• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

121 murders attributed to illegals released by Obama administration

WE already know how to solve this problem. Stop giving freebies to the illegal invaders and they won't come. Name one other country that gives welfare and drivers licenses and free health care and free k-12 to illegal invaders. No wonder they come.

No, the real difference is we give them JOBS and no one cares that employers hire them. If they're caught, it's a small fine, if that. When we deal with the employers who invite them here to work and give them jobs, then we'll have taken a real step to address the actual problem.

It's a mystery why right wingers have to disparage people who aren't doing a thing differently than they'd do in the same circumstances. They have no future, no opportunities in their home country and they come to the U.S. where there ARE opportunities, especially for their kids. The country was built on people just like them, from all over the world.

It's certainly not our obligation to have open borders, but there isn't any need to label 12 million people as nothing but freeloaders. That's just not true.
 
Please--enough of the hyperbole. I want for citizens of this country who pay for healthcare to have healthcare. ERs are clogged with the uninsured as it is, and some rural hospitals are at the breaking point. And those straining the system don't just come there to die--they come because they have colds and other viruses and minor injuries and to give birth.

OK, but if you don't want people to come to the ER for minor illnesses, and my brother is an ER doc so I know all about it, then you have to provide an alternative. Not many actually will wait in a waiting room in the ER for a few hours because they have a cold or a minor case of flu. Some do, but the vast majority don't know what they have and they can't get into an actual doctor because they can't afford the treatment if they're diagnosed with anything that requires actual treatment.

And I have no idea why you put childbirth in that sentence. Of course they come to the hospital for giving birth. Any sane person would unless they have other options. So we either provide those options or mothers will get the most expensive child birth possible, in the ER, when they could probably do BETTER with a cheap alternative such as a nurse midwife with hospital backup.

Not much. You don't live in a border state, and you do not understand first-hand, only what you've read and seen on TV. You don't understand the impact on communities of those who are here illegally.

OK, I don't understand the impact, but what about the rest is untrue? We've made a deliberate decision for decades to relatively lightly guard the southern border, and to totally ignore the violations by employers that hire illegals, so in all practical purposes we've invited these people here and put them to work when they get here.

I've said I have no objection to a far more secure border, to tougher interior enforcement, and to our right to control immigration into this country. I'm all for it. What I object to is the fact that we have had these figurative red carpets laid out for decades, and then people disparaging those who took us up on that offer. They did what we through decades of policy choices told them we WANT them to do - come here and work in law wage, mostly manual labor jobs, for thousands or tens of thousands of employers, millions of jobs, in all 50 states.

In a big way, the homeowners here in Tennessee who gladly got a good deal on a roof replacement after a hail storm destroyed 3/4 of them are THE problem. We got low wage labor to crawl on roofs in 90 degree weather, and offload the costs of that labor onto the schools, ERs, etc. where the rest of the Tennessee residents pick them up.
 
The law you linked to has been altered, it's linked in the article:

The New Costa Rica Immigration Law at The REAL Costa Rica Blog

Even tougher and they are enforcing their law, unlike the US. That last may be why those who would invade another country head to the US rather than relocate their family to CR or try to do a work and send money home scheme.

In fact CR seems to have some common sense solutions that we don't here. One of which is the requirement of citizenship or legal presence in the country to rent or buy a place to live. Thanks for pointing me to that. Sounds like a perfectly good element to add to the mix of our own law. That and actually enforcing it.

OK, fine, let's change the laws, and enforce them like they can do in a country about the size of W. Virginia, ranked 42 of 50. When we do we'll be having a different conversation altogether. What I've pointed out (among other things) is we have lax laws because there is bipartisan support for illegal and legal immigration and a lot of it is coming from employers with big checkbooks and lots of influence who LOVE immigration.

But to remind you of what you asked and what I provided:

Fair enough, and here was your original statement:

Not true, I've answered you directly on this and the answer is not to pay 5-10, 000 dollars to abandon my family and my country to jump the border. Good grief, there are more countries close to Mexico or Guatemala that have jobs that they can easily immigrate legally to and not pay a coyote.

And the poor just cannot legally immigrate to Costa Rica. Wealthy Canadians can, but not poor peasants.
 
https://www.google.com/search?q=121...e=UTF-8#q=121+murders+attributed+to+illegals+


Bunch of links, could just be all quoting washington times.

But regardless of who broke the story or why, if 121 released illegals have been charged with murder, then they have been charged. The source doesn't change the core facts, just the commentary and twist after.

This may have already been pointed out, but "121 released illegals" have not been charged with murder. 121 "homicide-related charges" have been filed and about half of those who were released were due to laws and protocols that had nothing to do with Obama and existed under GW Bush as well. So turning this story into some kind of indictment of Obama is hyperbolic.

What the story indicates is that our system of determining which illegal immigrants are a danger to our population sucks. There's a lack of communication, a lack of manpower, and a lack of good policy. If anybody doesn't like that, they should write to their representatives about it, because congress doesn't do anything. Make them do their jobs. Don't blame Obama, he isn't all powerful.
 
Even if entirely true it doesn't really tell us all that much. Let's say that juvenile offenders released when they turn 18 turn out to have committed 1,000 murders. What is our response to that? Keep millions of juvenile offenders in jail? What were they charged with? If that's 0.5% of total juveniles released, should we detain for life the other 99.5%? Etc.

If Obama released violent offenders and .1% or .001% or 40% ended up being murderers, those differences matter a great deal. If some non-trivial percentage turn out to become murderers, and some notion of justice is consistent with these people never released or held until deported, that's fine. If they were non-violent people whose only crime was crossing illegally, should we hold everyone detained forever or until deported? Do we have room to do that? Can the system process that many people?

I won't click on the story because the Moonie Times crashes my old computer, but I doubt if they provide any useful context. Typically these are just bash immigrant pieces.

Now what do you think are the chances this news item would be 100% fabricated? What about the Washington Times is it that creates instant doubt?

Maybe the fact its a negative and good reason to find reason and stop illegal immigration, which the Democrats appear to need to stay in power.

What it proves is that a signifant percentage of illegals are criminals and/or criminally minded, something sociologists and criminologists have been saying for decades, you are importing crime. The very thought that criminals could be at the heart of Amerikan Liberal policy has to be quashed as it may turn public opinion against cheap labor for movie stars.

This Liberal respects the hard work and determination immigrants make to become productive citizens. My country has the most liberal immigration laws in the world and we consider anyone who comes here illegally to BE a criminal and we treat them accordingly. You go directly to a converted army base now concentration camp and you stay there until you can raise the money to leave, or when her majesty's government gets around to busing you to the nearest American crossing and drop you off with nothing but the clothes on your back.

The American policy is an idiotic farce. While you encourage and abet 500,000 criminals and uneducated peasants to saunter in in the south, you make bright, educatyed doctors, scientists and tech workers wait months and jump through hoops.

All because the Democrats need Hispanic support. Pretty ****ed up way to run a country.
 
Now what do you think are the chances this news item would be 100% fabricated? What about the Washington Times is it that creates instant doubt?

Actually I didn't say it was 100% fabricated. I believe the number. What I said in the part you quoted and elsewhere is the Moonie Times reported them out of context and that is true. I later crashed my browser by clicking on the link, but I did read the story.

Maybe the fact its a negative and good reason to find reason and stop illegal immigration, which the Democrats appear to need to stay in power.

Yes, it's all Democrats because the GOP has such an excellent record of dealing with illegals when they're in power!

What it proves is that a signifant percentage of illegals are criminals and/or criminally minded, something sociologists and criminologists have been saying for decades, you are importing crime. The very thought that criminals could be at the heart of Amerikan Liberal policy has to be quashed as it may turn public opinion against cheap labor for movie stars.

Movie stars? And Romney, and thousands of other employers, including the Donald, who was fined for employing illegals on one of his jobs.

This Liberal respects the hard work and determination immigrants make to become productive citizens. My country has the most liberal immigration laws in the world and we consider anyone who comes here illegally to BE a criminal and we treat them accordingly. You go directly to a converted army base now concentration camp and you stay there until you can raise the money to leave, or when her majesty's government gets around to busing you to the nearest American crossing and drop you off with nothing but the clothes on your back.

OK, we don't have those laws here, and it's because our employers love immigration, legal and otherwise, and we know this because no matter who is in charge of immigration, from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush II to Obama, not one of them has actually made any attempt to really deal with the problem, and no Congress, democratic or republican, has done so either, except to try to pass more amnesty.

The American policy is an idiotic farce. While you encourage and abet 500,000 criminals and uneducated peasants to saunter in in the south, you make bright, educatyed doctors, scientists and tech workers wait months and jump through hoops.

All because the Democrats need Hispanic support. Pretty ****ed up way to run a country.

Yeah, it's all the the fault of Democrats. Another day, more partisan BS.

If you thought about it for a minute, what you might realize is doctors, for example, are kept waiting because the AMA wields a lot of power and its constituents are rich doctors, not hourly workers in a manual labor job, so their lobbyists are paid attention to in Congress and Congress limits those entries. No one gives a damn that low wage jobs are getting filled with low wage, illegal labor. That's the difference. The same thing is true for other professional jobs. Those folks have influence, and are friends of political writers and so those news outlets run stories about how Microsoft is importing all these foreigners who undercut domestic programmers, etc. and people listen. No one writes stories in the NYT or Washington Post about some carpenter who works for $10 an hour and used to make $15 before the illegals took over the building trade. No, in that case the people with clout are the builders and they're very happy to get skilled construction labor at a cheaper cost through hard working undocumented workers.

If you want to say Democrats are happy to have the growing Hispanic population on their side, of course. Every time some idiot like Steve King comes on TV and starts talking about Hispanics and their calves like cantaloupes from hauling pot across the border, a DNC angel gets its wings. But that's not what's driven immigration policy for the past 30 years or more.
 
Last edited:
What he was talking about were people who entered illegally but who were granted LEGAL STATUS. At that point, they are not illegals, they are legal residents and he wants to prevent that sub-population of legal residents from getting benefits available to other legal residents.
Being given legal status first, would probably be unconstitutional so that would go up through the courts - assuming such a thing would ever happen. Second, being declared and given "legal status" doesn't erase that they are still illegals. That you make that leap is amusing though.


Give me a link to your 60,000 number.

I was incorrect --- it was 68,000 in 2013. DHS document: 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions released in 2013 | TheHill

It was 36,000 more in 2014. 36K criminals freed while awaiting deportation, report says - CBS News

I know what you're going to say - "But Ockham, they were deported." Not all of them because of the following:

CBS News said:
The ICE issued a statement in response to the report, saying that most of the individuals described in the report were released under restrictions, such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision or surety bond.
Basically they were released and told, 'please don't disappear so we can deport you later.' Which I'm sure all of them complied. :giggle:

Now to be positive - so far only 121 criminals were released so far in 2015 which is much much less than the last two years.


I did read it. Where did it say I should eat dirt and not take, for example, Pepto-Bismol. Can you quote the article?
You said you go on the best evidence available - you want to step back from that comment now, I'm fine with that. It's a study and you do love studies and treat them as gospel.

There is lots of evidence that being exposed to dirt as a kid helps your immune system, however. Growing up on a farm drastically reduces the rate of asthma and allergies, and they presume it's because of being exposed to "dirt" for lack of a better way to describe it. But I'm 51 and so any potential benefit of eating dirt as a child is long past.
How about eating it which is what the study was about, not allergies or asthma?

See, this is how to discuss a source. I've addressed the evidence presented, agreed that there are in fact several studies that show eating dirt can in fact provide health benefits, and addressed why in my case I don't see the advantages.
No you've avoided addressing and answering the source and the study. I've asked you now nearly half a dozen times and you refuse to say what I already know, which is you will NOT eat dirt no matter what the study says. It helps if you just honest in your discussion instead trying and failing to be clever.

[quote} You can't respond because you simply don't have the tools nor capability to answer, none of which is really your fault.

No, I'm actually waiting on evidence.

I thought we discussed this - your points don't garner evidence. That you avoid answering simple questions tells me your answers and posts are not even remotely honest. Shall we continue or shall I keep repeating myself?
 
No they aren't. They are bash ILLEGAL ALIEN pieces.

They should be "bash illegal aliens and the government agency that released them into the public to kill innocent people" pieces.
 
Here's some more updated information on this:

34 Convicted aliens arrested in Wisconsin

GOP Senators Demand ICE Answers on Repeat-Offender Criminal Illegals

National Review said:
Immigration officials tried to deport Luis-Leyva Vargas, 47, to Cuba after he served three years in a Florida prison for unlawful sex with a teen. In 2008, officials released him. Two years later, he kidnapped an 18-year-old in Rockingham County, Va., at knifepoint and raped her. Now he is serving a 55-year prison sentence.

Felix Rodriguez, a 67-year-old sex offender convicted of raping children as young as 4 in the 1990s, was freed in 2009, also because Cuba would not take him back. Months later, he fatally shot his girlfriend in Kansas City. He pleaded guilty and is serving 10 years in a Missouri prison.

Andrew Rui Stanley, convicted in 2000 of multiple counts of sodomizing a child when Stanley was 14, was released in 2009 after Brazil failed to provide a passport needed to send him home. For the next two years, he viciously abused three children in St. Louis and now, at age 31, will be in prison for the rest of his life.
Enforcement? What Enforcement? | National Review Online

Which lends yet more credence to post #13 where I made some inflammatory statements. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom