PDA

View Full Version : "Undocumented" article



sandsjames
07-15-2014, 04:09 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/justice/texas-jose-vargas-detained/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

So this dude knows he's undocumented, brags online about being undocumented, and seems to be trying to get caught just for publicity reasons. This would be like me tweeting that I'm going to rob a bank, list the bank I'm going to rob with the time I'm going to do it, admit to several prior bank robberies, then try to make people sympathize with me when I get arrested.

garhkal
07-15-2014, 08:45 PM
Personally i am surprised he still has a job.
1) Since he is here illegally, is NOT CNN breaking the law keeping him on the payroll?
2) Since he is here illegally, how did he pay for college, let alone go to one without paperwork? If he went on a fake/stolen/forged id, should that not mean his Degree was acquired under false pretenses? ANd if so, should that not invalidate it?
3) IF 2 is true, then should that not invalidate his Pulitzer prize?

Measure Man
07-15-2014, 09:52 PM
Personally i am surprised he still has a job.
1) Since he is here illegally, is NOT CNN breaking the law keeping him on the payroll?

Not clear if he is on their payroll, or simply sold them the documentary.


2) Since he is here illegally, how did he pay for college, let alone go to one without paperwork? If he went on a fake/stolen/forged id, should that not mean his Degree was acquired under false pretenses? ANd if so, should that not invalidate it?

I assume he paid money for college...maybe loans, I don't know...but I don't think colleges care too much about legal or illegal. Wasn't there even a deal with colleges in Texas and NJ, among others, providing in-state tuition rates to illegals who graduated HS in-state?


3) IF 2 is true, then should that not invalidate his Pulitzer prize?

I don't think the prize is based on whether or not he has a valid degree.

Chris_1991-2011
07-15-2014, 10:52 PM
3) IF 2 is true, then should that not invalidate his Pulitzer prize?

It's not exactly his prize, he was part of a Washington Post team that received it.

How, in 14 years, has/did he:

Traveled extensively, visiting 40 states. All by automobile? Do passports count as ID when flying?
At 16 he tried to get a drivers license but was told his green card was bogus; apparently that was the end of the story. Why didn't the DMV inform anyone?
How can you function with no ID other than a (Filipino) passport?
How did he write an article for the NY Times Magazine, write for numerous publications including the New Yorker, intern for The Seattle Times, work for The Huffington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Daily News, and CNN (there's a link at the bottom of the article linked in the OP that goes to an article he wrote for CNN, and his documentary CNN aired), Time magazine (cover story), and nothing happen? Don't employers need a SSN, bank account info., etc?
How was he able to appear before a Senate Judiciary Committee and give testimony? http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/14/jose-antonio-vargas-emotional-senate-testimony/
In June 2011 he wrote an essay in The New York Times Magazine and revealed his status as an "undocumented immigrant."
I saw him on a show on HBO a few weeks ago giving an interview in which is immigration status was a topic of discussion.


I'm confused? How can someone do the above items and it takes so long for the Government to do anything or even notice? For further reading, check out Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Antonio_Vargas, or the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3452130/ to read up on the three movies he's written and/or directed or for news articles from '12, '13, & '14 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3452130/news?ref_=nm_phs_nw.

How can someone be so out there and still be hidden at the same time?

Mr. Squid
07-15-2014, 11:21 PM
I won't shed a tear for him. He practically begged to be arrested, so it's better late than never.

efmbman
07-15-2014, 11:47 PM
Who says justice is slow? He's already been released.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/justice/texas-jose-vargas-detained/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

sandsjames
07-16-2014, 12:15 AM
I won't shed a tear for him. He practically begged to be arrested, so it's better late than never.He did beg...obviously strictly for publicity. Basically, he is laughing in the face of U.S. law and being very successful doing it.

Mr. Squid
07-16-2014, 12:47 AM
He did beg...obviously strictly for publicity. Basically, he is laughing in the face of U.S. law and being very successful doing it. I know, but his past success is no indicator of future success. I hope he doesn't laugh too loudly, because the U.S. still deports approximately 400,000 illegal immigrants every year; not that 400,000 is nearly enough, but that's beside the point.

garhkal
07-16-2014, 05:18 AM
Not clear if he is on their payroll, or simply sold them the documentary.


From a site dedicated to him it seems i was wrong, he doesn't work for CNN< but is more akin to an independent reporter, selling his works to anyone who buys them.




I assume he paid money for college...maybe loans, I don't know...but I don't think colleges care too much about legal or illegal. Wasn't there even a deal with colleges in Texas and NJ, among others, providing in-state tuition rates to illegals who graduated HS in-state?

Which to me is (or should be) illegal. Since he is not here legally, how did he get a loan (if he went that route) since to get one, you need a valid SSN?



I don't think the prize is based on whether or not he has a valid degree.

Maybe. BUT that he got it from a degree that to be was questionably granted should at least raise some eyebrows.


It's not exactly his prize, he was part of a Washington Post team that received it.

How, in 14 years, has/did he:

Traveled extensively, visiting 40 states. All by automobile? Do passports count as ID when flying?
At 16 he tried to get a drivers license but was told his green card was bogus; apparently that was the end of the story. Why didn't the DMV inform anyone?
How can you function with no ID other than a (Filipino) passport?
How did he write an article for the NY Times Magazine, write for numerous publications including the New Yorker, intern for The Seattle Times, work for The Huffington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Daily News, and CNN (there's a link at the bottom of the article linked in the OP that goes to an article he wrote for CNN, and his documentary CNN aired), Time magazine (cover story), and nothing happen? Don't employers need a SSN, bank account info., etc?
How was he able to appear before a Senate Judiciary Committee and give testimony? http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/14/jose-antonio-vargas-emotional-senate-testimony/
In June 2011 he wrote an essay in The New York Times Magazine and revealed his status as an "undocumented immigrant."
I saw him on a show on HBO a few weeks ago giving an interview in which is immigration status was a topic of discussion.


I'm confused? How can someone do the above items and it takes so long for the Government to do anything or even notice? For further reading, check out Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Antonio_Vargas, or the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3452130/ to read up on the three movies he's written and/or directed or for news articles from '12, '13, & '14 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3452130/news?ref_=nm_phs_nw.

How can someone be so out there and still be hidden at the same time?


He did beg...obviously strictly for publicity. Basically, he is laughing in the face of U.S. law and being very successful doing it.
Which is my point exactly. How can we call ourselves a nation of laws, when this is ONE (of 11 million) willfully flaunting the laws and nothing gets done to him, NOR the orgs he works with, since we DO have laws against hiring illegals etc.? It just baffles the mind.

hustonj
07-16-2014, 01:03 PM
I've done some contract writing (little bitty pieces for almost enough money to take my wife out to eat). Everything was done through the internet, and the company which contracted me didn't care what country I happened to be in. My contract was a line in their accoutning sheets. Since I wasn't an employee, they didn't need a SSAN to report anything. I was required to track the income and self-report it as business income when I filed my taxes.

Large, international firms are very used to paying for services without needing to report that expense as somebody else's income to the US Government. It happens all the time. Heck, even a portion of their employee wages are simpy expenditures to the US Government. They don't tax the salaries of Indian nationals working for the company in India, right?

Yes, tourists use their passports as their picture ID all the time. Especially those whose other documentation is not in English, and thus really not likely to be recognized by local employees scattered across the USA.

giggawatt
07-16-2014, 02:31 PM
I remember reading an article by this guy in Time, I think, a few years ago. Must have been at least 3 years ago. He wrote about building his career while being undocumented. He was flaunting it even back then.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 03:04 PM
From a site dedicated to him it seems i was wrong, he doesn't work for CNN< but is more akin to an independent reporter, selling his works to anyone who buys them.

Which to me is (or should be) illegal. Since he is not here legally, how did he get a loan (if he went that route) since to get one, you need a valid SSN?

Well, we don't know...assuming he used an ill-gotten loan is unfounded. Maybe he had money...maybe he got scholarships...maybe he got a loan from a foreign bank. I have no idea...your question is valid, but assuming he must've forged an ID or obtained the money for college illegally is not [/quote]


Maybe. BUT that he got it from a degree that to be was questionably granted should at least raise some eyebrows.

Again, we don't know that his degree was questionable granted...so this is an assumption on another assumption...and the prize is based off the work, as far as I know, and not his degree. You don't have to have a degree to be a journalist. This is not the same as an MD practicing without a valid medical degree...or attorney practicing without a valid law license.


Which is my point exactly. How can we call ourselves a nation of laws, when this is ONE (of 11 million) willfully flaunting the laws and nothing gets done to him, NOR the orgs he works with, since we DO have laws against hiring illegals etc.? It just baffles the mind.

Yes, I see your point here. I don't have a good answer other than to say that we have 11 million undocumented immigrants that are not shipped out. I think we are just sort of managing the chaos at this point and if people are generally productive good people we don't deport them, as far as I know.

Like the UCMJ and adultery maybe...we all know people that screw around on TDY, but unless something bigger happens, it's not really pursued.

TJMAC77SP
07-16-2014, 04:27 PM
Can someone tell me why we must be politically correct in insisting on the term undocumented aliens (Vargas himself corrected a journalist interviewing him).

While I see the need to lessen the perception that there is something illegal going on here (again, fitting a particular narrative) but there IS actually something illegal going on here and he IS an illegal alien. I am not suggesting any particular legal action be taken but for Christ's sake, he has and continues to break the laws of the US. If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

I admire Vargas and his accomplishments but that doesn't change any historical facts.

Rainmaker
07-16-2014, 07:09 PM
If we didn't live in a lawless, immoral state then this assclown Jose would be deported immediately and His Grandparents (along with all the faggots in San Francisco he blew along the way to make sure they aided and abetted his career,) would be thrown in jail for human trafficking and committing forgery and social security and tax fraud.

The sovereign rights of EVERY citizen in the United States are being violated, by the bought and paid for politicians so, that they and their corporate owners can line their pockets on the backs of these modern day indentured servants.

They couldn't get the Amnesty they wanted passed. Because Americans don't want it. Period. and when the Tea party shit-canned Cantor to prove it. it was the death nail for the Senate's bill.

So, instead of bending to the people's will. they manufacture a human crisis to try and force the issue. "It's about the children"... new world order NEOCON Jeb Bush calls turning a 12 year old over to a narco trafficker and hoping she doesn't wind up in a porn or in a mass grave "an act of Love". Spoken from a spoiled rich, hypocrite asshole who had everything handed to him and never had to work a day of honest physical labor in his life

You think Jeb Bush (or any of these other assholes) ever lost an opportunity to feed his family to an illegal Alien, that was hired solely because he could work for cash under the table (with no benefits) and couldn't say shit about it without getting turned over to ICE? Is Warren Buffet or Zuckerburg's neighborhood going to be turned into the Barrio? Why do you think their pushing it? simple. 3 words. Cut Payroll Expenses.

All the liberal bleeding hearts crying for the minimum wage to increase wouldn't have to worry about it, if this bullshit wasn't allowed to happen in the first place.

Rainmaker
07-16-2014, 07:27 PM
Can someone tell me why we must be politically correct in insisting on the term undocumented aliens (Vargas himself corrected a journalist interviewing him).

While I see the need to lessen the perception that there is something illegal going on here (again, fitting a particular narrative) but there IS actually something illegal going on here and he IS an illegal alien. I am not suggesting any particular legal action be taken but for Christ's sake, he has and continues to break the laws of the US. If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

I admire Vargas and his accomplishments but that doesn't change any historical facts.

and Bingo is his nameo

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 07:37 PM
Can someone tell me why we must be politically correct in insisting on the term undocumented aliens (Vargas himself corrected a journalist interviewing him).

I think there is an argument as to whether or not being in the country without proper documentation is a crime...or more like a civil offense.

There are a lot of laws in the country, not all of them are criminal laws....so breaking them does not make one a criminal.

As far as I can tell, entering the country illegally is, in fact, a crime though and is punishable by jail time.

For example, if these folks coming now are classified as refugees, then they actually haven't broken any laws since refugees are exempt from immigration law.


While I see the need to lessen the perception that there is something illegal going on here (again, fitting a particular narrative) but there IS actually something illegal going on here and he IS an illegal alien. I am not suggesting any particular legal action be taken but for Christ's sake, he has and continues to break the laws of the US. If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

Yes...the use of language is attempting to soften the conversation.


I admire Vargas and his accomplishments but that doesn't change any historical facts.

Rog.

garhkal
07-16-2014, 07:54 PM
Can someone tell me why we must be politically correct in insisting on the term undocumented aliens (Vargas himself corrected a journalist interviewing him).


Cause to many Immigration activists, calling them Illegal, is as offensive as calling blacks the N word, or LBGT people "Fags" etc.



While I see the need to lessen the perception that there is something illegal going on here (again, fitting a particular narrative) but there IS actually something illegal going on here and he IS an illegal alien. I am not suggesting any particular legal action be taken but for Christ's sake, he has and continues to break the laws of the US. If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

I admire Vargas and his accomplishments but that doesn't change any historical facts.

TO me, that we DO have laws being violated, makes it illegal. Ergo there should not be a 'lessening of the perception' that they are not breaking the law. IMO that way leads to condoning of the act.

efmbman
07-16-2014, 09:52 PM
Can someone tell me why we must be politically correct in insisting on the term undocumented aliens (Vargas himself corrected a journalist interviewing him).

Welcome to the wonderful world of "spin". That group is only a few steps away from being a protected class somehow.

TJMAC77SP
07-16-2014, 10:05 PM
I think there is an argument as to whether or not being in the country without proper documentation is a crime...or more like a civil offense.

There are a lot of laws in the country, not all of them are criminal laws....so breaking them does not make one a criminal.

As far as I can tell, entering the country illegally is, in fact, a crime though and is punishable by jail time.

For example, if these folks coming now are classified as refugees, then they actually haven't broken any laws since refugees are exempt from immigration law.



Yes...the use of language is attempting to soften the conversation.



Rog.

Entering the US illegally is a criminal act (1911 8 U.S.C. § 1325)...

Any alien who

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or

(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

Their status NOW is at issue (along with the 11 million already here). The US generally does not grant refugee status for economic reasons and that is the real truth at work here.

This isn't a matter of not caring or thinking these people deserve less than us. It is simple math. Simple economics. The US cannot afford this strain. We are still in an economic crisis (despite best efforts to spin it otherwise).

What about all the other countries where the violence and economic hardship is even worse? Where are the cries for the countries of Africa?

Softening the language is the worst kind of hypocrisy. It is on par with the vehement racial bullshit being seen in some of the protests. If it is ok for the government to soften the language isn't it equally ok for the fringes to harshen it?

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 10:19 PM
Entering the US illegally is a criminal act (1911 8 U.S.C. § 1325)...

Any alien who

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or

(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

Okay...so entering or attempting to enter is a criminal act. What about BEING here?

Yes...in basic logic, we can assume that if someone is here, they must have entered....but, when you prosecute someone for a crime, don't you generally have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt things like when and where the crime happened? Can you just say, "this person committed this crime at some point"? I don't really know the answer to that. I think one of the problems the military has in prosecuting adultery, for instance, is proving that the crime happened at a time and place...that they can't just get away in general saying, "we're sure they had sex, we're just not sure when"

Which of the above could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt about Vargas?

I'm reading now that overstaying a visa, for instance, has only civil penalties and no criminal penalty....does that indicate that since a person overstaying did not enter illegally, they are not criminals?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6107442_crime-overstaying-visa_.html


Overstaying
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains only civil penalties for an immigrant who overstays her visa. This means that immigrants with an expired visa will not be charged criminally or serve time in jail.




Their status NOW is at issue (along with the 11 million already here).

Yes, nothing in the law you posted says it is illegal to be here....like the Alaska marijuana laws...it is illegal to buy, sell, grow, produce even less than an ounce of marijuana...but not illegal to have it. IIRC, things may have changed.


The US generally does not grant refugee status for economic reasons and that is the real truth at work here.

I did not know that. As I understand it, each country gets to make their own definition of what a refugee is...but I don't know how they do this. Is it codified?


This isn't a matter of not caring or thinking these people deserve less than us. It is simple math. Simple economics. The US cannot afford this strain. We are still in an economic crisis (despite best efforts to spin it otherwise).

What about all the other countries where the violence and economic hardship is even worse? Where are the cries for the countries of Africa?

No argument from me.


Softening the language is the worst kind of hypocrisy. It is on par with the vehement racial bullshit being seen in some of the protests. If it is ok for the government to soften the language isn't it equally ok for the fringes to harshen it?

I'm not arguing in favor of it...just adding to your discussion.

TJMAC77SP
07-16-2014, 11:13 PM
Okay...so entering or attempting to enter is a criminal act. What about BEING here?

Yes...in basic logic, we can assume that if someone is here, they must have entered....but, when you prosecute someone for a crime, don't you generally have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt things like when and where the crime happened? Can you just say, "this person committed this crime at some point"? I don't really know the answer to that. I think one of the problems the military has in prosecuting adultery, for instance, is proving that the crime happened at a time and place...that they can't just get away in general saying, "we're sure they had sex, we're just not sure when"

Which of the above could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt about Vargas?

I'm reading now that overstaying a visa, for instance, has only civil penalties and no criminal penalty....does that indicate that since a person overstaying did not enter illegally, they are not criminals?

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6107442_crime-overstaying-visa_.html







Yes, nothing in the law you posted says it is illegal to be here....like the Alaska marijuana laws...it is illegal to buy, sell, grow, produce even less than an ounce of marijuana...but not illegal to have it. IIRC, things may have changed.



I did not know that. As I understand it, each country gets to make their own definition of what a refugee is...but I don't know how they do this. Is it codified?



No argument from me.



I'm not arguing in favor of it...just adding to your discussion.

No, actually you are arguing against the logic that if you entered the US illegally you have committed a criminal act. Just admit you misstated and move on. Your example of an overstayed visa merely strengthens that position. They DID NOT ENTER ILLEGALLY HENCE NO CRIMINAL ACT.

Your adultery example was funny though. Thank you for that.

As to refuge status, there is international conventions and of course each country mandates the conditions to grant it and we are speaking of the US which bases its procedures on the Refugee Act.

Measure Man
07-16-2014, 11:18 PM
No, actually you are arguing against the logic that if you entered the US illegally you have committed a criminal act.

When did I do this? I even said, "As far as I can tell, entering illegally is a criminal act"


Just admit you misstated and move on.

Where did I do this?


Your example of an overstayed visa merely strengthens that position. They DID NOT ENTER ILLEGALLY HENCE NO CRIMINAL ACT.

Correct...this is what I said. As far as i can tell, entering illegal is a criminal act, but what about being here?

Are you getting the difference in terminology there?

For example, regarding Vargas...considering the elements of the law you posted.

Can we prove he entered at a place not prescribed? I don't know his whole story...but as far as I know he flew here on a plance and presumable processed through customs...how he did that, I don't know.

Can we prove he evaded immigration officials? We don't know.

Can we prove he made false or misleading statements? We don't know this either.

So...if we can't prove he entered illegally...all we have is that he is here...which you seem to be concurring that this may not be a criminal act.


Your adultery example was funny though. Thank you for that.

you're welcome...??


As to refuge status, there is international conventions and of course each country mandates the conditions to grant it and we are speaking of the US which bases its procedures on the Refugee Act.

Okay. As said as much...just was not aware that we had a Refugee Act or what it says.

Rainmaker
07-17-2014, 02:54 PM
Entering the US illegally is a criminal act (1911 8 U.S.C. § 1325)...

Any alien who

(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or

(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or

(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

Their status NOW is at issue (along with the 11 million already here). The US generally does not grant refugee status for economic reasons and that is the real truth at work here.

This isn't a matter of not caring or thinking these people deserve less than us. It is simple math. Simple economics. The US cannot afford this strain. We are still in an economic crisis (despite best efforts to spin it otherwise).

What about all the other countries where the violence and economic hardship is even worse? Where are the cries for the countries of Africa?

Softening the language is the worst kind of hypocrisy. It is on par with the vehement racial bullshit being seen in some of the protests. If it is ok for the government to soften the language isn't it equally ok for the fringes to harshen it?

Don't worry. the Europeans get the duty of taking care of them.

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 03:21 PM
When did I do this? I even said, "As far as I can tell, entering illegally is a criminal act"
Where did I do this?

Here………….


I think there is an argument as to whether or not being in the country without proper documentation is a crime...or more like a civil offense.

YOU brought up ‘being here’ vs entering illegally. You are hung up on criminal vs. civil. A violation of US law is by definintion illegal. Whether or not its criminal or civil is irrelevant to this discussion. It is misdirection. A criminal violation and a civil violation is by its very nature an illegal act and that makes the ‘undocumented immigrants’ actually illegal aliens.


Correct...this is what I said. As far as i can tell, entering illegal is a criminal act, but what about being here?

See above.


Are you getting the difference in terminology there?

Yes, I see that it is an irrelevant attempt to deflect from my valid and logical point.


For example, regarding Vargas...considering the elements of the law you posted.

Can we prove he entered at a place not prescribed? I don't know his whole story...but as far as I know he flew here on a plance and presumable processed through customs...how he did that, I don't know.

Can we prove he evaded immigration officials? We don't know.

Can we prove he made false or misleading statements? We don't know this either.


So...if we can't prove he entered illegally...all we have is that he is here...which you seem to be concurring that this may not be a criminal act.



I think there is an argument as to whether or not being in the country without proper documentation is a crime...or more like a civil offense.

Ok, let’s cut through the bullshit. This 'argument' is of your making. It is you that has brought up the criminal vs. civil issue. It is completely irrelevant to the argument that US laws have and continue to be violated. To repeat my earlier point, an illegal act is an illegal act. Vargas has overstayed a visa (by over 21 years). He has committed a criminal act if he (or his mother while he was a minor) ever received a final order to depart the country. Regardless of which case is true he is in this country illegally and therefore an illegal alien.

Now, again I have stated what my original post in this thread was about. This discussion has amplified what I believe one of the problems in this narrative to be. The tone of the discussion has become more important than its content.

Measure Man
07-17-2014, 03:34 PM
Here………….



YOU brought up ‘being here’ vs entering illegally. You are hung up on criminal vs. civil. A violation of US law is by definintion illegal. Whether or not its criminal or civil is irrelevant to this discussion. It is misdirection. A criminal violation and a civil violation is by its very nature an illegal act and that makes the ‘undocumented immigrants’ actually illegal aliens.



See above.



Yes, I see that it is an irrelevant attempt to deflect from my valid and logical point.



Ok, let’s cut through the bullshit. This 'argument' is of your making. It is you that has brought up the criminal vs. civil issue. It is completely irrelevant to the argument that US laws have and continue to be violated. To repeat my earlier point, an illegal act is an illegal act. Vargas has overstayed a visa (by over 21 years). He has committed a criminal act if he (or his mother while he was a minor) ever received a final order to depart the country. Regardless of which case is true he is in this country illegally and therefore an illegal alien.

Now, again I have stated what my original post in this thread was about. This discussion has amplified what I believe one of the problems in this narrative to be. The tone of the discussion has become more important than its content.

I think you are reading in tone in my posts that is not there.

At no time did I even argue that "undocumented" was more proper than "illegal"....you asked a question why the fuss over words. I explained that it's intent was soften the conversation. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that...just why it's being done.

I also went on to say, that as far as I can tell entering the country is a criminal act....but, being in the country may not be. Although I'm not an expert in either area. You agreed with both of those points...emphatically, in capital letters!

I'm not disagreeing with you that while being in the country may not be criminal, it is still illegal. I've never stated the the term "illegal alien" is wrong, improper or should not be used.

Not sure what your getting all blustered about...I haven't argued about anything.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 03:57 PM
I also went on to say, that as far as I can tell entering the country is a criminal act....but, being in the country may not be. Although I'm not an expert in either area. You agreed with both of those points...emphatically, in capital letters!

I'm not disagreeing with you that while being in the country may not be criminal, it is still illegal. I've never stated the the term "illegal alien" is wrong, improper or should not be used.

I like your adultry analogy, but let me complete it for you. Let's say a woman has a baby. A DNA test is done and proves that her husband is not the father. Another DNA test is done on someone else and they find that the baby was the other guys. Can they then go back and charge adultry, even though there was no proof or suspicion of adultry until the child was born.

As far as immigration, I wonder if there is a statute of limitations as to the parts of illegal immigration that actually involve the entry, evading, etc part of the crime. Then your question becomes legitimate about whether being here without proper documentation is actually a crime. If there is a SoL on the actual criminal portion of it and that has expired then where does that take us?

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 04:02 PM
I think you are reading in tone in my posts that is not there.

At no time did I even argue that "undocumented" was more proper than "illegal"....you asked a question why the fuss over words. I explained that it's intent was soften the conversation. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that...just why it's being done.

I also went on to say, that as far as I can tell entering the country is a criminal act....but, being in the country may not be. Although I'm not an expert in either area. You agreed with both of those points...emphatically, in capital letters!

I'm not disagreeing with you that while being in the country may not be criminal, it is still illegal. I've never stated the the term "illegal alien" is wrong, improper or should not be used.

Not sure what your getting all blustered about...I haven't argued about anything.


Not sure what you think 'blustered' is but I don't feel that way. Having said that I say Ok, fair enough although if you don't mind....the next time someone like AA accuses me of engaging in semantics or splitting hairs (or whatever the flavor of the day is) I will point him back to this discussion.

Perhaps all of this would have been moot if in answer to my original post which you quoted……….


Can someone tell me why we must be politically correct in insisting on the term undocumented aliens (Vargas himself corrected a journalist interviewing him).

While I see the need to lessen the perception that there is something illegal going on here (again, fitting a particular narrative) but there IS actually something illegal going on here and he IS an illegal alien. I am not suggesting any particular legal action be taken but for Christ's sake, he has and continues to break the laws of the US. If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

I admire Vargas and his accomplishments but that doesn't change any historical facts.

……………………..You had simply posted what is bolded.


I think there is an argument as to whether or not being in the country without proper documentation is a crime...or more like a civil offense.

There are a lot of laws in the country, not all of them are criminal laws....so breaking them does not make one a criminal.

As far as I can tell, entering the country illegally is, in fact, a crime though and is punishable by jail time.

For example, if these folks coming now are classified as refugees, then they actually haven't broken any laws since refugees are exempt from immigration law.

Yes...the use of language is attempting to soften the conversation.

Rog.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 04:06 PM
Not sure what you think 'blustered' is but I don't feel that way. Having said that I say Ok, fair enough although if you don't mind....the next time someone like AA accuses me of engaging in semantics or splitting hairs (or whatever the flavor of the day is) I will point him back to this discussion.

Perhaps all of this would have been moot if in answer to my original post which you quoted……….



……………………..You had simply posted what is bolded.

That would have made for an interesting conversation. Wouldn't want to expand the conversation if it means it might lead to further discussion. Just agree...ego boost...done!

Measure Man
07-17-2014, 04:15 PM
I like your adultry analogy, but let me complete it for you. Let's say a woman has a baby. A DNA test is done and proves that her husband is not the father. Another DNA test is done on someone else and they find that the baby was the other guys. Can they then go back and charge adultry, even though there was no proof or suspicion of adultry until the child was born.

I don't know the answer to this. I was wondering the same thing.


As far as immigration, I wonder if there is a statute of limitations as to the parts of illegal immigration that actually involve the entry, evading, etc part of the crime.

Again, great question that I do not have an answer to...also one I was wondering.


Then your question becomes legitimate about whether being here without proper documentation is actually a crime.

I think the question is legitimate even without SoL, if the govt. can not prove any of the three things in TJ's posted law.


If there is a SoL on the actual criminal portion of it and that has expired then where does that take us?

Civil offense...punishable by fine and deportation, I reckon?

Measure Man
07-17-2014, 04:38 PM
Not sure what you think 'blustered' is but I don't feel that way. Having said that I say Ok, fair enough although if you don't mind....the next time someone like AA accuses me of engaging in semantics or splitting hairs (or whatever the flavor of the day is) I will point him back to this discussion.

No, I don't mind. I don't get why, but i don't mind.


Perhaps all of this would have been moot if in answer to my original post which you quoted……….

……………………..You had simply posted what is bolded.

Or you could have just posted. "I prefer the term 'illegal alien' to 'undocumented immigrant'"...and we also wouldn't have had "all this"

What's the point of that though?

Discussion is what we're here for.

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 05:39 PM
That would have made for an interesting conversation. Wouldn't want to expand the conversation if it means it might lead to further discussion. Just agree...ego boost...done!

By interesting if you mean just words which don't really relate to the original post then yeah, that would be interesting.

For example my original post in this thread didn't quote anyone. It is just an opinion I have. An opinion with a pretty narrow focus. I would expect any subsequent post that quotes my post to directly relate to it rather than to the thread in general. Do you not agree with that?

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 05:40 PM
I don't know the answer to this. I was wondering the same thing.



Again, great question that I do not have an answer to...also one I was wondering.



I think the question is legitimate even without SoL, if the govt. can not prove any of the three things in TJ's posted law.



Civil offense...punishable by fine and deportation, I reckon?

Looks like you should have been having this discussion with SJ............and his posts.

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 05:42 PM
No, I don't mind. I don't get why, but i don't mind.



Or you could have just posted. "I prefer the term 'illegal alien' to 'undocumented immigrant'"...and we also wouldn't have had "all this"

What's the point of that though?

Discussion is what we're here for.

I don't have a preference. I do however have a problem with using labels for a specific agenda. Kind of like White-Hispanic.

Discussion yes, expanding original point to further the narrative which my post was aimed at initially no....well not no...........just be prepared to have the 'discussion' point out fallacies in the argument.

For instance............whether an illegal alien has committed a criminal or civil violation of US Federal Law.........irrelevant to the point of what to label them.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 06:03 PM
By interesting if you mean just words which don't really relate to the original post then yeah, that would be interesting.

For example my original post in this thread didn't quote anyone. It is just an opinion I have. An opinion with a pretty narrow focus. I would expect any subsequent post that quotes my post to directly relate to it rather than to the thread in general. Do you not agree with that?

You could have just posted the first paragraph an left it at that.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 06:05 PM
For instance............whether an illegal alien has committed a criminal or civil violation of US Federal Law.........irrelevant to the point of what to label them.A person driving without a drivers license is an illegal driver. A person speeding is just a speeder.

Measure Man
07-17-2014, 06:19 PM
I don't have a preference. I do however have a problem with using labels for a specific agenda. Kind of like White-Hispanic.

You don't have a preference...you just have a problem with one of them. LOL.

One could also say that the term "illegal alien" is insisted on by some to support a specific agenda.

Both terms are correct...both are valid. Someone with a specific agenda chooses to use one or the other to advance their purpose.


Discussion yes, expanding original point to further the narrative which my post was aimed at initially no

It would seem that expanding a narrative that was aimed at by your initial post is nearly the very definition of a discussion.


....well not no...........just be prepared to have the 'discussion' point out fallacies in the argument.

I was and remain prepared.


For instance............whether an illegal alien has committed a criminal or civil violation of US Federal Law.........irrelevant to the point of what to label them.

Well, it's not entirely irrelevant.

Should there be a different label for someone who violates a criminal law than there is for someone who violates a civil law? Probably so. Sure, they are both law-breakers, but so are murderers and so is someone who didn't know they had to file Form 1386-2 with their taxes.

While "illegal alien" does apply to both...criminal does not.

So, next time you see someone write or say "illegal aliens are criminals."...are you going to correct them?

I didn't see the interview where Vargas corrected the interviewer on the term...but I think the interviewer should have re-corrected him..."well, you are here in violation of law, right?"

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 06:37 PM
A person driving without a drivers license is an illegal driver. A person speeding is just a speeder.

No.........sorry.........and speeding can be a criminal act.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 06:38 PM
No.........sorry.........and speeding can be a criminal act.

Right...so you consider yourself a criminal?

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 06:40 PM
You don't have a preference...you just have a problem with one of them. LOL.

One could also say that the term "illegal alien" is insisted on by some to support a specific agenda.

Both terms are correct...both are valid. Someone with a specific agenda chooses to use one or the other to advance their purpose.



It would seem that expanding a narrative that was aimed at by your initial post is nearly the very definition of a discussion.



I was and remain prepared.



Well, it's not entirely irrelevant.

Should there be a different label for someone who violates a criminal law than there is for someone who violates a civil law? Probably so. Sure, they are both law-breakers, but so are murderers and so is someone who didn't know they had to file Form 1386-2 with their taxes.

While "illegal alien" does apply to both...criminal does not.

So, next time you see someone write or say "illegal aliens are criminals."...are you going to correct them?

I didn't see the interview where Vargas corrected the interviewer on the term...but I think the interviewer should have re-corrected him..."well, you are here in violation of law, right?"

If I catch the error I will do my best.

If your response to my post focused on the agendas at work and why truly the use of the terms then yes that would be a discussion. Getting into terminology of criminal vs civil law violations (particularly since my post didn't differentiate between the two) is more accurately labeled as I did.

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 06:41 PM
Right...so you consider yourself a criminal?

No, but I do speed illegally often. When I do I wouldn't really have a legitimate gripe if labeled so would I?

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 06:56 PM
No, but I do speed illegally often. When I do I wouldn't really have a legitimate gripe if labeled so would I?

Labeled as what...an illegal driver?

Rainmaker
07-17-2014, 07:13 PM
Labeled as what...an illegal driver?

Speeding will get you fined. If you can't pay the fine, then your license will be suspended and a warrant issued. Driving on a suspended license with knowledge is a criminal offense and gets you a trip to the big house. But, then again. The rules should only apply to those who decided to follow em. All the other drivers who decide to follow the Great White Father's racist speeding laws ( or pay the consequences when they don't) are just ignorant bigots that hate brown children. Hopefully soon President Obama, will sue the states that enforce traffic laws. He must cut off federal highway funding to protect the innocent victims of this barbaric practice.... DIVERSITY UBER ALLES!!! FORWARD!!!

garhkal
07-17-2014, 07:45 PM
Don't worry. the Europeans get the duty of taking care of them.

I wouldn't call it a "Duty" that they have to take care of them. ANd we have our fair share of African immigrants here too.


As far as immigration, I wonder if there is a statute of limitations as to the parts of illegal immigration that actually involve the entry, evading, etc part of the crime. Then your question becomes legitimate about whether being here without proper documentation is actually a crime. If there is a SoL on the actual criminal portion of it and that has expired then where does that take us?

IIRC on statue of limitations, they don't kick in till the crime is stopped. So if i rape someone, the 16 yr statues kick in on my last rape. BUT if i still go out and rape, then it keeps on going.
So in the case of these illegal immigrants, that they stay in country most with NO thought of TRYING to legally become a US citizen, then they are continuing the crime. Well to me they are.

Measure Man
07-17-2014, 07:47 PM
If I catch the error I will do my best.

If your response to my post focused on the agendas at work and why truly the use of the terms then yes that would be a discussion. Getting into terminology of criminal vs civil law violations (particularly since my post didn't differentiate between the two) is more accurately labeled as I did.

Oh, yay! Are we going to go back and forth on what the meaning of "discussion" is now?

I really can't imagine why AA accuses you of engaging in semantics and splitting hairs, though.

sandsjames
07-17-2014, 07:49 PM
So in the case of these illegal immigrants, that they stay in country most with NO thought of TRYING to legally become a US citizen, then they are continuing the crime. Well to me they are.

Yeah, I guess that's where it comes into play as to whether it's classified as a criminal to "be here" illegally (or is just the part of entering considered the criminal part), or just a civil offense. I know it's just terminology but that plays pretty big when it comes to legal cases.

Either way, all people here illegally should be sent home.

Rainmaker
07-17-2014, 07:56 PM
I wouldn't call it a "Duty" that they have to take care of them. ANd we have our fair share of African immigrants here too.



IIRC on statue of limitations, they don't kick in till the crime is stopped. So if i rape someone, the 16 yr statues kick in on my last rape. BUT if i still go out and rape, then it keeps on going.
So in the case of these illegal immigrants, that they stay in country most with NO thought of TRYING to legally become a US citizen, then they are continuing the crime. Well to me they are.

Don't be ridiculous. It's a small price that has to be paid for their White Privilege. It's only "fair" garhkal.

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 10:48 PM
Labeled as what...an illegal driver?

If while speeding I couldn't really (with any credibility that is) bitch about it could I?

You really don't see the rabbit hole do you?

TJMAC77SP
07-17-2014, 10:51 PM
Oh, yay! Are we going to go back and forth on what the meaning of "discussion" is now?

I really can't imagine why AA accuses you of engaging in semantics and splitting hairs, though.

Ah, more distraction. Because this has been ALL about what a discussion is and isn't.

AA usually does that when he finds himself in the position you are right now.

So a discussion to you is the introduction of anything at anytime? I suppose that could fit one definition.

Did you know that sometimes Canadians stay in the US illegally (civilly of course since they don't need a visa to enter)?

garhkal
07-18-2014, 07:00 AM
Don't be ridiculous. It's a small price that has to be paid for their White Privilege. It's only "fair" garhkal.

Sorry, but i call BS on that. Whites didn't push the blacks into slavery, their own country men did. Also, many white nations were 'slaved to others' such as the gauls and scotts to the english/romans. So should they be requiring those countries to pay reparations?

CYBERFX1024
07-18-2014, 02:44 PM
Don't be ridiculous. It's a small price that has to be paid for their White Privilege. It's only "fair" garhkal.

That two words right there just infuriates me to no end. It's the liberals way of trying to pan for black support and votes, also don't forget the stupid white people that believe that. Because that's the only two demographics here in America that actually fall into that trap.
There is no privilege in anything these days, yes there is preconceived notions about people due to race and dress. But that can be changed in a instance once they open their mouths and talk. The majority of Asians,Hispanics, and White people in America believe that if you work hard you can succeed at anything.

CYBERFX1024
07-18-2014, 02:52 PM
Sorry, but i call BS on that. Whites didn't push the blacks into slavery, their own country men did. Also, many white nations were 'slaved to others' such as the gauls and scotts to the english/romans. So should they be requiring those countries to pay reparations?

You are so right on this. The majority of people in this country don't even know this simple fact about our country. Also alot of people don't know that there was black slave owners who owned other people. I tell people that and they are shocked, shocked that they would do that. When at that time it was purely a economic issue.

Also a majority of Americans don't know that there were white people as indentured servants here in the USA in the early days. My ancestor originally came over here to the colonies as an indentured servant in the 1600's so I think I need my reparations too.

garhkal
07-18-2014, 06:53 PM
Exactly. No race has been left out from being slaves to others. So no race has privilege over any other therefore shouldn't be required to owe anyone else.

Rainmaker
07-19-2014, 03:24 AM
That two words right there just infuriates me to no end. It's the liberals way of trying to pan for black support and votes, also don't forget the stupid white people that believe that. Because that's the only two demographics here in America that actually fall into that trap.
There is no privilege in anything these days, yes there is preconceived notions about people due to race and dress. But that can be changed in a instance once they open their mouths and talk. The majority of Asians,Hispanics, and White people in America believe that if you work hard you can succeed at anything.

sadly our "representatives" in DC don't agree with you.

garhkal
07-19-2014, 04:40 AM
Only certain ones of them.

ex prosup
07-19-2014, 10:30 PM
If you're not a Native American officially recognized by one of the original tribes, then all of you are "undocumented" illegal aliens in this country...self-deport now and apply for tribal citizenship.

SomeRandomGuy
07-19-2014, 10:36 PM
If you're not a Native American officially recognized by one of the original tribes, then all of you are "undocumented" illegal aliens in this country...self-deport now and apply for tribal citizenship.

That's not true. Not sure if you ever heard of a place called Ellis Island. I'm pretty sure my ancestors who came through there were documented.

ex prosup
07-19-2014, 10:40 PM
That's not true. Not sure if you ever heard of a place called Ellis Island. I'm pretty sure my ancestors who came through there were documented.

Sorry, my ancestors does not recognize any illegal entries through Ellis Island by your ancestors. Please submit your citizenship paperwork to our tribe and we'll get back to you in a few years. In the meantime, please self-deport back to home country.

Rainmaker
07-20-2014, 02:09 AM
If you're not a Native American officially recognized by one of the original tribes, then all of you are "undocumented" illegal aliens in this country...self-deport now and apply for tribal citizenship.

Which tribe? Rainmaker would like to apply to one of the Nobel ones that practiced Exocannibalism rather than just the run of the mill canniballism.

TJMAC77SP
07-20-2014, 01:53 PM
Sorry, my ancestors does not recognize any illegal entries through Ellis Island by your ancestors. Please submit your citizenship paperwork to our tribe and we'll get back to you in a few years. In the meantime, please self-deport back to home country.

While I recognize your attempt..........it failed.

sandsjames
07-21-2014, 11:19 AM
Sorry, my ancestors does not recognize any illegal entries through Ellis Island by your ancestors. Please submit your citizenship paperwork to our tribe and we'll get back to you in a few years. In the meantime, please self-deport back to home country.

Do your ancestors have proper documentation from when they migrated from Eurasia?

CYBERFX1024
07-22-2014, 01:59 PM
Do your ancestors have proper documentation from when they migrated from Eurasia?

Actually mine do. My ancestor came over as a indentured servant, so he had paperwork. I really hate you people that do this and act like we (White people) immigrated over here illegally and try to place the race card, when 9 times out of 10 you are white too. In my mind it's just like the people that want to rail and talk sh*t on this country even if you immigrated over from another country as well. How about this if you don't like this country so much or it's past then MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Yes, we have had a past that is not perfect but hell we striven past all the bad and negative stuff and fought a civil war to be the country we are today.

The vast majority of immigrants in the past (English, Irish, Chinese, Germans, and yes Mexicans) didn't just get off the boat and go "where is my free stuff and handouts"? It was understood that in order for you to make it in this country then you have to work hard and succeed. But that's what is happening with the Illegals today, they come in and automatically given food stamps and government subsidies. I have spoken with MANY Legal Immigrants in this country (even Latinos) who are very pissed off about what is going at the border and how they receive all the free stuff while other people have to work hard and pay for it.

What we are talking about is about Illegal Immigration and how we need to secure the border. Because if we can't secure the border then what good are we as a country?

hustonj
07-22-2014, 03:05 PM
Statistics.

Generally, a generation is considered 20 years. If we start with a person born in 2000 (because round numbers are enough for this purpose), and assume 2 unique parents each generation back, then we run into the problem of having more unique parents required than we currently estimate existed in world-wide human population sometime inbetween 1400 and 1500 AD.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates arrangmeent of multiple estimates, there were between 350 to 380 million people in the world in 1400 and between 425 and 500 million in 1500.

The projected ancestry tree I mentioned previously reaches 268 million ancestors in 1440 and 536 million in 1420. Obviously, unique ancestry breaks down well before that point.

What's my point? The bigotry over ancestry is really silly. If you go back far enough, the odds that our lineages do NOT overlap is failry small. Sure, there are periods where the people in Africa could not have interbred with the people in North America. But there are periods further back than that where they are believed to have been in the same neighborhood, right?

Immigration isn't about ancestry. It isn't even really about nation of origin. (That would be emigration.) It is about the laws in place in the country where the immigrants are going.

The Native Americans had mixed feelings about their new neighbors, but they generally followed their way, and accepted those neighbors at face value, as long as they did not interfere with the tribe's way of life. When the white man began that direct interference pretty heavily, they were established neighbors, not immigrants.

Modern America has been doing a horrible job of enforcing our own laws regarding immigration. We have established a multi-decade (if not multi-generational) record of simply forgiving (or actively ignoring) violations of our immigration law. So much so, that threats of simply enforcing the existing laws are enough to generate public demonstrations against such unfair threats of force.

There's nothing unfair about simply enforcing the law, despite how the portestors chose to represent things. There can be unfair laws, but that's a different problem than unfair enforcement.

Faling to enforce the existing law IS unfair enforcement. It creates an expectation that the law will continue not to be enforced, and reduces expectation that other laws will be enforced . . ..

Rainmaker
07-22-2014, 08:21 PM
If you like your scabies, you can keep your scabies...

Stalwart
07-22-2014, 10:48 PM
There's nothing unfair about simply enforcing the law, despite how the portestors chose to represent things. There can be unfair laws, but that's a different problem than unfair enforcement.

Faling to enforce the existing law IS unfair enforcement. It creates an expectation that the law will continue not to be enforced, and reduces expectation that other laws will be enforced . . ..

Good points.

D.C. just changed their law for possesion of marijuana

Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/dc-decriminalizes-marijuana-congress-may-halt-future-legalization-efforts-259973

"Possession of less than one ounce of marijuana was formally decriminalized in Washington, D.C. on Friday. Getting busted with a few grams of weed will now run D.C. residents $25, less than the cost of a litter citation."

The main reason I heard on the radio was that the mayor felt the laws were discriminatory to minorities, a sentiment in the Newsweek article:

"The essence of this decriminalization law is the staggering racial disparity regarding arrests," Matt Cohen, editor of local blog DCist, told Newsweek, "That’s why the council is pushing for it—for police reform."

I don't really see how the law itself targets minorities, but can see that police enforcement of the laws may be biased.

In many cases, problems with good policy are not with the policy but with those enforcing or enacting it.

[EDIT]: I once heard a talk with Justice Scalia who made a good point that judges should not "interpret" a law ... the wording of laws are very important and that if legislators want a law to be interpreted differently then they should change the law.

garhkal
07-23-2014, 06:39 AM
I don't really see how the law itself targets minorities, but can see that police enforcement of the laws may be biased.

In many cases, problems with good policy are not with the policy but with those enforcing or enacting it.


Maybe its cause the majority of pot users there are blacks.?

Stalwart
07-23-2014, 08:57 AM
Maybe its cause the majority of pot users there are blacks.?

On the surface that would be my take. I do think that law in the way it is worded is colorblind. If it is impacting one group more than the other there could be a variety of causes.

I could see an argument that usage is in even proportions amongst minorities and whites but that minorities get caught more because they are targeted by police or get caught because of using it publicly more. If you had a police force that was targeting minorities that it could be a problem & be discriminatory.

My brother is a police officer in our hometown and we were talking this weekend and his was talking about the situation on the border and talk of bringing some of the detainees to Louisiana; he isn't too thrilled about he idea. He runs into a small amount of illegal immigrants that live there in the course of his duties as a police officer, and when they find them during routine stops or stops for minor issues (traffic violations) they are not reporting them to INS, they aren't targeting them, but on occasion come across them. I asked him about the numbers of illegal immigrants currently in the town and he said there is a known population but acknowledged that they mostly keep to themselves, go to work, send money home to families and that their rate of crime (not scientific ... this is just my brothers' opinion as a cop) is lower than the general population.

My long-winded point: if the police were targeting minorities, I would expect the number of violators to be higher, but looking at the demographics of both Washington D.C. and the demographics of the police department I don't know if that is really the case.

garhkal
07-23-2014, 06:53 PM
But is that wrong? If that minority or group of people are doing the crime more publicly, IS it wrong to go after them>??

TJMAC77SP
07-23-2014, 08:38 PM
Maybe its cause the majority of pot users there are blacks.?

Did you mean just in DC? I am a little confused otherwise.

garhkal
07-23-2014, 08:42 PM
From all the stateside locales i was in navy schools at (san diego, great lakes and norfolk), i saw more blacks doing drugs than whites.. So in my observations, its all over not just DC.

TJMAC77SP
07-23-2014, 09:26 PM
From all the stateside locales i was in navy schools at (san diego, great lakes and norfolk), i saw more blacks doing drugs than whites.. So in my observations, its all over not just DC.

Well, I can't speak to the broader picture you just cited but I think it unreasonable and illogical to think that 13 percent of the population is smoking more pot than the other 83 percent.

sandsjames
07-23-2014, 09:46 PM
Well, I can't speak to the broader picture you just cited but I think it unreasonable and illogical to think that 13 percent of the population is smoking more pot than the other 83 percent.I'd agree with that. I think it's just the situations where it's smoked that gives the stereotype. I know plenty of whites who do it on a regular basis. I'd go as far to say that, AT LEAST, 40% of people I know (outside of the military) smoke pot. The difference is that most white people I know who do it are happy to sit at home, smoke a joint, and fall asleep while most black people I know who smoke it seem much more likely to do it in public (clubs, etc). So it's more of a visibility thing. If I'm at home smoking it I'm much less likely to have run-ins with the law.

garhkal
07-24-2014, 02:47 AM
I'd agree with that. I think it's just the situations where it's smoked that gives the stereotype. I know plenty of whites who do it on a regular basis. I'd go as far to say that, AT LEAST, 40% of people I know (outside of the military) smoke pot. The difference is that most white people I know who do it are happy to sit at home, smoke a joint, and fall asleep while most black people I know who smoke it seem much more likely to do it in public (clubs, etc). So it's more of a visibility thing. If I'm at home smoking it I'm much less likely to have run-ins with the law.

Exactly. I gamed with several white dudes in England who smoked pot during the games, at their own house. Rarely did they smoke outside, or at a public place. Compared to the 5 black people i know who smoke pot, they do it where ever the heck they can get away with it.
Big difference.

Capt Alfredo
07-24-2014, 10:12 AM
From all the stateside locales i was in navy schools at (san diego, great lakes and norfolk), i saw more blacks doing drugs than whites.. So in my observations, its all over not just DC.

Urban versus rural. More police attention per capita in urban areas, especially where poverty is concentrated. Disproportionate enforcement and sentencing practices...

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 10:16 AM
Urban versus rural. More police attention per capita in urban areas, especially where poverty is concentrated. Disproportionate enforcement and sentencing practices...

It would only be disproportionate if the crime rate per capita was equal.

Capt Alfredo
07-24-2014, 10:25 AM
It would only be disproportionate if the crime rate per capita was equal.

If you concentrated all of the white poor into a relatively small urban area, you'd probably see a lot more enforcement targeted at them. I understand the cops are going to go where the low-hanging fruit congregate. Cops are also going to be a lot less lenient in a high-crime area than in suburbia, where the Police chief's daughter is likely to get off with a warning as opposed to being placed in cuffs.

sandsjames
07-24-2014, 11:23 AM
If you concentrated all of the white poor into a relatively small urban area, you'd probably see a lot more enforcement targeted at them. I understand the cops are going to go where the low-hanging fruit congregate. Cops are also going to be a lot less lenient in a high-crime area than in suburbia, where the Police chief's daughter is likely to get off with a warning as opposed to being placed in cuffs.

Police will congregate where the higher rates of crime are, period. They will also enforce laws stronger where more crimes are taking place.

Who are you going to keep a closer eye on and have a harsher punishment for? The troop who is constantly getting into trouble and hanging around with people who get in trouble or the guy who slips up once in an otherwise clean career?

TJMAC77SP
07-24-2014, 02:04 PM
I am afraid SJ has it right. The 'poor white' are concentrated in areas just like every other poor group of every ethnicity. Do you think there are many poor whites in Chevy Chase (MD or DC)?

It's true that police concentration is driven by crime rates and one unintended consequence is disproportionate arrest rates among minorities. At that point it becomes (for some) a chicken n' egg situation. Which one is the cause and which one is the effect.

garhkal
07-24-2014, 08:24 PM
Police will congregate where the higher rates of crime are, period. They will also enforce laws stronger where more crimes are taking place.

Who are you going to keep a closer eye on and have a harsher punishment for? The troop who is constantly getting into trouble and hanging around with people who get in trouble or the guy who slips up once in an otherwise clean career?

Based on how the military is with lower enlisted (E5 and below) neither. They go after everyone by cramping down on everyone!
:rolleyes: