W'S IMMIGRATION FALLACY

New York Post ^ | January 16, 2004 | By HEATHER MAC DONALD

[mgist]

How is this effective? . . .

(I am sure we are just a sample of the conservative base and others within the Republican Party who have had it. I am tired of having our voting block taken for granted. Like I said, let the RNC get the money from Vincente Fox and the illegals.)

[dirtboy]

They are entitled to their opinion, but I think they are either moles, trying to create problems for Bush, or just plain silly.

So they're either liars or they're stupid, eh? You're really doing your point of view wonders.

I've followed a lot of these folks for some time. I would say that at least two-thirds of the Bush supporters on this forum have serious problems with the proposal. Care to belittle them the way you've belittled folks on this thread?

Or maybe Bush should listen to the protests from the grassroots and alter his proposal.

[mgist]

So they're either liars or they're stupid, eh? You're really doing your point of view wonders.

I didn't say any of the above. If I do present opinions you don't like, it is honestly because I care. I think conservatives have to maintain a positive image of compassion. I am simply making the point that rallying against Bush doesn't help anyone here. Making generalized negative accusations against immigrants, legal or otherwise, only marginalizes the party that I care for. If it is criminal element that you are against, it is understandable, to call all "illegal aliens" criminals doesn't help your cause.

[Owen]

< bush hater
<

I asked for numerical data supporting the contention Bush is not doing as good a job as predecessors at protecting the borders. The category of people obligated to supply this data are those announcing that because Bush is not doing as good a job as predecessors at protecting the borders they will not vote, vote Democrat or vote third party. "Bush hater" suffices as a label for that category, but one need not use it. Of more importance than the label is the failure to provide the data. Stay focused on that failure, not the label.

[dirtboy]

I didn't say any of the above.

Oh, really? Then how else are we to interpret the following?

They are entitled to their opinion, but I think they are either moles, trying to create problems for Bush, or just plain silly.

Someone who is a mole is misrepresenting who they are (i.e., a liar) and a silly person is being stupid. Or maybe you want to play the same parsing games that you are using against the term "illegal alien."

Making generalized negative accusations against immigrants, legal or otherwise, only marginalizes the party that I care for.

Who is making negative accusations here? Is it a "negative accusation" to call someone an illegal alient who is here, well, illegally? Are you that willing to play games with the law and the English language in order to make your point?

If it is criminal element that you are against, it is understandable, to call all "illegal aliens" criminals doesn't help your cause.

The fact that you saw fit to put "illegal aliens" in quotes speaks volumes.

[dirtboy]

The category of people obligated to supply this data are those announcing that because Bush is not doing as good a job as predecessors at protecting the borders

That's a classic red herring argument if I ever saw one. OK, let's play your game. Let's say that the Clinton Administration interdicted five percent of illegal aliens over eight years, and the Bush Admin has interdicted ten percent to date. What relevance does that have regarding the amnesty proposal? None. Yet you are demanding that opponents provide this irrelvant information in order to express their opinion regarding the amnesty.

[dirtboy]

The category of people obligated to supply this data are those announcing that because Bush is not doing as good a job as predecessors at protecting the borders

OK, Mr. Empirical, since you are demanding evidence from the other side, I'll request some evidence from you. Please show me where that claim has been made on this thread. Pointing out that there are 124 agents to police the hiring of immigrants makes no claim as to whether the policing was done better during the Clinton Administration or the Bush Administration. Instead, it reasonably implies that neither was serious about the problem.

But I did notice that you came up with this demand on another thread and proceeded to spam it into a couple of others, whether it was relevant or not.

[mgist]

My points are premised with "my opinion" when they are opinion or generalizations directed at specific posters, as opposed to all Freepers, let say. Please look back at my posts and realize I did not use insulting slurs to label anyone. But this isn't about us personally is it? Please realize that the label "illegal alien" to me, does not equate with criminal element. It doesn't make these human beings criminal elements other than a negative label they are given.

[Atlas Sneezed]

We also need to require (with threat of loss of federal funds) local law enforcers to verify the citizenship of every person arrested, detained, or ticketed. That may be as simple as seeing your drivers license.

[american spirit]

You're right.....I think parasite is much more appropriate than criminal element.

[Owen]

>
But I did notice that you came up with this demand on another thread and proceeded to spam it into a couple of others, whether it was relevant or not.
>

Oh, on the contrary. Any attempt by extremists to spiral themselves into a conservative, GOP destructive frenzy and then attempt to persuade others to vote in a manner to hurt Bush configures a translation of all forms of rebuttal into explicit relevancy. Spam? It's much to relevant and accurate to categorize as spam.

But don't evade. Find the data. It is the extremists who have chosen to attack the president and work to defeat him. The obligation is on them to make the statistical case that indicates Bush has instructed the Border Patrol to do a less effective job of protecting the borders than his predecessors have done. The immigration threads all cry out that Bush does not wish to protect the borders. Prove it statistically, with the specific ratio quoted. You can't. There is no evidence he is doing a worse job than those who came before him. And odds are it's a better job. Homeland Security has staffed up.

Extremism usually does fold in the face of mathematical rebuttal.

[Guillermo]

Just because one is opposed to (all or some of) Bush's policies, doesn't mean they're a "Bush hater."

Amazing how when a conservative dares to criticize or express a reservation about a single Bush policy, how they are mocked and ridiculed.

Would you rather have a party where there was never any dissent, at all?

(Before you answer, consider the political parties around the world, past and present, which fit that very mold most people around here wish for in regards to the GOP)

[dirtboy]

Oh, on the contrary. Any attempt by extremists to spiral themselves into a conservative, GOP destructive frenzy and then attempt to persuade others to vote in a manner to hurt Bush configures a translation of all forms of rebuttal into explicit relevancy.

I see that clear writing isn't your strong suit.

Spam? It's much to relevant and accurate to categorize as spam.

It's spam when no one has raised that particular issue on the thread.

But don't evade. Find the data.

That's pretty funny, considering you haven't provided any.

It is the extremists who have chosen to attack the president and work to defeat him.

It's the president who has issued a proposal that alienates a goodly amount of his base. I would suggest that you, instead of dispararging a lot of good conservatives, instead read some of the posts from stalwart Bush supporters on this site. A lot of them ain't really pleased by this.

The obligation is on them to make the statistical case that indicates Bush has instructed the Border Patrol to do a less effective job of protecting the borders than his predecessors have done.

You're basically thundering that a 100 year flood is less destructive than a 500 year flood, while overlooking the obvious point that they are both floods.

The immigration threads all cry out that Bush does not wish to protect the borders. Prove it statistically, with the specific ratio quoted. You can't. There is no evidence he is doing a worse job than those who came before him. And odds are it's a better job. Homeland Security has staffed up.

Nice numbers game. If the Border Patrol under Bush is inderdicting ten percent of aliens, whereas the Clinton Administration interdicted five percent, you would trumpet the increased enforcement while ignoring the fact that ninety percent are still getting through. And that enforcement actions against employers, where a real dent could be made, are practically non-existent. And that Bush's proposal will probably lead to an increase in illegal immigration, just as Reagan's amnesty failed to stem the tide and instead encouraged illegals to come here and wait for the next amnesty.

Extremism usually does fold in the face of mathematical rebuttal.

Statistics are like a bikini - its the important parts that are covered up.

[swarthyguy]

>>So because we're opposed to this policy, we're suddenly Pat Buchanan?

Well, you haven't been called a Dean supporter or a Dem supporter. Or a racist, bigot and xenophobe.

See, you have to understand that all wisdom resides ONLY in those who support Dubya, regardless.

Plus, as many have said, don't vote; the GOP doesn't need or care for your vote.

But Dick Morris prolly loves this triangulation, third way strategy.

Now to repeal the drug laws; they're unenforceable, anyway.

[dirtboy]

Extremism usually does fold in the face of mathematical rebuttal.

I went back and revisited your posts on this thread. Here is what you, Mr. Rigorous Mathematical Analysis, are demanding from us:

Has anyone proven that the ratio of Border Patrol arrests to attempted illegal border crossings

Now, my question to you - how do you determine the denominator here? Do all illegals register upon crossing the border so we know how many attempts were made?

Your statistical demand is completely ludicrious, and shows just how poor your grasp is of numerical analysis. I would suggest you stick to trying to ascertain the number of arrests and deportations, rather than demanding that your opponents chase a ratio with a phantom denominator. Unless, of course, you are demanding that we prove something that cannot be proven in an attempt to discredit us - which is not the stuff of honest debate.

[Solson]

It is amazing how many folks wrongly think businesses will happily take an increase in labor costs to employ natives. It simply will not happen. Outsourcing and automation will replace the low-wage worker if they cannot be found. Plain, simple, and an economic, not emotional, argument.

[dirtboy]

Please check out my response to Owen's statistical demands in post #55.

[Solson]

They've failed to provide ANY statistically important numbers to support their claims. Lot's of personal stories, links to refuted reports like Don Huddle's and links to population control organizations.

But that's not important...

[dirtboy]

They've failed to provide ANY statistically important numbers to support their claims.

See post #55 to see just how statistically important (or possible) Owen's demands are. There is a fair debate to be had over Bush's immigration proposal and immigration policies in general. But calling any criticism the work of "Bush haters" or demanding irrelvant statistics from the other side that aren't even part of the debate is meant to stifle debate instead of participate in it.

[dirtboy]

We also need to require (with threat of loss of federal funds) local law enforcers to verify the citizenship of every person arrested, detained, or ticketed.

I don't know if greenmail is the best approach. I don't like it when it is used for other causes, and it will hardly generate buy-in from state and local governments.