Liber logic is totally illogical

Since you obviously can not answer the question asked. I will let you have the last word. I will not respond to you further on the thread.

 

What the hell is that? A piece of biased wingnut media opinion is your "evidence"? Where are the facts?

Ok ok... I understand. You are too used to getting what you think is "information" from right wignut media to know the difference between facts and nonsense opinion. So let me show you what facts look like.

This study proves that crime rates linked with more illegal immigrant population stayed the same or decreased
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15377938.2016.1261057

See? Knowledge doesn't bite!

Here is the relevant graph


So now it's your turn. Support your statement with FACTS. Not opinions.

Of course you can't! My job is done.

 

An interesting abstract from your link:
"Research has shown little support for the enduring proposition that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Although classical criminological and neoclassical economic theories would predict immigration to increase crime, most empirical research shows quite the opposite. We investigate the immigration-crime relationship among metropolitan areas over a 40 year period from 1970 to 2010. Our goal is to describe the ongoing and changing association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes. Our results indicate that immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period."

Notice that nowhere in that paragraph does it mention "illegal immigration".

The absence of that word is significant on several fronts. First of all, an illegal immigrant has less to lose for commiting a crime because of any of the sanctuary cities and a likely consequence is that he will just be sent home. Additionally, any crime by an illegal immigrant would not have happened if he were not in the US. It would be one less crime. A legal immigrant is less likely to commit a crime because his background was checked before entry into the US.

 

I find right-wing circle jerks amusing as well.

 

What you call "the paragraph" is the Abstract of the reference I sent. A study about immigration in general. The section of that study relevant to this thread is the one that deals with undocumented immigrants. And the chart shows the findings.

 

I wanted to respond to this comment separately as it shows your misunderstanding of the founding principles and legal application of such.

1) "I do not buy into the whole "Tyranny of the Majority"

It is bizarre that you would cry "you are a liberal" and then say the above - as the above has zero respect for the principles of republicanism.

I don't think you understand what you are saying. Our system of Govt is a constitutional Republic. What this means is that certain rights and freedoms are put above the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from "direct" harm - one person against another - rape, murder, theft and so on.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

According to the principles of republicanism - the Gov't has no legitimate authority to make any law messing with individual liberty "OF ITS OWN VOLITION"

If Gov't wishes to make such law - it can appeal for a change to the "Social Contract" - construct by which - we the people - give Gov't authority.

The bar for such a law is not 50+1 or Simple Majority Mandate (where some politician claims being elected is justification to mess with essential liberty). If that were the case there would no point in essential liberty being "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

This is what is referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" in both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism.

The bar for messing with essential liberty is "overwhelming majority" at least 2/3rd's - in the case of a change to the constitution it is 75% of states.

In the case of SSM - the general public used to be overwhelmingly against it. As such the law was legitimate..

To the contrary - current pot laws are "illegitimate" - as there is no overwhelming majority support for this law.

Most People have been duped into thinking that law can be justified simply on the basis of Gov't claiming "harm reduction". The main reason for this is that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach kids the founding principles.

Some folks think that the use of the term "Creator" somehow justifies making law on the basis of religious belief. Nothing could be further from the truth - the exact opposite is true.

The point of invoking the Creator - a word intentionally chosen not to invoke the Christian God - was to stipulate what laws Gov't could not make - not to justify what laws the Gov't could make.

So then - you are welcome to your opinion but, your opinion violates the main principle on which this nation was founded - and violates the definition of a Constitutional Republic.

With respect to the bail thing. I have not claimed to be for or against it. My claim is simply that some general claim of "harm reduction" - in of itself - is not a valid justification for law.

Such justification for law - known as Utilitarianism "what will increase happiness for the collective" - allows for and end run around the safeguards put in place by the founders to protect essential liberty.

Other problems are "who gets to decide" ? One man's poison is another mans pleasure.

If you can show that 66% agree with you - then the law would be legitimate - regardless of whether or not I agree with it.

What is not legitimate - is claiming that a law is justified on the basis of some Gov't official - or yourself - saying "it will reduce harm".

If some action or conduct is so harmful to society - that Gov't should be given the power to use physical violence (Law) to punish that conduct -then an overwhelming majority will agree. If an overwhelming majority do not agree - then perhaps the conduct is not as harmful as some might proclaim.

Take Pot vs Meth - There is no overwhelming majority that thinks Pot is as harmful as the Gov't likes to claim. Meth is a different story - the 66% bar would easily be met.

 

In order to look at the full article, I would have log in or pay $44 for it. However, your graph does change some very significant facts. Any crime commuted by an illegal immigrant is a crime that would not have occurred had they not been here illegally to start with. And they are more likely to commit a crime than a legal immigrant because they are not vetted to start with.

 

I did respond to your question - quite specifically in fact. You just didn't like the answer so you run from the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial.

 

Show that they are "more likely"! You make a statement, and provide no support whatsoever. So this may be a waste of time but I did provide a study that debunks precisely what you said.

And that was just an example. There are many many others that debunk that myth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6241529/
http://ftp.iza.org/dp12413.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/oep/advanc...93/oep/gpz057/5572162?redirectedFrom=fulltext
....

And I could go on and on... But we know it's hopeless to expect you to provide similar support for anything whatsoever that you claim. You hear it on Fox and just... repeat it.

 

If that was not true, why would we bother to vet anyone coming into the country? Some things are obvious.

I prefer sources I recognize.

You are accusing me of making unsupported calims and then you turn around and say

 

Your link is hardly up to date. It is dated 2017, and only covers the period of 1970 to 2010. This was long before any city or state declared itself a sanctuary for illegals.

The fact that most liberal publications support the idiotic concept that releasing illegals that have committed crimes makes the communities safer. There are no liberal publications that will report on the actual facts. Yet, here is a report of Timothy Robbin's (Acting ICE Director) testimony before the Senate:

Snip:
“When aliens walk out the front of the jail that could have been handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for removal proceedings. They have the opportunity to commit additional crimes,” Robbins said at the Senate hearing, the outlet reported.

“What we’ve seen, and depending on the report you look at, anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of those who have committed crimes will re-offend.”

“In that regard, what we’re seeing is crimes that could be preventable — the human cost who are being victimized and hurt by criminal aliens that ICE had the ability to remove from this country,” Robbins also said.

The data show that up to 80 percent of crimes committed be sanctuary-freed illegal aliens could have been prevented if those same suspects had been turned over to ICE for arrest and deportation, the same outlet noted.
:Snip
https://www.nationalinsiders.com/up...-freed-by-sanctuary-cities-commit-more-crime/

This report is based on actual data obtained from Sanctuary Cites, and is up to date. Federal law requires all jurisdictions to notify ICE when an illegal that have ICE detention warrants is released Prison. Sanctuary cities/states are violating the law. As a result, the Trump Administration is resending federal law enforcement funding and access to Federal databases. The whinny liberals claim that this is retaliation. But they refuse to work with ICE as the law requires, then why should the federal government support these sanctuaries? This summer the SCOTUS is supposed to issue a ruling on whether Sanctuary cities/states are legal. I have no doubt that they will rule that they violate Federal Statutes. When they do, then President Trump will have a free reign to hold the leadership accountable to include imprisonment.

 

Of course, if they just pardoned everyone in prison and made nothing illegal there would be no crime at all. Oops... Did I just make a suggestion they might like? Damn.

 

Held for ransom. *in my liberal voice.

 

Guess what, every crime committed by an unregistered Democrat, is entirely preventable. Stop carrying their illegal water.

 

Are you kidding me? Absolutely not! The so-called "sanctuary city movement" started in the 1980s. Your absolute departure from facts is astounding.

And why would that change since 2010?

Now do you understand I'm presenting studies? Not opinions. Not wingnut media nonsense that has been debunked by ... studies. Actual real scientific investigations on the matter.

Here are some more!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6241529/
http://ftp.iza.org/dp12413.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/oep/advanc...93/oep/gpz057/5572162?redirectedFrom=fulltext

And that's just a sample. There are tons of them.

But you made the claim. Where are your facts?

What report? You didn't link to any report. You linked to a wingnut media blog page with no hard data. I link to studies and hard data, you link to opinions.

Do you know the difference between facts and opinions?

 

What???

Are you not feeling well or something? I asked another poster for evidence of a claim for which I have provided counter-evidence, and you respond with...

I don't even know what that crap is.

Not that I would expect anything better from you. You already provided evidence of what we can expect from when you got yourself into a debate about "communism" without even understanding what the word meant.

It doesn't take too long to figure out which posters are to be taken seriously and which ones...uhm...don't know what communism is.

 

The Sanctuary movement started in the 1980's, it started by sheltering illegals from being deported. Yet, these sanctuary cities did not intercede with federal authorities executing federal statute. As late as the early 2000's the ICE would go to a business suspected of employing illegals. They would round up the illegals, and deport them. Separating families. Over the years, the ICE priorities have changed. In 2017, ICE issued a new policy that calls for law enforcement to notify the agency when an illegal with a detainer warrant on them. During the 2016 election cycle the cities and states started declaring themselves Sanctuaries as a political grandstand. These proclamations were not like those dating back to the 1980's, because they were specifically set to ignore Federal law. The current Sanctuary cities/state policies make it illegal for law enforcement to notify ICE or CBP that they are releasing a illegal criminal that has a Federal Detention warrant issued for them. Since the sanctuary policies have changed, you can hardly compare the current situation to those that existed prior to 2016.

Wrong, you are offering opinion pieces that are disguised as studies. I will use these articles that you have submitted as an example.

"Despite substantial public, political, and scholarly attention to the issue of immigration and crime, we know little about the criminological consequences of undocumented immigration. As a result, fundamental questions about whether undocumented immigration increases violent crime remain unanswered. In an attempt to address this gap, we combine newly developed estimates of the unauthorized population with multiple data sources to capture the criminal, socioeconomic, and demographic context of all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014 to provide the first longitudinal analysis of the macro-level relationship between undocumented immigration and violence."

Question is left unanswered, and data from 1990 to 2014. This is before the 2016 liberal political grandstand.

"
This paper analyzes the impact of immigrant deportations on local crime and police efficiency. Our identification relies on increases in the deportation rate driven by the introduction of the Secure Communities (SC) program, an immigration enforcement program based on local-federal cooperation which was rolled out across counties between 2008 and 2013. We instrument for the deportation rate by interacting the introduction of SC with the local presence of likely undocumented in 2005, prior to the introduction of SC. We document a surge in local deportation rates under SC, and we show that deportations increased the most in counties with a large undocumented population. We find that SC-driven increases in deportation rates did not reduce crime rates for violent offenses or property offenses. Our estimates are small and precise, so we can rule out meaningful effects. We do not find evidence that SC increased either police effectiveness in solving crimes or local police resources. Finally, we do not find effects of deportations on the local employment of unskilled citizens or on local firm creation."

The paper is based on a program that was replaced in 2017, and claims that mass deportations does not raise or lower crime rates. But the current policy is not one of mass deportations, and it does not address the effects of releasing criminals in the country illegally back into the communities. Therefore, it not a reliable source for the question I have posted.

This paper analyzes the impact of immigrant deportations on local crime and police efficiency. Our identification relies on increases in the deportation rate driven by the introduction of the Secure Communities (SC) program, an immigration enforcement program based on local-federal cooperation which was rolled out across counties between 2008 and 2013. We instrument for the deportation rate by interacting the introduction of SC with the local presence of likely undocumented in 2005, prior to the introduction of SC. We document a surge in local deportation rates under SC, and we show that deportations increased the most in counties with a large undocumented population. We find that SC-driven increases in deportation rates did not reduce crime rates for violent offenses or property offenses. Our estimates are small and precise, so we can rule out meaningful effects. We do not find evidence that SC increased either police effectiveness in solving crimes or local police resources. Finally, we do not find effects of deportations on the local employment of unskilled citizens or on local firm creation.

"The page you’re looking for cannot be found."
​

I posted a link to the only credible source that exists relating to the current situation. It was the testimony given by the acting Director of ICE to the US Senate. That source stated that 40 to 80% of all criminal illegals released in sanctuary cities and states go on to reoffend. I would post a liberal website of the Director's testimony, but liberals are avoiding the subject in favor of mainstream lies.

 

You posted zero sources. Credible or otherwise. Your link is an opinion and portions of an interview. Mine are scientific studies from peer-reviewed publications. It's getting to be an every day occurrence now that the right-winger repeat what they hear on the radio, and we keep showing them how they are lied to again and again.

 

I did post a source, and you quoted it. You dismissed it because it was from a right wing media site. The quote was from the testimony that the ICE Executive Director for Detention and Removal Operations Timothy Robbins gave before the US Senate. The data that he was quoting is data obtained by ICE:

“When aliens walk out the front of the jail that could have been handed over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for removal proceedings, they have the opportunity to commit additional crimes,” ICE Acting Associate Executive Director of Detention and Removal Operations Timothy Robbins told the committee, according to Breitbart News. “What we’ve seen – and depending on the report you look at – anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of those who have committed crimes will re-offend.”
https://onenewsnow.com/politics-gov...ls-released-by-sanctuary-cities-repeat-crimes

Each one of you sources identified by you identify that they are not using current data, or they specifically state that the question of impact of mass deportations have on crime. But none of them addressed the question of the impact of releasing criminals that are in this country illegally back into the communities. Timothy Robbins statement that 40 to 80% will reoffend shows that this policy by sanctuary cities is making out communities less safe and not safer.

 

No I didn't. I dismissed for the reason I give above: because it's not a study. You can't rebut a study with something somebody just... says, followed by an opinion by the author of the article. Show the data!

Show it!

So you quote an article from a wingnut media that quotes another wingnut media, and assume that this is data? And look at the quote. They have the "opportunity" to commit crimes? You have the opportunity to commit crimes every time you walk out the door. The question is: do you? And this "re-offend" crap... The assumption that people cross the boarder because they want to commit a crime is absolute nonsense. It feeds the minds of the racists, of course, but it requires complete ignorance about the situation of these people.

Look. I don't care where it's published. So long as you show a link to the data, any media is as good as any other. What you don't get is that wingnut media rarely (if ever) show any data. Why do you think this is? Because there is none!

So what? What in the world has changed? If you claim it has changed, show it! Show data. Don't just quote sources who publish stuff they pull out of their ass and publish quotes from other sources that pull stuff out of their ass.

Look... don't bother. It's clear at this point that, despite the many many times we have shown that 99% of what these wingnut media sources publish is made up, you believe their fake news, and will continue to believe it. Despite the fact that actual data shows that they are lies. And facts are not going to change that. So why bother?