America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by tailgater. 163 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
Why has illegal immigration decreased?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
tailgater Offline
#51 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:29 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
banderl wrote:
Much is made of the alleged fact that 30 percent of federal prison inmates are illegal immigrants. Actually, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the correct figure is 14 percent, and many are in just for violating immigration laws. In prisons at the state level, where most violent crime is prosecuted, illegal immigrants account for less than 5 percent of all inmates.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary.html


"just for violating immigration law"

Classic.

Almost as good as when some liberal blow hards on the television try to tell us that "most illegals are law abiding citizens".

And the one's who think they're smart will actually omit the term "citizens".
Because, you know. THAT was the outrageous part.
banderl Offline
#52 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:40 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
So there are very few or none in prison for violating immigration law?

http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-federal-arrests-are-immigration-charges-report-301482
Speyside Offline
#53 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:46 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Z, I don't think they effect middle class America. They are taking jobs most of us down't want. I think you could make a stronger argument that they have more of an effect on the working poor in America. Their employers need to be punished so severely that they no longer higher undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately or government is not willing to do that. My logic is based on the above.

TG, I think it is a pragmatic argument. If it is less expensive to round them up, deport them, and keep them out then I would be all for that. But I do not think that is true. Though if you want to make the argument that no matter what the cost the law comes first then you are correct without question.
victor809 Offline
#54 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
You should record yourself while reading this post.
Then play it when you want nothing more than to hear your own voice.

Meanwhile, this hasn't addressed the question of why illegal immigration has declined over the past 5 years.


Don't attack the message just because you cannot speak as eloquently or interestingly as I.

As for illegal immigration declining, one would expect that either a worsening of the US economy could have created more competition locally for the jobs they were coming for, or an improvement in Mexico's economy could have done this If it started 5 years ago, that could have impacted it.

Or we could have reached some saturation level. If new illegal immigrants aren't finding the work they want, because the jobs are already taken by illegal immigrants, then fewer will come to the country illegally
Abrignac Offline
#55 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:01 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
banderl wrote:
Much is made of the alleged fact that 30 percent of federal prison inmates are illegal immigrants. Actually, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the correct figure is 14 percent, and many are in just for violating immigration laws. In prisons at the state level, where most violent crime is prosecuted, illegal immigrants account for less than 5 percent of all inmates.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/steve-chapman/illegal-immigrants-not-so-scary.html


I'm not so sure that an article written by a Chicago Tribune syndicated columnist can be called factual. I'm not saying he's wrong either. I'd much prefer to see actual data.


Edit:
From the BOP's website:

As of July 25, 2015; the U.S. citizenship of the entire U.S Federal Prison population is 76.8%. So 23.2 % of the population is non-US citizens. No mention anywhere as to what % is here illegally.

http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_citizenship.jsp

Edit 2:

Hispanics account for 34.1 % of that population

48.6% are serving drug related sentences
16.2 % are serving sentences for Weapons, Explosives, Arson
9.2% (17,991) are serving immigration related sentences

Asians make up 1.5% of the population
Blacks 37.6%
Native Americans 1.9%
Whites 59.0%
banderl Offline
#56 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:14 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
The Tribune is still a Republican paper, although Chapman tends to be more liberal.


Here's more of the same:


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/10/larry-oconnor/conservative-host-noncitizens-are-25-federal-inmat/


From the article above:
O’Connor said 25 percent of federal inmates are noncitizens. According to the Bureau of Prisons, that’s pretty much spot on. But it’s important to know that a hefty fraction of those inmates are only in prison for violating immigration laws and are in facilities more or less created to house them. If you take those people out of the equation, you’re looking at about 12 percent of federal inmates.
banderl Offline
#57 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:16 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
The article from politifact gives their sources.
Abrignac Offline
#58 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:18 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
banderl wrote:
So there are very few or none in prison for violating immigration law?

http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-federal-arrests-are-immigration-charges-report-301482



Maybe so, but it's not really an accurate correlation to the number of federal prisoners. Most federal prisoners are initially arrested by local authorities. There cases are then referred to the Feds. The Feds generally won't accept a local case for federal prosecution unless it is a slam dunk.
Abrignac Offline
#59 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:25 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
banderl wrote:
The Tribune is still a Republican paper, although Chapman tends to be more liberal.


Here's more of the same:


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/10/larry-oconnor/conservative-host-noncitizens-are-25-federal-inmat/


From the article above:
O’Connor said 25 percent of federal inmates are noncitizens. According to the Bureau of Prisons, that’s pretty much spot on. But it’s important to know that a hefty fraction of those inmates are only in prison for violating immigration laws and are in facilities more or less created to house them. If you take those people out of the equation, you’re looking at about 12 percent of federal inmates.


Looked over the article. It skews the BOP numbers by excluding people awaiting deportation.

It's how one looks at something.

Quote:
So who’s right? Well, it depends on what question you want to answer. If you want to know how many noncitizens are in prison for breaking a law that all citizens must obey -- like not committing murder as in San Francisco -- then you’d probably prefer the lower number from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

If you want to know how many prisoners broke any kind of law, including sneaking across the border, then you’d find the Bureau of Prisons number more useful.



If one doesn't recognize the fact that those incarcerated actually broke the law, then the number is 12%. If one includes immigration laws as laws broken, it's 24%.
ZRX1200 Offline
#60 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:33 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Speyside, why do Americans NOT want those jobs?

They aren't paying what it takes to get someone to do them so we subsidize business with cheap labor. Illegal labor. Within the enumerated rights granted to the government what is more important than protection of Americans? Business lobbies better than middle Amerika.

Winning!
Brewha Offline
#61 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
I think the cheep and illegal labor hurts us all. Unless you're on of the owners.....
ZRX1200 Offline
#62 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:46 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Yup.
Abrignac Offline
#63 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:48 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
ZRX1200 wrote:
Speyside, why do Americans NOT want those jobs?

They aren't paying what it takes to get someone to do them so we subsidize business with cheap labor. Illegal labor. Within the enumerated rights granted to the government what is more important than protection of Americans? Business lobbies better than middle Amerika.

Winning!


Therein lies the problem. Construction workers have taken a hit here. It's hard to find a non-Hispanic roofing crew. Go into a housing development here and one will that most framing crews are Hispanic. They get the work because they are the lowest bidder.

As stated here before, as long as it is profitable to use illegal alien labor, businesses will continue to do so. As long as it is profitable for illegals to come here they will continue to do so.

banderl Offline
#64 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:52 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Just read an article yesterday in either the Trib or WSJ which was about the shortage of labor available to pick crops. Some of these farms are paying $14 with some benefits and they can't find pickers.

I'll see if I can find the article.

Here you go:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/on-u-s-farms-fewer-hands-for-the-harvest-1439371802
banderl Offline
#65 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Abrignac wrote:
Therein lies the problem. Construction workers have taken a hit here. It's hard to find a non-Hispanic roofing crew. Go into a housing development here and one will that most framing crews are Hispanic. They get the work because they are the lowest bidder.

As stated here before, as long as it is profitable to use illegal alien labor, businesses will continue to do so. As long as it is profitable for illegals to come here they will continue to do so.




That's also due to not having union crews doing the other work on the project.
Abrignac Offline
#66 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Not yet mentioned is an uptick in violent crime, not committed by the illegals but against them.

A few years back, we saw a rise in armed robberies in the Hispanic neighborhoods. The hood rats quickly realized that the illegals didn't use banks for obvious reasons. They also realized the illegals would be reluctant to call police. After a few were disemboweled by their prey the robberies tapered off.
banderl Offline
#67 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:01 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Abrignac wrote:
Not yet mentioned is an uptick in violent crime, not committed by the illegals but against them.

A few years back, we saw a rise in armed robberies in the Hispanic neighborhoods. The hood rats quickly realized that the illegals didn't use banks for obvious reasons. They also realized the illegals would be reluctant to call police. After a few were disemboweled by their prey the robberies tapered off.



Payback's a bitch.
Abrignac Offline
#68 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
banderl wrote:
That's also due to not having union crews doing the other work on the project.


Union labor has never had a major presence in single family home construction here.

Larger projects use union labor. My grandfather was a union carpenter. He ran the saw filing room at the Riverbend nuclear plant when it was built. Problem was when saw blades were dull, a new one was issued. Part of a union safety rule. He spent much of his time whittling. He even had a union steward who would sweep up his wood shavings.

I'm not necessarily against unions. But, they have used up quite a bit of good will. What started as a means to protect workers from truly poor work environments morphed into something far from its orgins.
tailgater Offline
#69 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:23 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:


TG, I think it is a pragmatic argument. If it is less expensive to round them up, deport them, and keep them out then I would be all for that. But I do not think that is true. Though if you want to make the argument that no matter what the cost the law comes first then you are correct without question.




It's less expensive to let a murderer go free than it is to incarcerate him for 20 years.
Direct costs are easy to calculate, but the long term impact is what counts. If we just let people come here without concern for laws then at some point our borders will approach equilibrium: BOTH sides will be uneducated poor.
tailgater Offline
#70 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Don't attack the message just because you cannot speak as eloquently or interestingly as I.

As for illegal immigration declining, one would expect that either a worsening of the US economy could have created more competition locally for the jobs they were coming for, or an improvement in Mexico's economy could have done this If it started 5 years ago, that could have impacted it.

Or we could have reached some saturation level. If new illegal immigrants aren't finding the work they want, because the jobs are already taken by illegal immigrants, then fewer will come to the country illegally


Nobody speaks as eloquently as you. On these boards, or in the rugby scrum.

Meanwhile, I could have GUESSED as to why the numbers are declining.
I thought someone might be more learned on this subject.
Abrignac Offline
#71 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:25 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
banderl wrote:
Payback's a bitch.


Lol, without a doubt. In one instance, an nterprising thug I've had the pleasure of encountering a few times decided to set up an incall service on backpage catering to Hispanics. The ideas was to have his girlfriend let them in the hotel room and he would hit the john with a bat, rob him and disappear.

When one of the johns came in the hotel room he came out of the bathroom with a bat. The John had a huge Bowie knife in his belt hidden by his shirt. He pulled out the knife and all hell broke loose.

The thug's girlfriend drove him to the ER where I was working extra duty and pushed him out the passengers seat onto the ramp and sped off. He lived, but has a couple of nasty scars.

Afterwards, he said he didn't even get the chance to hit him. He said amigo charged him so fast he didn't have a chance to swing. He said if amigo hadn't split after stabbing him a few times he'd be dead.
banderl Offline
#72 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:33 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Abrignac wrote:
Lol, without a doubt. In one instance, an nterprising thug I've had the pleasure of encountering a few times decided to set up an incall service on backpage catering to Hispanics. The ideas was to have his girlfriend let them in the hotel room and he would hit the john with a bat, rob him and disappear.

When one of the johns came in the hotel room he came out of the bathroom with a bat. The John had a huge Bowie knife in his belt hidden by his shirt. He pulled out the knife and all hell broke loose.

The thug's girlfriend drove him to the ER where I was working extra duty and pushed him out the passengers seat onto the ramp and sped off. He lived, but has a couple of nasty scars.

Afterwards, he said he didn't even get the chance to hit him. He said amigo charged him so fast he didn't have a chance to swing. He said if amigo hadn't split after stabbing him a few times he'd be dead.



Heartwarming story.
frankj1 Offline
#73 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:46 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
How did he know his name was amigo?
banderl Offline
#74 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
frankj1 wrote:
How did he know his name was amigo?



HaHa!
victor809 Offline
#75 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 6:18 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Sounds like they both should have been carrying guns...
gummy jones Offline
#76 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 6:20 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Would you rather have a bowie or bat in that instance?

Please make your response as yuppy tactical as possible
victor809 Offline
#77 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 6:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gummy jones wrote:
Would you rather have a bowie or bat in that instance?

Please make your response as yuppy tactical as possible


I'd rather have the woman....
TMCTLT Offline
#78 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 7:50 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
ZRX1200 wrote:
Speyside, why do Americans NOT want those jobs?

They aren't paying what it takes to get someone to do them so we subsidize business with cheap labor. Illegal labor. Within the enumerated rights granted to the government what is more important than protection of Americans? Business lobbies better than middle Amerika.

Winning!




THIS ^^^^

who's gonna bust their ass for the same money it pays to flip burgers or pick n pack in some warehouse?
TMCTLT Offline
#79 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 7:52 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
banderl wrote:
That's also due to not having union crews doing the other work on the project.



You will NOT find much Union labor in residential home building....anywhere
TMCTLT Offline
#80 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 7:55 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
I'd rather have the woman....



Victor likes his STD's .ya know....fog
Speyside Offline
#81 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Z, I do not see immigration control through border control as an answer. Removing the incentive is the answer. The only way I see to do this is stopping employers from hiring undocumented illegals. Do you really think the government is willing, or interested in protecting Americans? My point is not to defend undocumented immigrants, it is how to make the best of a bad situation. I feel the federal government has usurped states rights , BTW.

TG, comparing undocumented immigrants to murderers is not accurate in any way. If you want to make your point you need a better analogy.
tonygraz Offline
#82 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 9:24 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
No answer for post # 42, so I assume it is just right wing nuts making up more chit.
ZRX1200 Offline
#83 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 10:22 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Speyside, that's because we haven't implemented my plan.

Sell hunting permits.

Use the money to pay towards our debt.
Speyside Offline
#84 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 10:33 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
LMAO!
wheelrite Offline
#85 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 11:49 AM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Illegal Alien Broads have Hairy Clams,,,


wheel,
banderl Offline
#86 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
TMCTLT wrote:
You will NOT find much Union labor in residential home building....anywhere



Really?
Seems to be a 50/50 split In the Chicago area.
Speyside Offline
#87 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Z, would that just be on Dia de Muertos or a longer season? Maybe make it a reality show? Or better yet create a festival like Carnival in Rio. That would give a good bump to tourism.
ZRX1200 Offline
#88 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Whatever makes the most money.......

Just no baiting with jarittos or cervasas.
tonygraz Offline
#89 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 3:38 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
banderl wrote:
Really?
Seems to be a 50/50 split In the Chicago area.


Hair on the left or right side ?
tailgater Offline
#90 Posted: Sun, Aug 16 2015, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside,
I'm not comparing murderers to illegals.
I'm using your same weak argument about the fiscal impact.
It truly shouldn't be about the direct cost but rather the long term ramifications.
Speyside Offline
#91 Posted: Mon, Aug 17 2015, 9:28 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
You are NOT using the same argument. My argument is that it makes more sense to document all immigrants due to the LONG term cost savings. This implies their paying taxes, not clogging our ER'S and many other factors such as it costs over $8K to deport 1 of them according to fortune magazine.

All so your previous post directly compaired costs of murderers and illegals so stick to what YOU said.

If you want to refute my argument fine. Also don't back pedal because it suites your argument. As to stating my argument is weak that is simply you OPINION. I would state that your argument is hyperbole that you cannot back up with fact. If I am wrong please back it up with fact.
tailgater Offline
#92 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:26 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
You are NOT using the same argument. My argument is that it makes more sense to document all immigrants due to the LONG term cost savings. This implies their paying taxes, not clogging our ER'S and many other factors such as it costs over $8K to deport 1 of them according to fortune magazine.

All so your previous post directly compaired costs of murderers and illegals so stick to what YOU said.

If you want to refute my argument fine. Also don't back pedal because it suites your argument. As to stating my argument is weak that is simply you OPINION. I would state that your argument is hyperbole that you cannot back up with fact. If I am wrong please back it up with fact.



You earlier stated that it was all about the cost. Something along the lines of "if it were cheaper to deport them, then I would be all for it". I responded by stating that if we looked at immediate costs only, then it's cheaper to let murderers go rather than house and feed and legally defend them for decades.
Sorry if you misconstrued this to mean illegals = murderers. Quite a stretch, but one you obviously made. It's not back peddling to point this out.


Let's stick to what we believe. I think it's foolish to provide amnesty or anything similar to law breakers who cheated the system. We'll never be able to round them all up, but even if an amnesty type program works it will do nothing more than provide further incentive to invade our country. I know you don't use the word "amnesty", but that's essentially what any program will be if we allow illegals to become legal because we are naive enough to believe that they'll suddenly obey our laws and keep just ONE set of documents while collecting their welfare (for instance).






tailgater Offline
#93 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:27 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
BTW, your Bill the Cat avatar is awesome!
Speyside Offline
#94 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
OK, now I understand what you meant. I was only speaking in terms of what could be done given the governments stance. My belief on what should be done is to take away the inventive for them being here. Make the punishment for employing an in documented migrant so high for employers that they will NEVER employ another 1. Seize all assets of anyone harboring and undocumented immigrant. Fine every country undocumented immigrants come from by the immigrant by taking away foreign aid dollars. Those would be my starting points.
DrafterX Offline
#95 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:40 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
damn..... why do you hate Mexicans so bad..?? Huh
Brewha Offline
#96 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:44 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
tailgater wrote:
You earlier stated that it was all about the cost. Something along the lines of "if it were cheaper to deport them, then I would be all for it". I responded by stating that if we looked at immediate costs only, then it's cheaper to let murderers go rather than house and feed and legally defend them for decades.
Sorry if you misconstrued this to mean illegals = murderers. Quite a stretch, but one you obviously made. It's not back peddling to point this out.


Let's stick to what we believe. I think it's foolish to provide amnesty or anything similar to law breakers who cheated the system. We'll never be able to round them all up, but even if an amnesty type program works it will do nothing more than provide further incentive to invade our country. I know you don't use the word "amnesty", but that's essentially what any program will be if we allow illegals to become legal because we are naive enough to believe that they'll suddenly obey our laws and keep just ONE set of documents while collecting their welfare (for instance).


Oh, come on - If they can pardon Nixon, who doesn’t deserve it?
DrafterX Offline
#97 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
I heard Hillary could pardon herself if they can't prosecute her before the election.... and if she gets elected of course.. Mellow
Brewha Offline
#98 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 8:59 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
Maybe Nixon could pardon her. He is not a crook….
DrafterX Offline
#99 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 9:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
true... true... I heard some stuff just the other day suggesting he should have fought back because they wouldn't have been able to hang anything on him.... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#100 Posted: Tue, Aug 18 2015, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
Well, He did say he wasn’t a crook. Why would he lie?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
Back to Top