what is our position on the Caravan

[Danzo]

41 minutes ago, randy said:

Also, whatever happened to AoF #12 in this discussion?  Of course, in this discussion..there may be those here who feel that in order to obey #12 they are disobeying #13....fascinating discussion though!  enjoying it!

Sometimes a higher law will supersede a lower law.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Obviously it's personal preference. 

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

All choices boil down to personal preferences.

Well, no.  Choices can be compelled by coercion, duress, etc.

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

They are probably making a judgement call on where they would be safer.

Then we aren't talking about a legal or moral or ethical imperative.  Something quite less than that, as evidenced by the lion's share of the caravan folks spurning Mexico's offer.

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Don't we have a legal system here set up to decide that? Do we have the facts for each individuals case? 

Perhaps we should let it do its job.

I quite agree.  The "system" includes securing our borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[halconero]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It has been a mess for a long time and I find it completely normal to move resources around. The asylum backlog is over 300,000 in the US with border apprehensions at 1-2000 a day.

I would agree that it's normal to move resources around. What's not normal is how and why they're moving resources around. The deep cut to global resettlement represents a new and entirely different path from the bipartisan consensus established by Ronald Reagan and carried on through the Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama Administrations. I would posit that it's not only a deep shift in humanitarian priorities, but a highly dangerous national security policy. Previous resettlement efforts were both a humanitarian objective, but also a geopolitical one. The "Big 6" jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, the EU, and New Zealand agreed to take the most vulnerable and expensive refugees from places like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, etc in exchange for those countries of first asylum to house the millions more staying there. Previous efforts to slash the ceiling numbers are correlated with countries of first asylum sealing their borders, and/or ejecting displaced persons back into their home countries. These have been tightly correlated with re-ignitions in civil conflict and radicalization which gets exported globally. Furthermore, previous resettlement efforts have also lead the way in drastically improving the lives of displaced persons NOT being resettled. We agreed to be a pressure valve in exchange for places like Jordan and Uganda allowing displaced persons the right to work and the right to education, as opposed to more traditional long-term camps in places like Kenya.

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It makes sense since asylum applications are up that refugee grants are down.

If you understand how these two systems operate and the countries of origin involved, there is little correlations between them.

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And, since Canada has had more incoming asylum cases and illegal border crossings, their system has also felt the strain.

No disagreement there. The IRB is facing an increasing backlog.

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe, to properly and expeditiously deal with this, we should raise taxes?

Possibly. I'm not opposed to a social inclusion tax for immigrants. I don't actually think it would raise a significant amount of revenue in either Canada or the United States, and definitely not enough to fully-fund either immigration system.

I can't speak for the intricacies of the United States system, but the Canadian system freaked out (IMO) over the Singh Decision by overreacting and making every asylum claim part of an oral hearing. In reality, the SCC didn't demand so thorough a process at the first stage, but merely the provision of an oral hearing upon request, and upon appeal. I think we could shift to the informal interview and/or paper-based applications being used in parts of Europe, and shift some responsibilities to IRCC officers.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be mocking a serious point.  Not helpful.

From the article:

Thanks,

-Smac

Going on such a trip would be a dangerous undertaking.  I think it would be prudent to take care for ones self defense.  The presence  of a means of self defense should to prejudice us against them anymore than the presence arms among us  should prejudice them against us.

I imagine that they might have be in more imminent danger where they are at than many of us are here, who carry means of self defense.  

I know, that were I to undertake such a journey, I would feel safer if I were armed. 

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I quite agree.  The "system" includes securing our borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

And granting asylum.

[halconero]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you again. I was simply saying Canada doesn't have open borders.

Fair.

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think it's pretty clear that there are militant types in central and S. America. I was simply drawing a parallel. I don't think militant communists, socialists,  or drug dealers are any more desirable than militant Wahhabi Muslims would be. However, they are probably lesser known. 

Probably less well known. I'm not sure militant socialists are more interested in entering the United States than continuing the fight in their homelands, as their concern is more domestic than Wahhabi terrorism is. Most Latin American-based violence is more related to the drug trade than ideology. Not that that's not a valid concern. Just the reality.

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

What does Canada do with a group of 20,000 asylum seekers while they are awaiting the application process?

Depends on the province. After passing an initial eligibility check (this doesn't approve your claim, just that you're eligible to make a claim) you're issued a work permit. Ontario has chosen to house them in temporary accommodations. Manitoba has chosen to give them access to rent supplements and housing liaisons to find housing on the private rental market. FWIW I think the Manitoba version is working better, and is less expensive despite the salience of a cash transfer.

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Is there a fee for seeking asylum?

No.

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The only one I have issue with right now is abortion on demand. Is there some law concerning immigration that you are referring too so tha this thread does not get hijacked? 

Something about "when I was a stranger, you took me in."

 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

Going on such a trip would be a dangerous undertaking. 

They are using violence to gain entry into a country of which they are not citizens.

That is a serious point, and you ridiculed it.

Quote

I think it would be prudent to take care for ones self defense. 

I think that is a substantial mischaracterization of what is happening.  The caravan folks are the agressors.

Quote

The presence  of a means of self defense should to prejudice us against them anymore than the presence arms among us  should prejudice them against us.

We are not talking about self-defense, though.

Again, from the article:

Quote

The migrants had gasoline bombs made of soft-drink bottles, and improvised PVC tubes to launch fireworks or other projectiles.

...

Guatemala’s Interior Ministry said the second group had wounded Guatemalan police and used children as human shields, and Guatemalan firefighters confirmed that a 26-year-old Honduran had been killed from a blow to the head.

...

Navarrete Prida said Mexican federal police and immigration agents were attacked with rocks, glass bottles and fireworks when migrants broke through a gate on the Mexican side of the border, but were prevented from entering. Navarrete said some of the attackers carried guns and firebombs.

These folks are using molotov cocktails ("gasoline bombs made of soft-drink bottles" seems a roundabout description).  They are using projectiles.  They have injured members of law enforcement, having attacked them "with rocks, glass obttles and fireworks."  They are using children as human shields.

These are not matters of "self defense."

Quote

I imagine that they might have be in more imminent danger where they are at than many of us are here, who carry means of self defense.  

I know, that were I to undertake such a journey, I would feel safer if I were armed. 

You are excusing violence against law enforcement (resulting in injuries).

You are excusing the use of children as human shields.

You are (mis)characterizing these behaviors as "self defense."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 29, 2018 by smac97

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Something about "when I was a stranger, you took me in."

 

 

Forgive me, that remark has nothing to do with U.S. Law, or God's Law, it us about how we as "individuals" are to behave toward one another. If that were God's law, under all circumstances, then anyone and everyone who might walk up to your door and ask you to let live there, you would be under obligation to let them live there. So try to use some rationality, and again give me an example.  

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They are using violence to gain entry into a country of which they are not a citizen.

Some are and some are not.  Why must judge everyone by the worst elements in a group.

 

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The caravan folks are the agressors.

That is a harsh statement.  All members of the caravan? Even the Children?

Again, I think you are making the error of group judgment for individual behavior. 

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are excusing the use of children as human shields.

If all members of the caravan are  aggressors, then the children weren't shields, they were just being aggressors.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, why me said:

This problem goes way back. MS 13 did not come with the current administration. I do believe that they have been around for quiite some time. And if I remember correctly some people are calling for ICE to be abolished. Not sure if that would help. Before Trump, most politicisns, including Bernie was against illegal immigration because they would claim that it lowers wages. Bernie in an interview with VOX claimed this before he announced his running for president. Who allowed this gang to grow in such size across the US? And how was such a gang allowed to be imported into the US? And can people be sure that not one MS 13 member or prospective member is not in the caravan coming to the US? It seems that many politicians who were against illegal immigration are now for it because of the current administration attitude toward it. Wasn't their criticism when Trump called the MS 13 members animals? Here is Bernie on open borders. He was just about to announce that he was running

MS 13 has not and will not be dealt with effectively.  That has been true generally for the criminal gang infestation which began in earnest during Prohibition.  Yokels substitute talk for action, and idiotic policies for enlightened ones.  People generally get the govt they deserve by voting for fools and ignoring genuine problem-solving techniques.  The blame-game is too much with us, along with corruption in high places.  The end-times are not going to be pretty.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Forgive me, that remark has nothing to do with U.S. Law, or God's Law, it us about how we as "individuals" are to behave toward one another. If that were God's law, under all circumstances, then anyone and everyone who might walk up to your door and ask you to let live there, you would be under obligation to let them live there. So try to use some rationality, and again give me an example.  

I sincerely believe that the remark was given by our Savior and I take it seriously.  

How we as individuals treat each is reflected in the laws that we create.  Laws are created by individuals, and are enforced by individuals.  

Although I do not know what the motives of every member of this caravan is, I believe many are desperate and need help.  

I do not think we as a country can make laws that hurt people and then just hide behind "I was just obeying the law". In the US, we have a responsibility to righteously influence the laws. 

The immigration laws in the United States are evil and go against the many of the laws of god.

 

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Some are and some are not. 

A distinction you have not raised until now.

Again, from the article:

Quote

An Associated Press journalist saw about 600 migrants Monday morning on the bridge, where Mexican federal police had blocked one end. The migrants had gasoline bombs made of soft-drink bottles, and improvised PVC tubes to launch fireworks or other projectiles.

On Sunday, the smaller band of migrants broke through border barriers on the Guatemalan side of the bridge, just as members of the first caravan did more than a week earlier. And just as the first migrants did, the second group confronted Mexican police, who blocked them from entering Mexico.

...

Guatemala’s Interior Ministry said the second group had wounded Guatemalan police and used children as human shields, and Guatemalan firefighters confirmed that a 26-year-old Honduran had been killed from a blow to the head.

...

[Mexican Interior Secretary Alfonso] Navarrete Prida said Mexican federal police and immigration agents were attacked with rocks, glass bottles and fireworks when migrants broke through a gate on the Mexican side of the border, but were prevented from entering. Navarrete said some of the attackers carried guns and firebombs. There was no evidence that the first group had come with weapons.

I think it's disingenuous to bifurcate this group out into people who are using violence and people who are not.  

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Why must judge everyone by the worst elements in a group.

Again, it is disingenuous to bifurcate this group out into people who are using violence and people who are not.  The latter's voluntary association with the former is inculpatory.

If I join a group of armed friends to break into a store, and if my friends violently attack the security guard and store employees, "Hey, I was not being violent, my friends were" is not a viable defense.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Vance said:

So, rather that engage or refute, you go for the ad hominem attack.

On the contrary, everything you say lines up perfectly with the agitation & propaganda efforts of authoritarian and corrupt regimes worldwide.  If it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Cool. Good thing we can compare your hypothetical against a reality Canada is facing. In the United States and Nigeria, Haitians and Nigerian groups have declared their intent to march or drive through the United States and enter Canada illegally from thousands of miles away. Haitians living in Florida with Temporary Protected Status, and Nigerians being given tourist visas by the United States with the intention of crossing into Canada. In sum both of these groups specifically approximate to around 25,000 individuals in a planned migration over the past year and a half.

And yes, Canada has intervened and absorbed these groups. Some will be accepted, and others rejected and deported, pending a thorough review of their case by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more force than the failed Mexican attempts." Canada isn't forcing anything. The Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have organized an impressively well run reception for claimants, detaining them upon arrival and warning that they're crossing illegally, but recognizing their right to make a claim upon crossing. This complies with Canadian and International precedent which renders an illegal crossing as "irregular" pending a review of a claimants case, recognizing that claimants may not always be able to cross legally to make a claim. A good example of this is Elder Uchtdorf's irregular crossing between legal ports of entry of East and West Germany with his mother.

Have those “planned” migrations materialized or are they still in planning? From your description, it appears the groups are in the US legally and plan to enter Canada illegally. Is Canada making any appeals to the US in light of the threatened encroachment? Can you compare the total numbers of illegal immigrants in Canada with those in the US? 

Mexican police attempted an action blocking the caravan crossing their country illegally, but it ended in them being overrun and with injuries. Would this happen if a group 5000 illegal migrants were crossing 3000 km into Canada heading for the US? 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Vance said:

???

A repeal in hand IS worth MORE that a "repeal and replace" in the bush.

That's what phony Mitch McConnell would say, and get nothing for it.  McCain, smart man that he was, realized that only the real thing is worth having.  You can keep your imaginary legislation.  It has no value in the bush.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

Side note: Canada surpassed the United States in terms of raw (not per capita, but absolute numbers) refugee and asylum seeker settlement this year, and will continue to outstrip it next year, accounting for 25%+ of all global third country refugee resettlement.

I have to smile. 

[bsjkki]

This whole debate is a complex, policy based decision and should be treated as such. There is not an easy solution. 

29 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Forgive me, that remark has nothing to do with U.S. Law, or God's Law, it us about how we as "individuals" are to behave toward one another. If that were God's law, under all circumstances, then anyone and everyone who might walk up to your door and ask you to let live there, you would be under obligation to let them live there. So try to use some rationality, and again give me an example.  

I agree that "rationality" is needed. If a caravan of caravans of 14,000 or okay? what about 140,000 or 2,000,000? Should all Guatemalans, Hondurans, and those from all "unsafe" countries be allowed to immigrate freely to the US? This debate is all about where lines should be drawn. How would mass immigration effect jobs, wage growth, entitlement spending? What are the resources needed to vet and background check everyone wanting to immigrate to the United States? We live in generous nation that grants permanent legal status to over 1,000,000 immigrants each year. What should that number be?

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by bsjkki

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Hestia said:

We are getting a lot of reports on this thread.  Everyone needs to calm down with the personal insults and political rhetoric or it'll be locked.

For the record, I’m not among those who have registered a complaint with the moderation team, though I do believe this entire thread rather blatantly conflicts with the no-politics rule in the board guidelines and have said so. And I have been subjected to one insult (that I know about). 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

How should we stop them?

Should we shoot them? 

Waterboard them?

Sell them into slavery?

Isn’t that a hard question. I have already proposed several humane solutions. Advocating for reasonable and lawful immigration practices does not make one a hater, don’t you agree? What’s your solution?

[Danzo]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A distinction you have not raised until now.

I thought it would  be obvious.

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's disingenuous to bifurcate this group out into people who are using violence and people who are not

I try not to judge people by the worst elements.  It is easy and Lazy to pick a group of people we don't like, find the worst person in it and judge the rest.

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, it is disingenuous to bifurcate this group out into people who are using violence and people who are not.  The latter's voluntary association with the former is inculpatory.

I think you make the error of judging people on reasonable behavior in your situation with reasonable behavior in their circumstance.  I am not sure the association is as voluntary as you think it is.

Perhaps you are right.  A group of 600 people formed a conspiracy to evade US immigration laws (in Mexico!) and they assigned people to be armed and to attack border agents.  They were all well versed in US immigration law and had an overwhelming desire to subvert it. Everything was voted upon and planed from the start.  All are guilty. Each and every one of them has the  mens rea 

That is one theory. 

I tend to think (based on my experience working with immigrants). That many of these people are desperate and are doing the best they can do under their circumstances. These people are grouping together perhaps for their protection and perhaps because they think they can get further together.  These groups of people tend to attract some of the bad elements and some of the bad elements may have come with them.  

I would think that most of them haven't developed a mens rea against this particular malum prohibitum. They are just desperate and looking for something better. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Danzo

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Isn’t that a hard question. I have already proposed several humane solutions. Advocating for reasonable and lawful immigration practices does not make one a hater, don’t you agree? What’s your solution?

I think the best solution is to interview them, do background checks on them, perhaps check for dangerous diseases.

If they aren't criminals then let them settle here in the US.  

Let them work here and raise their families here.

If they commit crimes, lets punish them.

If they work hard, let's let them be wealthy. 

Treat them like everyone else (a radical idea, I know!).

 

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

I think you make the error of judging people on reasonable behavior in your situation with reasonable behavior in their circumstance.  I am not sure the association is as voluntary as you think it is.

Perhaps you are right.  A group of 600 people formed a conspiracy to evade US immigration laws (in Mexico!) and they assigned people to be armed and to attack border agents.  They were all well versed in US immigration law and had an overwhelming desire to subvert it. Everything was voted upon and planed from the start.  All are guilty. Each and every one of them has the  mens rea 

That is one theory. 

I tend to think (based on my experience working with immigrants). That many of these people are desperate and are doing the best they can do under their circumstances.

"The best they can do" being . . . the use of violence against law enforcement, molotov cocktails, use of children as human shields, etc.

The rule of law has to mean something.  "Times are hard in my country, ergo I am justified in violently attacking the law enforcement of a neighboring country and use children as human shields"-style reasoning is not very persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think the best solution is to interview them, do background checks on them, perhaps check for dangerous diseases.

If they aren't criminals then let them settle here in the US.  

This proposal incentivizes illegal entry and miscreant behavior ("Hey!  You just used molotov cocktails and children as human shields!  Welcome to the U.S. of A.!").

This proposal is manifestly unjust to those who have complied with the law by seeking legal entry to the United States.

This proposal presupposes that "background checks" would be uniformly effective and accurate and possible.

This proposal reduces accountability and efforts to fight corruption and malfeasance in government in countries that need to address such matters.

This proposal has no limiting principles.  It's basically a call for open borders.

Quote

Let them work here and raise their families here.

I'm fine with that.  But they need to come through the front door.

Quote

If they commit crimes, lets punish them.

I propose that you run this by Ingrid Lake.  And the family of Ronald da Silva.  And the family of Tessa Tranchant.

And Sarah Root.

And Shayley Estes.

And Drew Rosenberg, and Grant Ronnebeck.  And on and on and on.

And on and on.

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Before we start down this road, then, we should grapple with some facts regarding illegal immigrants and crime. Unfortunately, almost every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure of illegal-immigrant crime data more tenaciously than disclosure of nuclear launch codes. But in 2011, GAO conducted a study on criminal aliens incarcerated in state jails and prisons. According to GAO, in FY 2009 295,959 SCAAP criminal aliens, of whom approximately 227,600 are illegal aliens, were incarcerated in state jails and prisons. This is a 40 percent and 25 percent increase, respectively, in criminal-alien incarcerations in state jails and prisons since FY 2003.

The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) partially reimburses states and localities for the cost of incarcerating certain criminal aliens. It does not reimburse states and localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens who are in the country legally. There are two types of criminal aliens for which SCAAP will reimburse the incarcerating authority: SCAAP illegal aliens, whom DHS has definitively determined are in the country illegally; and SCAAP unknown aliens, for whom DHS is unable to find a record, but who are probably in the country illegally.

In FY 2009, there were 295,959 SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in state and local jails and prisons. DOJ uses a reimbursement metric based on how many SCAAP unknown aliens are believed to be illegal aliens:

DOJ is to reimburse states for 65 percent, cities for 60 percent, and counties for 80 percent of correctional salary costs associated with unknown aliens. According to DOJ officials, this methodology was developed based on analysis that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducted in 2000 where it analyzed the records of aliens submitted for SCAAP reimbursement in 1997 whose immigration status was at that time unknown. Based upon this analysis, INS determined that 65 percent of those unknown aliens submitted for reimbursement by states did not have legal status, 60 percent submitted for reimbursement by cities did not have legal status, and 80 percent submitted for reimbursement by counties did not have legal status.

Using DOJ’s metrics, it therefore appears that approximately 81,200 SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in state prisons, out of a possible 91,000 examined by GAO, were in the country illegally. Using those same metrics, approximately 146,400 to 175,200 SCAAP criminal aliens incarcerated in local jails, out of a possible 204,000 examined by GAO, were in the country illegally. (The range is because “local jails” are not differentiated into city and county jails, but DOJ believes that the percentage of illegal aliens within the SCAAP unknown alien group varies between the two.)

These are sobering numbers.

And here (same link) (emphasis added):

Quote

GAO examined five states that had large SCAAP illegal alien populations in 2008 – Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Arizona was the only state where traffic offenses were a substantial percentage of SCAAP illegal-alien convictions. Setting aside traffic offenses, 41 percent of the SCAAP illegal-alien convictions in Arizona were for drug offenses and assault. In California, “about 50 percent of California’s primary convictions related to SCAAP illegal aliens were for drugs, assault, and sex offenses.” Texas had a similar breakdown of SCAAP illegal-alien offenses. In Florida, “about 50 percent of all Florida state convictions of SCAAP illegal alien inmates were for drugs, sex offenses, burglary, and robbery.” And, shockingly, in New York, 27 percent of SCAAP illegal-alien primary convictions were for homicide – more than the 23 percent convicted for drug-related offenses. Below, homicide-related offenses are disaggregated by state.

‐ Arizona: About 240 illegal aliens were imprisoned for homicide-related offenses. In 2009 there were 3,484 total inmates incarcerated in Arizona state prisons for homicide and related offenses (first degree murder, second degree murder, murder (old code), manslaughter, and negligent homicide). Removing the estimated 240 illegal aliens from that total leaves us with 3,244 citizens and legal residents imprisoned for homicide-related offenses out of a total population of approximately 6.3 million residents. The Pew Research Center estimates that approximately 350,000 illegal immigrants lived in Arizona in 2009. That leaves approximately 6 million citizens and legal residents in Arizona. This yields a rate of 68.57 illegal aliens imprisoned for homicide offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens in Arizona, and 54.06 citizens and legal residents imprisoned for homicide offenses per 100,000 citizens and legal residents in Arizona. It should be noted, however, that a study by John Lott, using more recent and comprehensive state data, found that illegal immigrants are far more likely to commit crimes than lawful residents.

The numbers in other states are not much better (from the same link):

California: "Applying the same analysis as above, this yields an estimated rate of 97.2 illegal aliens imprisoned for homicide and related offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens, and 74.1 citizens and legal residents imprisoned for homicide and related offenses per 100,000 citizens and legal residents."

Florida: "[There is] an estimated rate of 54.85 illegal aliens imprisoned for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 illegal aliens, and 67.8 legal residents imprisoned for murder and manslaughter per 100,000 legal residents."

New York: "This yields an estimated rate of 168.75 illegal aliens incarcerated for murder and related offenses per 100,000 illegal aliens, and 48.12 legal residents incarcerated for murder and related offenses per 100,000 legal residents."

Texas: "This yields a rate of 54.54 illegal aliens incarcerated for homicide per 100,000 illegal aliens, and 65.43 legal residents incarcerated for homicide per 100,000 legal residents."

The takeaway (same link):

Quote

Taking the data only from these five states, and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death, yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens.

There are studies that suggest that illegal immigrants as a group are less prone to crime than native-born Americans. I’m skeptical of these studies, even when not including immigration-related offenses. But the point is broader than that. The media portrays illegal immigration as a victimless phenomenon, as benign as the coming of spring and as impossible to forestall. But that’s untrue. Any amnesty will act as a magnet for future illegal immigration. We should consider the consequences of encouraging illegal immigration, and with it, more crime.

Yep.

Quote

If they work hard, let's let them be wealthy. 

Certainly.  But let's have them get in line.

Quote

Treat them like everyone else (a radical idea, I know!).

Requiring them to "get in line" to seek entry to the U.S. would be "treat[ing] them like everyone else."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 29, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think the best solution is to interview them, do background checks on them, perhaps check for dangerous diseases.

If they aren't criminals then let them settle here in the US.  

Let them work here and raise their families here.

If they commit crimes, lets punish them.

If they work hard, let's let them be wealthy. 

Treat them like everyone else (a radical idea, I know!).

 

You don’t need to include the insults, thank you.

Sounds a lot like what we do with the millions of folks who enter the country legally.

What would those background checks look like? If they can pay thousands of dollars to the coyotes, should they be expected to contribute to the cost of their asylum? Would you propose quotas, or free for all comers?

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui