Tell an Australian what the argument is against building a border wall.

I don't know how you're doing it, but you're posting your posts within my quotes.

Oh right! No, you misread what I said. I said that the industries deserve to die if they rely on an illegal workforce.

The idea would be that the dreamers would be assessed to be either dependent or independent. If they are dependent, I think that their parents should stay until the dreamer becomes independent. Siblings and extended family who were adults when they entered should be deported and I hardly think the dreamers would suffer because of this.

Obviously not for the independent ones.

 

One would hope you understand just how incredibly complicated and expensive this proposal would be. What agency would define independence and who would monitor for compliance?

 

Both clintons really? Your post is dishonest Bush was in there too.

 

You're looking for a babysitter too?

 

You apparently don't understand that education and income level are two different things maybe go ahead and look them up

 

In 1999, Bill Clinton opened the foreign flood gates for IT workers BECAUSE employers were complaining they couldn't find "qualified" IT workers, but in fact, they just didn't want to pay the wages U.S. IT workers expected and deserved. Back then the foreign IT workers were from Pakistan and India.

Immigration laws were originally designed to protect American workers from floods of immigrant workers whether legal or illegal. But in recent years, many employers have gotten savvy and found when they complain they can't find people to fill jobs, politicians have obliged them by opening the flood gates. The truth is, if employers would offer a little more money, then they would get many more workers even if they quit lesser paying jobs to work for them. So it should be easy for anyone to see there's never a shortage of workers, only a shortage of workers that won't work for lower wages.

When colleges are charging all-time high amounts for higher education, then American workers deserve more. Many are paying off student loans for years, even decades, because they've been duped into believing an education pays for itself while politicians keep wages down for employers.

Steve

 

I understand that the first should influence the second, otherwise it's not really an education.

 

Then they need to increase the offer. If they can't affrod to, then they need to increase the prices they charge. If the market won't let them, the demand isn't real.

 

Damn. Hopefully you are okay and weren't affected. Although you probably wouldn't still be posting on here so soon after if you were affected. Its funny, I do wonder if the roles were reversed and I told you that I was "awaiting [insert storm name here]" if you would even know what the hell I was talking about! You probably wouldn't even know that we had a bad storm, let alone what the hell its name is! Its generally considered that the rest of the western world doesn't give a sh*t about what happens in Australia! And if a news event does get covered by the US, it's certainly never to the extent that we've covered the US's recent weather events.

Um, except at the bottom of every stats page is "BOP" (Federal Bureau of Prisons) & "BJA" (Bureau of Justice Assistance) or a combination of them both. Not to mention "FBI." Are you noticing a commonality here at all? Government perhaps? What the hell were you looking it to say that the source is only generally stated?

What makes you think that it was in response to an inquiry?
The subject says: Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails. Why can't it just be simply stats on criminal aliens?

What population?

I did a search for "we then" and nothing was found. The same applies for "selected data." Are you sure they appear? Perhaps you meant something else.

You'll have to rephrase, this makes no sense. I don't know what it means for something to answer what it answers.

How the hell do you know that? You know that this is the fallacy of presumption, right?

What is combined in the reports exactly?

Of course. However, If you believe that it is possible to "infer data that cannot be observed", then why on earth did you say that you "pay little attention to something that is not able to be measured?"

You see, YOUR error, is that you're quite happy to say that the GAO report has limitations, however you very conveniently don't apply the same scrutiny to those studies.

For instance, the studies DO NOT separate 'dreamers' from aliens who entered as adults! Dreamers will not be the ones committing much crime! Just as my scenario made clear, what if there are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE dreamers than aliens who arrived as adults? When I said that the numerical values of dreamers and aliens who arrive as adults "unfortunately cannot be measured" I didn't say that it NEEDS to be measured. Dreamers cannot be included because they are essentially identical in every way to a citizen! They have the country's morals instilled within them. Do you REALLY HONESTLY think, that if these studies focused EXCLUSIVELY on aliens who arrived as adults, that the conclusion would be that they commit less crime than citizens? If so, then you must have one hell of a negative perception of American values - are you even American? Have you even seen the crime stats in Mexico compared to the US?

The fact is, there are two types of aliens which exist and there is the possibility that this could mean that the studies are WAY off! This is a limitation. Wake up and acknowledge it.

Not all crime is equal, but surely you don't need reminding of that. Stealing a bag of candy is NOT the same as murder or rape. This is a limitation. Wake up and acknowledge it.

Also, do you even realise that the University of Massachusetts study uses "self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information?" Just how much incentive do you suppose there is for anyone, let alone criminal aliens, to self-report? This is a limitation. Wake up and acknowledge it.

The difference between you and I is, that I'm acknowledging the limitations of my argument, but you're not doing the same for yours. You think its limitation free! And its hilarious!

Come on. At best, they are PLAUSIBLE. But accurate? No chance. I've included the definition of "accurate" below for your review:

especially of information, measurements, or predictions) correct in all details; exact.

No, I know what these studies prove. Nothing! You can't just simply throw the word "prove" around! This is hardly conventional science. I mean honestly, do you REALLY believe that it PROVES beyond doubt that illegal aliens commit less crime? Come on, be serious now!

Are you saying that the number of crimes would not have had to be determined in order to determine that they commit less crime? If so, how the hell can it be determined?

Again, you use the word "study." How is the Heritage Foundation article a study? When did I call it a study? And is this the study that you refer to when you said "imaginary study?" You still haven't told me what you mean by "imaginary." How the hell is an article imaginary?

You're clearly oblivious to what the GAO actually is so let me tell you. The Government Accountability Office is a legislative branch government agency that provides auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for the United States Congress. So yes, the reports will be in LETTER FORM, addressed to members of Congress! However I don't understand how this somehow means that they are illegitimate! By your logic, if you sent a letter to someone in which you included your precious studies, they would all be completely illegitimate because they are in a letter!

My argument only goes so far as to deport those who entered as adults. However, I'm guessing that the modelling done to calculate the decline in the economy from the deportation of aliens includes dreamers and estimates what would happen if they were all deported at once. Notice how I said "over time." I'm aware that industries have disgracefully relied upon slave labour and of course they would be affected if deportation was too sudden. The industries who hire slave labour deserve to suffer, but the economy doesn't.

Either way, I'm not saying that immigrants shouldn't work. They should! LEGALLY!

While it may not be disputed that Fox is main stream, is it disputed that the "Corporate interest to which Fox News responds to is a Political Agenda?" Also, is Fox News an example of what you refer to as "Right wingnut media?"

Except I'm talking about CNN & MSNBC. You changed subject, which is part of the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy!

The evidence is pretty weak, but there isn't PROOF , which I should have said instead. They are covering it as if there is proof. Innocent until proven guilty remember, not the other way around.

Based purely on this, you can say that they colluded? You don't even know what the meeting was about!

Well that's great! They can continue to pay that when they come back as legal after being deported. I just didn't know what you meant by "pay for it." I guess you mean through their income tax right?

So you think it justifies them being there illegally? So you don't believe in the rule of law?

Except the only problem with that is, that Saudi Arabia DOESN'T produce the most terrorists! Its ranked number 32 in the 2016 Global Terrorism Index! I think what you meant to say was Saudi Arabia has the highest percentage of muslim's, which it doesn't but its pretty close. So if it was a muslim ban, why isn't Saudi Arabia in the list? You're being fed media lies! Wake up!

Uh nope. You just didn't explain how it "hurts" people. Do you mean it hurts people who work in the solar power industry because Trump won't be serious about reducing emissions? That's literally the only thing that I can think of. And being Australian, I'm not sure how the breaking of relations with Cuba "hurts" people either.

The fact is, the US economy is doing great since Trump became President! So if it benefits Trump's business, its having the same effect on many others!

So it no longer exists? The TPP is over?

I didn't say that it was of any significance. And you didn't explain how you can say that they are "ALL good people." I guess you realised how truly ridiculous it was and that you can't back it up!

There's simply no evidence to support that claim. The study you referred to regarding the decline of the economy from total deportation seems credible and makes sense. However, it has nothing to do with my point. If illegal immigration never started in the first place, the economy wouldn't know any different and it would never have become reliant on illegal aliens. Remember, your argument was that crime would increase from deportation, not that there would be more crime today if aliens never started to come.

Come back from Mexico after they've been deported.

Except you started off talking about the benefits of illegal aliens and that was 90% of your post. What do the benefits have to do with the wall? Why didn't you just simply say "a wall won't stop them?"

I mean if they already have a criminal record, full of rape and murder. Should they get a work visa? I dare you to say yes.

 

Were the employers saying that they CAN find IT workers but they just aren't qualified enough? Or were they they saying that they just can't find any IT workers at all, at any qualification level?

 

Read it again, carefully. When you cut up posts you miss important parts. Try to read a post as a complete thought. That's the way most of us write them.

Steve

 

I couldn't have been luckier. Bad flood just 4 miles down the road. And all around us, ours was the only neighborhood that didn't even lose power. Just a big scare, though. I think we would know about it if a Cat 5 Hurricane (Cyclone, in your case) were lurking around you guys. Especially one that made several islands that used to be huge tourist destinations inhabitable.

Exactly what you are citing here. No reference leading to the actual data.

From the text "You requested that we provide information concerning criminal aliens incarcerated at the federal, state, and local level"

The one each report references.

I said phrases like those. Not verbatim necessarily.

Each letter responds to a particular inquiry. It's incorrect to combine them. Anyway... not worth spending so much time and energy on this.

Says so on one of the letters. Not worth looking for the exact quote. The article uses the data for purposes it was not meant to be used for.

Because that's what the report says. It says that what the Heritage Foundation article states it measures "is not able to be measured"

Nor did Trump in his speech.

Sorry, but I'm trying to make this brief. I assure you a read it. But my point is that Trump is a racist. And that he is factually wrong. As are Trump supporters. There is no evidence whatsoever that illegal aliens commit more crime than the rest of the population, but the limited information we do have seems to point to the contrary being false. Not sure what point you are trying to make. But the reason this is getting so long is lack of focus. That's the reason why I'm eliminating the irrelevant things. If you were trying to make some point about something that I found irrelevant, please state your point.

"Plausible" is fine to make my point. Trump's statement was not plausible at all. It was just a racist statement.

Absolutely. It is perfectly acceptable to infer trends from other trends. For example, AGW science partially uses trends. There is a trend of increasing surface temperatures. You don't need to know the exact starting and ending temperatures. Just the trend. It's the way many things are estimated: the number of hurricanes in a season, the particular viruses that are more likely to be active in a given flu season, etc. "Less crime" is a trend. Not a number.

I know what the GAO is just as well as you do. But I also know what the Heritage Foundation is. This one apparently better than you.

Well... we agree then. And that's the reason why they should be granted legal status.

Oh yeah.

I've been talking about MSM since the very beginning. What is so particular about CNN and MSNBC? What point are you trying to make that is not applicable to MSM in general? I mean, if you say I'm changing the subject... what was the subject?

It appears to me that too often you go out on a diatribe but with no underlying point to make. That, BTW, would be "Style Over Substance Fallacy"

There is PROOF. I mean, if you consider Trump himself publicly confessing to impeachable offenses "proof". If not... I don't know what to tell you. He said he fired Comey to impeded the "Russia thing" (as he put it). He has very publicly violated his Oath of Office. And its also very likely he committed other "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", as there are many indications. It would greatly surprise me if Mueller's committee didn't already have proof.

Such as?

Are you serious? Ok... You either don't know what that phrase mean or you are being purposely disingenuous. I think that being ignorant is the least bad of the two options, so I'll assume that one. This phrase means that he can't be "punished" until proven guilty. Doesn't mean he can't be accused. If you are accused of murder, you go to trial and you answer questions even before you are proven guilty. POTUS reports to the American people. He works for us. He is our employee. And he needs to answer questions and, so far, the big news story is that he has refused to do so openly and clearly. News media that doesn't report this fact doesn't deserve to be called News Media. Right there, BTW, he has committed an impeachable offense: Violations to his Oath of Office.

Oh... we know what the meeting was about. It was about digging dirt on Hillary. The invitation and Junior's response to it proves this. Also the fact itself that he had the meeting and didn't report it when he received his security clearance is a felony. The guy is in deep doo doo. As are Kushner and Manafort.

The Media should report it 24 hours a day until everybody involved, including the President, declares under oath everything they know about this. And they should do this publicly!

But you believe the media shouldn't report it. You did say you're from Australia, right? Not Venezuela?

No. Social Security payment is deducted from your pay check. It is clearly stated there what they are paying for.

Because I do believe in the rule of law, I think that justifies them being here legally.

It has produced the most terrorists that have attacked us! Other than home-grown terrorists, of course.

Well now... let's see what the Donald had to say about that during a campaign rally in Alabama

"“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.” ​

Oh... and this might give you a hint
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...d-to-register-eight-companies-in-saudi-arabia

Not to mention this
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-to-hotel-owned-by-president-trump/102536764/
Which, BTW, may be impeachable according to the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution.

Look up the "Paris Agreement". Check "Mitigation". Lookup Cuba. Check "Median Income".

Hopefully we can re-join it when we get a real President.

Who said just a few paragraphs above that you are innocent until proven guilty? And why does that work for Trump but not for foreigners?

In any case... yes! They are ALL good people. And if you claim that there are any who are not good people it's your burden to prove that they are of statistical significance. Otherwise you incur in Fake Precision Fallacy

Where did you get the idea that Mexico would accept any who are not Mexican?

Definitely. A wall won't stop them. Building a wall was a stupid idea which even Trump is now starting to step away from.

No

 

To be clear, what I'm asking is in regards to Clinton in 1999, not the context as it is in "recent years" as you put it. So in 1999, were the employers saying that they CAN find IT workers but they just aren't qualified enough? Or were they they saying that they just can't find any IT workers at all, at any qualification level?

 

I'm glad to hear it.

Oh right. Well why do you need to see the original data? Are you saying that that the GAO could've deliberately manipulated the data?

And that makes the data irrelevant? Once again, we're talking about crime committed by illegal aliens and you don't think that a report about imprisoned illegal aliens is at all relevant? Don't you see how ridiculous that is? Once again, I'm NOT saying that it can be used to prove that aliens commit more crime, but it DOES need to be considered especially as it conflicts with those studies which you mentioned. At the VERY LEAST, these reports show that these studies cannot be taken as absolute scientific truth! And I noticed that you conveniently didn't refute any of the limitations which I gave the studies, which clearly means that you can't refute them! Perhaps you even acknowledge them but just don't want to admit to it. Are you really going to stick with them being 100% scientific proof?

Nothing is being combined here. The report is about imprisoned illegal aliens and we're talking about crime by illegal aliens. Serious crime leads to imprisonment. Simple. That is, unless you want to talk about small time crime which doesn't lead to imprisonment like stealing a bag of candy!

How do you know the purposes it was meant to be used for? Isn't this just more presumption from you?

Yes, but you believe that crimes committed by illegal aliens CAN be measured, right?

Wrong. There is no PROOF that illegal aliens commit more crime, but there IS evidence, just as there is evidence that they commit LESS crime. However, I don't like to use the word "evidence." We certainly have serious data on both sides of the argument which we can look at. I'm acknowledging the other side, you aren't. You just choose to remain ignorant to it. And just because there are no studies which have been conducted which determine that aliens commit more crime, doesn't mean anything. I just means that not many researchers take this sort of research seriously because of how unquantifiable the data is and how many limitations there are. I mean who the hell tries to determine how much crime people who don't actually exist commit? I'll tell you who, those with a left wing agenda! Look, I have no problem at all believing that if somehow it was able to measured exactly, there is a possibility that illegal aliens commit less crime! However, the dreamers don't count! Also, I have to admit that even without the dreamers, its possible that the aliens who arrived as adults commit less crime, however, I SERIOUSLY doubt it! The fact is, we simply DON'T KNOW! However, one thing we DO know, is that they are illegal and every crime they commit, is one which wouldn't have occurred if they weren't in the country in the first place.

Why did you invoke Trump here? I didn't say anything about Trump.

Except, the difference is, AGW scientists use surface temperatures which can be measured EXACTLY over time to determine what the trend is. Whereas, the University of Massachusetts study uses self-reported criminal offending and country of birth information to attempt to determine a trend! Its a bit different I'm afraid. Apples and oranges.

The thing is though, I'm not talking about the Heritage Foundation! You are! You keep bringing it up! Are you saying that because the Heritage Foundation cites some GAO reports in one of its articles, that this somehow has some bearing on the GAO?

What were you saying yes to? Fox being "right wingnut" or that it is disputed that the Corporate interest to which Fox News responds to is a Political Agenda?

Yeah, you're the one who brought up MSM. My original point was about left wing media and then that led me to CNN & MSNBC's coverage of the Clinton email scandal. I was saying that they barely covered it, but you disagreed, which is when you mentioned the NYT coverage. You said that they were "the main culprit for keeping the email server scandal alive." Are you saying that the story SHOULDN'T have been kept alive? You said that the Clinton story was a republican 'ploy' to lower her poll numbers, but does this somehow change the fact that the story was true and serious? Did the democrats not use 'Grab her by the pu*sy" as a ploy to lower Trump's poll numbers? So, will you admit that CNN and MSNBC barely covered it?

Haha! Oh I don't think that I'm that stylish! I wish I was though. Thanks for the compliment, but it appears that you have very low standards of what "style" is if you think that I'm stylish! What makes you think that I'm stylish?

So why hasn't the investigation told us that?

When did Trump confess to an impeachable offense exactly?

When did Trump say that he fired Comey to impede the "Russia thing?" What are you even saying? If he said that, he would no longer be President!

Irrelevant unless there is proof.

Hold on, you've already said that there IS PROOF! So which is it? You know, you've really got to get your argument in line here!

Yeah, notice how I didn't say, "can't be accused until proven guilty." Of course he can be accused! However, he remains completely, 100% innocent of colluding with Russia, until proven otherwise! Simple. Once again, that is the straw man fallacy!

He doesn't need to answer questions, that's what they investigation is for. If they discover sufficient evidence, then he will be required to answer them.

How do we know this exactly?

Oh, so he said that the meeting was about digging up dirt on Hilary? That's news to me!

And what will this achieve exactly?

Straw man fallacy ONCE AGAIN! When did I say that the media shouldn't ever report it?

Except, earlier you said "yes" when I asked you if it is justified that they are there illegally. So which is it?

Except, times change, countries change, the risk of terror changes. If terrorists from Saudi Arabia posed the greatest threat to the USA, then why wasn't it on the list contained in the Obama administration's executive order? Which to confirm, is the same list which Trump used for the travel ban. Let me ask you, what do you know about Obama's ban of people from certain countries? And were you as critical of that as you are of Trump's?

Yep, I thought you'd say that. Trump certainly is invested in Saudi, as is hillary.

Anyway, if it was a Muslim ban, then why aren't the 5 countries with the largest Muslim population on the travel ban list? You must answer this in order to call it a Muslim ban.

What does climate change mitigation have to do with Trump hurting people? And yes, Cuba has got a terrible median income, but what does that have to do with your country? And what does that have to do with Trump hurting people?

But you said that it no longer exists didn't you? How can you re-join something which no longer exists?

Unbelievable. Okay, so you've NEVER heard of an alien committing a rape or a murder before?

Well I meant Mexico for the ones who came from Mexico. I should have said that they can come back into the states legally from whatever country they're from, after they've first been deported, while a proper immigration/work program is formed.

So why didn't you just say this in your original post, instead of saying what the benefits of illegal aliens are? You were responding to me asking what the arguments are against building a border wall. How are the benefits an argument against a wall?

 

No. I want to see the criteria used.

No. It only makes the conclusion reached by Heritage Foundation irrelevant.

We don't know that. Because we don't know the criteria. The reason a well performed research presents references to the data, how it was collected, etc... is not that somebody may thing that they're lying. It's so the reader can identify how it can or cannot be used.

You don't need those reports to establish that.

I have no idea what "limitations" you are talking about, but there is no such thing as 100% scientific proof. I don't know where you got that idea. Certainly not from me.

I already responded to what follows.

I repeat the relevant point:

,
Zero evidence. Already sent you the links of investigations by several fact-check organizations. And all you can produce are arbitrary statements by the Heritage Foundation, with no support for the statement.

If we "DON'T KNOW" then it can't be used as evidence of anything. You're the one making the claim. So you are the one who holds the burden of proof. I haven't stated anything whatsoever. I only noted that serious organizations conclude that there are indications that illegal immigrants commit less crimes. But it makes no difference to me if they commit the same. My argument stands. You are the one who brought this up.

One more time:

http://www.politifact.com/californi...-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...umented-immigrants-commit-more-crimes-n777856
https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Appendix-D_0.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/12/illegal-immigrant-crime-wave-evidence-is-hard-to-find.html

And even Trump's own ICE Director disagrees with Trump (who is the one who perpetuated this myth)
http://www.businessinsider.com/do-immigrants-commit-more-crime-than-americans-trump-ice-2017-6

The Corporate interest is profits. The Corporate policy is a political Agenda.

There is no such thing as left wing media.

No. CNN, MSNBC and Fox covered it heavily immediately after the NYT published it.

The "Style over Substance Fallacy" has nothing to do with being stylish.

I don't know what you mean. Obviously the investigation has not been made public.

Here are two examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ealed-highly-classified-information-to-russia
n-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.e60515455ca0

They need to stay here legally. Not sure what you're asking.

What executive order is that?

Obama never banned people from "certain countries" from entering the country. That would be illegal.

Hillary is not President.

I already did: $$$

Nobody should need this explained to them. You need to answer it yourself. If you can't, then my trying to explain it to you would be futile. I'll just give two hints: 1- Research what climate change mitigation is. 2- Research who the Cuban Embargo has hurt the most.

Amazing that I even need to give you these hints.

I did not.

Fake Precision Fallacy. Not to mention obvious non-sequitur

More than half illegal aliens come from countries with which we don't have a boarder. Should we just shove them in US1 and fly them each to their country? Or make Australia pay for it?

My original post wasn't an argument against anything. It was an explanation as you requested. If you found arguments against a wall, that was your conclusion.

 

Why does there need to be criteria? They are statistics on how many prisoners are illegal aliens. How are you not getting that? The statistic was that 27% of ALL federal prisoners were illegal aliens.
And you don't think that is one bit relevant to a discussion about crime committed by illegal aliens. That just shows your ignorance.

The GAO report is NOT research! Its numbers are REAL! It doesn't need to research to find out any trends because the numbers are right there! You can't compare it to any of your precious studies.

Are your serious? I clearly outlined them. Here it is again. Try and take notice this time:

You hardly responded to ALL that followed. And you didn't answer my simple question: Do you believe that crimes committed by illegal aliens CAN be measured?

Oh right, so one of those links was to an article which disputed the GAO/Prison data?

When did I do that? Again, you keep on bringing up the HF! Why?

And how do you know that this is true of Fox? And why isn't it true for CNN and MSNBC? Why can't they be about profits AND a political agenda, just like Fox?

What about media with a left wing bias? Because that's what I meant.

Didn't Fox already cover it heavily? And why did it take the NYT to publish it for CNN and MSNBC to cover it properly? Shouldn't they have covered it properly before?
You also conveniently avoided responding to the 'ploy' stuff and whether the Democrats used pu*sygate to lower Trump's numbers.

Exactly, not been made public. So how the hell are you saying that there is proof?

You think that the first one is Trump admitting to an impeachable offence?
Trump's just an idiot and can't explain himself properly, he does it all the time, he's barely coherent at times!

The second one, yeah Trump is an idiot for doing that, but if it was impeachable, then why isn't he impeached?

I'm asking, do you think that it is justified that illegal immigrants have entered and stayed illegally for all these years?

I shouldn't have said executive order. I meant the 'Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.' This is what the list is from. Not Trump.

In 2011, Obama suspended the Iraqi refugee program for six months! With concerns about terrorists entering the US under the disguise of a refugee. Also, it wasn't a ban, but Obama also didn't allow visa waivers for people who were from certain countries or had traveled to certain countries, thus making it harder to enter the US.

Are you saying that Trump's ban is illegal? That's funny, because I could have sworn that it was still being decided in the courts!

Are you sure you didn't just talk about Saudi Arabia? Why the hell do you think I mentioned other countries? You've now embarrassed yourself because you didn't check what those countries were! You're going to hope that they can also be explained by "$$$" but I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you! I'll give you a hand. The countries with the most number of muslims are: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Nigeria! Good luck! (Unless you're not going to bother just like you've done so much during our debate!)

What makes you think that I need to research it? Climate change mitigation is the reduction of green house gas emissions. So what? Whats that got to do with hurting people?

The embargo has been in place since 1958 when Trump was 12 years old. What's that got to do with Trump?

You did. Right here in fact:

Its a simple question, why can't you answer it. Have you heard of any criminal aliens committing a crime? If you have, then you can't say that they are all good people! Come on, just try, its not hard!

How does not having a border with certain countries change anything? Do you treat these aliens differently to the Mexican ones?

What do you think I was requesting?

 

How was that average obtained? Don't make it up. Quote it from the text.


T

You keep confusing the GAO reports with the Hermitage Foundation's conclusions.

You are asking me to "refute" them. I fail to see any relevance that would make them worth the while to refute. Studies (limited as you want) indicate that cities where there are more illegal aliens, and where you would actually expect more crime (if the statement "illegal aliens commit more crimes" were accurate) show either no variation, or less crime. Therefore, the statement "illegal aliens commit more crimes" is not supported by evidence. That's all... I believe you are overthinking it.

Well, first of all you need to explain how you would measure a crime, irrespective of whether it was committed by an illegal alien or not. Maybe then I might be able to understand the question. What is the scale do you use to measure a crime? In the US there are misdemeanors (which carry a sentence of less than one year, and there are felonies, which carry a sentence of more than one year. But I fail to see the relevance of this in this discussion.

I don't know. I only know that they dispute the Hermitage Foundation's conclusion.

Because that's what you are advocating.

There was a documentary a while back called "Outfoxed" that proved it with footage. However, they don't bother to deny it anymore.

https://thinkprogress.org/fox-chief...rvative-bias-we-are-the-balance-4e7ac38b9f38/

Their audience self identifies heavily as conservative (60% conservative, 23% moderate, 10% Liberal). Not so clear for MSNBC (32% Conservative, 30% Moderate, 36% liberal or CNN (32% Conservative, 30% Moderate, 30% Liberal)



http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

Because nobody has shown any reason to believe that they do. If you want to hold that they do, then the burden of proof is yours. I would find it unbelievable that the large Corporations that own these news outlets would establish a political bias towards the Party that wants to regulate large Corporations, and tax the major stock holders of these Corporations. But hey... if you think that they do, then show proof. I have not seen it.

You mean like "The Nation" or "Young Turks" blog? Infinitesimal, compared to Fox or the others.

Because NYT broke the story.

Of course they did! That's what we want them to do: use real news. Not made up ones.

We agree that he's an idiot. But here he explained himself very well.

Oh... Come on! Do you follow US news at all?
1- Because impeachment is a process.
2- Because there is an ongoing investigation into this and many other instances of abuse of power. Might turn out that Obstructoin of Justice was not, by far, his worst impeachable offense.... we shall find out eventually..
3- Because Republicans control Congress. Highly unlikely that the ever will. They would need to place patriotism before politics. I don't expect Republicans to do that. They never have.

Definite yes!

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Obama slowed down the process in order to fix it. Nobody was denied entry. It was fixed, and everything continued as normal. If for some completely irrational motive you were to believe Trump's word (I mean, by now you should have realized that you can't trust Trump's word even to tell you the correct time of day), then you would have to accept that Trump wanted a 90 day ban on entrance of people from some of the countries (not all) in the list of countries for which the Obama Administration already fixed the vetting process. And that those 90 days would be used by Trump administration to analyze and fix the vetting process (which, as I said, was already fixed), despite the fact that in the 240+ days Trump has been in power he hasn't made any effort whatsoever to even analyse what it is that needs to be fixed. Now, if you're so gullible that you believe that... sorry... can't do much for you.

Trump promised a Muslim ban in his campaign. And this is just a bone he throws his gullible and quite racist base.

I'm not saying it. The courts are.

Very funny! No. It was denied. Trump appealed to the USSC. I believe we will have a verdict on the appeal in October, if I'm not mistaken. But how can he justify a 90 day temporary ban after he has had almost 10 months?

Not interesting or relevant enough to be "embarrassed" about not looking it up. Or even to look them up now. Much less looking up each individual one. Trump used (partially) the list of countries that Obama had already fixed... just because they were in a list. I don't know, nor I care enough to look up, in which countries Trump has business interests. Just not interested. The real reason for the Muslim ban is explained above: he needs to keep his racist base happy.

No! Very wrong! Amazingly wrong! Look up the Paris Agreement. If you're going to debate about Climate Change, you need to learn the basics.on your own. I don't have the time to teach them to you.

Right. And Trump wants to re-implement it after Obama lifted it.again. I can justify JFK (and others that had to do with it) in that they thought it would hurt the Castros. now we know who it hurts.

If you have, then you can't say that they are all good people! Come on, just try, its not hard!
Non-sequitur. Where did you get the idea that no good person has ever committed a crime?

Only if you deport them.

An explanation of the facts.

 

What makes you think I didn’t quote from the text?

And you keep confusing the HF's conclusions with my opinion!

Okay, I definitely agree with that. It’s far too general to be able to say this. However, I believe that there is evidence to support the statement “illegal aliens appear to commit more SERIOUS crime which leads to IMPRISONMENT’ or at least illegal aliens who entered as adults.

EXACTLY! We need to define what we mean by “crime” and what scale we use to measure it. However, I assume that you have already done this and have come up with your own definition of crime to be able to consider those studies you hold to. How do those studies define crime and what scale do they use to measure it?

What exactly do you think the HF’s conclusion is?

He said that the network is “consciously conservative.” I hardly think that amounts to a political agenda being their “corporate policy” as you put it. Besides, the man was just being honest! Just because the chief’s from the other networks haven’t come out and said it, doesn’t mean they aren’t “consciously liberal/progressive.” All we have to go on is the news which they run. And if a top contributor at CNN is calling the Russia narrative a “big nothing burger”, while his network run the story non-stop, with inaccurate reporting like the story which was single sourced which got three people fired, I think that tells us all we need to know!

The corporations aren't who are going to establish any political bias, its the news outlets themselves. These corporations are successful because they have delegated authority and don't micromanage the companies which they own. They allow them to thrive under their own management. And even if they did try to enforce an anti-democrat bias, they've not exactly done a good job after the networks ran so many positive Hilary stories!

You said that they have a bias towards making money, but isn’t it funny that the only stories that they thought make money during the election campaign were the ones which favoured Hilary! And I love so much that it failed!

I thought you were saying that the NYT simply started to report on the story, not that it was the one which broke the story. So obviously Fox weren't reporting on it either until the NYT broke it right?

So are you saying that the Hilary email story wasn't real news?

Of course impeachment is a process. The problem is, it is open to interpretation as to whether he has committed an impeachable offence. He did a stupid, careless thing talking to that Russian, however it was far from malicious! He didn't intend on destroying the country or anything! And as for obstruction of justice, are you saying that the above video where he talks about firing Comey is PROOF that he obstructed justice? Really? You think this so called evidence isn't able to be challenged? Who is even pushing this sh*t, other than you? Not even CNN or MSNBC as far as I can tell!

Okay, so we're back to where we were a few posts back, where I asked you whether you believe in the rule of law and you said that you did. However, you've just admitted that the law was justifiably broken with aliens entering illegally and staying for all of these years. You don't think that's a little bit conflicting with believing in the rule of law? Here's a tip: you can't just simply say as you did before, claiming to believe in the rule of law just because you think that the aliens should be made legal. You have to ALSO explain why you believe that the law was justifiably broken by them entering and staying and how you can still claim to believe in the rule of law given that you believe in an unlawful act. Or are you admitting a double standard?

Notice how I didn't say that Trump's actions were caused by Obama. I simply said that the list was from the Obama administration! And that, once again sir, is Straw-Man-Fallacy!

Yes they WERE denied entry temporarily! For 6 months! Which is 2 months longer than Trump was proposing to have the refugee suspension in place for! What you're saying is, in the end the refugees eventually got in. And this will be the exact same situation with Trump's ban, eventually people will be able to get in! So how is it different?

Wrong. All we know is that the refugee vetting process was improved, not the general visa process for entry by other countries, including the ones on the list. This means that a terrorist could arrive in the sates on a visitors visa for the sole purpose of carrying out an attack.

Oh really? How do you know that? Are you present in the White House & Intelligence briefings?

Where do you get that from, that Trump's base is racist? I mean seriously, not even CNN and MSNBC are running with that. What are you, a Buzzfeed fan? Vox perhaps?

Yeah, it WAS denied. However, the Supreme Court has partially lifted the denial! Hence why part of the ban is still in place! You think its been properly denied? Its FAR from over!

How could his administration focus on a plan to ensure that immigration is secured if they're fighting the courts non-stop to get the ban in place?

You told me to look up "climate change mitigation." Now you're telling me to look up Paris Agreement. Which is it? Climate change or specifically the climate change agreement known as the Paris agreement? And what specific part of it do you want me to look up? And what do you mean debate climate change? What debate are we having? I'm simply asking what climate change has to do with Trump hurting people! I suspect very little!

If this is the way you want to play it, then you're going to have to explain what your definition of "good" is. Couldn't you apply your logic to citizens and say that every American is a good person?

So how would you treat non mexican aliens who are deported, differently?

The thread is calling on people to give an argument against building a border wall. So why did you explain why its a good thing that illegal aliens are there through that helpful shark metaphor? I think that it is because you genuinely want them to keep coming illegally and a wall might make it slightly more difficult for them. You've already shown that you don't give a damn about the rule of law when you said that it is justified that they entered illegally and have stayed all these years. I think that you are one of these ridiculous maniacs who advocate for open borders. However for some reason, you just don't want to come clean.

 

I don't know how it works in Australia, but here all crime leads to imprisonment. If you're caught, that is.

Ok. Let's lay this nonsense to rest once and for all. Heritage not only skews data to suit their needs. They also ignore the fact that Hispanics (like blacks) are much more likely to be arrested, and imprisoned than whites.

"Black and Hispanic47 people are more likely to be searched without consent than any other group, and, of those searched, Black and Hispanic people had the lowest “hit rates” (i.e., the rate at which searches found contraband)."
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...5/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf​

[The sheriff’s office] “engages in racial profiling of Latinos; unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos; and unlawfully retaliates against individuals who complain about or criticize [the office’s] policies or practices,”
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/274910-justice-department-findings-in-its-investigation.html

“black and Hispanic drivers were searched approximately four times as often as white drivers, yet [the Chicago Police Department’s] own data show that contraband was found on white drivers twice as often as black and Hispanic drivers.”
https://chicagopatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PATF_Final_Report_Executive_Summary_4_13_16-1.pdf

“the Whiter one appears, the more the suspect will be protected from police force.” ... “police used less force with highly stereotypical Whites, and this protective effect was stronger than the effect for non-Whites.”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550616633505

“Analysis of limited data suggests that, in certain precincts, S.P.D. officers may stop a disproportionate number of people of color where no offense or other police incident occurred,”
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf

“African American and Latino drivers are nearly twice as likely as white drivers to be asked during a routine traffic stop for ‘consent’ to have their car searched. Yet white motorists are 49% more likely than African American motorists to have contraband discovered during a consent search by law enforcement, and 56% more likely when compared to Latinos.”
https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-re...ent-patterns-racial-bias-according-new-report

83 percent of the stopped population were black or Hispanic, despite the fact that those minority groups, together, made up just over half of the city’s overall population.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...&gwh=8DE6E5265F0B3A2CF7B0A12AF05263C6&gwt=pay

9 out of the 10 off-duty officers killed by other officers in the United States since 1982 were black or Latino. “Inherent or [subconscious] racial bias plays a role in ‘shoot/don’t-shoot’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/nyregion/27shoot.html
​

Enough said!

​

They will not delegate what you are claiming: i.e. supposedly lying to promote an agenda that is contrary to their interests

Trump was a spectacular money-maker for the media. Still is. Scandals is what makes the most money, and Trump produced a scandal every time he opened his mouth. All the media did was... play the tape.

Yes.

It was definitely news. But once the facts were known, it turned out to be a dud. She definitely acted improperly. What she did was against Department Rules. As was parking a mid-size car in a spot reserved for Compact cars.

Seriously, she did a dangerous thing. She could have inadvertently leaked very sensible secrets. But it turns out she didn't.

If you or I did something like that, it would be stupid and careless. For a President, it's grounds for impeachment. Especially given that there es a history of "stupid careless things". And, of course, there is also his confession to Obstruction of Justice.

Yes!

It's not their job to "push" for impeachment. Just to show the facts.

You make too many incorrect assumptions. The fact that there is justification for breaking the law doesn't mean you just walk. You pay the appropriate penalty, according to the law.

Entering illegally is a criminal offense. Most undocumented aliens did not enter illegally. Staying here illegally is a Civil Offense. Like running a red light, or parking in a No Parking zone, or exceeding the speed limit. Have you ever done any of these and hoped you didn't get caught? If you have... what's the matter with you? Don't you believe in the rule of law?

This is a much much more complex issue than you seem to think.

No! They were not denied entry. Citizens of those countries who already held a Visa continued entering with no issues whatsoever.

Or they can just send terrorists from other nations with a tourist visa. Which is what the 9-11 hijackers did.

Because the whole thing is ridiculous. The way it worked with Obama was this: anybody applying for refugee status had to prove that they had to present all the documentation proving that they would not present a security risk. That's the reason why the process takes 1 and a half to 2 years. And the reason why there has not been a single terrorist attack in the US by refugees. Refugees are vetted as thoroughly as is possible. Trump's muslim ban is not a real thing. It's just another dog-bone he throws to his base.

Oh... that's easy. Watch his rallies. And some, I assume, are good people But, seriously... his core-base. Not everybody that voted for him. But those who scream "build that wall" and would stay with him even if he (in his own words) stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot somebody. Most definitely racists.

The ban was denied. It's illegal. He was allowed to keep a very limited version, but he will need to prove to the Court (in October, I believe) that there was a specific threat. Otherwise... another impeachable offense.

What do you mean? The constitutional case is handle by constitutional lawyers. The immigration part by immigration experts. Maybe immigration lawyers. You're saying Trump is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time?

Look up climate change mitigation in light of the Paris Agreement.

Oh... come on! The part about mitigation, of course! Stop stalling.

Already addressed above. I have had many discussions in this forum about Morals and Ethics. Too long a subject to include here.

I'm not the one proposing the deportation. Already explained the problems of sending people to countries with which we have no boarders.

Because that's a part of the argument against a boarder wall.

No. I want them to come legally. Republicans oppose that. The wall is simply a dumb idea. The rest was addressed above. Just trying to keep this from growing exponentially.

 

Right, be instances like this are very rare. ATT from Customs Border Patrol said something like .00007% in 10 years. That's nothing.

 

You go to prison in the US if you shop lift as a first time offender and found guilty? Maybe you mean week long sentences or something, but actually this would be news to me! What about fines or community service? Surely these apply!

I think that its pretty clear that racial profiling happens alot and its obviously despicable. However, you're saying that they're "more likely to be arrested and imprisoned", not that they're more likely to be stopped & searched as reflected by your sources that you provided. I fail to see how the two relate. In fact, if it is true that black and hispanics have a lower rate of contraband discovery, then how are searches without consent relevant to more illegal aliens being imprisoned than legal citizens? Also, I'm afraid that you yourself are skewing data by including blacks into the argument.

And why didn't you tell how you measure a crime? Let me re-word an earlier question: Using your understanding of how crime is measured, do you believe that crimes committed by illegal aliens CAN be measured?

And as for the biased percentage of positive Hilary stories?

Why was it a dud? Just because it didn't result in the leaking of sensitive secrets?

I'm glad you agree. However the fact that sensitive secrets were not leaked doesn't mean that it isn't a big story and a dud! It shows bad judgement. Should the US have a president with bad judgement which could have resulted in serious consequences?

Yeah, GROUNDS for impeachment, but you said that it was an impeachable offense. However it has not been determined that it was impeachable. Anyway, do we know if this is even an investigation? This isn't part of the Russia collusion investigation is it?

Come on now, you need to get away from that. What judge in the country would consider that to be a confession? A confession would be "I fired Comey because he was investigating me too closely." Seriously who is even pushing this sh*t, other than you?

Except they quite clearly ARE pushing for it.

And what "appropriate penalty" do you think should apply to illegal aliens, both those who entered illegally and stated and those who entered legally but stayed illegally?

While I have exceeded the speed limit and hoped to God that I didn't get caught, I want to make a distinction between me and an illegal alien. I'm not CONTINUALLY speeding. 99.9% of the time, I am obeying the road laws. Illegal aliens are breaking the law for every second they are in the country! Its apples and oranges once again!

I think you're getting confused with the Iraqi refugee program and the visa/immigration programs for people from other countries. Iraqi refugees were temporarily denied entry while things were sorted, under the Obama administration. Its THAT simple!

Of course. Are you saying that those "other nations" should also be included in the travel ban? Or are you saying that this is somehow an argument against it?

Yeah and it resulted in two terrorists from entering who engaged in terrorist activities! Okay, so an investigation took place and the vetting process was improved, but it is SUCH a bad mistake which could have led to disaster, that a new administration with fresh ideas may want to come in and see how it can be improved EVEN MORE. Your problem is you think that because action was taken in attempt to prevent another mistake from happening again, this means that its now 100% fixed and now totally infallible! No more terrorists could possibly enter ever again! Yeah right. This stuff is just too serious to simply 'fix' and then drop and not continually be concerned about.

Oh I see, so its only a problem if they successfully carry out an attack? Its not a problem if they are simply engaging in terrorist activity and plotting attacks which end up being foiled? Anyway, what about the 2016 Ohio State University attack by Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan? What about the 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing by Somali refugee Dahir A. Adan? And what about children of refugees?

Yeah, you're right! There's no such thing as the muslim ban! Because its not a muslim ban! How have you not got this by now? Perhaps you need to go back and check what I said about none of the top 5 countries with the highest number of muslims being in the travel ban! If that's not enough, perhaps your precious Politifact can help: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/

People screaming "build that wall" at his rallies? I'm sorry, but this doesn't explain how it is true that racists are his base. Try again. And how does screaming "build that wall" make someone a racist anyway? What's wrong with being in favour of an attempted solution to keep out illegal aliens?

I'm guessing that given that its HIS policy, Trump wants to be intimately involved with anything to do with the travel ban. So of course it is possible that it is a distraction. Its impossible to know why it has exceeded 90 days. Its also possible that it would've been extended anyway, even if it hadn't been legally challenged. Perhaps the immigration system is in even more of a mess than Trump thought.

Okay, done. I read the below wikipedia article section: Now what the hell does this have to do with Trump hurting people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Mitigation_provisions_and_carbon_markets

Too long a subject? Its funny how its not a long subject for you when it comes to being able to call all illegal aliens good people. Its a simple question with a yes or no answer: Do you think that all Americans are good people? If you're able to say that all illegal aliens are good people (whatever that actually means) but not say the same for American's, then I'd say that you have quite a big problem!

How exactly? Just answer once and for all: do you think that people should continue to cross the border illegally?

 

Really? You really don't see how more hispanics being stopped implies that more will be imprisoned? Really?

No idea what you mean. Sorry. Nor do I see any relevance.

Like what?

That, as well as the fact that no criminal acts were committed. This according to multiple investigations led by Republicans.

Are you kidding? We got Trump! Bad judgement vs incompetent-dishonest-and-complete-nut-job. I sure would take the "poor judgement". Look... Hillary would not have been among my top 10 eligible Democrats to be President. However, she would have done Ok. And certainly a world better than Trump.

I don't think there is much to investigate. I mean, he admitted it publicly. I'm sure he'll be asked about it when (if) he is called to testify before Congress.

That would have been a more stupid confession. Nobody had even suggested that Comey was investigating Trump.

Look... only the extreme right denies it. And they don't even give an argument. Pretty much like you. Nobody needs to "push" it. It's absolutely clear.

You have a very peculiar way of defining "clearly". No. They are not. And this illustrates how detached you are from American politics. I understand that you are in Australia, but...

Let me explain this: from a purely political point of view, it is against the electoral interest of the Democratic Party to impeach Trump. It wold be unfortunate for many many reasons. First of all, because we get Mike Pence. I prefer Trump 100 times over Pence. Trump can be manipulated for political gains. Pence is a religious fanatic. Trump in power is a symbol Democrats would unite against. And he turns off a large part of the Republican Party. Maybe not a majority, but a large part. So Trump support in a Republican primary for a congressional candidate, is likely to have them selected. But it works against them in the generals. Wouldn't work that way if Trump is impeached.

Politically, it's much much better for Democrats if he stays. However, this is not a political issue. It's about rule of law. If we are a nation of laws, he needs to be impeached.

It's a case by case analysis but, in general, if they have committed no other crimes, a fine, pay back taxes, and be on probation for a year if they have a job or can obtain one within a reasonable period of time.

I see... so, from your point of view, being "against the rule of law" is dependent on the amount of time you spend breaking the law.

No. They were not. Nobody with a valid visa was denied entry. The visa process was slowed down. But those who already had a visa were granted entry. And those who were in the process continued being in the process. It had absolutely nothing in common with Trump's ban.

It's an argument against the excuse that was used.

What about them? I have no interest in looking them up, but if I remember, correctly all refugees who have committed attacks came in as children and became radicalized here. "Improving" the vetting process would in no way have kept them out. Nothing of what Trump is doing would have kept them out.

Well... it could make them just stupid and uninformed, I guess. But the racist sentiment is what made Trump the candidate. That was his base. The rest just came with him because he had an R next to his name.

A wall is an "obvious" solution? Even Trump himself has now done away with it. It was just electoral demagoguery meant to fool the most gullible.

Trump has neither the desire nor the mental capacity to be involved with any minutia. He just gives an order, and his lackeys are paid to come up with a solution.

No! Go to the Paris Agreement website. Look up "mitigation". I already told you that. Man!

I'm saying that mine is not the burden of proof. They are good by default. The fact that they took a chance in coming in illegally trying to make an honest living makes them "good" by default.

No. I think people should cross the border legally.

 

I was hoping that you would answer my question about imprisonment. It seemed that you were saying that every single crime results in imprisonment if found guilty. Does this apply to shop lifting as a first time offender? Maybe you mean week long sentences or something, but actually this would be news to me! What about fines or community service? Surely these apply in many cases, no?

Why did you completely ignore what I went on to say? Here it is again:


"In fact, if it is true that black and hispanics have a lower rate of contraband discovery, then how are searches without consent relevant to more illegal aliens being imprisoned than legal citizens?"


So what difference does it make if they're stopped more? They've got a lower discovery rate than citizens! Are you saying that they're somehow imprisoned anyway, even without contraband?

That's strange, because you had no trouble answering it earlier, when the question was in a shortened form. I'll ask the shortened form question again: Do you believe that crimes committed by illegal aliens CAN be measured?

How can you judge the relevance of a question if you don't even understand it?

How can it be considered a dud though? It doesn't need to be a criminal act to be serious.

Are you serious? You're badly mistaken. The Russian investigation started in the US summer of 2016!

You mean they deny that there is evidence but say that its possible he is guilty or they say that he is 100% innocent?

Here's an argument for you. If Trump was worried that he was being investigated by the FBI, then how would firing its director drop the case? Instead, firing Comey would have the opposite effect, by a more competent replacement being more likely to uncover any Trump collusion. Trump said that he wanted someone competent in charge so that the investigation could be done properly and could be put to rest! Have you even bothered to watch the extended form of that interview? Or have you only seen the one conveniently edited by the pile of sh*t left wing news outlet known as The Guardian? Take a look, it should automatically start at 1:00 and watch until at least 2:21. See what Trump goes on to say. Copy and paste: youtu.be/5Wvuw_Zmubg?t=1m

Well they have a funny way of showing it! Why are democrats calling for his impeachment? Take a look at these Google search results! https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+call+for+the+impeachment+of+trump

What laws has Trump broken exactly?

It’s a question of proportion really. Are you going to say that you're as bad as illegal aliens when you speed a little?

Again, you're getting confused with the Iraqi refugee program and the visa/immigration programs for people from other countries. Nothing to do with visas here.

Trump's is obviously way more expansive, however, both Obama and Trump were responding to a national security need by placing a hold on entry into the US for some people. Its really very simple.

Except its really a VERY stupid argument, because your basically saying that because not every country in the world is on the travel ban list, this means that the countries that are, countries with the highest level of terrorist activity, shouldn't be on the list! Just have a think about how stupid that is for a few seconds!

In these two cases, they were children when they arrived, however, I was responding to your blanket statement that there has not been a single terrorist attack in the US by refugees.

What evidence do you have that the “racist sentiment” made Trump candidate? Also, an “R” next to his name?

When did I say that a wall is an “obvious” solution? And how has Trump “done away with it?”

How do you know that? Again, are you in his briefings?

Where did you mention the Paris Agreement website? Anyway, I looked at the website and read this page: http://unfccc.int/focus/mitigation/items/7171.php
Earlier you told me to stop stalling. Well how about YOU stop stalling and try your best to tell me how this has even the remotest relationship to Trump hurting people! Just try!

Oh right, so Americans can’t be considered good by default because they DON’T try to make an honest living? What the hell? Also, how do you know that ALL illegal aliens enter to make an honest living? Isn’t it possible that some entered to traffic drugs?

 

Probably. The relevance escapes me. But in one of the links I sent you before seems to indicate that minorities in some areas receive harsher sentences than whites. Not sure if that's relevant, though.

The following (which I copy-paste from my previous post) is a relevant response which directly addresses the above question.

"Really? You really don't see how more hispanics being stopped implies that more will be imprisoned? Really?"

Think it over....

. So you want me to do your thinking for you?
First Grade Level Math 1 (numbers exaggerated for clarity)
10 people in minority groups are stopped in one day, 5 of them have contraband and are imprisoned. Discovery rate 0.5
5 people in non-minority groups are stopped in the same period of time, 3 of them have contraband and are imprisoned. Discovery rate 0.6

Therefore: more people in minority groups are stopped (10>5), and despite the fact that they have a lower discovery rate (0.5<0.6), more are imprisoned (5>3)

Ok. So you're saying I already responded that question. Why ask again? Context always helps understands questions. So if I already responded, you have your response... whatever that was.

Because they spent billions of dollars and many years investigating it to try to find a criminal act. If fizzed out.

Make up your mind. Are you talking about investigating the Russians or investigating Trump?

Deny that his confession is a confession. The right is very comfortable denying reality. Think Global Warming denial. Think mass murders with assault weapons denial. Think Evolution denial. Think "smoking is bad" denial. Think "Trump is stupid" denial....

Huge ego. That's what he's used to. He doesn't like a subordinate, he fires them. This approach probably worked for him in his businesses. Not so much in government. He is the most ill-prepared President in History.

Watched it in it's entirety the first time it was aired. I immediately spotted the confession. I know his excuses well. They were proven to be absurd.

Because, to responsible Democrats, Rule of Law comes before political expediency.

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

If the question is "rule of law", much worse. If I speed for selfish purposes other than to help my family.

Obama did not place a hold on entry into the US.

A sure way to be wrong is to include "you're basically saying..." in a phrase. This is not the exception. If you want to know what I'm saying, all you need to do is ask.

Following the elections.

Used to be a big beutiful wall that Mexico was paying for. Then it was a big beautiful wall, that Mexico would pay for at a later time. Then the Mexico part suddenly disappeared from his speech. Then it was "sections" of a wall. Then it was not a wall anymore but he was going to rebuild the "fence". A couple of weeks ago it turned out to be "transparent"....

It's done!

Because I can see what he does in Public.

By opposing the mitigation projects explained on the Paris Agreement website.

No. Because everybody is considered good by default until you prove otherwise.

 

It's relevant because earlier I said that "I believe that there is evidence to support the statement “illegal aliens appear to commit more SERIOUS crime which leads to IMPRISONMENT’ or at least illegal aliens who entered as adults." You responded to this by saying, quote, "here all crime leads to imprisonment. If you're caught, that is." Now you're only saying "probably." Which is it? If stealing candy in the US and getting caught gets someone put in prison, then surely every American would know about it.

Do you realise that you are making minority groups out to be far worse than the data which you quote says they are? Where did you get that there is only a mere difference of 0.1 between the discovery rate among minority groups and that of non-minority groups? Certainly not in any of the links you sent me. They suggest figures such as contraband being "found on white drivers twice as often as black and Hispanic drivers” in Chicago and black drivers being 26% less likely to have contraband on them than whites in Ferguson! And you're talking about a mere difference of 0.1? What the hell man?

Anyway, earlier I said that you were skewing the data by including blacks into the argument. Well I didn't go far enough! I totally missed that you are simply including legal citizens in general and therefore I should have simply dismissed it from the start! This whole argument of yours is totally irrelevant in attempting to account for why there are more illegal aliens in prison than legal. This sort of data does have some merit when looking at certain police injustices against minorities, but what in the hell does it have to do with illegal aliens?

You responded, but you didn't answer the question. You responded by saying:

To which I said:

"EXACTLY! We need to define what we mean by “crime” and what scale we use to measure it. However, I assume that you have already done this and have come up with your own definition of crime to be able to consider those studies you hold to. How do those studies define crime and what scale do they use to measure it?" So. Do you want to try again?

Russians, but investigating Trump is in relation to the Russians. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

So, this confession must have been pretty high profile right? "DONALD TRUMP CONFESSES TO COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA TO WIN THE US 2016 ELECTION!" Wow, what a headline! This would've been the biggest scandal in US political history. This was surely all over the world. Can you provide links to any other articles which talk about this huge, unprecedented news, other than The Guardian article? I mean, there must be hundreds! Direct me to them please! I can't believe I missed it!

Don't many on the right think that smoking should be banned? I watched a clip of Cenk Uygur from Young Turks talking about how he thinks that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves but those of the right are always telling people, "don't do that" or something. So are you sure the right think that smoking doesn't affect health?

Okay, so now his ego is the reason that he fired Comey? Okay, I could go along with that! I'm just surprised that you've gone off the idea that he fired him for fear of being investigated.

Rights of state citizens; rights of extradition? How did he violate this?

So if you go 1 mile over the speed limit, you've instantly committed a worse crime than an illegal alien who entered illegally and has stayed for years? Damn, you're hard on yourself!

I probably should've said place a restriction. What I meant was, Obama's was a hold on what had been the normal rate of refugee entry. Obama DID place a restriction on the number of refugees admitted during a 6 month period while vetting was fixed. Simple. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

Okay. Does the fact that not all countries are not on the travel ban list mean that the countries that are, countries with the highest level of terrorist activity, shouldn't be on the list?

What happened following the elections for you to say that the “racist sentiment” made Trump candidate? Also, what did you mean by a "R" next to his name?

I have to say, the wall policy certainly looks very different to what it was originally!

What does he do in public to show you that he "gives an order, and his lackeys are paid to come up with a solution?"

What does this have to do with Trump hurting people?

So then all American's are good? So what are you saying "no" to there?