Home Invasion at the National Level

[Phil Elmore]

No, I don't think the point you thought you were making is the point you ended up making.

Having now admitted that prison populations are skewed, please explain to me why the percentage of a population in prison means that that particular population must be dangerous, and should therefore be excluded from our society entirely?

It honestly surprises me that you seem to be having trouble following this. There is a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in prisons because illegal aliens commit crimes out of proportion to their representation in society. This means that, by definition, any demographic category that is represented in prison out of proportion to its representation in society is statistically more likely to commit crime and therefore to be punished for it. It then stands to reason, perfectly logically, that removing that population from within society reduces the potential crime rate. Ergo, if you stop tolerating illegal aliens in your society because those illegal aliens commit crime at rates out of proportion to their representation within society, you can reasonably expect the crime rate to decrease.

This may warrant a thread split. I don't mean to gank the thread, but as a prosecutor I find it highly offensive to think that people really believe money and position buy people out of jail. Cases are assessed here in my office on their merits. Accused persons are dealt with based on strength of cases, their record or lack of record, and factors like avialability or willingness of witnesses and victims to testify etc. Short of really serious crimes (murder, rape, assaults with guns etc, nobody goes to jail as a sentenced person for their first offense. People who are convicted have in greater than 95% of cases exhausted all non conviction diversionary options, probably had a conviction or 2 or 3 with probation and special conditions as the disposition. While cases are processed through, they may be held in jail unable to post a bond, but in the grand scheme of things, that is for a relatively short period of time. A person's color, country of origin, or primary language are irellevant to the outcome of criminal cases

Are poverty and lack of education factors in why people may choose criminal behavior? yes Does that translate into the bogeyman notion of selective enforcement or unfairness in the criminal justice system? No

EXACTLY!

 

[Kacey]

It honestly surprises me that you seem to be having trouble following this. There is a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in prisons because illegal aliens commit crimes out of proportion to their representation in society. This means that, by definition, any demographic category that is represented in prison out of proportion to its representation in society is statistically more likely to commit crime and therefore to be punished for it. It then stands to reason, perfectly logically, that removing that population from within society reduces the potential crime rate. Ergo, if you stop tolerating illegal aliens in your society because those illegal aliens commit crime at rates out of proportion to their representation within society, you can reasonably expect the crime rate to decrease.

It honestly surprises me that you can't see the point I'm making - you are advocating the thin edge of a very large wedge. Yes, illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large percentage of the population - so are a lot of other groups, which has long been the case. If you use this as a reason to keep out illegal immigrants, how long will it be before you use this as a reason to keep out legal immigrants who fit the profile of the other groups that are disproportionately represented in the prison population? How long after that will it be before the government targets illegal immigrants based on that statistic - and then expands it to target other overrepresented populations? Oh wait... it's already happening - it's called racial profiling, and is supposedly illegal, but that doesn't stop law enforcement from doing it anyway. Being Caucasian, I don't experience it much - but I have too many friends who have been stopped for being any other race, while we were both doing the same thing. The fact that it doesn't really affect me doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't make it acceptable.

As I said, I agree that illegal immigration is a problem - I simply disagree with the reason you give being the only reason, or even a major reason. Does there need to be a crackdown on illegal immigrants? As I said before, yes there does... which would, perforce, limit the number of illegal immigrants arrested, convicted, and jailed. It would also, as has been discussed in great detail (which you have not responded to at all) have repercussions for the economy, through prices and the job market, as cheap labor becomes scarce, and prices rise for goods and services - but a new point of equilibrium would be reached.

I won't be responding to this thread further - see my signature line for the reason.

 

[Marginal]

No, I don't think the point you thought you were making is the point you ended up making.



It honestly surprises me that you seem to be having trouble following this. There is a disproportionately high number of illegal aliens in prisons because illegal aliens commit crimes out of proportion to their representation in society.

So, they're not really secretly taking the US over then? Whew.

 

[Phil Elmore]

It honestly surprises me that you can't see the point I'm making -

It shouldn't. I'm using basic logic applied to basic statistics.

So, they're not really secretly taking the US over then? Whew.

Who said the illegal immigration problem was a secret? These are widely known issues; our government simply refuses to address them effectively. In this they are supported by citizens who refuse to recognize the threat.

 

[Marginal]

There's a difference between an illegal immigration problem and a clandestine takeover attempt. (Both are mentionied in the article.)

 

[Jonathan Randall]

This may warrant a thread split. I don't mean to gank the thread, but as a prosecutor I find it highly offensive to think that people really believe money and position buy people out of jail. Cases are assessed here in my office on their merits. Accused persons are dealt with based on strength of cases, their record or lack of record, and factors like avialability or willingness of witnesses and victims to testify etc. Short of really serious crimes (murder, rape, assaults with guns etc, nobody goes to jail as a sentenced person for their first offense. People who are convicted have in greater than 95% of cases exhausted all non conviction diversionary options, probably had a conviction or 2 or 3 with probation and special conditions as the disposition. While cases are processed through, they may be held in jail unable to post a bond, but in the grand scheme of things, that is for a relatively short period of time. A person's color, country of origin, or primary language are irellevant to the outcome of criminal cases

Are poverty and lack of education factors in why people may choose criminal behavior? yes Does that translate into the bogeyman notion of selective enforcement or unfairness in the criminal justice system? No

I may be wrong, but I did not read anyone's comment this way. Any discrepencies, IMO, are more likely due to upper class offenders having more RESOURCES with which to fight charges, discover technicalities, pay for sharp counsels who can "cloud the water" a bit in front of juries, etc. I don't think she meant (although I can't speak for her) that prosecutors and law officers let people off because they're "rich and white", but rather that, perhaps more money provides more avenues to beat charges and also, perhaps, some juries convict or aquit based upon their own stereotypes. I could be completely off on this, but I don't want you to take offence over this. I personally believe there IS a discrepency - but not due to prosecutors deciding to charge or not charge based on any factor's other than guilt or innocence - or provability in court.

 

[Hand Sword]

[/indent]
LOL

Yup, that does it. No more Native American immigrants, they can stay in there own country!

Sorry, couldn't help but make the joke

Guess in a sense all us white folk are "illegal aliens" if you look back far enough though

So are the Red Folk. There were no true natives to this part of the world. It was populated by travellers. The original group were foreigners as our kind was, and their later groups were/are native, being born here, as ours/ we were/are.

 

[Makalakumu]

Does there need to be a crackdown on illegal immigrants? As I said before, yes there does... which would, perforce, limit the number of illegal immigrants arrested, convicted, and jailed.

This is interesting, because many people hold this position, yet they know that it does not mesh with the quote directly below. We can attempt to crack down on illegal immigrants all we want, but unless we are willing (which I do not think we are) to really get draconian, it won't work. The problem is demand, not supply. In many ways, our economy is addicted to illegal immigrants.

It would also, as has been discussed in great detail (which you have not responded to at all) have repercussions for the economy, through prices and the job market, as cheap labor becomes scarce, and prices rise for goods and services - but a new point of equilibrium would be reached.

Cheap, unregulated labor is never good for a society. Throwaway McWorkers end up causing a host of other social problems. Wouldn't it be better for these people to stay home and be able to make a living instead of living in cardboard shanty towns, getting into trouble, and rotting in our prisons?

The obvious answer yes. The solution, however, is not easy.

 

[Phil Elmore]

There's a difference between an illegal immigration problem and a clandestine takeover attempt. (Both are mentionied in the article.)

There's nothing clandestine about it. Quebec separatism isn't an insidious hidden conspiracy, either.

 

[michaeledward]

Don't get me wrong - I think that illegal immigration is indeed a problem;
....
I think that we need to enforce the laws we already have.

I'm going to kick my nickle back into the game here.

How 'bout this solution? Repeal all the laws that make immigrants illegal?

If they want to come, let them. Issue any person entering the United States a 'Green Card' or 'Yellow Card' or, whatever, allowing them to work, live in the above ground economy, and participate in the community. We probably won't eliminate day-laborers, and cash employees, but that would be a start.

No more laws against immigration. No more illegal immigrants.

 

[Phil Elmore]

If we do that we must also deny social services to those who are not legal citizens because we cannot afford to pay for the millions who will flood into the country. We must also be prepared for devote considerably more resources to law enforcement. Even if illegal aliens were not already contributing significantly to problems of violent crime in the United States, history teaches us that any society that absorbs a tremendous influx of immigrants experiences higher crime and other social problems. Certain parts of Texas, for example, have seen skyrocketing crime rates to accompany the influx of homeless, jobless refugees from Katrina.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm going to kick my nickle back into the game here.

How 'bout this solution? Repeal all the laws that make immigrants illegal?

If they want to come, let them. Issue any person entering the United States a 'Green Card' or 'Yellow Card' or, whatever, allowing them to work, live in the above ground economy, and participate in the community. We probably won't eliminate day-laborers, and cash employees, but that would be a start.

No more laws against immigration. No more illegal immigrants.

The problem is that it would destroy our minimum wage laws, nullify occupational safety regulations, and create a second class citizen. This has already happened on a smaller scale. Throwing the gates wide would do it on a larger scale.

A few people would make money hand over fist from this huge pool of cheap unregulated labor, but the end result would destroy the blue collar, unionized, middle class worker niche in this country. This is why the "guest worker" program and all of its multi-forms are so terrible. They create throwaway McWorkers that are easily used up and put in human landfills...aka prisons when they expire.

Opening the borders completely would turn this country in a consumer of human beings (at least more then it already is).

 

[michaeledward]

I am not proposing repealing minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA regulations. What I am proposing is to allow the underground ecomony to come above ground.

An increased labor pool will depress wages. So perhaps jobs that today pay $9.00 an hour may be depressed to $8.00 and hour. That would suck. But, I posit that it is already happening. The constant push for 'Free Trade' means that the $9.00 and hour job here is becoming a $.75 an hour job in Honduras.

If we assume our 'minimum wage' is a 'living wage' (although we all know it isn't), at least all of the people coming to work in this country are working in an area with relatively stable 'cost of living' expenses.

While this specific argument is a 'competition' is good, Capitalist Economic argument; which I am often against. In this instance, I support it because I believe those motivated to leave their home country to live and work in this country are among the most motivated individuals in the world. And I think they would be a wonderful addition to our country.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Government interference in pricing and the market always produces negative unintended consequences.

 

[Makalakumu]

Government interference in pricing and the market always produces negative unintended consequences.

Right, like that unfortunately consequence called the middle class...

Seriously though, and on topic, if you believe that, then why oppose illegal immigration? By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market. It seems as if there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonence in your beliefs.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am not proposing repealing minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA regulations. What I am proposing is to allow the underground ecomony to come above ground.

The laws would not be repealed, its just that they wouldn't apply to the McWorkers. This would make regular workers less marketable. Consequently, child labor, piddly wages, and extremely unsafe work environments would become the norm. These laws would be nullified because there would exist a second class citizenry.

Disbelief? None of the programs currently being proposed in congress extend American Worker rights to "guest workers."

An increased labor pool will depress wages. So perhaps jobs that today pay $9.00 an hour may be depressed to $8.00 and hour. That would suck. But, I posit that it is already happening. The constant push for 'Free Trade' means that the $9.00 and hour job here is becoming a $.75 an hour job in Honduras.

How low can we go? I'd bet you'd be surprised. In Eric Schlossers essay "Strawberry fields" he interviews a large number of farm workers. They are reporting that they are getting about 15 to 20 bucks for a 10 to 12 hour day. If we increase the labor pool of cheap and unregulated workers, then we will be depressing THAT wage. Meanwhile, what business in their right mind is going to hire someone at 8 dollars an hour when they can get a McWorker for 1 or 2? I forsee a future in which the ONLY worker is a McWorker.

If we assume our 'minimum wage' is a 'living wage' (although we all know it isn't), at least all of the people coming to work in this country are working in an area with relatively stable 'cost of living' expenses.

Michael, I don't know if you are aware, but ConAgra (meatpackers) runs business towns with business stores with business accounts and business doctors down in Colorado. These slums are populated by the second class citizenry that we already have in this country. My good friend teaches at a "charter" school that was funded by ConAgra. This little scene is straight out of the 1800's and I think it is a glimpse of our future because of "free trade".

While this specific argument is a 'competition' is good, Capitalist Economic argument; which I am often against. In this instance, I support it because I believe those motivated to leave their home country to live and work in this country are among the most motivated individuals in the world. And I think they would be a wonderful addition to our country.

While I believe that cultural diversity is a good thing, this is the wrong way to go about it. It is instructive to remember why these people are so motivated. When I went to Mexico, two jobs stood out among the dross. One was held by a man about my age. He went into the bathrooms after the rich fat American took a **** and his job was to fish out the toilet paper for reprocessing and reuse. Another job was held by two boys about 14 or 15. They had shovels and were moving a pile of arsenic onto a number of small trucks for transport. Those two boys will not live to see 18.

That is the kind of stuff that "free trade" has globalized. Abuse after abuse after abuse. Opening our borders to "guest workers" would bring that here in larger numbers then we can even imagine. We need to oppose this and oppose free trade unless the product that we are exporting is human rights.

 

[michaeledward]

I think one of the reasons the worker in the strawberry fields are paid so little, is because they can not petition the government without fear of deportation. I am opposed to the idea of 'guest workers'. I agree that would, or at least has the potential to, create second class workers.

If a Honduran national comes to California, and is willing to pick lettuce at $6.50 per hour, why can we not extend labor protections to this person? If all of the workers are legal, then the legal minimum wage would be as low as we can go.

Will day laborers accept cash positions - under the table and off the books - to drive labor down. Perhaps. But today, I think many of those who take such positions can't protest without fear of punishment.

Remove that fear as one step to better the plight of the underground workers. Another would be to force the employers to meet employment standard that organized labor earned for all of us over the past century.

 

[RoninPimp]

Right, like that unfortunately consequence called the middle class...

Seriously though, and on topic, if you believe that, then why oppose illegal immigration? By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market. It seems as if there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonence in your beliefs.

-Phil is actualy 100% correct. That's economics 101. But I agree with you in letting the market fix it's own problem. The problem is politicians doing what they've always done. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Right, like that unfortunately consequence called the middle class...

Seriously though, and on topic, if you believe that, then why oppose illegal immigration? By opposing immigration, the government is interfereing in the market. It seems as if there is quite a bit of cognitive dissonence in your beliefs.

That's spurious logic. By imprisoning people for murder, the government is interfering in the market for contract killings. There's a big difference between enforcing citizenship laws and artificially setting prices.

 

[Marginal]

There's nothing clandestine about it.

Sure there is. If the illegal workers are unaware that they're taking over the nation simply by crossing the border illegally, then it's obviously a secret plan. Most likely masterminded bythe Illuminati and the Trilateral commission.