xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,805 comments
- 1,797,424 views
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I'm not too concerned with what they're about. I'm addressing your (so far completely unsubstantiated) claim that Obama somehow used them to an unprecedented degree.
What about healthcare, specifically? You do know that the ACA was passed into law by Congress, right? Assuming so, be more clear about what you're referring to.
I don't suppose you've got any objective way to measure Obama's "troubles with the Supreme Court," so that we can ascertain if there's any reason to be saying he was out of the norm on that front either?
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
It's most certainly what he implied.
--
His record on what?
Do you have numbers for this? How many "troubles" did he have with SCOTUS? What is the normal number of "troubles" for a president to have with SCOTUS? What constitutes "trouble" in the first place?
And I don't have a clue why you're surprised that I didn't do your research for you, as I'm under no obligation to.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
- 40,880
No, it's what you're claiming he implied. He didn't say anything about Obama's use of executive orders being unprecedented. He didn't say anything about the numbers of orders Obama put out or the numbers Trump might put into effect. He in fact didn't say anything about any other president before Obama at all. All he said was that Trump's use of it so far is benign compared to Obama's use of it over the course of his presidency (which, considering Trump hasn't even been in office a week, I'd certainly hope so). That is certainly a claim to which a critical lens can be applied, but bringing up standards by which his claim fails which weren't expressed doesn't accomplish anything.
Now, it's clear that you think he's just tying a noose to hang himself in this argument, and that very well may be true in the end; but arguing against things you think he might be saying doesn't actually release the trapdoor.
- 7,016
- United States
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Too vulgar? The only vulgarity will be the liberals screaming their racist accusations when the report comes out. Is that what you mean?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Are violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants more or less abhorrent than violent crimes committed by legal immigrants, naturalised citizens or citizens born within the United States?
It amounts to racial profiling - isolating a segment of the population and targeting them. The obvious connection that Trump is trying to make is that violent crime goes down as the deportation of illegal immigrants go up; therefore, illegal immigrants cause violent crime.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
And I give you the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Or how about the FBI? I can't believe they are isolating races of the population and targeting them. They are clearly trying to make a connection of race and crimes committed.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
Criminal profiling criminals who commit more crimes? That sounds plenty fair to me, if you are in the country illegally the last thing you should be doing is committing more crimes. Besides this is only for 'sanctuary cities' right?
This should not be a problem.
This should not be a problem.
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Can you tell a legal immigrant from an illegal immigrant on sight? No.
Trump's plan equates illegal immigration with violent crime. Since you cannot tell legal and illegal immigrants apart, people will begin to associate immigrants with violent crime. Even the ones who are there legally, have been naturalised or were born there - anyone who looks different is to be feared because you can never be certain that they're not planning to assault you.
- 11,188
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
Don't legal immigrants have actual legal documents that permit them in the country?
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
You are missing the point, you do know this is all about the sanctuary cities. Because these cities are apparently not willing to cooperate with the CBP Trump is making provisions to compensate for that fact. Furthermore he is strong arming those cities by removing social funding as well because there is no reason to fund illegals.
There should not be a problem with this, if a city wants to harbor criminals then the Fed will step in.
Yes and that is the problem, these cities are refusing to ask for proof of legal residence. Because you know, that is not fair lol.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,745
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Yes I have read it, and my comment that a single incident doesn't prove a wider trend or a cause to the alleged trend.
As far as the 58 claimed no-go areas, to be able to debunk such a claim then some actual details would need to be provided. Which neither the video segment or related article do. Nor does the burden of proof lie with me, that rest solely with the person making the claim, and as I have already mentioned Fox news guests do have a proven track record of gross exaggeration in these cases.
To give another example I could claim that the US had 1,740 no-go areas that the authorities refused to enter (that's how many it is corrected for the population difference), the onus to support such a claim would be on me, as you can't prove a negative. Which is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now my example here may seem to be absurdly silly and borderline insulting to Americans, yet that is exactly what elements of the right from America and other countries are doing.
If the BBC were to field a guest who stated as fact that the whole of LA was off limits to non-Muslims you would quite rightly consider it absurd nonsense and demand proof. Yet that is exactly what Fox news did and I suspect a lot of Americans still believe as the apology and retraction was certainly not on the same scale as the claim.
Profiling against a single piece of data is a problem, because it's statistically innacurate and flawed.
If they don't include any other data and don't weight the data correctly then it's bother innacurate and potentially dangerous.
As an example most white collar crime is committed by whites (DoJ figures), does that make white people more predisposed to commit fraud? No and such a claim would rightly be considered silly, and yet here we are.
Last edited:
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
We are talking about already known criminals, they have no rights in the U.S. therefore exposing any further crime they commit is on them. As long as it is proven that they are illegal before posting the information of further crime I don't see the complaint.
weight the data correctly ok I will do that, they are in the country illegally. That is enough for deportation, if you are worried that it will cause anyone to change their minds over immigration I disagree. Criminal is criminal, I'd be with you if legal immigrants were to, your standard, profiled.
Since when is reporting crime profiling anyway?
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
When it's making the connection between migrants and crime as being mutually inclusive. It's encouraging you to associate immigrants with violent crime, regardless of their status.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,745
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
You have missed the point entirely, linking criminal activity to migrants in this manner, which seems to utterly ignore any other factor is inaccurate and ineffective. I've already explained exactly why that's the case and given a counter example as to why it doesn't work, you have however simply ignored them.
When you link it to a single trait and ignore the fact that correlation doesn't automatically mean causality.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
President Trump has now implemented the shutdown of federal funds to "sanctuary cities". Many have chosen to not comply with the standing federal law. So far it will only cost them money, money which will have to be raised in other ways such as debt and taxation of local citizens. This is only the beginning of the "conversation". I'm not looking forward to it because my taxes, already very high, will go up.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/sanctuary-cities-dig-in-after-trump-executive-order.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/sanctuary-cities-dig-in-after-trump-executive-order.html
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
That trait being someone who is breaking the law by being in the country. Here is the point, the profile is not about race, any race can be in our country illegally, the profile is illegal alien. If the sanctuary cities want to turn a blind eye that's fine but if the Fed wants to show the public of those cities what is happening due to having these criminals in their community that is fine also.
I've never linked criminal activity to immigrants. I'm not even linking criminal activity to illegal immigrants, an illegal immigrant is a criminal by definition as it is, it is a crime to enter our country illegally.
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
In case you didn't know, it's not 1861 anymore. The world is very different now.
xyloscissor
(Banned)
- 933
- United States
It's a good thing then that's not what is happening isn't it? The connection is between illegal aliens and whatever they do in our country illegally, I'd like to see the numbers on these people as far as how much money they are collecting from the Federal Government illegally.
Where did the violent part come in? Crime is crime and their status very much does matter. I know it is hard for you to understand but the people in the United States are immigrant friendly, our government is also immigrant friendly. Some of these hippy cities want to be illegal immigrant friendly but you're not going to find much support for that.
It's always the loud few creating these types of things, that's because there is no possible way free flow immigration will ever be a reality. It used to be, "ok, lets close the borders and grant amnesty to those already here" ok lets try that, oops didn't work.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,745
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
If you can't see how it associates race with crime then quite frankly I'm amazed.
You do know that its estimated that 80% of the illegal population of the US is from Mexico, Central or South America?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States
Its also not limited to illegal immigrants either, the wording of it is:
"To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens."
Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united
Now it simply states 'aliens', which are defined by US law as: ....any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
So no it doesn't just cover illegal aliens within sanctuary areas (those listed in the Declined Detainer Outcome Report).
I really do hope it all works out OK for the US, but with each passing day I personally am less and less convinced that will be the case.
Last edited:
