[Old Man G Funk]

"could be" doesnt quite compare to the 22% of all prisoners that are illegal immigrants now does it?
The point is that if we made people apply for work visas to come, we could deny those with prior backgrounds, and hence, reduce the number of criminals coming across. I found it painful to have to spell that out for you.

And, as Silver has pointed out to you, your 22% is meaningless by itself.

Also, I would be willing to be that that number is somewhat inflated by the way our justice system works. If a white guy commits a crime, he is probably much less likely to serve jail time than an illegal immigrant.

Also, background checks don't necessarily catch anything. Do you think all the illegals that are caught breaking the law here had priors? Do you think that all the legals that will end up breaking the law here have priors? It's painful to have to point out all of your assumptions that haven't yet been backed up.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And, as Silver has pointed out to you, your 22% is meaningless by itself.

Also, I would be willing to be that that number is somewhat inflated by the way our justice system works. If a white guy commits a crime, he is probably much less likely to serve jail time than an illegal immigrant.

Also, background checks don't necessarily catch anything. Do you think all the illegals that are caught breaking the law here had priors? Do you think that all the legals that will end up breaking the law here have priors? It's painful to have to point out all of your assumptions that haven't yet been backed up.

And you continue to ignore the simple facts.

The 22% that are in OUR jails being paid for by OUR money simply shouldnt be here.

Most criminals are REPEAT offenders. This is a known fact.

Yet you continue to throw in things like "if it was a white guy" or "not ALL criminals" or "background checks dont always" ... this is the problem with people like you. Of course nothing is perfect, yet you continue to deny simple facts for odd exceptions.

Yeah, good plan. Same as all your other arguments. This is painful to watch, and oh so predictable.

EDIT: Think about what you're saying here. Basically you're advocating that we just allow whoever the hell to come in here, and not worry about their past, be they serial killers, child molestors, etc.. That is ****ing stupid.

 

[Silver]

Where are you getting 22% from?

You're about as accurate as your hockey predictions....

 

[BurlyShirley]

Where are you getting 22% from?

You're about as accurate as your hockey predictions....

Cant you read?

The 22% refers to california.

 

[Silver]

And the DOJ report that surfingguru dug up says 10.9%.

Go Sharks!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And you continue to ignore the simple facts.

No, I simply want you to back up your facts.

The 22% that are in OUR jails being paid for by OUR money simply shouldnt be here.

The latest link on this thread said 10.9% for Cali.

Yet you continue to throw in things like "if it was a white guy" or "not ALL criminals" or "background checks dont always" ... this is the problem with people like you. Of course nothing is perfect, yet you continue to deny simple facts for odd exceptions.

No, I continue to simply ask you to back up your "facts."

Yeah, good plan. Same as all your other arguments. This is painful to watch, and oh so predictable.
EDIT: Think about what you're saying here. Basically you're advocating that we just allow whoever the hell to come in here, and not worry about their past, be they serial killers, child molestors, etc.. That is ****ing stupid.

That's funny, considering that I haven't put forth ANY plan at all or advocated any position. All I did was ask you about your rhetoric and your "facts." I haven't thrown any irons in the fire yet. I'm simply looking for honest debate.

 

[BurlyShirley]

No, I simply want you to back up your facts.

The latest link on this thread said 10.9% for Cali.

No, I continue to simply ask you to back up your "facts."

That's funny, considering that I haven't put forth ANY plan at all or advocated any position. All I did was ask you about your rhetoric and your "facts." I haven't thrown any irons in the fire yet. I'm simply looking for honest debate.

...and all that means what? You're arguing against using background checks before letting immigrants in. Retarded.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And the DOJ report that surfingguru dug up says 10.9%.

Go Sharks!

It says 10.9% of several states. For cali alone, it is over 20%. This info is widely available, and Ive posted a link already. If you want more proof do it yourself. A quick google will put up about 1000 similar links.

 

[Silver]

It says 10.9% of several states. For cali alone, it is over 20%. This info is widely available, and Ive posted a link already. If you want more proof do it yourself. A quick google will put up about 1000 similar links.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim04.pdf

Page 5. Like surfingguru said. Last page of this thread, in case you missed it. He also typed up the relevant parts so that you didn't have to install a pdf reader. The California rate is 10.9%.

Your link says "almost 15%" and is from 1997. Just out of curiousity, how dumb are the dumb Marines?

 

[BurlyShirley]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim04.pdf

Page 5. Like surfingguru said. Last page of this thread, in case you missed it. He also typed up the relevant parts so that you didn't have to install a pdf reader. The California rate is 10.9%.

Your link says "almost 15%" and is from 1997. Just out of curiousity, how dumb are the dumb Marines?

Is your google button broke still? You're awesome at excuses.

 

[fluff]

You gotta google button? I have to use a browser. Damn this steam driven PC.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

...and all that means what? You're arguing against using background checks before letting immigrants in. Retarded.

No, I'm arguing against bad arguments. Leave the rhetoric aside, leave the emotional appeals aside.

Is that all you are arguing for? Background checks? Fine, but try to do that. The country policy is to admit immigrants after doing background checks; we see how well that is doing. If the question is what to do with the illegals, and your suggestion is, "I think we should do background checks of all immigrants," then I will thank you for wasting everyone's time here in giving a completely non-responsive suggestion.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Is your google button broke still? You're awesome at excuses.

It's not an excuse. The official DOJ site listed the percentage in California at 10.9%. Period.

 

[BurlyShirley]

No, I'm arguing against bad arguments. Leave the rhetoric aside, leave the emotional appeals aside.

Is that all you are arguing for? Background checks? Fine, but try to do that. The country policy is to admit immigrants after doing background checks; we see how well that is doing. If the question is what to do with the illegals, and your suggestion is, "I think we should do background checks of all immigrants," then I will thank you for wasting everyone's time here in giving a completely non-responsive suggestion.

...jesus christ, does EVERYTHING have to be spelled out for you? OBVIOUSLY in order to get everybody checked out, you'd have to have a worker program, sealed borders, etc. The point is that for security's sake, we need to know who in the hell is coming and going. I dont understand how you'd be against that

 

[Old Man G Funk]

...jesus christ, does EVERYTHING have to be spelled out for you? OBVIOUSLY in order to get everybody checked out, you'd have to have a worker program, sealed borders, etc. The point is that for security's sake, we need to know who in the hell is coming and going. I dont understand how you'd be against that

I don't understand why you assume I'm against something simply because I want you to make sound arguments and back up your facts. Like I said, I haven't made any position on this issue.

BTW, we have a worker program already, it's not helping (this issue at least). There are political issues to sealing the borders, and as someone else has pointed out, even a sealed border is not illegal immigrant-proof.

Is your "security's sake" based on the fact that some illegals commit crimes once they are over here, or based on something else?

 

[The Amish]

The only solution..............Vigilante justice. Like every other situation, the government is powerless to help us. We cant keep track of how many immigrants come across the border, surely we wont be able to tell how many "didnt make it". Mark my words the mexicans keep trying to force themselves down our throats, or sue us , You'll see what happens. AMericans are slow to anger and action, but push us too far and heaven help you when we unleash the fury