Patterico's Pontifications

4/7/2007

The Uninvited Guests

Filed under: Crime,Immigration — Patterico @ 9:02 am



In comments to Justin Levine’s post about people killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver, a few leftists are arguing that the illegal status of the drunk driver is irrelevant unless I can show that illegals drive drunk at a higher rate than do legal citizens.

This is nonsense, as an analogy will help show.

Imagine that I invite 20 people to my party. 10 other people crash it.

1 of every 5 people spills drinks on the carpet. This goes for party crashers as well as invited guests.

Because I invited 20 guests, I expected 4 drinks spilled on the carpet. Because I ended up with 30 guests, I got 6 spilled drinks.

It should be obvious that I am going to be extra annoyed by the 2 drinks spilled by the 10 party crashers — even though they spilled drinks at the same rate as the invited guests.

I see the 4 spilled drinks, spilled by invited guests, as the cost of throwing a party. But I am especially annoyed at the 2 drinks spilled by the people I didn’t even invite.

Because I didn’t invite them. They never should have been here in the first place.

Not to mention that the party was noisier than I’d wanted it to be, and many people had to stand, because there weren’t enough seats. There’s a reason I invited only 20 people.

I am utterly unmoved by lectures that I am wrong to be more upset at the party crashers, because they spilled drinks at the same rate as the people I invited.

I don’t care. I didn’t invite them.

I am utterly unmoved by arguments that “people wearing red shirts” still would have spilled drinks at the rate of 1 spilled drink per 5 guests.

I don’t care. I didn’t invite them.

Don’t you get it? I didn’t invite them.

P.S. One more point. If the party crashers are all short, and I ask them to leave, that doesn’t show that I am prejudiced against short people. I am prejudiced against party crashers. If you’ll notice, I invited plenty of short people to the party. . .

170 Responses to “The Uninvited Guests”

  1. From MADD Orange County Chapter

    84.8% Male
    Average age – 33.5
    44.1% Hispanic
    42.6% White
    7% Black
    6.3% Other

    And a bit more:
    Hispanics in crashes lead DWI stats

    Since 2002, more than 90 people have been injured and 18 killed on the Eastern Shore in accidents involving Hispanic workers driving rogue vehicles.

    The fatalities represent about one-fourth of the 71 highway deaths on the Eastern Shore in that period, even though the year-round Hispanic population makes up only 5 percent of the region’s 51,000 residents. Those numbers swell during tomato-picking season, from July through early November, when most of the fatalities occurred.

    In all but three of the fatal accidents in which Hispanics were at the wheel, the drivers had no insurance. In most cases, the vehicles had no inspection stickers, the drivers carried no license and alcohol was a factor. The vast majority of the victims in the fatalities were Hispanic.

    A review of State Police auto accident reports for 2002 through 2004 on the Eastern Shore also revealed that of the 179 accidents involving Hispanic laborers:

    Three-fourths of the drivers had no auto insurance – more than four times the national rate for uninsured motorists.

    Nearly all of the vehicles driven by migrants and other laborers were registered to other drivers.

    Ninety-three percent of the vehicles had out-of-state tags – most of them from Tennessee.

    The number of injuries per accident was about 50 percent higher than the statewide average.

    The mix of alcohol, unsafe vehicles and inexperienced drivers has bred carnage along the back roads that connect farm fields to the hamlets on the Shore. Those roads eventually lead to U.S. 13, which bisects the long, narrow peninsula.

    When crashes occur, it is not uncommon for Hispanic drivers – often intoxicated and unlicensed – to flee before troopers arrive. According to State Police records, about a third of accidents involving migrant workers are hit-and-run.

    Of course not all the Hispanic drivers counted in these reports are known to be illegal, but the numbers are still compelling and the behavior described in the second source fits the profile of illegal immigrant behavior.

    Susan S. (37bccc)

  2. I agree with Patterico’s reasoning, but I also believe that not every person living in the US has a right to be here–and that’s the crux of the matter.

    (Good cites, Susan.)

    Patricia (824fa1)

  3. Wow, Patterico. You must have gone to college!

    The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2)

  4. but I also believe that not every person living in the US has a right to be here

    Patricia, how can you justify this? Someone who sneaks across our southern border — bypassing all the potentially legal immigrants from more remote nations — has a right to be here? That is just absurd.

    What right do illegal immigrants have to line-cut in front of plenty of deserving folks from other nations? Why should geographical proximity be the trump card? This nation was built on the backs of immigrants from many nations, yet we are currently being inundated by the citizens of essentially one geographical region: Latin America.

    This is just plain wrong.

    Latin Americans do not deserve a free pass simply because they live closer to us than, let’s say, Fijians. We need to stop rewarding this inhumane behavior now. It is simply time for this country to control our borders and deport those who cut in line in front of thousands of others.

    They do not deserve to be rewarded for cheating. What sort of message does such behavior deliver to the children of illegal immigrants who have gamed the system to become citizens? It teaches them that the end justifies the means.

    That is the wrong lesson.

    H2U (019617)

  5. Don’t you get it? I didn’t invite them.

    But its your own fault. You let them in after all. Why did you do that? 🙂

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  6. I let President Bush be the bouncer.

    Patterico (b4f81d)

  7. It is possible to be conservative and still advance that argument. I would not consider myself a leftist by any stretch of the imagination, yet I still believe that that argument is correct. I am both an immigrant (legal) and an advocate of strict enforcement of immigration policies. The real problem here is lack of enforcement of the law: he was known to be a criminal and he should have been known to be illegal and either sent to jail or deported.
    And this quote is just ridiculous:

    “It could be possibly a violation of their civil rights to ask if they are an illegal alien or not,” spokesperson Jimmy Barnes told us.

    No one told me that it was my civil right to be here without jumping through immigration hoops. It would have been nice to know. To the extent that it is your fault that you had those extra stains, it is your fault because you had the ability to find out that he should not have been there and you had the opportunity and ability to kick him out and chose not to. THAT is the real failing.

    Not My Problem (993176)

  8. H2U:

    Re-read the comment.

    Patterico (b4f81d)

  9. Some illegal immigration paradoxes:

    Cities officials in places like LA, and editorial boards such as the LA Times, frequently tell us that immigration is a Federal responsibility. They condemn places like Enscondido that institute local attempts to control illegal immigration. Yet those who assert that immigration is a federal responsiblity not only refuse to co-operate with Federal law enforcement on the issue, but actively obstruct attempts to enforce immigration laws (see Special Order 40). If immigration is a federal responsibility, why do measures like Special Order 40 exist?

    People that employ illegals, push for things like ‘guest worker’ programs, and officials that protect illegals tell us that ‘fences don’t work’. But these self-same people often live in ‘gate-guarded communities’, which seem to have increased in California proportionately with the number of illegals here. Are all these well off people stupid, paying for ‘fences that don’t work’? Does this mean I can stroll right into Coto de Caza? Or into the LA mayors residence for that matter?

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  10. HA. Missed the NOT. Pardon my error, Patricia.

    Reading comprehension is not my strong suit in the morning.

    H2U (019617)

  11. Patricia,
    Some of my best friends were Liberal Arts majors.(Not to be confused with the Liberal Avenger).Could you explain yor resonning?Plezz.

    Corwin (dfaf29)

  12. Yes – I was a liberal arts major at Cal.

    The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2)

  13. Guess I need another cup of coffee before I post. (I was an Art major so maybe it’s me.)

    A person does NOT have a right to be here and be treated as a citizen simply because he LIVES here–meaning, illegal immigrants do not have a right to be here, do not have civil right, do not a right to drive, etc. just because they made it across the line.

    For you statistics buffs, I would also like to see a breakdown of financial responsibility for drunk drivers. If you have a false ID, you can get insurance. Do illegals do so, or is this another example of the parallel universe our lack of enforcement has created? Has your auto insurance just gone up 50% like mine, or your medical insurance, or your Medicare tax? In part, we are paying the costs of that parallel universe.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  14. Oh, and you’ll have to go farther than Coto to escape the social breakdown.

    Man Wakes to Discover Intruder with Pants Down

    Patricia (824fa1)

  15. I have to correct — the Getty house, Villaraigosa’s residence, does look to on a normal, residential street (though well patrolled I’ll bet)

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  16. As far as I’m concerned, we did invite them — with lax border control and plentiful jobs with few education or skill requirements. I support President Bush’s plan. Others disagree. But, as of today, we as a society, through a broad range of social choices, did invite them — the question is what do we do now.

    Mark V Wilson (bdc91a)

  17. “We as a society”? What does that mean? I never voted for open borders, never supported a politician who did, never hired an illegal.

    Sorry, but this one of those broad philosophical bromides that is just meaningless.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  18. No mark, we didn’t invite them. There’s a difference here that you are missing…

    I want a big, HDTV. I want one very much. It would make me happy, and ease the pains I suffer from (read: I just want one, shut up).

    You have a huge flat-panel HDTV, and for reasons that surpass human understanding, you have left it on your front porch when you go to bed at night.

    I drive by, and I see God’s own TV sitting there, completely unprotected. I stop the car, retrieve said flat-panel goodness, and make good my escape.

    By your stated logic, you invited me to take your TV, since it was poorly guarded and was exactly what I wanted. What do you do now, besides curse my soul?

    Do you see the problem here? Just because boarder security is crap, and we have jobs (my god how DARE we. We’re MONSTERS I tell you), that makes it perfectly fine for them to flaunt our laws, and come right on in?

    Perhaps you could better explain your logical disconnect to me.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  19. …we did invite them — with lax border control and plentiful jobs…

    So its Target’s fault criminals shoplift – Target has a plentiful selection of goods and it does not strip search everyone leaving the store. Target is practically begging people to steal.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  20. Mark,

    I’ve heard this before, but I think it is wrong. Certainly ‘we’ have sent mixed signals. But who is the ‘we’. In Plyer v. Doe, requiring public education for children here illegally, the ‘we’ was 5 Supreme Court Justices. Sometimes ‘we’ are cheap labor seeking businesses. I even have some sympathy — if a contractor hires legal workers, they are likely to be underbid. I am fairly libertarian policy-wise, but I’ve taken enough Econ to know that the private good doesn’t always work out to the public benefit. Here is a good example

    As to what to do now. Another amnesty would be disasterous. “Fool me once …” . The last amnesty only encouraged more illegal immigration.

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  21. America has thousands of uninvited guests all those illegal aliens

    krazy kagu (6cb3c5)

  22. (From my blog a while back, and apropos)

    Friday, April 07, 2006
    On ‘immigrants’
    I have a door on my house. Originally, the purpose of such doors was to keep the elements, rain, wind, out. In fact, I remember well that, when I was a kid, we didn’t even bother to lock our doors when we left the house. (yeah, shocking, isn’t it?)

    Now, however, we always lock up when we leave our abode. It’s necessary because, failing that, we’d be leaving our home open to less scrupulous folks who have the belief that what’s mine is theirs, if I don’t lock it up.

    You might be saying, “What’s that got to do with immigrants? They just want a shot at the good life in the USA.” First, let’s get clear on the word ‘immigrant’.

    We have laws that determine the nature of immigrancy. We have processes through which prospective immigrants must proceed, lawfully, to arrive in and stay within the USA. Failure to abide by these processes does NOT make you an ‘undocumented immigrant’, anymore than failure to procure a personal invitation into my home would make you an ‘undocumented guest’. The desire of undocumenteds to live better is not exculpatory, anymore so than an ‘undocumented guest’s’ desire to live in my comfy home would be.

    Now, back to doors. If my house needs a door to keep out elements, it has a lock on the door for the entirely different reasons. Logically, any nation, like any home, without a lock on its door is a place begging to be pilfered. There’s probably 85% of the people in any third-world country that’d dearly love to be in America over where they are presently. Only the lack of proximity limits their MIGRATION. Mexico is the lucky one. Just cross the border and escape from the hellhole THEY’ve created for themselves and walk into the USA. They’ve done this in the millions. They can do this because we have no lock on the door.

    Suppose you and I were each building a car. We both put our efforts into it and, at the end, I have a running vehicle, but, yours is just an abject failure, won’t run. A smart person might examine what I did right and emulate it, to make their own car. Instead, what we are seeing today is the demand, the RIGHT, for you to ride in my car, because, after all, we both want to go places.

    So, maybe I’ll give you a ride. Just keep in mind that it’s my car and I make the rules. You don’t get to drive, or tell me what speed to travel at, or what route to take. You’re here by my sufferance, not because you have a right to go places. Likewise, you don’t secure those privileges
    just because you hid in my trunk or hid behind the seat. It’s still my car and you didn’t even ask for permission to ride.

    We still use some doors in the USA. Did you know that half the criminals in jail in California are illegal ‘immigrants’? I’m betting there are locks on THOSE doors.
    posted by Thomas Hazlewood at 1:32 PM 0 comments

    Thomas Hazlewood (f1686d)

  23. Count me among the “leftists” who doesn’t buy into your but-for causation argument. If it can be shown that illegals commit DUI at a significantly higher rate than the general public (as I suspect they probably do), then that’s a legitimate argument, and one we should make loudly and often. But if it turned out that they commit DUI roughly the same rate as the rest of us (or less, for that matter), then DUI would be a red herring and should not be raised in this context, except perhaps when arguing over how severe the penalty for this particular drunk driver ought to be (and then on the theory that he had committed two separate offenses, not on an assumption that one had anything to do with the other).

    If your argument were valid, open borders advocates could use it just as easily in reverse. After all, sympathetic, mostly law-abiding illegals who generally benefit society may not be the norm, but like the ones who drive drunk, they are out there. If every individual bad guy who happens to be an illegal alien is a walking, talking argument against illegal immigration, then every individual, otherwise law-abiding and productive illegal alien is an equally valid argument for it. Do you really want to go there?

    Xrlq (6a68a2)

  24. “As far as I’m concerned, we did invite them — with lax border control and plentiful jobs with few education or skill requirements. ”

    This does not constitute an invitation. This is simply an excuse to justify the breaking of the law. The ends doesn’t justify the means. There is still a law firmly in place. People still choose willfully to break the law. Period. Just because someone can get away with something that is illegal does not make it right or ethical or negate the responsibility for that decision – and for any consequences that befall them as a result of their willful lawbreaking.

    Dana (e8033e)

  25. It doesn’t matter if they commit them at a higher (or lower) rate. ANY crime they commit is a crime that should not have occured because they shouldn’t be here…

    even if it’s only ONE dui fatality, that’s one death that should never have occured…

    Do they have to be killing people left and right on the street for you to care?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  26. Not to beat a dead horse, but note the MADD statistics and the percent of population figures:
    84.8% Male
    Average age – 33.5
    44.1% Hispanic (31.3% of population)
    42.6% White (49.7% of population)
    7% Black (6.7% of population)
    6.3% Other (12.4% of population)

    IOW, one-third of the population is committing 44.1 percent of total accidents while the other 75% of the total population commits 55.9%.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  27. X,

    In “rejecting the but-for argument” you can’t possibly mean that I’m wrong to say that the accident wouldn’t have occurred “but for” the illegal alien’s presence. So I take it that your argument is that pointing out the drawbacks of illegal immigration is a “red herring” unless we also acknowledge the benefits. Well, that’s fine (although we should keep in mind that it’s still illegal, the discussion is relevant to whether it should be). My point is that we always hear about the wonderful benefits of illegal immigration. We should hear about the costs, too.

    You disagree??

    Patterico (235e64)

  28. From http://formerspook.blogspot.com/

    This information is widely available and was nicely summarized last December, at the Family Security Matters website:

    –There were 267,000 criminal aliens in U.S. jails in 2003, a 30-fold increase over 1980 totals
    –27% of all prisoners in American federal custody are criminal illegal aliens.
    –In fiscal 2004, the Federal govt. spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens (including reimbursements to state and local governments)
    –A 2005 GAO report found that many criminal illegal aliens are hard-core, repeat offenders. According to that study:

    Of the 55,322 illegal aliens studied, researchers found that they were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien
    —They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.
    —36% had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and only 12% once.
    —49% had previously been convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses.
    —56% of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
    —81% of the arrests occurred after 1990
    —Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories.
    —90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.

    In other words, waves of illegal immigration over the past two decades have brought substantial numbers of career criminals to our country, and they continue their “careers” in our communities.

    amr (1f0f07)

  29. You can listen for free to 25 of America’s top Talk Show Host via Streaming Audio here at the Internet Radio Network…

    http://netradionetwork.com

    Steve (6ab788)

  30. In “rejecting the but-for argument: you can’t possibly mean that I’m wrong to say that the accident wouldn’t have occurred “but for” the illegal alien’s presence.

    Of course I’m not denying that. All but-for analyses assume it. This is no exception.

    So I take it that your argument is that pointing out the drawbacks of illegal immigration is a “red herring” unless we also acknowledge the benefits.

    Close. I do agree with that point, but my intended point was simply that when discussing issues generally, rates matter, individuals don’t.

    Well, that’s fine (although we should keep in mind that it’s still illegal, the discussion is relevant to whether it should be). My point is that we always hear about the wonderful benefits of illegal immigration. We should hear about the costs, too.

    You disagree??

    I agree, but I don’t agree that one bad argument deserves another – unless, of course, the point of your post was to parody the other side by using the same bad logic on them that they’ve been using on us for years. If that was your point, I agree wholeheartedly.

    Xrlq (6a68a2)

  31. X,

    I have the perfect argument in rejoinder.

    The above post.

    I.e. I don’t give a crap about rates. They shouldn’t be here.

    Patterico (61a8be)

  32. XRLQ:

    If every individual bad guy who happens to be an illegal alien is a walking, talking argument against illegal immigration, then every individual, otherwise law-abiding and productive illegal alien is an equally valid argument for it. Do you really want to go there?

    I want to go there. First, your analysis suggests this is an economic decision: Are we better off absorbing the detriments that come from Widget A (the illegal bad guy) to get the benefits from Widgets B-Z (the illegal good guys)? Your argument has merit if the only way to get Widgets B-Z is illegal immigration, but it’s not the only way.

    Second, every person has the potential to be law-abiding and productive but people who choose illegal methods to come to America are less likely to abide by America’s rules, especially rules they view as onerous, inconvenient, or nonsensical. Common sense and personal experience have proven to me that many illegals are more likely to break rules of some sort because they believe it’s necessary to better support their families. Thus, apart from criminal law issues, I submit illegal immigrants are more likely to violate “minor” civil laws such as failing to pay taxes and more consequential laws such as the requirement to carry automobile insurance.

    Third, like Patterico, I don’t care if illegal immigrants violate laws at higher or lower rates than legal residents/citizens because they shouldn’t be here in the first place. But I accept this matters to people who view illegal entry as a pragmatic economic decision by an illegal immigrant. People who view illegal immigration from this perspective should therefore factor in whether illegal entry is an indicator of future non-compliance with society’s laws and rules. My view is that, once the decision is made to break a rule, it’s that much easier to break another and another and another. That’s just human nature.

    DRJ (50237c)

  33. Job number one for government officials at the local, state, and federal level is to protect people like those two young women who were killed by a drunk driver in Virginia. We all know that there are limitations; that the government can’t provide anything close to 100% protection. But what we are asking is that they use all the tools available to them to provide that protection. And that means deporting any illegal aliens who have a dangerous history. If we deport the illegal alien criminals, that frees up jail space to get more criminals off the streets.

    Mike S (a7e484)

  34. Many moons ago when I was a serviceman stationed in Europe, any American serviceman involved in an auto accident in Turkey was automatically at fault. Why? If he wasn’t there, the accident would not have happened.

    TMac (0c909a)

  35. I.e. I don’t give a crap about rates. They shouldn’t be here.

    The only reason they shouldn’t be here is because a law says so. Pointing that out might make sense if the debate were over whether laws exist, as opposed to whether or not the laws in question make sense. Your party, by contrast, is your house and your prerogative to be as arbitrary as you want to be. That’s why the analogy is so bad. That, plus the fact that in real life, some invited and uninvited guests make messes while others clean them up.

    Xrlq (6a68a2)

  36. Our country is our country. We can be as arbitrary as we want to be there, as well.

    But let’s pretend that we have a rule against party crashers — yet the owners of the house are debating 1) whether to maintain the rule and 2) what to do about the crashers that are already there.

    Owner 1 says: “The paper always say that party crashers are great. They add to the fun and have such witty conversation! They say the things invited guests won’t say!”

    Owner 2 says: “Maybe the invited guests would say those things too, if they could get in a word edgewise.”

    Owner 3 says: “Well, I think it’s a relevant factor that the party crasher over there spilled all over the rug. I mean, if we’re going to talk about the good stuff they do, we should at least consider the bad stuff they do too.”

    Owner X jumps up. “IRRELEVANT!” he screams.

    Patterico (19026a)

  37. XRLQ,

    There are certainly benefits to immigration. If we force immigration to come through legal channels, we have the benefit of screening out those with criminal records on the front end. If we allow extensive illegal immigration, we should at least have the benefit of deporting criminals after they are convicted of a crime. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow easy illegal immigration and then not get rid of the criminals who have entered illegally.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  38. As far as I’m concerned, we did invite them — with lax border control and plentiful jobs with few education or skill requirements.

    Is that kinda like a girl “inviting” rape because she wore a short skirt?

    Darleen (187edc)

  39. From the Triangle’s paper of record (Raleigh,Durham, Chapel Hill). I’m a SoCal ex-pat.

    http://www.newsobserver.com/689/story/559842.html

    JMAC8081 (8efe1d)

  40. #38 – See, I didn’t wanna go there, but thank you. It’s dead-on accurate.

    I think we’re all missing a very important fact here.

    Illegal Immigrants are the only segment of the us population who commit crime at a rate of 100%

    Every single one of them.

    Every.
    Single.
    One.

    They have all commited a willful act by coming here in the first place. Their being here is a crime each day the remain.

    I dunno about Cali law… Does a death during the commision of a crime count as capital murder? How about drawing without a valid licence (wouldn’t a fake count as “not valid”)?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  41. Although I agree rates are irrelevant, the MADD statistics above indicate rates are significantly higher in the Hispanic population. It’s only relevant to the “you’re a racist” crowd, though. They simply were not invited!

    Patricia (824fa1)

  42. Unless you can argue that those killed were destined to be killed on that day, at that hour, at that minute, at that second, then all facts regarding the drunk driver are relevant. Including the fact that he should not have been at that place, on that day, at that hour, at that minute, at that second, in the first place. He may have still been drunk and he may still have been driving, but he wouldn’t have been in this country killing innocent legal citizens.

    Sara (73f60a)

  43. X said:

    If every individual bad guy who happens to be an illegal alien is a walking, talking argument against illegal immigration, then every individual, otherwise law-abiding and productive illegal alien is an equally valid argument for it. Do you really want to go there?

    Except for one point in your argument X, you’d have a good point. That one little word ILLEGAL means that the ‘good’ illegal immigrants are already guilty of at least one crime.

    Now that isn’t a crime up there with murder or anything, so there penalty should simply be being sent home.

    Lord Nazh (62fa3b)

  44. Owner 3 says: “Well, I think it’s a relevant factor that the party crasher over there spilled all over the rug. I mean, if we’re going to talk about the good stuff they do, we should at least consider the bad stuff they do too.”

    Owner X jumps up. “IRRELEVANT!” he screams.

    Nice try. Of course what “they” do as a group, good or bad, is relevant to any debate over what the rules should be on immigration, or how strictly such rule ought to be enforced. What one of them did, however, is not. One saint who happens to be an illegal alien is a really lousy argument for open borders, I think, but YMMV.

    Xrlq (6a68a2)

  45. X,

    I think we’re approaching the issue from different perspectives. My perspective takes the illegality of the illegal immigrant as a given — in other words, I’m taking reality as it exists. In the analogy, I’m taking it as a given that some people were invited and some weren’t. So the rate of drink spillage doesn’t really matter. If one uninvited guest spills one drink, it’s one too many.

    You seem to want to approach the issue from a counterfactual perspective: let’s *pretend* that we don’t have laws against illegal immigration, and debate whether we *should* have them. In the analogy, we’re pretending that there are no rules about who we should invite to the party, and asking whether we should make some.

    If no rules exist, then the fact that someone from group x spilled a drink means nothing as to whether group x should gain admittance. Only the rates matter.

    But then, really, the biggest issue will be: is there enough room for everyone? If not, then how do you decide whom to exclude?

    That’s not an issue you confront when you already have immigration laws (or, in the analogy, a list of invited guests). But if you want to go into Xrlq’s World of Counterfactual Assumptions, it is, I agree, the most important issue. Do we have enough room for everyone?

    So let’s go with your counterfactual scenario. In that case, I agree that the critical issue is not whether illegals will commit crimes. The critical issue is: WE HAVE TOO MANY GODDAMN PEOPLE.

    Taking immigration laws as a given, as I have done, assumes that this critical issue is understood and serves as the primary rationale for the rule of exclusion. But if you want to assume away all rules of exclusion, or pretend that they must be debated anew, then yes, that’s the most critical issue.

    WE HAVE TOO MANY GODDAMN PEOPLE.

    End of story.

    Patterico (75e123)

  46. Btw,

    If we have so many damn people at the party that I can’t toss out everyone, I’m going to start with the assholes spilling drinks.

    Patterico (75e123)

  47. Statistical proportionality is a red herring. Even if only 10 criminals you cannot keep out commit 1000 crimes whereas 1000 criminals you can keep out commit only 10 crimes, keeping out the 1000 criminals is still 10 fewer victims.

    nk (306f5a)

  48. I have a great idea. Anyone arrested for driving without a license, should tell the Judge they were NOT driving Illegally, they are just

    an Undocumented Driver!

    Makes as much sense as this

    CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee — An illegal immigrant who has been arrested previously on drug and firearms charges and deported seven times Friday pleaded not guilty to illegally re-entering the United States.

    Felipe Garcia-Morales, 28, a citizen of Mexico, entered the plea and agreed to be represented by a federal public defender.

    Dan Kauffman (839d43)

  49. Deported SEVEN times already?

    Dan Kauffman (839d43)

  50. If we don’t stop illegal immigration it will eventually stop of it’s own accord, when living here is worse than living there.

    tyree (837a75)

  51. Only 5 more to go…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  52. […] Patterico with the analogy that makes my point. Two extra “drinks” that would have been unspilled, had this […]

    Anwyn’s Notes in the Margin » He Wouldn’t Have Been There (e8be5d)

  53. I was sideswiped once by a drunk. According to his license, he was supposed to have an ignition interlock in his car. That’s the device that you have to breath into before your car starts, to ensure you aren’t drunk. Yes, this means he’d been convicted of this before (twice, it turns out). He didn’t. So he got cited for that too.

    Now, it’d be well and good to argue, “Gosh, this guy shouldn’t have been on the road drunk! He was supposed to have the ignition interlock! Clearly, the culprit here is that he didn’t have it in his car!”

    The culprit here is that the guy drove drunk. End of story. That’s a crime, and he was arrested and ended up pleading to a slightly lesser charge (which pissed me off, but whatever). He got cited for other things that he was guilty of but weren’t part of the accident, e.g. not having the ignition interlock installed.

    A DUI is a DUI. Doesn’t matter what the status or previous crimes the driver has committed, it’s a DUI, and we have (lame) laws to deal with that. So, promptly arrest the guy for all crimes committed, and process accordingly.

    Dr Speed (566bd9)

  54. Oh, and as far as “inviting” illegals — as a society, we do invite them:

    – We’re happy to hire and exploit illegals for cheap labor, esp. cleaning, child care (nannies and such), farm labor, food services, and day labor (roofing and such). However, even being exploited gives them a better life than in rural Mexico or where ever they’re from.

    – Legal immigrants do whatever they can to get their family here as well, and sometimes this means turning a legal visit into an illegal stay. And then see the above.

    – As a country, we exploit workers in Mexico just as badly as we exploit illegals here (companies close factories in the US and open them in Mexico… why? purely cheaper labor). Mexicans aren’t stupid. Why be exploited by an American company in Mexico and deal with crappy conditions when you can be exploited by an American company in the US and deal with reasonable conditions?

    To go back to the original party analogy — if you’re the only person who can throw a decent party in your neighborhood, eventually you’re going to attract everyone in your neighborhood to your party. If you don’t want them for whatever reason, then you had best figure out how to give the rest of your neighbors a clue and throw a good party and spread the wealth. Otherwise, just learn to live with the crashers.

    BTW, Canada seems to have no problems with people immigrating to the US (very few do) or people immigrating to Canada from various countries, not just Mexico. Maybe we should look at what they’re doing.

    Dr Speed (566bd9)

  55. Patterico,

    First of all, you should have a fence around your property. That way, all partygoer’s have to come in the front door. BEFORE they enter the party, you can turn them away and say this party is for invited guests only.

    But once you have uninvited guests inside, I don’t think you can walk around the party and constantly say, can I see your invitation? Additionally, I think when one uninvited guest spills a drink, you can’t kick out all uninvited guests. But you can kick out the uninvited guest who spilled the drink.

    Mike S (a7e484)

  56. To go back to the original party analogy — if you’re the only person who can throw a decent party in your neighborhood, eventually you’re going to attract everyone in your neighborhood to your party. If you don’t want them for whatever reason, then you had best figure out how to give the rest of your neighbors a clue and throw a good party and spread the wealth. Otherwise, just learn to live with the crashers.

    Because YOU OWE everyone in your neigborhood just as good a party as you throw, and if you don’t give it willingly, they have the right to take it from you.

    Is that about right, Dr. Speed?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  57. i HEAR YOU AND ITS A GREAT ANALOGY.

    I felt the same way, until I came across the casualty lists. researched many of the Latino families, many were illegal aliens or anchor babies or 2nd gen anchor babies.

    When they by the dozens and hundreds die for you and me, and serve by the thousands.

    The wind went out of my sails. Look I’m for enforcement, I’m for anyone getting in trouble to be jailed and deported, I’m not for catergorizing them as the worst sort of criminals.

    Look the swedes, italians, poles, irish, germans all came here very very few recieved legitimate and approved work contracts and most that did, never went through the naturalization process.

    given our 175 year history and the sudden manufactured outrage against this – it seems – well you can put your finger on it

    But – it was a great analogy, throw out the drunk illegal cousin of a dead war hero

    thats what you might do.

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  58. “But once you have uninvited guests inside, I don’t think you can walk around the party and constantly say, can I see your invitation? Additionally, I think when one uninvited guest spills a drink, you can’t kick out all uninvited guests. But you can kick out the uninvited guest who spilled the drink.”

    Let me know the next time you throw a party.

    Patterico (12dcd6)

  59. Eric Johnson,

    Hispanics are dying in Iraq at under their percentage of the adult population (which almost certainly means even more under their percentage of the military-age population)

    Another group made up of a lot of recent immigrants, Asians, are dying far far less.

    I won’t link, but Googling ‘ rural white casualties’ will get you to some articles confirming this.

    I’m not saying that many Mexican-Americans haven’t done great service to the country,or that aren’t now. Just that there is a myth that these soldiers bear the brunt of oiur fighting (or minority soldiers in general.) Actually, its white kids from the sticks that do, just as it has been forever. Of course,these kids might have had less economic reason to join the military if wages at teh meat packing plants or in construction weren’t depressed by mass immigration.

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  60. I notice that most people lock their doors and many have fences around their property. If you have a pool, most if not all communities require that you to install a fence in some manner around the pool. Why is this? Uninvited people/children will use the pool without your permission, violating your property rights, and possibly drown. Now a pool is an attraction for most of those who do not have one; using the logic for allowing illegals to come to the US by many on this issue, tear down those fences. You are keeping deprived people from having it as good as you. Better yet allow people off the street or neighbors to come and go in your house and partake of your food, living space, beds, etc. Why not, they “need” also to have what you have and you are just selfish to not provide it for them. So when person X finds your living accommodations satisfactory for him, he then brings to your home his family including grandparents, uncles etc. And why should you object, they “need” what you have. How many people in America who support the idea of open borders will open their property and life to anyone who wants to partake of their efforts to work for a good life for their family?

    I will not open my house or support doing the same for my country or any other American citizen or legal immigrant for anyone who desires to enter. My grandfather, my father, myself and two of my sons have served to protect America’s freedoms and rule of law. This includes controlling our borders to protect America from any and all invasions, regardless of the invaders “needs”.

    amr (273e95)

  61. I felt the same way, until I came across the casualty lists. researched many of the Latino families, many were illegal aliens or anchor babies or 2nd gen anchor babies. When they by the dozens and hundreds die for you and me, and serve by the thousands.

    With perhaps rare exceptions, if they’re in the military, they’re not illegal. Service is honorable. Your cousins’ service means jack shit about you.

    Shall we not prosecute bank robbers who’ve had a relative serve?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  62. Pablo,

    Hate to break the news to you but illegal aliens have served in the tens of thousands and recently as well

    Sorry bud, families have lost relatives, loved ones

    I’m not saying they still should be allowed to come illegally, but their is two sides to every story

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  63. Mitchell Young,

    Really? Do you have any stats? I find that they are minorly underrepresented only due to the level of education to serve in the navy and the airforce

    but if you mention that to a marine or army recruiter

    you may be visiting an orthodontist or a proctologist.

    I am not for illegal immigration – I’m just not for this if they weren’t here it wouldn’t be a problem – thats tacitly excusing all the others who commit crimes.

    Hispanics are not getting special treatment and no group should except veterans and those who have served.

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  64. My reaction to this story is similar to Xrlq’s. Illegal immigration is a problem involving millions of people. Making far-reaching generalizations from one anecdotal case does not seem like the best way to solve it.

    Example: Suppose there is a fire in some apartment building. An illegal immigrant who lives there runs into the burning building to save his (US citizen) neighbor’s 2-year-old kid. Is that an argument for loosening border controls? After all, the guy wouldn’t have been there if we had stronger border enforcement, and the little kid in the burning building would be dead…

    My point is simply that emotional, anecdotal arguments cut both ways and are unlikely to bring us any closer to a workable solution to an extremely complex problem.

    FWIW, I support President Bush’s plan for tightening border security and implementing a guest worker program to bring the presently undocumented/illegal work force within the law/tax system. I live in Southern California.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  65. Hate to break the news to you but illegal aliens have served in the tens of thousands and recently as well

    You’re going to have to show me how you can be illegal and hold an enlistment contract, Eric. And again, losing a family member doesn’t entitle you to amnesty for breaking the law.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  66. LagunaDave,

    If that happened, the papers would be all over it, and his illegal status would be in the headline.

    Don’t kid yourself.

    You folks act as though my argument is: we should deport illegals/have immigration laws because an illegal killed someone. No. My argument was: if an illegal kills someone, and papers report the story, papers should report that he was illegal. Because it’s relevant, and because it logically is more upsetting because it never should have happened.

    Patterico (16d30c)

  67. Note what I said in the post, for example. The issue is the relevance of the illegal’s status.

    Patterico (98923f)

  68. Pablo,

    Illegals can serve in the military, sec 21 they are called in fact the first death in Iraq was an illegal alien.

    Under the registration and drafts act all males of 18 or older regardless of resident status are eligible for the draft unless they hold a diplomatic passport.

    In fact, GWB and the Pentagon are expetiditng citizenship for those deployed and those who fall in combat for their families

    http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042203.asp

    In the words of Theodore Roosevelt: “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.”

    Further quotes

    All young men living in the U.S. (even illegal aliens) are required to register for the draft,

    More

    Alfred Rascon, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, won the Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War and later became a U.S. citizen. Gen. John Shalikashvili, a native of Poland, rose to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Noncitizen soldiers do very well in military service, with attrition rates below that of citizens, according to a 2005 study by the Center for Naval Analysis. The 1.5 million men and women of recruitable age (18 to 24) who hold lawful permanent resident (LPR or “green card”) immigration status provide an impressive pool of potential recruits, the study found.

    The report concluded that “noncitizens are a vital part of our country’s military. Demographic trends and new incentives make it likely their numbers within military ranks will grow. [They] will provide the service a more richly diverse force.”

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/112806dnteximmigmilitary.331e2bd.html

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  69. Patterico

    Sure, but anyone committing a crime should do the punsihment – sure publish they are an illegal immigrant

    but others, cousin eddy types, take statements like this as a mandate to further something that a not to distant white ancestor of theirs may have very well committed. After all most poor Industrial Revolution immgrants didn’t pay the 25 dollars in gold to execute their working contract – if they had one – there, despite the websites – was no open immigration- the rules were you got a job within six months and after 5 years executed your naturalization process – very very few did.

    Most were told they were citizens if they had children born in America.

    not much different from what is happening today

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  70. One reason it’s relevant is that you can treat the bad apples differently. For example, some commenters want to deport citizens for crimes like DUI. Well, ya can’t do that. But you can do it with illegals. You can adopt my pet idea and concentrate all resources on identifying and deporting criminals, starting with the most dangerous felons, and working down to all criminals, including DUI.

    Apparently the guy who killed the director had a prior. If my suggestion were adopted, he wouldn’t have been here — and that’s far more realistic than saying he wouldn’t have been here if we deported *everyone*.

    Patterico (9d6913)

  71. When local law enforcement started a limited variant of this plan, the LA Times ran a sob story about a guy being deported for a minor offense.

    That’s part of my point. The pro-open borders crowd will fight with anecdotes. When there exists an anecdote to show the human cost of illegal immigration, it should also be reported — especially when the story is being reported anyway.

    Patterico (ab852b)

  72. Eric,

    Under the registration and drafts act all males of 18 or older regardless of resident status are eligible for the draft unless they hold a diplomatic passport.

    There is no draft to be eligible for, and the Selective Service has no way to track illegals if there were. Now, Resident Aliens, ie legal immigrants, are a different issue.

    In fact, GWB and the Pentagon are expetiditng citizenship for those deployed and those who fall in combat for their families

    And I applaud that. But being a non-citizen does not equal being an illegal alien. We’ve been enlisting non-citizens for ever, and it’s a nice fast track to citizenship, and it’s one in which they play by the rules.

    In the words of Theodore Roosevelt: “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.”

    That good faith part? An illegal doesn’t come in good faith. He sneaks in the back door. Don’t conflate all immigrants with illegal immigrants, which is what the remainder of your post attempts to do.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  73. But once you have uninvited guests inside, I don’t think you can walk around the party and constantly say, can I see your invitation? Additionally, I think when one uninvited guest spills a drink, you can’t kick out all uninvited guests. But you can kick out the uninvited guest who spilled the drink.

    Dood, if it’s your party you can throw out any uninvited guests crashers you want — whether or not they spilled a drink.

    And what about the safety factor? If these crashers so fill up the facility that peope cannot safely evacuate in the event of an incident more dire than a spilled drink, then you’ve put all of the guests as well as the crashers at risk.

    stoo (739708)

  74. Yes, open border advocates use personal anecdotes or global ones like “they” are dying in far greater numbers than their percent in the population.

    In reality that is NOT true–74.4 percent of U.S. military deaths in Iraq, and 73.0 percent of the wounded, are white. Blacks and Hispanics make up 9.7 percent and 10.8 percent of the dead, respectively (Casualty Statistics). But even if it were, awarding citizenship is the remedy, not open borders and “deportation” (dropping them off in Tijuana to come back the next day to resume living and driving outside our law).

    Patricia (824fa1)

  75. Patterico, there’s nothing “counterfactual” about assuming that immigration laws, like every other U.S. policy under the sun, are open to debate. Yes, existing law says they shouldn’t be here, so if your only point was that immigration laws exist, well done, you’ve proved that point. But you haven’t begun to prove anything else; the fact that a particular policy exists is not an argument in its favor, if indeed it’s an argument for anything at all.

    Personally, I think it is counterfactual to rant and rave about what the world ought to look like based on any particular law being enforced with 100% consistency, all of the time. YMMV, but in that case, why focus on the largely irrelevant question of the guy’s legality, an issue which on its face has nothing to do with DUI, rather than on the more salient fact that the guy had a recent conviction for … oh, I don’t know … DUI?????!!!!

    Yes, perfect enforcement of border controls – assuming such a “given” is realistic in the first place – might well have prevented this particular incident (or more likely, shifted it to Mexico), but it wouldn’t have done a f’ing thing to stop the next death by drunk driving, or the one after that. In your party, who cares if your carpet is ruined by 101 stains or “only” 98? Either way, the carpet’s shot and needs to be replaced, yet you seem to be arguing we should have spent infinite resources to prevent those three.

    Conversely, perfect enforcement of DUI laws (also unrealistic and counterfactual, but no more so than your fantasy world of perfect border enforcement) would have stopped this guy in his tracks, and many others, as well. As an added bonus, a felony DUI charge rather than the misdemeanor slap on the wrist likely would have gotten him deported, too.

    All that said, one counterfactual that is doable is to pass a federal law prohibiting cities and counties from enacting policies of not inquiring about illegal status for anyone in their custody. If VB and/or Chesapeake had reported Ramos to ICE following his previous arrest, that would not have guaranteed that ICE would have done anything, not reporting him did indeed guarantee they would not.

    Xrlq (2656a4)

  76. How about we start deporting all illegal aliens found in the US to Somalia as soon as we find them. That should put a dent in the number crossing the border.

    Taltos (c99804)

  77. EricPWJohnson,

    The military publishes statistics on military deaths, and even breaks them down by race.

    Look at the numbers for the Iraq war.

    Here is the breakdown by percentage of total deaths:

    White: 74.3%
    Hispanic: 10.7%
    Black: 9.7%
    Asian: 1.8%

    According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the racial makeup of the U.S. population in 2006 was this:

    White: 67.0%
    Hispanic: 14.9%
    Black: 12.9%
    Asian: 4.8%

    Whites have been dying in Iraq at levels significantly higher than would be expected from their numbers in the country’s population. The reverse is true for all other racial groups.

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  78. That first pdf was from the page Patricia linked to.

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  79. I’ve always thought we should have a secondary legal immigration system whereby people who want to come to the US and become citizens could join the military for 10 or 15 years at the end of which they become a naturalized citizen. They’d get training, learn english, acquire some respect for the rule of law, and earn their place in this country rather than just sneaking in.

    Taltos (c99804)

  80. X,

    One thing that would have worked is what I already proposed, which you didn’t address.

    Deporting all criminals.

    That, unlike deporting everyone, or increasing DUI penalties, would have prevented this tragedy.

    The fact the policy exists means several things. First, as DRJ notes and you ignore, it shows that everyone who is here illegally has already committed a misdemeanor. Second, it means that, in noting the relevance of one’s immigration status in a news story (which, you obviously failed to note despite my reminding you, is what my post is about), I don’t feel the need to re-justify immigration laws anew.

    If I did, I would focus on different things as more important, such as the sheer number of people.

    Since I don’t, but take them as a given, I feel free to address the relevance of a criminal’s immigration status while taking the law as a given.

    If you want to debate immigration policy generally, that’s fine. But that’s not what the post is about.

    Patterico (b0df71)

  81. FWIW, I support President Bush’s plan for tightening border security and implementing a guest worker program to bring the presently undocumented/illegal work force within the law/tax system. I live in Southern California.

    You’re a fringe character whose ideas are not supported by 70% of the american people. You want to legitimaize slavery-lite because it gets you a cheap gardener in your fancy gated community. Tell me where you live so I can come over uninvited and clean out your fridge, like the illegals are doing to the taxpeyrs as we speak, and consistent with your stupid policy position.

    Petit Bourgeois (375601)

  82. In other words, I am asking:

    Given that: we have immigration laws, and we don’t enforce them well, and there are realistic ways to enforce them better by concentrating on criminals — and given that Big Media loves to give us evidence of the benefits of illegal immigration, anecdotal and otherwise — given all that, then: if the media is going to report about a DUI resulting in death, ought the media also report that the perp was an illegal who a) didn’t belong here to begin with and b) could have been deported due to a previous DUI, under a program targeting criminals for deportation?

    But X, you are asking a different question: if we are debating whether to have immigration laws, is it particularly relevant that one illegal committed one crime?

    I am happy to answer that question no. Now, how’s about we discuss the question I actually brought up in the post: should the paper report the illegal’s status under existing conditions? The answer to that is yes.

    Patterico (2555c9)

  83. Pablo

    It was his response to a famous question on immigrants – remember – at the time all immigrants were considered illegal – there was no LEGAL immigration at that time. Teddy differed.

    Chris

    Army stats are a different make up the Airforce and Navy are very white – the marines and army are multicultural.

    You could also say the Airforce is not doing its fair share or the navy as well since they have sufferred few if hardly any casulaties.

    But thats dead wrong.

    all I’m saying is that illegal aliens are given a green card at enlistment as long as they haven’t stolen an identity but for the purposes of most discussions, they are still illegal if not technically so.

    Also, routinely, illegal aliens are found in service – as long as they are not committing felonies or have questionable backgrounds – they are given administrative punishmnet and their status is appealed by the service to the INS

    this has been done since WWII, thousands of times

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  84. EricPWJohnson,

    Those numbers are deaths for ALL BRANCHES combined. The data shows that whites have been serving and dying in Iraq, regardless of branch, at rates much higher than ALL OTHER RACIAL groups than would be expected from their representation in the U.S. population as a whole.

    And please, point us to that data you’ve seen on illegals in the military. I think you are lying. Please prove me wrong.

    Chris (f6ecc4)

  85. To join the military, one is supposed to show proof of citizenship (birth certificate, passport, etc.) or proof of legal resident status. I do not doubt that an occasional illegal joins, however, the ranks are not filled with non-citizens, legal or otherwise. Non-citizens are restricted from certain jobs that require certain levels of security clearance, they cannot become commissioned officers, etc. Also, there is a limit on the amount of time they can serve without becoming a naturalized citizen (eight years, I believe).
    As far as the casualty breakdown by race, that has held steady at least since Vietnam. Southern rural whites are heavily over-represented in combat arms in comparison with their percentage of the general population.

    Mr Chips (1e3d8a)

  86. Eric,

    Illegal immigrants are disqualified from service but there are some who slip in with false documents. From a February 2006 NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09recruit.html?ei=5088&en=36fc581180571a86&ex=1297141200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all):

    “For bilingual recruiters, tapping into the Latino population has its own set of frustrations. Often, Latinos are willing to join the Army, but cannot. During his rounds at the Wal-Mart, Sergeant Barron encountered a number of illegal immigrants; they are immediately disqualified. Other Latinos lack adequate English skills or high school degrees, he said.”

    In addition, this Boston Globe article (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/) is also interesting because it discusses military consideration of plans to further expand the pool of eligible foreign recruits.

    Sorry for the awkward links. My comment was blocked when I used the link tab.

    DRJ (50237c)

  87. Non-citizen enlistments have actually decreased in the past 4-5 years. From the NY Times’ article I linked above:

    “One incentive meant to appeal to this community, President Bush’s 2002 executive order that permits legal residents in the military to apply for citizenship within one year, as opposed to three years, has actually done little to entice Latinos. In fact, the number of Army soldiers who are not citizens has declined since 2002 to 2,447 last year from 3,312. The same is true for enlistments.”

    DRJ (50237c)

  88. Given that: we have immigration laws, and we don’t enforce them well, and there are realistic ways to enforce them better by concentrating on criminals — and given that Big Media loves to give us evidence of the benefits of illegal immigration, anecdotal and otherwise — given all that, then: if the media is going to report about a DUI resulting in death, ought the media also report that the perp was an illegal who a) didn’t belong here to begin with and b) could have been deported due to a previous DUI, under a program targeting criminals for deportation?

    Certainly, which goes back to my earlier point that one bad argument does not deserve another (or in any event, that society as a whole deserves better). But I guess that if we’re resigned to the fact that our news is going to be littered with silly, meaningless anecdotes about sympathetic illegals, I guess it’s better that these anecdotes at least be balanced out by equally silly, equally meaningless anecdotes about unsympathetic ones.

    I don’t disagree with your general premise that an offender’s illegality is relevant to the news story. It certainly is, but only to the extent illegals commit DUI at a markedly different rate than the general population (which, BTW, I don’t doubt to be the case). Maybe it’s a little more newsworthy in cases like these two, both of which involved illegals who had been in police custody for other offenses and not had their residency status looked into at the time, but again, it’s “news” only to the extent that the story is about immigration rather than DUI. For a reporter to include references to an alien’s illegality solely because “one is is one too many,” as you seem to be advocating, would be to editorialize in the guise of reporting news. The fact that a disproportional number of {illegals | Scientologists | Tiddlywinks enthusiasts | whatever} drive drunk is news. The fact that any of them do, on the other hand, is not.

    Xrlq (2656a4)

  89. On the original issue of drunk drivers and illegals: it seems likely that folks who disregard one law will disregard another of similar seriousness. A scofflaw is a scofflaw.

    But, noting that he was driving a large SUV, I bet I could come up with a better correlation of deaths caused by drivers of large SUVs, drunk or sober, than by drunk illegals.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  90. By the way: can we PLEASE stop using the ignorant argument about “cutting in line.” As far as immigrants from Mexico (and a few others, like China), there is no line. Unless you are related to someone already admitted to the USA, quotas and preferences will utterly prevent your consideration for admission during your lifetime.

    This is why there is no hope of preventing illegal immigration until the laws are changed. That doesn’t justify it, but it does explain it. It might well be that a relaxed, fairer, immigration policy for Mexico, which allowed in substantial numbers of LEGAL immigrants would result in far fewer total immigrants. Especially if the Mexican government participated in enforcement.

    But when the law allows in ZERO new immigrants, the law is an ass and will be ignored. I’d much rather have a stream of legal immigrants than a flood of illegals that get legalized every 20 years because we can’t figure out WTF else to do.

    Or, we can keep on doing what we’re doing, expecting different results, and having this same argument in 2030.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  91. Eric Johnson,

    You are confusing legal immigrants with illegals, as you are wont to do. Your military id number is your social security card.To have a social security card, you have to be here legally. Now, I don’t doubt that in the 2.1 million or whatever amount of people we have in the military that there are hundreds, perhaps in the low thousands of illegals. They are not, however, a significant presence. Hispanics are a significant presence, but they are also a significant presence in the country, They are not overrepresented in the military, nor in casualties in the recent wars.

    Here is an article about casualties in Iraq, and the article links to further stats straight from DoD

    some may find the site objectionable (its Vdare) — patterico can delete the link if he wants.

    As to Bush expediting citizenship, that’s hardly a surprise. Now he wants cheap cannon fodder — lets offer citizenship to a foreign legion rather than, say, up the GI Bill allowance. No surprise either that a MSM paper says we ‘need’ more immigrants, in this case to fight wars. They always say that.

    A parting shot. In my experience in the military and a contractor, the combat arms and even more so the elite forces (ranger, SeALs,etc) [I was not in these, but often worked with such units] are disproportionately Anglo.

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  92. Kevin Murphy:

    “Or, we can keep on doing what we’re doing, expecting different results, and having this same argument in 2030.”

    I’d like to try enforcing the immigration laws we have. Perhaps it’s unrealistic of me to want to do that but I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

    DRJ (50237c)

  93. Kevin Murphy,

    But when the law allows in ZERO new immigrants, the law is an ass and will be ignored.

    We have allowed between 800,000 and 1,000,000 legal immigrants in annually for over a decade. Most are indeed ‘family reunification’ (which can and does include adult siblings, parents, etc) . That does not make them not ‘new’ immigrants.

    This is chain migration and should be stopped. However, we have totally new sources of immigration , the ‘Diversity Lottery’ , at I believe 50,000 slots, H1-Bs at 65000 last year and rising (and much higher in previous years).

    And yes, under amnesty illegals will cut in line — they did not bother to apply for the ‘Diversity Lottery’ and so will cut in front of someone that has applied for , say , the last five years.

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  94. I noticed on the local news last night another incident in South Orange county, a man hit a bicycling and then ran off — no license when he was apprehend. (Likely the cyclist was illegal, or at least an immigrant, too . That doesn’t make it okay).

    Mitchell Young (8d425f)

  95. I’d like to try enforcing the immigration laws we have. Perhaps it’s unrealistic of me to want to do that but I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

    Or at least the level of enforcement of the Clinton years.

    Kind of O/T….Think about who else benefits: the increased demand for housing and for consumer goods also results in a windfall for taxing agencies. Can you imagine the predicament CA would be in, for instance, without the added property taxes garnered from increased valuation? It’s a tax that has never been voted on.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  96. X,

    Nope, you still don’t get it. We have the authority to deport illegals. We don’t have the authority to deport Tiddlywinks players.

    What’s more, we have the ability tp divert resources to deport criminal illegals.

    That’s why it’s relecant when crimes are committed by illegals. We have tools that we can use against those criminals, that we can’t use against criminals with red shirts, criminals who are Tiddlywinks players, etc.

    So no, you still aren’t getting it. And I don’t think anything I can say will make you get it.

    Patterico (f1e00f)

  97. Let me try another way.

    You’re an usher in a movie theater. A patron says: that guy over there is being a jerk. Will you ask him to leave?

    You say: but is he being a bigger jerk than the other ticketholders? We can’t just eject ticketholders for being mildly annoying.

    The patron says: but he doesn’t even have a ticket! I heard him say so!

    IRRELEVANT! you cry. The ONLY question is whether he is being worse than the other ticketholders! I only have the right to toss him out because there is a law against seeing movies without tickets! But SHOULD there be such a law? Well, let’s see [Xrlq yaps on and on, while the patron, disgusted, finds me, the other usher. I promptly toss the guy without the ticket out on his ass. Because, you see, he doesn’t have a freaking ticket.]

    Patterico (fe73be)

  98. It was his response to a famous question on immigrants – remember – at the time all immigrants were considered illegal – there was no LEGAL immigration at that time. Teddy differed.

    Teddy was President from 1901-1909, the peak years for LEGAL immigration processed through Ellis Island. Your suggestion that there was no legal immigration at the time is simply false.

    all I’m saying is that illegal aliens are given a green card at enlistment as long as they haven’t stolen an identity but for the purposes of most discussions, they are still illegal if not technically so.

    Illegals are not allowed to enlist. Unless they get a bogus green card or do some other such fraud, illegals do not get into our armed forces. The suggestion that “Illegals get green cards for enlisting” is also false.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  99. Patterico,

    They may not work for X but I think your examples are great.

    DRJ (50237c)

  100. Well, let’s see [Xrlq yaps on and on, while the patron, disgusted, finds me, the other usher. I promptly toss the guy without the ticket out on his ass. Because, you see, he doesn’t have a freaking ticket.]

    I’m totally getting an Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Zeppelin scene vibe.

    Taltos (c99804)

  101. Nope, you still don’t get it.

    Oh, I get it all right. “It” being the fact that you want the media to push an agenda, rather than merely report the news.

    We have the authority to deport illegals.

    That’s common knowledge, not news.

    We don’t have the authority to deport Tiddlywinks players.

    Also not news.

    What’s more, we have the ability to divert resources to deport criminal illegals.

    Again, not news.

    And I don’t think anything I can say will make you get it.

    If by “get it” you mean “adopt your silly argument,” I agree. The only way you could persuade me to “get it” would be to persuade me that your argument was not silly. And I suspect that if it were possible to do that, I presume you would have pulled it off by now.

    Let me try another way.

    You’re an usher in a movie theater. A patron says: that guy over there is being a jerk. Will you ask him to leave?

    Lousy analogy. This is all about what the press should and should not report as news, right? The press doesn’t have authority to deport anyone, only the government does. Does this mean you are done pretending this is about what the news media should or should not report, and back to arguing that Law X exists, therefore, Law X must be good policy?

    Xrlq (2656a4)

  102. Since DRJ seems to understand what I mean, maybe I’ll let her explain, assuming she has the patience to put up with your bullshit.

    Patterico (690393)

  103. To go back to the original party analogy — if you’re the only person who can throw a decent party in your neighborhood, eventually you’re going to attract everyone in your neighborhood to your party. If you don’t want them for whatever reason, then you had best figure out how to give the rest of your neighbors a clue and throw a good party and spread the wealth. Otherwise, just learn to live with the crashers.

    Because YOU OWE everyone in your neigborhood just as good a party as you throw, and if you don’t give it willingly, they have the right to take it from you.

    Is that about right, Dr. Speed?

    Pablo – I’m not saying in the analogy that you owe anything, or others have a right to take things. I’m saying that eventually they WILL take it from you, whether they have a right to it or not. So you might want to be proactive about the situation and help out your fellow neighbors before they help themselves.

    More bluntly, this is how class warfare happens. Part of a society has a lot, and another part, usually much higher in numbers, doesn’t. If we’re talking Porches versus Chevys, well, the lower class may not feel like rising up. But if the lower class can’t feed their families, the upper class better watch out.

    Dr Speed (566bd9)

  104. There’s a hole in your argument, Dr. Speed.

    Part of a society has a lot, and another part, usually much higher in numbers, doesn’t.

    Be they uninvited guests, unticketed movie attendees or illegal aliens, they are not part of the specified society. They are interlopers on the specified society.

    stoo (739708)

  105. X,

    I’m not smart enough to debate you but help me understand what your point of contention is so I can get some sleep tonight:

    1. I don’t think you have a problem with Patterico’s request that news articles report illegal status in cases where the illegal is the figurative hero or the villain. Is that correct or incorrect?

    2. I think you do have a problem with considering illegal status important for purposes of deporting illegals for conduct unrelated to their illegal entry. Is that correct or incorrect?

    3. If both of the above statements are correct, then I assume the issue for you is whether illegals are statistically more likely to commit certain crimes than other people. Is that correct or incorrect?

    4. If 3 is correct, would you be willing to support aggressive deportation of illegals who disproportionately commit certain crimes, or is that basically profiling and offensive to you from a civil rights perspective?

    DRJ (50237c)

  106. I’ll debate you Xrlq style.

    “I’m not smart enough to debate you”

    That’s for sure.

    ” but help me understand what your point of contention is so I can get some sleep tonight:”

    My point is that Patterico is wrong and I’m right.

    “1. I don’t think you have a problem with Patterico’s request that news articles report illegal status in cases where the illegal is the figurative hero or the villain. Is that correct or incorrect?”

    Correct.

    “2. I think you do have a problem with considering illegal status important for purposes of deporting illegals for conduct unrelated to their illegal entry. Is that correct or incorrect?”

    I’ll agree that your silly contention is correct.

    “3. If both of the above statements are correct, then I assume the issue for you is whether illegals are statistically more likely to commit certain crimes than other people. Is that correct or incorrect?”

    When you assume you make an ass out of u.

    “4. If 3 is correct, would you be willing to support aggressive deportation of illegals who disproportionately commit certain crimes, or is that basically profiling and offensive to you from a civil rights perspective?”

    Another silly argument that is not news.

    Patterico (e07b4d)

  107. Maybe MD in Philly can help, too. He commented recently that the risk of infection increases with increase in the amount of inoculum. So if we have a billion American germs and a hundred million illegal alien germs, are not we more likely to be infected than if we only had the billion American germs?

    Another way of putting it: One thousand Americans decide that they want to take pot shots at me. A hundred illegal aliens also limber out their guns and join in. Now you could weigh the mean, and try to prove to me, based on the percentages of Americans vs. illegal aliens who want to kill me, that statistically my odds of getting shot actually went down but that would be BS. I have a hundred more people trying to kill me.

    nk (306f5a)

  108. Three against one is no fair! Good thing for you guys I’m not a feminist or I would play the gender card.

    DRJ (50237c)

  109. Patterico,

    Where are your new rules for arguments? I can’t find them but my recollection is the first rule is you have to make a legitimate effort to understand the other guy’s argument. That means I have to be on X’s side for as long as it takes me to understand his point, and that’s what I’m trying to do.

    Anyway, I hope you understand I mean no ill will when I say it’s a good rule but it can be very annoying.

    DRJ (50237c)

  110. DRJ, of course you’re smart enough to debate me. Contrary to Patterico, being “smart” in the other sense of the word is not a prerequisite. Here goes:

    1. Partly correct. Mostly, I think the news media should report the news, and the newsworthiness of a particular criminal’s illegal status isn’t always newsworthy, certainly not a slam dunk. It is newsworthy when reporting on problems specifically associated with illegals, but the mere fact that they are illegal is not, in itself, news. I do agree with Patterico, however, on one point: if they’re also going to trot out a bunch of sympathetic illegals and report on their illegal status just to make illegals look good, then the least they can do is to balance out their nonsense with some equally irrelevant nonsense on the other side.
    2. Incorrect. If it had been up to me, Ramos would have served hard prison time for his first offense, and both drivers would have been deported.
    3. Correct, at least when it comes to reporting news as news, rather than editorializing under the guise of reporting news. If illegals, or any other group, are statistically more likely to commit certain crimes than other people, that’s news.
    4. I’d support aggressive deportation first of individuals who commit any crimes (e.g., both of these guys on their first offenses), and of any subgroup of illegals who can be shown to disproportionately commit certain crimes. Profiling does not bother me, especially when discussing people who aren’t supposed to be here anyway. Deport ’em all, if you can.
    Xrlq (2656a4)

  111. X,

    Thanks. I guess I’m out of this discussion because I’m cool with your positions. We might quibble here and there but we agree on the main points.

    DRJ (50237c)

  112. DRJ,

    I just got a little tired of trying ot make logical points and having them dismissed in a flip manner as “not news” and “also not news.”

    If X was making a sincere effort to understand and respond to my actual arguments, he coulda fooled me.

    Patterico (ea39e2)

  113. Mostly, I think the news media should report the news, and the newsworthiness of a particular criminal’s illegal status isn’t always newsworthy, certainly not a slam dunk. It is newsworthy when reporting on problems specifically associated with illegals, but the mere fact that they are illegal is not, in itself, news.

    Here’s a tangential issue for you. If the media doesn’t report on criminal’s legal status when the crime has no direct link to them being ilegal then even if there were a bias toward criminal behavior amongst ilegal aliens the majority of the populace would be unaware because they aren’t likely to be parsing through DoJ statistics.

    The media’s job is to relay information (in a perfect world anyway) the legal status of a criminal actor is information.

    Taltos (c99804)

  114. Patterico,

    You know I liked your points – not only do I agree with you but your analogies were enormously entertaining.

    I may be wrong but I think X was ambivalent about using illegal status as the focal point. I don’t think you and I are ambivalent about that. Maybe it’s because we are in California and Texas and see the side effects each day. (Did I mention I was in a wreck recently with an underinsured motorist? Draw your own conclusions.) Or maybe X is an intellectual purist who objected to an anecdotal analysis of what he views as a statistical problem.

    I don’t really care what caused the debate or what ended it, if it has ended. Your debate with X was the best part of this thread. Too bad you both have to go to work tomorrow. I always like it when the two of you discuss legal topics.

    DRJ (50237c)

  115. I am still waiting for newspapers to publish whether DUI dirvers are up-to-date on their income tax. After all, if they had een jailed for tax evasion, then they wouldn’t have been around to commit DUI. And Bush has weakened tax cheat enforcement, hasn’t he…

    Andrew J. Lazarus (480223)

  116. There’s a hole in your argument, Dr. Speed.

    Part of a society has a lot, and another part, usually much higher in numbers, doesn’t.

    Be they uninvited guests, unticketed movie attendees or illegal aliens, they are not part of the specified society. They are interlopers on the specified society.

    Society in this case is the world, or at least North America.

    But again, let’s be specific. We’re talking about Mexicans. Mexico isn’t a great land of opportunity, and compared to that, the US still is. So, needing to feed their families or simply get ahead in life, Mexicans come up to the US to earn more money than they could back in Mexico.

    Look, it boils down to simple economics. The ideas behind laws are that the likelihood of getting caught and penalty is sufficient deterrent to prevent people from breaking the law. If the likelihood of being caught or the penalty isn’t high enough, then people will break the law.

    Speed limits reflect one of those laws. The likelihood of getting caught speeding is low, and the penalty isn’t that high (a fine and perhaps increased insurance). So nearly everyone speeds at some point in their driving. But surprisingly, I don’t see the tough-on-illegals crowd being very loud about cracking down on speeders.

    For Mexicans, the likelihood of getting caught and the penalty is not high enough to outweigh the benefit for them to come into the US and set up a life here. It seems that a lot of people want to focus on increasing the likelihood of catching illegals, and perhaps increase the penalty. But ultimately, the only solution is to ensure that staying in Mexico provides a better opportunity than moving to the US.

    Dr Speed (566bd9)

  117. But ultimately, the only solution is to ensure that staying in Mexico provides a better opportunity than moving to the US.

    Comment by Dr Speed

    Well, there is a second option… You could always increase the penalties so the cost-benifit of coming here illegally shifts enough to no longer make it worth their while…

    I’m all for making Mexico a better place for the locals to live and work in. However, that first requires their works stay there and work. A thriving, powerful economy doesn’t just happen. It has to be built by the people, who will only stay and built said powerhouse economy if there isn’t a benifit to Coming to America

    Loved that movie, btw…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  118. I only disagree with one part of your altest, Dr. Speed.

    Society in this case is the United States. The cultures of Mexico and the Unites States are different. Ours is adopting some of the traits of Mexico, but I see no evidence of the reciprocal changes occurring. Federal laws, particularly with regards to immigration are vastly different, and irreconcilable. Since so many of their citizens deem life here more desirable than life in their own homeland, how could anyone claim there is one North American society?

    Our societies are not the same.

    stoo (739708)

  119. Dr. Speed,

    Here’s one vote for cracking down on speeders, too.

    DRJ (50237c)

  120. DRJ, shouldn’t you be laying in bed resting and healing?

    As I say to friends over the instant messangers “Go. To. Bed.” 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  121. I can’t sleep until I get my next dose of painkiller — or maybe I’m addicted to Patterico. Seriously, I’m sorry if I’ve monopolized the comments. It helps me pass the time but I don’t want to be irritating.

    DRJ (50237c)

  122. DRJ,

    Please accept this reader’s thanks for your terrific participation and insights to the thread. Comment #104 was very helpful to me too for clarification of X’s argument.

    Anyway, you’re quite formidable in discussion and I always look forward to reading your take on the matter at hand. Monopolized? No way!

    Dana (9d8a51)

  123. I only disagree with one part of your altest, Dr. Speed.

    Society in this case is the United States. The cultures of Mexico and the Unites States are different. Ours is adopting some of the traits of Mexico, but I see no evidence of the reciprocal changes occurring. Federal laws, particularly with regards to immigration are vastly different, and irreconcilable. Since so many of their citizens deem life here more desirable than life in their own homeland, how could anyone claim there is one North American society?

    Our societies are not the same.

    And you think that the societies of people living in San Francisco are the same as Atlanta? Or even city life vs rural?

    Us adopting Mexican culture? That’s crap. Are you having pinata parties now? Watching soccer on TV? Or maybe a Mexican soap dubbed into Engish?

    Mexico, and really most of the world, is getting our culture. They drink Coke. They watch our TV shows, dubbed. They watch our movies, dubbed. They have corporate structures just like ours. Their labor laws are much more similar to ours, versus Spains or European (which is part of the problem… there never really was a middle class in Mexico, so there’s a huge chasm between the rich and the poor that’s worse than ours).

    So what, you’re concerned about all those Mexican restaurants taking over? Fine. Order more pizza.

    Dr Speed (566bd9)

  124. Mitchell,

    Even as the Soprano’s air its interesting that the truth about illegal white immigration is coming out.

    Hispanics are rapidly growing to be the majority in ground combat units – the one’s who do the fighting.

    You can dodge, weave, you and I agree probably 100% on immigration, but in the case of Patterico – et al – prove you are a citizen first – remember under the new language being considered and adopted your American Birth certificate – soon will not be conclusive proof that you are a citizen. You see, now, you have to be from one of the original colonies trace back family generations to be above reproach.

    Oh, thats not whats intended, but when they pass immigration reform the laws apply to all of us not some of us – just like all those stupid handicapp laws we wring our hands that people are abusing them but hey – try and prove you are a citizen, if your parents are dead, what next, if you cannot provide their official birth certificates (not issued by the state – too bad a hospital certificate might not do)

    this is the slippery slope as to where its heading – fast – any we still have the same dead brain set in Washington who gave us global warming, progressive taxes and a 3 trillion dollar budget.

    Be real careful what you ask for there are many many talented lawyers out there who are going to demand that everyone have to prove their citizenship in the same manner that hispanics are and guess what?

    Hell on earth won’t begin to describe it.

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  125. DRJ,

    I’ll refine the analogy. Not because I think it will get anything meaningful in the way of a response from Xrlq. I’m much more likely to get a flip response like “if you’re trying to prove that your argument is silly, then congratulations.” But I’ll do it because I see that at least one person (you) seems to appreciate it.

    So we’re back at the movie theater. A lot of us have been complaining to management that people are constantly sneaking in. They make the movies too crowded. They talk too much. They spoil it for everyone else. But we audience members can’t be the ticket checkers. We have to ask management to check tickets.

    Management generally doesn’t bother. They say they can’t walk up and down the aisles and check every single person’s tickets. “Fine,” we say. But could you please stop leaving the door to the theater unlocked and unmanned? And when someone is being a nuisance, could you check them then?

    So we’re watching a movie, and a drunk guy cames stumbling down the aisle and collapses on a child, sending the child to the hospital.

    There’s a commotion, and someone in the audience says: “I heard that guy earlier. He was bragging about how he snuck in. He stumbled and fell down in front of the theater owner, but the owner never bothered to ask if he had a ticket! If he had asked, the guy would have been thrown out and the child would have been OK!”

    “Anecdotal!” comes the heckling of an audience member we’ll call X. “IRRELEVANT!”

    Next day there’s a story in the local paper, which is notoriously biased in favor of the theater management. The story mentions the guy stumbling and hurting the child — but not the fact that he was ticketless.

    “Well done,” says newspaper reader X. “What an utterly silly and irrelevant detail that would have been. The only issue is whether ticketless moviegoers, or Tiddlywinks-playing moviegoers, stumble and hurt children more than ticketed ones.”

    “B-b-b-b-but the guy shouldn’t have even been there,” says Patterico.

    “Not news,” says X.

    Patterico (549f84)

  126. Dr. Speed,

    Pablo – I’m not saying in the analogy that you owe anything, or others have a right to take things. I’m saying that eventually they WILL take it from you, whether they have a right to it or not. So you might want to be proactive about the situation and help out your fellow neighbors before they help themselves.

    Or you could just kick them out when they show up to imbibe at your open bar and snack on your cocktail shrimp and crab rangoon. Because you don’t have to accept that anyone who can manage to trespass on your property is an irresistible force, or that they necessarily will take whatever it is that you have and they want.

    Some people actually resist crime successfully, and don’t feel intimidated that those who want to take what they have might get angry at being denied. It can be done.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  127. Hispanics are rapidly growing to be the majority in ground combat units – the one’s who do the fighting.

    Eric, do you have any data to support that claim?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  128. Yes

    here you go enjoy, remember all our service people regardles of race are precious to me and have my undying gratitude as I know you feel the same way as well

    http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009071.A2.pdf

    The army reports around but its nearly 1,000 pages I’ve read it – i’ll find it for you but it will take some time – however there are some stats on all the services (not many but some) in this 120 page report

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  129. If X was making a sincere effort to understand and respond to my actual arguments, he coulda fooled me.

    Consider yourself fooled, then. One minute you’re arguing about party invitations as if to imply that perfect enforcement of the law were a realistic goal. Then when called on the fact that “they weren’t supposed to be here” is an unrealistic expectation, suddenly you’re claiming it was all about what the news media should or should not report as news – even if that means they should report as “news” the unremarkable fact that the DUI rate among illegals is higher than 0.0000%. Then, before I can respond to that, you’re off with another goofy analogy about movie theaters, as if to suggest you were just kidding about this having anything to do with news media (or, worse, that news reporters should be deputized to enforce immigration laws).

    If I’ve done a less than perfect job of responding to your position, it’s because you’ve done a piss-poor job of clarifying WTF it is. How about stating it ONCE, in plain English. No parties, no spilled drinks, no movie theaters, none of that crap. Just say what it is you are advocating. A news media policy of reporting illegal aliens’ status every time they commit a crime? An ICE policy of deporting every illegal they can find? Something else?

    Xrlq (2656a4)

  130. X,

    Not going to happen, everyone is one the fence on this issue of mass deportations – lets face it – if you’re catholic odds are 4-1 you are here illegally regardless of national origin

    If you’re Asian 5-1 odds you were brought over here on a work contract that wasn’t approved – unless you’re Vietnamese or Fillipino.

    Many people are upset that criminals are not deported after sentencing or serving their crimes

    all in all, I understand and sympathize with them.

    However, just because illegal immigrants commit crimes doesn’t make them all and their legal cousins criminals

    which is what some are trying to make the case on both sides.

    Not here, but rhetoric seems to be getting close at times and what documentation do we all have of our last two or three generations of our ancestors that maybe required of us to prove our citizenship?

    I don’t have my grandparents or great grandparents work visas do you? Do most people?

    If we want to assimilate people, then lets end entitlements, the very idea that we have to pay for others is patently unamerican and ridiculous. Lets also end free education, let parents take care of their own kids.

    BYOF bring your own future, you can be all you want to be in America, we are just not going to give it to you, you have to work at it.

    This back and forth on immigration has gone on before, there was the Asian Exclusion League, there was the Turban Revolution when Indian Americans were stripped of their citizenship. There was the Tuft act of 1946 that stripped Fillipinos many navy veterans of their citizenship and thousands were shipped home almost immediately.

    Then the Bracero contracts ended and operation cloudburst was rejected and the smaller operation wetback commenced until Nixon threatened Eisenhower.

    Wetback is when we mass rounded up nearly 100,000 people. On streets in San Antonio if you were stopped without a passport or documentation even if you a citizen you were sent on a train against your will to Mexico. Thousands of D-day veterans who fought with Ike had their property confiscated and sent across the border deep into prison camps in Mexico. Hundreds died.

    This is where many want to go, if you google operation wetback oh there’s comments out there about how good it was to take brown people off the streets and send them into poverty.

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  131. DRJ –

    Certainly, you could hardly do a greater service to us if you DID monopolize the comments. I merely grow concerned because I know responding requires the one finger typing, and I wish for you to not strain yourself. Please forgive me if it came across as anything else. We need you to get better.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  132. That’s about the level of response I expected, X, based on your previous comments.

    If you devoted half the attention to reading and understanding my points that you devote to crafting smart-ass, contentless put-downs for them, you’d already know what I am advocating.

    But then we’d be back to why I’m advocating it — and hence, back to the analogies that you show no interest in understanding.

    Luckily, I no longer expect you to try, and am not disappointed or surprised by your latest “screw you, your argument is stupid” response. I only hope DRJ was amused.

    Patterico (6fa1bb)

  133. #127 Eric,

    That’s not what the report says. From the executive summary, page 9:

    As the number of Hispanics has increased, so has their representation
    in the military Services—particularly in the Marine Corps. Hispanic
    accessions grew steadily in the late 1980s and 1990s, making Hispanics
    14 percent of all Marine Corps accessions by 2001.

    14% does not “the majority” make, by any stretch of the imagination. That’s 3 claims in a row that are flat out false.

    And again, Hispanic really has nothing to do with the question at hand. We’re talking about ILLEGAL ALIENS, that is to say people who have entered the country illegally, regardless of where they came from.

    However, just because illegal immigrants commit crimes doesn’t make them all and their legal cousins criminals

    No, the illegal behavior makes them criminals, and their legal cousins have absolutely no place in this discussion except for the part where you try to turn an insistence on lawful behavior and law enforcement into racism. The thing is, the legal cousins aren’t breaking the law. They’re not part of the problem.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  134. If you need a hint, re-read comment 70.

    I like doing this in the form of an analogy because it strips away certain irrelevancies that blind people on the logic. That’s why the post itself is an analogy, and various objections have helped me refine it into a better one.

    For example, your original point (stripping away the invective about how silly my argument was) appeared to be that rates matter and individuals never do.

    My basic response to that was that you had something of a point if the entire question were whether we should have laws to begin with. In that case, I agree: individual cases, while not 100 percent irrelevant, are close to it.

    To use the analogy, the fact that one drunk ticketless moviegoer is not a compelling argument for making people pay for movie tickets. The original argument for requiring payment rests on other concerns: keeping the theater going financially, and providing an experience for customers without overcrowding.

    But accepting the laws as a given, the status of the drunk guy is important, both for 1) how to deal with such people (see comment 70 and numerous previous posts of mine for an idea of what to do short of 100 deportation) and 2) how it should be reported.

    The analogy helps show that the “only rates are important” argument is meaningless given the question I’m actually asking.

    I spent a lot of time articulating it and you brushed it aside. Given your increasingly impatient and smart-assed responses to my arguments, I rather expected this. Now it culminates in an (utterly unfounded) accusation that I am being delibately deceptive by “pretending” that I’m talking about something I’m not.

    All in response to an analogy that deals directly with reporting — and shows how reporting is connected to debates over proper enforcement and public attitudes.

    An analogy you simply brushed aside.

    If you just don’t like arguments by analogy, you should have said so long ago, so I didn’t waste my time.

    Patterico (b6b831)

  135. X,

    Maybe I can try to be constructive by finding where we agree, and pinpointing the area of disagreement.

    As I have said, there are basically two issues. 1) Should we have immigration laws (or, should we enforce them more strictly)? As a subsidiary, 1a) What is the relevance of a single example of criminality to that issue? 2) Assuming that we answer number 1 “yes,” what is the relevance of an illegal’s status in a story about crime?

    I think we agree on question 1. We should have these laws. They should be more strictly enforced. I don’t think you’d contest my suggestion of how to enforce them better, namely, to focus more on deporting those illegals who have committed some crime in addition to illegal entry.

    As to subsidiary question 1a, we’re not far apart. You say that evidence of an illegal’s crime is 100 percent irrelevant. I’d only quibble, arguing that any such anecdote puts a human face on the generalized assertion that illegal immigration has drawbacks as well as benefits. But I agree that on this issue, rates are much more important.

    As to question 2, we agree that if the news is going to report benefits of illegal immigration anecdotally — and we both know it does — then it ought to report countervailing anecdotes. So in this reality, I think we agree that an illegal’s status should be reported.

    Where we disagree, I think, is in answering question 2 in the absolute: i.e. if the news were not littered with anecdotes of the boons of illegal immigration, would an illegal’s status in reportage of a given crime be a relevant detail?

    The first thing to recognize is that this is a narrow area of disagreement — narrower, I think, than you originally portrayed it.

    On that question, your position is this:

    “I don’t disagree with your general premise that an offender’s illegality is relevant to the news story. It certainly is, but only to the extent illegals commit DUI at a markedly different rate than the general population.”

    I disagree. I’m running out of room. To be continued.

    Patterico (a32dd6)

  136. Can you tell me whether I’m right about our areas of agreement?

    Patterico (a32dd6)

  137. I just typed up a long comment about why illegal status is relevant to a news story, and my piece of crap phone rebooted and lost it. I’ll reconstruct it later.

    Patterico (5a33b3)

  138. Patterico,

    I had a great laugh reading your movie theatre comment. Thank you! You’re doing me more good than a bottle of codeine.

    I’m sorry you lost your last comment but this is an excellent and worthwhile discussion. Kudos for you for taking it as far as you have without much help or feedback.

    DRJ (50237c)

  139. The reason that I think X is wrong about the relevance of an illegal’s immigration status in a story about a crime is because it is a story about a crime, not about illegal immigration generally.

    In a story about illegal immigration generally, I might expect to see an anecdote about an illegal who had committed a crime — but I would expect to see it tied in with statistics about rates of crimes committed by illegals, to show its relevance.

    Depending on the focus of the story, you might also expect to see a comparison to rates of criminality by the population at large.

    If the story was designed to compare illegals to the population at large, both in benefits and drawbacks, you would definitely expect to see that comparison.

    If the story was designed only to explore the benefits and drawbacks of illegals, it would probably *benefit* from that comparison, but it wouldn’t be critical. And certainly, if the story set forth benefits (cheaper produce, etc.) I would expect some stats about drawbacks (crime, strain on the health care system, etc.), with or without a comparison to the population at large.

    But a crime story is different. Illegal status is generally a relevant factor, without the need for proof about rates. The main reason is that it’s relevant to an ongoing controversy. And the story is already anecdotal in its focus, by its very nature as a crime story.

    It’s like gang membership. Treatment of gang members is an ongoing controversy. If a perp in a story is a gang member, his membership is generally relevant to that story — even if that one crime doesn’t by itself make the case that gang members are bad.

    By contrast, the race of the perp may or may not be relevant. If the perp hasn’t been caught, it’s relevant — even though P.C. newspaper types won’t include it. If the race is relevant to an ongoing controversy — such as the crime is terrorism — it would be helpful to note whether the person is an Arab/Muslim or not. Either way, the public should know.

    Patterico (968168)

  140. DRJ,

    Thanks. Above is my lost comment, rewritten.

    I’m glad someone followed my analogy, rather than simply dismissing it as “another goofy analogy about movie theaters.” Did you notice that it also dealt with the issue of reportage of the incident? X apparently didn’t.

    Patterico (5e7fe4)

  141. I agree – it is like noting a gang connection because it helps the reader decide if this is an isolated event or part of a larger picture or trend. However, to avoid offending people who might balk at comparisons between gang members and illegal immigrants, you might consider using victims as your subset.

    I’m not sure if I remember this correctly (if not, consider this my hypothetical contribution to this thread), but several years ago in Miami foreign tourists in rental cars were targeted for carjackings, robberies and murders by Miami criminals. Many of the news stories about these incidents failed to highlight or mention that the victims were tourists, probably because businesses and the media were reluctant to highlight something that would clearly endanger area tourism. Ultimately, the media did provide more details and, as I recall, it did adversely impact European tourism in Miami. It was also instrumental in causing rental car companies to stop putting labels and license tags on their cars in ways that made it easier to spot tourists who might be unfamiliar with roads and dangerous locations. But the point was that the media had an obligation to give the public basic information so they could protect themselves. Failing to note that the victims were tourists driving rental cars was, arguably, an omission that excessively endangered a specific subset of victims.

    Of course, the media is generally quite vocal and aggressive when certain classes of victims are involved. News reporters complain long and loud if the police refuse to divulge information that a series of rapes or murders targeted prostitutes, college girls, women who ride the bus, or some other specific group of victims. The media would trumpet the public’s right to know and protect themselves in that situation, and they should do that.

    On the other hand, I think we can agree the media is inconsistent in identifying the group the offender comes from. Perhaps this is for good reason because we should be reluctant to tar a group of people for the misconduct of a few. But the point of the media is to provide information – not lessons in being PC. If one or two criminals are illegal immigrants, I trust the vast majority of Americans will not impute those actions to all illegal immigrants. Likewise, we would make different decisions if we learned that all crime was committed by illegal immigrants. Obviously the truth lies somewhere in between.

    The only way we will make good decisions about this issue is if we get reliable information from the media. Our system depends on the media to keep us informed. Thus, to me, this issue is a media issue. Once they have accurate information, I trust the American people to take it from there.

    DRJ (50237c)

  142. Yea, this is always an odd one. Likewise with felonies, I might add.

    GOod analogy.

    David N. Scott (71e316)

  143. BTW, I’m going to predict your kids will both be National Merit Scholarship finalists someday. Not only do they have smart parents but they have you teaching them with analogies and parables. That is a rare and valuable gift that helps kids develop strong analytical skills and vocabulary as they also develop a love for learning by listening to a parent tell stories.

    DRJ (50237c)

  144. Dr. Speed says…
    “Us adopting Mexican culture?”
    That is what is happening in my neighborhood. I should set my car radio on “scan” and record what happens. The last time I counted, Spanish language stations were close to 40% of the the total. There is only a certain number of stations available in an area, so every Spanish one is one I can’t listen too until I finish learning the language. A few months ago 9 out of 10 of the top rated television shows in my area were broadcast in Spanish. Some one else mentioned that if I don’t like tacos, I should order pizza, in my nieghborhood it doesn’t matter, my people are no longer a significant part of the population so no one pays any attention to us. Not politcians, not marketers, I even get ignored by the Jehovah Witnesses because I don’t speak Spanish. Having that kind of change forced onto your community by criminal activity hurts in a way that is hard to describe.

    tyree (b2fade)

  145. As to subsidiary question 1a, we’re not far apart. You say that evidence of an illegal’s crime is 100 percent irrelevant. I’d only quibble, arguing that any such anecdote puts a human face on the generalized assertion that illegal immigration has drawbacks as well as benefits. But I agree that on this issue, rates are much more important.

    I agree. That’s not the argument that comes out from analogies to party guests followed with “I don’t care [about rates], I didn’t invite them.”

    As to question 2, we agree that if the news is going to report benefits of illegal immigration anecdotally — and we both know it does — then it ought to report countervailing anecdotes. So in this reality, I think we agree that an illegal’s status should be reported.

    Correct. I’d rather see all bullshit stripped from the press, but if the only choices are between ideologically skewed bullshit and fair and balanced bullshit, I guess I’d have to opt for the latter.

    Can you tell me whether I’m right about our areas of agreement?

    Pretty much right. Where we differ is here:

    The reason that I think X is wrong about the relevance of an illegal’s immigration status in a story about a crime is because it is a story about a crime, not about illegal immigration generally.

    I think a story about an individual crime is, above all else, a story about that incident, not about crime generally. If the area has a lot of crime, particularly crimes of the sort being reported on, that’s reasonably related and may find its way into the story. If the perp has a history of criminal behavior himself, that too is likely to come in, but more likely if his priors closely relate to the crime being reported now. If a drunk driver had prior DUIs, leaving those out of the story borders on journalistic malpractice. So too if the story is about an illegal alien who got busted for entering the country illegally, and they fail to report he’d got nailed for doing that on prior occasions. But if an illegal alien gets busted for DUI, or a guy with past DUIs gets busted for entering a country illegally, I can scarcely fault an editor for leaving that factoid out.

    We interrupt this productive, straightforward discussion to bring you … sigh … another analogy:

    It’s like gang membership. Treatment of gang members is an ongoing controversy. If a perp in a story is a gang member, his membership is generally relevant to that story — even if that one crime doesn’t by itself make the case that gang members are bad.

    Gangs are fundamentally criminal organizations.
    To the extent analogies make an argument (and in my view, they generally don’t), that’s an argument for my position, not yours. Gang membership is relevant to crime precisely because gangs are so closely associated with high crime rates, and are themselves often involved in the crimes. If a gang member were charged with a crime unrelated to gang activity, e.g., antitrust or securities fraud, then his gang membership probably would not be considered relevant and would be reported for novelty value, if at all.

    Xrlq (b6ac5d)

  146. I have a better idea. The US should keep all its illegal immigrants, and deport all of its lawyers to Mexico.

    Jake Gittes (e6cddd)

  147. “I agree. That’s not the argument that comes out from analogies to party guests followed with “I don’t care [about rates], I didn’t invite them.”

    Xrlq, really. You usually resemble a smart guy pretty closely. But you come out with that crack, which assumes something I just got through explaining to you is not the case — namely, that my quote was addressed to the issue of the single anecdote’s relevance to the issue of immigration laws generally.

    I’ve spent most of the thread explaining to you that I was answering a different question. But I started out our points of agreement by discussing the issue that you so desperately want to discuss: should we have these laws to begin with. And I said, consistent with my entire argument, that rates are more important to *that* question than are anecdotes.

    Then you turn on me and act like I said it in relation to the question I was discussing.

    Lord.

    Patterico (965843)

  148. I’ll note, X, that you already indicated your agreement with this statement:

    That’s not the argument that comes out from analogies “I don’t care [about rates], I didn’t invite them.”

    Because I thought you already said you agree with maximum deportation, and I think you agree with a more limited and targeted view as well of targeting criminal illegals.

    So rates don’t matter to you as far as whether to deport these folks — especially if they’re otherwise criminals — because even if the rates are the same, you still want to deport them.

    Because they don’t belong here.

    So why are you trying to create disagreement in an area where we don’t disagree?

    I’ll tell you why: because you were trying to throw a quote back in my face as if you were showing that I had changed my position. Instead, all you did was reaffirm that you weren’t paying attention to my position.

    Patterico (d427ac)

  149. Finally: the reason illegal status is relevant is because the government could have and should have ensured that this guy wasn’t in the country — but didn’t.

    You seem to agree that the government should have and could have ensured that. Yet, when it failed, due to a misallocation of priorities, you want to hide that fact from readers as somehow irrelevant, in a story that never pretended to be about larger trends to begin with.

    I find that simply bizarre, and you have yet to articulate a persuasive defense of that position.

    The best way to do so would be tp respond to my movie theater analogy. But once I refined the analogy so it was maximally persuasive and relevant, you suddenly decided that you didn’t like analogies — giving such short shrift to mine that you actually seemed to miss the fact that it directly addressed the issue of news reportage.

    In terms of debating actual issues, and showing that you understand my arguments, you’re doing a very poor job.

    Patterico (c68741)

  150. Pablo

    14% and almost 40% of ground combat forces.

    The Marines, have only about 37% of all marines in ground combat roles.

    Nuance.

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  151. Also Pablo

    the 2000 U.S. Census, Hispanics of all races represent 13.3 percent of the U.S. population, about 37.4 million individuals

    So they are equally represented in the Marine Corp eh?

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  152. You seem to agree that the government should have and could have ensured that. Yet, when it failed, due to a misallocation of priorities, you want to hide that fact from readers as somehow irrelevant, in a story that never pretended to be about larger trends to begin with.

    Amen. Whether an illegal drives drunk more often than a legal citizen or whether law enforcement is perfect are not the issues. The issue here is that 1) either law enforcement failed due to ordinary human failure or (sorry, not to introduce a new element) 2) in the Virginia case, I’m unclear whether the city gov’t had a “sanctuary city” policy in place that actually prevented law enforcement’s success in this area. 1) is somewhat forgivable though I’d argue that the prevailing fashion of cutting illegals breaks pressures any law enforcement official confronted with the issue and thus makes it closer to 2), which is not forgivable.

    Anwyn (a130c1)

  153. Pablo

    Rifles and their direct support are ground combat. Generally, Hispanics overwhelmingly are in ground combat units – you don’t find them in as large numbers in the JAG corp, headquarters, intelligence, mantinence, supply, etc where the BULK of the total numbers of Marines are assigned. only about 4 out of 10 are in combat units.

    Sorry if I was not clear before

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  154. You seem to agree that the government should have and could have ensured that. Yet, when it failed, due to a misallocation of priorities, you want to hide that fact from readers as somehow irrelevant, in a story that never pretended to be about larger trends to begin with.

    Nonsense. Simply writing a story about X, when Patterico would rather read a story about Y, is hardly tantamount to “hiding” anything. The story is about a fatal DUI accident. It’s not about all the stuff government woulda/coulda/shoulda done that conceivably might have stopped it – and if it were, more rigorous border enforcement probably would be only one of many angles.

    The best way to do so would be tp respond to my movie theater analogy.

    No, the best way would be for you to can silly analogies that do nothing but distract. We’re talking about illegal immigration, not movie theaters, law enforcement, not ushers, and the news media doesn’t fit into movie theaters at all.

    But once I refined the analogy so it was maximally persuasive and relevant,

    Persuasive to who? I doubt that a single reader who didn’t already agree with your original post saw any version of your movie theater analogy, slapped himself on the forehead and said “Aha, now I get it, life’s one big movie theater!” All your crazy analogies do is to distract, not to persuade.

    But if you insist, I will follow your silly analogy to its logical conclusion. If any movie theater had a problem with unticketed guests doing just about anything at the same rate that ticketed ones do, I doubt the press would give a flying **** about the issue, one way or the other. They certainly wouldn’t go out of their way to report on that fact, whether or not they are biased in favor of either theater management or guys who go to movies without buying tickets.

    Xrlq (b6ac5d)

  155. So, X, the papers should not report on unconncected crimes when mob figures are prosecuted for tax evasion?

    I think you keep shifting position because Patterico is right in his original post: reportage of drawbacks is as relevant as reportage of advantages of illegal immigration.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  156. “We’re talking about illegal immigration, not movie theaters, law enforcement, not ushers, and the news media doesn’t fit into movie theaters at all.”

    This was actually going to be the subject of my next “debunking fallacies” post — so when I do it, don’t take it personally.

    In a nutshell, responding to analogies by saying “[the focus of the analogy] is not [the thing being analogized to]” is an invalid argument against an analogy, unless it helps to show how the operative principle doesn’t apply.

    It’s a dodge I see liberals use all the time. I’m tired of re-explaining the principle anew, so I’ll be doing a post about it.

    Anyway, if you assume that citizens treat the issue of ticketless patrons as a major local controversy — it’s a sleepy town, okay? — then the paper ought to report the patron’s status.

    “The story is about a fatal DUI accident. It’s not about all the stuff government woulda/coulda/shoulda done that conceivably might have stopped it”

    Right. And if the DUI had been committed by an escaped prisoner, no newspaper would ever mention that. It’s about a DUI, not an escaped prisoner.

    ” – and if it were, more rigorous border enforcement probably would be only one of many angles.”

    By far the most obvious one.

    Patterico (ea7d0f)

  157. Eric,

    14% and almost 40% of ground combat forces.

    The Marines, have only about 37% of all marines in ground combat roles.

    And the document you linked doesn’t say that Hispanics comprise a majority of that force either, that I can see. But you do seem to be saying that they generally don’t make it as anything but ground pounders. Again, do you have any evidence to support these claims? It doesn’t seem to be in what you’ve offered.

    the 2000 U.S. Census, Hispanics of all races represent 13.3 percent of the U.S. population, about 37.4 million individuals

    So they are equally represented in the Marine Corp eh?

    I didn’t say that, I questioned your assertion that they’re the majority. Are you suggesting that I did say that?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  158. Pablo,

    You are in denial every one from Tom Clancy to the joint chiefs have written about this, expounded on it etc.

    All you have to do is google and also look at the casualty list – just about every latin surname – UNDER THE NEW DEFINITION OF ILLEGAL – are considered 2nd or third generation illegal.

    Apparently they are serving their country like proud americans every bit as any other ethnic group.

    I guess that was the point – but you seem to be in denial.

    Additionally they are overrepresented in law enforcement – the people who protect you day and night are also Hispanic – not fire fighters not emts – but patrolmen

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  159. All you have to do is google and also look at the casualty list – just about every latin surname – UNDER THE NEW DEFINITION OF ILLEGAL – are considered 2nd or third generation illegal.

    Eric, anyone born in or legally immigrated into the US is not an illegal. There is no such thing as a 2nd or 3rd generation illegal. You’re just making things up now and this is the 4th non-fact you’ve offered as gospel on this thread. You’re completely failing to respond to anything I’ve asked you with anything that answers a question.

    And what on Earth leads you to believe that Hispanics aren’t firefighters and EMT’s?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  160. Pablo

    Hispanics very few had legal immigration – neither did italians, irish etc. most went to Canada and then came over the border.

    Also, predominately they are not emt and firefighters not in the numbers they are in law enforcement.

    Pablo, you know my point, its obvious, its been proven, you just don’t like the counter balance

    Thats all.

    Under the Tancredo et al, being US born is NOT going to be the end all of citizenship – even in Texas a bill has been filed to declare anyone illegal regardless of residence or birth as long as a single grandparent was illegal.

    go figure

    thats the new face – except that most of us don’t have two or three generations of documentation now do we?

    Yes we all can laugh off these laws and bills that don’t have a prayer, but proving citizenship will apply to everyone, not just the brown ones.

    If you think I’m amking it up just google anchor babies, its how most white families received their citizenship. Heck in Louisiana many still speak only french, after several hundred years.

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  161. Eric, you’re nuts. Just have another drink and go to sleep.

    nk (306f5a)

  162. So Pablo,

    If you peruse the constitution there is just a small mechanism for natural born. Except as with all things in the constitution, it really only applies to what congress today and the courts – say what it is – you and I can agree for hours and hours lamenting all conservative things

    I just recognize that hispanics, unlike some other ethnic groups – have served their country and their communities very well. this is a sharp contrast to those who think that border jumpers are just here for the exploitation.

    There is good and bad in all large groups, yes illegal immigration is wrong, yes they should either apply for citizenship or leave, am I going to wring my hands endlessly about something that has gone on for 175 years unchecked – no

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  163. If you peruse the constitution there is just a small mechanism for natural born.

    Yes, a small mechanism called the Fourteenth Amendment that says:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Are Congress and the courts offering some new, more restrictive interpretation of that very clear language of which I’m not aware? If so, I’m going to have to insist on a link that actually says so.

    Hispanics very few had legal immigration – neither did italians, irish etc. most went to Canada and then came over the border.

    So, Ellis Island is just a myth, then? Hey, at least the French believed it, and we got that bitchin’ statue out of the deal…

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  164. Pablo,

    Idiots are wanting the 14th repealed I think thats my point, I have mentioned it time and time again.

    Unfortunately in their haste they are giving congress (or wanting to) new powers to determine who is and isn’t a citizen. The 14th didn’t save the Fillipinos, they were stripped of their citizenship including the native born here, and the 14th didn’t stop ike from forcing nearly 250,000 native born from being stampeded to Mexico by operation Wetback.

    Yeah the constitution also says I can carry a gun too, and can have 1,000 people over to my house and have freedom of association.

    The constitution is whatever the current powers say it is, not what it used to say 200 some odd years ago.

    Get some sleep

    EricPWJohnson (695c44)

  165. Idiots are wanting the 14th repealed I think thats my point, I have mentioned it time and time again.

    And that has what effect on the current status of anyone? And how much chance of that happening is there vs. a snowball’s existence in Hell? There are a lot of idiots that want a lot of things. Until they become the law, they’re not the law. Your statement that “All you have to do is google and also look at the casualty list – just about every latin surname – UNDER THE NEW DEFINITION OF ILLEGAL – are considered 2nd or third generation illegal.” is ludicrous, especially if you’re suggesting that it’s based on someone’s pipe dream.

    Under the Tancredo et al, being US born is NOT going to be the end all of citizenship – even in Texas a bill has been filed to declare anyone illegal regardless of residence or birth as long as a single grandparent was illegal.

    Such a bill would be shot down in a minute. The 14th specifically states that a State doesn’t have the right to do that.

    The constitution is whatever the current powers say it is, not what it used to say 200 some odd years ago.

    The 14th was ratified in 1868, and it stands today as one of the most important parts of the constitution.

    Pablo (193828)

  166. Pablo

    Its being touted by several US congressman, don’t think the unthinkable people in the early 70’s said when France made abortion legal and affordable it would never ever be tolerated in the US

    All it takes is one court case which is going to be heard very soon at the supreme court

    EricPWJohnson (92aae0)

  167. Wow! What I missed when I went off to do my taxes because of my legal status! Getting back to Patterico’s original post, I was one of those “leftists” arguing the relevance of looking at overall rates of crime and such, rather than just bad (or good) anecdotes.

    I kinda like the party analogy. How does the analogy change if: the party crashers spill drinks at a far lower rate than the official invitees? And the party crashers do more work cleaning up spills than the official invitees?

    (And what if the party crashers have the best party music, and know how to dance with some style? Not to mention make the best and most fun cocktails? Just mentioning the factors that matter to me…)

    Here’s an interesting column in the Washington Post today which provides some food for thought:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901322.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    And that column links to this research, with a Federal Reserve Bank economist co-author:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=871071

    …which says this:

    “Much of the concern about immigration adversely affecting crime derives from the fact that immigrants tend to have characteristics in common with native born populations that are disproportionately incarcerated. This perception of a link between immigration and crime led to legislation in the 1990s increasing punishments toward criminal aliens. Despite the widespread perception of a link between immigration and crime, immigrants have much lower institutionalization (incarceration) rates than the native born. More recently arrived immigrants have the lowest comparative incarceration rates, and this difference increased from 1980 to 2000.

    We present a model of immigrant self-selection that suggests why, despite poor labor market outcomes, immigrants may have better incarceration outcomes than the native-born. We examine whether the improvement in immigrants’ relative incarceration rates over the last three decades is linked to increased deportation, immigrant self-selection, or deterrence. Our evidence suggests that deportation and deterrence of immigrants’ crime commission from the threat of deportation are not driving the results. Rather, immigrants appear to be self-selected to have low criminal propensities and this has increased over time.”

    But I agree LA is too crowded!

    Kindadukish (f021b9)

  168. Eric…

    Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..

    Eric (eeabee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1437 secs.