"ICE took away my client's prosthetic leg and arm. They kept his leg for five months. They still haven't given back his prosthetic arm, and now they're going to deport him tomorrow without. They've never explained why. His asylum appeal is still pending. This is human cruelty."
This has been going on since Viet Nam during the 60's moving forward. Loved those Thai sticks. Profiteering, smuggling drugs, looted treasure and art, etc. as old as anything else in this world. Doesn't make it right or good, just is what it is. Catch them and deal with them.
Now this is where you call me out for whataboutism, right ?
Don't know what this has to do with illegal immigrants. Just like I have never heard about or know what an incel is and what it has to do with illegal immigration, nor mass murderers.
The flawed logic: The proposition is that anytime an illegal migrant commits a violent crime that stands as support for the position that there is a crisis at our border with Mexico requiring emergency measures to keep illegal migrants from crossing the border into the United States. The logic is that if the illegal migrant who committed the violent crime had not entered illegally across that border the crime would not have happened. True enough,; it indeed, has initial appeal. But think about the underlying logic and where it takes us. For example, if a person who has gained entry to the U.S. through legal migration commits a violent crime, one could maintain that the crime would not have happened if that person had not been permitted to enter the country. Is that a good argument for curtailing legal immigration? Take it out of the immigration context. A person serving time in prison is released on parole and then commits a violent crime. Is that a good argument for curtailing parole or otherwise releasing prisoners? A person who has been arrested and charged with a crime is released on bail pending trial and commits a violent crime while out on bail. Is that a good argument for curtailing release on bail? You get the idea. This is not to say that I am in favor of allowing persons to enter the country illegally â or to stay illegally after the expiration of a visa. However, the reality is that some number always will do so. And if one of those commits a violent crime while here, does that mean we have a crisis because that life somehow could have been spared if we had only (1) built a segment of a wall on some portion of the border with Mexico; (2) stationed more military at various points of the border and made guarding it part of their mission: (3) something else? There always will be a point of diminishing returns. That is not to say that I do not value each American life. Nor am I necessarily opposed to increased border security. I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
Every single murderer was born. If we are to save lives, we need to preemptively abort every pregnancy. It's for your own good.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 10, 2019 - 10:45am
The flawed logic: The proposition is that anytime an illegal migrant commits a violent crime that stands as support for the position that there is a crisis at our border with Mexico requiring emergency measures to keep illegal migrants from crossing the border into the United States. The logic is that if the illegal migrant who committed the violent crime had not entered illegally across that border the crime would not have happened. True enough,; it indeed, has initial appeal. But think about the underlying logic and where it takes us. For example, if a person who has gained entry to the U.S. through legal migration commits a violent crime, one could maintain that the crime would not have happened if that person had not been permitted to enter the country. Is that a good argument for curtailing legal immigration? Take it out of the immigration context. A person serving time in prison is released on parole and then commits a violent crime. Is that a good argument for curtailing parole or otherwise releasing prisoners? A person who has been arrested and charged with a crime is released on bail pending trial and commits a violent crime while out on bail. Is that a good argument for curtailing release on bail? You get the idea. This is not to say that I am in favor of allowing persons to enter the country illegally â or to stay illegally after the expiration of a visa. However, the reality is that some number always will do so. And if one of those commits a violent crime while here, does that mean we have a crisis because that life somehow could have been spared if we had only (1) built a segment of a wall on some portion of the border with Mexico; (2) stationed more military at various points of the border and made guarding it part of their mission: (3) something else? There always will be a point of diminishing returns. That is not to say that I do not value each American life. Nor am I necessarily opposed to increased border security. I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people and stoking fear because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
An unprecedented number of Californians left for other states during the last decade, according to new tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.
About 5 million Californians left between 2004 and 2013. Roughly 3.9 million people came here from other states during that period, for a net population loss of more than 1 million people.
For many years, more people have been leaving California for other states than have been moving here. According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migrationâabout 2.5 percent of its total population.
You are referring only to net domestic migration. That's a pretty narrow selection set to make your point. Yes the population growth is slowing (bound to happen when you have 40 million people), but you are completely ignoring births and international migration. So it's hardly a holistic look.
Also interesting to note, that most people moving out are lower income and less educated, while a lot of those moving in are higher income and more educated. What would you make of that trend?
So once again, you are cherry picking info that suits a very specific argument that is frequently parroted across right wing media. So yeah, go do your homework. Spend a few seconds googling and put together a complete picture of what's going on. A lot of people are moving out because they can't afford the admittedly high taxed and expenses of the state. But a lot of people are moving in as well, both high income and international migration. If California is such an awful place, why are so many people moving to America from the rest of the world choosing to settle in CA?
So you personally know that all of those individuals were mentally ill. Nothing else wrong that compelled them to kill innocent people? YOU know that definitively? "...While most mass shooters in the past 35 years have not been found to have a serious mental illness, nearly all of them do have one thing in common: their sex.
The other common thread with mass shooters seems to be a history of anger/an artificially adopted sense of victimhood (hello? White privilege?), a frustrated sense of entitlement.
Not hard to imagine who such a person might be most likely to vote for.
...And histories of Domestic Abuse. There does seem to be a thread amongst Trump followers to despise women.
Wikipedia: At least four mass murders, resulting in 45 deaths, have been committed in North America by people who have either self-identified as incels or who had mentioned incel-related names and writings in their private writings or Internet postings. Incel communities have been criticized by the media and researchers for being misogynistic, encouraging violence, as well as spreading extremist views and radicalizing their members.
So you personally know that all of those individuals were mentally ill. Nothing else wrong that compelled them to kill innocent people? YOU know that definitively? "...While most mass shooters in the past 35 years have not been found to have a serious mental illness, nearly all of them do have one thing in common: their sex.
The other common thread with mass shooters seems to be a history of anger/an artificially adopted sense of victimhood (hello? White privilege?), a frustrated sense of entitlement.
Not hard to imagine who such a person might be most likely to vote for.
The irony of the demands for "WALL" by the same subset of voters suggests an ongoing, if unintentional, attempt at political misdirection regarding who is perhaps the real danger to society.
Your list is comprised of mentally ill people who acted out. What is your point ? Are you saying that the mentally ill are the real terrorists ?
So you personally know that all of those individuals were mentally ill. Nothing else wrong that compelled them to kill innocent people? YOU know that definitively? "...While most mass shooters in the past 35 years have not been found to have a serious mental illness, nearly all of them do have one thing in common: their sex. Of the 96 mass shootings committed since 1982, all but two were committed by men. (Most of them were white.)Men donât just constitute almost all mass shooters in recent history; they are also responsible for the vast majority of gun-associated deaths in the country. Men own guns at triple the rate of women in the U.S., at 62 percent compared to 22 percent." - Politico January 2018
Further, according to Politico, as a white American female there is a higher statistical probability that I could be shot, assaulted or killed by a domestic terrorist (a white supremacist, misogynist or religious zealot) than by an illegal immigrant.
Speaking of mentally ill, the mentally ill compulsive liar in the WH has proven to be the biggest terrorist of all.
I read all of the fact checking articles on his speech. No one contested the 4,000 dead. They are dead, their deaths were not manufactured by Trump. They are dead and not coming back. People who were here illegally killed them. That makes their deaths preventable. More preventable than all the other deaths mentioned by you and others in an attempt to make illegal immigration seem ok and harmless.
How many have to die before you see a problem going on ? What is your number ?
You've apparently misinterpreted Trump's statement. The "4,000" number reflects (administrative) arrests made by ICE, of previously convicted or charged aliens attempting to cross the border or remain in the country; not for violent killings committed once they've entered the US. "In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings." Thereby, it's unlikely that any of those 266,000 people were allowed access to the US. Unless related to their illegal entry/presence in the US, ICE generally does not arrest people for other crimes committed while in the US (especially homicide), that is ordinarily done by local law enforcement. As to your closing question: the same can be asked by those in favor of stricter gun control.
Saw that and it is hilarious. Of course it is totally out of context and has no meaning other than a funny as Hell coincidence of verbage, but silly humor means more to me than politics anyway so I think its great.
Nearly every case I have seen mentioned are not by people who overstayed visas. They are people who have been deported multiple times and mostly came across the southern border.
Maybe I should start posting obits of all these people in this thread.
Oh and you were talking about a real estate salesman earlier ? IIRC you've been talking about moving out of California. I would suggest that you expedite that plan. With your new governor and his sanctuary stuff and all that you might want to put your house up for sale while there are still buyers. 1 million people net have left California in that past decade. The people who could afford your house are leaving in droves. Being from there, a lot of people I know who I grew up with have had it and are making their plans to boogie, pronto.
Seriously man. 7 seconds and the second (first one didn't have an obvious pretty picture) link on google: Do you ever fact check the tripe you swallow whole? Or are you just conditioned to spout random bullshit because it seems to be working for trump?
Hey, F U ... Call me names .... You do your homework. lazy a$$ ...
An unprecedented number of Californians left for other states during the last decade, according to new tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.
About 5 million Californians left between 2004 and 2013. Roughly 3.9 million people came here from other states during that period, for a net population loss of more than 1 million people.
For many years, more people have been leaving California for other states than have been moving here. According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migration—about 2.5 percent of its total population.
