I’m sorry but … « Sister Toldjah

April 2006
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Mar		May »
	1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

I’m sorry but …

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on April 29, 2006 at 5:13 pm

… the Spanish version of the US national anthem sucks.

Even though I’m not on board with the immmigration plan that the President supports (the Senate version), I’m glad he’s come out in support of singing the national anthem in ENGLISH, not Spanish:

WASHINGTON, April 28—President Bush has never been shy about speaking Spanish in public, and he is known to love all kinds of music: country, folk and even Tex-Mex style rock. But one thing you will not find on his iPod: “Nuestro Himno,” the new Spanish version of the national anthem that was released on Friday as part of the growing immigrants’ rights movement.

Asked at a news briefing in the Rose Garden on Friday whether he believed the anthem would have the same value in Spanish as it did in English, Mr. Bush said flatly, “No, I don’t.”

“And I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English,” Mr. Bush said. “And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English.”

Amen.

Of course, had this country made it clear from the start of the Mexican immigration wave that English was going to be the official language here, that you had to learn English in order to attend school and work and live here, rather than caving in to multiculturalists, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the position we are today.

Vivek Krishnamurthy, blogging over at my friend Michael J.W. Sticking’s “Reaction” blog gets it wrong by labelling a fondness for the national anthem to be sang in English as an example of “xenophobia”:

One of the most distressing aspects of the debate raging in the United States right now over immigration is the mildly xenophobic tone that some of the principals (who should know better) have been starting to take. Such as President George W. Bush. This afternoon, his eminence weighed into the blazing row over the Spanish version of The Star Spangled Banner being recorded by a number of top Latin pop artists, stating in typical monosyllables that he thinks “people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English. And they ought to learn to sing the anthem in English.”

Perhaps they should learn English, but what’s so wrong about bringing the national anthem to the people, in whatever language they speak? Since when did America become an ethnic nation defined in terms of a dominant linguistic group, rather than a land built on the grand ideas of freedom and liberty? (After all, the Founding Fathers toyed with the idea of making German the official language so that the linguistic memory of English tyranny would be erased from the young nation.)

That’s not accurate, as this page makes clear:

Claim: A proposal to make German the official language of the United States of America was defeated in Congress by one vote.

Status: False.

Origins: Legend has it that in 1795 a bill to establish German as the official language of the fledgling United States of America was defeated in Congress by a single vote. There never was such a vote; indeed, there wasn’t any such bill, either. A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English, and no bill was ever actually voted upon.

This most famous of language legends began when a group of German-Americans from Augusta, Virginia, petitioned Congress, and in response to their petition a House committee recommended publishing three thousand sets of laws in German and distributing them to the states (with copies of statutes printed in English as well). The House debated this proposal on 13 January 1795 without reaching a decision, and a vote to adjourn and consider the recommendation at a later date was defeated by one vote, 42 to 41. There was no vote on an actual bill, merely a vote on whether or not to adjourn. Because the motion to adjourn did not pass, the matter was dropped. It was from this roll call on adjournment that the “German missed becoming the official language of the USA by one vote” legend sprang.

The House debated translating federal statutes into German again on 16 February 1795, but the final result was the approval of a bill to publish existing and future federal statutes in English only. This bill was approved by the Senate as well and signed into law by President George Washington a month later. The legend lives on, though, presented a vivid lesson that the foundations of our world aren’t always as solid as we think.

Throughout the history of this great country, what has been the predominant language has everyone here spoken? English. This is very simple, and has nothing to do with xenophobia. If I want to live and work in France, I will learn the French language. If I want to become a loyal citizen of France, I will learn their national anthem in their language. If people want to be educated, work, and become citizens of this country, they need to learn English. It’s not about xenophobia – it’s about taking pride in the history and heritage of your country, something that the anti-strong immigration laws crowd wants to lecture everyone else about in terms of hoisting thte Mexican flag, but who in theory seems to understand very little about.

I won’t live, work, and become a citizen of Mexico without learning their language. Mexicans, in turn, who want to do the same here should have to dothe same. We should require it.

To those who are trying to make this into a debate about xenophobia, I encourage you to abandon that line of argument. Because that’s not what the debate on English as the official language and the larger issue of wanting something done about the illegal immigration problem in this country is all about.

Related Toldjah So posts:

In: Immigration, Multiculturalism, President Bush, Social Issues | Email This Post | Print This

forest hunter says:

May 4, 2006 at 2:11 am

dave, please understand the difference between the ongoing history and irrational fear. I don’t speak of or from fear, but history being continued daily. Fast track to anything – your words. I said it initiates a pattern, thousands who have in fact become even greater felons on numerous occasions. I guess I wasn’t clear enough.

Your belief that gangs aren’t or don’t come across the border would be laughable if it weren’t a fact of ongoing history. What’s the name of the more infamous gang, MS 13 or something? In the event you’re unaware of it, we don’t need more gangs, dave! Less and none would be the target. And yes we sure as hell can pin that on illegal aliens but I’m simply basing that on under reported reality.

Baklava says:

May 4, 2006 at 8:27 am

17% of felons in federal prisons are illegal immigrants who are there for violent crimes.

dave says:

May 4, 2006 at 3:14 pm

That’s a confusing stastic, Baklava. Can you cite the full source so I can confirm it? Are you saying that 17% of the illegal immigrants in federal prisons are there for violent crimes? Or 17% of all federal prisoners are illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes? These would be two very different numbers. Here’s what I found from the government and from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.

Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalcoverage.html)

“Moreover, 17 percent of prisoners in the United States are illegal aliens”
Now, this says “prisoners,” not federal prisoners. Federal prisoners would obviously be an even smaller number. (I wonder if this is the statistic to which you referred.)

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics: (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/fedtyptab.htm)
The chart shows that in 2003, there were a total of 3,040 violent crime prosecuted in federal court. If 17% of those defendants were illegal aliens, that would be about 500 people.

Also according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 1.5% of federal immigrant detainees were sentenced for violent crimes, compared to 15% of U.S. citizens incarcerated in federal prison.

Given these small numbers, I find it hard to justify rhetoric like this from the Minutemen web site:

“However, tomorrow (Thursday) is “Take Your American Flag to Work Day”
The idea is to take your flag to work, to lunch — everywhere you go — I have one that is about 3×5 on a small stick that I will carry around with me everywhere tomorrow…

Of course, you could always stick it in the barrel of your Uzi.
—-
I would love to stick it in my rifle and fire it at the first illegal to cross our border.
—-
SECURE OUR BORDERS MR. PRESIDENT!

Remember 911 ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
—-

May 4, 2006 at 4:22 pm

“Moreover, 17 percent of prisoners in the United States are illegal aliens”

That would be the statistic that I was referring to with poor English. Thanks for confirming it for us all. Costs lots of money to keep these people in prison for the CRIMES they committed (they weren’t just working hard)

And exactly what is wrong with this minutemen languate again:

“However, tomorrow (Thursday) is “Take Your American Flag to Work Day”
The idea is to take your flag to work, to lunch — everywhere you go — I have one that is about 3Ã—5 on a small stick that I will carry around with me everywhere tomorrowâ€¦

I’m happy to see that language. Does it make you squeemish. Or feel ucky inside. huh. Let me repeat if for you until you feel better!

If someone invades your home do you hand them a sandwich?

May 5, 2006 at 1:28 pm

Remeber, in over 75% of those cases, the crime they committed was entering illegally. We know about that already. I was refuting the misuse of the statistic to decieve people into believing that all illegal immigrants are habitual criminals, or congenitally criminal.

No, of course the flag part doesn’t make me feel yucky. I feel great pride in our national flag for the heritage it represents. That’s why I didn’t bat an eye when people marching in the last few weeks were carrying their flags. I appreciate and respect that they have feelings toward their home countries, as well as toward their new chosen country, America. I have no problem with that. My wife is a British citizen who just became a U.S. citizen. She has strong ties to England, but she has, and will continue to develop, strong ties to America – her new home. This is the on-going history of this country, played out over and over again by millions upon millions of people from every corner of the world. They may have exchanged the physical soil of their homeland for a new one, but even as they become American, they retain cultural and linguistic ties to the land where they once lived. If it were any other way, this would not be America.

No, the part that made me feel yucky was about sticking the flag in a machine gun and turning it on people trying to reach our shores. That kind of imagination is the dark side of American nationalism.

“If someone invades your home do you hand them a sandwich?”

With hard questions like these, I often ask, “What would Jesus, or Ghandi, or Martin Luther King do?” And I think of the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty. I don’t think we should try to out-patriot one another. I love my country, pay my taxes gladly, and practice involved citizenship. We have to get to the heart of the matter, which is how to deal with the issue of immigration–legal and illegal–in a way that upholds our core principles and values as a nation of free people and doesn’t damage the tradition of openness that has sustained us and made this the greatest nation in history.

Maybe we should start trying to find out where our common ground is, what concerns and values we share?

PCD says:

May 5, 2006 at 1:36 pm

First off, dave, let’s start with you being honest. Your statement, “Remeber, in over 75% of those cases, the crime they committed was entering illegally.” is a lie made out of wholecloth to defuse one of the most powerful arguments against you. There are NO illegals held in city and state lockups for just entering the US Illegally. That is a Federal beef that only the Feds can enforce. The illegals in city and state lockups are in for actual crimes, and not jaywalking, either.

Now, you want to show us something other than you saying something with attribution to other than dave?

Forget the sob stories. Stick to hard facts and US laws on the books, not the wishes of George Soros and Vincente Fox.

sanity says:

May 5, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Good article here: Immigrant Crime: Who Wants To Know?

The Internationalization of Criminal Justice (PDF Format)

Some examples:

On April 29, 2002 Armando Garcia, a Mexican national illegally in California, shot and killed Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff David March during a routine traffic stop.

Garcia, thrice deported and previously charged on two counts of attempted murder, fled to Mexico.

Mexico has become a safe haven for many nationals who commit violent crime in the U.S. For the price of a bus ticket the lowest of the low can breathe free in Mexico. Here are a few examples:

* Daniel Perez who shot his estranged wife and killed her father. Perez had prior convictions for attempted first-degree murder, spousal battery, kidnapping and stalking.

* Alvaro Luna Jara is charged with the murder of a 12-year-old boy and the attempted murder of three others. Although Jara is not a Mexican national, Mexico refused to extradite him because his parents are.

* Juan Manuel Casillas shot (in the back) and killed his 17-year-old ex-girl friend and her 15-year-old female cousin on their way to high-school

* Father Nicolas Aguilar Rivera, a Roman Catholic priest, who is charged with 19 counts of child molestation.

Los Angeles County officials estimate that from L.A. alone more than 60 suspected killers have fled to Mexico for sanctuary.

Amazingly, the U.S. federal government, despite written requests from all 50 states’ attorney generals, has not lifted a finger to help.

Recently, Cooley visited Attorney General John Ashcroft to plead his case. Follow-up letters to Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and all other 98 U.S. Senators have been mostly ignored.

California Assemblyman Keith Richman introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 51 urging the Public Safety Committee to recognize the importance of extraditing criminals back to California. The measure failed when Democrats Carl Washington, Jackie Goldberg and Fred Keeley voted against.

Said Richman, “It is outrageous that we cannot get unanimous support for this measure.”

Maurizi, who addressed the P.S.C., insisted “California stand up to demand action by our Federal government to prevent the infringement on our sovereign right to protect our citizens and prosecute and punish for crimes committed on our soil.”

If the federal government isn’t interested in justice on behalf of the victims of heinous crimes, what is it interested in?

For one thing, eighteen members of the House Judiciary Committee are concerned about protecting the “rights” of criminal aliens.

H.R. 1452, ludicrously named “The Family Reunification Act of 2002″ would repeal mandatory detention of criminal aliens and create a loophole that would allow certain criminal aliens to avoid deportation. Those already deported could return to the U.S. to pursue reinstatement.

Among those who would benefit from H.R. 1452, which passed Committee, are those convicted of assault, arson, robbery, child pornography, alien smuggling and document fraud.

California Congressmen who voted yes on this outrageous legislation are Darrell Issa, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and Zoe Lofgren.

Unfortunately he has it right when it comes down to doing it for the votes…

House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt has a more preposterous idea–an amnesty for 10 million illegal aliens. Because so many millions live in the U.S. illegally, any amnesty would absolutely include terrorists and criminals.

This, of course, is much less important to Gephardt than the prospect of Latino votes for Democratic candidates.

Here’s the sad summary of this column. When Mexico wants something from the U.S. (driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens, consular identification cards, amnesty) waves of delegations come north to lobby hard. The U.S. government snaps to attention.

But if the U.S. wants something from Mexico as basic as the extradition of a cop-killer, we get the cold shoulder.

As for all of that talk from President George W. Bush and the other transparent phonies in D.C. about Homeland Security, you can forget it.

Votes count more.

And I think he is right.
Votes count more…..

May 7, 2006 at 12:55 am

PCD,
It’s right here on the Bureau of Justice Statistics site:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/iofc00pr.htm

“Fifty percent of those charged with immigration offenses during 2000 were accused of reentering the country illegally, 25 percent with improper entry”

I cited federal prison statistics specifically because Baklava had given an unattributable statistic about violent offenders in federal prisons. I wanted to clarify it, and what I found out from the very people who do the arresting and locking up is that the number is nowhere near what Baklava’s first post implied. Only 1.5% of federally prosecuted case involving illegal immigrants were for violent crimes. (This is documented in my post above. It’s at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/fedtyptab.htm)

You’re absolutely right that we base our positions on facts. So, your assertion that “illegals in city and state lockups are in for actual crimes, and not jaywalking, either” also needs to be backed up. I haven’t found a source yet that separates out and combines city and state statistics, but if you have please share it. All I found so far was the statistic that 17% of all prisoners (federal, state, and city) were illegal immigrants. I found that many of those at the federal level are there for the crime of entering improperly, so we need to find out the disposition of those in state and city prisons. There’s no doubt that some have committed violent crimes. People are people. But I don’t think the facts support any basis for the claim that illegal immigrants are coming here to commit crimes. Quite the opposite. There’s clearly a concern about the use of illegal immigrants for cheap labor, so obviously the vast majority are here to work.

Sanity can post the names of five people who committed murders with a description of their despicable crimes. But if I were to judge 11 million on the actions of those five, it would be absurd and irrational. In fact, even the document that Sanity him/herself pointed to says this:

“Despite some perceptions that immigrants account
for a large proportion of crime, much of the global
crime in America is committed by a relatively small
percentage of the immigrant population, legal and
illegal. Nevertheless, such perceptions have led to a
growing number of hate crimes and other retaliatory attacks by those who are
not willing to accept what may be termed the changing face of America.”

So, getting back to my idea of trying to find common ground, does anyone else agree that to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a small number of individuals of that group is unfair as well as totally illogical?

Big Bang Hunter says:

May 7, 2006 at 1:16 am

- Well what a wonderful strawman argument Dave, and yes that would certainly be wrong, judging a whole group of people that way for the sins of a few. Problem is thats wrong on both counts. But beside the point.

- I’ll use the number 11 million, although living here in So. Cal, every time I see it it makes me laugh. We in the state know there are more than 15 to 18 millon in the LA basin alone, never mind the rest of the states, but the politicians don’t want to alarm the public with anything like the true numbers.

- Whatever the number, all of them that are undocumented have either overstayed their work visit permits, visa’a whatever, or crossed the border illegally, with no authorization to be here whatsoever, which makes them “undocumented illegal aliens”. If you want to argue that the laws are unfair, inhumane, etc etc, thats your privaledge, but to say they’re not law breakers is just nonsense.

- There are two claims being made that are just silly. One, that they Constitutional rights as if they’re legal American citizens. They have no such rights, only human rights by the Geneva convention rules, and the sole claim they could make is for “political refuge”. Few if any are even aware of that, and I personally wish they were to outright embarrass that moron Fox. You can bet if they started seeking “refuge” Mr Fox would sing an entirely different tune. Hes a disgrace.

- Secondly that we are racist for wanting to enforce our own laws on the borders as if we have no soveriegnty as a Nation. Of course thats the influence of the hard left in the mix. You want to drown out opposing views just yell rascist as loud as you can, no matter what the issues. Total leftist BS.

- In the mean time both political parties keep trying to wait each other out, neither side wanting to be the “bad guy” with strong legislation, and possibly lose hispanic support/votes, while the rest of the majority of America gets angrier and angrier.

- Bang

May 7, 2006 at 2:57 am

The 5 were listed as examples.

No one judges all illegal aliens by the crimes committed by some, BUT to say crime is not being committed by illegals is also a falacy that you and others wish to disregard. We have more gangs that are spreading out across the US. Just because they are not in jail does not mean they have not committed crimes (those that do).

Hell police have their hands tied with these stupid ’sanctuary’ cities where it is illegal for them to arrest known criminal because they are illegal immigrants. They KNOW they are illegals, they know they are gangbangers, and they still can’t touch them.

Then you have the whole liberal PC agenda taking hold of this too, calling them undocumented. What they are is ILLEGAL ALIENS. It is not going to kill people to say it. Quit making it sound like they are american citizens without a drivers license. That is the image I get when I think of an undocumented worker, someone with no SSN or Drivers License. What they are Mexican (mostly) Citizens that have come into America ILLEGALLY.

They have broken our laws, so right there, if you really want to argue symantecs, every single illegal alien out there is a criminal. They have started off their wish for a better life with a criminal act and now they wish to be rewarded for it.

I am not for a complete removal of all illegals, I am one of those that feel that is impossible and to much of a drain on our resources to do effectively. But I am a FIRM believer in stopping the flow first. Dam breaks, you fix the dam before dealing with the washouts. So we fix our border security, build a wall, secure our borders, THEN we untie the hands of the police, quit making it so damn hard to arrest those who are criminals and are illegals.

Once we secure the border, stop the flow, then we deal with the criminals, remove them from our country and ship them back to where they came, if they manage to come back they get felony sentences. The ones that come here to suck off the government teat on welfare and such, need ot either get to work or go back. We do not want those who wish to stay on welfare, so this means a decent welfare reform system so that we do not have long term leeches sucking away.

Those that wish to work, grant them temporary government or guest worker status, and if they are able to keep clean, are not arrested or envolved in any crime, I say give them a chance, allow them to have enough time to start the process of gaining citizenship LEGALLY.

I do not buy into the if we remove them all (deport) that the economy will fail or it will make lettuce 20 dollars a head, or as Geraldo said, “$20 a head of bannanas”. *rools eyes at that stupid remark* (it’s a bunch of bannanas Geraldo, not a head).

Deporting them all is not the answer, but stopping the flow for one is; then nailing companies that hire illegals so hard that it will hurt them worse to hire illegals more than it will hiring a American citizen; then getting rid of the criminals is next; then reforming welfare and governmental services is next.

It is a daunting task, but it is all determined on how much willpower our American Citizens have and how much spine our Government officials have.

Those Government officials who do not act on the will of the people, need to be actively be removed from office.

May 8, 2006 at 10:29 am

Hey guys, don’t put words in my mouth! I never said that illegal aliens don’t commit crimes. I never tried to imply it. In fact, I said there’s no doubt that some have. All human societies include individuals who commit crimes. And there are all kinds of crimes and all kinds of circumstances in which crimes are committed.

Where I think we are disagreeing is on how we react to the one crime that all illegal aliens are guilty of–entering the country improperly. Let me say it again, ALL illegal aliens are guilty of this crime.

So now what? We have to make some choices about how to respond to this. I’m with you, Sanity. Deportation is an option we would be completely justified in using; I just don’t think it makes sense, for the reasons that you gave and for many others.

I favor taking people who obviously want to be here and making it possible for them to become productive, involved citizens. I think leaving things as they are tends to keep people in poverty and poorly educated, and that ends up costing us. Instead of using our money to arrest and incarcerate, track and deport those already here, forcing them to live “underground”, I would rather we put that money to use getting these people integrated into the society. That would be an investment rather than a drain.

I would ask you all to consider if you have ever broken the law, and under what circumstances? And if you have, what do you think should be your punishment? I know I have broken the law–I have shoplifted as a kid, I smoked pot, I have exceeded the speed limit, driven when I shouldn’t have because I’d been drinking. Anybody else want to step up? Should I be exiled? locked up? Should all compassion be withheld from me? Am I no longer worthy of belonging to this society? Do I have nothing positive to contribute because of these screw ups? I’m not asking for anyone to tell me that those things weren’t bad and wrong, but I’d rather be judged by my successes than my failures. Wouldn’t you?

We’re having the same kinds of conversations that Americans have had since the beginning. It’s all about what kind of society we want to have.

May 8, 2006 at 10:37 am

dave, dance you lawbreaking excusing self over to Iowa Voice. Brian does some of that posting for Ottumwa, Iowa.

May 8, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Ha ha, very funny!
Peace!

May 8, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Edited – insult. –ST

May 8, 2006 at 3:03 pm

dave wrote unfactually, “Remeber, in over 75% of those cases, the crime they committed was entering illegally. ”

Others covered this for me. But then you went on to say, “I was refuting the misuse of the statistic to decieve people into believing that all illegal immigrants are habitual criminals, or congenitally criminal.”

Putting aside that they are here “illegally” I have said Dave that it DOESN’T matter if they are hard working or just trying to better their lives. If you take a book from a library without checking it out the system breaks down even IF you are taking a diet book and you are 300 lbs. Additionally with your use of the word “all” you are mistating anything I was trying to do. I at the most was gramattically incorrect when talking about hte prison population being 17% illegal immigrants that you did verify. Thanks for verifying that my statistic was correct. That costs money. Lots of money. Money that wasn’t contributed over the years by a legal citizen being taxed. It is breaking down the system much like stealing books from a library. I don’t know what is so hard to understand that. Estimates are 25% of the kids did not show up to school on that Monday in LA. That would be tons more money (in the billions) not going to debt and bonds (due to the defecit mess CA is in. That would be a healthier fiscal picture that CA would be in. It would enable CA to reprioritize and invest in people here legally and working hard to teach, fight fires, provide social and health services, etc. But it’s breaking down the system like I said and pulling money from those areas. Even a bunch of liberals recognize this. Like Paul Krugman. You can have a heart and be generous and giving but if you devise a system where the system is broken (like allowing people to steal books or other resources) then your generosity and heart cannot be matched or kept up with. You’d have to rely on utopia to work and it doesn’t.

Dave asked, “With hard questions like these, I often ask, “What would Jesus, or Ghandi, or Martin Luther King do?” ”

Well, I’d imagine that you are like them…. But all the imagination aside… the normal american woudln’t stand for people not coming into thier home legally. Guns would be drawn even in some cases no matter how squemish it made you. Guns have made lots of burglars stop cold and jump right back out of the window they came in. Even knives have done that. I had a friend who had a burglar jump away with a wielded knife. Yet Dave acts all Ghandiish and MLKish and Jesusish and raises the patriotism question. It’s not about patriotism. It’s about common sense. It’s about a measured doable generosity. It’s why I keep mentioning that we allow more legal immigrants than all other countries combines so why must we allow illegal immigrants as well? You don’t give sandwiches to burglars. You don’t not try to enforce the rules at a library. We are a nation with rules and the rules should be obeyed. Anarchy is not an option towards prosperity and opportunity for the people who need opportunity. Anarchy takes opportunity away or at least diminishes it.

DAVE MISUSED Statistics ROYALLY by saying, ““Fifty percent of those charged with immigration offenses during 2000 were accused of reentering the country illegally, 25 percent with improper entry””

What is the 100% Dave? It isn’t the 17%.. It is 100% of those who are charged with immigration offenses. That is a totally DIFFERENT number. It’s good to “care” but when liberals misuse statistics like this and act like we don’t “care” it is just plain WRONG. That 100% number could be .01% of the 17%. You don’t know. And… You didn’t recognize that you purposefully misused statistics on accident. — being funny here.

Dave continues on a different plane than Sanity, PCD and I by saying, “does anyone else agree that to judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a small number of individuals of that group is unfair as well as totally illogical?”

Nobody here is judging an entire group based on the actions of a small number. We are all saying the same thing. There AREN’T all here to just work and make a better life. AND EVEN if they WERE it doesn’t matter. You don’t allow libary book stealers to continue and you don’t allow illegal immigration to continue even if 99% are just trying to better their lives. It’s SIMPLE. We are not saying what you are alleging and if you want to win a debate at least listen to what the person who is debating you is saying and respond to that. Nobody is doing what you allege. We are simply responding to liberals including yourself that they are ALL here to work and make a better life. THEN… Once we respond you say, “Hey stop judging the entire population on 5 individuals.” It’s an assissinine way of debating that makes you look foolish. It’s isn’t making us look prejudicial because we aren’t and didn’t say what you are alleging.

And for Bang and Sanity to have had to defend themselves from your charge is just the same ole tired pattern of liberals judging/accusing/alleging and conservatives defending. You as a liberal should STOP making false allegations. Learn from your supposed idols of Ghandi and MLK and Jesus. Did they make false allegations continuously like this? It’s not enought that the left has “good intentions” but they must also make false allegations that conservatives “don’t care” or are mean spirited. Wow aren’t we debating now.

dave said, “I smoked pot”

Same as my neighbor liberal and another poster named Tommy that couldn’t put two common sensical thoughts together but went on with false allegations. Rise above what it did to your brains. You can do it.

Dave said, “Should all compassion be withheld from me?”

Nobody said people shouldn’t be compassionate. Stop treating us as if we have none. You don’t have to allow library book stealers to continue to show your compassion and act like those in favor of rules (to keep the compassionate system intact) are uncompassionate. Rise above. Look at us as compassionate people who are trying to keep a generous nation generous able to pass a great nation to our grandkids.

Mahwah says:

May 8, 2006 at 7:46 pm

dave said: “Also according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 1.5% of federal immigrant detainees were sentenced for violent crimes, compared to 15% of U.S. citizens incarcerated in federal prison.”

That’s a little misleading, dave. When you look at the big picture, and the costs involved with the illegal immigrant problem, you can see clearly that the U.S. cannot fiscally withstand this onslaught. Here’s some statistics from NumbersUSA.com. See the rest of the article at: http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/2454talkingpts.html

“COSTS

Federal law mandates that hospital emergency rooms treat any person who seeks care. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found, in 2004, that annual costs to treat uninsured illegal aliens run to approximately $2.2 billion. Recent Federal efforts to reimburse hospitals for uncompensated care notwithstanding, recovering unpaid costs has been exceptionally difficult and has caused the ruin of numerous healthcare facilities. According to a report in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 84 hospitals in California alone are closing as a direct consequence of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system.
(note: this is very true as well in Arizona. Many of the hospitals here in the Phoenix area operate in Bancruptcy due to the illegals getting free health care.)

In 2004, an estimated 27 percent of the federal prison population was comprised of illegal aliens, though illegal aliens account for about 4 percent of the overall U.S. population. GAO found the cost to the federal prisons is an estimated $1.2 billion for 2004.

(note: the latest statistics estimate it to be over 30% now.)

The Social Security system will worsen, not improve, under an amnesty. These low-income workers are unlikely to pay enough in payroll taxes to support current beneficiaries. When amnestied workers retire, they will collect far more in Social Security payments than they ever paid into the system.

Estimates suggest it would cost $5 billion to install triple fence covering the entire 2,000 miles of the Southwestern border. That cost is much less than the economic cost of illegal immigration to California alone for one year. When Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) recently asked Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) how effective the fence has been in California, she said it was so effective that it forced most of the illegal aliens to cross through Arizona.”

May 8, 2006 at 8:03 pm

And a little more about the topic from an article published last November on the ‘Conservative Voice’ website (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10312) :

On April 7, 2005, the US Justice Department issued a report on criminal aliens that were incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails. The report contained information on the number of criminal aliens incarcerated, their country of citizenship or country of birth, and the cost to incarcerate them. Congress also requested that the Government Accounting Office provide information on the criminal history of aliens incarcerated in federal and state prisons or local jails who had entered the country illegally.

In the population study of a sampling of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests.

These illegal aliens were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens in the study had between 2 and 10 offenses.

These illegals committed numerous crimes including sex offenses, homicides, drug offenses, robberies, burglaries and others.

May 9, 2006 at 4:47 pm

I don’t know what the insult was that got deleted, but I am sorry if I wrote something that was taken the wrong way. When you said “dance you lawbreaking excusing self over to Iowa Voice,” I thought you were just giving me a gentle ribbing, so I posted “Ha ha, very funny,” as in “It’s OK, I get the joke.” I meant nothing more than that.

But I’m really more disturbed by the following comments accusing me of being dishonest and misusing statistics. The statement that 75% of federal cases against illegal immigrants are over the crime of entering illegally was quoted right out of the paper published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. If it’s factually incorrect, then the error is theirs, not mine.

Baklava wrote that “17% of felons in federal prisons are illegal immigrants who are there for violent crimes.” He says he was only grammatically incorrect, but the truth is he was factually incorrect. If 17% of all felons in federal prisons are illegal immigrants who are there for violent crimes, then the total number of illegal immigrants in federal prisons would be incredibly high. Being a math teacher, I knew this could not be right. So I looked for an unbiased statistic (I knew you would not trust a number from an immigration advocacy group, just as I don’t trust numbers from conservative immigration reform groups). The Bureau of Justice Statistics says that 1.5% of ALL illegal immigrant defendants were sentenced for violent crimes. It’s impossible for a smaller percentage of a sub group to make up a larger percentage of the whole group. Just to make the numbers easier to work with, let’s say there were 1000 prisoners in federal jails. 17% would be 170. Now that 170 are the 1.5% of illegal immigrants who were sentenced for violent crimes, as stated above–not by me, but by the BJS. If 1.5% = 170, then 100% equals 11,333. There’s only 1000 people in the jail, so 11,333 of them can’t be illegal aliens. The 17% figure was wrong. It turns out that 17% of the prisoners represents ALL illegal aliens–not just ones who committed violent crimes, but all of them together. Further research from unbiased sources revealed that out of this 17%, roughly 1.5% were sentenced for violent crime, and a full 75% were sentenced because of having entered the country illegally. So it’s really 1.5% of 17%, or 0.25% of ALL federal prisoners who are illegal aliens that were sentenced for violent crimes.

Does that mean only that number committed violent crime? No. I am only saying that’s the number sentenced. Certainly the total number of crimes committed is greater than the numbers in jail because some don’t get reported, some don’t get caught, and some get caught but get acquitted. So I am NOT trying to mislead anyone into thinking that this is the total number of immigrants who commit violent crimes. It’s only the number that got caught and sentenced in a particular year. It certainly does not confirm the number cited by Baklava. Whether or not Baklava intended to mislead, the figure was vastly misleading. Even if there were 2 million felons in federal prisons, the number of illegal immigrant violent offenders, according to the BJS percentage, would be 5,000. That’s hugely exaggerated, by the way, just to make the point. There are approximately 2 million prisoners in total in the U.S., including state and local jails (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm).

Now, you’ve accused me of trickery when I respond about the 75%. Here’s why I’m saying it. You’re throwing out the figure that 30% of the federal prison population is comprised of illegal aliens, which you get from a web site with a clear bias–but let’s forget that for the moment. That web site holds this up against the percentage of illegals in the total population of the US. It says, “hey look, there are only 4% in the whole population, but in the prisons, they make up 30%.” There is only one reason to do this: They want you to think that illegal aliens are more prone to commit federal crimes than people with passports and visas. But the comparison is totally fallacious! Federal prisons only deal with certain types of cases that fall within federal jurisdiction. Immigration offenses are one of those areas of federal jurisdiction, so it is not unusual that a large percent of its prisoners are there for immigration offenses. But according to the federal prisons themselves, of that number, 75% are there for the crime of entering illegally. My point again is not to say that this isn’t a crime–it certainly is. But it’s not murder, or rape, or theft, or drug dealing, or weapons. It’s just crossing the border illegally–a crime, but not a violent one.

And finally, you accuse me of making false allegations–namely, that I’m saying you said that ALL aliens are here to commit crimes, and that you have no compassion. I don’t claim that you are saying all aliens are here to commit crimes and leech off our welfare system; I allege that you are intentionally implying that MOST aliens are here to commit crimes and leech off our welfare system. In your last post, you said, “We are all saying the same thing. There AREN’T all here to just work and make a better life.” Your use of capitals clearly says you want me to know that you don’t believe they are all here to work and make a better life. So, do you mean you believe SOME are here to work and make a better life? How many? A few, a bunch, many, most, nearly all? Which is it?

Judging by the comments and the furor and the defensiveness, and the doomsday predictions, I think it was perfectly reasonable of me to assume that you think MOST illegal aliens are coming here to commit crimes and destroy our country, not to work hard and find a better life.

If I’m wrong, just tell me. Just say, “Dave, you’re wrong. I don’t believe that MOST illegal aliens are here to do all that. I think most are here to make a better life for themselves and their families. But some of them are not good people, and we should do something to separate the good from the bad.”

One final comment to Mahwah. I appreciate your input. On that last post, where you cited from the Conservative Voice about the arrest rates. You said their offenses included sex offenses, homicides, drug offenses, robberies and burglaries, but you didn’t say what the breakdown was. I mean, if 300,000 out of the 700,000 crimes were murders, that would be one thing. If 100 were murders, that would be quite another. You see what I mean? But given the numbers from the BJS, I imagine the numbers in this case would be similar. Without the numbers, though, it’s impossible to draw any accurate and verifiable conclusion other than to say that this is a population that runs up against the law a lot. Well, given the fact that their very presence here is a crime, that is not so unusual. I’m sure they live in neighborhoods where there is a pretty strong police presence, and they are scrutinized very closely. There clearly is a correlation in our country between a persons’ race and their likelihood of being stopped, questioned, and arrested by the police. It’s not always justified, and police departments all over the country are working on eliminating racial bias from the way they do their jobs. A good friend of mine is a retired captain from a metropolitan police force who does training to help officers recognize and overcome racial stereotypes and bias. He’s no wimp, either, and he’ll tell you it’s not about being politically correct, but about creating a more effective and cohesive police force.

May 9, 2006 at 6:02 pm

Dave alleged admittedly, “I allege that you are intentionally implying that MOST aliens are here to commit crimes and leech off our welfare system.”

Again, Nobody here is intentionally or unintentionally implying NOR stating directly that MOST aliens are here to commit crimes and leech off our welfare system.

WE are telling you Dave that that is a false allegation. False. Patently false because we know what we are saying.

Again, we are simply responding to leftists including yourself who seem to think that they are ONLY here to better their lives and earn a living and work hard. THAT isn’t true either. We give you examples and statistics and you want to quibble and THEN act like we are saying they are all criminals (well yes coming here illegally is a criminal act but besides that). We aren’t saying that and again it is a FALSE allegation.

It’s either you move on from false allegations or we keep repeating the same sentences.

In answer to these questions, “So, do you mean you believe SOME are here to work and make a better life? How many? A few, a bunch, many, most, nearly all? Which is it?” …. Do you remember I said that is IRRELEVANT. It doesn’t matter. They are here illegally and shoul dcome through to this country legally. We are the most generous nation on earth and allow more legal immigrants than all other countries combined. For the SAKE of national security we need to secure our borders and process all the people who are here in some fashion so that we know who is here. That doesn’t mean hard working Mexicans or anything as liberals like yourself like to inject into the argument. It means EVERYONE who is here illegally.

Dave wrote, “Judging by the comments and the furor and the defensiveness, and the doomsday predictions, I think it was perfectly reasonable of me to assume that you think MOST illegal aliens are coming here to commit crimes and destroy our country, not to work hard and find a better life.”

No. It wasn’t reasonable.

dave wrote, “If I’m wrong, just tell me. Just say, “Dave, you’re wrong.”

Dave, you are wrong.

dave asked us to say, “I think most are here to make a better life for themselves and their families”

It is IRRELEVANT. It doesn’t matter. Of course MOST human beings are GOOD and DECENT people. Rules are important. I gave you the library scenario for a reason. It doesn’t matter that 2% of the people steal books to better their lives. It SHOULDN’T be allowed. ON top of that we are in post 9/11. National Security matters. It isn’t just economics. It’s security as well. As well as the toll on human lives (morality). I posted a Yahoo News story where women routinely (not rarely) get raped risking thier lives to come here and multiple times. They think of it as the price they have to pay. Are you for that Dave? Or are you for securing the border and asking the women to come here legally and safely?

Let me just say. It’s ok to disagree. You might disagree that national security is important and that we should be more generous than we already are. But you don’t need to level false allegations. It continues with you for some reason. It’s the pattern of a leftist to level false allegations concerning conservatives. It’s as if you read what we write incorrectly or something. Communication takes two people but you’d think after telling you for the umpteenth time that your allegation concerning us is incorrect that you’d listen.

May 9, 2006 at 6:07 pm

BTW, Saying that there is an affect on the libary is not a doomsday prediction. It’s PLAIN English to say there is an affect on the economy/library if people aren’t following the rules.

To turn our words into doomsday predictions is simply making another FALSE allegation because you are reading our words INCORRECTLY. The pattern continues. And then you call it defensiveness. BTW, When did you stop beating your wife? Get the point now?

May 9, 2006 at 11:09 pm

Baklava, I have only been trying to get to an understanding of your views by saying what I thought I was hearing you say and asking for clarification. If I was wrong, I’m sorry. Communication is not easy. SO let me try again. I think I hear you saying you don’t think illegal immigrants are evil, nor do you believe that they are only coming here to commit crime. You believe most people are good and decent. You are compassionate and you want America to be a compassionate country. Is that correct?

If so, great. We’re on the same page. Now maybe we can talk about what would be the most compassionate way to deal with these good and decent people seeking to better their lives. I totally agree with you that we need to process the people who are here in some way so that we know who is here.

It seems to me that the bill produced by the Senate is going in the right direction to do this. What do you think?

Dave

NYT	‘Family Friendly’ White House Proves Less So for Many Aides	0
Miami Herald	Honduras quits Organization of American States	0
Don Surber	Would Galileo buy global warming?	0
AP	Mrs. Obama bringing glamor to Moscow this weekend	0
WaPo	Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare]	0

Audacity of Truth

Day by Day

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Trackbacks

54 Responses to “I’m sorry but …”

Comments

Updates on Iran

Blogads

Stay Connected

ST’s Tip Jar

Stats

Audacity of Truth

Obama Links

Day by Day

Categories

Archives

Milblogs

International

Media

Must Reads

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Columnists/Writers