Originally Posted by
Canadian Visitor
I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't believe your idea works out mathematically.
You're trying to suggest a statistic of crime, per capita, per year of life in the United States.
But that isn't how crime is calculated for any American or any place in America, its a completely new statistic.
I also don't think there is any reason to believe it would change anything.
The existing statistic is not which in which ever crime ever committed by an American citizen is represented, but only crimes committed in the last year by illegal aliens are counted.
Rather it counts only those crimes that happened in a 12 months period, then examines who was convicted of them and their status.
There is no reason to conclude that the number would vary if it were a 50-year block statistic.
****
This is a much better argument basis than the crime rate one.
Though, its important to concede its limitations. For instance almost all illegal aliens pay property tax as its embedded in rent, if you don't pay it directly yourself.
Most all pay sales taxes [[assuming their state has one); and if they have a 'legal' job [[yes, they would be illegally employed in it) then payroll and income tax may still be paid in some cases.
Of course many will not pay the full suite of normally expected taxes, and will receive some range of public services; which is the better piece of this argument.
But again this is not a material risk to public safety. Its a material risk to economic well being.
I agree that it is. I oppose illegal immigration or for that matter legal immigration of low-skill workers in large volumes designed to suppress wages of that same group.
We're in completely agreement on that.
The issue is making the argument correctly.
Then using those facts to foster the most workable solution.
Bad facts, make for bad decision.
The threat from net new illegal immigration, for the moment is low.
To the extent it is an issue, it is mostly about those who enter legally and overstay their legal welcome.
The majority of illegal aliens have been in the United States for several years.
This is not resolved by construction of a wall.
They are already in the US, your walling them in!
Said wall also does nothing to affect the majority of on-going legal entry, illegal-overstay, taking place at airports, and to a lesser degree other legal ports-of-entry.
The evidence supports action, but not this action. [[the wall).
Not relevant. I agree there is a law. I agree there is a constitutional principle. I oppose illegal immigration..
I also oppose bad, ineffective public policy for show.
I also oppose poor rhetoric and bad arguments.
I favour good public policy that works, ideas that can be made to happen.
The wall changes nothing you care about, and worse claims are made to the contrary. That and its a poor use of dollars.
The amnesty didn't work last time, because it wasn't accompanied by measures that address the underlying issue.
Farms, construction companies, landscape companies etc. went right on hiring the same people they always had without change.
The incentive to break the law remained in place.
No matter one's party the propose reform needs to work.
That's why it must target the employer, not the border.
If someone arrives in the US illegally or becomes illegal by way of overstaying their welcome, they should be unemployable.
Problem solved.
When that's the proposal before Congress, it will have my full and unreserved backing.