Patterico's Pontifications

7/18/2007

Today on Hot Air

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:08 am



A couple of Hot Air links are worth your time. Actually they all are, but check out these two in particular:

  • I discuss Johnny Sutton’s appearance on Hannity & Colmes here.

105 Responses to “Today on Hot Air”

  1. I agree with your Johnny Sutton post and with your final conclusion that some jail time is warranted even though you wouldn’t object to a significant commutation in Ramos’ & Compean’s sentences. It’s taken a while but you’ve changed my mind about this case. Still, as a prosecutor, I imagine you are glad citizens like me want to believe in law enforcement officers.

    FWIW, though, I still have a problem with the notion that border smugglers like Aldrete-Davila are almost always unarmed. I called the El Paso Border Patrol public relations office a couple of months ago with questions about this case. I was surprised that they answered my questions but they did. I was told that most smuggling is done by people at border crossings and that those smugglers don’t have weapons because they don’t want to draw attention to themselves. However, I was also told that smugglers in rural areas are more likely to and probably do carry weapons. Thus, while it’s true that most smugglers don’t use weapons (because the vast majority of drug smuggling occurs at border crossings), it’s not true that smugglers like the one in this case are generally unarmed.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  2. The “deport them now” campaign has a problem: It’s vague. Deport who? It’s hard to tell.

    Perhaps the campaign would more properly be named “deport suspected criminals if they happen to be illegal aliens.” Or maybe “these crimes should be happening to Mexicans, not us!” Or perhaps the rousing cry: “Let’s prevent crime by setting criminals free in other countries (if they happen to be illegal aliens).”

    Nah, that’s too technical. We’re really just mad at them. You know . . . them.

    Phil (427875)

  3. Your comment is farcical, Phil.

    The “deport them now” campaign has a problem: It’s vague. Deport who?

    As Michelle Malkin makes clear in her first public service announcement, if you’d bothered to listen to it:

    “…like kicking out convicted criminal aliens…”

    Later she goes on to say:

    “… convicted criminal aliens”

     
     
    And then you add:

    “Or perhaps the rousing cry: “Let’s prevent crime by setting criminals free in other countries (if they happen to be illegal aliens).”

    As you should know, the usual practice around the world when someone is convicted of a crime is to have them serve their custodial sentence, if any, then deport them upon completion of the sentence. Not to immediately go about setting them free, but to have the firm hand of justice followed by deportation to protect United States citizens.

    Of course, you’re a lib and not a fan of firm justice except for Bush Chimpy-Hitler and his “cronies”.

    You, Phil, are dishonest, intellectually challenged, and/or lazy.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  4. Hannity is alright but his performance against Sutton sucked. If Sutton is gonna rant and rave about “these agents knowingly tried to murder an unarmed man” then he just needs to be asked:

    What would have happened if they’d succeeded and Davila’s bloody unarmed corpse ended up right out there in the open?

    Answer: They’d spend the rest of their lives in jail

    Question: Why would they do something for which they had no possibility of concealing and that several witnesses could testify to that would force them to live the rest of their lives in jail? Did they both go insane at the same time?

    There is no way that Sutton could keep arguing that impossible theory. Only Al Qaeda attempts murders that offer them no escape.

    J Curtis (ecc9cc)

  5. Patterico

    No good deed goes unpunished

    I sooo wish Compean would have cuffed the little worm

    EricPWJohnson (92aae0)

  6. Phil,

    You still owe me an example or an apology, in this thread.

    Patterico (bfdf8d)

  7. I signed up for the Deport the Criminals First campaign using the link you provided. Thanks for telling me about this.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  8. Patterico, your whole whole “deport the criminals first” is an example. If any of the tragic crimes that you point to in your “deport the criminals first” series really bothered you, you’d do what you could to stop the tragedies from repeating themselves generally in our society.

    But you don’t. All your series is concerned about is making sure illegal aliens don’t cause these tragedies. Your not concerned about repeat offenders generally — just illegal alien repeat offenders.

    The drunk driving examples are especially blatant in this manner. You don’t appear to really care about the real tragedy in American — that 18,000 people each year are killed by drunk drivers. You’re just disturbed when an illegal alien drives drunk.

    Pro-segrigationists tried to use examples of black men raping white women to terrify people into supporting segrigation. Was it valid to terrify people into supporting segrigation by saying that their women could be raped by blacks? Because it’s true that if segrigation was truely enforced, black men would have a harder time finding white women to rape. Just like it’s true, in a crazy way, that your suggested deportation laws would have made it harder for an illegal immigrant committing these crimes. But no harder for anyone else to cause these tragedies — in fact, arguably easier, as resources are shifted from law enforcement to deportation.

    Like those who said “support segrigation or your women could be raped by black men!” you’re saying “support deportation of illegal aliens, or your family could be killed by an illegal alien drunk driver!” Sadly, like those terrified of black-on-white rape, it looks like you believe that this really is much more tragic and scary than kids being killed by a citizen (white) drunk driver, as so many are.

    Phil (427875)

  9. Patterico, your whole whole “deport the criminals first” is an example.

    Yep, you called that one, Patterico.

    I would like quotes and links. Quotes and links.

    In other words, not general hand-waving and arguments like “Well, you have this whole series on immigrants committing crimes — which doesn’t prove the false accusations you have made, because none of those posts generally argues that immigrants (or even illegal immigrants) are criminals generally (other than by entering illegally, in which sense they are generally criminals, but that’s not the point of the posts and you know it)..

    Arguing by misstating the other guy’s position isn’t argument. It’s verbal diarrhea.

    The brown discharge isn’t going to do, Phil. Neither will strawmen and hand waving. Provide quotes and links, or you owe the man an apology.

    Pablo (99243e)

  10. Phil,

    Your comment reminds me of the old adage: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    I agree society should do everything possible to keep criminals from re-offending, but there aren’t easy answers to how to protect society from some criminals. However, the answer is easy in the case of criminal aliens: Deport them.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  11. Let me make one more point in clarification. Your line of reasoning (if we’d deported this criminal, he wouldn’t have committed the crime) works identically with any human being.

    We can start with illegal aliens who commit crimes for the first time. Obviously, had they been prevented from crossing the border in the first place, they wouldn’t have committed the crime. So should we support greater border security? I suppose so, under your line of reasoning.

    Next, let’s take Hispanics generally. Why don’t we deport them all, citizen or not. Let’s kick them out of the country! Every time a hispanic commits a crime, I can shake my head and say “if we had a policy of kicking all hispanics out of the country, this tragedy would never have happened.

    How about blacks. Are there black criminals? Sure. If we would just kick blacks out of the coutry, those crimes wouldn’t be committed! Heck the OJ SIMPSON murders would have been prevented if we’d just kicked all blacks out of the country a long time ago. If you disagree with me, you must support OJ Simpson, right? You’re trying to protect every black criminal on the streets!

    And so on. This “deport the criminals first” argument has nothing to do with being anti-criminal. It’s about being anti-immigrant. Period.

    Phil (427875)

  12. Phil,

    You’ve been told this before: We can’t deport citizens. We can deport illegals.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  13. As an amendment to the above — I could always start out with each unpopular group by saying “let’s deport the (black/hispanic/insert hated group here) CRIMINALS first” and then expand my reasoning from there. Just to appeal to the patterico/malkin crowd.

    Phil (427875)

  14. Yes, DRJ, and I’ve told you before — just because we *can* deport illegals doesn’t mean we *should*.

    So let’s say I say “let’s amend the constitution so that we *can* deport black people. And then let’s deport black people, starting with the CRIMINALS!”

    Then, you say “hey, deporting black people is a racist idea.”

    And I say “No it’s not. I’m just trying to prevent crime. The O.J. Simpson murders would have been prevented if we had my suggested constitutional amendment and deportation policy in place a long time ago.”

    Doesn’t that make equal sense under Patterico’s reasoning?

    Phil (427875)

  15. Phil,

    “Yes, DRJ, and I’ve told you before — just because we *can* deport illegals doesn’t mean we *should*.”

    We can legally deport criminal aliens and it will make us safer to do so, but apparently you don’t want to deport them because … it’s unfair to other dangerous criminals who we can’t legally deport?

    Surely you jest. if not, then you have an interesting view of the equal protection clause.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  16. DRJ, you’re completely missing my point. Please read through my posts again — my point is that this “deport the criminals first” reasoning doesn’t really make us safer from criminals. It’s only retroactively that you can make the arguement that “this law would have protected us from this particular crime.”

    You haven’t explained how this retroactive justification doesn’t work equally well with any other demographic group whose members ever commit crimes — in other words, all of them.

    So why pick on the illegals? You’re “because we can” justification doesn’t work because we “can” pick on any minority we want to — we just need to drum up enough support to amend the constitution. Why pick on immigrants?

    Phil (427875)

  17. So let’s say I say “let’s amend the constitution so that we *can* deport black people.

    If that’s your view, Phil, you can go right ahead and start lobbying for such an amendment. But before you set off on that impossible journey, you really ought to apologize to Patterico for defaming him.

    Meanwhile, those of us who believe in the rule of law think we simply ought to enforce, starting with enforcing it against the worst of the worst.

    Pablo (99243e)

  18. It’s only retroactively that you can make the arguement that “this law would have protected us from this particular crime.

    Nonsense. Criminals re-offend, and a previous offense is an indicator that the risk of a repeat offense is elevated. Our laws are written so that such people should be deported for a reason. that reason is so that they won’t commit further crimes here.

    Pablo (99243e)

  19. “those of us who believe in the rule of law think we simply ought to enforce, starting with enforcing it against the worst of the worst.”

    Which are, of course . . . illegal aliens. Not criminals generally. Not murderers, drunk drivers, robbers, etc. Illegal aliens.

    Once again, this is my point. It’s not about going after dangerous criminals. You don’t care about dangerous criminals — you’d let a murderer (who’s a citizen) walk into the sunshine unsupervised when his sentence was up, and grab the petty thief next to him who happened to be an illegal alien, and take him to Mexico. You don’t care about stopping dangerous people – you just want to deport the illegal aliens.

    Phil (427875)

  20. Which are, of course . . . illegal aliens. Not criminals generally.

    Repeat offenders. Once coming in, and then once again while they’re here.

    As for American citizens they have rights enshrined in the Constitution. You want to change those, have at it. I want the laws we already have enforced.

    And I’d like to see you apologize to Patterico for smearing him.

    Pablo (99243e)

  21. “Nonsense. Criminals re-offend, and a previous offense is an indicator that the risk of a repeat offense is elevated.”

    So are our laws doing enough to deal with that risk, or not? Because if they are, then why waste the energy deporting illegal aliens to mitigate a risk that’s already been taken care of? And if they aren’t . . . why focus on deporting illegal aliens, when you’ve got ALL criminals creating an elevated risk that we need to deal with?

    I think what you’re saying is, “we’re OK with the idea that dangerous citizens are walking the streets. We just don’t want dangerous illegal aliens walking the streets.”

    So you don’t care about the danger, again. You just care that they’re illegal aliens.

    Phil (427875)

  22. Phil,

    Your case against deporting illegal-alien criminals seems to rest on an awkward series of analogies.

    Addressing your argument:

    There are people who it would be unconstitutional to deport and illogical to deport. This category includes U.S. citizens. Of all races.

    I also have no desire to see such individuals deported. Do commenters here feel otherwise? Who?

    There are other people who have no legal right to be present in the U.S.–illegal aliens.

    I don’t think it would be practical or desirable (though it may be legal) to deport hundred of thousands of illegals who have lived and worked in the U.S. for a long time and abided by our (other) laws.

    However, learning from the failed immigration reforms of 1962, 1986, and 1996, I would like to start setting a precedent that those who come to the U.S. from other countries be required to do so legally.

    Deporting convicted-criminal illegal aliens is fully consistent with this set of principles.

    Your outrage at deportation of criminal illegals seems to be based on the idea that present and future illegal aliens have as much of right to live and work in the U.S. as do citizens and, for that matter, Green Card holders. Why not state your view of that concept openly? Maybe that’s where the real disagreement lies.

    AMac (c822c9)

  23. Phil, what part of “enforce the existing law” do you not comprehend? I’m all for enforcing the law against citizen criminals. I’m also all for enforcing it against criminal aliens, which BTW, includes both legal and illegal aliens. the difference is that with the latter, they get sent back where they came from.

    Citizens have a right to remain here. Non-citizens do not, and if they want to remain here, they need to not break the law. Otherwise, they lose their privilege, a privilege that illegals stole in the first place.

    Pablo (99243e)

  24. AMAC, that’s probably where another real disagreement lies (in that I believe that restrictions on commerce and human beings’ ability to contract are generally oppressive and unproductive policies).

    But I don’t see any causational link between deporting criminal-convicted illegal aliens and causing other illegal aliens to immigrate legally. Doing the paperwork to come here legally is harder and more oppressive than what illegal aliens do to get here — crossing deserts, risking death-by-minuteman, etc.

    So it’s really hard to see how deporting those of them that commit crimes is going to be the dealbreaker than causes them to buck up and do the paperwork-plus-20-year-waitlist dance that they’re required to do to immigrate legally.

    Ultimately, yeah, I think that the restrictions on legal immigration themselves are also extremely bad policy. But that doesn’t mean I forfeit the right to say “and by the way — deporting criminal aliens doesn’t make any sense even assuming you’re right about the overall restrictive immigration policy.”

    Phil (427875)

  25. risking death-by-minuteman, etc.

    WHAT? Name one.

    You’re just a smear machine, aren’t you, Phil. You just hate Americans, don’t you Phil?

    Pablo (99243e)

  26. Phil,

    Think of the people in America as an inverse pyramid:

    All the people who live in America.

    People who commit serious crimes.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  27. Pablo, certain arguments are just so obviously mindless I avoid dealing with them. “I’m for enforcing the law” is another. This was the case for slavery, segrigation, prohibition, jim crow laws, laws preventing women from voting . . . the list goes on and on.

    Go enforce those laws, ya big lug! If that’s the extent of your reasoning capacity, I’d rather have you enforcing the laws than doing anything else, that’s for sure.

    Phil (427875)

  28. Sorry. I accidently posted before I was finished.

    All the people who live in America.
    /
    People who commit serious crimes.
    /
    Criminals who can be stopped from re-offending by a government program.
    /
    Criminals who can be stopped from re-offending by a government program that deports them.

    Is it possible we will deport a criminal alien who would not have re-offended if he had been allowed to stay? Sure, but that’s the price they pay for committing a serious crime when their status is illegal.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  29. OK, Pablo, I admit that the death-by-minuteman comment was a bit of a cheap shot. While they’d scare the hell out of me if I saw them tracking me as I was crossing the desert trying to find a minimum-wage job, I admit they haven’t killed anyone yet, as far as I know. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t feel like they wanted to kill me if I was trying to get past them, though.

    Phil (427875)

  30. OK, Pablo, I admit that the death-by-minuteman comment was a bit of a cheap shot.

    No, Phil. It’s not a cheap shot. It’s complete crap, pulled directly out of your ass and displayed like a turd created by a 9 month old’s who thinks he’s just accomplished something outstanding.

    Now, are you suggesting that the law should not be enforced? Or that it should be changed to grant illegal alien criminals the same rights as citizen criminals?

    If so, make your case. Otherwise, your argument fails for lack of reasonable prosecution. “Let’s deport the citizens” is idiocy of the highest order and bad faith argument.

    Pablo (99243e)

  31. DRJ, if you really believed that deportation of criminals would reduce crime, you’d be fighting to deport all criminals. You’re not.

    You want to deport illegal immigrants. You don’t care if they committed crimes or not (except to the extent that you think your falacious reasoning will convince others to deport the criminals when they wouldn’t deport the non-criminals).

    You want the illegal aliens to “pay a price” as you put it, for entering the country illegally. I recongize you want that, and am willing to discuss the reasons why I disagree. But that price has nothing to do with preventing crime in the U.S. That’s the falacy I’m battling right now.

    Phil (427875)

  32. Pablo, you really don’t think minutemen scare the hell out of illegal immigrants? For crying out loud, they named themselves after revolutionary war soldiers — they scare me.

    Phil (427875)

  33. We shouldn’t expect to coherently argue what the nation should do, what it can do and what we *are* doing in this realm. Blogs are about deep-seated motives, ideology and scoring points. Otherwise, the blogger celebrated for going to Iraq to debunk an angle of an AP story on mosque damage would pick up a phone, call ICE, and see whether ANY policy lapse let Terapon Adhahn remain here after his sentence. Fact-check the rumor mill. It’s so simple, a caveman could do it.

    Beyond that, it shouldn’t come as a great surprise that administrative violations are much less hassle than criminal cases for the enforcement community:

    Nationally, ICE admits it checks the legal status of only about 60 percent of immigrants who commit crimes serious enough to land them in U.S prisons. It recently set a goal of reaching 90 percent by 2009. A federal study last year found that illegal immigrants in prison had been arrested an average of eight times. Another federal study released in May found that it would cost $1.1 billion for enough detention beds to ensure the deportation of all criminals.

    Yet, less than half of all deportations from the U.S. last year involved criminals, ICE data show. In the Denver ICE region, which covers Colorado, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, half of the 3,500 people deported were criminals.

    The other half of the cases involved people who are not criminals. They are people like these:

    A Longmont woman on her way to becoming a legal resident who made an unauthorized trip to Mexico because her critically ill mother called for her. She was caught coming back and now faces deportation and separation from her husband, a legal resident, and her children, all U.S. citizens.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4757511,00.html

    steve (bf9d5b)

  34. A Longmont woman on her way to becoming a legal resident who made an unauthorized trip to Mexico because her critically ill mother called for her. She was caught coming back and now faces deportation and separation from her husband, a legal resident, and her children, all U.S. citizens.

    Hey Pablo that’s the “price she should pay” for trying to enter this country illegally, right? Enforce that law, buddy!

    Phil (427875)

  35. Phil, it is not “the price she should pay” for illegally entering the country. It simply is what it means to be here illegally, ie., she does not have the right to stay.

    Trying to put the violins in the background at higher volume does not change that.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  36. Trying to put the violins in the background at higher volume does not change that.

    Oh yeah, Robin, we wouldn’t want to get all emotional and anecdotal about this, would we. Using heartbreaking isolated incidents to prove a general point is a bad idea. We should be objective about this.

    Unless we’re doing a “deport the criminals first” series showing heartbreaking examples of isolated incidents to prove a general point about deporting convicted alien criminals, that is.

    Phil (427875)

  37. Is the plan to depor criminals when they:

    1. Are arrested?
    2. Are convicted?
    3. Have served their sentence?

    And how does that apply to Zina Linnik’s killer, Terapon Adhahn?

    Looking at this story:

    In 1975, his mother married an American soldier and the family moved to the U.S. two years later.

    In 1983, Adhahn enlisted in the Army, eventually becoming an Airborne Ranger, according to the documents.

    Married in 1986, Adhahn and his wife had a daughter.

    http://tinyurl.com/2udfvv

    He seem to have been far more American than “immigrant” at the time he committted this crime.

    alphie (015011)

  38. “As you should know, the usual practice around the world when someone is convicted of a crime is to have them serve their custodial sentence,”
    Unless he worked for GW Bush.
    This is so fun.
    “Los An-ge-les” “San Di-e-go” “Te-jas” “A-ri-zo-na”
    “Naf-ta” “Lib-by”

    As if any of you know or care about history, context or the poor.
    Y’all need something to be angry about and someone [else!] to blame.

    AF (4a3fa6)

  39. Alphie – People are still waiting for those statistics you promised in support of partial birth abortion on the other thread. Stand and deliver!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  40. And how does that apply to Zina Linnik’s killer, Terapon Adhahn?

    You neglected to mention this part of the story, Alphie.

    Looky here at what Allah at Hot Air found:

    According to the Pierce County Proescutor’s Office , Adhahn was booked into the Pierce County Jail on one count of kidnapping and three counts of first degree child rape for the May 31, 2000 kidnapping and rape of an 11-year-old girl who was found duct taped to a tree at Fort Lewis.

    Adhahn has also been booked on one count of first degree rape, three counts of second degree rape and three counts of third degree child rape involving a girl who lived with him between 2001 and 2005.

    There are an additional 50 counts of third degree child rape. Tacoma Police would not say what case those counts relate to. Probable cause documents indicate the girl that had lived with Adhahn told investigators that she was raped once or twice a week and that the total number of rapes was somewhere between 150 and 200.

    Allah follows up with this comment:

    If the feds had been on top of it, he could have been deported in 1992.

    So where’s your “He seem to have been far more American than “immigrant” at the time he committted this crime” now?

    You want to deport illegal immigrants. You don’t care if they committed crimes or not (except to the extent that you think your falacious reasoning will convince others to deport the criminals when they wouldn’t deport the non-criminals).

    You want the illegal aliens to “pay a price” as you put it, for entering the country illegally. I recongize you want that, and am willing to discuss the reasons why I disagree. But that price has nothing to do with preventing crime in the U.S. That’s the falacy I’m battling right now.

    No, you are battling your own projection, Phil.

    Paul (0544fc)

  41. Paul,

    He was brought to America by a U.S. soldier when he was a child.

    He himself served in the U.S. Army.

    He married here and fathered a child.

    You have to admit, he is not a typical illegal immigrant.

    alphie (015011)

  42. Phil says:

    If any of the tragic crimes that you point to in your “deport the criminals first” series really bothered you, you’d do what you could to stop the tragedies from repeating themselves generally in our society.

    But you don’t.

    Right, Phil. All I did was take a 60% pay cut to become a prosecutor for a living.

    You don’t appear to really care about the real tragedy in American — that 18,000 people each year are killed by drunk drivers.

    I have two cases assigned to me right now where people drove drunk and killed someone. I’m going to bookmark your comment, and come back and read it for grins when I’m killing my weekend preparing an argument for one of those cases. Just to remind myself of why I do this job.

    In a separate thread, Phil, you made this outrageous and unsupported statement:

    They will never let go of idea because rational arguments fail to express their irrational fear of illegal immigrants. They have to generalize specific instances of particular crimes onto the general population, because that’s the only way they can express what is essentially unexpressible in a rational dialog.

    So they latch on to various fal[l]acies — “immigrants are TERRORISTS” . . . “immigrants have LEPROSY” . . . “immigrants are LAZY” . . . “immigrants are STEALING YOUR JOBS” . . . “immigrants are VIOLENT CRIMINALS.” What they’re really saying is always the same — “we are terrified of/full of hatred of illegal immigrants, and we want you to be, too.”

    I challenged you to provide specific examples, or apologize. Instead of providing specific examples — which you can’t, because they don’t exist — you launched into your usual logic-challenged rant about how my arguments logically mean that we should start deporting citizens. I’m not having that debate with you, because 1) your point is stupid, 2) we’ve been through it before, and most important, 3) you’re changing the subject.

    You made a very, very serious accusation about me in the language in the block quote above. You can’t back it up. You know you can’t, yet you refuse to admit it.

    That is the very definition of a smear artist.

    I’m done debating this issue with you, because there’s no reason for me to spin my wheels — and increase my blood pressure — trying to reason with someone who lacks the reasoning powers of my seven-year-old, who distorts things that I say, and who insults me as you have on this thread.

    I almost didn’t say anything at all to you in response, because I couldn’t really think of any response that was in any way polite. Rest assured I have self-censored about 95% of what I’d really like to say.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  43. alphie,

    We are still awaiting those statistics. Didn’t you say the court cases backed up what you said?

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  44. Aaah, the abortion stats?

    There does not seem to one true answer.

    The “official” stats kept by groups like the CDC show a very low number of late term abortions, consistant with health of the mother/fatal fetal abnormalities line. But these stats seem to be incomplete.

    Then there is anectodal, but fairly persuasive data that suggests a large number of late term abortions are being performed on poor womaen.

    I think we’re looking at John Edward’s “two Americas.”

    Wealthy woman having late term abortions for their health or health of the fetus reasons.

    And poverty-stricken woman having them because, among other reasons, they were so obese, they didn’t know they were pregnant for 20+ weeks or it took them months to scrape together the funds to have one.

    alphie (015011)

  45. I think what you’re trying to say, alphie, is that your piehole made some promises that the facts can’t cash.

    Notable lack of links in your comment there, by the way. And here I thought it was me, with my citations to Washington Post articles and other citations, whose evidence was lacking — according to you.

    My kingdom for a liberal commenter willing to forthrightly admit he’s wrong when he’s wrong.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  46. I seem to remember you considered the anecdotal evidence as facts, Patterico. I’m willing to grant they cast doubt on the “facts.”

    As for “liberal,” I’m probably more conservative than you are.

    Consider me part of the non-judgemental right.

    alphie (015011)

  47. You have to admit, he is not a typical illegal immigrant.

    You’re right, Alphie. Most illegal immigrants don’t rack up 62 counts of rape and kidnapping charges.

    Paul (0544fc)

  48. Pablo, you really don’t think minutemen scare the hell out of illegal immigrants? For crying out loud, they named themselves after revolutionary war soldiers — they scare me.

    How do you feel about the Minnesota Vikings, Phil? Or coyotes?

    Pablo (99243e)

  49. Most illegal immigrants don’t rack up 62 counts of rape and kidnapping charges.

    And he was a legal immigrant, who should have been deported.

    Any of you lefties want to list the countries that let you sneak in, commit crimes and stay as long as you like? Or is it just America that ought to do that?

    Pablo (99243e)

  50. alphie is always taking extreme left-wing positions and defending them by saying he’s more conservative then me or, well, almost anyone.

    Yeah right. You only think you’re conservative because you’re so far off the wall left, everything is conservative to you. That, or you’re being dishonest about your orientation.

    Come out of the closet, alphie… it’s okay. Being a liberal isn’t that bad. You’ve got a better chance at picking up diseased Hollywood starlets that way.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  51. Should he have been deported before or after he served as a Ranger in the U.S. Army, Pablo?

    alphie (015011)

  52. He should have been deported after his 2nd conviction in 1992. You do the math, alphie.

    Pablo (99243e)

  53. Should he have been deported before or after he served as a Ranger in the U.S. Army, Pablo?

    He should have been hit hard at the base of the neck with the edge of a shovel and thrown into a dry ditch the first time he molested a child. I watched my uncle do that to chicken-killing dog once.

    nk (37689a)

  54. P.S. Are you still more conservative than me, Alphie?

    nk (37689a)

  55. Christoph,

    Don’t get confused here.

    My brand of conservatism is the “live and let live” style.

    The members of the “right” who have judged a large percentage of the world’s population their enemies hold beliefs completely opposite than mine.

    Yet we are both lumped together on the right.

    Wacky old world, eh?

    alphie (015011)

  56. P.S. Are you still more conservative than me, Alphie?

    Here’s a little test, nk. Do you think child molesters should be Rangers?

    Pablo (99243e)

  57. P.P.S. This idiotic defense of a child-molester and child-murderer, by Phil and Alphie, apparently because he’s a deportable alien … yaargh!

    nk (37689a)

  58. Here’s a little test, nk. Do you think child molesters should be Rangers?

    If their primary MOS is human target or bayonet practice dummy … well, sure. 😉

    nk (37689a)

  59. Phil #31:

    Your arguments are so circular I’m dizzy so I’m going to take a break from trying to discuss things with you … for the next year or so.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  60. We were rather weak on facts and figures, on causes and consequences, and shied away from arguments about practicalities. If defeated on one point we just retreated to another; we did not change our beliefs.

    The circular argument syndrome of the left, as manifested by Phil as well as the BBC.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  61. Patricia,

    That was a fascinating article. Thank you for linking it.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  62. Haha,

    I’m not defending the guy, nk.

    The interaction of two archetypes of the judgemental right, soldiers and criminal immigrants, fascinates me.

    alphie (015011)

  63. Phil – Should noncitizens be allowed to vote in the U.S.?

    Your belief system, based on comments in this and prior threads, appears to be that a sovereign nation should not be allowed to choose who enters its country. There should be no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, because they should both be equal under the law. No one should require passports under this theory because there is no reason to restrict or monitor movement of people. Borders should not exist. Laws that Phil does not like should not be obeyed.

    Correct any of my misinterpretations Phil.

    Based on the above summary as a starting point for his argument, rather than our existing system of laws and government, it is easy to see why it is not worth trying to engage Phil in any type of a discussion.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  64. I’m done debating this issue with you, because there’s no reason for me to spin my wheels — and increase my blood pressure — trying to reason with someone who lacks the reasoning powers of my seven-year-old, who distorts things that I say, and who insults me as you have on this thread.

    I’m not sure what specific “insults” I’ve made, but I think the above probably releases me from any obligation to apologize for them, since you’ve dong a nice tit-for-tat. Although I’m sure your daughter is above-average for a seven-year-old, so it’s not as bad as it could have been.

    Have I argued that your fear of illegal aliens is irrational? Yes, and I’ve stated my reasons. There’s a difference between challenging a person’s ideas and saying that the person themself lacks reasoning power. If I’ve ever insulted your reasoning ability (as opposed to questioning whether your opinions were rationally based), I do apologize.

    If I thought you lacked reasoning power, I wouldn’t bother to talk to you about this stuff. I obviously hold you in higher esteem than you hold me, but that’s OK.

    I’m not particularly offended by being personally insulted. Especially when it’s done by someone in defense their ideas (i.e. “I’m right because you have the logical reasoning powers of my seven-year-old”). The motivation for the personal insults is pretty obvious, and it’s not really my lack of reasoning power . . .

    Phil (427875)

  65. Coming back to several different commenters saying my reasoning is “circular” is bizzare. What is more circular than the following arguments:

    1. We should deport illegal aliens because we can.

    2. We should better enforce immigration law, because it’s the law.

    I’m not being circular, I’m being rational. I’m looking for reasons that the immigration policies are effective. I’m looking for evidence that we’ll be better of if we actually deport aliens. I’m not looking for post-hoc claims that “this horrible tragedy could have been prevented if we’d deported this person.” That’s not a rational argument, it’s an emotional appeal attempting to provoke a reaction.

    The pro-deportation movement, as far as I can tell so far, is being just that — reactionary. It’s the rational equivalent of punching a wall when you’re mad — you’re doing something, but that’s about it.

    Phil (427875)

  66. I’m not looking for post-hoc claims that “this horrible tragedy could have been prevented if we’d deported this person.”

    That’s not a claim, Phil. That’s an empirically evidenced fact. Are you saying that it isn’t? Are you suggesting that the cases in Patterico’s series would still have happened if the perpetrators were not here to perpetrate the acts?

    Pablo (99243e)

  67. And are you saying there isn’t an illegal immigration problem? Did you support the recently failed reform, Phil?

    Pablo (99243e)

  68. Phil, you told me, a prosecutor, that I don’t care about repeat criminals; that I don’t appear to care about DUIs; that I am terrified/full of hatred for illegal immigrants and want my readers to be, too.

    The insults started with you.

    You said things about my writing that aren’t true and refused to provide evidence.

    You are a smear artist.

    So shocking that you used to be a journalist.

    I don’t believe that all journalists are like you, but people like you — people with no ability to reason and a huge ability to smear others — are exactly what’s wrong with journalism today.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  69. I think I should follow DRJ’s example and stop talking to you. Nothing good comes of it.

    Maybe I’ll write up a post about what a smear artist you are and in the future when you do another of your smears I’ll just link it. It would save me a lot of time and aggravation.

    Until and unless I do that, just understand that I consider everything you say about me to be a smear.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  70. if you ever find the courage and decency to apologize without reservation for all the untrue shit you have said about me, of course, I will change my mind.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  71. I guess you could take the time to make some sort of overarching post about what a smear artist I am. I have no no interest in defending myself against charges of being a “smear artist” whatever that is. If you want to call me that, so be it.

    Also, I will make an unqualified apology for any implication that you do not have powers of reason, or reasoning ability. I don’t think I’ve ever said that, but if I have, I apologies. I have never intentionally dismissed you as unable to reason. If I have ever implied such, I unqualifiedly apologize.

    In my estimation, your assertion that deporting anyone from this country will make those remaining in the country truly safer, is utterly without logical basis, and utterly unsupported by any rational evidence. The only basis I have seen for such an assertion is, as I said, an emotional reaction to past tragedies that is akin to punching a wall out of anger.

    Saying this particular idea is irrational and based on fear and anger is not a personal insult to you. Very rational, intelligent people punch walls out of anger when they are pushed over the edge. It is a human thing to do — we are not merely rational beings. Saying someone is acting irrationally is entirely different from saying they are not capable of being rational.

    I do think that your hop up onto the deportation bandwagon is an irrational act, and I’m trying to talk you down from it. I am trying to talk you down from it because I know you are capable of being rational.

    That’s why I am able to shake off your (truly personal) insults that I am a “smear artist” that I am a person with “no ability to reason and a huge ability to smear others,” etc. Those don’t offend me, because I’m trying to engage you in a rational discussion. I won’t ask you for an apology for those statements, because they’re simply irrelivant to the rational discussion I’m attempting to initiate.

    Phil (427875)

  72. Phil, it’s easy to assume a pose of rationality when you distort others’ positions.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  73. It’s a necessity when you’ve got absolutely nothing, including enough integrity to admit that you’re wrong.

    Pablo (99243e)

  74. I hear ya, Patterico — it happens to me all the time here. Most of the comments I made get the response “so your saying . . .” and then they say the opposite of what I thought I said. Your comment that I personally insulted you is a fine example. I was trying to characterize the emotional irrationality of a position — the position that deportation was a good idea.

    I presented the various arguments that have been raised supporting it — such as immigrants are dangerous, have leprosy, are criminals, are stealing jobs. None of this was intended to be a personal insult to you, I was just summarizing all of what I see as the irrational arguments supporting deportation. Your “deport the criminals first” series is one such irrational argument, in my opinion.

    Yet you and various others bounced back at me the concept that I was personally insulting you by saying things about you that weren’t true. Yet I’m was talking about ideas, not people. My only reference to particular people was to point out that they (you, Malkin, etc) were buying into these ideas that I think are absurd.

    Phil (427875)

  75. Phil,

    I’ll channel you.

    I’m not calling you a smear artist. I’m just attacking your *ideas* — your IDEA that it’s OK to accuse others of saying illegals are generally criminals when they’ve said no such thing; your IDEA that it’s not an insult to tell a prosecutor that he doesn’t care about crime when he often stays up past midnight and works weekends to fight crime; your IDEA that just because someone doesn’t share your idiosyncratic open-borders view, it’s OK to suggest that they are a racist. You know: your IDEAS.

    Please believe that I’m not insulting you when I say that your IDEAS show you don’t care about keeping little girls from being raped and murdered. It’s nothing personal to note that you obviously want to see more Zina Linniks killed. We’re just discussing ideas here, like your idea that it’s OK for little girls to be raped.

    Nothing personal. Please, be rational, Mr. Baby-rape advocate.

    Patterico (99121b)

  76. Patterico – Don’t forget the drunk driving accidents. Phil is big on those. He is apparently advocating not preventing those by not deporting repeat offenders of DUI laws.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  77. Phil, there is nothing “rational” about misrepresenting the “deport the criminals first” position as though it were a “deport all illegals because we can.” Whatever the merits of deporting illegal aliens generally, it defies reason to argue that we cannot make society safer by deporting the specific illegals who are already known to have committed serious crimes (in addition to the crime of being here illegally).

    If you really think that a policy of zero border enforcement will make us just as safe as a policy of zero border enforcement for most illegals, but instant deportation of those who have committed crimes against people, then by all means, make your case. Just don’t pretend that the argument is about all immigrants, or in this case, even all illegals.

    Xrlq (0e2175)

  78. Patterico – Don’t forget the drunk driving accidents. Phil is big on those. He is apparently advocating not preventing those by not deporting repeat offenders of DUI laws.

    C’mon, give these guys a break. All they’re doing is consuming booze that Americans won’t drink, and then get behind the wheel of cars Americans won’t drive.

    Xrlq (0e2175)

  79. (applause)

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  80. Let it all out, Patterico . . . then tell me how you actually believe that deporting criminals will truly reduce crime — and not just have the effect of putting some illegal aliens on the other side of the border, temporarily.

    Show me an actual cause-and-effect relationship between deporting convicted criminals, and a reduction in crime generally. Even a cause-and-effect relationship between deporting convicted criminals and a reduction in crime among illegal aliens (who, by the way, are already committing crimes in lower numbers than the general population).

    Just give me something, other than “well, if we’d had my suggested policy in the past, and all other factors were exactly the same, this tragedy would have been avoided.” That’s not a rational argument because we know that all other factors would not have been the same. So it makes no ration sense to assume that all other factors would be the same.

    For example, you could say “if we deported all blacks in 1980, then assuming everything else remained the same, Nicole Brown Simpson would be alive today.” That’s an absurd assertion, because if we deported all blacks, everything else would not have remained the same. Nicole Brown Simpson might or might not be alive — who knows, maybe she would have fallen in love with some white wife-killing football player and died anyway. And the collateral consequences of deporting all black people would be huge.

    Likewise, this argument is irrational: “If we deported all illegal aliens with criminal records, and everything else remained the same, the victims of the crimes I list in my ‘deport the crimnals first’ series would be better off.”

    Phil (427875)

  81. Correction regarding the above post: I don’t know what the relationship is between illegal alien crimes and the general population. I was referring to the more general fact that first-generation immigrants are incarcerated at a much lower rate than the general population (this is true specifically of first-generation hispanics compared to Hispanics born in the U.S.).

    Phil (427875)

  82. I hear ya, Patterico — it happens to me all the time here. Most of the comments I made get the response “so your saying . . .” and then they say the opposite of what I thought I said.

    I don’t believe that’s the case in my comments #66 and #67. Feel free to explain how your thoughts are different than what I asked you if they were. You know, that’s the whole purpose of the “Are you saying…” construct, to promt you to explain your position, as opposed to the “Here’s what you think…” construct you’re so fond of.

    I was referring to the more general fact that first-generation immigrants are incarcerated at a much lower rate than the general population (this is true specifically of first-generation hispanics compared to Hispanics born in the U.S.).

    Patterico, you’ve probably got the stat on this. What percentage of outstanding California murder warrants are for illegals?

    Pablo (99243e)

  83. In the same spirit as my previous comment (channelling Phil):

    Let’s not forget, Phil, that the victims of illegal aliens criminals are generally minorities. So not only do you not care about little girls being raped and murdered, you especially don’t care if they are minorities. Back in the South, if blacks were raped and murdered, their lives were worth less. That’s how Phil feels about little minority girls getting raped. I don’t want to insult him by calling him a racist, but I don’t think I need to. His arguments say it all.

    That’s my rational and non-insulting take. I know Phil can be rational when he wants. I’m trying to talk him out of being a racist supporter of the rape and murder of young minority girls. There is no other rational explanation for his arguments.

    — Patterico the Eminently Rational and Non-Insulting

    Patterico (f25b6a)

  84. Pablo # 82, What percentage of outstanding California murder warrants are for illegals

    That’s not the right stat. That’s an entirely different stat. While it would be an interesting stat to know, it in no way gives us any clear picture of what crime rates are among illegal immigrants as a group.

    From #66: Are you suggesting that the cases in Patterico’s series would still have happened if the perpetrators were not here to perpetrate the acts?

    I am suggesting that we don’t know (1) whether or not those specific tragedies would have happened if a policy of deporting illegals with criminal records were enforced, and (2) whether such a policy would produce any net benefit, or simply shift harms around, causing an equal or greater tragedy somewhere else. Also, because of (2), it’s also really strange to care much about proving (1), since we can’t possibly turn back the clock anyway.

    From #67 “And are you saying there isn’t an illegal immigration problem?”

    Interesting choice of words — let me refer you to the title of this article “Immigration Reforms: A solution in search of a problem”

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/06/immigration_restrictions_a_sol.cfm

    Phil (427875)

  85. OK, Patterico, you have persuaded me that I have been too aggressive in asserting that you actually don’t think stopping criminals is important, as opposed to just pointing out that I don’t think the policy you’re advocating actually stops crimes from occuring. See my post in your “abortion funding” thread for an example of you doing the same thing, by saying Edwards and Obama want more abortions, rather than saying you think their policy will cause more abortions.

    It’s true that I can’t show (and don’t really believe) that you don’t care about stopping the crimes you describe in your “deport the criminals first” columns. Nobody can prove (or even know for sure) what another person actually thinks or believes.

    By asserting that you don’t care about stopping these crimes, I am making statements, for rhetorical effect, and challenging you to disprove them. I know you spend your career trying to fight crime — what better way to dig you for irrationality in this position that point out that it doesn’t really stop the crimes from occuring?

    Am I sorry for this? Well, I’m sorry to the extent that using such rhetorical techniques has not caused you to disprove my assertion by explaining how deporting the illegals actually helps stop crime — but rather has just made you mad.

    Debating on blogs so often descends into retorical attempts to score points that have nothing to do with actual rational debate. I think that at least in part, my characterization was an attempt to score points. And for that I apologize. Because I’m not ultimately interested in making you mad, except to the extent that it causes you to re-examine the actual effects of the policy you’re proposing.

    Phil (427875)

  86. I am suggesting that we don’t know (1) whether or not those specific tragedies would have happened if a policy of deporting illegals with criminal records were enforced,

    Of course we do. The perps would have been deported and wouldn’t have been here to make those tragedies happen. Duh.

    BTW, that’s not “a” policy, it’s “the” policy, as in “existing, duly enacted law”.

    and (2) whether such a policy would produce any net benefit, or simply shift harms around, causing an equal or greater tragedy somewhere else.

    And our obligation is protect Americans and keep America secure. We have no obligation to keep another country’s criminals, and they have no right to remain. What other nations let keep criminal aliens stay as long as they like?

    Also, because of (2), it’s also really strange to care much about proving (1), since we can’t possibly turn back the clock anyway.

    No, we can’t turn the clock back. But we can take action to prevent similar occurrances in the future. Don’t you think people should learn from their mistakes, Phil? Don’t you think governments should look at past problems and take action to prevent them?

    Interesting choice of words — let me refer you to the title of this article “Immigration Reforms: A solution in search of a problem”

    Interesting way to completely dodge the question.

    No wait, it’s not interesting at all. It’s predictable and transparent. It’s Phil.

    Pablo (99243e)

  87. And for that I apologize. Because I’m not ultimately interested in making you mad, except to the extent that it causes you to re-examine the actual effects of the policy you’re proposing.

    And what are those effects, Phil? Let me start the list:

    1. People who enter the country illegally and then break another law have to go home.

    2.???

    Pablo (99243e)

  88. Yes, Phil.

    Telling a prosecutor he doesn’t care about preventing crime will make him mad.

    Telling a prosecutor he doesn’t care about DUIs when he has two cases with dead bodies from DUIs will make him mad.

    Telling a prosecutor who works in Compton — which is majority Hispanc — who regularly deals with victims who are probably illegal; who deals with them sympathetically and nonjudgmentally; who regularly expresses sympathy for the plight of hardworking illegals . . . telling that prosecutor that he is fearful of illegals and wants to convince everyone that they’re all terrorists . . . that’s going to make him really, really mad.

    Phil, you don’t know a goddamn thing about me other than the things I write here, none of which give you cause to smear me as you have.

    If you were trying to promote rational discussion, you’d do just about as well by screaming outside my bedroom window at 4 a.m. and pissing on my flowerbed.

    You haven’ t shown an interest in rational conversation, until now. Until now, you’ve shown only a proclivity for taking cheap shots.

    Do not ever again make comments about me that suggest I would be bad at my job. Like that I don’t care about crime. I will ban your ass the next time you do it and I won’t look back. You have a history with this, and you don’t seem to learn.

    You’re showing some good faith here, but I still don’t think you understand how deeply you offended me, or why. Until you show that understanding, I’m going to take a vacation from responding to you.

    Patterico (b593c8)

  89. Let me get this straight juries are always right like OJ Simpson’s jury right? On the other hand all drug smuggler’s carrying a million dollar load always go about unarmed right?

    Now I am not sure what the jury saw but based on the conduct of Nifong and Fitzgerald and Sutton’s behavior let’s just say I have grave doubts about whether the jury had all the facts on which to make an informed decision.

    It seemed to me Sutton couldn’t respond to Hannity’s points but did sound amazing like Nifong or Fitzgerald, now if that is nuanced its a disease that lawyers must fear like contracting the plague. Its also noteworthy that Sutton has or is prosecuting other law enforcement officials on what appears to be shakey grounds but wqith the input of the Mexican government.

    Can we all say corrupt government official kiddies?

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  90. Pablo . . . I guess you can always start over, huh?

    1: People who enter the country illegally and then break another law have to go home.

    2: More people coming across the border. Those people still want to be here more than they want to be at “home” and so they will probably try to come back. Because deported people have already been here once, they know how to get back even quicker than those coming here for the first time.

    4: Families are torn apart. Because you’re only deporting the “convict” you’re often splitting up families, potentially even leaving children without their one parent.

    5: Homelessness in Mexico increases. Because these are generally people who have paid a lot to get here, you aren’t sending them “home,” you’re sending them to a country they had successfully escaped from.

    6: Law enforcement costs increase, and taxes go up (both for us and Mexico), as we undertake the administrative task of shipping large numbers of people across the border. Where do they go from there? This is a cost for us (shipping them) and a cost for Mexico (what does Mexico do with massive numbers of homeless people being dumped across your border?).

    That’s just off the top of my head. And as far as I can see, effect number one is the only positive effect (if you can call it that — I call it a neutral effect at best) people who are in favor of this policy can summon.

    Phil (427875)

  91. Patterico, I’ve apologized, but I think you’re tough enough to handle it. People say all kinds of stuff about each other that obviously isn’t true in these comments — I rarely bother to even try to argue with them.

    The only reason I’m apologizing to you is because you claim I have touched a real nerve, rather than simply scoring “points” in rhetorical debate. And since I generally think your blog is top-notch, and am often awed by your production levels, I respect you and have no interest in actually hurting your feelings.

    So I’m a bit surprised if you’re as offended as you say you are. I can’t help but worrying that you’re just milking this dramatically in order to get me to eat crow and apologize further. But I am truly sorry for any actual emotional distress I have caused.

    Phil (427875)

  92. 2: More people coming across the border. Those people still want to be here more than they want to be at “home” and so they will probably try to come back. Because deported people have already been here once, they know how to get back even quicker than those coming here for the first time.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    4: Families are torn apart. Because you’re only deporting the “convict” you’re often splitting up families, potentially even leaving children without their one parent.

    As our host has noted, we don’t give US citizens’ familes a vote in their breadwinner’s prison sentence? Why do you want illegal aliens’ familes to have a right that citizens do not?

    5: Homelessness in Mexico increases. Because these are generally people who have paid a lot to get here, you aren’t sending them “home,” you’re sending them to a country they had successfully escaped from.

    You are really reaching here. When you send a Mexican to Mexico, he is ‘home’ not ‘homeless.’ Having lived in Mexico, I posit that mamá will welcome him with open arms. Abrazos all around.

    6: Law enforcement costs increase, and taxes go up (both for us and Mexico), as we undertake the administrative task of shipping large numbers of people across the border. Where do they go from there? This is a cost for us (shipping them) and a cost for Mexico (what does Mexico do with massive numbers of homeless people being dumped across your border?).

    Just a quickie on costs going up – what about the costs of the repeat crimes committed by convicted criminals who are illegal aliens? i.e., the entire point of this conversation? And the “homeless people” think is a canard that you just made up in #5, BTW.

    That’s just off the top of my head. And as far as I can see, effect number one is the only positive effect (if you can call it that — I call it a neutral effect at best) people who are in favor of this policy can summon.

    Right. Having less illegal alien criminals in the United States (ergo – less total criminals) is the only positive effect of deporting illegal alien criminals. Brilliant. So what is your point again?

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  93. Ah, Carlitos . . . nothing like getting back to the discussion at hand. There’s nothing quite like the starry-eyed optimism of the “deport them now” crowd. It’s really a testament to the human spirit.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Um, only to the extend that personal experience at doing something effectively is not evidence of personal experience at doing something effectively. But OK . . .

    As our host has noted, we don’t give US citizens’ familes a vote in their breadwinner’s prison sentence? Why do you want illegal aliens’ familes to have a right that citizens do not?

    Of course the impact on families is considered. That’s why we’ve got visitation, work release, home detention, and sentencing hearings in our criminal justice system. Not to mention penalties that are designed to reduce the commission of crimes, rather than to kick illegal aliens out of the country.

    You are really reaching here. When you send a Mexican to Mexico, he is ‘home’ not ‘homeless.’ Having lived in Mexico, I posit that mamá will welcome him with open arms. Abrazos all around.

    So let me get this straight. Are you saying “yeah, we kicked them out of their residence, and dropped them in a country where they have no job and no residence. But they’re not HOMELESS.” OK . . .

    Just a quickie on costs going up – what about the costs of the repeat crimes committed by convicted criminals who are illegal aliens.

    Good question. I’ve asked for some sort of evidence that deporting convicted illegal aliens actually reduces crime by illegal aliens. Considering that torn-apart families and homelessness tend not to be crime-reducing factors, I’m not optimistic, but I’m still waiting for the statistics. Get back to me on that one.

    Phil (427875)

  94. Um, only to the extend that personal experience at doing something effectively is not evidence of personal experience at doing something effectively. But OK . . .

    My wide-eyed optimism considers the fact that the border may not work exactly the same after our criminal guest serves out his sentence. For instance, there may be a wall there where there wasn’t one 12 years ago when he strolled over. It’s a thought, anyway.

    Of course the impact on families is considered. That’s why we’ve got visitation, work release, home detention, and sentencing hearings in our criminal justice system. Not to mention penalties that are designed to reduce the commission of crimes, rather than to kick illegal aliens out of the country.

    Fair points. Of course, his family does get the same visitation rights and sentencing hearing.

    Wouldn’t reducing illegal immigration reduce crime, just by definition? Anyway, how you don’t see that less criminals means less crime, I just don’t fathom. It’s like when the New York Times wrote that “crime is down, BUT prison populations are up.”

    So let me get this straight. Are you saying “yeah, we kicked them out of their residence, and dropped them in a country where they have no job and no residence. But they’re not HOMELESS.” OK . . .

    Extended families tend to live together in Mexico, so no, not exactly. Even if true, is this the problem of the United States of America?

    As for your statistics, while it’s obvious that deporting criminals reduces the criminal population, I have no idea where to find them. Partly because of cities who don’t even ask immigration status, so you can’t tell what the numbers are, since no one ever gets deported in the first place.

    carlitos (b38ae1)

  95. I don’t believe that all journalists are like you…

    Phil is a journalist? By this you mean he is a journalist in the way the Kos Kids are diarists, right?

    TakeFive (2bf7bd)

  96. Even if it’s correct that illegal immigrants break the law at rates equal to or lower than the general population, the recidivism rate for criminals (whatever their legal status) is significantly higher than it is for the general population. We can and do use all available legal tools to protect society from convicted criminals, e.g.: Putting offenders on probation and monitoring them after they are released; and requiring pedophiles and sex offenders to register and prohibiting them from living near schools. In addition, we should use the legal tool of deportation to protect society from illegal immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  97. More people coming across the border. 2: More people coming across the border. Those people still want to be here more than they want to be at “home” and so they will probably try to come back. Because deported people have already been here once, they know how to get back even quicker than those coming here for the first time.

    Sending criminals back home makes more people come? How is that? What you’re saying is like saying that we shouldn’t send people to jail, because once they’ve been there, they’ll have a better idea of how to escape. Ludicrous. Idiotic. Disingenuous.

    4: Families are torn apart. Because you’re only deporting the “convict” you’re often splitting up families, potentially even leaving children without their one parent.

    Putting criminals in prison does that, except that deported criminals can take their families with them when they go home. Should we not lock people up for this reason?

    Irrelevant, especially when there’s an easy way to avoid the problem: don’t break the law.

    5: Homelessness in Mexico increases. Because these are generally people who have paid a lot to get here, you aren’t sending them “home,” you’re sending them to a country they had successfully escaped from.

    Sounds like a home country problem, and it isn’t just Mexico we’re talking about. But given that Mexico ships so many of they’re problems here here, it doesn’t bother me at all to ship a few back.

    6: Law enforcement costs increase, and taxes go up (both for us and Mexico), as we undertake the administrative task of shipping large numbers of people across the border.

    Yeah, crime has societal costs attached. Shocka! But once we dump them wherever they might have come from, it’s not our problem, is it? What massive numbers are you talking about? Are you saying that there’s a massive number of illegal alien criminals here, Phil?

    Are you really? Because that’s an interesting argument. Almost as interesting as #3, which was your best point.

    Pablo (99243e)

  98. So let me get this straight. Are you saying “yeah, we kicked them out of their residence, and dropped them in a country where they have no job and no residence. But they’re not HOMELESS.” OK . . .

    What were they when they came here, Phil?

    Pablo (99243e)

  99. Families are torn apart. Because you’re only deporting the “convict” you’re often splitting up families, potentially even leaving children without their one parent.

    You know, I hear this a lot. If my family and I went to live illegally somewhere, and I got kicked out of the country, I would hope they would come back with me.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  100. Now Phil considers the US a welfare program for all of the world, especially latin america.

    Amazing.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  101. Patterico – I think I finally figured it out. The lies, the gibberish, the moronic logic, the lack of coherent thought pattern. It all fits.

    Phil is a sockpuppet for Greenwald!!!

    He’s here to torment you.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  102. daleyrocks, you mean … that Phil has been quoted on the floor of the Senate? Oh, the horror!

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  103. President Bush and his friend Johnny Sutton don’t like the idea of a commutation:

    At a town-hall style meeting, Bush also rebuffed a question about whether he would consider pardoning two Border Patrol agents in prison for the cover-up of the shooting of a drug trafficker in Texas.

    “No, I won’t make you that promise,” Bush told a woman who asked about a possible pardon. Many Republicans in Congress have said the men should not have been convicted and have criticized the federal U.S. attorney for even prosecuting the agents.

    “I know it’s an emotional issue but people need to look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts” as presented by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, said Bush. Bush called Sutton a friend.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  104. I am making statements, for rhetorical effect, and challenging you to disprove them.

    You’re pulling contrary statements out of the air that have no basis in fact just for rhetorical effect and challenging everyone to disprove them. Isn’t that sort of the definition of “troll”?

    Patricia (824fa1)

  105. If my family and I went to live illegally somewhere, and I got kicked out of the country, I would hope they would come back with me.
    Comment by Patterico — 7/19/2007 @ 3:39 pm

    Why would they want to go live with a HOMELESS guy though 😉

    carlitos (b38ae1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1223 secs.