1/3 of the World's Murders in Latin America

[Estonut]

Immigrants, of all kinds, are as a rule more law-abiding than citizens after they reach the country.

You say, "after they reach the country." Not true. They enter against the law and REMAIN against the law, often usurping resources which could be used for our own citizens.

I hope you realize that the members of the "caravan" are entering the country legally.

I thought it was quite clear I was talking about those entering and staying here illegally.

[silverscreenselect]

So aSSShole, you're now branching out to calling Spock a racist. You are despicable. You have absolutely nothing to base your opinions on other than your own hatefulness.

And his own words. And for the record, I didn't say racist. You did. You like to throw that term around so you can claim it doesn't apply to you and act aggrieved.

[silverscreenselect]

often usurping resources which could be used for our own citizens.

And they also pay taxes for which they don't get the same benefits as our citizens do.

[Bob78164]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... 17535b0a4d

>>>Latin America is home to just 8 percent of the world's population, but 33 percent of its homicides. In fact, just four countries in the region — Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Venezuela — account for a quarter of all the murders on Earth. Of the 20 countries in the world with the highest murder rates, 17 are Latin American, as are 43 of the top 50 cities.<<<

Can we at least acknowledge that Latin America is an extremely violent place and that we should be very vigilant on who we let in to the US?

Sure. I wonder which of these people are the murderers who shouldn't be allowed in the country.



It seems to me that the murderers are the ones who would want to stay in Latin America, where (by this report) they're much more likely to get away with it. The people we're getting are those who are fleeing the violence. But I have no problem with keeping people out who have committed violent crimes. --Bob

Oh, you are sooooo compassionate. You are suitably outraged by the separation of innocent families coming here (illegally) fleeing bad conditions in their country.

Where is your compassion for the families who are PERMANENTLY separated from their loved ones by people who SHOULD NOT EVEN BE IN THIS COUNTRY?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/c ... migration/

- Taking the data only from these five states, (AZ,CA,NY,TX,FL) and assuming that each person incarcerated for a homicide-related offense is responsible for only one death,
yields 5,400 people killed by illegal aliens.

Disagree with the number. Point out that trump said there was 62,000. The fact is: if congress would do their fricking job, THERE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE 1 of them.

Here is a reply that could be written by bob-tel, aSSShole or BJ.

https://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters- ... 70695.html

Yes, you guys are uber-compassionate, aren't you?

Where's your compassion for all of the kids killed by guns?

More murderers (per capita) are citizens than are unauthorized immigrants. So why do you only care about the murders committed by immigrants?

And if you think that any wall is going to keep out unauthorized immigrants, when most of them enter the country legally, you're either stupid or willfully blind.

By the way, why is it that the only stories that hit the news are murders carried out by Hispanic immigrants? Do you think that other immigrants don't also commit murders? --Bob

[Bob78164]

Immigrants, of all kinds, are as a rule more law-abiding than citizens after they reach the country.

You say, "after they reach the country." Not true. They enter against the law and REMAIN against the law, often usurping resources which could be used for our own citizens.

Wrong on two counts. Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses.

And study after study has demonstrated that unauthorized immigrants contribute more (economically) to our country than they take. --Bob

[Estonut]

Immigrants, of all kinds, are as a rule more law-abiding than citizens after they reach the country.

You say, "after they reach the country." Not true. They enter against the law and REMAIN against the law, often usurping resources which could be used for our own citizens.

Wrong on two counts. Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses.

You're twisting the story again by splitting hairs between "law-abiding" and those "committing crimes." The statement to which I responded was the one that I quoted. You said, "Immigrants, of all kinds, are as a rule more law-abiding than citizens after they reach the country." Subsequently, you said, "Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses." Sorry, but law-abiding people DO NOT commit civil offenses. And those crossing the border illegally ARE committing crimes. The first time is a misdemeanor and subsequent times are felonies.

Further, The Washington Post awards you (and Kamala Harris) two Pinocchios for claiming that an "undocumented immigrant is not a criminal."

And study after study has demonstrated that unauthorized immigrants contribute more (economically) to our country than they take.

Here's a study from the CBO that disagrees. Can you provide a more recent one that shows a change?

[Bob78164]

You say, "after they reach the country." Not true. They enter against the law and REMAIN against the law, often usurping resources which could be used for our own citizens.

Wrong on two counts. Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses.

You're twisting the story again by splitting hairs between "law-abiding" and those "committing crimes." The statement to which I responded was the one that I quoted. You said, "Immigrants, of all kinds, are as a rule more law-abiding than citizens after they reach the country." Subsequently, you said, "Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses." Sorry, but law-abiding people DO NOT commit civil offenses. And those crossing the border illegally ARE committing crimes. The first time is a misdemeanor and subsequent times are felonies.

Further, The Washington Post awards you (and Kamala Harris) two Pinocchios for claiming that an "undocumented immigrant is not a criminal."

And study after study has demonstrated that unauthorized immigrants contribute more (economically) to our country than they take.

Here's a study from the CBO that disagrees. Can you provide a more recent one that shows a change?

The study from the CBO doesn't disagree. It specifically carves out the effect on state and local governments while ignoring their effects on the larger economy and on federal tax revenues (including Social Security and Medicare). My statement was about their effect on the economy as a whole, and the study you cite in fact acknowledges that my statement is (or was in 2007, when it was written) correct.

You are correct that crossing the border other than at a port of entry is a crime (unless you are a refugee and you present yourself to the authorities to have your application considered). But overstaying a visa is not, and that is how most unauthorized immigrants arrive here.

In any event, you're playing word games. The fundamental point is that on average unauthorized immigrants are better and safer neighbors than are out fellow citizens. And all the efforts in the world to Willie Horton the issue won't hide that truth, as long as those of us who know better shout it out loud and strong every time we're faced with Donny's demagoguery. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

The fundamental point is that on average unauthorized immigrants are better and safer neighbors than are out fellow citizens. And all the efforts in the world to Willie Horton the issue won't hide that truth, as long as those of us who know better shout it out loud and strong every time we're faced with Donny's demagoguery. --Bob

And that is the whole point. There are lots better uses of the money and time in terms of effective, productive law enforcement. But the main reason we fixate on the wall is that Trump is trying to stoke fears of Hispanic murderers, gang bangers, and rapists (with the occasional Islamic terrorist thrown in for variety). Any time anyone mentions MS-13 in connection with illegal immigrants, they're doing the same thing, because in the United States, MS-13 members are overwhelmingly native born.

And if national security is the concern, a "solution" that involves cutting the budget of many of the federal agencies responsible for maintaining national security and undoubtedly costing them the services of at least some of their employees (who already have or will take other jobs) and make it more difficult to replace them, is a solution that does more harm than good.

But national security has never really been the concern. The issue about the wall is about one thing only: Donald Trump's ego.

[Bob78164]

The fundamental point is that on average unauthorized immigrants are better and safer neighbors than are out fellow citizens. And all the efforts in the world to Willie Horton the issue won't hide that truth, as long as those of us who know better shout it out loud and strong every time we're faced with Donny's demagoguery. --Bob

And that is the whole point. There are lots better uses of the money and time in terms of effective, productive law enforcement. But the main reason we fixate on the wall is that Trump is trying to stoke fears of Hispanic murderers, gang bangers, and rapists (with the occasional Islamic terrorist thrown in for variety). Any time anyone mentions MS-13 in connection with illegal immigrants, they're doing the same thing, because in the United States, MS-13 members are overwhelmingly native born.

And if national security is the concern, a "solution" that involves cutting the budget of many of the federal agencies responsible for maintaining national security and undoubtedly costing them the services of at least some of their employees (who already have or will take other jobs) and make it more difficult to replace them, is a solution that does more harm than good.

But national security has never really been the concern. The issue about the wall is about one thing only: Donald Trump's ego.

The shutdown is clearly degrading airport security, and there's a lot more evidence of danger from that route than there is from terrorists sneaking across our southern border (which hasn't yet happened even once, despite the lack of a wall). --Bob

[Estonut]

Wrong on two counts. Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses.

You're twisting the story again by splitting hairs between "law-abiding" and those "committing crimes." The statement to which I responded was the one that I quoted. You said, "Immigrants, of all kinds, are as a rule more law-abiding than citizens after they reach the country." Subsequently, you said, "Unauthorized entry and unauthorized presence in the country aren't crimes (unless you've already been deported once). They're civil offenses." Sorry, but law-abiding people DO NOT commit civil offenses. And those crossing the border illegally ARE committing crimes. The first time is a misdemeanor and subsequent times are felonies.

Further, The Washington Post awards you (and Kamala Harris) two Pinocchios for claiming that an "undocumented immigrant is not a criminal."

And study after study has demonstrated that unauthorized immigrants contribute more (economically) to our country than they take.

Here's a study from the CBO that disagrees. Can you provide a more recent one that shows a change?

The study from the CBO doesn't disagree. It specifically carves out the effect on state and local governments while ignoring their effects on the larger economy and on federal tax revenues (including Social Security and Medicare). My statement was about their effect on the economy as a whole, and the study you cite in fact acknowledges that my statement is (or was in 2007, when it was written) correct.

You are correct that crossing the border other than at a port of entry is a crime (unless you are a refugee and you present yourself to the authorities to have your application considered). But overstaying a visa is not, and that is how most unauthorized immigrants arrive here.

In any event, you're playing word games. The fundamental point is that on average unauthorized immigrants are better and safer neighbors than are out fellow citizens. And all the efforts in the world to Willie Horton the issue won't hide that truth, as long as those of us who know better shout it out loud and strong every time we're faced with Donny's demagoguery.

You're the one playing word games. Overstaying a visa is NOT being a law-abiding person. It is a civil offense. That is breaking civil law. You're the jackwagon that brought "crime" into it, once proved wrong the first time.

Aren't illegal immigrants paid under the table? How do you figure they're paying into Social Security and Medicare? Anyone who is must be committing fraud and identity theft, as they would not legally be eligible for SS#s.

[Spock]

So aSSShole, you're now branching out to calling Spock a racist. You are despicable. You have absolutely nothing to base your opinions on other than your own hatefulness.

And his own words. And for the record, I didn't say racist. You did. You like to throw that term around so you can claim it doesn't apply to you and act aggrieved.

God, you are a rhetorical devil-you bad boy you. Yeah, you didn't say "Racist" but you said "Life-long prejudice against dark-skinned people"-I know I am not a lawyer, but I think those mean pretty much the same. Not that I care, but what words are you talking.

I notice that you said nothing about my Mexican married couple or your vast Latin American experience of floating around the cruise ship itineraries which was posted before your post that I quoted above.

I can't imagine what it is like to be so willfully blinded from reality that you can't admit (for fear of being called a racist) that the south and west sides of Chicago (for example) are exponentially more violent than Vermont (for example).

And to carry it farther, even if your studies are correct, you can't even begin to admit that Native born citizens in Vermont are less violent than immigrants from Latin America and that native born citizens from the South and west sides of Chicago are more violent.

In essence, you won't admit/recognize that our violent inner cities skew the results.

Somebody who views the native-born citizens of Vermont as more violent than illegal immigrants from Latin America is probably not going to come up with the best policies going forward.

[flockofseagulls104]

So aSSShole, you're now branching out to calling Spock a racist. You are despicable. You have absolutely nothing to base your opinions on other than your own hatefulness.

And his own words. And for the record, I didn't say racist. You did. You like to throw that term around so you can claim it doesn't apply to you and act aggrieved.

No, I won't let you weasel out of this one, aSSShole. When you say "No, you just feel better making them based on lifelong prejudices about dark skinned people." you are telling Spock that he is a racist, in the real definition of the word. Just as you assumed that I was mocking a particular person because of her name because I was an unconscious racist, when I was mocking people who hate trump and don't even know why.

You seem to be all in on the fraudulent, 'manufactured' concept of 'white privilege'. Ponder this: There also seems to be a 'white disadvantage' for the lack of a better name. People like you can disparage and imply things about 'white' people you know nothing about that you would be up in arms about if someone else said the same thing about someone of a different race. You even feel noble and virtuous in doing so. That is one of the many reasons you are an aSSShole. You owe both Spock and me a sincere apology. Consider doing so.

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob-tel said:

Where's your compassion for all of the kids killed by guns?

bob-tel, can you get this simple concept into your narrow mind? All those kids weren't killed by guns. They were killed by bad people who happened to use a gun. The gun didn't kill the kid, the person killed the kid.

But you again avoided the main point. Yes, there are plenty of bad Native-born American Citizens. There are plenty of bad naturalized American Citizens. There are plenty of bad foreign-born people who are here legally. But if there is even ONE bad person who entered this country illegally, that is the fault of the Federal Government. They have, for their own reasons, let millions of people enter and stay in this country without going through a process that is supposed to weed out the bad people. And every person killed by an illegal alien is their fault. And while you are outraged that the process has separated children from their parents who have tried to enter this country, you have shown you don't give a crap about those families who have been permanently separated from their loved ones because of the actions of a person WHO SHOULD NOT BE HERE.

No amount of 'what about these people' can mask your hypocrisy, bob-tel.

[Bob78164]

Bob-tel said:

Where's your compassion for all of the kids killed by guns?

bob-tel, can you get this simple concept into your narrow mind? All those kids weren't killed by guns. They were killed by bad people who happened to use a gun. The gun didn't kill the kid, the person killed the kid.

But you again avoided the main point. Yes, there are plenty of bad Native-born American Citizens. There are plenty of bad naturalized American Citizens. There are plenty of bad foreign-born people who are here legally. But if there is even ONE bad person who entered this country illegally, that is the fault of the Federal Government. They have, for their own reasons, let millions of people enter and stay in this country without going through a process that is supposed to weed out the bad people. And every person killed by an illegal alien is their fault. And while you are outraged that the process has separated children from their parents who have tried to enter this country, you have shown you don't give a crap about those families who have been permanently separated from their loved ones because of the actions of a person WHO SHOULD NOT BE HERE.

No amount of 'what about these people' can mask your hypocrisy, bob-tel.

So you're okay with immigration, but only as long as screening is 100% perfect at keeping out the people who will eventually commit crimes? You want an immigration process that will keep out absolutely everyone who's not supposed to be here? Calling that goal unrealistic would be generous.

Those bad citizens (and the vast majority of them have been citizens) wouldn't have been in position to kill anywhere near as many kids if they didn't have guns. But that's a price you're willing for our kids to pay to promote your preferred political ideology. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Bob-tel said:

Where's your compassion for all of the kids killed by guns?

bob-tel, can you get this simple concept into your narrow mind? All those kids weren't killed by guns. They were killed by bad people who happened to use a gun. The gun didn't kill the kid, the person killed the kid.

But you again avoided the main point. Yes, there are plenty of bad Native-born American Citizens. There are plenty of bad naturalized American Citizens. There are plenty of bad foreign-born people who are here legally. But if there is even ONE bad person who entered this country illegally, that is the fault of the Federal Government. They have, for their own reasons, let millions of people enter and stay in this country without going through a process that is supposed to weed out the bad people. And every person killed by an illegal alien is their fault. And while you are outraged that the process has separated children from their parents who have tried to enter this country, you have shown you don't give a crap about those families who have been permanently separated from their loved ones because of the actions of a person WHO SHOULD NOT BE HERE.

No amount of 'what about these people' can mask your hypocrisy, bob-tel.

So you're okay with immigration, but only as long as screening is 100% perfect at keeping out the people who will eventually commit crimes? You want an immigration process that will keep out absolutely everyone who's not supposed to be here? Calling that goal unrealistic would be generous.

Those bad citizens (and the vast majority of them have been citizens) wouldn't have been in position to kill anywhere near as many kids if they didn't have guns. But that's a price you're willing for our kids to pay to promote your preferred political ideology. --Bob

How can you reason with people who are deliberately unreasonable? Nothings 100% perfect, bob-tel. But the purpose of immigration laws are to make sure,as much as possible, that people intending to live here are essentially good people and will obey our laws.We, especially those of your party, don't seem to understand that.

[silverscreenselect]

People like you can disparage and imply things about 'white' people you know nothing about.

That's the thing, Flock. I know plenty about you and Spock from years of reading your posts on this Bored.

[silverscreenselect]

And every person killed by an illegal alien is their fault.

And lots of other people who are killed by known criminals and other bad characters are the fault of the police as well. No one is perfect, although we tend to look to assess blame in any sensational crime. The question isn't whether the police could have caught a particular criminal if they had done things differently; the question is whether they are making the best use of limited resources, funds, and manpower. And as long as illegal immigrants represent less of a danger than others, we should be allocating the resources on the greater dangers rather than the lesser.

But this isn't about the wall and you know it Flock. It's about Donald Trump's ego, pure and simple. And he's got enough yahoos like you in his corner egging him on here with visions of dark skinned rapists, terrorists, gang bangers, and murderers coming over in droves to wreak havoc on the rest of us.

[Estonut]

People like you can disparage and imply things about 'white' people you know nothing about.

That's the thing, Flock. I know plenty about you and Spock from years of reading your posts on this Bored.

Says the guy who made the most racist post EVER on this Bored and then claimed it was a failed attempt at a joke.

When called on it, you never explained which part you were joking about.

[flockofseagulls104]

People like you can disparage and imply things about 'white' people you know nothing about.

That's the thing, Flock. I know plenty about you and Spock from years of reading your posts on this Bored.

You know nothing, aSSShole. You never read and comprehend anything that's posted on this bored. You have your pre-ordained stereotypes and that is the depth of your thinking. You are a shallow, self-righteous ass clown is what you are.

[Spock]

So aSSShole, you're now branching out to calling Spock a racist. You are despicable. You have absolutely nothing to base your opinions on other than your own hatefulness.

And his own words. And for the record, I didn't say racist. You did. You like to throw that term around so you can claim it doesn't apply to you and act aggrieved.

I can't imagine what it is like to be so willfully blinded from reality that you can't admit (for fear of being called a racist) that the south and west sides of Chicago (for example) are exponentially more violent than Vermont (for example).

And to carry it farther, even if your studies are correct, you can't even begin to admit that Native born citizens in Vermont are less violent than immigrants from Latin America and that native born citizens from the South and west sides of Chicago are more violent.

In essence, you won't admit/recognize that our violent inner cities skew the results.

Somebody who views the native-born citizens of Vermont as more violent than illegal immigrants from Latin America is probably not going to come up with the best policies going forward.

Interesting that neither SSS or Bob#'s have touched on the fact that our violent inner cities skew the results of any comparison between native-born and immigrants from Latin America.

Especially since they have both posted since I made the above post.

[silverscreenselect]

Interesting that neither SSS or Bob#'s have touched on the fact that our violent inner cities skew the results of any comparison between native-born and immigrants from Latin America.

Ooops, another preconception goes down:

https://thecrimereport.org/2018/05/14/r ... s-average/

One big reason that the crime rate in urban areas is high is that, by definition, you have more people in close proximity to each other, making for more opportunities for violent altercations. I have several hundred people who live within a couple of blocks of me. How many people do you live close to, Spock?

You just love making assumptions based on preconceptions.

[BackInTex]

Interesting that neither SSS or Bob#'s have touched on the fact that our violent inner cities skew the results of any comparison between native-born and immigrants from Latin America.

Ooops, another preconception goes down:

https://thecrimereport.org/2018/05/14/r ... s-average/

One big reason that the crime rate in urban areas is high is that, by definition, you have more people in close proximity to each other, making for more opportunities for violent altercations. I have several hundred people who live within a couple of blocks of me. How many people do you live close to, Spock?

You just love making assumptions based on preconceptions.

And you just love making excuses for those of lesser moral character.

[silverscreenselect]

And you just love making excuses for those of lesser moral character.

It's not an excuse; it's a result of the relative isolation. For the same reason, suicide rates are higher in rural areas than urban because of a lack of people around to intercede.

[Beebs52]

And you just love making excuses for those of lesser moral character.

It's not an excuse; it's a result of the relative isolation. For the same reason, suicide rates are higher in rural areas than urban because of a lack of people around to intercede.

The focus of this thread really drifted.

[Estonut]

And you just love making excuses for those of lesser moral character.

It's not an excuse; it's a result of the relative isolation. For the same reason, suicide rates are higher in rural areas than urban because of a lack of people around to intercede.

Please cite your source showing the number of urban suicides prevented by intercession.