Duane wrote:
you guys just don't get it. My posts are from the perspective of the girls family. And you just can't tell them that that area was safer with this guy there, no matter what stats say.
Nobody is saying that the area was safer with this guy there. That is a misunderstanding of what people are trying to explain to you. Clearly an individual illegal immigrant who went on to kill someone made the area he visited more dangerous. But a typical illegal immigrant does not kill people. Indeed they kill people at a lower than average rate. So whilst this illegal immigrant made the area more dangerous, a typical sample of illegal immigrants will make an area safer. Nobody (probably not even the Tibbetts) was trying to make America safer for Mollie and nobody was trying to prevent this particular illegal immigrant from killing. Nobody had a particular reason to believe this man would be a killer or this woman would be a victim. In their grief the family may wish someone else had been killed, but that is it. If anyone asks them about their opinion on illegal immigration I would expect them either to be able to approach the issue rationally or perhaps decline to comment.
Someone being killed is an extreme event, and more generally drawing conclusions about probability from extreme events are likely to be wrong. Here's another example: Andrew advises Bob not to buy a lottery ticket. He explains the expected return is negative as the prize money is less (significantly less) than the revenue from ticket sales. Even if all revenue went to ticket sales, the chances of winning anything, let alone the jackpot, are very low. Bob ignores this advice, buys a ticket, wins the jackpot, and tells Andrew he was wrong to advise against buying a ticket. Andrew maintains buying the lottery ticket is a bad decision (yes, a few people will win a fortune, but it wasn't a rational based on the probabilities). Bob replies you just don't get and says from his perspective buying the lottery ticket was a rational choice as he won and it doesn't matter what the probability was.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Logician wrote:
It's called a reductio ad absurdum.
If we restrict people a population from entering on the basis that despite committing crimes at a lower rate than average, some commit crimes, we should restrict other groups, namely citizens.
It wasn't a pointless statement. It was an attempt to explain the error in your reasoning. It's a shame if you don't understand.
It was indeed pointless. As stated previously, these people should not be here anyway, so who cares if they commit less crimes then American citizens. if this guy wasn't here, the girl would not be dead., its pretty simple. If I was the parent of the girl killed I suspect your argument would fall on deaf ears.
They commit fewer crimes, not less. If you can't grasp how fewer crimes means an area is safer you are a complete moron. I'm sure any argument you hear falls on deaf ears, regardless of whether you were a parent.
It doesn't matter if all Mexicans are as beautiful as Marilyn Monroe and Tom Cruise or if they're all as smart as Isaac Newton. There is a limit to how many people can come to America, period. You open border leftists are naive. There are limits to America's infrastructure. We need to help America's homeless and unemployed first. None of you can debunk the following video.
Not true voter wrote:
Think about your first sentence. People break laws to be in this country and you correctly identified them as being illegal. They obtain illegal social security numbers so they can work. They obtain fake or even real driver's licenses illegally so that they can drive. Without voter ID, of course they vote.
People may restrict themselves to breaking laws they consider unjust. This is probably why most illegal immigrants do not embark on criminal campaigns, but rather work for a living.
Do you have evidence of the social security numbers and driver's licenses? I doubt this is common. I think more likely the majority work for cash and don't earn enough to buy a car.
But I accept that some may have a fraudulent social security number so that they can do a "legit" job and pay tax, rather than having to work cash in hand. The reason this is a risk worth taking is because they get the benefit of the higher pay (even after tax). This same logic does not apply to voting. Voting is not rational if you expect to influence the outcome, unless the vote is likely to come down to a few votes. The reason for voting is instead to do your civic duty. Therefore illegal immigrants do not have an incentive to vote. An individual illegal immigrant is almost certain not to affect the outcome, but he could risk arrest and deportation.
Do you really think it would be impossible to find example of voter fraud? If it existed, why wouldn't some of the millions of people opposed to immigration be motivated to find the evidence? I maintain nobody finds illegal immigrants voting as they don't vote, for the reason I mentioned above.
"They commit fewer crimes, not less. If you can't grasp how fewer crimes means an area is safer you are a complete moron. I'm sure any argument you hear falls on deaf ears, regardless of whether you were a parent."
They commit fewer crimes per capita, They add to the total number of crimes being committed.
It doesn't matter if illegals commit voter fraud or kiss your feet and give you flowers. There are limits. They are also a tax burden.
facts and reason wrote:
It doesn't matter if all Mexicans are as beautiful as Marilyn Monroe and Tom Cruise or if they're all as smart as Isaac Newton. There is a limit to how many people can come to America, period. You open border leftists are naive. There are limits to America's infrastructure. We need to help America's homeless and unemployed first. None of you can debunk the following video.
Open borders is a right-wing policy, not a left-wing one. Collectivists (usually communists, but can be fascists) who want to control everything want to decide for you and me who can enter and leave a country. Libertarians want freedom of movement, but no guarantees for people who come.
There are limits to America's infrastructure and that will limit the immigration. This functions like the market system and other free human interactions. People come to the USA because it has better opportunities than Mexico. People will stop coming when the infrastructure is strained. In any case, millions will stay in their homeland regardless, because they don't want to leave. Similarly, there are much better opportunities in cities, but we don't need draconian laws to keep people from deserting rural areas.
If you think you need the government to decide who can and can't enter America, how do you think the American economy has survived despite relying quite heavily on the market system?
You don't need to help the unemployed and homeless first. You can do more than one thing at once and immigrants needn't detract from your efforts.
Make America Great Again wrote:
are you trolling? are you really this dumb? wrote:
You can't presuppose that those illegal immigrants wouldn't have murdered elsewhere.
Why should we care if they murdered someone in Mexico or somewhere else? That's none of our business. Let the Mexican government take care of that. Our government's job is to protect American lives.
Mexicans are humans.
facts and reason wrote:
It doesn't matter if illegals commit voter fraud or kiss your feet and give you flowers. There are limits. They are also a tax burden.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/27/illegal-immigration-costing-record-135-billion-year-study-shows.html
You may be right about them being a tax burden. This comes back to the issues of open-border (right-wing) and welfare (left-wing). You seem to want to preserve benefits and help Americans. That's left-wing. The right-wing alternative is to have open borders but no rights to services for those who enter.
This works for almost everything else. You presumably don't rush around Wal Mart clutching your head maniacally and shouting about how food is scarce and won't we run out if we continue to allow anyone (including illegal immigrants) to buy food. If next year there are 400m people in America and the year after 500m and Wal Mart can't easily obtain more food, prices will go up. Maybe then Mexicans will find it cheaper to buy food in Mexico.
The Soviet Union collapsed decades ago, but still people believe the government has to follow it's example to prevent shortages.
Go open your house door and let anyone go in to your refrigerator and eat your food. Let homeless people make tents on your sidewalk and poop on the street. Let's see how far your anarchy will get you.
https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/its-a-crap-job-but-it-comes-with-a-big-paycheck/
Duane wrote:
"They commit fewer crimes, not less. If you can't grasp how fewer crimes means an area is safer you are a complete moron. I'm sure any argument you hear falls on deaf ears, regardless of whether you were a parent."
They commit fewer crimes per capita, They add to the total number of crimes being committed.
Did you give a direct answer about which is better and which place you'd rather live in:
A: 1,000 murders, 1,000,000 population
B: 100 murders 1,000 population
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
chalk another one up wrote:
If illegal immigrants don't have a higher crime rate than American citizens then it doesn't make any more sense to talk about illegal immigration as a crime issue than it does to talk about Americans being born as a crime issue. They both lead to approximately the same number of crimes. If you want to ban one as crime issue, then it clearly makes sense to discuss banning the other as well.
No it does not. one factor is controllable, the other is not. We can in fact control the illegal immigration across the border. We just chose not to.
Ironically being born is controllable and collectivists have put it into practice in China with the one-child policy. If you were consistent in your collectivist attitude you would want to restrict fertility rates as this would also lower the number of crimes.
Vague Coward wrote:
You seem to want to preserve benefits and help Americans. That's left-wing.
Ha ha ha. You think right wingers cannot think about helping the unemployed or the elderly or the disabled or orphans? You think only the left wing can help people?
That's how biased you are. You cannot debunk the tax burden or the video about population numbers.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary says right wing is "the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies". Conservative means "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional". Sorry, you cannot control the language in order to win the debate.
The term you might be thinking of is "predatory capitalism" which I don't agree with.
facts and reason wrote:
Go open your house door and let anyone go in to your refrigerator and eat your food. Let homeless people make tents on your sidewalk and poop on the street. Let's see how far your anarchy will get you.
What is your perspective on American history? It was really prosperous in 1800? Or perhaps you have to go further back. It really went down hill in the 19th century when it was over-run by immigrants. There was no welfare, but even so, immigrants were a massive drain because of all the welfare, tents on lawns etc.
Consider this: Why isn't this a problem? Why don't people from poor areas (living in trailer parks, or bad parts of Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago etc.) just decide to move to wealthy areas, trespass, steal, make a nuisance?
Anarchy or America? wrote:
What is your perspective on American history? It was really prosperous in 1800?
Consider this: Why isn't this a problem? Why don't people from poor areas (living in trailer parks, or bad parts of Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago etc.) just decide to move to wealthy areas, trespass, steal, make a nuisance?
Apples and oranges. You cannot compare different eras like that when there are different circumstances and different levels of technology.
Poor people don't just squat in rich people's mansions because we have laws and consequences. If you prefer anarchy, then that will allow millions and millions of people to cross open borders without any legal penalties. People don't act rationally all the time. Look at the fall of bitcoin or the tulip mania bubble. People won't be able to self-regulate if they have irrational exuberance about getting free stuff from American taxpayers.
facts and reason wrote:
Vague Coward wrote:
You seem to want to preserve benefits and help Americans. That's left-wing.
Ha ha ha. You think right wingers cannot think about helping the unemployed or the elderly or the disabled or orphans? You think only the left wing can help people?
That's how biased you are. You cannot debunk the tax burden or the video about population numbers.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary says right wing is "the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies". Conservative means "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional". Sorry, you cannot control the language in order to win the debate.
The term you might be thinking of is "predatory capitalism" which I don't agree with.
I wrote: "You seem to want to preserve benefits and help Americans. That's left-wing."
I thought my meaning was clear, but I'll elaborate:
You seem to want to preserve benefits (unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.) and help low-paid Americans earn more by preventing competition from foreign workers. That may benefit low-paid workers, but harms everyone else. I don't think only the left-wing helps people. I think the right-wing (libertarian) open borders policy (as long as there are not entitlements, so immigrants work rather than collect benefits) helps people generally. This is basically the history of the USA.
I can't watch the video at the moment as I'm using a work laptop on which that link is blocked.
Those Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions are bad and discussing "conservative" is probably a red herring. I said preventing immigration was left-wing (as it's a restriction on the market economy to protect the poorer people) and open borders right-wing (allow the market economy to function and accept that this does not benefit all equally). Conservative is harder to pin down. Is immigration and freedom such an integral part of the USA that to be pro-immigration is conservative? Is conservatism linked to freedom and the market economy, so conservatives should be pro-immigration? Do immigrants from Mexico share enough with Americans (both Christian countries) so they share similar culture and institutions? Or are conservatives more in tune with the Left? They support the family unit and communities against things like predatory capitalism.
Your comparison includes too many variables. To me, living in a town of 1,000 would be pretty dull compared to a much, much larger city. But if you ask me if I would rather live in a city of 1,000,000 with 100 crimes, or a city of 2,000,000 with 120 crimes, I will take the former.
Vague Coward wrote:
I said preventing immigration was left-wing (as it's a restriction on the market economy to protect the poorer people) and open borders right-wing (allow the market economy to function and accept that this does not benefit all equally).
You are making up your own personal definitions based upon your own experiences, beliefs, and assumptions.
You are wrong about a "market economy." The movement of human immigrants is not a market. Since you don't like Merriam-Webster, we can go to the Oxford dictionary. A market is "A regular gathering of people for the purchase and sale of provisions, livestock, and other commodities."
Will you agree with me that Bernie Sanders is left wing? He wants illegal aliens to come back to America.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/11/25/bernie-sanders-immigration-return-deported-immigrants/76371112/Duane wrote:
you guys just don't get it. My posts are from the perspective of the girls family. And you just can't tell them that that area was safer with this guy there, no matter what stats say.
We do get it. You aren't very smart.
Let's say she was killed by a seatbelt in a car accident.
You'd be there crying out against seatbelts because that's just the kind of guy you are.
A moran.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion