• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap

The "you don't need to put down your immigration status" refers to the parent. The children are citizens.

How did the children become citizens? One way is that the parents or female parent sneaks across the border, has the kid via an Emergency Room, which she/they can't pay for the kid automatically becomes a citizen and is then eligible for assistance.

As I said earlier in the thread, if you support it you pay for it. Don't bother coming back about how I don't want to feed starving children either. That's not the point. The point is this scheme needs to stop.
 
I'm not in any group that might be routinely targeted and I *********** hate the idea of submitting to ID checks in any form just to go about my daily business around town. Apart from various kinds of "checkpoints," even pulling someone over who is driving a car (an activity which requires the driver to have ID in the form of a driver's license) requires a police officer to have a reason beyond general demographics.

I am in a group that is routinely targeted. I understand the reasoning behind it, so I don't bitch about it. The fact that I share some characteristics with a class of people that statistically are more likely to be criminals is simply a fact of life. I can't do anything about it, any more than I could have chosen richer parents.

The embarrassing thing is how quickly people will abandon their reliance on statistics in the service of some ideal they have about fairness. It's as if the moral good gives us permission to ignore reality.
 
How did the children become citizens? One way is that the parents or female parent sneaks across the border, has the kid via an Emergency Room, which she/they can't pay for the kid automatically becomes a citizen and is then eligible for assistance.

As I said earlier in the thread, if you support it you pay for it. Don't bother coming back about how I don't want to feed starving children either. That's not the point. The point is this scheme needs to stop.

It's not a scheme, it's US citizens deciding we want to help impoverished children who are also US citizens. A kid born here is a US citizen for the same reason I am a US citizen - the location of my mom's vagina on my birth day.
 
It's not a scheme, it's US citizens deciding we want to help impoverished children who are also US citizens. A kid born here is a US citizen for the same reason I am a US citizen - the location of my mom's vagina on my birth day.

No, it's only a portion of US Citizens and that's the portion that lost the last Presidential Election, both houses of Congress, and the majority of State Governorships.

If you truly only want to help without some other objective you can always send your $$ to where they are prior to sneaking across the border.
 
Last edited:
Places get squirrelly these days about ID. Because I live in Washington state and my kid, soon to be kids, live in Canada, I paid extra to get the "enhanced" ID card that involves proving citizenship and going through a screening. This allows me to cross the border by car but not in a plane.

Yet I have had companies here in Seattle refuse to accept it as ID on the grounds that it isn't a driver's license. I don't drive. The medications I take make it very unwise. It's a state-issued card that is *more* vetted than the standard state driver's license, and by not accepting it as ID they are in violation of the ADA, I would think. Do they care? No. Because they're betting that the people they refuse don't have enough money to hire a lawyer and challenge them.

The same thing happens with other forms of ID all the time. I've seen companies insist on seeing a social security card as part of your ID. I've seen companies insist that a *passport* is inadequate ID, and I've seen bars simply refuse to take out of state ID of any sort. They just point out that they have the right to refuse service, and unless you can prove they're discriminating against a protected class, you're just plain out of luck.

I could also bring up such crimes as walking in a rich neighborhood while black. Sure, eventually the courts will agree that you aren't required to carry identification with you, but meanwhile you will have to deal with arrests, jail, job loss, and so on. The same sort of thing happens with ICE raids. They have it so well-organized that before your family notices you're not home, you're on the bus to Mexico with nothing but what's in your pockets. How are you supposed to defend yourself against the charges?

There's an interesting case right here in Seattle now which appears to hinge on the agents (sloppily) erasing part of a statement to make it incriminate a young man.
http://q13fox.com/2017/02/16/document-shows-key-piece-of-evidence-in-dreamer-daniel-ramirez-medina-case-might-have-been-erased-ice-daca/

So it looks as if ICE may be prone to doing shifty stuff.

The last time this was happening in this state, migrant workers, including the green card holders, stayed away in such huge numbers that the orchard owners ended up hiring prisoners to pick the apple crop at roughly 4 times the cost. Out-of-work people tried to get the jobs but were refused because they had no experience. Or perhaps because they'd expect their legally mandated breaks and other benefits, but experience was the official reason. Either way, when you expand the concept to the other industries that hire a lot of immigrants, you have to hope all the people expecting their jobs to come back are happy with stoop labor, meat packing plants and restaurant kitchens at low wages. It's either that or our food prices jump massively and the restaurant industry collapses.

There. That's a lot of semi-connected bits that have been seething in my head on the whole topic. Read them or ignore them as you see fit.
 
I am in a group that is routinely targeted. I understand the reasoning behind it, so I don't bitch about it. The fact that I share some characteristics with a class of people that statistically are more likely to be criminals is simply a fact of life. I can't do anything about it, any more than I could have chosen richer parents.

The embarrassing thing is how quickly people will abandon their reliance on statistics in the service of some ideal they have about fairness. It's as if the moral good gives us permission to ignore reality.
"Routinely targeted" and "statistically more likely to be criminals" encompasses a lot of possible scenarios, and I am fairly certain that there are some things in that range you would complain about. You're not discarding your reliance on statistics in that case, things have just crossed the line you consider reasonable in the balance between catching criminals and protecting your rights. That other people value fairness more than you do doesn't mean they're ignoring reality.
 
How did the children become citizens? One way is that the parents or female parent sneaks across the border, has the kid via an Emergency Room, which she/they can't pay for the kid automatically becomes a citizen and is then eligible for assistance.

As I said earlier in the thread, if you support it you pay for it. Don't bother coming back about how I don't want to feed starving children either. That's not the point. The point is this scheme needs to stop.

Oh, we're gonna play that game? It's Dimwit Bingo.

What do you support that I don't support. An improved air force? You pay for it. I'm happy with last year's air force. More border patrol agents? You pay for 'em. Not me, nunh hunh! Sugar subsidies? Nope. How about corn/ethanol? I ain't paying for none of that. You'll have to take care of that, and I'll happily double up on my share of preventing children from starving.

Deal?

(Can we get a video of you telling the IRS that you're not going to pay .25 of your taxes because you don't support certain programs? Maybe Rob Menard will get you some advice on how you fight that in court.)
 
it can be determined how much in taxes are paid either income or property. I certainly don't believe property tax can be calculated unless one considers rent an indirect method of payment.
Of course rent is a method of payment. You think landlords do not factor property taxes in as they decide the rent?
Again, I've seen numbers of contributions as high as 13 Billion, but I have no idea how that's being calculated.
Did you try my link? Any others?

I suspect it's a bogus number...
Based on what?
 
"Routinely targeted" and "statistically more likely to be criminals" encompasses a lot of possible scenarios, and I am fairly certain that there are some things in that range you would complain about. You're not discarding your reliance on statistics in that case, things have just crossed the line you consider reasonable in the balance between catching criminals and protecting your rights. That other people value fairness more than you do doesn't mean they're ignoring reality.

There's a difference. It is perfectly fine to say I don't want to pursue a policy that accomplishes X because I don't like the means used. Maybe I think those means unfair, distasteful or too onerous. However, it is an error to claim some statistical relationship doesn't exist in service of the argument.

It would be a false argument to claim I am not in a group which has a statistically higher rate for committing crimes. It is wrong to deny that focusing on this group is more likely to capture those of interest to law enforcement. Pointing out that I, myself, am not a criminal and shouldn't therefore be subject to my own group norms is just highlighting statistical variance in a population - it isn't the existence of the innocent which makes the group of interest, but the guilty.

If ICE is capturing illegals by profiling then the onus is on those who think that's a bad idea to show why, not on ICE. Fairness in this case is formalized by the courts.
 
Prove it. Don't just cite some freaking research paper. Specify, how they determine who is paying what and how much?
How on Earth would you prove it without doing research? Research is often compiled into papers. If you suspect bias in one research paper, check out other papers. Do not disingenuously ask for numbers if you intend to discount any numbers on the face of it.

Researchers use various models to arrive at their estimates. There's no point in looking further if you are going to discount every statistic ever published.
 
Prove it. Don't just cite some freaking research paper. Specify, how they determine who is paying what and how much?

How on Earth would you prove it without doing research? Research is often compiled into papers. If you suspect bias in one research paper, check out other papers. Do not disingenuously ask for numbers if you intend to discount any numbers on the face of it.

Researchers use various models to arrive at their estimates. There's no point in looking further if you are going to discount every statistic ever published.

Holy— Once again, Reheat: put the stupid down before you hurt yourself. You're losing it.

Silly skeptics. Everyone knows that anecdotes are more valuable than research. So-called eggheads do what? Study for fifteen years, familiarize themselves with history, read up on the pertinent documentation and research. And you so-called critical thinkers think that's valuable?

Not in Reheat World. Knowing a guy who knows a guy who said something? Now that's keeping it real, bro!
 
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 0 removed.


The numbers mean jack squat. I have yet to see anything to indicate how those numbers are calculated. Illegals don't have a valid social security number, so how can the amount of income taxes be calculated? Isn't it illegal for the IRS to give out financial info on taxpayers? Who knows exactly how many there are? Many are paid in cash (Records likely falsified). How did the researcher determine where they live and determine that they are illegal? How does anyone know the amount they spend to determine how much sales tax they pay in States that require that? There are probably more questions, but these are a beginning. Until I see answers, the amount of contribution these people make is simply hogwash.

Furthermore, there are huge numbers who don't show up for Court Hearings. If these organization have so much detailed data on them why can't law enforcement find them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Silly skeptics. Everyone knows that anecdotes are more valuable than research. So-called eggheads do what? Study for fifteen years, familiarize themselves with history, read up on the pertinent documentation and research. And you so-called critical thinkers think that's valuable?

Not in Reheat World. Knowing a guy who knows a guy who said something? Now that's keeping it real, bro!

I think you've had too much of your coffee. This is pure nonsense.
 
Oh, we're gonna play that game? It's Dimwit Bingo.

What do you support that I don't support. An improved air force? You pay for it. I'm happy with last year's air force. More border patrol agents? You pay for 'em. Not me, nunh hunh! Sugar subsidies? Nope. How about corn/ethanol? I ain't paying for none of that. You'll have to take care of that, and I'll happily double up on my share of preventing children from starving.

Deal?

(Can we get a video of you telling the IRS that you're not going to pay .25 of your taxes because you don't support certain programs? Maybe Rob Menard will get you some advice on how you fight that in court.)

I'm quite happy that there's finally an Administration in D.C. that might just simply solve a large part of this problem. Good freaking luck on finding support your yours. There's a good beginning toward what I'm disagreeing with. You're going to be awfully disgusted continuing to play Dimwit Bingo for the next few years, maybe a lot longer.
 
I'm quite happy that there's finally an Administration in D.C. that might just simply solve a large part of this problem. Good freaking luck on finding support your yours. There's a good beginning toward what I'm disagreeing with. You're going to be awfully disgusted continuing to play Dimwit Bingo for the next few years, maybe a lot longer.

Ah, we agree, then. You have zero chance of keeping up your threat to not pay for the social programs necessary to be part of society. So that was just typical right wing bluster; a little bit of chest thumping to make yourself feel good.
 
Ah, we agree, then. You have zero chance of keeping up your threat to not pay for the social programs necessary to be part of society.

Necessary? Supporting illegal immigrants via social program is necessary? Yea, that's a part of the problem and why I'd prefer them not to be here.

So that was just typical right wing bluster; a little bit of chest thumping to make yourself feel good.

Hey, I suggested you pay for it. I didn't say I was not going to pay my appropriate taxes. You brought the Dimwit issue to start playing your little game that you weren't going to pay for stuff you didn't like. I'll have you know I haven't thumped by chest since I left the jungles of South East Asia. It's just not civilized.

I feel really good. I feel just about as good as when I was having fun partying in Pattaya. Too bad you have to work there.
 
Necessary? Supporting illegal immigrants via social program is necessary? Yea, that's a part of the problem and why I'd prefer them not to be here.



Hey, I suggested you pay for it. I didn't say I was not going to pay my appropriate taxes. You brought the Dimwit issue to start playing your little game that you weren't going to pay for stuff you didn't like. I'll have you know I haven't thumped by chest since I left the jungles of South East Asia. It's just not civilized.

I feel really good. I feel just about as good as when I was having fun partying in Pattaya. Too bad you have to work there.

I'm retired.
 
Judicial Watch? Really?
Yes, Judicial Watch. Really. Here's a link describing "Shooting the Messenger fallacy, you need to read it.

Did you read the documents? No, I didn't think so. Early on in the chain of discussion they set out the parameters for discussion. Meeting the nutritional needs for citizen children of non-citizen parents.

The "you don't need to put down your immigration status" refers to the parent. The children are citizens.
Yes, exactly. The money from SNAP is applied for and received by the illegal alien parents to assist them in meeting their financial needs, which is there citizen children in this case. The money still goes to illegal aliens.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom