Are sanctuary cities/states traitors to the union?

[JockoJohnson]

You call logic a statement that the odds are likely that people coming into the US legally are not criminals compared to illegal entrants when it is automatically true that anybody here illegally has broken the law and is thus a criminal? I would have thought that the odds were a certainty using my kind of logic.

Well, that is where logic flies out the window. We have some on here who say that breaking the law by crossing the border illegally is the same as doing a few miles per hour over the speed limit. So basically, it doesn't count as breaking the law. If that logic works for those people then it must be true.

 

[werepossum]

If steinle were a black woman and the shooter a white male you'd bet your ass Obama would be on tv.

Yep.

Well, that is where logic flies out the window. We have some on here who say that breaking the law by crossing the border illegally is the same as doing a few miles per hour over the speed limit. So basically, it doesn't count as breaking the law. If that logic works for those people then it must be true.

That is what is bizarre.

 

[dank69]

Well, that is where logic flies out the window. We have some on here who say that breaking the law by crossing the border illegally is the same as doing a few miles per hour over the speed limit. So basically, it doesn't count as breaking the law. If that logic works for those people then it must be true.

It isn't that it doesn't count as breaking the law. It's that it doesn't count as evidence that illegals commit more crime once they are already here.

 

[First]

Who gives a shit if you correct it for poverty? As if we want more poor assholes in this country.

Haha, don't be a dumbass. If you're attempting to get accurate stats, correcting for poverty gives you more accurate, representative numbers. What is difficult to understand?

Furthermore, if you correct one side for poverty, you need to correct the other side. I guaranty you that once you remove it from the American population the 3.7% falls precipitously.

So you guarantee the native crime rate would drop precipitously, yet there's also no question the illegal immigrant crime rate would drop precipitously, and by a larger proportional amount, given what we know about illegal immigrant incomes. Which makes your statement odd, pointless raging.

Why wouldn't native born show up in UCR?

I have a feeling you didn't read your own, shitty undergraduate thesis source you cited. Native born won't show up in the UCR if they commit crimes but get fined instead of actually incarcerated. This is mentioned in your Mississippi university thesis....if you read it.

What about the illegal aliens that aren't incarcerated simply because of the Sanctuary City policies? Catch and release.

Except sanctuary cities don't generally release people, no matter their citizenship status, who have been documented with breaking the law in their cities. Despite what you may have heard, no city really does that, at least not consistently and/or on purpose.

 

[First]

And you can't disprove it with any concrete evidence. It is an outstanding question until there is more solid data.

The data is actually far more in favor of those who believe illegal immigrant criminal rates are similar to the legal immigrant criminal rates, which are absolutely on par with the native born population, especially knowing that 40% of illegal immigrants were previously legal visa holders.

Again, the burden of proof is on the turds here to explain why illegal immigrants (40% previously legal visa holders) are substantially different from legal immigrants in their criminal behavior. Because the data is already in on legal immigrants; they commit crimes at or below the native born rate.

 

[cabri]

How about the fact that the illegals have already committed a crime. Native born does not have such a stigma.

 

[First]

How about the fact that the illegals have already committed a crime. Native born does not have such a stigma.

Read the thread. Derp.

 

[cabri]

Read the thread. Derp.

From your own statement above. Illegals do commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born and legals

Because the data is already in on legal immigrants; they commit crimes at or below the native born rate.

 

[ivwshane]

From your own statement above. Illegals do commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born and legals

Uh...what?

 

[First]

From your own statement above. Illegals do commit crimes at a higher rate than the native born and legals

You're confused. My statement is still true. Try reading the thread again.

 

[cabri]

Again, the burden of proof is on the turds here to explain why illegal immigrants (40% previously legal visa holders) are substantially different from legal immigrants in their criminal behavior. Because the data is already in on legal immigrants; they commit crimes at or below the native born rate.

Anyone here that is illegally has committed at least one crime.
Those that legal immigrants do not have a 100% rate of having committed a crime.
Those that are native born do not have a 100% rate of having committed a crime.

 

[dank69]

Anyone here that is illegally has committed at least one crime.
Those that legal immigrants do not have a 100% rate of having committed a crime.
Those that are native born do not have a 100% rate of having committed a crime.

Take more time with your posts. The grammar here is awful.

The claim is that illegal immigrants commit more crime in the US than legal and native-born. Starting with "they all have committed at least one crime by definition" is useless for the actual discussion. What we want to know is if they actually commit more crime while they are here, because that is what you idiots really mean when you say they commit more crime.

Let's ignore that you are arguing a stupid point that nobody cares about. Even if we start with they all committed that one crime, that still doesn't prove they commit more crime. Yes, 100% of them have committed a crime, but since an illegal could just commit that one crime and a legal/native-born could commit many crimes, it is still possible that illegals commit less crime overall.

 

[cabri]

Take more time with your posts. The grammar here is awful.

The claim is that illegal immigrants commit more crime in the US than legal and native-born. Starting with "they all have committed at least one crime by definition" is useless for the actual discussion. What we want to know is if they actually commit more crime while they are here, because that is what you idiots really mean when you say they commit more crime.

Let's ignore that you are arguing a stupid point that nobody cares about. Even if we start with they all committed that one crime, that still doesn't prove they commit more crime. Yes, 100% of them have committed a crime, but since an illegal could just commit that one crime and a legal/native-born could commit many crimes, it is still possible that illegals commit less crime overall.

:biggrin:

The problem is the many of the illegal supporters like to split hairs ignoring the argument context. so, fair play in jerking their chain

From numbers that I have seen 20-25% of illegals commit reportable crimes.

 

[ivwshane]

:biggrin:

The problem is the many of the illegal supporters like to split hairs ignoring the argument context. so, fair play in jerking their chain

From numbers that I have seen 20-25% of illegals commit reportable crimes.

Source?

 

[First]

:biggrin:

The problem is the many of the illegal supporters like to split hairs ignoring the argument context. so, fair play in jerking their chain

From numbers that I have seen 20-25% of illegals commit reportable crimes.

lol

 

[nickqt]

:biggrin:

The problem is the many of the illegal supporters like to split hairs ignoring the argument context. so, fair play in jerking their chain

From numbers that I have seen 20-25% of illegals commit reportable crimes.

More like 925%, because horseshoes, pigeons, and lamps.

Also: Benghazi.

 

[nixium]

Take more time with your posts. The grammar here is awful.

The claim is that illegal immigrants commit more crime in the US than legal and native-born. Starting with "they all have committed at least one crime by definition" is useless for the actual discussion. What we want to know is if they actually commit more crime while they are here, because that is what you idiots really mean when you say they commit more crime.

Let's ignore that you are arguing a stupid point that nobody cares about. Even if we start with they all committed that one crime, that still doesn't prove they commit more crime. Yes, 100% of them have committed a crime, but since an illegal could just commit that one crime and a legal/native-born could commit many crimes, it is still possible that illegals commit less crime overall.

What should be the punishment for the one crime they did commit?

 

[First]

What should be the punishment for the one crime they did commit?

Fines, longer wait times. Both proposed in the Senate 2013 immigration bill, actually.

 

[nixium]

Fines, longer wait times. Both proposed in the Senate 2013 immigration bill, actually.

I'm not a member of the "deportation only" crowd but, there were some flaws in the bill. According to it, an illegal that was a resident prior to Dec 2011 could potentially be a citizen in 13 years (10 years penalty wait + 3 year "reduced" citizenship wait period). Currently, someone applying for citizenship based on family connections, from Mexico, would wait for 27 years (22 years for a green card + 5 years for citizenship).

So the moral of the story is that if he'd jumped over the fence, his path to citizenship would have been easier? quicker?

This is my problem with the liberal approach to the solution. All heart, and no fairness, and spitting on the faces of those who play by the rules.

IMO anyone here illegally should never be allowed to become a citizen - permanent residency is as far as they should be allowed to go.

 

[nixium]

Anyway, PSA to the deportation-only crowd:

You've lost the war.

And I don't say this gleefully or whatever, just stating reality. 2013 was the last chance to have a bill that had *some* penalties for the lawbreakers. Pretty soon, 13 million illegals' 30 million american citizen children will come of voting age. You think all the bills you've seen so far are "amnesty" LOL you haven't seen the meaning of amnesty yet.

 

[First]

I'm not a member of the "deportation only" crowd but, there were some flaws in the bill. According to it, an illegal that was a resident prior to Dec 2011 could potentially be a citizen in 13 years (10 years penalty wait + 3 year "reduced" citizenship wait period). Currently, someone applying for citizenship based on family connections, from Mexico, would wait for 27 years (22 years for a green card + 5 years for citizenship).

Source? I'm not aware of it taking 27 years to become a citizen from start to finish. I personally know people who did it in a decade.

So the moral of the story is that if he'd jumped over the fence, his path to citizenship would have been easier? quicker?

This is my problem with the liberal approach to the solution. All heart, and no fairness, and spitting on the faces of those who play by the rules.

And I'm not aware of there being any evidence that someone who attempted legal citizenship would be at a disadvantage to those who came illegally. Like I said, link?

IMO anyone here illegally should never be allowed to become a citizen - permanent residency is as far as they should be allowed to go.

Why?

 

[nixium]

Source? I'm not aware of it taking 27 years to become a citizen from start to finish. I personally know people who did it in a decade.



And I'm not aware of there being any evidence that someone who attempted legal citizenship would be at a disadvantage to those who came illegally. Like I said, link?



Why?

http://travel.state.gov/content/vis...letin/2015/visa-bulletin-for-august-2015.html

Look at the visa bulletin, under F3 and F4. Philippines and Mexico are the worst affected. That date implies that people who applied for a green card prior to that date are having their applications processed now. Once they get the card, it's another 5 year wait (in the US) for citizenship.

If you look in the bottom, under EB (employment-based immigration) EB3 for India and Philippines are in 2004 - 11 years ago. Again, add 5 years = 16 years. And this is for people *in* the US, working full time, following every law. If the 2013 bill had passed, someone who came to the states illegally in 2013 would have gotten their green card "faster" than the person who did things legally.

And guess what? These people have to go through a stringent background check and medical tests. Crimes of moral turpitude, including solicitation of prostitution, DUI, etc are supposed to disqualify you from a card (or at least delay it significantly). I'm assuming that the illegals have to go through the same in the 2013 bill, otherwise, WTF.

As for why illegals should stop at permanent residency? LOL how the hell are they going to take an oath to defend the US constitution and the country if they've broken all its rules in entering it in the first place? It's so self explanatory I'm in disbelief that politicians are actually considering it.

 

[First]

http://travel.state.gov/content/vis...letin/2015/visa-bulletin-for-august-2015.html

Look at the visa bulletin, under F3 and F4. Philippines and Mexico are the worst affected. That date implies that people who applied for a green card prior to that date are having their applications processed now. Once they get the card, it's another 5 year wait (in the US) for citizenship.

Frankly I'm not sure it says that, I'm honestly not able to decipher it. If it takes 27 years to become a citizen I'd be pretty surprised, given I've never heard that from a news source or practically from Mexican citizens I know who became U.S. citizens. Of course, it's possible the immigration bill would fix a lot of this anyway.

If you look in the bottom, under EB (employment-based immigration) EB3 for India and Philippines are in 2004 - 11 years ago. Again, add 5 years = 16 years. And this is for people *in* the US, working full time, following every law. If the 2013 bill had passed, someone who came to the states illegally in 2013 would have gotten their green card "faster" than the person who did things legally.

And guess what? These people have to go through a stringent background check and medical tests. Crimes of moral turpitude, including solicitation of prostitution, DUI, etc are supposed to disqualify you from a card (or at least delay it significantly). I'm assuming that the illegals have to go through the same in the 2013 bill, otherwise, WTF.

They should have to, that I agree with. Honestly don't know.

As for why illegals should stop at permanent residency? LOL how the hell are they going to take an oath to defend the US constitution and the country if they've broken all its rules in entering it in the first place? It's so self explanatory I'm in disbelief that politicians are actually considering it.

It's not self explanatory if you can't, uh, explain it, haha. Why are people crossing the border illegally is the real, and frankly only relevant question here. Can you guess as to why they're coming into the country illegally, and why it may be jumping the shark to relegate them to 2nd class citizens by locking them out of civic participation in elections?

 

[nixium]

Frankly I'm not sure it says that, I'm honestly not able to decipher it. If it takes 27 years to become a citizen I'd be pretty surprised, given I've never heard that from a news source or practically from Mexican citizens I know who became U.S. citizens. Of course, it's possible the immigration bill would fix a lot of this anyway.

Yes, most people don't understand how arcane the immigration system is. This is just the tip of the iceberg. What that table means is that if you're the adult child of a US citizen from Mexico or Philippines (F3), then you have to wait 22 years before your green card application is processed. In these 22 years, you get no special visa status, so you wait outside the country (unless you get some kind of separate visa). Similarly, if you're the brother or the sister of a US citizen (F4) you wait 23 years for the Philippines.

The immigration bill would "fix" it - for the future. Nonetheless, the scenario I mentioned can easily be true. Right now, there is NO incentive for someone on F3 or F4 to wait in their home countries. In fact, it is downright disadvantageous for them to do so, unless they have good lives there already. In which case, why would they want to come here?

They should have to, that I agree with. Honestly don't know.

It's not self explanatory if you can't, uh, explain it, haha. Why are people crossing the border illegally is the real, and frankly only relevant question here. Can you guess as to why they're coming into the country illegally, and why it may be jumping the shark to relegate them to 2nd class citizens by locking them out of civic participation in elections?

IMO there are three reasons:

1. "Simple" crimes can disqualify you from a green card, and as a consequence citizenship. Violating a country's immigration laws and sovereignty is not a simple crime, it's an egregious crime, and the punishment is second class status.

2. As in the example above, being illegal is actually favorable to getting citizenship compared to the law abiding legal immigrant. Then what's the point of following the laws? This way, the law abider is allowed civic participation while the law breaker isn't.

3. Permanent residency does provide safeties and guarantees of the US constitution. Your claim of "2nd class" citizens makes them seem like some hated minority under a fascist regime when it can't be further from the truth.

Legal immigrants are important too, and they have sob stories of their own. Why isn't their story important? Why only the stories of those here illegally?

 

[First]

Yes, most people don't understand how arcane the immigration system is. This is just the tip of the iceberg. What that table means is that if you're the adult child of a US citizen from Mexico or Philippines (F3), then you have to wait 22 years before your green card application is processed. In these 22 years, you get no special visa status, so you wait outside the country (unless you get some kind of separate visa). Similarly, if you're the brother or the sister of a US citizen (F4) you wait 23 years for the Philippines.

The immigration bill would "fix" it - for the future. Nonetheless, the scenario I mentioned can easily be true. Right now, there is NO incentive for someone on F3 or F4 to wait in their home countries. In fact, it is downright disadvantageous for them to do so, unless they have good lives there already. In which case, why would they want to come here?

I will agree with you 100% if it's really taking that long to become a citizen, both by itself and compared to illegal immigrants. Certainly illegal immigrants shouldn't become citizens more quickly than those seeking legal entry.

IMO there are three reasons:

1. "Simple" crimes can disqualify you from a green card, and as a consequence citizenship. Violating a country's immigration laws and sovereignty is not a simple crime, it's an egregious crime, and the punishment is second class status.

Why? Why is a "simple" crime like crossing the border considered the same thing as being a felon, which is currently the only way a native citizen would be barred from voting?

2. As in the example above, being illegal is actually favorable to getting citizenship compared to the law abiding legal immigrant. Then what's the point of following the laws? This way, the law abider is allowed civic participation while the law breaker isn't.

Except the law the illegal immigrant is violating is crossing a line, a border on top soil. Still illegal, yes. Akin to felonies such as rape or murder? How about no? See how the punishment doesn't really fit the crime, right?

3. Permanent residency does provide safeties and guarantees of the US constitution. Your claim of "2nd class" citizens makes them seem like some hated minority under a fascist regime when it can't be further from the truth.

Legal immigrants are important too, and they have sob stories of their own. Why isn't their story important? Why only the stories of those here illegally?

Legal immigrant stories are very important, and I don't see anyone downplaying them (well, unless you're a certain type of conservative maybe).

But you still haven't answered my question; why are illegal immigrants crossing? When you can answer that, we can continue the discussion. Because, as you'll see, denying civic participation to illegal immigrants who are crossing for very specific reasons, is jumping the shark. It's not attempting to make the system "fairer", it's an over-reaction (I'm putting this gently).