Author Topic: Why is May still around?  (Read 4309 times)

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2019, 11:41:33 AM »
Well that makes perfect sense then. In fact it's an overall good if we bring their violent criminals here where at least there is a better chance that they'll eventually be caught and punished as opposed to leaving them in their home country where they're more likely to get away with their violent crimes and therefore end up hurting even more human beings. So we just believe that if our daughter gets raped that's better than five other women we never knew getting raped in a different country instead. Fair enough then. A hard sell for some perhaps but mathematically indisputable if we but place an equal value on everyone around the world compared to our own citizens and families.

As for the refugees here legally, it's fair enough to count them separately from the still millions in the country illegally because they didn't immigrate legally, haven't applied for refugee status because they know they'll be rejected, or have applied and have been rejected but just refuse to leave anyway. For the sake of argument go ahead and discount all the people who are legal refugees and it still doesn't change anything.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2019, 01:50:44 PM »
Who exactly is in the "we" in your statement? We are talking about London, I assume you're not from there.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2019, 04:18:03 PM »
It's the broader we. It applies to them. And it applies to us. The same factors that caused Brexit to pass caused Trump to win. There is a worldwide exodus from failed states to successful ones and we have to decide if we want it to be an orderly process in which not everyone who wants to get in can get in and if the successful countries have any say in who the let in or if we're just going to let chaos rule, hope for the best, have collusion between the media and the government to coverup the truth when it's bad, and stick our heads in the sand and up in the clouds at the same time, ignoring the bad and hoping for the best. All of the good things about immigration can still be had with an orderly process.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2019, 08:19:36 AM »
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/20/london-now-dangerous-new-york-crime-stats-suggest/

London is now more crime ridden and dangerous than New York City, with rape, robbery and violent offences far higher on this side of the Atlantic.

The latest statistics, published earlier this week, revealed that crime across the UK was up by 13 per cent, with a surge in violence in the capital blamed for much of the increase...

... While both London and New York have populations of around 8 million, figures suggest you are almost six times more likely to be burgled in the British capital than in the US city, and one and a half times more likely to fall victim to a robbery.

London has almost three times the number of reported rapes and while the murder rate in New York remains higher, the gap is narrowing dramatically."

Wow, I wonder what changed. Apparently just the police tactics.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2019, 08:53:51 AM »
So the crime increases are due to immigration because that's your hunch, or is there any actual link? I looked at several articles that say the opposite. Must be part of the global coverup from the telegraph, Bloomberg, Washington post, etc. Fueled with falsified government statistics.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2019, 09:32:49 AM »
I suppose more crime following more immigrants could just be a coincidence. Maybe more people in general causes more crime even on a per capita basis because of some human limitation to over-population in a given area without strict cultural discipline to manage it. Perhaps the crime is even the fault of the whites who are attacking, robbing, raping, and throwing acid on the innocent immigrants. Here are some statistics and most of them don't look good.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2018

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46984559

I will point out that apparently crime is still a lot lower than it was in the 1990s so that is a good point against immigration being the cause, though the devil is in the details. Immigrants can cover a whole range of people too. Are the Polish coming into England to work considered immigrants? Obviously they will bring the crime stats for immigrants down.

http://theconversation.com/immigration-and-crime-is-there-a-link-93521

"The analysis found that when workers from Eastern European states (that joined the EU in 2004) came to the UK, the impact on crime was minimal. But the research also found that the wave of asylum seekers who came to the UK in the 1990s – mainly from war torn countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia – coincided with a slight increase in the total number of property crimes at the time. This was thought to be down to the fact that employment rates for this wave of immigrants was much lower than those of the average Briton...

It doesn’t make a difference what the background of the immigrant population is, what appears to be key is that there is a cultural similarity among the immigrant population within an area. My research also found that areas with very high numbers of immigrants that are low in crime – or below the nation’s average – tend to be areas with either European or African immigrants.

But my research also showed that areas where two or more cultures (other than that of the indigenous population) are prevalent, tend to be very high in crime. This is specifically the case in areas with the highest proportions of immigrants from Asia and Europe. In these areas violent crime is 70% higher, property crime is 92% higher and vehicle crime increases by 19% compared to national average."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if immigrants overall commit less crime than natives there is still the point that some immigrants commit less crime than others. So even if you love immigration it still makes sense to at least vet the immigrants in a process, to weed out those with criminal backgrounds in their home countries at the very least. Also, since lack of a job is a contributing factor to crime, making sure immigrants have jobs would seem to make sense too.

In most of those articles there is a lot of information that makes the point that immigration doesn't necessarily lead to increased crime and that's fine. Just organize the process to minimize the adverse effects of immigration while getting the most benefit. Surely the best way to optimize the results isn't to let just everyone and anyone in who wants to come.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2019, 10:21:04 AM »
New York is one of the safer major US cities, btw. So more crime than New York isn't quite the achievement the headline makes it out to be.

London (and the UK) is also going to hell in a handbasket. One would expect that to have an effect on crime.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2019, 11:15:50 AM »
London (and the UK) is also going to hell in a handbasket. One would expect that to have an effect on crime.

What do you think may be causing that?

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2019, 11:29:46 AM »
That would be the Conservatives in charge of the country.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2019, 11:38:36 AM »
Quote
Perhaps the crime is even the fault of the whites who are attacking, robbing, raping, and throwing acid on the innocent immigrants. Here are some statistics and most of them don't look good.

An otherwise thoughtful post marred by a facetious comment. Let's talk about acid throwing, shall we? It is true that they've shot up from 77 to 465 over a five year period. This portrays an idea that immigrants are showing up and dousing the unsuspecting native English with acid. The first problem is one of magnitude. This is out of 250,000 violent offences. So why are we worried about this one in particular? Because it evokes the type of acid attacks perpetrated by men against women in repressive Muslim communities.

Here's one of the terrifying perpetrators, Arthur Collins.

Quote
"Most of the products can be bought off the shelf -- so drain cleaner, oven cleaner -- there are different types of sulfuric acid you can buy, and ammonia," Hackney borough police Chief Superintendent Simon Laurence told CNN earlier this year.
Police have suggested that gang members may be switching to acid over knives and guns, as the liquid is harder to detect. "Acid throwing has been adopted by urban street gangs in a way that perhaps we haven't seen for a very long time," Laurence said.

So while acid attacks have been increasing, it sounds like they are displacing other methods as opposed to being more crime overall.

Quote
Even if immigrants overall commit less crime than natives there is still the point that some immigrants commit less crime than others. So even if you love immigration it still makes sense to at least vet the immigrants in a process, to weed out those with criminal backgrounds in their home countries at the very least. Also, since lack of a job is a contributing factor to crime, making sure immigrants have jobs would seem to make sense too.

I'm assuming you mean to default to "no records, no entry" - this basically means not admitting anyone from a failed state or a lawless state where crimes go unpunished. One of the reasons people flee their homes is because the criminals roam free with the tacit consent of the government. So you basically couldn't use this criteria, erring on the side of caution. I don't imagine you can contact the Aleppo PD and ask them to do a database search.

You can probably make a case that refugee immigrants (as opposed to the general pool) correlate. But it is equally possible that causes are coincident. There are also potentially better solutions than "don't let many of them in". The rise in crime also correlates with Brexit, maybe people are being driven to violence by that. I don't think you'd accept correlation in any argument that went against your assumptions, would you? If crime had gone down during that period, would you attribute it to the arrival of refugees?

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2019, 12:00:41 PM »
At no time in history has so many had it so good.  Even being homeless today is better then it would have been to be homeless years ago.  Yet it seems ‘we’ are intent of burning it all down. If anyone has more then us we want it and for those that have less, they can’t have it.  A sliding individual scale of constant conflict and for what, the sake of conflict? Give us this day our daily need, and we need so much more…

At the end of the Game of Thrones. (spoiler) What was won? All that killing, and intrigue and in the end, they sit around the table, the business of state hasn’t changed, nothing changed other then the rubble to be cleaned up.
Who was it that did all the dying and what do they have to show for it? I wonder about that, the cannon fodder so willing to fight and die. What do they come home to? Was its all just for a story to tell?  Do they experience meaning as they are mowed down or is it just relief its over?   

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2019, 12:38:14 PM »
Quote
It also said that migrants with little hope of being giving asylum in Germany were much more likely to commit violent crime than those from war zones like Syria whose asylum was guaranteed.

"Anyone who as a war refugee regards their chances of staying in Germany as good, will endeavour not to jeopardise those prospects by criminal offences," the authors of the study said, quoted by Die Welt newspaper.

Reuters news agency quoted criminology expert and study author Christian Pfeiffer as saying: "The situation is completely different for those who find out as soon as they arrive that they are totally undesirable here. No chance of working, of staying here."

This suggests the issue is desperation, not culture?

From the same article:

Quote
Based on figures from the state's interior ministry, which keeps a separate record of alleged crimes by migrants, the report suggested that 92.1% of this increase was attributable to migrants.

So there is some good hard data for Lower Saxony.

Quote
The researchers said that the best chance of reducing violent crime among migrants was to offer more help with integration through language courses, sport and apprenticeships.

That seems like a prudent course of action. Letting significant numbers of people in and then ignoring them to fend for themselves seems like the worst possible course.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2019, 06:14:57 PM »
We can't take in everyone.

Should there be a numerical limit on asylum seekers?

What if there were fifty million eligible people who applied for asylum and let's assume all the best about them such as they were already fluent in English, they passed criminal background checks, and they had advanced degrees, etc. but were still in grave danger in their home countries for all of the legitimate reasons that make them eligible for asylum. So do we still have to take them all in? What does the law say? Is there any point at which we have to say we just can't handle that many more people right now even if they are all the best people?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #63 on: June 04, 2019, 12:03:21 PM »
If we had to take in everyone, we might think twice before fueling and encouraging a civil war. We might consider more funding for UN organizations and NGOs.

Or we can just sit in our tree house and throw rocks at the people below, maybe letting one up to join our club now and again.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #64 on: June 04, 2019, 12:33:04 PM »
Instead of throwing stones maybe use hot oil?  That way we can keep what’s ours and drive the economy.  Poetic ‘justice’ of using the resource at the heart of much of the conflicts driving people out of their homes against them. 

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #65 on: June 04, 2019, 02:54:51 PM »
And of course, ignoring climate change and the millions of resulting current and future climate refugees isn't the best way to reduce the pressures on the immigration systems of western countries...

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2019, 05:00:41 PM »
So "ignoring" climate change and trying to hold a dictator accountable are the problem.

What about "ignoring" immigration reform for 40 years?

What about "ignoring" the law on asylum, which does not provide asylum for economic migrants?

What about "ignoring" the law that requires deportation of illegal immigrants?

What about "ignoring" that the real reason we don't have a solution is that one party has decided it's politically advantageous to ignore illegal immigration?

There's seems to be a lot of "ignoring" going on, and I still have not heard a single reasonable reason we should prefer an illegal immigration system to a legal one.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2019, 05:25:57 PM »
Quote
What about "ignoring" that the real reason we don't have a solution is that one party has decided it's politically advantageous to ignore illegal immigration?
I'd agree with you if not for this line.  Or maybe you consider the other party's inability to act on the topic to be financially motivated, not politically?   ::)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2019, 07:25:34 PM »
I still advocate that we increase legal immigration to solve illegal immigration.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2019, 07:31:19 PM »
I still advocate that we increase legal immigration to solve illegal immigration.

Legal immigration is already way too high.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2019, 07:57:07 PM »
What is the "correct" level of immigration? 0 ppm?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2019, 09:00:57 PM »
As far as I'm aware the US has accepted the most legal immigrants per year of any country in the world for quite a while.  Until the Europeans opened up to the recent mass migration, the US was pretty far up there for per capita immigration among large nations.  Canada and Australia are up there as well.

The last estimate I saw has the US at almost 15% foreign born. 

Seems kind of silly to act like we're a bunch of racist/nationalists for wanting an organized process and that our laws be obeyed.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #72 on: June 05, 2019, 10:21:48 AM »
So "ignoring" climate change and trying to hold a dictator accountable are the problem.

What about "ignoring" immigration reform for 40 years?

What about "ignoring" the law on asylum, which does not provide asylum for economic migrants?

What about "ignoring" the law that requires deportation of illegal immigrants?

What about "ignoring" that the real reason we don't have a solution is that one party has decided it's politically advantageous to ignore illegal immigration?

There's seems to be a lot of "ignoring" going on, and I still have not heard a single reasonable reason we should prefer an illegal immigration system to a legal one.

Are you arguing that it ok to ignore a problem as long as other problems are being ignored?

I see a relationship between all the above - Failure to address changes in environment and a failure to address immigration law. Its a failure of the right and the lift. If w don't stop playing these silly games nothing is going to get done. This is not a failure of the right or left but of the people


TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #73 on: June 05, 2019, 02:30:27 PM »
As far as I'm aware the US has accepted the most legal immigrants per year of any country in the world for quite a while.  Until the Europeans opened up to the recent mass migration, the US was pretty far up there for per capita immigration among large nations.  Canada and Australia are up there as well.

The last estimate I saw has the US at almost 15% foreign born. 

Seems kind of silly to act like we're a bunch of racist/nationalists for wanting an organized process and that our laws be obeyed.

Yes, probably it has been that way. Lately, people have been saying that they don't want immigrants to be reunited with their families in this country. The infamous chain migration.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #74 on: June 05, 2019, 02:44:41 PM »
Also, keep scrolling down to see the US in net migration rates.

list

From 07-12, the US is deep on the list, per capita. Lower than Australia, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Finland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand....

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #75 on: June 05, 2019, 03:22:49 PM »
Yeah, but most of those countries are not really comparable in size or scale, and only joined the immigration game recently.

Not sure what the complaint is on "chain" migration.  Why should your brother's uncle's second cousin jump to the head of the immigration line?  Why should they be admitted at all if they don't merit admission based on their own characteristics?  Family chains were intended to unite close family members, not to be exploited the way they are.

Again, the attitude you guys have explains exactly why we can't have nice things.  You don't believe or accept reasonable limits designed to keep things tied to their purposes. 

Asylum for example is intended to save lives where people are fleeing a government that is a threat to their life, ignoring that and letting it be another form of immigration for anyone that can say a few magic words breaks it and leads to people trying to harshly curb it.

Having a catch and release policy with absolutely no ability to control your border leads to other people wanting to build a wall and control the border.

So many of our immigration issues could be completely resolved by a mandatory policy of returning any illegal immigrant to the first safe country they passed through on their way here, and returning any illegal immigrant that doesn't face a threat from the government of their country directly to their country within 40 days.

There is absolutely no reason we should prefer an illegal immigration system to a legal one.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #76 on: June 05, 2019, 03:45:20 PM »
Not sure what the complaint is on "chain" migration.  Why should your brother's uncle's second cousin jump to the head of the immigration line?  Why should they be admitted at all if they don't merit admission based on their own characteristics?  Family chains were intended to unite close family members, not to be exploited the way they are.

There is absolutely no reason we should prefer an illegal immigration system to a legal one.

Already stipulated. I hate illegal immigration. It leads to exploitation, a permanent subclass, and myriad other problems.

Quote
The Family-Chain categories are divided into four separate preferences:

1st Preference: Unmarried sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their children (capped at 23,400/year)
2nd Preference: Spouses, children, and unmarried sons/daughters of green card holders (capped at 114,000/year)
3rd Preference: Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children (capped at 23,400/year)
4th Preference: Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children (capped at (65,000/year)
 

So where in that list is somebody's brother's uncle's second cousin? Where is that unlimited? This idea of hordes of chain migrants is Fake News.

As to the other part, why we can't have nice things while everybody else can rot? I don't think that the determining factor of a human reaching their potential should be the latitude and longitude of the vagina you exited. If that makes me crazy in your eyes, so be it.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #77 on: June 05, 2019, 04:52:08 PM »
The last research I saw, said that each legal immigrant sponsored on average 3.5 relatives.  The chain comes from the continuation of each of those relatives further sponsoring additional immigrants.

So your numbers left out categories.  First, and unlimited a US citizen can sponsor their parents (ie, anchor babies), then parents can sponsor, again on an unlimited basis their unmarried children under 21. 

They can also, sponsor, as you note on a limited basis, their married children and their grandchildren.

Typically the way a chain is going to work, is for a anchor baby to sponsor a parent, who sponsors an adult unmarried child, who then marries and sponsors another non-US citizen, who then sponsors their parents, who sponsor their own parents, all of whom sponsor their  children, who also sponsor their spouses - who sponsor their parents.  At that point, you're to the cousins of the spouses of the cousins of the spouse of the brother of an American citizen baby.

So to get to your brother's uncle's second cousin (assuming, for the sake of argument, the brother's uncle is an in-law), it'd work like this.  Anchor baby sponsors parents, who sponsor brother under 21, who marries and sponsors an immigrant, who sponsors her parents, who sponsor their parents, who sponsor their son (who is your spouse's uncle).  To get to the second cousins most quickly, they could marry them, otherwise they have to work upwards one more generation on the chain, and then possibly sponsor a married descendant.  Out of the entire chain only the married descendant sponsorship is subject to an immigration cap.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #78 on: June 05, 2019, 05:55:47 PM »
The infamous anchor baby, whose opportunity is defined by latitude and longitude, which some people would change. I guess it's just a hereditary aristocracy, then?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2019, 06:09:44 PM »
So now you have a "beef" that anchor babies can be used to start the process?  They are ideal, parents of an American citizen skip the line and the quota.  Again, a nice thing (birthright citizenship) for which you don't even want to consider reasonable limits tied to its purpose.

Should I take that response to mean you don't have a response?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #80 on: June 05, 2019, 06:15:00 PM »
No, I acknowledge through your definition, over a period of many years, such a person could arrive. As well as a similar chain started by a person legally in the country on a visa.

And you already know my views are far more extreme than unlimited birthright citizenship. I'm a full on open border guy.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #81 on: June 05, 2019, 06:38:56 PM »
What is the "correct" level of immigration? 0 ppm?

Now yuo see how stupid the reasoning is. At least I hope you do.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2019, 11:54:04 AM »
I was pointing out how silly it is to demand a number and when people give you a number, substituting a zero in its place.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #83 on: June 06, 2019, 12:33:55 PM »
So now you have a "beef" that anchor babies can be used to start the process?  They are ideal, parents of an American citizen skip the line and the quota. 

Am I the only one here who remembers the 1980s and 1990s and grasps the irony of a Limbaugh-ite singing the praises of our government's sacred racial quotas? Insisting that federal quotas are more important than families in America?

Joke James Carville pitched an anti Trump campaign to the DNC in a vain hope they would hire him. Unfortunately the DNC was less than impressed by his slogan "it's the courtesy, stupid,"

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #84 on: June 06, 2019, 02:34:37 PM »
I think that's a mischaracterization of what I said.  Families are important, but our systems should not be designed to take control of immigration out of our conscious power to make choices.  Things that are completely reasonable in abstract - spousal immigration for example - become completely abused if they don't have reasonable rules.  Or do you think a rule designed to allow a married couple to elect to live here hassle free is properly applied to have some one person marry dozens of people, to whom they have no connection, serially for cash compensation?

Or how about a rule, such as birth citizenship, that was designed to eliminate any possible confusion with respect to permanent residents borne in the country, being applied to grant citizenship to babies of tourists who are permanent residents of another country, subject to that countries laws, with no intention of living in the US?

This is why we can't have nice things.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2019, 02:46:19 PM »
Why wouldn't you prefer to take married couples, or whole families? They are far less likely to be involved in the drug trade, or crime in general. Far more likely to get involved in the community, improving chances at integration. If you go to school events, you're going to form relationships with other families. The money they earn stays here rather than being sent back home, which I often hear people complain about.

Relatives arriving are going to have a place to stay, people to help them learn the ropes and get jobs.

Set aside the question of numbers, wouldn't 1000 people in groups of 4 or 5 be better than 1000 unrelated individuals?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why is May still around?
« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2019, 03:18:55 PM »
Yes, why did we create a system that doesn't prioritize a family? 

We've needed immigration reform for 40 years, why don't we have it?