what is our position on the Caravan

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What do you think the Christian response should be to thousands of people making a trek across difficult terrain paying thousands of dollars to human traffickers with the chances of finding a better life pretty slim?

If you were in their place, what would you honestly want citizens in a country you were trying to seek refuge and a better life in to do?  That's probably the best answer to that question 'what should we do' since Jesus commands us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us and to love other people as we love ourselves.  The answer is probably unique to the individual.  

On a separate note, I do find it kind of interesting that so many members of the church are in this position (to discuss how immigrants or refugees should be treated) given our history of fleeing persecution and looking for safety in areas where the locals were not at all hospitable and where the hostile locals used some very similar reasons to want the 'mormons' out that we hear on the news concerning this subject.   

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, why me said:

 I do believe that 33 percent of the population of Guatemala are now living in the USA.

A logical impossibility, and not at all what the survey says. (how can people living in the USA be part of the population of Guatemala).

The survey talks about Hispanics Guatemalan  Origins.   (that would include my neices and nephews who were born in the US and only one parent is from Guatemala. None of them have ever been to Guatemala)

[why me]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for pointing this out. It is a monumental problem....possibly civilization-ending, at least as we know civilization. 

Perhaps so. The US was founded upon European thought. And the founding fathers were Euro centered. And its foundation was founded on the protestant work ethic. At this moment, I don't believe that it is possible to study courses in western civilization where such a civilization is presented in a positive manner. And this is unfortunate. Hirsi Ali, a exmuslim somali feminist gave an interesting interview where she relates the importance that muslims who migrate to Europe need to be taught the wonders of western thought. But she laments that it is not happening. Rather, students are being taught to hate western civilization as the root of all evil. Here is Hirsi Ali speaking about it. Interestingly, in part one the interviewer states that she did not want the audience to know where this interview took place because of her fear. Because of her message, she is often prevented from speaking in the West, especially at universities in the West.

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Would it have somehow been OK had Sarah Root been struck by a US citizen and killed (as many are), it would have somehow been better?

No.  But her story (and the other) rebuts the notion that illegal immigration is a "victimless crime."  

See, e.g., here:

Quote

The horrific incident involving dozens of immigrants allegedly smuggled into the U.S. in a sweltering tractor-trailer is proof that illegal immigration is “not a victimless crime,” the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told Fox News on Monday.

“It's a message I've been trying to get out as long as I've been the acting ICE director,” Thomas Homan said on "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

Federal authorities have since charged the alleged driver of the tractor-trailer, James Mathew Bradley Jr., 60, of Clearwater, Fla., with transporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Investigators found the packed truck at a Walmart in San Antonio over the weekend. Ten people who were inside the truck have died.

“Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime,” Homan argued. “These folks, they contract with criminal organizations. These organizations are the same organizations that smuggle drugs, they smuggle weapons, smuggle people that want to do harm to this country. You talk about drug cartels…are talking about smuggling folks. These are not victimless crimes,” he said.

“When you're victimized as an illegal alien or somebody stealing your social security number or your credit rating goes to zero because someone took your identity. This is not a victimless crime,” Homan continued. “Those folks that want to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, this is what happens. There's real consequences, this is a life-and-death decision that these people make.”

...

“I wish these ["sanctuary city"] jurisdictions would work with us, wish they (would) think about the decisions they're making,” he said. “They're enticing people to come and find refuge in their city. This is not the America that should be. We didn't enforce the laws without apology and we need to take the magnet away,” he said.

“I can't blame anybody for wanting to come to the United States. There's a legal way to do it and a not legal way to do it. Millions have come to this country and become parts of it's society through the legal process. That's what we need to stick to,” Homan added.

And here:

Quote

Apologists for illegal immigration try to paint it as a victimless crime, but the fact is that illegal immigration causes substantial harm to American citizens and legal immigrants, particularly those in the most vulnerable sectors of our population — the poor, minorities, and children.

Illegal immigration causes an enormous drain on public funds. The seminal study of the costs of immigration by the National Academy of Sciences found that the taxes paid by immigrants do not begin to cover the cost of services received by them.1 The quality of education, health care and other services for Americans are undermined by the needs of endless numbers of poor, unskilled illegal entrants.

Additionally, job competition by waves of illegal immigrants desperate for any job unfairly depresses the wages and working conditions offered to American workers, hitting hardest at minority workers and those without high school degrees.

And here:

Quote

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. Both the current state of the law and the refusal to enforce certain aspects of the law allow for the release of tens of thousands of criminal aliens into American communities. Protecting the public from violence and lawlessness is the preeminent function of government, which is why it is unconscionable there are over 350,000 known criminal aliens in the United States who are currently not detained by ICE – larger than the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

And here:

Quote

Denver’s “sanctuary” policy, which prohibits cops from using immigration law to fight crime, has claimed the life of a Denver cop. Detective Donnie Williams was murdered early Sunday morning by an illegal alien whom the police had encountered at least three times before. The city government is furiously spinning, but the facts speak for themselves — the (alleged) murderer presented a Mexican driver’s license three times as the result of traffic stops, but was never asked for an immigration document. Any legal Mexican driver in the U.S. has to carry with him at all times either a Border Crossing Card, a U.S. visa attached to the inside of his Mexican passport, or a green card. And it gets worse: the (alleged) murderer worked illegally in a restaurant owned by — wait for it – the mayor. And the restaurant had been notified by the government that the employee’s Social Security number was invalid. Even if the various levels of government were to enforce the immigration law and protect the citizenry, some illegal immigrants are going to get through and some of them will commit crimes –but responsibility for this murder is clearly shared by federal and local officials.

It goes on.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Would the crime had been less serious?

Would she not have been as dead?

Had our laws been enforced such as to exclude Sarah Root's murder from our country, Sarah Root would not have been murdered by that person.

Res ipsa loquitur.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When someone who is here illegally is killed by a drunk american is that somehow a better crime?

No.

But again, the notion that illegal immigration is a "victimless crime" is simply not so.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I usually respect your posts but this video is awful.  I sincerely hope you are not advocating what I think you are.  

Not sure what you mean here.

What is it that you think I am "advocating?"

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There are people who are killed by LDS drunk drivers, drivers who have been cited for traffic infractions.  Do we want to make a video that replaces the word "Illegal" and "person from honduras" with the word "Mormon"?

No.  Let's replace the word "illegal" with "drunk driver."  What happens then?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

34 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Did something I say something that would suggest to you that I felt like the words of the Savior were not meant to be taken seriously? Also, "our laws", are not meant to "hurt people", but "our laws", are written for U.S. Citizens, and those here legally, they are not written for those in other Nations, nor are they binding to those in other Nations. The immigration laws in the United States are more "liberal", that almost every other Nation, they ARE NOT "evil", and they are not in violation of God's laws. But, I can see from your comments that "rationality", is not a possibility.   

I see you do not know much about how immigration laws work in the US. 

That is the problem with many of the people defending the US immigration laws.  They defend the laws they think we have as opposed the the laws we actually have.

Did you know the US Laws punish people for getting married and reward them for shacking up?

Do you think god is OK with it?

Bank robbery has a statute of limitations, but not being here born doesn't?

You think God is OK with that?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

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.

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

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

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.

I think one of the things that has to be acknowledged when discussing Canadian and American policies is the sheer difference in number of people.  There are more people in the state of California than in all of Canada.  What works in one country wont' necessarily work in the other.  Our demographics are vastly different, as are our needs and resources.  

[why me]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

A logical impossibility, and not at all what the survey says. (how can people living in the USA be part of the population of Guatemala).

The survey talks about Hispanics Guatemalan  Origins.   (that would include my neices and nephews who were born in the US and only one parent is from Guatemala. None of them have ever been to Guatemala)

However, the countries are emptying as more and more people are coming from central america. What to do? Why not allow all central americans to come to the US if they are desparate since that would perhaps be the christian ethic according to some posters on this thread? Why not allow all desparate people to come to the US? Have the population of the US  increase by the millions. Why not do this because of the christian ethic? Now of course, I don't think that this is the christian ethic at all. Christ was not talking about mass migration when he said such things. Migrations have consequences as I pointed out on this thread by pasting Podesta's emails about the crisis in europe because of mass migration to europe. However, legal migration can be a healthy entity when it is controlled and when people are allowed to melt into the dominant culture. The US has its own gang violence and a high murder rate in many cities. Of course, gang violence is one reason why people flee. However, new gangs are formed in the US too. And they deal in drugs too. Where should the people of Chicago migrate to? Sweden? What about the homeless in California? Where should they migrate to? Canada? They all seem to be stuck in the USA.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/central-america-border-immigration/563744/

Edited October 29, 2018 by why me

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I see you do not know much about how immigration laws work in the US. 

That is the problem with many of the people defending the US immigration laws.  They defend the laws they think we have as opposed the the laws we actually have.

Did you know the US Laws punish people for getting married and reward them for shacking up?

Do you think god is OK with it?

Bank robbery has a statute of limitations, but not being here born doesn't?

You think God is OK with that?

I think a major part of the problem is that the U.S. can only absorb so many immgrants, legal and illegal.  This means that illegal immigrants are materially contributing to the delays in legal immigration.

There is no easy answer.  I acknowledge that.  My preference would be for us to secure our borders, then figure out a humanitarian and feasible way to work with the folks already here illegally.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But her story (and the other) rebuts the notion that illegal immigration is a "victimless crime."

The crime was driving under the influence, the victim was Sara Root.

I would think you, an officer of the court would appreciate that.

If I Jaywalked to a bank and then robbed a bank would this rebut the notion that "jaywalking is a victimless crime"

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Had our laws been enforced such as to exclude Sarah Root's murder from our country, Sarah Root would not have been murdered by that person.

This is just wrong.  With your logic, Utah's vote to repeal the 18th amendment also caused her to be murdered by that person (and a lot more than just her).

Surely you are familiar to with term 'proximate cause' , and when it is applicable. Should this poor girl's family  pursue a cause of action against the border patrol for not keeping this guy out. 

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's replace the word "illegal" with "drunk driver."  What happens then?

Then when we mourn the loss of people like Sara, we will focus on the real problem, and not an invented boogie man.

Drunk driving deaths are not caused by people not having a valid immigration status, they are caused by alcohol.  Getting rid of the poor, scary brown man won't really help with the problem of drunk driving.

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I see you do not know much about how immigration laws work in the US. 

That is the problem with many of the people defending the US immigration laws.  They defend the laws they think we have as opposed the the laws we actually have.

Did you know the US Laws punish people for getting married and reward them for shacking up?

Do you think god is OK with it?

Bank robbery has a statute of limitations, but not being here born doesn't?

You think God is OK with that?

Wow, glad I am retired now, so that I can't be fired from my 23 years in Law-Enforment. BTW, as one who enforced the law, many of our laws hurt people, just take Time to listen to what the criminals have to say when caught breaking them. But, your disdain for the U.S. Constitution and our laws noted. Also, your arrogance that the rest of us are ignorant. Last of all, here and in most places, we spell God, with a capital "G".   

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The crime was driving under the influence, the victim was Sara Root.

The crime was committed by a person who was not here legally.  His presence behind the wheel of a car in the U.S. is an integral element of why the crime happened.  But for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Surely you are familiar to with term 'proximate cause' , and when it is applicable. Should this poor girl's family  pursue a cause of action against the border patrol for not keeping this guy out. 

No.  Legal remedies can only get us so far.

But that doesn't detract from my point, namely, that but for the drunk driver's illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Then when we mourn the loss of people like Sara, we will focus on the real problem, and not an invented boogie man.

Nobody is inventing a boogie man.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Drunk driving deaths are not caused by people not having a valid immigration status, they are caused by alcohol. 

Crimes committed by immigrants who are here illegally are caused by . . . immigrants who are here illegally.

Illegal immigrants commit a nonzero number of crimes in the United States.  That criminality is one of the many reasons enforcement of our borders. 

There are other reasons.  Many others, in fact.

I do not deny that there are likewise compelling reasons for people to want to immigrate to the U.S.  But we cannot have uncontrolled, unvetted immigration into our country.  We are creating perverse incentives to break the law.  We need to stop doing that.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Getting rid of the poor, scary brown man won't really help with the problem of drunk driving.

This is not a race issue.  That you are resorting to specious accusations of racism rather undercuts the viability of your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think a major part of the problem is that the U.S. can only absorb so many immgrants, legal and illegal.  This means that illegal immigrants are materially contributing to the delays in legal immigration.

There is no easy answer.  I acknowledge that.  My preference would be for us to secure our borders, then figure out a humanitarian and feasible way to work with the folks already here illegally.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think you understand immigration law.   

The delays in legal immigration are caused by the  artificially low quotas. (Classic Socialism to regulate by quota rather than by the market)  

Illegal immigration is usually caused by

1. Lack of  a legal way to enter (You really can't legally come here if you are not skilled and don't have a relative legally here). Every one of us, if we were at an intersection where the light is malfunctioning and stayed red, would eventually just break the law and proceed when it was safe to do so.

2. Lack of an ability to wait (20 years is just not practical to wait, imagine having to wait 20 years to get married, or to get into a college, or in many of these peoples cases, just to get a job)

3. Lack of a statute of limitations.  (your parents carried you across the border as an infant, you are illegal till the day you die)

 

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The crime was committed by a person who was not here legally.  His presence behind the wheel of a car in the U.S. is an integral element of why the crime happened.  But for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root

Wrong,  had his presence here been legal, he would have still committed the crime. 

Your objection seems to be to his presence here, not to the legality of that presence. Your whole argument stems from believing that his presence at the scene of the crime is the contributing factor, not the legality of his presence. 

The legality or illegality of his presence here was depended on a combination of the place he was born, his relations here and the effectiveness of legal counsel that he might have retained to adjust his status. It also depended on the accident of the particular set of laws that he was subject to when he entered.

His legality or illegality is not relevant to the crime committed. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Danzo

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think you understand immigration law.   

The broad contours, yes.  The details and particulars, no

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The delays in legal immigration are caused by the  artificially low quotas. (Classic Socialism to regulate by quota rather than by the market)  

It doesn't make sense to call quotas "artificial."  Quotas are not organic.  They are created, and hence "artificial."  Always.

As for the factors that go into such quotas, see here, here and here.

From the last link:

Quote

Are massive legal immigration and massive illegal immigration related? If so, how? Many in policy circles hold a view of "Legal immigration, good; illegal immigration, bad."1 The logical extensions of such a simplistic perspective are to assume that the overall level of legal immigration does not matter and to underestimate any correlation to illegal immigration. But the facts show a distinct connection exists.

In brief, this report finds:

• Legal and illegal immigration are inextricably related. As legal immigration levels have risen markedly since 1965, illegal immigration has increased with it.
• The share of the foreign-born population who are illegal aliens has risen steadily. Illegal aliens made up 21 percent of the foreign-born in 1980, 25 percent in 2000, and 28 percent in 2005.
• Mexico is the primary source country of both legal and illegal immigrants. Mexico accounted for about 30 percent of the foreign-born in 2000, and more than half of Mexicans residing in the United States in 2000 were illegal aliens.
• The level of illegal immigration is severely masked by several amnesties that legalized millions of unlawfully resident aliens. The largest amnesty was the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized 3 million aliens.
• Amnestied aliens to date have been fully eligible to sponsor additional immigrants. This has contributed to the ranks of immigrants, both legal and illegal (and often both).
• Many aliens who receive a permanent resident visa each year have spent years living in the United States illegally.
• "Anchor babies" and "chain migration" provide opportunities for many aliens to plant roots in the United States. Those aliens might not otherwise have done so.
• An overly generous legal immigration preference system, whose bias is toward relatives and against ability, sets unrealistic expectations. Many aliens who technically qualify to immigrate face the reality of backlogs and waiting lists.
• Amnesties, technical qualification for a visa, chain migration, and vast opportunities to come to the United States (particularly via tourist visa, the most abused visa by eventual immigrants, according to the New Immigrant Survey) all foster an "entitlement mentality" among many foreigners.

The whole think is worth a read.

Again, I think illegal immigrants are materially contributing to the delays in legal immigration.  The above data support that.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Illegal immigration is usually caused by

1. Lack of  a legal way to enter (You really can't legally come here if you are not skilled and don't have a relative legally here).

That is a hard and bitter truth.  Not everyone who wants to come to the U.S. can do so.  Hence the "entitlement mentality" you present here (essentially, that if a person can't find a legal way to enter the U.S., they are entitled to enter illegally).

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

2. Lack of an ability to wait (20 years is just not practical to wait, imagine having to wait 20 years to get married, or to get into a college, or in many of these peoples cases, just to get a job)

Again, you are illustrating an entitlement mentality.  This is a big, big part of the problem.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

3. Lack of a statute of limitations.  (your parents carried you across the border as an infant, you are illegal till the day you die)

Hence the DREAM act.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

The crime was committed by a person who was not here legally.  His presence behind the wheel of a car in the U.S. is an integral element of why the crime happened.  But for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root

Wrong,  had his presence her been legal, he would have still committed the crime. 

You can't say that.  You don't know that.

What we do know, however, is that but for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Your objection seems to be to his presence here, not to the legality of that presence.

No, the legality is the issue.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The legality or illegality of his presence here was depended on a combination of the place he was born, his relations here and the effectiveness of legal counsel that he might have retained to adjust his status.

Yes.  The distinction between legality and illegality depend on a combination of factors.

Those factors matter.  A lot.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

His legality or illegality is not relevant to the crime committed. 

Yes, it was.  But for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

24 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Wow, glad I am retired now, so that I can't be fired from my 23 years in Law-Enforment. BTW, as one who enforced the law, many of our laws hurt people, just take Time to listen to what the criminals have to say when caught breaking them. But, your disdain for the U.S. Constitution and our laws noted. Also, your arrogance that the rest of us are ignorant. Last of all, here and in most places, we spell God, with a capital "G".   

Do you hold all laws as sacred? 

 

[why me]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you were in their place, what would you honestly want citizens in a country you were trying to seek refuge and a better life in to do?  That's probably the best answer to that question 'what should we do' since Jesus commands us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us and to love other people as we love ourselves.  The answer is probably unique to the individual.  

On a separate note, I do find it kind of interesting that so many members of the church are in this position (to discuss how immigrants or refugees should be treated) given our history of fleeing persecution and looking for safety in areas where the locals were not at all hospitable and where the hostile locals used some very similar reasons to want the 'mormons' out that we hear on the news concerning this subject.   

On the other hand, there are perhaps millions who would willingly come to the US to better their financial situations or who are poor. How many should be let in? Why have immigration laws at all? Just have open borders where humanity is welcome to live in the prosperous US. Of course, the US has millions of homeless and poor too. Not to mention gang violence and high murder rates in cities. I am sure that some US people would love to migrate to canada if they would be welcome but, sadly most likely the canadians would not want them. So, they are stuck in the US living in tents or in cardboard boxes or are suffering from gang violence. Such is reality.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You can't say that.  You don't know that.

What we do know, however, is that but for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root

No, the legality is the issue.

Yes.  The distinction between legality and illegality depend on a combination of factors.

Those factors matter.  A lot.

Yes, it was.  But for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you seriously saying that if this guy had had his status adjusted (or if one of his parents happened to by a US citizen), he would not have been driving drunk?

that is a serious stretch in logic.

By that logic we could, by changing the US immigration laws, eliminate the problem of drunk driving. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Danzo

[halconero]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think one of the things that has to be acknowledged when discussing Canadian and American policies is the sheer difference in number of people.  There are more people in the state of California than in all of Canada.  What works in one country wont' necessarily work in the other.  Our demographics are vastly different, as are our needs and resources.  

Fully acknowledged. I still hold to the notion that the deep cut to American resettlement efforts is both a humanitarian and foreign policy mistake, and that American fiscal and economic needs were being supported, not burdened by refugee intakes.

I also think it's valuable to compare the two countries on a per capita basis. Yes, Canada is small in terms of absolute numbers. That makes the fact that raw refugee resettlement numbers are larger for Canada this year than the United States even more astounding. When taking into account that the foreign-born population of Canada is 22% compared to American 13.7%, it's worth considering whether on a per capita basis there's opportunity for comparison and reform.

[halconero]

6 minutes ago, why me said:

Just have open borders where humanity is welcome to live in the prosperous US.

Sounds good to me, tbh. Ideologically I align with both a common hemispheric open market, and an open border.

Realistically I know that's unlikely to happen.

A man can dream though.

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I think illegal immigrants are materially contributing to the delays in legal immigration.  The above data support that.

I don't see it from what you quoted above.

Tell me again how my friend, who comes here illegally contributes to the delays in legal immigration. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Are you seriously saying that if this guy had had his status adjusted (or if one of his parents happened to by a US citizen), he would not have been driving drunk?

I'm saying that we can only deal with reality as it is, not with hypotheticals (such as "if this guy had had his status adjusted...").

In reality, the driver was here illegally.  But for his illegal presence in the U.S., he would not have killed Sarah Root.

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

that is a serious stretch in logic.

Says the guy who is asking us to envision an alternative reality and ignore actual reality.

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

By that logic we could, by changing the US immigration laws, eliminate the problem of drunk driving. 

No.  But we could eliminate crimes committed by illegal immigrants by removing them from the U.S. (or preventing their unlawful entry in the first place).

Thanks,

Smac

[Danzo]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ou can't say that.  You don't know that.

What we do know, however, is that but for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root

perhaps you are right.  If only this person had had his status adjusted, he could have applied for a drivers license, been tested on driving ability, had insurance and gone to drivers ed, then the accident might not have happened.  If only he had been legal, this tragedy might not have occurred. 

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

Quote

What we do know, however, is that but for his illegal presence here, he would not have killed Sarah Root.

perhaps you are right. 

There really isn't a "perhaps" here.  

Just now, Danzo said:

If only this person had had his status adjusted, he could have applied for a drivers license, been tested on driving ability, had insurance and gone to drivers ed, then the accident might not have happened.  If only he had been legal, this tragedy might not have occurred. 

Again, not really interested in exploring alternative realities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, halconero said:

I also think it's valuable to compare the two countries on a per capita basis. Yes, Canada is small in terms of absolute numbers. That makes the fact that raw refugee resettlement numbers are larger for Canada this year than the United States even more astounding. When taking into account that the foreign-born population of Canada is 22% compared to American 13.7%, it's worth considering whether on a per capita basis there's opportunity for comparison and reform.

Is there an argument to be made for Canada having more room for refugee settlements?  The US has 8 times more population than Canada but less square footage.  Canada has 3.7 people per square mile while the US has 92.2 people per square mile.