NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[DVD]

I suppose it depends on the celebrity. I would call Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson celebrities at this point, and I would trust their judgement in supporting a candidate. If anything, Kim Kardashian supporting Clinton makes her look that much worse in my opinion. Very rarely would I say the endorsement of a politician by a mainstream celebrity like an actor, sports figure, or singer would matter to me one bit.

Ditto, if the celebrity had any street cred in a specific field I might care. If Stephen Hawking backed Ted Cruz, I would either think Stephen is a right wing nut job or that Ted is going to advance the cause of science in some way I'm not thinking about. The rest of the main stream celebs, who cares. The discussion we have on this board would sway my opinion considerably more than some guy I've seen on a movie screen.

 

[michaelskis]

This political correctness crap has just gotten stupid. TV Land canceled reruns of the Dukes of Hazard because of the Genral Lee.

And before all the whiny bleeding heart liberals, maybe we should ban Democratics too. Bob Bird, Harry Truman, Edward Douglass White, Theodore G. Bilbo, George Gordon, David Duke, maybe Woodrow Wilson and Clifford Walker were all democrat senitors, president, governors, or congressional members... And KKK members.

There were some republicans that accepted money or endorsement from the KKK, and Clavin Coolage was likely a member, but otherwise it was heavily democrat.

As I said before, I am neutral on the subject for the most part. But this boycott on anything confederate flag has just gotten stupid.

 

[Maister]

So the Donald calls Mexican immigrants a bunch of rapists and drug dealers, refuses to apologize/doubles down, and then his poll numbers surge among conservatives? :-c What does this mean?

 

[DVD]

So the Donald calls Mexican immigrants a bunch of rapists and drug dealers, refuses to apologize/doubles down, and then his poll numbers surge among conservatives? :-c What does this mean?

It means Ted Cruz and the other 99 candidates need to get busy.

 

[michaelskis]

So the Donald calls Mexican immigrants a bunch of rapists and drug dealers, refuses to apologize/doubles down, and then his poll numbers surge among conservatives? :-c What does this mean?

That Donald Trump is a tool and too many Republicans are blind sheep who will follow a loud voice.

If it comes down to Trump v Clinton... we as a society are screwed. At that point I will write in a candidate or vote for the Libertarian candidate.

 

[Maister]

My first thought was that the GOP had to be doing a major facepalm when Trump said that, but I wonder if maybe they're actually not minding it as much as you might suspect. Think about it - once the Trump sideshow is over (and it will be over fairly soon) he'll make the remaining candidates seem more moderate by comparison.

 

[Bubba]

So the Donald calls Mexican immigrants a bunch of rapists and drug dealers, refuses to apologize/doubles down, and then his poll numbers surge among conservatives? :-c What does this mean?

In the big, long-term picture? Nothing.

 

[ColoGI]

...What does this mean?

Our politcal economy is broken and an embarrassment.

 

[otterpop]

Maybe The Donald is mad at Mexico because whatever orange animal pelt he is wearing on top of his head comes from an endangered animal in Mexico and they've cut off his supply.

He should pick Sarah Palin for his running mate. Those two are just made for each other.

Why the surge of support for him in spite of the on-going crap that comes from his arrogant and hateful mouth? The United States is the greatest nation in the world, in theory. However, many of the people do not live up to our nation's promise. A young man shoots down 9 people in a church and the outrage lasts a few days. Black churches get burned down in the South and hardly make the news. Political leaders pander to the wishes of the far right and have no problems keeping the Stars and Bars flying over South Carolina, continue to work to deny rights of LGBT community and the list goes on.

America is great.

Americans, not so much!

 

[DVD]

I'd say part of the problem is that we as Americans don't work with, visit, or understand foreign cultures. Europe is forced to deal with language issues and other nations. We don't really consider Canada as foreign, just weird with their stable economy and politeness. I'd say the southwest is okay with Mexico, but there are still problems. The midwest just doesn't see anything passed the next wheat field. It's just a huge lack of understanding.

 

[NHPlanner]

So the Donald calls Mexican immigrants a bunch of rapists and drug dealers, refuses to apologize/doubles down, and then his poll numbers surge among conservatives? :-c What does this mean?

Delicious Irony...

 

[Planit]

This political correctness crap has just gotten stupid. TV Land canceled reruns of the Dukes of Hazard because of the Genral Lee.

And before all the whiny bleeding heart liberals, maybe we should ban Democratics too. Bob Bird, Harry Truman, Edward Douglass White, Theodore G. Bilbo, George Gordon, David Duke, maybe Woodrow Wilson and Clifford Walker were all democrat senitors, president, governors, or congressional members... And KKK members.

There were some republicans that accepted money or endorsement from the KKK, and Clavin Coolage was likely a member, but otherwise it was heavily democrat.

As I said before, I am neutral on the subject for the most part. But this boycott on anything confederate flag has just gotten stupid.

Just a little bit of southern history (and I'm not whining here), those people were the old "Dixiecrats" who were/are very racist. George Wallace was their hero. Those people are now the staunch religious old south way of life republicans. They switched parties during the late 60s when LBJ started passing civil rights bills and liberals were the hippies. It doesn't matter if you have an R or D box checked.

 

[otterpop]

Irony is lost on The Donald. He would probably sue you if you pointed out his irony. He would probably think you were accusing him of making his cufflinks out of iron.

But I can see the commerical: "Donald J. Trump Signature Collection suits. Made by rapists for rapists. Perfect for your next court date."

 

[Seabishop]

This political correctness crap has just gotten stupid. TV Land canceled reruns of the Dukes of Hazard because of the Genral Lee. . . .

While the decision to pull Dukes of Hazard was made by a private company, I'm sure much of the country will interpret this as "Obama took away my Dukes of Hazard."

 

[michaelskis]

While the decision to pull Dukes of Hazard was made by a private company, I'm sure much of the country will interpret this as "Obama took away my Dukes of Hazard."

I can't even blame Obama for this one. I blame TV Land executives for folding to stupidity.

 

[The One]

From Robert Reich:
Health insurance companies are seeking rate increases of 20 to 40 percent or more for next year, according to the NY Times. The reason, they say, is their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected.

Baloney. Health insurers have more dough than they know what to do with, which is why Aetna is spending $37 billion to buy rival Humana, Anthem has offered $47 billion for giant insurer Cigna, and health-insurance CEOs are raking in millions. Humana CEO Bruce Broussard took home $10.1 million last year, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini got $15 million, and the CEOs of Anthem, Cigna and UnitedHealth each pulled in more than $10 million. The rate increases they're seeking will give them and their shareholders even more, and cost you and me a bundle. They're using Obamacare as a convenient excuse. If they continue to merge and raise rates, they'll create overwhelming political demand for a single-payer system.

 

[Gedunker]

Pulling "The Dukes of Hazzard" reruns from TVLand is certainly the death knell of American culture as we know it.:-x

 

[Mastiff]

So the Donald calls Mexican immigrants a bunch of rapists and drug dealers, refuses to apologize/doubles down, and then his poll numbers surge among conservatives? :-c What does this mean?

I think my wife said it best. He's got the GOP street cred as being rich, bigoted, and loud, but doesn't have the same religious zealotry that the rest have. Makes as much sense as anything else.

 

[Planit]

I think my wife said it best. He's got the GOP street cred as being rich, bigoted, and loud, but doesn't have the same religious zealotry that the rest have. Makes as much sense as anything else.

Rick Perry (the eyeglasses model for the state of Texas) is now saying the GOP is the party for African-Americans because the dems have let them down.

 

[Mastiff]

Rick Perry (the eyeglasses model for the state of Texas) is now saying the GOP is the party for African-Americans because the dems have let them down.

He should be indicted for that, too.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

He should be indicted for that, too.

For his comments about the GOP being the party for African Americans, or for being a really terrible eyeglasses model? Meh... indict him for both.

 

[Mastiff]

For his comments about the GOP being the party for African Americans, or for being a really terrible eyeglasses model? Meh... indict him for both.

Included as a lesser charge.

 

[Linda_D]

I'd have to agree it's just a cheap way out. I'm hoping all the residents will just get out to the courthouse and demand ALL marriage. Personally I don't see the need for a marriage license outside of religious ceremony. Why should I get a tax break because I'm married and you're just living with a girlfriend for the last ten years. I can understand group rate insurance, but it's not about marriage, it's about getting a group rate. I can understand employers not wanting to subsidize insurance for groups that aren't family, but if you're living together for a few years and maybe have kids together your a family to me and no piece of paper will change that. If you want to argue death benefits, just get a will. Otherwise just look at common law and the fact that you've been together for years. Same goes for divorce/splitting up.



The part I wondered about was how they would enforce that on groups with religious freedom like Christian Scientists. You know, legitimate religions since the 1800s that have legitimate religious reasons for not wanting medical intervention. The case was figured out years ago in court. Is California just going to get slammed by a prior case? In the case of Jim Carrey, he's just an ass. scientology is a fiction book, not a religion. I've always wondered what they offer because you seriously can't believe in Xenu. If you do, just start following the spaghetti monster. At least his noodley appendage teaches that pirates are cool. Yes, kids should get vaccinated against Disneyland, but I will make an exception for real religious beliefs.

New York has had mandatory vaccinations for all school children for decades. I'm not sure if that covers all private schools but virtually all legitimate private schools (ie, not some cult's "school") also require vaccinations. Students with medical or bonafide religious reasons are exempted (bonafide religion means a religion that's recognized as not wanting medical intervention such as the Christian Scientists). Forming your own religion doesn't get you out of vaccinations, and neither does your "conscience". I don't think there's a significant difference in the rate of whatever evil du jour is blamed on vaccinations between New Yorkers and Californians. In the recent measles epidemic, it was very limited in NY, despite the millions of children and immigrants and international visitors in and around the very dense NYC metro.

 

[michaelskis]

I have agreed that we need to improve the immigration process in the US, but I have also stated over and over again that if a person is here illegally, they are here illegally and need to be deported and wait their turn. But in some places communities have declared themselves to be a "Sanctuary City". This might be the dumbest thing ever.

Now we learn that a San Francisco woman, Kate Steinle, was shot by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of multiple felonies, with a gun that is owned by a federal agent. He had been detained for a drug charge but instead of holding him for federal officials to deport again, he was released into the streets of San Francisco, a Sanctuary City.

This is so bad that even Hillary Clinton (who had previously commented that she supported such cities) is now saying that it is a bad policy.

BUT, SF is not the only one... here is a list of Sanctuary Cities in the US. (LINK)

What are your thoughts? should this man have been held until he could be deported. Should Cities harbor illegal immigrants that are also felons?

I don't agree with Donald Trumps picture of illegal immigrants, but I do believe that we should have some level of immigration policy that does to turn a blind eye to criminals.

 

[MD Planner]

The link in your post is blocked by our filter here at work. It was classified as "Intolerance and Hate". That's a bit troubling . . . .

 

[michaelskis]

The link in your post is blocked by our filter here at work. It was classified as "Intolerance and Hate". That's a bit troubling . . . .

It was a link to Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC. Link changed to http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I have agreed that we need to improve the immigration process in the US, but I have also stated over and over again that if a person is here illegally, they are here illegally and need to be deported and wait their turn. But in some places communities have declared themselves to be a "Sanctuary City". This might be the dumbest thing ever.

Now we learn that a San Francisco woman, Kate Steinle, was shot by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of multiple felonies, with a gun that is owned by a federal agent. He had been detained for a drug charge but instead of holding him for federal officials to deport again, he was released into the streets of San Francisco, a Sanctuary City.

This is so bad that even Hillary Clinton (who had previously commented that she supported such cities) is now saying that it is a bad policy.

BUT, SF is not the only one... here is a list of Sanctuary Cities in the US. (LINK)

What are your thoughts? should this man have been held until he could be deported. Should Cities harbor illegal immigrants that are also felons?

I don't agree with Donald Trumps picture of illegal immigrants, but I do believe that we should have some level of immigration policy that does to turn a blind eye to criminals.

I think we all agree at this point that Trump is an absolutely horrendous human being. Regarding that specific story out of San Francisco, I do think a mistake was made in releasing him. What I'm far more interested in is how he really got the gun registered to a Federal agent. Like in planning, I don't think you can make any kind of blanket statement based on the actions of San Francisco, which has long been regarded as inept when it comes to a variety of things.

It is also worth noting that I have little regard for the opinions of talking heads on immigration. I grew up around immigrants, including a number of illegal immigrants. I get offended pretty easily when it comes to the immigration topic.

The term "Sanctuary City" is little more than a talking point. Yes, there are a few cities that truly fall in that realm, but that list is pretty inaccurate. Including cities with supposedly de facto policies is stupid--police have long had leeway in enforcing laws & ordinances. For example, they don't stop every car going 1 mph over the limit, and they don't ticket every jaywalker. Even that website states that many are not confirmed, using "reader observations." The Congressional Research Service isn't great about documenting either.

I can speak to some degree about Austin, which appears on that list. Their police don't generally ask for immigration status because ICE officials routinely go through their city & county jails. Their leadership wants the cops out on the streets preventing & addressing active crime and building relationships in the community so that crime is reported when it occurs, not duplicating efforts of a Federal agency tasked with enforcing immigration. To put this in planner world, the police typically don't bust somebody for posting illegal signs even though it is against a local ordinance because there are code enforcement officers to deal with that. In Austin, the level to which they reach out to ICE depends on the initial crime--they won't mess with a speeding ticket, but a drug offense with intent to distribute will get you on an ICE processing bus bound for the border.

But let's really get to the heart of this issue, which is whether illegal immigrants have higher rates of criminal activity:
2014 Justice Quarterly Academic Journal says nope; one example of many out there

Over the last two decades, the immigrant population of the U.S. nearly doubled as a share of the U.S. population and is currently around 13% of the total population. During that same time, we went from about 3.5 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. to nearly 12 million. You can go look up the census data on this yourself. Despite this, the FBI has consistently reported significant reductions in property & violent crime over that same time period (also easily found). The decline in crime rates was not just national, but also occurred in border cities and other cities with large immigrant populations.

Even this report by the conservative America's Majority Foundation drew similar conclusions, finding that crime rates actually declined in high-immigration states. There are a number of other more academic studies by some economists that show similar results.

The problem of crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. Immigrants come to the United States to pursue economic and educational opportunities not available in their home countries and to build better lives for themselves and their families; they have little to gain and much to lose by breaking the law. Undocumented immigrants in particular have even more reason to not commit crimes due to nearly guaranteed deportation.

I watched a friend of mine go through the immigration process from Mexico after he overstayed his visa--everyone always thinks of people crossing rivers, but the most common form of illegal immigration is simply overstaying a work visa. It was an insanely broken system for someone that was not any kind of threat and had gainful employment, paid taxes, etc. If you'd like a detailed account of his experience I'll be happy to provide it, but all I will say now is that it was the most frightening experience of his life as he sought his full green card in Juarez.

I'm not advocating open borders by any means, but a clear & easy path to legal status is essential. Immigrants are a key component of this country's economic strength, which many tend to forget.

 

[michaelskis]

I think we all agree at this point that Trump is an absolutely horrendous human being. Regarding that specific story out of San Francisco, I do think a mistake was made in releasing him. What I'm far more interested in is how he really got the gun registered to a Federal agent. Like in planning, I don't think you can make any kind of blanket statement based on the actions of San Francisco, which has long been regarded as inept when it comes to a variety of things.

It is also worth noting that I have little regard for the opinions of talking heads on immigration. I grew up around immigrants, including a number of illegal immigrants. I get offended pretty easily when it comes to the immigration topic.

The term "Sanctuary City" is little more than a talking point. Yes, there are a few cities that truly fall in that realm, but that list is pretty inaccurate. Including cities with supposedly de facto policies is stupid--police have long had leeway in enforcing laws & ordinances. For example, they don't stop every car going 1 mph over the limit, and they don't ticket every jaywalker. Even that website states that many are not confirmed, using "reader observations." The Congressional Research Service isn't great about documenting either.

I can speak to some degree about Austin, which appears on that list. Their police don't generally ask for immigration status because ICE officials routinely go through their city & county jails. Their leadership wants the cops out on the streets preventing & addressing active crime and building relationships in the community so that crime is reported when it occurs, not duplicating efforts of a Federal agency tasked with enforcing immigration. To put this in planner world, the police typically don't bust somebody for posting illegal signs even though it is against a local ordinance because there are code enforcement officers to deal with that. In Austin, the level to which they reach out to ICE depends on the initial crime--they won't mess with a speeding ticket, but a drug offense with intent to distribute will get you on an ICE processing bus bound for the border.

But let's really get to the heart of this issue, which is whether illegal immigrants have higher rates of criminal activity:
2014 Justice Quarterly Academic Journal says nope; one example of many out there

Over the last two decades, the immigrant population of the U.S. nearly doubled as a share of the U.S. population and is currently around 13% of the total population. During that same time, we went from about 3.5 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. to nearly 12 million. You can go look up the census data on this yourself. Despite this, the FBI has consistently reported significant reductions in property & violent crime over that same time period (also easily found). The decline in crime rates was not just national, but also occurred in border cities and other cities with large immigrant populations.

Even this report by the conservative America's Majority Foundation drew similar conclusions, finding that crime rates actually declined in high-immigration states. There are a number of other more academic studies by some economists that show similar results.

The problem of crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status. Immigrants come to the United States to pursue economic and educational opportunities not available in their home countries and to build better lives for themselves and their families; they have little to gain and much to lose by breaking the law. Undocumented immigrants in particular have even more reason to not commit crimes due to nearly guaranteed deportation.

I watched a friend of mine go through the immigration process from Mexico after he overstayed his visa--everyone always thinks of people crossing rivers, but the most common form of illegal immigration is simply overstaying a work visa. It was an insanely broken system for someone that was not any kind of threat and had gainful employment, paid taxes, etc. If you'd like a detailed account of his experience I'll be happy to provide it, but all I will say now is that it was the most frightening experience of his life as he sought his full green card in Juarez.

I'm not advocating open borders by any means, but a clear & easy path to legal status is essential. Immigrants are a key component of this country's economic strength, which many tend to forget.

Depends on how you define crime. Under an absolute definition, 100% of illegals have committed a crime. Being here illegally is a crime. That is why they are called illegals. Now I completely agree that the definition needs to be changed and the laws need to be altered. The process needs to be simplified and the boarders need to be secured, but not closed. A person should be able to be here while they go through the process.

This guy was a repeat felon, not some jaywalker. If he had been a U.S. Citizen he would have likely been in prison.

In terms of the gun, that is another red flag. A federal agent should know how to properly secure their weapons. I think something fishy is going on there.

 

[wahday]

Depends on how you define crime. Under an absolute definition, 100% of illegals have committed a crime. Being here illegally is a crime. That is why they are called illegals.

Using the term "illegal" as a noun to describe an undocumented immigrant is not only inflammatory, it is largely inaccurate. Actions are illegal. Even the dictionary recognizes it as a derogatory term.

Describing an immigrant as illegal is legally inaccurate as just being in the U.S. without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion on SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.” In a country that believes in due process of the law, calling an immigrant illegal is akin to calling a defendant awaiting trial a criminal.

The criminal aspect of immigration relates to unlawful entry. That is, people who sneak into the country by avoiding officials. But many undocumented immigrants did not sneak into the country. Many came via student, travel or other temporary visas and then remained after they expired. I would also extend this to children who did not make the decision to enter the country on their own, but were brought by adults who made that decision (whether by unlawful entry or expired visas). These children grow up and do not have documentation. But they are American, IMO, and should be encouraged to become documented so they can pay taxes and contribute positively to society instead of hiding in the shadows.

It is also worth pointing out that 50% of undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. The rest are from other parts of the world. That is a high percentage, but we often talk about immigration as a general term but really just mean Mexico (talk of "securing the border," expanding the wall and what not).

 

[DVD]

I always hate talking immigration because not enough people actually understand the scope of the problem. We like to use broad words and then relate the problem only to Mexico. I've always figured if you want to slow down immigration, find out why people are coming here and give them a reason to stay where they are. Easier said than done, but if people were motivated by good jobs in their own country, they wouldn't come here.

For the definition of crime, I think it's implied that we're talking about property and violent crime. It's unfair to call everyone crossing the border a criminal. Yes, they have broken the law, but by that token, so have you. You're an illegal driver just like me with all those speeding tickets and I know you're just going to do it again. Yet I don't classify drivers as criminal based on the speed they are going. So I won't be classifying immigrants as illegal based on their country of origin, method of entry, or color of skin. Like SR said, they may not have committed the crime. They might just be undocumented and last I checked, nobody can really run around demanding my papers.

Personally, I think most of the immigration debate is bad politics and racism. The problem is determining a clear path towards citizenship. The solution is not shutting down our borders and spreading racist crap on the airwaves about why we need to do it. Nobody cared when my mom got her citizenship (German), my friend only had to jump through a couple hoops to renew his work visa (Indian), but you try to get one Mexican through the process and he's a criminal until he's a citizen and even then he's a second class citizen courtesy of immigration sweeps at the factory he works at. No papers, you're getting deported. Nobody would ever ask me for papers, so why him. I don't see to many immigration stories coming out of our northern border states and I'm sure there are some Canadians who don't have the proper documents.

 

[The One]

Guns Research

Take a look at this new study about guns:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.008

Pretty soon gun research will be just about as unanimous as climate change research and have about the same results....only this time with gun violence deniers:not:

This post provided by The One, just in case you need a break from all the immigration talk

 

[Maister]

I just wanted to point out that all you Cyburbians that are saying Trump is a moron and that he's completely lost the latino vote are completely wrong!

It turns out, he's going to win them over big time. He said so himself. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-republican-trump-says-ill-win-the-latino-vote/ar-AAcIOzP

 

[wahday]

As to the “Sanctuary City” thing, this feels to me like an alarmist fabrication. These cities are not part of some consortium that have collectively agreed on some particular attitude toward immigration.

As the link states, the term “Sanctuary Cities” simply refers to “Cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

So, any city that does not use its locally raised money to enforce federal immigration laws is now put into a category that implies it is doing this deliberately to be a safe haven for undocumented residents? Really?! How absurd and clearly a strategy to artificially whup up indignation. I took a look at my state and noted a number of things.

Firstly, they included a tiny town (6500 people) that is economically teetering as the recovery from the recession continues. And now they are a “sanctuary city” just because they don’t want to spend their piddly revenue rounding up undocumented immigrants? Please. They have other fish to fry.

Another is one of the poorest counties in the country. Unemployment is at 10% and the region is largely rural with the largest town having a population of a little over 1000 people. But they are not focusing on the immigration issue by spending their own revenue? Outrageous!

Also, they state that one of our cities is a Sanctuary City because the mayor opposes taking away drivers licenses away from the undocumented. This is a state law so it really doesn’t matter what this city mayor thinks and besides, his opinion does not make the city any more or less attractive to the undocumented. Plus, he isn’t even Mayor anymore – his statements on the issue were made in 2007.

Ok, getting off the soapbox now. Sorry for the rant, but some of these misinformation strategies really chap my hide.

 

[michaelskis]

The DOJ lists immigration violations as a ciminal activity. Crossing into the U.S. And remaining here is an illegal activity. I will continue to use the term illegal immigrant because it Is an accurate description.

I agree that the system for them to become legal is broken and needs to be replaced, but when it comes down to it, they are here illegally.

Absent of that, I don't think that they further increase crime rates. I have met some and they seem to work a heck of a lot harder than some of the native born Americans that I know.

The point is this guy in SF had multiple felonies, was not detained as he should have been because SF is a sanctuary city, and a woman is dead because of it and a federal officer is being questioned because his gun was used. Yes it was reported stolen which further paints a bad picture of this illegal immigrant.

 

[DVD]

Take a look at this new study about guns:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.02.008

Pretty soon gun research will be just about as unanimous as climate change research and have about the same results....only this time with gun violence deniers:not:

This post provided by The One, just in case you need a break from all the immigration talk

How day you bring up such blasphemous studies! You know gun violence cannot be researched. It's against that constimitution thingy.

The DOJ lists immigration violations as a ciminal activity. Crossing into the U.S. And remaining here is an illegal activity. I will continue to use the term illegal immigrant because it Is an accurate description.

I agree that the system for them to become legal is broken and needs to be replaced, but when it comes down to it, they are here illegally.

Absent of that, I don't think that they further increase crime rates. I have met some and they seem to work a heck of a lot harder than some of the native born Americans that I know.

The point is this guy in SF had multiple felonies, was not detained as he should have been because SF is a sanctuary city, and a woman is dead because of it and a federal officer is being questioned because his gun was used. Yes it was reported stolen which further paints a bad picture of this illegal immigrant.

I think we might be getting into two different issues. The immigration thing and the processing of criminals between cities and INS. When it comes to SF, I think the city screwed up big time. If a federal agency (doesn't matter which one) or some other city/county/state law enforcement asked for a hold or a transfer than you honor it. Maybe all INS would have done is send the guy home, but it's not like SF was going to jail him.

On the immigration side, and this might be getting a little overly PC, but you can't call them illegal unless they have been proven to break the law, but I understand it's just a moniker we're giving people. I don't know that the guys hanging out at Home Depot looking for work are illegal, much less immigrants, but assumptions are often made. This is why we add words like accused in front of people. You should be innocent until proven guilty. Yes our border is a sieve and we should do something, but trust me, a fence ain't the answer and more border patrol (yes they need more people) is just a different kind of fence. Another point to be made, I don't consider the guy I went to school with who was smuggled across when he was a baby, grew up in Arizona, speaks English clearly (and Spanish), graduated high school, attended university, and held jobs an illegal. He never broke a law. Maybe his parents did, but how do we get a productive member of society like him to become legal (he was working on jumping through the hoops, but it takes a village if you don't have the money to do it). What I hate about this discussion is that we take one event like the SF thing, plaster it across an entire segment of society and victimize people who are just trying to make a better life for themselves. If you gave them a chance to be legal they would happily pay taxes and do whatever it takes (at least most people, there's always that one ass that we need to use as an example).

Maybe this just sets me off from years of living in Arizona and listening to people complain about the "damn illegals". What the hell did they ever do to you? They're not taking your jobs because I don't see a bunch of white guys standing around Home Depot doing crap work for little pay. They're to busy collecting unemployment checks (sorry, gross generalization). And even if they are using your tax dollars or some other crap that you feel is an abuse, it's because you won't give them a chance to pay in.

 

[The One]

How day you bring up such blasphemous studies! You know gun violence cannot be researched. It's against that constimitution thingy.

YOU SIR!!! ARE A GUN DENIER!!! {pulls off white glove and slaps dvdneal across face}

Our duel shall be a spam eating contest at noon tomorrow in the neutral city of Grand Junction, Colorado (1/2 way point) you Charlatan!

:-o

 

[Brocktoon]

YOU SIR!!! ARE A GUN DENIER!!! {pulls off white glove and slaps dvdneal across face}

Our duel shall be a spam eating contest at noon tomorrow in the neutral city of Grand Junction, Colorado (1/2 way point) you Charlatan!

:-o

Since you are opposed to firearms might I suggest a more civilized duel...battle axes in a pitch black basement.

 

[DVD]

YOU SIR!!! ARE A GUN DENIER!!! {pulls off white glove and slaps dvdneal across face}

Our duel shall be a spam eating contest at noon tomorrow in the neutral city of Grand Junction, Colorado (1/2 way point) you Charlatan!

:-o

Since you are opposed to firearms might I suggest a more civilized duel...battle axes in a pitch black basement.

Since I am the one being slapped, I get to choose the weapons. I choose...FISH! Choose your fish wisely my friend your life may depend on it.

If not, how about just a Halo battle from the comforts of our couches. If we're going to duel, let's do it the American way, lazy and with electronic entertainment involved.

 

[michaelskis]

Regarding the gun study, did they separate crimes committed by people who obtained guns illegally vs people who committed crimes with guns obtained legally? The reason I ask is because those findings would be extremely one sided. We as a society need to do a better job of properly securing our guns. I might go overboard but I believe that unless a gun is on a person (in their hand or elsewhere) it should be properly secured in a safe or similar device.


As for the immigration debate, I agree, not all foreign people are here illegally. But those who are are illegal. More so I agree that the process to be here legally needs to change.


In a very sad note, how the hell is Trump leading the pack in the GOP poll in NC? That is insane.

 

[DVD]

In a very sad note, how the hell is Trump leading the pack in the GOP poll in NC? That is insane.

I'm blaming you for that one! You live there.

For the gun study, I think they just studied incidents where a crime occurred and a gun was present. Even if the gun was just sitting on the side enjoying a cold soda like some odd South Park character. The results speak volumes though. I'm less likely to experience gun violence or crimes because I don't own a gun. So I've got that going for me.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

I think we might be getting into two different issues. The immigration thing and the processing of criminals between cities and INS. When it comes to SF, I think the city screwed up big time. If a federal agency (doesn't matter which one) or some other city/county/state law enforcement asked for a hold or a transfer than you honor it. Maybe all INS would have done is send the guy home, but it's not like SF was going to jail him.

I think one of the major problems with INS, ICE, CBP, etc. asking cities and counties to hold illegal immigrants in their facilities until the federal government can process them is that the feds were often just leaving them in the local jail cells for weeks and months on end with no reimbursement to the communities. Originally many of the "Sanctuary Cities" didn't have a problem holding on to them for the feds but once the recession hit and the cities really began to feel the monetary pinch, they understandably changed their tune. Basically, the local communities had more important fish to fry than carry out a costly unfunded mandate.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

In a very sad note, how the hell is Trump leading the pack in the GOP poll in NC? That is insane.

NC has the same problem Texas does: the city folk are very rational, inclusive, etc. for the most part regardless of party, but once you get more than a few miles outside of the city, including some suburbs, it gets real dumb real fast.

Trump's comments are so out there at this point that if I didn't know better, I would say he is a democrat plant to undermine the GOP from the inside.

 

[DVD]

I think one of the major problems with INS, ICE, CBP, etc. asking cities and counties to hold illegal immigrants in their facilities until the federal government can process them is that the feds were often just leaving them in the local jail cells for weeks and months on end with no reimbursement to the communities. Originally many of the "Sanctuary Cities" didn't have a problem holding on to them for the feds but once the recession hit and the cities really began to feel the monetary pinch, they understandably changed their tune. Basically, the local communities had more important fish to fry than carry out a costly unfunded mandate.

I can understand that and it's part of what I consider more of a law enforcement problem and less of an immigration problem.

NC has the same problem Texas does: the city folk are very rational, inclusive, etc. for the most part regardless of party, but once you get more than a few miles outside of the city, including some suburbs, it gets real dumb real fast.

Trump's comments are so out there at this point that if I didn't know better, I would say he is a democrat plant to undermine the GOP from the inside.

I might vote Trump in the primary just to make it easier for Hillary to win. :lmao:

 

[michaelskis]

I can understand that and it's part of what I consider more of a law enforcement problem and less of an immigration problem.



I might vote Trump in the primary just to make it easier for Hillary to win. :lmao:

Oh for the love of God. Trump v Hillary? I can't bring myself to vote for either of them.

 

[hilldweller]

Maybe this just sets me off from years of living in Arizona and listening to people complain about the "damn illegals". What the hell did they ever do to you? They're not taking your jobs because I don't see a bunch of white guys standing around Home Depot doing crap work for little pay. They're to busy collecting unemployment checks (sorry, gross generalization). And even if they are using your tax dollars or some other crap that you feel is an abuse, it's because you won't give them a chance to pay in.

You can't write off the concerns of the working class as just racism. Since you brought up Home Depot let's consider the home-building and associated trades industry.

Working class "natives" (weird using labels to discuss the immigration issue, isn't it?) used to be able to make a decent living in construction, but that was probably 20 years ago. Today, especially in places like AZ, the industry is dominated by "southern" immigrants (again, labels are tricky as all aren't undocumented or illegal). These immigrants are willing to work for low wages which the natives aren't willing to accept. There are other factors involved, but the surplus labor from immigration has disproportionately impacted the working class by driving down wages.

The folks coming over the border aren't going to be taking your planning job because they are uneducated. But if you were a blue-collar guy you might view the situation differently.

Not trying to stir the pot but I believe this side of the immigration debate needs to be a part of the discussion.

 

[michaelskis]

You can't write off the concerns of the working class as just racism. Since you brought up Home Depot let's consider the home-building and associated trades industry.

Working class "natives" (weird using labels to discuss the immigration issue, isn't it?) used to be able to make a decent living in construction, but that was probably 20 years ago. Today, especially in places like AZ, the industry is dominated by "southern" immigrants (again, labels are tricky as all aren't undocumented or illegal). These immigrants are willing to work for low wages which the natives aren't willing to accept. There are other factors involved, but the surplus labor from immigration has disproportionately impacted the working class by driving down wages.

The folks coming over the border aren't going to be taking your planning job because they are uneducated. But if you were a blue-collar guy you might view the situation differently.

Not trying to stir the pot but I believe this side of the immigration debate needs to be a part of the discussion.

I think you being up an interesting point. Has our demand for cheap housing resulted in a workforce shift? My wife's uncle is a builder and he makes very little profit. It is the same with the agriculture industry when mechanical harvesting isn't an option. Farmers can't afford to pay a living wage and still afford to be in operation.

 

[wahday]

I am not sure what you mean by “our demand for cheap housing” M’skis. If you mean low quality housing, I agree that many builders develop to lower standards. But if you are proposing that housing in the US is artificially low because buyers aren’t willing to pay more, I don’t see that borne out in the market at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The gap between wages and housing costs has increased dramatically just since the recovery. Why? Its a complex mix of factors: building is more complex, building codes and zoning requirements are more stringent, materials costs are high, and buyers' wages have generally been tamped down across all sectors (meaning it is harder for buyers to qualify).

From RealtyTrac

Nationwide, median wages have increased 1.3 percent between the second quarter of 2012 –when home prices bottomed out and started rising again — and the second quarter of 2014. Meanwhile home prices have increased 17 percent in the two years ending in December 2014, outpacing wage growth by a 13:1 ratio.

This has huge implications because the increase in the percentage of income paid toward rents means that much less paid into the local economy. So, rising housing costs have a ripple effect in the rest of the market.

Given all of this, I would expect that lower labor costs would mean lower building costs. It’s the one area where you can actually control costs to some degree (by hiring inexpensive labor). This can translate to more affordable housing, more profits for builders, or (as is more often the case) something in between. Builders can’t price their products too high or they will have a hard time selling and they won’t price them too low if they can get more for their product.

Another interesting factor in housing costs I read about some time ago has been the rise of two income households. As people could pay more for homes, the market reacted accordingly by raising costs. The reality for many today is that if they are going to own a home, they have to be a two-income household. See what happens when you let women enter the workplace?! (I kid, I kid…)

 

[DVD]

Oh for the love of God. Trump v Hillary? I can't bring myself to vote for either of them.

Any day I can make someone gag a little bit is a good day for me, but then if not Trump, who could you vote for? Jeb? Ted? any of the other 20 candidates? This might next be the best presidential race for true leadership or whatever someone is looking for in a president.

You can't write off the concerns of the working class as just racism. Since you brought up Home Depot let's consider the home-building and associated trades industry.

Working class "natives" (weird using labels to discuss the immigration issue, isn't it?) used to be able to make a decent living in construction, but that was probably 20 years ago. Today, especially in places like AZ, the industry is dominated by "southern" immigrants (again, labels are tricky as all aren't undocumented or illegal). These immigrants are willing to work for low wages which the natives aren't willing to accept. There are other factors involved, but the surplus labor from immigration has disproportionately impacted the working class by driving down wages.

The folks coming over the border aren't going to be taking your planning job because they are uneducated. But if you were a blue-collar guy you might view the situation differently.

Not trying to stir the pot but I believe this side of the immigration debate needs to be a part of the discussion.

True, but that's just part of what makes this a wicked problem. Immigration policy has always moved with the market demand for labor. I'm in favor of picking one aspect and start finding a solution to that. I prefer the path to citizenship idea as step 1. Don't forget if we get it wrong we can always change it, but that will end up taking years of debate like everything else at the federal level.

 

[The One]

Ha ha ha......

I think you being up an interesting point. Has our demand for cheap housing resulted in a workforce shift? My wife's uncle is a builder and he makes very little profit. It is the same with the agriculture industry when mechanical harvesting isn't an option. Farmers can't afford to pay a living wage and still afford to be in operation.

Thanks for the laughs (again)....I needed it today.

The idea that we as consumers see ANY discount realized by developers using illegal labor is so funny it hurts. They charge what they would for full cost labor in the price of the homes. If they didn't, the homes would sell for LESS THAN MARKET VALUE. Instead of being just another cost of doing business....this labor savings becomes PROFIT. This is borne out in the cost per square foot of home construction and the increases over time.....I don't believe it has EVER decreased or even been below inflation.....someone check that out.

Another wonderful example of how developers choose not to pass on savings realized from tax breaks.....look to the Mello Roos bonding in California (other names in other places). This allows a developer to charge the buyer an initial "market rate" for the property purchase (commercial and residential), while at the same time pawning off infrastructure improvement costs (they are already getting paid for from the sale of the property) into a bonding authority that gets paid BACK TO THE DEVELOPER.....wait for it.....from the buyer!!! The buyer ends up paying twice for the infrastructure.

Once because they are paying "market value" that includes the cost of infrastructure. The government doesn't step in to make sure the developer lowers the "market value" by the amount bonded for infrastructure improvements.

Second because the buyer has to agree to pay back the bond over time to the developer that set the whole thing up. So the developer gets paid over time for the infrastructure.

To make things even worse for the public, these bonding authorities (in commercial centers) sometimes will setup a special sales tax district that makes the user of the center pay back the developer for infrastructure development. Either way, the developer gets paid twice and the rest of us subsidize them without ever seeing the benefit of lower prices.

Most places have a variation on this theme in one way or another.

 

[michaelskis]

Thanks for the laughs (again)....I needed it today.

The idea that we as consumers see ANY discount realized by developers using illegal labor is so funny it hurts. They charge what they would for full cost labor in the price of the homes. If they didn't, the homes would sell for LESS THAN MARKET VALUE. Instead of being just another cost of doing business....this labor savings becomes PROFIT. This is borne out in the cost per square foot of home construction and the increases over time.....I don't believe it has EVER decreased or even been below inflation.....someone check that out.

Another wonderful example of how developers choose not to pass on savings realized from tax breaks.....look to the Mello Roos bonding in California (other names in other places). This allows a developer to charge the buyer an initial "market rate" for the property purchase (commercial and residential), while at the same time pawning off infrastructure improvement costs (they are already getting paid for from the sale of the property) into a bonding authority that gets paid BACK TO THE DEVELOPER.....wait for it.....from the buyer!!! The buyer ends up paying twice for the infrastructure.

Once because they are paying "market value" that includes the cost of infrastructure. The government doesn't step in to make sure the developer lowers the "market value" by the amount bonded for infrastructure improvements.

Second because the buyer has to agree to pay back the bond over time to the developer that set the whole thing up. So the developer gets paid over time for the infrastructure.

To make things even worse for the public, these bonding authorities (in commercial centers) sometimes will setup a special sales tax district that makes the user of the center pay back the developer for infrastructure development. Either way, the developer gets paid twice and the rest of us subsidize them without ever seeing the benefit of lower prices.

Most places have a variation on this theme in one way or another.

Market value is a very diverse concept with insane number of variables, labor just being one. However in terms of the developer getting wealthy can see your point.

I was thinking in terms of my wife's uncle who is not a developer but is a custom home builder. He buys banks of lots from a developer and builds the houses, or he will be hired to build X number of houses based on a predetermined amount. His cost of materials and labor have gone through the roof in the past 20 years. He would not hire illegals, so he closed up shop and now subcontracts for larger construction companies doing apartment buildings and historic renovations in mixed use projects.

Some of these larger companies, the developer is making a boat load. But how often is the developer and the builder the same person.


In terms of who am I going to vote for, It's won't be Trump, Hillary, or Bush. I will write in a candidate if I need to.