• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson and his Uber driver killed by drunk driving illegal immigrant.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SlowSpyder said:
Are you defending a drunk driver that killed two innocent victims? Do you feel it is a bigger sin to point it out that this guy was an illegal alien deported twice than killing innocent people is?
Click to expand...

His point is that Trump's posting is very selective in order to paint a narrative. While that's politics, in particular this is a false and dehumanizing narrative. That's not ok.
 
Cozarkian said:
A comparison of the amount of crices committed by illegals v. Citizens is not relevant to questions about border security.

The question is the increased cost of border security v. the benefit of preventing more illegal immigration.

One example of an illegal drunk driver is not sufficient to establish the need for more border security. What the OP needs are studies showing the quantity/cost to society of deportations and crimes committed by illegals, analyzing what additional security measures are necessary to reduce those costs, and what it would cost to implement those measures.

Edit: I take that first part back. You also need to analyze the potential reduction in total DUI/crimes if the money were spent on crime prevention/enforcement rather than border security. The amount of preventable citizen crimes would be relevant to that.
Click to expand...

This is assuming there is no benefit to undocumented immigrants being in this country.

And it's assuming that all we are doing is assessing cost-benefit of an intervention (e.g. wall).

There is a large problem with governments dehumanizing and discriminating against groups of people. Plenty of examples in our own history of that.
 
SlowSpyder said:
There is also the reality of what did happen here and it shouldn't be ignored.
Click to expand...

The reality is that his drunk driving is what killed these 2 people, not his "illegalness". This whole thread is asinine, you're using the same logic that liberals use whenever someone kills a bunch of people with a gun (if the gun was illegal, it wouldn't have happened?) or that puritanical Christians used to enact prohibition (deport all the alcohol and crime will be gone!)
 
UNCjigga said:
The reality is that his drunk driving is what killed these 2 people, not his "illegalness". This whole thread is asinine, you're using the same logic that liberals use whenever someone kills a bunch of people with a gun (if the gun was illegal, it wouldn't have happened?) or that puritanical Christians used to enact prohibition (deport all the alcohol and crime will be gone!)
Click to expand...


Actually, him being here to drive into those people did play into it. If he was not here, nor was he able to get back illegally, this wouldn't have happened. The alcohol is to blame here, but if he wasn't here these two people would still be alive. I am not claiming we should deport all illegals, for many I think a path to citizenship is better. But in this guy's case, I think we can both agree it would be better had he not been here.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Actually, him being here to drive into those people did play into it. If he was not here, nor was he able to get back illegally, this wouldn't have happened. The alcohol is to blame here, but if he wasn't here these two people would still be alive. I am not claiming we should deport all illegals, for many I think a path to citizenship is better. But in this guy's case, I think we can both agree it would be better had he not been here.
Click to expand...

You have an illusion of control bias.
 
jackstar7 said:
I'm asking you why it is an important issue to you. What are the risks as you perceive them?
Click to expand...

We are a country with money and enemies. It is important that we allow good people that want to contribute into our country, not leaches and criminals. I don't understand why I would need to expand on this any further than I already have.
 
SlowSpyder said:
We are a country with money and enemies. It is important that we allow good people that want to contribute into our country, not leaches and criminals. I don't understand why I would need to expand on this any further than I already have.
Click to expand...
Because none of that explains why it is important to you.

You certainly don't have to explain further. I'm just trying to suss out why this is such a priority for you.
 
Isn't there something in Nazi political theory that to control the mob you must give them an enemy to blame for their misfortune or invent one? Otherwise they may have a WTF moment and turn on you.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Actually, him being here to drive into those people did play into it. If he was not here, nor was he able to get back illegally, this wouldn't have happened. The alcohol is to blame here, but if he wasn't here these two people would still be alive. I am not claiming we should deport all illegals, for many I think a path to citizenship is better. But in this guy's case, I think we can both agree it would be better had he not been here.
Click to expand...

But...he was deported. Twice.

Nobody is arguing that this isn't a horrible, avoidable tragedy. The question really is about how much should we spend on border security and enforcement actions before we hit diminishing returns (or before we take away funding from something else more worthwhile.)

The only way to put a full stop to illegal immigration is by turning into a shitty country with poor leadership and a floundering economy. Nobody wants that either.
 
jackstar7 said:
So nationalism?
Click to expand...

If by "nationalism" you mean I want 'murica, then no. If you mean I want our country to be strong and be as good of a place to be as possible for future generations as well as myself, then yes. And I think vetting who we let in, not just having wide open borders takes a step in that direction.
 
UNCjigga said:
But...he was deported. Twice.

Nobody is arguing that this isn't a horrible, avoidable tragedy. The question really is about how much should we spend on border security and enforcement actions before we hit diminishing returns (or before we take away funding from something else more worthwhile.)

The only way to put a full stop to illegal immigration is by turning into a shitty country with poor leadership and a floundering economy. Nobody wants that either.
Click to expand...

And he came back in, and we shouldn't allow that to be easy. We should have secure borders, I see no downside to that but there is plenty of downside to not having secure borders. I understand making things 100% perfect isn't realistic, and there is always a cost / benefit decision to be made. But at this point it is hard to argue that illegal immigration hasn't taken a toll.
 
SlowSpyder said:
And he came back in, and we shouldn't allow that to be easy. We should have secure borders, I see no downside to that but there is plenty of downside to not having secure borders. I understand making things 100% perfect isn't realistic, and there is always a cost / benefit decision to be made. But at this point it is hard to argue that illegal immigration hasn't taken a toll.
Click to expand...
So what makes a secure border? A $25 billion wall that doesn't even stretch the full length of the border? What would make sense to you?
 
UNCjigga said:
So what makes a secure border? A $25 billion wall that doesn't even stretch the full length of the border? What would make sense to you?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the wall is going to make a great impact given that there are other ways to get here. But, I guess we won't know for sure until it is there. Yea, there is a price tag to consider, but beyond that, what is the downside of the wall in your opinion?
 
SlowSpyder said:
But at this point it is hard to argue that illegal immigration hasn't taken a toll.
Click to expand...

If you take any random sample of people in America of equal size, I'd argue that undocumented immigrants are bigger contributors. Now...if we had a sufficiently sized and effective migrant worker program to supply the same contribution, I'd say that reducing new illegal immigrants to zero would be a good thing (unrealistic, but good).
 
interchange said:
If you take any random sample of people in America of equal size, I'd argue that undocumented immigrants are bigger contributors. Now...if we had a sufficiently sized and effective migrant worker program to supply the same contribution, I'd say that reducing new illegal immigrants to zero would be a good thing (unrealistic, but good).
Click to expand...


I am very much for a streamlined process to let those that want to be Americans achieve that goal. I have a few friends that have come here legally from different countries, and generally speaking they look down on illegal immigrants, but they'll also be the first to admit that it is a difficult and somewhat lengthy process going through the proper channels. I think we can do better in this area and still vet people. Combine that with the wall / better secured borders and I think everyone wins.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I'm not convinced the wall is going to make a great impact given that there are other ways to get here. But, I guess we won't know for sure until it is there. Yea, there is a price tag to consider, but beyond that, what is the downside of the wall in your opinion?
Click to expand...
well there's that whole taking of land from landowners to build this white elephant thing.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I am very much for a streamlined process to let those that want to be Americans achieve that goal. I have a few friends that have come here legally from different countries, and generally speaking they look down on illegal immigrants, but they'll also be the first to admit that it is a difficult and somewhat lengthy process going through the proper channels. I think we can do better in this area and still vet people. Combine that with the wall / better secured borders and I think everyone wins.
Click to expand...

Not at all the same thing. Undocumented immigrants are filling a demand for low-skilled low-income labor that would not be filled in any other way in this country if they didn't exist. The overall economic impact is small, however, doing away with their contributions to agriculture, construction, etc. would change things a whole lot.

A successful migrant worker program would allow people to have certain rights and legal protections without breaking the bank for employers, and as it grows we could start cracking down on industries that hire undocumented immigrants, dramatically reducing the demand for those workers. We'd have much better success at keeping bad guys out by denying them the ability to legally work if there was little demand for their illegal work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top