Illegal alien, i mean undocumented immigrant, charged with killing Iowa runner Mollie Tibbetts

Celery, I will assume you didn't read this article I shared.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sholom-rubashkin-who-is-iowa-kosher-meatpacking-donald-trump-commute-prison-sentence-a8121926.html

If you don't want to take the time to read it, here is the relevant detail.

His prosecution came after federal authorities raided the plant and arrested 389 illegal immigrants in 2008. The 57-year-old father of 10 had served more than eight years of his sentence.

Trump's rhetoric AS PRESIDENT has not matched his actions in this case.

celery wrote:

Logician wrote:

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" is not applicable here. The people who say we should care about the number of crimes rather than the crime rates are making a logical or moral error (perhaps more to the point they know themselves to be wrong but are engaged in motivated reasoning) rather than misusing statistics.

Except for the possibility that studies that say illegals have a lower crime rate is probably false since immigrants are scared to report crime to police for fear of deportation, so the statistic will be skewed.

In other words, if you haven't combed through the exact details of the study, and recognized the possible errors in the input data, the whole thing is worthless. But since statistical studies have the air of authority, they can be used to spread falsehoods that simple "lies, and damned lies" could never accomplish.

Let's examine that, shall we?

You say think immigrants are scared to report crime to police for fear of deportation. So is your argument that when illegal immigrants commit crimes they tend to target other illegal immigrants, because they then have a lower probability of being reported and hence caught? If this were true then it wouldn't be so bad for Americans as they wouldn't tend to get caught up in it. A bit like why would people in the suburbs care about inner city gang violence.

That could be the case. But I suspect they may prefer to focus on Americans as they will be wealthier (assuming we are thinking about armed robberies, muggings etc.). A more plausible chain of reasoning, starting from the same observation (namely, illegal immigrants are scared of being deported) is that they will be less likely to commit crimes.

Duane wrote:

it is really simple. That young lady would still be alive but for the fact that this person (and probably others), who supposedly lower(s) the overall crime rate (per capita) was there and killed her. Without this person there would be one less crime, so if I am her family, that is what I care about.

She would, but if this person had never left Mexico, he would have killed someone there. There’s something clearly wrong with this person for him to stalk and murder a stranger, and that’s true anywhere he might be.

Ted Bundy was from the northeast but didn’t start murdering people until he was in the Pacific Northwest. You can suppose that the family of his victims wish he had never come there, but it’s clear that this monster was going to murder women no matter where he was.

Duane wrote:

it is really simple. That young lady would still be alive but for the fact that this person (and probably others), who supposedly lower(s) the overall crime rate (per capita) was there and killed her. Without this person there would be one less crime, so if I am her family, that is what I care about.

Holy sh!t! You are still posting the exact same stupid crap after all these pages!

OMG, what a MORON!!!

Duane wrote:

it is really simple. That young lady would still be alive but for the fact that this person (and probably others), who supposedly lower(s) the overall crime rate (per capita) was there and killed her. Without this person there would be one less crime, so if I am her family, that is what I care about.

What if he never came to America but killed a 20 year old Mexican runner instead? The family of the Mexican girl would prefer if he had illegally entered the USA and killed an American.

Obviously in this case it's reversed. Perhaps the American family are wishing a Mexican had been killed instead. It's understandable for grieving people to feel this way: "Why me? Why us?" I don't see why anyone else thinks it's a greater tragedy for people of one nationality to die.

Duane wrote:

it is really simple. That young lady would still be alive but for the fact that this person (and probably others), who supposedly lower(s) the overall crime rate (per capita) was there and killed her. Without this person there would be one less crime, so if I am her family, that is what I care about.

If he killed in Mexico would you stand by your claim that this is one less crime? In that case should America invade Mexico with the intention of wiping Mexicans off the face of the Earth? Mexico clearly isn't going to pay for the wall, so there will always be illegal immigrants. If killing Mexicans isn't a crime, why not kill all of them?

celery wrote:

Except for the possibility that studies that say illegals have a lower crime rate is probably false since immigrants are scared to report crime to police for fear of deportation, so the statistic will be skewed.

In other words, if you haven't combed through the exact details of the study, and recognized the possible errors in the input data, the whole thing is worthless. But since statistical studies have the air of authority, they can be used to spread falsehoods that simple "lies, and damned lies" could never accomplish.

oh, so i should ignore stats because you have a gut feeling....ok

The numbers would be skewed by under-reporting of crimes committed against them, not by them. I could just as easily argue that the American crime rate is under-reported because citizens knowingly commit crimes against illegals because they know they can't go to the police. But I won't use that as part of an argument because it's merely speculation.

also, isn't the issue about crimes being committed against Americans? why on earth would American be scared to report crimes committed against them by illegal immigrants?

Of course you will respond "Well they are probably committed by other illegal aliens...." even if true, well it kind shoots hole in the entire idea that these crimes are a danger to Americans then, right? ;)

Showdownhoedown wrote:

Hey Breadboy wrote:

ok subgenius , here's how math works:

some of the people murdered will be illegal immigrants themselves. Or do you live in some kind of illogical mathless wonderworld where every person killed by an illegal immigrant is an American citizen?

Also, and this might blow your mind so sit down, SOME of the people killed by american murderers will be illegal immigrants. So if you get rid of all of the illegal immigrants then guess who gets killed instead.....yup...Amuricans.

Once again, if the murder rate goes down then it is safer. period.

you total number morans are the new flat earthers.

You can't assume that the people not killed by illegal immigrants WILL then be killed by citizens you asshat.

ok, let me break it down further for you since you failed to grasp the concept.

Lets say americans killed 100 people last year, 10 of whom were illegal immigrants.

take away all the illegal immigrants.

some of those 10 illegal immigrants who were killed will now be replaced by Americans because the perpetrator will still be looking for a victim. (robberies that escalate, sex crimes, random violence etc)

the total numbers morans on here somehow think you just add in the total crimes without also realizing that you are also increasing the total number of potential targets.

most of them are just trolling I'm sure, but they are doing a piss poor job unless they are pro-immigration trolls, then i'll give them a little credit.

Duane wrote:

it is really simple. That young lady would still be alive but for the fact that this person (and probably others), who supposedly lower(s) the overall crime rate (per capita) was there and killed her. Without this person there would be one less crime, so if I am her family, that is what I care about.

Duane either answer the simple question about which city is safer or we will just assume you are a worthless troll.

there's no reason a reasonable person couldn't answer that question.

I think even celery and Duane realise we are right and they are wrong, but they will soldier on with their motivated reasoning. Duane is sticking to repeating emotivism, but I'm interested to see if celery comes up with any new fallacies.

Ciro wrote:

Celery, I will assume you didn't read this article I shared.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sholom-rubashkin-who-is-iowa-kosher-meatpacking-donald-trump-commute-prison-sentence-a8121926.html

If you don't want to take the time to read it, here is the relevant detail.

His prosecution came after federal authorities raided the plant and arrested 389 illegal immigrants in 2008. The 57-year-old father of 10 had served more than eight years of his sentence.

Trump's rhetoric AS PRESIDENT has not matched his actions in this case.

I skimmed the article enough to see both the sentence you posted, and the part that said there was bipartisan agreement that the man's sentence was too long. Trump commuted the sentence, and did not pardon him. That fact that Trump did something that was politically expedience because a bunch of congressmen were asking him to do it, doesn't negate the fact that he is being tougher on enforcing immigration laws.

Another poster said that Trump should put fines in place for employers who hire illegals. I agree with this. He should. Although, there is a big "chamber of commerce" block of voters (both dem and rep) who don't like this idea. So enforcing immigration laws in this way is less politically expedient. The fact that Trump has not done this does not negate the fact that he is enforcing immigration laws MORE than his predecessors.

Politics is not so simple. There is what the politician wants to do, what they can and can't do, and what they have to decide is worth the political cost. All of these news articles with the subtext of "See Trump is a hypocrite, or stupid, or a dictator" are written in ways to purposely obscure the complexity of the situation, and to manipulate naïve readers.

That's a good point.

I'm not saying ignore stats because of gut feelings. I'm saying question everything, even stats, because they are only as good as the input data. Blindly accepting any statistic you see, just because it is a statistic, is what makes statistics potentially worse than "damned lies" as Twain put it.

But of course statistic, when done correctly, with the same results gotten through multiple studies, are much better evidence than anecdotal news stories. But even reliable statistics don't say what one's opinion should be on the matter, because your values will determine how much meaning you give to a particular statistic.

I'm much more interested in pure arguments that have to do with values, because they are the real heart of the matter. The statistic and news stories, are just data points that may or may not be relevant to any particular opinion.

To me, the crime rate of illegal aliens is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a country should decide who does and doesn't enter its borders and stay. I value rule of law (for multiple reasons that I won't go into) so naturally I think a country should have immigration laws and enforce them.

Lower crime rates of legal immigrants is one piece of evidence that we should increase legal immigration. But there could be other pieces of evidence not related to crime, that cut the other direction.

I agree with all of this.

I'm not pro-illegal immigration. I AM against using made up arguments with no basis in reality to try to create a public outrage against immigrants.

I believe that that the core of the anti-illegal immigrant movement is, at it's heart, just the PC wrapper for an anti-immigrant movement in many cases. But thats just conjecture on my part.

I don't think restrictions on immigration follow from an adherence to the rule of law. Apart from anything else, it requires a collectivist approach. I might want a particular foreigner to be allowed in, and you might want them to be kept out. In a free society, you should mind your own business. We tolerate this perverse collectivist attitude to immigration in part because there are vast numbers of morons who have a strong anti-foreigner bias, but also because we have welfare programmes. It would be better to restrict welfare and have open borders.

The main reason for immigration is to protect people from competition. It is misguided, like minimum wage law and import tariffs.

In addition to being economically inefficient, it is also deeply immoral to deny opportunities to people unfortunate enough to have been born in poor countries.

I'm with you 95% on this. However, I think there is something to be said for limiting the RATE of immigration, so that immigrants have time to assimilate instead of creating ongoing segregated and antagonistic societies within the larger society. And you have to look at more than just economics and pay attention to some cultural considerations. For example, large numbers of immigrants who don't agree with the idea of "separation of church and state," who can vote to change your laws, is not a good idea. You have to look at the immigrant's ability to accept the fundamental values of your society, unless you are purposely trying to revolutionize your country. Revolutions usually involve massive bloodshed, so I want measured and merit based immigration.

To you last point of economic inefficiency, my ideal would be completely free trade so that the foreigners have a thriving trade economy with us, and have no need to move here.

If he was tough on illegal immigration he wouldn't have commuted his sentence as it gives of the message as weak on illegal immigration when dealing with the employer/business owner.

As a business owner himself, Trump has had ample opportunity to be tough on illegal immigration instead he has knowingly employed illegals.

Yet you naively believe his rhetoric. The actions and words do NOT match.

Illegal immigrants can't vote, so I don't think they are much of a political threat.

Is there any evidence that immigrants disagree with the separation of Church and State more than Americans? I assume the biggest threat to the separation of Church and State comes from the Religious Right (this seems to be a big problem among Evangelicals and Baptists, but not so much amongst Catholics). But broadly speaking illegal immigrants (the majority of whom are Mexicans) share the same religion and moral values as Americans.

I agree it's better for immigrants to become integrated. Why don't they? If they are here illegally or there a widespread anti-immigrant attitude they will prefer not to integrate. Perhaps if attitudes changed, problems would resolve themselves.

most of the hi-jackers were in legal non-immigrant status at the time of the bombing. A few overstayed their travel visa. They literally came here to bomb the country, they didn't want to actually live in America. You know you can legally travel to the US right? And not be considered an immigrant...