corner of the country to round them up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes? I have yet to see evidence they we should.
Yes, because then it becomes
quote:
an action of low benefit, high risk to the individual committing the crime.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:27 pm to ballscaster
quote:
No, that's not what I meant. I mean he people who are here now. Whatever costs us the least, let's do it. I've always had this stance, and it gets oddly downvoted, which makes little sense.
That's what i thought you meant....but why have any immigration laws at all if you are going to give amnesty to all who break the law? We wouldn't do that with any other law on the books that I can think of.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:28 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
You're spouting bullshite about incentives. They do not fundamentally have any respect for our laws, as they break them in pepertuity by existing here. That's "incentive" enough to disregard a plethora of other laws they deem to be an impediment to any goal they might have.
So you really intended to say "haha of course they have" as I said in my original post.
Yeah, they didn't spend to the U.S. for a better life, they just came to the U.S. because committing crimes in other jurisdictions is on their bucket lists
I guarantee you if you lived in the shithole that is Mexico you'd try to jump the border just like if you were an East Berliner decades ago. I know I would. That doesn't mean some magical mystical power of crime would envelope me and I'd go on a rampage of terror.
That also doesn't mean we shouldn't protect our interests either. They should be deported. But we shouldn't make up bullshite reasons in order to do it.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:28 pm to DawgsLife
quote:Cause MUH LIBERAL FEE FEES
That's what i thought you meant....but why have any immigration laws at all if you are going to give amnesty to all who break the law? We wouldn't do that with any other law on the books that I can think of.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:30 pm to ManBearTiger
Our dear progressive dreamers are getting their arse handed to them in this thread today.
Therefore it's just another Monday on this board.
Therefore it's just another Monday on this board.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:31 pm to efrad
quote:
But does it make fiscal sense to spend a ton of money up front to seek them out in under every rock and in every corner of the country to round them up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes?
This is progressive rhetoric designed to generate this "throw my hands up" attitude about these lawbreakers.
STOP teaching our schools in Spanish. I don't care if the kid came here when he was 8 minutes old. If he can't speak English? Step 1, teach his little arse English. THEN put him in school.
Stop with the voting in Spanish, applying for government benefits in Spanish, anything Spanish, other than to provide access for our tourists and other guests who speak Spanish.
Then, make sure that no public benefits go to illegals - no SNAP, Section 8, nothing. Finally, go after their employers - perp walk a few of those CEOs strategically in front of cameras, and that will slow that down.
If we do that - they will go home on their own. I guarantee it.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:31 pm to ManBearTiger
quote:
Yes, [ it makes fiscal sense to round up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes ] because then it becomes
quote:
an action of low benefit, high risk to the individual committing the crime.
Why does it make fiscal sense to round up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes when that is a high cost, low reward action for us? Assuming you accept in this scenario that they aren't committing crimes, which you just did.
This post was edited on 4/3/17 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:32 pm to efrad
quote:
But does it make fiscal sense to spend a ton of money up front to seek them out in under every rock and in every corner of the country to round them up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes? I have yet to see evidence they we should.
But that's not exactly what they are doing. By and large they are picking them up when they commit a crime and then deporting them. Nobody, that I know of is running around the country turning over every rock.
This is the problem with the sanctuary cities. When illegal aliens commit crimes, the local police are supposed to contact ICE and ICE picks them up. The police are being instructed by the cities not to report them to ICE. Keep in mind, now, these are people in the country illegally and are committing crimes already.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:35 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
But that's not exactly what they are doing. By and large they are picking them up when they commit a crime and then deporting them. Nobody, that I know of is running around the country turning over every rock.
This is the problem with the sanctuary cities. When illegal aliens commit crimes, the local police are supposed to contact ICE and ICE picks them up. The police are being instructed by the cities not to report them to ICE. Keep in mind, now, these are people in the country illegally and are committing crimes already.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
What I'm saying is there's a middle ground between being a bleeding heart pussy and letting these people live in our country as a sanctuary, and the opposite position that we should create a task force to round them up and throw them all out.
It is possible to agree that these people should be deported without having to paint them all as demons just salivating to rape everyone in sight.
Posted on 4/3/17 at 1:37 pm to efrad
quote:
does it make fiscal sense to round up and kick them out when they aren't committing crimes when that is a high cost, low reward action for us? Assuming you accept in this scenario that they aren't committing crimes, which you just did.
Because of birthright citizenship. Stop being willfully blind to the very obvious fact that the push for more illegals and functioning illiterates is an obvious attempt to further swell the already rampant welfare culture we have here which ensures consolidated federal tyranny imposed on the producers as a means of quashing their justified dissent.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News