Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Okay.  Again, she is currently a naturalized citizen.  What "illegal status" are you referencing here?  Her status in 1996?

currently but not originally by the looks of it

The record, it seems, is unclear on this point.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

and why can't the same consideration given her be given to other folks who came and worked illegally?

Yet again: We need to secure our borders.  Regarding upstanding and contributing members of society who have previously come here illegally, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously). 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

But for unsecured borders, the crimes committed by persons who unlawfully cross those borders would not be happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nor would the good things those who unlawfully cross happen.

[Calm]

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44206940
 

Quote

The man who chased down an alleged child abductor and saved a 6-year-old girl from what could have been a horrible fate will be honored as a hero Friday. But he is also gaining a new kind of celebrity: as a poster child of sorts for immigration rights in state and national immigration debates.

Antonio Diaz Chacon, 23, is a Mexican citizen married to an American and has been in the country for four years. But Chacon says he abandoned attempts to get legal residency because the process was difficult and expensive.

Diaz Chacon, who works in Albuquerque as a mechanic, revealed his immigration status to the Spanish-language Univision TV network this week, prompting chatter on the Internet and social networking sites that his case underscored immigrant rights positions in two ongoing political debates.

"I came to work, to work hard," he told Univision. "The only problem is I entered the country illegally and now we can't afford a lawyer to file the immigration papers."

If we had secured borders, chances are the 6 year old would have been abducted, perhaps even murdered.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, no, I don't think that.

Second, the murder was, it seems, committed by an illegal immigrant.

Third, my comments have been about mass illegal immigration.  The burdens and difficulties imposed on society arising from huge numbers of illegal immigrants include, unfortunately, the commission of crimes.  These crimes would not be happening, or would be substantially reduced, if our borders were secure because, well, the violent and unvetted portion of illegal immigrants, who have no right to be here, would not be here to commit such crimes.

Fourth, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

You are drawing an incredibly tenuous and insane line between campaign contributions to elected offiicails and a murder.

That is insane. Add in the usual Jewish thing and it is just another version of blood libel with extra steps. I know you didn’t come up with this on your own. Why are you reading the rantings of anti-Semites and accpeting this ridiculous chain of causation as somehow credible? What went wrong?

[Calm]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/us/migrant-us-border-boy-rescue-cec/index.html

Quote

They were a few miles from the Mexican border. Chris had recently seen a Border Patrol helicopter, and he hoped to use the mirror as a signaling device. But the helicopter was nowhere in sight. His mother’s cell phone was out of range. Chris was lonely, afraid, running out of ideas. And then, in the gathering dusk, he saw a stranger approaching.

The man had come from Mexico. He’d crossed the border illegally, planning to start a new life. He’d been separated from his companions as they dodged authorities and the criminals who prey on migrants in the desert. But he was still free, and if he caught a few more breaks he could make it to Tucson or Phoenix and find the kind of job he needed to support his family back home.

Now this man had a choice to make.

He could keep going, safe for now from the Border Patrol, and leave the boy on his own.

Or he could stay, help the boy, and risk getting caught by the same people he’d been evading for the last three days.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/undocumented-immigrant-juan-carlos-salgado-saved-houston-cops-life-before-he-was-killed/

https://www.ilctr.org/about-immigrants/ilc-publications-and-resources/seven-famous-undocumented-daca-immigrants/

son of undocumented immigrant saves a kid’s live with a bone marrow transplant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyeWgpZG2vk

https://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/communicate/press-media/wwi-centennial-news/3779-marcelino-serna-most-decorated-texan-of-world-war-one.html

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44206940
 

If we had secured borders, chances are the 6 year old would have been abducted, perhaps even murdered.

So in the bizarro world of causation we have entered securing our borders is child murdering? That seems like the logical endpoint of this deranged fever dream of a thread.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are drawing an incredibly tenuous and insane line between campaign contributions to elected offiicails and a murder.

That is insane.

You seldom have anything of substance to say.  This is more of that.

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Add in the usual Jewish thing and it is just another version of blood libel with extra steps.

Oh, brother.

Nothing like.  Your statement here is argumentum ad hitlerum.

I said: "The burdens and difficulties imposed on society arising from huge numbers of illegal immigrants include, unfortunately, the commission of crimes.  These crimes would not be happening, or would be substantially reduced, if our borders were secure because, well, the violent and unvetted portion of illegal immigrants, who have no right to be here, would not be here to commit such crimes."

There is nothing akin to "blood libel" in this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 27, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nor would the good things those who unlawfully cross happen.

True.  A person who trespasses onto my property might do something bad, or he might do something good.

Meanwhile, though, the trespass is there.  If someone wants to come onto my property, he ought to ask for permission.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44206940
 

If we had secured borders, chances are the 6 year old would have been abducted, perhaps even murdered.

I don't understand this reasoning.  Consider, for example, this story: Police arrest man for child pornography after tipoff from burglars

Quote

A central California man has been arrested for possession of child pornography, thanks to a tip from burglars who robbed the man’s property, authorities said.

Last month, a juvenile and a 19-year-old illegally accessed the property of Kraig Stockard, 54, of Delhi, California, according to a statement from Deputy Tom MacKenzie of the Merced County Sheriff’s Department. They broke into Stockard’s barn and stole about 50 CDs they believed were blank.

Stockard filed a police report on the incident on September 12, according to MacKenzie.

But the young people who stole the CDs were in for a surprise. When they began putting the discs into their computer, they discovered that some of them contained pornographic images of children, the statement said.

Despite having obtained the CDs under decidedly shady circumstances, the pair decided to report Stockard to the police.

Is it your reasoning that society should condone burglary because in a tiny number of instances the burglars, while in the act of burgling, inadvertently do something good?

Or this: Suspected bicycle burglar stops to befriend golden retriever

Quote

A thief in California took some time to pet the family dog before stealing an expensive bike.

The encounter was caught on security video.

The video shows the burglary suspect about to leave on a family’s electric bike when a friendly Golden Retriever came out from the house.

The suspect then stops and gives the dog a lot of attention and pets. He can even be heard saying “You’re the coolest dog I’ve ever known, I love you too.”

Police in San Diego said they are now releasing the video from mid-July to help find the suspect.

Do you think law enforcement should ignore this fellow's theft of an electric bike because, while stealing it, he was kind to a dog?

I get that a particularized situation may involve a malefactor doing something "good."  That can certainly be taken into account when prosecuting that particular person, but I don't see it as relevant to broad social policy.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seldom have anything of substance to say.  This is more of that.

Oh, brother.

Nothing like.  Your statement here is argumentum ad hitlerum.

I said: "The burdens and difficulties imposed on society arising from huge numbers of illegal immigrants include, unfortunately, the commission of crimes.  These crimes would not be happening, or would be substantially reduced, if our borders were secure because, well, the violent and unvetted portion of illegal immigrants, who have no right to be here, would not be here to commit such crimes."

There is nothing akin to "blood libel" in this.

Nope, the bit you quoted is not what inspired me to say that and you know that.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, the bit you quoted is not what inspired me to say that and you know that.

Your commentary on this board essentially nothing but that of a provocateur.  Your commentary is pretty much always intended to be inflammatory and sarcastic, in lieu of anything substantive or thoughtful.  So no, I don't know what you were referencing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this reasoning.  Consider, for example, this story: Police arrest man for child pornography after tipoff from burglars

Is it your reasoning that society should condone burglary because in a tiny number of instances the burglars, while in the act of burgling, inadvertently do something good?

Or this: Suspected bicycle burglar stops to befriend golden retriever

Do you think law enforcement should ignore this fellow's theft of an electric bike because, while stealing it, he was kind to a dog?

I get that a particularized situation may involve a malefactor doing something "good."  That can certainly be taken into account when prosecuting that particular person, but I don't see it as relevant to broad social policy.

Thanks,

-Smac

You drew an insane causation argument. When others provide comparably insane strings of causation you point out how ridiculous these strings of causation are and act like you are winning?

That is sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You seem increasingly incapable of having a civil discussion about a difficult topic.

Prosecutorial discretion is, I think, substantially different from ideologically-driven quid-pro-quo wholesale refusal to prosecute entire categories of crimes.

You live in California, correct?  The state which houses a number of jurisdictions which are, at present, metaphorically illuminated by the blazing flames of giant dumpster fires caused by Soros-funded prosecutes abdicating their responsibilities on a large scale, and which abdication has materially adversely affected the quality of life of Californians.

See, e.g., here: Citizens lay blame for rising crime on progressive prosecutors, push for recalls (from November 2023)

From November 2022: Soros District Attorneys Make Our Cities Unsafe: Are They Also Making Elections Less Secure?

From July 2024: George Soros makes bombshell U-Turn as the liberal prosecutors he helped elect plummet in popularity

The deterioration of California described above is not, I think, a matter of correlation, but rather of causation.  And that causation can reasonably be attributed to an ideological quid pro quo between George Soros and the prosecutors whose campaigns he has funded ("For some of these district attorneys, Soros funding represented at least 80 percent, and up to 90 percent, of their total campaign funding...").

The wholesale abdication of prosecutorial duties, such as the Gascon-related items described above, is the issue here.

I think the ideological and financial influence of George Soros on dozens and dozens of prosecutors throughout the United States merits some attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your tirade against California as being some kind of dumpster dive all caused by George Soros isn't supported by actual data.  Here are the most violent crime rates in the country.

1. New Mexico
2. Louisiana
3. Colorado
4. Arkansas
5. Washington
6. Tennessee
7. Alaska
8. Oregon
9. California
10. Missouri

So specifically, what states is George Soros actually controlling now that have the highest crime rates in the country?  New Mexico? Louisiana? Colorado? Arkansas?Washington? Tennesssee? Alaska? Oregon?  California? Missouri?  Why aren't all of those states liberal states if that is what is causing the crime?  How did Alaska get in there at #7?  Do you think they have a huge surge of immigrants moving there to cause their crime rate to go up?  

Do you realize that George Gascon, LA's district attorney got recalled in the last election by voters? 

Sorry, your argument just doesn't stand up with the real data. 

 

 

 

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seldom have anything of substance to say.  This is more of that.

Oh, brother.

Nothing like.  Your statement here is argumentum ad hitlerum.

I said: "The burdens and difficulties imposed on society arising from huge numbers of illegal immigrants include, unfortunately, the commission of crimes.  These crimes would not be happening, or would be substantially reduced, if our borders were secure because, well, the violent and unvetted portion of illegal immigrants, who have no right to be here, would not be here to commit such crimes."

There is nothing akin to "blood libel" in this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you project that states that have the highest number of illegal immigrants also have the highest crime?  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you project that states that have the highest number of illegal immigrants also have the highest crime?  

I stated this on 12/18:

Quote

I would like to better understand statistics regarding illegal immigrants and crime rates, as that seems like a pretty heavily politicized topic, with what look like polar opposite conclusions reached depending on the point of view of the news outlet.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here.  

So, at present, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, though, the trespass is there.  If someone wants to come onto my property, he ought to ask for permission.

But let's be realistic here.

The legality of immigration is itself something that we can change. We could make the asking for permission a simple filling out of a form, followed by legal immigration status. That would be very simple. And yet, this isn't at all what many (perhaps most) people who suggest that they are all for legal immigration have in mind. The loudest voices who proclaim that all that they want is for us to secure our borders are also those who are in favor of making it as difficult as possible for most immigrants to be granted legal status. It is a verbal sleight of hand that is going on here. If it's only about asking permission, do you think it would be appropriate to take steps to make it much easier? Streamline the process. Expand the range of reasons why we would allow immigration? Increase immigration judges by an order of magnitude to allow immigration requests to be processed in real time? Let's make most of the immigration that is happening legal. Would this satisfy your concerns?

I note in passing that earlier you said this:

Quote

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

This is more sleight of hand - confusing correlation with causation. Did Soros support these campaigns specifically because the had adopted these policies? Or did he support them because their larger political views were in line with his own, and that included a different view towards immigration than the one that you support? If it is the latter, then your suggestion is inappropriate.

So let's go with what you suggest. Let's make it much easier for immigrants to get legal status. Let's streamline the process to make it faster. Certainly this would encourage many of those who want to immigrate here to go through legal channels.

And let's not forget the other problem that your position has - historically. Especially in the southwest US, the borders are artificial creations, built by invaders who seized the land from the native populations. Individuals who are closely related are now separated by these artificial borders that designate them as having different nationalities. Did our ancestors ask for permission when immigrating? Did we care about the native populations and their desires? I don't think so. And yet we have populations that are native to those areas that are considered illegals because of those relatively recent artificial constructs.

Finally, let's not forget what the Book of Mormon says:

Quote

Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.

Perhaps we simply believe that now that we are here, the Lord is no longer bringing anyone else ...

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this reasoning.

Aren’t you reasoning we need secure borders because of the tiny amount of undocumented immigrants who commit murders and other serious crimes?

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your tirade against California as being some kind of dumpster dive all caused by George Soros isn't supported by actual data.

From last year: California Crime Rise Sparks Reckoning for District Attorneys

Quote

Anti-crime activists are trying to recall progressive district attorneys in California, amid rising concerns about street crime.

One Los Angeles-based former prosecutor told Newsweek that DA staff have become demoralized by policies that put repeat offenders back on the streets without having to post bail. Viral videos of thieves openly looting California stores has added to the sense of outrage.

On November 19, a flash mob ransacked a Nike store in Los Angeles, stealing $12,000 worth of goods while shoppers stood by. Footage released by the Los Angeles Police Department's Commercial Crimes Division shows a group of young people ripping clothing off the racks and carrying bags full of merchandise. Police say the group, which consisted of 17 suspects between the ages of 15 and 20, fled in five different vehicles.

Residents are campaigning to recall District Attorney Pamela Price in Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area, while Chesa Boudin, the district attorney for San Francisco city, was recalled last year.
...

A survey released by the Public Policy Institute of California in February 2023 found that "an overwhelming majority of California adults say violence and street crime is either a big problem or at least somewhat of a problem." Thirty percent said it was a big problem, and another 46 percent replied that it was somewhat of a problem in their community.

The share of adults saying it is at least somewhat of a problem has increased by 11 percent since February 2022, the institute said.

"Nearly half of African Americans say it is a big problem, compared to about three in ten or fewer among Asian Americans, Latinos, and whites," the Public Policy Institute of California survey added.

Earlier this month, the institute noted new FBI crime data showing that, as of 2022, California's violent crime rate was 31 percent higher than the U.S. average. "This divergence is driven largely by aggravated assaults, which have been declining nationwide while rising in California," the institute said.

From last month: Los Angeles axes Soros-backed progressive district attorney

Quote

In a significant political shift for Los Angeles, District Attorney George Gascon lost his reelection bid to former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman.

Hochman, a former federal prosecutor and 2022 Republican candidate for California Attorney General, centered his campaign on a tough-on-crime platform, directly challenging Gascon’s progressive policies. His victory reflects growing voter concern over public safety and dissatisfaction with Gascon’s approach to criminal justice reform.

Gascon, who has held the position since 2020, has faced criticism for his progressive policies, which some say have contributed to a rise in crime across the county. His loss also coincided with California's sweeping passage of Proposition 36, an initiative that will enact harsher penalties for theft and drug offenses and undo parts of a 2014 law that downgraded several non-violent felonies to misdemeanors.

Proposition received 70% support while 29.5% voted against it, with about half the ballots counted.

From this month: 21 Soros-linked DAs replaced by 'tough-on-crime' prosecutors since 2022, report finds

Quote

Nearly two dozen district attorneys associated with billionaire philanthropist and Democratic donor George Soros have been replaced by "tough-on-crime" prosecutors since 2022, a report found Monday.

Since 2022, 21 prosecutors labeled as “tough” have succeeded ones linked to Soros nationwide, according to the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF). The group's findings include election results from last month.

The prosecutors who have been succeeded received “substantial campaign support” from groups funded by Soros or were affiliated with advocacy bodies supported by the philanthropist, LELDF found.

Replaced officials include former Cook County, Illinois State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, whose jurisdiction extended to Chicago. Her term ended Monday when Eileen O'Neill Burke was sworn in. Outgoing Alameda County, Calif. District Attorney Pamela Price, who was recalled last month after just 18 months in office, is also featured in LELDF's findings.

The report also points to the replacements of former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón and former Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby. Gascón's term ends Tuesday when Nathan Hochman, his opponent in last month's race, takes office, while Mosby lost the 2022 Democratic primary election to Ivan Bates, who has since held the role.

And here:

Quote

These days, criminals have no fear. Lenient plea deals and a widespread hesitation to pursue justice create a sense of immunity for even our worst offenders.

And there should be no mystery as to how we got here.

For nearly a decade, there’s been a coordinated and systematic attempt to reshape the American justice system — to create a world where a small subgroup of criminals have more rights and protections than the rest of us.

Nearly ten years ago, billionaire financier George Soros first channeled millions into local district attorney campaigns across the country.  
...

If you don’t know who George Gascón is — or care much about California — I understand.

But voter indifference is exactly what Soros and his accomplices are counting on. 

Soros donated $2.5 million to Gascón’s campaign for Los Angeles DA back in 2020. 

Since then, Gascón has been nothing but a polarizing, soft-on-crime prosecutor who enables violence to flourish, impacting LA’s most vulnerable citizens.

In 2014, when he served as DA in San Francisco, Gascón co-authored Proposition 47, a “criminal justice” reform measure meant, he said, to “address systemic inequalities” and turn our legal system “upside down.” 

But his “reforms” were the standard boilerplate recited by most every Soros-financed candidate — all of whom end up refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes, watering down felonies, and coddling violent juveniles. 

The result, of course: more crime.

In LA, Gascón’s now-infamous “Day 1 Directives” eliminated cash bail for most offenses, ended sentencing enhancements, stopped charging juveniles as adults regardless of the offense, and more.  

...

Crime within the LA Metro system alone surged more than 65% in the first three months of this year.

And here: 'Failed experiment': Experts reveal why Soros-backed policies took beating in deep blue state

Quote

The progressive crime agenda, largely pushed by liberal megadonor George Soros, suffered a major defeat in deep blue California this week after voters soundly rejected progressive prosecutors and policies, which experts tell Fox News Digital represents a major sea change.

"I think that this is broader than just a message from people who care about crime," Cully Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the book "Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America's Communities," told Fox News Digital.

"This is a massive mandate and cry for help from the general population that we want our state back. We want our counties back, and we want our cities back and that our failed social experiments have had enough time, and they're an absolute, abysmal failure."

California voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of Prop 36 on Tuesday, which rolled back key provisions of Proposition 47, which was advertised by Democrats in the state as progressive crime reforms that would make the state safer.

But in the last several years, retail chains and mom-and-pop shops have been hit hard by theft, smash-and-grab robberies and organized retail crime gangs, while cities like San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles have been ravaged by rises in property crime and retail theft.

"For too long, [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom, [Los Angeles District Attorney] George Gascón and Democrat leaders have been trying to tell voters not to believe what they were seeing when it comes to crime," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco told Fox News Digital. "They wanted to gaslight the public into thinking that our eyes have been lying to us. Well, the people have spoken in an overwhelming fashion. The results in the LA DA race and the Prop 36 race make it clear that Californians are done with the Democrats' soft-on-crime experiments that put our communities' safety at risk."

When Proposition 47 passed in 2014, it downgraded most thefts from felonies to misdemeanors if the amount stolen was under $950, "unless the defendant had prior convictions of murder, rape, certain sex offenses, or certain gun crimes."
...
Progressives suffered another major loss in the city of Los Angeles, where District Attorney George Gascón, backed by Soros, was defeated by former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman as crime was seen as a top issue of the election cycle.

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Aren’t you reasoning we need to secure borders because of the tiny amount of undocumented immigrants who commit murders and other serious crimes?

Where are you getting the "tiny amount" bit?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Where are you getting the "tiny amount" bit?

Thanks,

-Smac

How many illegal immigrants are arrested for serious crimes?  What percentage?

It’s less likely than half the rate for native born and citizens for violent and drug crimes and less than a quarter for property crimes.  Felony crime rate is about .4% if I read the chart correctly. Violent felony .1%.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-offending-rate-lower-us-born-citizen-rate

“During this time, undocumented immigrants had the lowest offending rates overall for both total felony crime (see exhibit 1) and violent felony crime (see exhibit 2) compared to other groups. U.S.-born citizens had the highest offending rates overall for most crime types, with documented immigrants generally falling between the other two groups.”

”Finally, the researchers conducted statistical tests to determine whether the share of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants had increased for any offense types between 2012 and 2018. They concluded, “There is no evidence that the prevalence of undocumented immigrant crime has grown for any category.”[5] As with drug offenses, evidence suggests the share of property and traffic crimes committed by undocumented immigrants decreased or remained close to constant throughout the period.”

Maybe we need more illegal immigrants around to protect us from the native born citizens. (No, I am not being serious here)

Edited December 27, 2024 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

All of you people advocating for Willie Nelly immigration and border crossing should try doing it the opposite direction.

When I show up to Mexico in my boat which happens to be my home, I have to check in with the port captain, immigration, customs, and agriculture. Then I have to get a 10-year import permit even if I'm only going to stay for 10 months or 10 days. Then I have to get Mexican insurance because American Insurance is no good there. If I don't do any of these things properly they will take my boat away.

There are of course different rules for crossing by car but you will have Mexican insurance because if you get in a wreck and you don't have it you'll go to jail. It will automatically be your fault.

Try getting a job in French Polynesia without the proper paperwork. We all set around the campfire talking to these French Bankers that were working in San Francisco and they were having a great ol time and I wanted a job building the docks in the marina and I couldn't get a work permit because I'm not from an EU country. And by the way your Visa Runs Out July 1st adios amigo.

 

[smac97]

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But let's be realistic here.

The legality of immigration is itself something that we can change.

Sure.  Pretty much all laws are things "that we can change."

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

We could make the asking for permission a simple filling out of a form, followed by legal immigration status.

Any limiting principle?  Just fill out a form, nothing else?

Any system of vetting to differentiate applicants based on things like criminal record, skill sets, etc.?

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

That would be very simple.

I suppose.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, this isn't at all what many (perhaps most) people who suggest that they are all for legal immigration have in mind.

I question the imputation of motives here.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The loudest voices who proclaim that all that they want is for us to secure our borders are also those who are in favor of making it as difficult as possible for most immigrants to be granted legal status.

References, please.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

It is a verbal sleight of hand that is going on here. If it's only about asking permission, do you think it would be appropriate to take steps to make it much easier?

The permission ought to be granted in ways that benefit the United States.  I reject the notion that permission should be automatically granted.  Effectively open borders and massive influxes of cheap/unskilled labor, and the concomitant burdens on housing, food, medical services, infrastructure, entitlements, etc. also don't seem to be working well (as much of Europe, and the United States, are finding out).

Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think we need to be equitable and reasonable in allowing as many people as possible to come in through lawful, regulated means.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Streamline the process. Expand the range of reasons why we would allow immigration? Increase immigration judges by an order of magnitude to allow immigration requests to be processed in real time? Let's make most of the immigration that is happening legal. Would this satisfy your concerns?

It would help, yes.  There can and should be additional criteria: health screening/requirements, background checks, financial viability, community/familial ties and assimilation potential, asylum/refugee status.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I note in passing that earlier you said this:

Quote

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

This is more sleight of hand - confusing correlation with causation.

I think terrible social policy, as enacted by soft-on-crime prosecutors, is more likely to be causative than correlative.

The electorate in various jurisdictions who have been enduring and experiencing the real-world consequences of this nullification-through-non-enforcement stuff seem to be speaking up and finding causation, not correlation.  Prop 36 didn't pass itself, after all, nor did Gascon quit.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So let's go with what you suggest. Let's make it much easier for immigrants to get legal status. Let's streamline the process to make it faster. Certainly this would encourage many of those who want to immigrate here to go through legal channels.

Yes.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And let's not forget the other problem that your position has - historically. Especially in the southwest US, the borders are artificial creations, built by invaders who seized the land from the native populations.

The "native populations" being . . . whom?  The U.S. acquired most of the west via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.  And we acquired this land from . . . Mexico.  Was Mexico the "native population" to which you refer?  Mexico, in turn, obtained independence from Spain in 1821.  So are you referencing Spain?

Or are you perhaps referencing pre-Columbian civilizations?  If so, which ones?  For thousands of years, Mexico was inhabited by advanced indigenous civilizations such as the Olmecs, Maya, Aztecs, and many other groups.  Do you consider these to be "invaders who seized the land from the native populations" as well?  Didn't they do quite a bit of invading/conquering long before any European powers reached these shores?

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Individuals who are closely related are now separated by these artificial borders that designate them as having different nationalities.

I am curious if you own your house, and if so if you deem that ownership to be "artificial."  If someone were to take possession of it from you, either by force or during your absence, would you shrug that off?  Would you disregard the county land records by which our system of laws establishes land ownership as being "artificial," or would you rely on those laws to assert your claim to ownership?

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Did our ancestors ask for permission when immigrating?

Some did, some did not.  Under our system of laws, though, what happened hundreds of years ago is not determinative of how immigration works now.

On 12/26/2024 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Did we care about the native populations and their desires? I don't think so. And yet we have populations that are native to those areas that are considered illegals because of those relatively recent artificial constructs.

I suspect if someone were to take your car without your consent, you would not demean your ownership of it by calling it a "relatively recent artificial construct."

All secular laws are "artificial."  We as a society make them up as we go along.  Plenty of mistakes are made along the way, but we are fortunate to live under the U.S. Constitution, which I think is one of the best, perhaps the best, bases for laws and governance ever devised by man.  I don't think it will do to disregard the law when it it inconvenient or inimical to our individual preferences.  That's a recipe for anarchy, and the Latter-day Saints should take lessons from its history regarding that.  This is incompatible with the Restored Gospel.

The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  See also D&C 134:1: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

And verse 5: "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Anarchy is condemned in verse 6: "We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker."

General Authorities have condemned and taught against anarchy.  See here: 

Quote

Elder Erastus Snow explained: “Anarchy—shall I say, is the worst of all governments? No: Anarchy is the absence of all government; it is the antipodes [opposite] of order; it is the acme of confusion; it is the result of unbridled license, the antipodes of true liberty. The Apostle Paul says truly: ‘For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.’ At first this is a startling statement. Even the monopoly of the one-man-power as in Russia [the Czar], or the monopoly of the aristocracy as in other parts of Europe, or the imbecility and sometimes stupidity of a republic like our own, is far better than no government at all. And for this reason, says the Apostle Paul, ‘The powers are ordained of God,’ not that they are always the best forms of government for the people, or that they afford liberty and freedom to mankind but that any and all forms of government are better than none at all, having a tendency as they do to restrain the passions of human nature and to curb them, and to establish and maintain order to a greater or less degree. One monopoly is better than many; and the oppression of a king is tolerable, but the oppression of a mob, where every man is a law to himself and his own right arm, is his power to enforce his own will, is the worst form of government.” (In Journal of Discourses, 22:151.)

...

Many leaders of the Church have spoken on the importance of Church members choosing righteous leaders. In January 1928 the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley) issued a statement that read in part:

...

“Without beneficent laws, righteously administered, the foundations of civilization crumble, anarchy reigns, decay and dissolution follow.

“We call upon all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world to honor the laws of God, and obey and uphold the law of the land; and we appeal to good men and women everywhere, regardless of creed, party affiliation, race or condition to join with us in an effort to put into operation the words of Lincoln, the great emancipator, that our country may continue to be a light to the world, a loyal, law-abiding, God-fearing nation.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1928, p. 16.)

And here:

Quote

President Smith, who had witnessed the mob violence of Nauvoo, often spoke of the importance of the rule of law in a civilized society. He and his Counselors in the First Presidency urged the Saints to be law-abiding and loyal citizens wherever they lived and to be faithful in their allegiance to their governments.1 On one occasion when a government official expressed contempt for the United States Constitution, President Smith countered: “Latter-day Saints cannot tolerate such a spirit as this. It is anarchy. It means destruction. It is the spirit of mobocracy, and the Lord knows we have suffered enough from mobocracy, and we do not want any more of it. … We cannot afford to yield to that spirit or contribute to it in the least degree. We should stand with a front like flint against every spirit or species of contempt or disrespect for the constitution of our country and the constitutional laws of our land.”

As with many folks who dabble too long in the philosophies of men to the neglectful exclusion of the inspired principles of the Restored Gospel, Latter-day Saints who encourage disregard of the law are, doctrinally-speaking, off the grid.  They are openly advocating for the abandonment and destruction of government, which has been "instituted by God for the benefit of man."  That just does not work.  Anarchy and the Restored Gospel are not compatible.  Never have been.  Never will be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 22 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many illegal immigrants are arrested for serious crimes?  What percentage?

It’s less than half the rate for native born and citizens for violent and drug crimes and less than a quarter for property crimes.  Felony crime rate is about .4% if I read the chart correctly. Violent felony .1%.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-offending-rate-lower-us-born-citizen-rate

“During this time, undocumented immigrants had the lowest offending rates overall for both total felony crime (see exhibit 1) and violent felony crime (see exhibit 2) compared to other groups. U.S.-born citizens had the highest offending rates overall for most crime types, with documented immigrants generally falling between the other two groups.”

”Finally, the researchers conducted statistical tests to determine whether the share of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants had increased for any offense types between 2012 and 2018. They concluded, “There is no evidence that the prevalence of undocumented immigrant crime has grown for any category.”[5] As with drug offenses, evidence suggests the share of property and traffic crimes committed by undocumented immigrants decreased or remained close to constant throughout the period.”

Maybe we need more illegal immigrants around to protect us from the native born citizens. (No, I am not being serious here)

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-illegal-immigration-linked-to-more-or-less-crime/

Quote

President Donald Trump said it’s “not true” that immigrants in the U.S. illegally are “safer than the people that live in the country,” providing several crime statistics he claimed represented the “toll of illegal immigration.” Sen. Bernie Sanders made the opposite claim, saying: “I understand that the crime rate among undocumented people is actually lower than the general population.”

Who is right?

There are not readily available nationwide statistics on all crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally. Researchers have provided estimates through statistical modeling or by extrapolating from smaller samples. One such study backs the president’s claim, but several others support Sanders’ statement.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/no-youre-not-imagining-a-migrant-crime-spree

Quote

Yet, even as more illegals arrived, removals of those convicted or accused of a crime have dropped. In 2021, illegal immigrants deported because of accusations or convictions of lawbreaking fell to 45,432, from a high of 123,128 in 2019, according to Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s annual report on enforcement-removal operations; in 2022, ICE removed just 46,400 aliens. Similarly, ICE prosecutions of illegals for criminal actions have plunged by two-thirds, from 6,739 in 2019 to just 2,208 in 2022.

We have no reason to think that this reflects reduced levels of criminality. Shortly after taking office, in fact, the Biden administration narrowed the criteria for expelling criminal aliens, requiring immigration officials to remove only those deemed an immediate risk to public safety; others, even felony offenders, were permitted to stay. The order also mandated newly extensive investigation of individual cases, which, combined with the border influx, overwhelmed immigration services. The crisis is captured in the numbers: the caseload of immigration-removal operations has soared from about 3 million in 2019 to 6 million under Biden in 2023, while staffing has stayed flat.

Against this backdrop, numerous high-profile crimes—including the murder of Riley, an assault by several immigrants in Times Square on NYPD officers, and police cautions about foreign home-invasion gangs hitting wealthy neighborhoods—have intensified the debate over just how much crime the Biden immigrant surges have unleashed. Much of the mainstream media and immigration advocates, for their part, accuse conservatives of making it all up. Headlines like “The Myth of the Migrant Crime Wave,” “Migrant Crime Wave Not Supported by Data,” and “Immigrants Are Less Likely to Commit Crimes” have been common, especially after Trump made immigrant crime a 2024 campaign issue.

Most of these stories rely on studies like one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2020, which used data from 2012 through 2018 collected by Texas’s Department of Public Safety. That study estimated that illegals commit crimes only two-thirds as often as legal state residents. Critics note that the report is limited, focusing on only one state—by necessity, since few local jurisdictions have released data on immigrant prisoners (in so-called sanctuary states and cities, intentionally so). Officials at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, say that the PNAS study also undercounted the number of incarcerated illegals because of limitations on how Texas collected the data.

To overcome the data deficit, the Federation for American Immigration Reform considered statistics from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which enables states to get reimbursed by Washington for the cost of incarcerating illegals. To be paid, states must verify that prisoners are illegal immigrants and file detailed reports to the feds. Examining the SCAAP data for ten states with the highest illegal-alien populations, the FAIR study found that, on average, illegals were more than twice as likely to be in prison in California, compared with other state residents; they were twice as likely to be in prison in New York, too; in New Jersey, they were nearly four times as likely, and in Arizona, nearly five times. Among the states studied, Texas showed the smallest difference between legal residents and illegal immigrants in rates—probably, the FAIR authors theorized, thanks to tougher border enforcement, which deters immigrant criminals from remaining in the state.
...
The Bragg-style soft-on-crime approach—especially combined with sanctuary policies that keep cops from cooperating with immigration authorities—has resulted in countless examples of repeat-offender aliens getting off scot-free. NYPD officials slammed New York’s sanctuary policies, which forbid the police from cooperating with federal immigration officials, after an illegal alien with previous convictions and a deportation order against him brutally raped a New York woman in August. “When will our sanctuary city laws be amended to allow us to notify federal authorities regarding the deportation of non-citizens convicted of violent crimes?” the NYPD’s chief of patrol asked the press. Sometimes, deadly consequences have ensued, like the horrifying case of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray of Houston, whom two illegals allegedly dragged under a bridge, raped, and killed. Border officials had earlier stopped and released the two men. Testifying before Congress last year, the president of Victims of Illegal Alien Crime, Donald Rosenberg, said that almost all illegal-alien-caused deaths in the U.S. are preventable. “In the past 12 years, I have reviewed hundreds, maybe over a thousand, cases that resulted in a fatality. I can’t remember one where the killer didn’t have prior convictions or, at the very least, contact with law enforcement. Why were these people still here?”

Recently, several whistleblowers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that immigration officials have been failing to enforce a federal law that mandates collection of DNA samples from illegals. The result: a failure to identify criminals who are then released back into society instead of being detained. “The continued, prolonged, willful failure to comply with the DNA Fingerprint Act has resulted in the harm that Americans are dead, and these deaths were preventable,” border agent Fred Wynn recently said. l
...

Immigration advocates counter that significant immigrant wrongdoing can’t be going on, as crime rates are now falling. That’s disingenuous. As former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Jeffrey Anderson explained in City Journal, though the sharp rise in crime that began in late 2020 appears to have peaked, violent crime levels remain well above 2019 levels, after increases of as much as 73 percent in urban areas, according to victimization reports. Elevated crime “is not a figment of Americans’ imaginations,” Anderson observes.

Meantime, despite the media’s minimizing the issue, governors and public-safety officials in many states have talked openly about how they’ve had to redirect money and law-enforcement personnel to fight illegal-immigrant crime. The cost of this effort figures prominently in a lawsuit against the Biden administration, filed by 18 largely Republican-led states, stretching from Virginia and Tennessee in the east to Utah in the west to Iowa and Wyoming, over 1,000 miles north of the southern border. Iowa officials, for instance, say that they’ve had to boost spending by “tens of millions of dollars each year for increased law enforcement related to immigrant criminals.” The state’s residents, the officials complain, “suffer increased crime, unemployment, environmental harm, and social disorder, due to illegal immigration.” Despite its distance from the southern border, the state has become “a hot spot for trafficking activity.”
...
Entering America illegally, Chinese gangs have cornered the black market for pot in Oklahoma. Though pot legalization was supposed to ease drug-related crime, the spread of legal recreational cannabis and so-called medicinal marijuana has produced a new kind of black market, in which criminal gangs cultivate the drug and then sell it more cheaply than government-approved retailers. In the Sooner State, the gangs have imported an army of migrant workers to work the fields and distribute the illicit product. State leaders estimate that roughly 3,000 illegal-immigrant growers are operating in Oklahoma, with about 80 percent of them under Chinese mafia control; they’re selling $18 billion to $40 billion yearly in pot, a ProPublica investigation estimated. Chinese women get trafficked across the border to serve as prostitutes for the men working the farms. And the criminal activity doesn’t stop there. As one former Drug Enforcement Administration official recently noted, “Marijuana causes so much crime at the local level—gun violence in particular. The same groups selling thousands of pounds of marijuana are also laundering millions of dollars of fentanyl money. It’s not just one-dimensional.” ProPublica listed some of the crimes associated with illegals in Oklahoma: “violence, drug trafficking, money laundering, gambling, bribery, document fraud, bank fraud, environmental damage and theft of water and electricity.”
...
This “burglary tourism” has lately extended to breaking and entering in residential neighborhoods. South American gangs, especially from Chile, have obtained visas to get into the U.S. without criminal background checks, through a Homeland Security program called the Electronic System for Travel Authorization–Visa Waiver Program, and have gone on a burglary spree. (The program was paused this summer after an internal report found massive fraud, a Fox News investigation uncovered.) These sophisticated crews use Wi-Fi suppression equipment to disarm home alarms, cell-phone trackers to determine the location of homeowners, and fake IDs, and have committed break-ins in Orange County in California, Oakland County in Michigan (where one foray yielded an $800,000 haul), and Raleigh, North Carolina, among other locations. The gangs face minimal risks. Even when cops bust them, the perpetrators, typically with no criminal history in the U.S., are often speedily let go. Then they vanish, skipping their court dates. The leaky immigration system has made some criminals so bold that they deliberately get themselves arrested at the California border, knowing that they will be immediately released into America. They then proceed to commit residential burglaries and other thefts, according to Orange County Senior Deputy District Attorney Bradley Schoenleben’s testimony before Congress. Schoenleben blamed “soft-on-crime policies and federal failures to verify criminal histories for Chilean Visa Waiver applicants” for unleashing this crime wave.

The article goes on and on.  Worth a read, IMO.  It addresses quite a bit, I think, of the boots-on-the-ground situations that are often not reflected in statistics such as what you are citing.

Illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born: Study

Quote

The crime rate among illegal immigrants in Arizona is twice that of other residents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday, citing a new report based on conviction data.

The report, from the Crime Prevention Research Center, used a previously untapped set of data from Arizona that detailed criminal convictions and found that illegal immigrants between 15 and 35 are less than 3 percent of the state’s population, but nearly 8 percent of its prison population.

And the crimes they were convicted of were, on the whole, more serious, said John R. Lott Jr., the report’s author and president of the research center.

His findings also challenge the general narrative that immigrants commit fewer crimes. Those past studies usually don’t look at legal versus illegal populations, Mr. Lott said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

All of you people advocating for Willie Nelly immigration and border crossing should try doing it the opposite direction.

When I show up to Mexico in my boat which happens to be my home, I have to check in with the port captain, immigration, customs, and agriculture. Then I have to get a 10-year import permit even if I'm only going to stay for 10 months or 10 days. Then I have to get Mexican insurance because American Insurance is no good there. If I don't do any of these things properly they will take my boat away.

There are of course different rules for crossing by car but you will have Mexican insurance because if you get in a wreck and you don't have it you'll go to jail. It will automatically be your fault.

Try getting a job in French Polynesia without the proper paperwork. We all set around the campfire talking to these French Bankers that were working in San Francisco and they were having a great ol time and I wanted a job building the docks in the marina and I couldn't get a work permit because I'm not from an EU country. And by the way your Visa Runs Out July 1st adios amigo.

Mexico secures its southern border: Mexico is stopping nearly three times as many migrants now, helping keep U.S. border crossings down

Somehow, I've missed all the moralizing about how Mexico should let in anyone who wants to go there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From last year: California Crime Rise Sparks Reckoning for District Attorneys

From last month: Los Angeles axes Soros-backed progressive district attorney

From this month: 21 Soros-linked DAs replaced by 'tough-on-crime' prosecutors since 2022, report finds

And here:

And here: 'Failed experiment': Experts reveal why Soros-backed policies took beating in deep blue state

And so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Obviously data doesn't mean anything to you.  Only hysterical articles and click bate.  Guess it works on you.  But for me, I actually want facts.

If you base your beliefs on sensational newspaper articles rather than facts, then I can't really help you. 

I am not saying that California doesn't have crime.  I am saying that the people in Los Angeles tried a different approach to the mass incarceration by electing Gascon as the DA.  It didn't work.  They voted him out with a recall.  

But that doesn't seem to be your position.  You want to gin up everyone with sensational stories rather than look at the real data.  Is that really how to convince people of your position?  

Edited December 27, 2024 by california boy