Immigration law

[GRH]

Originally Posted by smc

I would never call anyone a racist for pointing out the reality that "the majority of drugs being smuggled across our southwestern border are being done so by Mexican cartels." Racism would be saying that Mexicans, by the very nature of being Mexican (or Latino, or Hispanic, or whatever), are the type of people who would smuggle drugs. But explain to me, GRH, what purpose is served when you "draw observations that include race as a component" in this instance. None whatsoever. Think about it: race. None whatsoever. It is no different than when the newspaper reports a crime and mentions that the perpetrator was of a particular race and it has no bearing whatsoever on the story. This almost always happens with black people, because of predisposed racist tendencies that are so buried beneath the surface sometimes that the newspaper editors don't even realize what they're doing.

I would actually agree with you in that VERY little (if anything) is achieved by pointing out race, except for matters such as statistics. I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans. That said, it's VERY EASY to confuse statistics with facts...For instance, any apparent statistic that says that minorities commit a higher percentage of crimes is probably NOT taking into account the fact that more minorities live in poverty conditions. Some people will confuse statistics with fact, and might assume that people commit crimes because they are minorities, as opposed to the much more logical assumption that crime is committed because people are poor.

So I think we are largely in agreement, and I don't place a whole lot of weight with statistics. I just wasn't sure if you were claiming people to be "racist" because they made an observation based on racial lines. As I think we agree, the extent to which one can generalize based on racial observations is VERY, VERY limited, but just because a person makes a racial observation does not make them a de facto racist.

As for the "world without borders," you are correct that it won't be happening anytime soon. But your argument against it, as I read it, is essentially that it cannot be achieved. That's why nothing ever changes for the good! That's why so few in this country stop and think about, to take one example, how much healthcare could be provided if we simply built one less aircraft carrier. I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get the point.

Yes, I certainly do get your point, and I admittedly am conceding some degree of defeatist attitude in this respect. Seeing as the practical implication of having a "border-free" world is far out of reach, I guess I'm just not an idealist about achieving it any time soon.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans.

Wouldn't you agree that, first and foremost, the reason that "the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans" is because Mexico is the border country? In some parts of northern Sweden, there is a significant amount crime perpetrated by Finns who come across the border. It's Finns because of the proximity of Finland, not because Finns have a propensity to be criminals. Nor do Mexicans as a "race."

I'm glad for your other clarifications, GRH. This is a very productive and civil discussion thus far, among all participants, despite some tremendous disagreements and even some emotional overlooking of facts.

[Titivilus]

Originally Posted by GRH

. . . Seeing as the practical implication of having a "border-free" world is far out of reach, I guess I'm just not an idealist about achieving it any time soon.

I could easily see it happening towards the end of this century. Y'know, I used to think that I was born a century too early, but anymore I couldn't imagine a more exciting time to be alive. I believe we are on the verge of an evolutionary change the likes of which hasn't been seen since the agricultural revolution, or the advent of writing.

Nanotechnology has the potential to eliminate disease and mitigate injury to an extent never thought possible. Scientists are working to eliminate the aging gene (it's something that actually turns on at some point, and is only a check-and-balance, it's not inherently needed).

We're already seeing a trend towards globalization in the economic sectors. We have the technology TODAY to farm astral bodies for resources (though it's not feasible yet).

I don't see the possibility of a "cyberpunk" reality in our lifetimes as unrealistic, at all!

[ila]

Originally Posted by GRH

I would actually agree with you in that VERY little (if anything) is achieved by pointing out race, except for matters such as statistics. I DO think the statistics are telling in some ways, if only to point out some FACTS, such as the fact that most of the southwestern border is suffering from drug smuggling from Mexicans. That said, it's VERY EASY to confuse statistics with facts...For instance, any apparent statistic that says that minorities commit a higher percentage of crimes is probably NOT taking into account the fact that more minorities live in poverty conditions. Some people will confuse statistics with fact, and might assume that people commit crimes because they are minorities, as opposed to the much more logical assumption that crime is committed because people are poor.

I disagree that people commit crimes because they are poor. I grew up very poor. I didn't nor did any family members commit crimes. Rather crimes are committed because of free will. A person can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

I disagree that people commit crimes because they are poor. I grew up very poor. I didn't nor did any family members commit crimes. Rather crimes are committed because of free will. A person can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal.

There is an almost irrefutable link between poverty and crime. It has been studied and so concluded by governments and academics across the political spectrum and in every part of the world.

That said, ila's point is well taken. Of course, a person "can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal." But simplistic notions of "crime" and "criminal" serve no good purpose except to allow people to make grand pronouncements -- truisms, if you will -- such as that of ila, for whom I have the greatest respect. Let me explain.

There is a significant difference between, say, the man who steals some baby formula from the market for his infant at home because he has no job, no money, and no immediate prospects to reverse the situation, and the man who engages in a criminal enterprise with others to, say, extort the market from which the first man has stolen (such as the Mafia demanding "protection money" from the shopkeeper). I am not excusing the first man, nor saying that his theft is not a crime, but how are we to solve the big problems of society if we offer simplistic observations that reflect only our own experiences and fail to account for the complexities of the broader world.

Like ila, I grew up relatively poor. My family was fortunate in that there were friends and an extended family beyond my mother and father who helped out, but I know plenty of people who did not have these "safety nets." In the United States, most poor people have no safety net. The research suggests that the number of U.S. families that are one paycheck away from homelessness or desititution is staggering. In that context, and acknowledging free will, is it any wonder that a poor person might resort to a crime for survival. Again, I don't excuse it, but I do encourage all to note the difference between crimes and criminals.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

There is an almost irrefutable link between poverty and crime. It has been studied and so concluded by governments and academics across the political spectrum and in every part of the world.

That said, ila's point is well taken. Of course, a person "can choose to be law abiding or choose to be a criminal." But simplistic notions of "crime" and "criminal" serve no good purpose except to allow people to make grand pronouncements -- truisms, if you will -- such as that of ila, for whom I have the greatest respect. Let me explain.

There is a significant difference between, say, the man who steals some baby formula from the market for his infant at home because he has no job, no money, and no immediate prospects to reverse the situation, and the man who engages in a criminal enterprise with others to, say, extort the market from which the first man has stolen (such as the Mafia demanding "protection money" from the shopkeeper). I am not excusing the first man, nor saying that his theft is not a crime, but how are we to solve the big problems of society if we offer simplistic observations that reflect only our own experiences and fail to account for the complexities of the broader world.

Like ila, I grew up relatively poor. My family was fortunate in that there were friends and an extended family beyond my mother and father who helped out, but I know plenty of people who did not have these "safety nets." In the United States, most poor people have no safety net. The research suggests that the number of U.S. families that are one paycheck away from homelessness or desititution is staggering. In that context, and acknowledging free will, is it any wonder that a poor person might resort to a crime for survival. Again, I don't excuse it, but I do encourage all to note the difference between crimes and criminals.

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

So far this discussion has focused on illegals, poor and crime. As it has moved away from illegals, I suggest that the most massive horrendous crimes in this country are committed by well educated white men on Wall Street and in Washington. Madoff among many others, Goldman, etc.
Greedy money grubbers rule this country and wealth continues to shift from the middle class to the ultra rich.
I was poopood in a previous post (Obama thread) that Obama was really not a socialist but a corporate suporter, just look what has happened. Who has been bailed out at our expense? The criminals are still in power.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

I think it's the culture. Some cultures will teach that someone else is to blame for their predicament and that it's ok to do whatever is necessary to even the score and balance things out. Ila, it sounds like the culture you're from relies more on their selves to create their own destiny, which I find much more admirable.... unless of course you're a jew and hezbolah is lobbing rockets at you and then you might have a very good reason to believe that another group of people is to blame for your misery.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think it's the culture. Some cultures will teach that someone else is to blame for their predicament and that it's ok to do whatever is necessary to even the score and balance things out. Ila, it sounds like the culture you're from relies more on their selves to create their own destiny, which I find much more admirable.... unless of course you're a jew and hezbolah is lobbing rockets at you and then you might have a very good reason to believe that another group of people is to blame for your misery.

I think this post requires some explanation, Tracy.

Please define "culture" as you mean it here.

Please clarify your point about Jews and Hezbollah. And I would advise strongly that you make a distinction between "Jews" and "Israelis" or, more accurately, "Zionists." Not all Jews are Zionists.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I base my statement not just on my own experience, but from what I have seen. When I was young most of my friends were considered poor or at least low income. None of my friends turned to crime. We did, however, turn out to be independant, self reliant, and hardworking.

I have met many poor people in my travels and the majority did not turn to crime to survive. Naturally there are those that have turned to crime. I would say it's sloth that causes a person to turn to crime rather than being poor.

I have often noticed that very conservative people tend to equate "sloth" and lazyness as causing a person to turn to crime. Actually, I think there are basically two types of criminals, the ones that get caught and the ones that don't. The IQ of prison inmates is around 80, they are pretty stupid so they get caught. The bright ones are on Wall Street. Criminals are people that have no respect for laws and are willing to take much higher risks than the rest of us.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I have often noticed that very conservative people tend to equate "sloth" and lazyness as causing a person to turn to crime. Actually, I think there are basically two types of criminals, the ones that get caught and the ones that don't.

Back to the subject of the thread. The Arizona law has police officers checking the citizenship of law breakers who exhibit signs of also being illegal aliens (such as driving without a valid drivers license among other things). These would already be law breakers, and if it turns out they are also illegal aliens they are by definition breaking even more laws. Regardless of what motivated them to breaking laws, what's wrong with booting them out of the country?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Back to the subject of the thread. The Arizona law has police officers checking the citizenship of law breakers who exhibit signs of also being illegal aliens (such as driving without a valid drivers license among other things). These would already be law breakers, and if it turns out they are also illegal aliens they are by definition breaking even more laws. Regardless of what motivated them to breaking laws, what's wrong with booting them out of the country?

We have every right to boot them out. We need to figure out how to discourage them from coming here in the first place. A start would be to revise NAFTA so that peasant farmers in Mexico and Central America can make a decent living on their small farms. ADM and other big US subsidized farming corporations now flood NAFTA countries with cheap grains and powdered milk putting local farmers and dairies out of business.