CARLHAYDEN's not gonna like this...

[Zioneer]

It's inhumane to deport the kids for the sins of their fathers, so I'm a-okay with this. The DREAM Act would have been the best way to resolve the "young illegal immigrant" problem, but this is a good temporary measure.

Actually, what's funny about immigration politics is that in Utah and elsewhere, the LDS Church (which I am a part of and which is known for being very conservative) is more moderate than its members on immigration. The Arizona "papers please" law? Pushed by Russel Pearce, an arch-conservative LDS Republican. He was recalled and replaced in office by a more immigration-lenient conservative LDS Republican (who rumor has it was quietly supported by powerful LDS community figures). The LDS Church also quietly supports a more humane, "family-friendly" policy in all states it has a major population in.

Additionally, every year, the majority-LDS Utah Republicans support stricter immigration laws which despite the complaints of average LDS members, always go down quietly. This year, the Utah Republicans tried an Arizona-style law, but the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church (basically the voice of the LDS Church in various areas) himself came and publicly endorsed a more moderate "Utah Compact", and basically politely said that the Utah Republicans were being inhumane.

So as an LDS member myself in a year where there's maximum media exposure regarding Mormons (and more Hispanic Mormons than ever before), this will be interesting to see how things play out.

[greenforest32]

The DREAM act is just one of many good pieces of legislation Republicans have been blocking.

I'd say this was a good policy (and political) move by Obama.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's a partial list of people who will not join Leif in celebrating Obama's amnesty ploy:

Alexander Russell Atkin
Olivi9a Monet Wilson
Jamiel Shaw
Ryan Jeffrey Scholz
Jerry Laury
Kathleen Byham
Daniel Pollack
Modena Dollison
John Zupan
Kyle Wible
Christopher Rowe
Matthew J. Denice
Corrie A. Damske
Diane Bronson
Anna Bronson
Jonathan Campbell
William Dennis McCann
Kevin Will
Ilario Scuteri
Daniel Gambardella
Shakir West
Paul J. Krause
William Alan Sweezer
Joshua Keith
Jacob Tucker
Alyssa Holtzclaw
Alice Swanson
Brian A. Terry
Leah Miller
Joshua Wilkerson
Chance Zobel
Casey Ryan Bohr

And the list goes on and on...

For a fuller list. please see:

http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

[7,052,770]

Wow, that's a really dumb argument. Undocumented workers can just as easily save lives. That jr. high level logical fallacy is beneath you...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Because we all know that if it weren't for illegal aliens, there would be no crime in the United States.

I just love this little gem from that hate site CARL gave a link to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As if drunk drivers flee the scene of an accident only if they are illegal aliens.

What Obama is doing here is bad policy because it is short-circuiting the legislative process.  I support the Dream Act, but it should not be enacted by imperial order.

Note: To be fair, there is one thing that site advocates that I agree with, the sanctuary policies some places have adopted are bad and should be scrapped.  If someone has run afoul of the law sufficiently that their identity needs to be checked and that initial check indicates the person is likely an illegal, then ICE should be informed.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wow, that's a really dumb argument. Undocumented workers can just as easily save lives. That jr. high level logical fallacy is beneath you...

Please identify (name) the fallacy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wow, that's a really dumb argument. Undocumented workers can just as easily save lives. That jr. high level logical fallacy is beneath you...

Please identify (name) the fallacy.

The fallacy of accident.

[7,052,770]

I could compile a list of people who were murdered by men named Carl. Then I could use the list to names to feebly attempt to justify the deportation of all the Carls.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wow, that's a really dumb argument. Undocumented workers can just as easily save lives. That jr. high level logical fallacy is beneath you...

Please identify (name) the fallacy.

The fallacy of accident.

You really should try to read, and understand.

You incorrectly presume that I am asserting that all illegal aliens granted amnesty will kill Americans.

However, I must ask you if any illegal aliens granted Amnesty might end up illegally killing Americans?

Based on the record, which I have cited, the answer appears clear to me.

That you reflexively disagree, serves tends to support my point.

Oh, and I'm not surprised that neither Harry not Ernest has any concern for the persons killed, just support for those who entered the country illegally.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wow, that's a really dumb argument. Undocumented workers can just as easily save lives. That jr. high level logical fallacy is beneath you...

Please identify (name) the fallacy.

The fallacy of accident.

You really should try to read, and understand.

You incorrectly presume that I am asserting that all illegal aliens granted amnesty will kill Americans.

However, I must ask you if any illegal aliens granted Amnesty might end up illegally killing Americans?

Based on the record, which I have cited, the answer appears clear to me.

That you reflexively disagree, serves tends to support my point.

You most certainly are asserting that illegal aliens are more of a danger than other people, and citing a list of instances in which that is the case does not constitute logical proof of your thesis.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wow, that's a really dumb argument. Undocumented workers can just as easily save lives. That jr. high level logical fallacy is beneath you...

Please identify (name) the fallacy.

The fallacy of accident.

You really should try to read, and understand.

You incorrectly presume that I am asserting that all illegal aliens granted amnesty will kill Americans.

However, I must ask you if any illegal aliens granted Amnesty might end up illegally killing Americans?

Based on the record, which I have cited, the answer appears clear to me.

That you reflexively disagree, serves tends to support my point.

You most certainly are asserting that illegal aliens are more of a danger than other people, and citing a list of instances in which that is the case does not constitute logical proof of your thesis.

To you, there is no possibility of there could ever be any evidence that disagrees with your belief. 

You reject facts.

Now, I understand that to YOU entering the country illegally is "just fine."

Oh, and I notice you never answered my question, can you tell me that among those persons granted administrative amnesty by Obama, none of them will illegally kill Americans?

[7,052,770]

Maybe we should deport all of the Carls, since people named Carl have murdered people before.

What, no respect for the victims of the Carls?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Maybe we should deport all of the Carls, since people named Carl have murdered people before.

What, no respect for the victims of the Carls?

Still unable to deal with facts.

Now, if someone commits a crime, and law enforcement is aware of it, but does NOTHING, and then that person subsequently kills someone else, where that person would have been unable to kill said person if the original crime had been prosecuted, then such action is prima facie negligence.

A separate example is of the person currently accused of the attack on several persons, including a federal judge and member of Congress over a year ago.  If he had been prosecute for illegal drug possession, instead of diversion, he would likely have been convicted, and ineligible to purchase (or possess) a firearm.

So, this has nothing whatsoever with the name of any individuals, but rather with their acts.  I must admit I am not surprised neither you nor Ernest can grasp this concept.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Maybe we should deport all of the Carls, since people named Carl have murdered people before.

What, no respect for the victims of the Carls?

Still unable to deal with facts.

Now, if someone commits a crime, and law enforcement is aware of it, but does NOTHING, and then that person subsequently kills someone else, where that person would have been unable to kill said person if the original crime had been prosecuted, then such action is prima facie negligence.

A separate example is of the person currently accused of the attack on several persons, including a federal judge and member of Congress over a year ago.  If he had been prosecute for illegal drug possession, instead of diversion, he would likely have been convicted, and ineligible to purchase (or possess) a firearm.

Somehow I doubt that someone capable of acquiring illegal drugs would face much difficulty in acquiring illegal guns.  I do admire your effort to shift the focus off of your hate of aliens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The concept you appear unwilling to grasp is these criminals you bring up are individuals, not rolemodels that others of similar backgrounds aspire to be like.

(Fixed a typo.)

[Torie]

Maybe we should deport all of the Carls, since people named Carl have murdered people before.

What, no respect for the victims of the Carls?

Still unable to deal with facts.

Now, if someone commits a crime, and law enforcement is aware of it, but does NOTHING, and then that person subsequently kills someone else, where that person would have been unable to kill said person if the original crime had been prosecuted, then such action is prima facie negligence.

A separate example is of the person currently accused of the attack on several persons, including a federal judge and member of Congress over a year ago.  If he had been prosecute for illegal drug possession, instead of diversion, he would likely have been convicted, and ineligible to purchase (or possess) a firearm.

So, this has nothing whatsoever with the name of any individuals, but rather with their acts.  I must admit I am not surprised neither you nor Ernest can grasp this concept.

Given that the policy is to deport illegals when caught committing a felony, maybe after serving time, is it at all clear that those that remain are more likely to commit crimes than legal immigrants? Or native borns?  In any event, you are assuming that not granting "amnesty" means the potential killers will decamp, even though they have not for years and years. Most of the illegals at the end of day will not be leaving, except by self deportation Carl in some instances, probably in general by otherwise law abiding illegals. So that is another problematical assumption of yours. Your causative chain is more attenuated than a Rube Goldberg toy.

Of course the cohort of illegals kept in the twilight zone by this questionable executive order (no green card, but they won't be deported), are among the least likely to commit crimes at all, of the illegal cohort, or any cohort at all. They have clean records. And now they can't earn a living legally. Brilliant!

The illegal immigration issue is a tough nut to crack and get right, no doubt about it. You are going down a cul de sac when it comes to discussing any resolution that makes much sense at all.

[Gustaf]

I've got no problem with this, as long as it's goes along with better border security.  It won't of course.  But then again, I like the American working poor that already live here unlike the people that think "open borders" are a good idea.

free mobility of capital with concurrent free mobility of labor is a death sentence for wages and working conditions -- probably why you are so enamored, as a self-hating proletarian.

Why do you hate equality?

[Brittain33]

I've got no problem with this, as long as it's goes along with better border security.  It won't of course.  But then again, I like the American working poor that already live here unlike the people that think "open borders" are a good idea.

free mobility of capital with concurrent free mobility of labor is a death sentence for wages and working conditions -- probably why you are so enamored, as a self-hating proletarian.

Why do you hate equality?

Gustaf, do you think this response is conducive to fruitful conversation? I'm asking as a fellow red avatar.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Maybe we should deport all of the Carls, since people named Carl have murdered people before.

What, no respect for the victims of the Carls?

Still unable to deal with facts.

Now, if someone commits a crime, and law enforcement is aware of it, but does NOTHING, and then that person subsequently kills someone else, where that person would have been unable to kill said person if the original crime had been prosecuted, then such action is prima facie negligence.

A separate example is of the person currently accused of the attack on several persons, including a federal judge and member of Congress over a year ago.  If he had been prosecute for illegal drug possession, instead of diversion, he would likely have been convicted, and ineligible to purchase (or possess) a firearm.

So, this has nothing whatsoever with the name of any individuals, but rather with their acts.  I must admit I am not surprised neither you nor Ernest can grasp this concept.

Given that the policy is to deport illegals when caught committing a felony, maybe after serving time, is it at all clear that those that remain are more likely to commit crimes than legal immigrants? Or native borns?  In any event, you are assuming that not granting "amnesty" means the potential killers will decamp, even though they have not for years and years. Most of the illegals at the end of day will not be leaving, except by self deportation Carl in some instances, probably in general by otherwise law abiding illegals. So that is another problematical assumption of yours. Your causative chain is more attenuated than a Rube Goldberg toy.

Of course the cohort of illegals kept in the twilight zone by this questionable executive order (no green card, but they won't be deported), are among the least likely to commit crimes at all, of the illegal cohort, or any cohort at all. They have clean records. And now they can't earn a living legally. Brilliant!

The illegal immigration issue is a tough nut to crack and get right, no doubt about it. You are going down a cul de sac when it comes to discussing any resolution that makes much sense at all.

Torie,

Apparently you do NOT understand my point.

First, criminologists are in agreemet that aliens legally present in this county have a low crime rate, whereas aliens illegally in this country have a crime rate significantly above the national average.

Second, many of the aliens illegal present in this country could NOT obtain legal entry due to past criminal records.

Third, some criminologists posit the theory set forth by Dr. James Q. Wilson several years ago (the broken window theory) that with each successive violation of the law, greater violations will subsequently occur.

Fourth, I differentiate between aliens illegally present in this country who legally entered, versus those who entered illegally (illegal entrants).

Fifth, one of the most common crimes (not generally reported in national crime statistics) is identity theft.  Criminologist are in agreement that much of this crime is committed by illegal aliens, particularly illegal entrants.

Sixth, if you bother to check with local law enforcement (they will only speak off the record due to understandable fear of retaliation) much of the serious crime rate is attributable to Mexican and Salvadoran gangs.

Seventh, many of the illegal entrants themselves are victims of the smugglers (coyotes), where many of them are held for ransom, others compelled to be drug mules, and many women forced into prostitution.

Now, there is NO perfect solution to the problem, but that does NOT mean we need to give up attempts to improve the situation, which is the case with the Obama policy.

Oh, and I have posts in the past citing examples of convicted felons who were illegal aliens who were not deported.

Finally, if a person who is an illegal alien and is convicted of DUI, is not deported (since in most jurisdictions DUI is not a felony), and that person subsequently kills one (or more) Americans subsequently, is that OK?

[Badger]

Torie,

Apparently you do NOT understand my point.

First, criminologists are in agreemet that aliens legally present in this county have a low crime rate, whereas aliens illegally in this country have a crime rate significatly above the national average.

Second, many of the aliens illegal present in this country could NOT obtain legal entry due to past criminal records.

Third, some criminogists posit the theory set forth by Dr. James Q. Wilson several years ago (the broken window theorty) that with each sucessive violation of the law, greater violations will subsequetly occur.

Fourth, I diferentiate between aliens illegally present in this country who legally entered, versus those who entered illegall (illegal entrants).

Fifth, one of the most common crimes (not generally reported in national crime statistics) is identity theft.  Criminologist are in agreement that much of this crime is committed by illegal aliens, particularly illegal entrants.

Sixth, if you bother to check with local law enforcement (they will only speak off the record due to understandable fear of retaliation) much of the serious crime rate is attributable to Mexican and Salvadoran gangs.

Seventh, many of the illegal entrants themselves are victims of the smugglers (coyotes), where many of them are held for ransom, others compelled to be drug mules, and many women forced into prostitution.

Now, there is NO perfect solution to the problem, but that does NOT mean we need to give up attempts to improve the situation, which is the case with the Obama policy.

Oh, and I have posts in the past citing examples of convicted felonss who were illegal aliens who were not deported.

Finally, if a person who is an illegal alien and is convicted of DUI, is not deported (since in most jurisdictions DUI is not a felony), and that person subsequently kills one (or more) Americans subsequently, is that OK?

You've won me over, CARL. Crime is bad!