View Story | 220 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
only takes place because of the successful framing of this issue by anti-immigration groups like FAIR, and racists like Pat Buchanan, who constantly reinforce the "illegality" of undocumented immigrants. Once one is branded as a "criminal" it doesn't matter to what degree.
for the record; being in the country "illegally" is a civil offense...so for the 47% of all undocumented immigrants who are here on visa overstays, their badge of "criminality" has no basis.
For the other 53% who did cross the border "illegally", their crime of "Entering without inspection" is a federal Class B misdemeanor--
Other common Class B Misdemeanor charges include one DWI charge, a criminal trespassing charge, theft by check in low amounts, and evading arrest or detention.
so unless one is willing to brand all people found guilty of those kind of crimes as lifelong "criminals" who shouldn't have children for the risk of having them left parent less...the logic doesn't holds up ...but that doesn't stop them from saying "what part of illegal don't you understand"
Migra Matters: progressive immigration reform
by Duke1676 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:08 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
by immigradvocate on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM PDT
Beyond entering the country, and it is the first time they have entered the country illegally, then yes, you are correct.
If it is in fact the second, third, etc. time they have entered the country illegally, and they are in fact working in the country, then your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis' is in fact not true.
Given that most illegal immigrants enter the country in order to work, and many have been deported and have entered the country illegally again, I would speculate that the majority do not fit within your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis'.
by superscalar on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM PDT
rarely if ever leave the country and come back in. Many are from countries in other parts of the world so they would need to leave on an expired visa...then re-apply for a new one..then over stay that one...why do you think the Irish for example get stuck here without any opportunity to go home and visit dying reletives or to see family...because once your in ...if you leave...it's for good.
once again, a fine try at obfuscation.
by Duke1676 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:52:49 PM PDT
once again, a fine try at obfuscation
And who exactly is it who is obfuscating here?
by superscalar on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM PDT
47% of all undocumented immigrants who are here on visa overstays
the Irish for example get stuck here without any opportunity to go home
superscalar: And how many Irish illegal immigrants are there?
50,000 ..but it doesn't matter how many..hence the "for example"...there are over 5mil visa overstay...none of whom can leave and come back
superscalar: it is in fact the second, third, etc. time they have entered the country illegally....many have been deported and have entered the country illegally again, I would speculate that the majority do not fit within your claim
how many visa overstays actually got deported and re-enter and re-deported again for a second or third time ...got a number? ... you set up the premise without any quantitative evidence to back it up...then proceed to speculate further on that unsubstantiated premise.
obfuscation.....
by Duke1676 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM PDT
The deep end of the pool, you might want to first make sure that you have your floaties on.
If it is in fact the second, third, etc. time they have entered the country illegally, and they are in fact working in the country, then your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis' is in fact not true. Given that most illegal immigrants enter the country in order to work, and many have been deported and have entered the country illegally again, I would speculate that the majority do not fit within your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis'
Given that most illegal immigrants enter the country in order to work, and many have been deported and have entered the country illegally again, I would speculate that the majority do not fit within your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis'
by superscalar on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM PDT
If it is in fact the second or third time they have entered and they've been deported and have entered the country again illegally ....oh, now that's much more clear...and not a bit speculative.
and if it is a fact that pigs could fly and they could carry humans on their backs and reach speeds of hundreds of miles an hour...we would obliviously use them in commercial aviation.
by Duke1676 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:57:49 PM PDT
But maybe NPK will drop by with a definition of the word.
Immigration Offenders in the Federal Criminal Justice System, 2000
* 75% of immigration offenders were charged with unlawfully entering (25%) or reentering (50%) the United States; 20% were charged with alien smuggling; and 5% were charged with offenses relating to misuse of visas or other immigration offenses. * 57% of suspected immigration offenders were Mexican citizens; 7%, U.S. citizens; 3%, Chinese; and 28%, all other nationalities. Mexicans (87%) and Chinese (93%) were most often charged with unlawful entry or reentry; U.S. citizens (64%) were most often charged with alien smuggling.
and if it is a fact that pigs could fly
But it is not a fact that pigs can fly. It is however a fact that many illegal immigrants have re-entered the US after having been deported, thereby committing a Class B Felony, and once again, we have not even broached the subject of the felonies committed after having entered the country.
Water's gettin' deep.
by superscalar on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:19:39 PM PDT
75% of immigration offenders
is not the same as 75% of the entire immigrant population
You present a breakdown of only 16,495 people between 1985-2000 who the government had some reason to investigate, (roughly 1000 people a year)...and then attempt to extrapolate that out to be representative of the entire undocumented population. You're looking at 1000 people out of a population of anywhere from 2mil-7mil people (the range during this period) who for one reason or another attracted the attention of federal authorities, (most likely because they had committed more serious crimes) ... you have literally taken a crime statistic and attempted to use them to be representative of an entire population.
That's the equivalent of saying that since 50% of all people ticketed for speeding were going 15 miles an hour above the speed limit ...all drivers must drive 15 mile an hour above the speed limit.
nice try, but we won't be needing NPK to give us any definitions for what your trying to do
by Duke1676 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:46:47 AM PDT
They are far greater that 1000 a year. But my point still holds ... these are not people representative of the general undocumented population
Criminal history More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-six percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time. Sixty-one percent of those defendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%, 2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previously been convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses. Twelve percent had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor. Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in ten had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions. Fifty-six percent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under half of those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged with unlawful entry, and just over a quarter those charged with misuse of visas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminal histories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than 70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times.
Criminal history
More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-six percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time.
Sixty-one percent of those defendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%, 2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previously been convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses. Twelve percent had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor.
Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in ten had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions.
Fifty-six percent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under half of those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged with unlawful entry, and just over a quarter those charged with misuse of visas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminal histories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than 70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times.
you have basically taken statistics of those who are career criminals, who have attracted the attention of federal prosecutors, and want to use them to represent the entire undocumented population...and then suppose that the majority of the 12 million undocumented immigrants have similar criminal pasts.
by Duke1676 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:15:38 AM PDT
you have basically taken statistics of those who are career criminals, who have attracted the attention of federal prosecutors, and want to use them to represent the entire undocumented population
I use the statistic to reinforce my point that it is a fact that many illegal immigrants re-enter the country after having been deported.
by superscalar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:21:23 AM PDT
the fact is that many of those in this sample of criminals re-entered the country after having been deported....that's not the same as many illegal immigrants
by Duke1676 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:44:39 AM PDT
Re-read this statement a couple of times to yourself and see if you can get a feel for just how inane it sounds.
These individuals are:
1.) Illegal Immigrants 2.) Have re-entered the country after have been deported 3.) Are many in number
Therefore it is indeed a fact that many illegal immigrants re-enter the US after having been deported.
You are simply choking on the water and grasping for your floaty here.
by superscalar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:28:44 PM PDT
these individuals are:
1.) A selective sample of criminals of whom 49% had previously been convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses. (not simply "illegal immigrants")
2.) 50% of which had re-entered the country after having been deported.
3.) who represent only 0.18% of the total undocumented population (0.18% does not constitute 'many' in the context in which you imply)
therefore it is indeed a fact that 0.18% of the total undocumented population, half of whom had been convicted of felonies, we're charged with unlawful re-entry. Those are the facts in the statistics you quote...you can twist them any way you want to try to prove your broader point.. but thhey still remain the facts.
by Duke1676 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:41:51 AM PDT
your logic is beyond faulty these individuals are
Illegal immigrants who have previously been deported from the US to this sample.
This has very quickly become a stupid argument.
The claim that you are now making is that only 0.18% of all illegal immigrants in the US have previously been deported.
Is this the argument that you want to make, and once again, are you sure you want to stand on that statement?
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:00:08 AM PDT
No I'm not saying that only 0.18% have re-entered.
I'm saying that the statistics you've presented to make broad and sweeping attacks on immigrants, are misrepresentative of the broader population, and represent only a small subset of the population (in this case criminals).
This is a tactic you constantly rely on to make your attacks. You present a statistic, factiod, or quote, that you have carefully edited, taken out of context, or misrepresent.
In this case you supplied a quote, using it to imply that 50% of all immigrants re-enter the country after deportation, to make the false claim that visa overstays often re-enter after deportation.
Now, you do this knowing that the average reader will not check your quotes and factiods for their veracity or context.
But in this case your statistic intended to mislead readers represented only 0.18% of the total population and can hardly be seen as representative...and certainly doesn't back your original claim
But you know that already....it's one of your favorite tricks.
by Duke1676 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:43:10 AM PDT
I didn't use the statisitcs 'to make broad and sweeping attacks on immigrants', and you know it. I used the statistic to reinforce the claim I made that many illegal immigrants reenter the country after having been deported.
If they have done nothing else for the record; being in the country "illegally" is a civil offense...so for the 47% of all undocumented immigrants who are here on visa overstays, their badge of "criminality" has no basis. Beyond entering the country, and it is the first time they have entered the country illegally, then yes, you are correct. If it is in fact the second, third, etc. time they have entered the country illegally, and they are in fact working in the country, then your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis' is in fact not true. Given that most illegal immigrants enter the country in order to work, and many have been deported and have entered the country illegally again, I would speculate that the majority do not fit within your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis'.
If they have done nothing else for the record; being in the country "illegally" is a civil offense...so for the 47% of all undocumented immigrants who are here on visa overstays, their badge of "criminality" has no basis.
visa overstays rarely if ever leave the country and come back in. Many are from countries in other parts of the world so they would need to leave on an expired visa...then re-apply for a new one..then over stay that one...why do you think the Irish for example get stuck here without any opportunity to go home and visit dying reletives or to see family...because once your in ...if you leave...it's for good. once again, a fine try at obfuscation.
visa overstays rarely if ever leave the country and come back in. Many are from countries in other parts of the world so they would need to leave on an expired visa...then re-apply for a new one..then over stay that one...why do you think the Irish for example get stuck here without any opportunity to go home and visit dying reletives or to see family...because once your in ...if you leave...it's for good.
Now these are 'attacks' on my part, and I rely on 'tatics' ... I see.
Then you would obviously have no trouble pointing the many times where I have used this 'trick' in the past.
My God, your thick
Am I? Am I really?
I am just really stupid and deceptive and I spend my time trying to figure out how to twist statistics out of context so as to win an argument?
Fine, I will make a note that this is now your attitude, and this is where you want to make your stand.
by superscalar on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:43 AM PDT
There is a mistake in the following statement:
Should read:
If it is in fact the second, third, etc. time they have entered the country illegally, or they are in fact working in the country, then your claim that 'their badge of "criminality" has no basis' is in fact not true.
by superscalar on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM PDT
You have stated that I should write a diary about illegal immigration. I have been thinking about doing just that. I don't write many diaries, NPK must have missed this one, because despite the fact that historically the blog world has known nothing about me beyond the fact that I am an 'electrical engineer, musician, professional ski instructor, [and] all around computer geek', and generally where I live, I did let this one slip.
Re: you are a stud/studette (4.00 / 9) I will take you up on the masculine form. Thanks for this. My pleasure, it was fun, in a weird sadistic sort of way. :-[0
Right ... now the working subject for the diary is this.
I have been inspired by some of the claims in both this diary and your diary, and come up with a working title for the diary, the working title is 'Logic Escapes The Immigration Debate'.
To more efficiently write this diary, to make sure that I am not using 'tactics', 'tricks', or using statistics 'to make broad and sweeping attacks on immigrants', to make sure that the first 100 comments in the diary don't say 'we should just go after the employers' or any one of a thousand other useless comments in illegal immigration diaries, I would appreciate your making some clarifications of your diary. I will make the promise that I will include this post and any subsequent posts in this correspondence in the diary without modification. I will also make the promise that I will not require any follow-up to my questions, and will simply post up my questions and your responses.
Are you willing to make these clarifications?
by superscalar on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM PDT
You are not indending to offer any alternative solutions or suggestions regarding either the basic premise of that diary (being that working Americans would be better served looking at the root causes of their dissatisfaction) or it's suggestions of possble solutions.
You appear intend rather to nitpick through an over 5000 word document to look for ways to discredit it's broader message by finding argueable points whereby you can offer up alternative statistics or factiods.
Since I see you are of the mind to thrown down a gauntlet ...I will do you one better.
Instead of spending your time trying to prove the ill-logic of the immigration debate...why don't you spend the time writting an alternative proposal to my own. Present some concrette analysis, and solutions and suggestions for the current debate. ...because in all the time I've known you, I have seen very little of that coming from you.
That's the true challange ...nitpicking other's work is easy ...creating your own is quite a different story.
any takers?
by Duke1676 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:48:48 AM PDT
And of course you know this, because if I disagree with you, I couldn't possibly be accused of having a bright idea, could I?
In fact, out of one side of your mouth you infer that I and others who may disagree with you have only two teeth and are as thick as a plank -- while out of the other side of your mouth you lash out in your righteous anger about the demonization of an entire group of people.
This is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it?
If in fact your '5000 word document' is solid, if your proposals do in fact have the makings of sound, workable policy, then it should stand up to a little 'nitpicking', wouldn't you think, and would I not be 'creating my own work' as part of this process?
look for ways to discredit it's broader message by finding argueable points whereby you can offer up alternative statistics or factiods
Here you have already made the claim that what I would be writing would be 'discredit[ing] it's broader message'.
if your message is in fact strong and compelling, why would you have any fear that I would be able to discredit it?
I believe you threw down the gauntlet here, but this point is really of no importance now, there it lays.
Present some concrette analysis, and solutions and suggestions for the current debate. ...because in all the time I've known you, I have seen very little of that coming from you.
You are entitled to your opinions here, you are entitled to your belief that you present 'concrette analysis, and solutions and suggestions for the current debate', that I do not and have not, and I will take this post as meaning your answer is no.
by superscalar on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:25:33 PM PDT
And of course you know this, because if I disagree with you, I couldn't possibly be accused of having a bright idea, could I? In fact, out of one side of your mouth you infer that I and others who may disagree with you have only two teeth and are as thick as a plank
In fact, out of one side of your mouth you infer that I and others who may disagree with you have only two teeth and are as thick as a plank
Those are your words not mine...and I am not infering that you couldn't possibly have a bright ideas simply because we disagree...quite to the contrary...I say you choose rather to not offer up any solutions. Instead prefering to always pick apart the ideas of others.
And that is the crux of the biscuit.
In the over three years I have known you, you have been totally unwilling to offer up any ideas, solutions, proposals,...anything.... to move this broader debate forward in any direction.
Not because you are incapable of having a "bright idea" but rather out of fear of being subjected to the very same kind of nitpicking and minutiae attacks you want me to now willingly acquiesce to enduring.
The question isn't if my ideas hold up to your scutiny ...but rather if you have any ideas at all. You offer up some solutions of your own and I would be more than willing to compare and contrast, and supply you with any and all "clarifications" you need ... if not I'd rather have my worked critiqued elsewhere.
by Duke1676 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM PDT
It's not like I haven't spent three years defending my postion and work against your attacks ...the dairy you wish to now re-critique was posted here with over 400 comments, many critiquing it's poposals....many writen by you
I have been very patient putting up with your constant barrage of factiods, selective edits, and hijacking with off-topic non sequiturs over the years. I've answered questions, supplied sorces, clarified statements..but to no avail.
As I said, I am more than willing, and in fact would be quite pleased, to compare ideas and poposals for solutions with you ... if you wish to do that let me know. But I'm no longer interested in one sided conversations where you question ...and I must respaond.
by Duke1676 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:51:07 PM PDT
On more than one occasion that I have increasingly felt that there is no solution to this issue. If I do not believe there is necessarily a solution to the problem, and that additionally what you have offered presents no solution at all, am I then not allowed to speak? There are people on Daily Kos who espouse open borders. Is that a solution? Are they then not allowed to speak as well?
More and more now, some of the primary reasons I think that there is no practical solution to this issue that will make anybody happy is:
1.) The various constituencies are becoming more and more polarized.
2.) The constituencies on the side of 'comprehensive immigration reform' increasingly believe that we can have immigration law without deportation as a means of civil relief, that we can simply 'enforce wage and hour laws' (whatever that means) and the problem will go away, etc.
3.) I could go on about downward wage and job pressure, how there is no constituency to fix NAFTA and trade, nor any way to change the status quo if you first 'legalize the 12 million', how the unemployment figures do not reflect what is truly going on in the job market.
How states like California have run out of water, how California has a 16 billion dollar shortfall, how about half of the LA Unified Schoool district doesn't speak English and there is a 50% drop out rate, how possible future revenue streams from turning all of the car pool lanes into toll roads and seizing and privatizing the lottery are being proposed to provide basic services, irrespective of the fact that California has been seeing record tax revenues
...
and all the time you and others are telling me 'but we aren't admitting by percentage any more immigrants than we did in 1920' (without saying anything about the illegal immigrants nor mentioning that a given percentage of 90 million and the same percentage of 300 million are vastly different numbers), and I am told by Fabian Nunez, Antonio Villaraigosa, and the LA Times that the obvious answer is simply to raise taxes and create 'a rolling adjustment of status for undocumented workers', etc., etc., etc.
not so quick there buddy... Those are your words not mine
But no matter. I will try to both clearly define my terms and will try to establish why more and more I think that there is no solution to this problem (or at the very least no solution that you are going to be happy with).
It's time.
by superscalar on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM PDT
I have increasingly felt that there is no solution to this issue
Glad you weren't calling the shots in Washington in 1932 or London during the blitz.
Perhaps FDR's inaugural should have been "there is no solution to this problem" ...or Churchill's blood sweat and tears speech replaced with "I think that there is no practical solution...(or at the very least no solution that you are going to be happy with)."
How inspiring .. how inovative. I wonder if you'll feel the same when in fact California does run out of water.
by Duke1676 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:09:25 PM PDT
All cases where a critical mass of people were united both in their resolve, purpose, and goals, and there were not constituencies either who stood to gain by the status quo, or (except at the margins) who stood to gain or profit politically or financially by a outcome which they were advocating for. The distinctions are even more stark here and I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.
All in all pretty piss poor analogs.
In mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, etc., if a solution to a particular problem or equation is both beautiful and deceptively simple looking, it is known as an 'elegant solution'.
I would posit that at the very least, a first order 'elegant' solution to many of these problems begins with the secession of making the problem worse than it is already.
But I understand that my ideas about solutions don't hold a lot of water with the 'Post Tax Democrats' who believe that we can open up the US as a race to the bottom towards third world wages and import massive poverty in the form of the worlds poorest and least educated who now increasingly don't even speak or write Spanish first ... and then we can work towards strengthening unions and worker rights.
by superscalar on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM PDT
You are incorrect that folks were all united during the times both Churchill and FDR were in power. Especially in FDR's time, there were powerful interests who did all they could to stop him, even to the point of planning a coup to wrest power from him.
The "critical mass" emerged after a lot of hard work on their part.
And when we do get posters here to start looking at this problem and coming together to form that "critical mass," you and folks like you do everything you can to change that, to confuse and distract.
If you are so fucking pessimistic, why do you try so hard to infect others with your poison? Why bother posting on this issue at all? What are you hoping to accomplish?
No, it seems to me you are affirmatively trying to stop that critical mass from forming.
Which is why I oppose you. And I believe others will as well.
by Nightprowlkitty on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:55:41 PM PDT
It's "cessation," not "secession," unless of course you are advocating that California or other states leave the union.
by Nightprowlkitty on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:03:12 PM PDT
some non-partisan source that shows that immigrants, documented or not, have a negative effect on the economy. He hasn't been able to show us any.
by immigradvocate on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM PDT
I know you won't answer this comment ... but you obviously read them, as your above reference to me shows.
What Duke is providing here is context, something you seem entirely unaware of.
I'm glad to see this thread -- it is a perfect example of how you obfuscate in diaries showing human rights abuses towards undocumented workers ... well, I guess it's time to state it more clearly -- you outright lie in order to try to get folks to be distracted over what is really happening.
My anger towards you has turned to sadness. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so trapped inside such denial that you would resort to this kind of behavior.
It's beyond parsing -- it's lying. And for what? Guess I'll never know.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:49:55 AM PDT
If you accuse somebody of being a liar, you should also be prepared to get yourself smacked in the fucking face.
You have no basis for your accusations, and your remora like behavior is getting just a little weird.
If you want to accuse me of being a liar again, you should also be prepared to add your name and address in your post. It's very easy to call someone names behind the cover of an anonymous login, it is quite another to do so face to face.
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:29:46 AM PDT
Getting a bit testy, are we?
Yes, I think you are indeed a liar. And a pretty nasty one as well.
I have a great deal of basis for my believing this is true. This thread is pretty illustrative of your lies.
I hope others realize this soon as well.
As for your threats, you can shove them up your ass.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM PDT
I have a great deal of basis for my believing this is true
Yet as is typical of you zero facts to back your assertions. Where in this diary have I lied? Identify the lie.
As for your threats
I don't threaten people, and I also don't call people names while hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
How does that feel? Does it make you feel powerful to spew out your hate and bile without the downside risk of having to take responsibility to the charges you have made?
I pity you. Whatever people here can truthfully say about me, they cannot accuse me of every having lied, nor can they accuse me of not being willing to take responsibility for what I have said.
You on the other hand choose to constantly harangue and bully people who you disagree with, not because they are wrong, but simply because you disagree with them.
How does that feel ... dick.
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM PDT
Lord, you can't seem to stop lying!
you should also be prepared to get yourself smacked in the fucking face.
Yeah, I'd call that a threat. But I'm sure you have some statistic or other crazy parsing to defend your foolish self.
Oh no, you don't call names, lol lol. Of course I can find more, but you're not worth it. All anyone has to do is check your comments when someone challenges your bullshit.
Yes, you are a liar. You use cherry-picked statistics to lie, which makes it even more despicable. As I said, this thread proves it to me. I'm quite happy for anyone else to view this and see how you lie. Obfuscating is too mild a word for it.
You wonder why I am challenging you (your terms of bullying and haranguing are idiotic seeing as this is a site where folks do challenge and argue with each other).
I've explained this many times and you have been too cowardly to respond.
Every diary I've seen where the diarist tries to point out the real human rights abuses going on towards undocumented workers is responded to BY YOU with your bullshit statistics that have no context.
I have seen you go after commenters who sincerely are trying to find ways to change the present bad situation and take one little generalization of theirs and hijack the thread to make it about your bullshit cherry-picked statistics.
I think that is worth challenging. I also find it interesting you don't deny you are a moral coward ... I guess you're all about being seen as a truth teller. What a joke.
I am bullying no one. If any bullying and haranguing is being done, it is by you.
No, you do not take responsibility for what you have said. You simply repeat statistics with no context and always, always avoid the subject of the diary.
Real human beings are getting hurt here. The only way to change this is for folks to start caring and start calling their representatives to come up with a fair immigration policy that does not abuse the human rights of people. The crap you post here does everything to prevent that.
I don't give a shit about your high self-opinion and I doubt anyone here would share it.
So take your self-righteous bullshit and shove it up your ass along with your cowardly threats.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM PDT
You do not point out the lie. But I give you one more shot, point out just one lie in the entire time I have been on this site. Point out one time where I have been wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and have not noted my error and apologized.
One lie, just one ... dick.
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:49:07 AM PDT
I don't give a shit what YOU are asking of me.
I have asked you over and over again about the human rights abuses that are happening now, and you have not once answered.
Over and over again -- no answer.
You are in such denial you can't even see what I'm saying here. That's your problem.
Keep it up with the name calling. That's a lie right there, isn't it? Hell, I pointed out two lies in your own fucking comment. And your response? Crickets -- as usual.
What a pathetic fool you are.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM PDT
If you could produce the lie -- you would -- you know it, I know it ... DICK.
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM PDT
... it's always good to resort to name-calling.
Oh, but I forgot ... you don't name call.
LOL
Liar.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:05:00 PM PDT
For the record -- all will please note that DICK never produces the lie.
All that DICK does is to keep repeating the accusation.
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:37:50 PM PDT
... I think this thread will be very valuable next time you start pulling this kind of bullshit in an immigration diary that speaks of real harm done due to human beings because of bad enforcement policies.
I am very happy for anyone to read this.
You seem to be on the downswing, superscalar. More and more folks are realizing what a fool you are.
And now you are devolving into an incoherent little child having a tantrum.
Yep, I'm very glad indeed for this record.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM PDT
by immigradvocate on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM PDT
I think that is worth challenging. I also find it interesting you don't deny you are a moral coward
I have very little interest in conforming to your definition of morality, cowardice, or compassion.
Stick to the subject ... point out the lie ... dick.
by superscalar on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM PDT
... and still you don't deny it. You are indeed a moral coward.
Stick to the subject ... when you EVER stick to the subject, I'll consider it.
But no, you only know how to hijack.
More and more folks are catching on to what you are doing, superscalar. If I have helped in that understanding, I'm very happy indeed.
To me, it's not about this stupid fight. I actually care about these folks. You only care about yourself. Good luck with that.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:55:24 AM PDT
you should also be prepared to get yourself smacked in the fucking face
Oh yea, and he doesn't lie. Sure.
by immigradvocate on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM PDT
Bizarre.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:19:42 PM PDT
Ironic, tho. This diary talks about parents being ripped from their children ... as well, they are being denied medical care when they are sick, they die in custody.
And you're being a whiny ass titty baby about being called a liar.
I guess if someone called undocumented workers liars maybe you'd have a word to say on their behalf.
Really sad.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM PDT
by immigradvocate on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:14:17 PM PDT
And she's a she, btw.
I'm not even angry with her any more. She has become pathetic ... going on each and every thread with the same lies.
Duke has pointed out how she twists statistics ... to me it's no different than Bush lying us into war ... cherry picking numbers that showed WMDs when there were none, saying the "world community" thought the same thing, etc.
Congress uses the word "misleading."
But everyone knows he just plain lied.
Superscalar is doing the same. Just plain lying. I'm sick of the euphemisms.
What I can't understand is why she is willing to let people suffer like this instead of putting forth real ideas on how to change the laws so everyone is treated fairly.
It is very sad.
by Nightprowlkitty on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM PDT
For the invitation!
lol
See, here's the difference between you and Duke. Both of you can talk about statistics ... only Duke gives both context and some sense of how the laws should be changed.
He also is not afraid (as you so obviously are) to acknowledge the human rights abuses inherent in present enforcement policy and he knows where those enforcement policies come from.
So obfuscation, speculation, take your pick. Either way you are a coward.
Poor you.
by Nightprowlkitty on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:52:39 AM PDT
Just so you don't believe that I have all of a sudden been struck stupid, we both know where the obfuscation is taking place don't we? Once again the ad hominem attack, and change the subject i.e. 'The Rush Limbaugh Pivot'.
Great, so say that none of these are guilty of felonious re-entry.
so for the 47% of all undocumented immigrants who are here on visa overstays, their badge of "criminality" has no basis
Do you really want to stand on this statement?
by superscalar on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:54:50 PM PDT
Of the felonies committed which are separate from felonious re-entry.
Again, who is it who is obfuscating here?
by superscalar on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:20:33 PM PDT
... a definition ... one that applies to you in so many ways and is clear to anyone who reads your comments on this thread:
To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: "A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth"
This is what you do in virtually every diary that deals with the real harm that is caused to human beings by our present enforcement-only policies -- and enforcement-only to the undocumented workers, not the employers who exploit them.
You have never dealt with that truth ... and have always obfuscated by throwing out as many statistics as you have squirreled away in your bookmarks hoping to distract folks from seeing the true picture of how these policies inherently lead to this kind of human rights abuse and denies every American value anyone with a conscience would hold to be true and good.
It's one thing to argue about policy and how laws should be changed in a diary that deals with that as its main topic.
It's quite another to constantly try to divert folks' attention away from the real human rights abuses when the diary is speaking directly about the plain truth of human suffering and its causes here in the US. It is no different than someone saying that those detainees in Gitmo deserve to be tortured because they are all members of Al Quaeda.
Yes, you are pretty much the definition of an obfuscator. Here at Daily Kos we call it hijacking.
by Nightprowlkitty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 220 comments