Is Trump's argument about illegal alien criminals rational?

[SonOfDaedalus]

Let's say you have a 100 people in a town and 10 of them are illegal immigrants. Imagine an illegal immigrant raped and murdered someone in town yesterday.

Some town members are angry. They say this would never have happened if they didn't have those illegals in town.

Is that a rational point?

Well, only 1 out of the 10 illegals committed a crime. And if records show that there were 9 other crimes committed by regular citizens, the argument makes no sense. Getting rid of the illegals won't reduce the percentage of violent criminals--10%. It will only reduce the population.

To have any point, you have to establish that illegals commit more violent crimes than the rest of the population.

But the data shows that the more undocumented immigrants you have, the lower the violent crime rate.

If the mayor goes on TV and details how horrific that rape and murder was and brings out the victim's tearful mother, it's an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make the argument any more rational.

Can we agree that Trump's argument is irrational?

 

[marke]

Let's say you have a 100 people in a town and 10 of them are illegal immigrants. Imagine an illegal immigrant raped and murdered someone in town yesterday.

Some town members are angry. They say this would never have happened if they didn't have those illegals in town.

Is that a rational point?

Well, only 1 out of the 10 illegals committed a crime. And if records show that there were 9 other crimes committed by regular citizens, the argument makes no sense. Getting rid of the illegals won't reduce the percentage of violent criminals--10%. It will only reduce the population.

To have any point, you have to establish that illegals commit more violent crimes than the rest of the population.

But the data shows that the more undocumented immigrants you have, the lower the violent crime rate.

If the mayor goes on TV and details how horrific that rape and murder was and brings out the victim's tearful mother, it's an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make the argument any more rational.

Can we agree that Trump's argument is irrational?

I agree that automatically linking illegals to violent criminal activities is unfairly and unjustly biased. I also agree that all Americans should recognize that illegal immigration is harming this country in many ways for many reasons and should be stopped.

 

[Fledermaus]

Let's say you have a 100 people in a town and 10 of them are illegal immigrants. Imagine an illegal immigrant raped and murdered someone in town yesterday.

Some town members are angry. They say this would never have happened if they didn't have those illegals in town.

Is that a rational point?

Well, only 1 out of the 10 illegals committed a crime. And if records show that there were 9 other crimes committed by regular citizens, the argument makes no sense. Getting rid of the illegals won't reduce the percentage of violent criminals--10%. It will only reduce the population.

To have any point, you have to establish that illegals commit more violent crimes than the rest of the population.

But the data shows that the more undocumented immigrants you have, the lower the violent crime rate.

If the mayor goes on TV and details how horrific that rape and murder was and brings out the victim's tearful mother, it's an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make the argument any more rational.

Can we agree that Trump's argument is irrational?

Hmmmm

A murder occurs.

Would that murder occur if the murderer was not present....

Hmmmmmmmmm

Let me think about that.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hmmmm

A murder occurs.

Would that murder occur if the murderer was not present....

Hmmmmmmmmm

Let me think about that.

And, it's really that simple.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Hmmmm

A murder occurs.

Would that murder occur if the murderer was not present....

Hmmmmmmmmm

Let me think about that.

And that's true of all murders. If the murderer is Chinese then that murder wouldn't have happened if there were no Chinese people. It's a stupid argument.

In the 1871 Los Angeles Chinese Massacre, a group of Americans rampaged and killed many in a town of Chinese immigrants. Why? Because they blamed a Chinese immigrant for a shooting.

Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few is irrational. The less educated you are the more susceptible you become to this kind of irrational thinking.

 

[Fledermaus]

And that's true of all murders. If the murderer is Chinese then that murder wouldn't have happened if there were no Chinese people. It's a stupid argument.

In the 1871 Los Angeles Chinese Massacre, a group of Americans rampaged and killed many in a town of Chinese immigrants. Why? Because they blamed a Chinese immigrant for a shooting.

Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few is irrational. The less educated you are the more susceptible you become to this kind of irrational thinking.

You asked about A murder.

That murder would not have occurred.

Correct?

And who is blaming an entire group for the act of a single person?

The less educated you are the more susceptible you become to broad brushing.

 

[Eriech]

If you had a 100 M&Ms with at least one of them laced with a leathal poison; how many would you eat? The rational thing to do would be to treat them all as lethal until you could identify those that would kill you vs those that were safe to eat.
Buying home insurance to cover fire is rational and responsible even though statistically fires are rare. Locking your car and taking the keys is rational and responsible even if you can get away not 9 times out of 10.
Why do we screen passengers before boarding? Statisically the number of incidents is infinitesimal relative to total passengers.
An open border is not rational.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

If you had a 100 M&Ms with at least one of them laced with a leathal poison; how many would you eat? The rational thing to do would be to treat them all as lethal until you could identify those that would kill you vs those that were safe to eat.

Throwing out only the brown M&M's would be irrational, don't you agree? Would the M&M's be any safer to eat if you threw out only the browns ones?

None of your other arguments even makes sense.

 

[Eriech]

Throwing out only the brown M&M's would be irrational, don't you agree? Would the M&M's be any safer to eat if you threw out only the browns ones?

None of your other arguments even makes sense.

Not just the brown ones, every one.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Not just the brown ones, every one.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

So, you admit that just getting rid of the brown m&m won't make things safer? There are toxic m&m's of every color. Just as getting rid of illegal aliens won't reduce the violent crime rate.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Let's say you have a 100 people in a town and 10 of them are illegal immigrants. Imagine an illegal immigrant raped and murdered someone in town yesterday.

Some town members are angry. They say this would never have happened if they didn't have those illegals in town.

Is that a rational point?

Well, only 1 out of the 10 illegals committed a crime. And if records show that there were 9 other crimes committed by regular citizens, the argument makes no sense. Getting rid of the illegals won't reduce the percentage of violent criminals--10%. It will only reduce the population.

To have any point, you have to establish that illegals commit more violent crimes than the rest of the population.

But the data shows that the more undocumented immigrants you have, the lower the violent crime rate.

If the mayor goes on TV and details how horrific that rape and murder was and brings out the victim's tearful mother, it's an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make the argument any more rational.

Can we agree that Trump's argument is irrational?

If the illegal wasn't here in the first place would the crime ever have happened by the illegal here on US soil??

Pretty ****ing simple really.

 

[Slavister]

To have any point, you have to establish that illegals commit more violent crimes than the rest of the population.

But the data shows that the more undocumented immigrants you have, the lower the violent crime rate.

...

If the mayor goes on TV and details how horrific that rape and murder was and brings out the victim's tearful mother, it's an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make the argument any more rational.

Can we agree that Trump's argument is irrational?

Absolutely. Statistics show that when you interact with native-born Americans (vs immigrants), you are much more likely to be interacting with violent criminals.

Hmmmm

A murder occurs.

Would that murder occur if the murderer was not present....

And, it's really that simple.

If you had a 100 M&Ms with at least one of them laced with a leathal poison; how many would you eat? The rational thing to do would be to treat them all as lethal until you could identify those that would kill you vs those that were safe to eat.

If the illegal wasn't here in the first place would the crime ever have happened by the illegal here on US soil??

Pretty ****ing simple really.

All these arguments make no sense. They all come down to "because SOME part of population commits murders, we should get rid of ALL such population". As such the VERY SAME argument applies to these scenarios:

- Because SOME LEGAL immigrants commit murders, we should stop ALL LEGAL immigration.

- Because SOME people who had served time in prison commit murders upon release, we should ONLY give out LIFE sentences.

- Because SOME people with guns commit murders, we should stop allowing ALL gun ownership.

I have no problem with enforcing laws and preventing illegal immigration just because it's ILLEGAL, but OP specifically is asking whether it should be done based on Trump's argument of crime and that's a completely wrong argument. If anything, crime statistics suggest we do the opposite.

 

[GDViking]

And, it's really that simple.

Ummmm

If one of those immigrants stopped a murder or a rape by a legal citizen, would that murder or rape have occurred had not that immigrant been present?

Let me think about that???

 

[GDViking]

If you had a 100 M&Ms with at least one of them laced with a leathal poison; how many would you eat? The rational thing to do would be to treat them all as lethal until you could identify those that would kill you vs those that were safe to eat.
Buying home insurance to cover fire is rational and responsible even though statistically fires are rare. Locking your car and taking the keys is rational and responsible even if you can get away not 9 times out of 10.
Why do we screen passengers before boarding? Statisically the number of incidents is infinitesimal relative to total passengers.
An open border is not rational.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

By that rationale we should immediately round up white supremists and Nazis ( aka trump cultists) because they are statistically the most likely to commit terrorist acts in the US...

 

[Fledermaus]

Absolutely. Statistics show that when you interact with native-born Americans (vs immigrants), you are much more likely to be interacting with violent criminals.









All these arguments make no sense. They all come down to "because SOME part of population commits murders, we should get rid of ALL such population". As such the VERY SAME argument applies to these scenarios:

- Because SOME LEGAL immigrants commit murders, we should stop ALL LEGAL immigration.

- Because SOME people who had served time in prison commit murders upon release, we should ONLY give out LIFE sentences.

- Because SOME people with guns commit murders, we should stop allowing ALL gun ownership.

I have no problem with enforcing laws and preventing illegal immigration just because it's ILLEGAL, but OP specifically is asking whether it should be done based on Trump's argument of crime and that's a completely wrong argument. If anything, crime statistics suggest we do the opposite.

The OP asked about this one event.

This one event would not have occurred.

 

[Eriech]

So, you admit that just getting rid of the brown m&m won't make things safer? There are toxic m&m's of every color. Just as getting rid of illegal aliens won't reduce the violent crime rate.

Tried to dumb it down enough for you to understand. Apparently that is not possible. There is one m&m that will kill you. Eat just the brown ones if you want lol

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[jnug]

If you had a 100 M&Ms with at least one of them laced with a leathal poison; how many would you eat? The rational thing to do would be to treat them all as lethal until you could identify those that would kill you vs those that were safe to eat.
Buying home insurance to cover fire is rational and responsible even though statistically fires are rare. Locking your car and taking the keys is rational and responsible even if you can get away not 9 times out of 10.
Why do we screen passengers before boarding? Statisically the number of incidents is infinitesimal relative to total passengers.
An open border is not rational.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Except mixing confectionary candy with the concept of human interaction and human beings generally and insurance rationalization or anything that has anything to do with border security or Immigration policy for that matter. Just doesn't get there. Nice try.

The only example of all of them that gets close to it is your passenger screening example. But passenger screening is about the possibility of one passenger by himself to take down a monument to the American economy and kill thousands of Americans in the flash of impact.

 

[Eriech]

Correct, insurance has nothing to do with border security but has everything to do with statistics which are being used here to justify open borders.

Also, in this thread legal immigration is conflated with foreign nationals invading the US illegally.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Eriech]

Except mixing confectionary candy with the concept of human interaction and human beings generally and insurance rationalization or anything that has anything to do with border security or Immigration policy for that matter. Just doesn't get there. Nice try.

The only example of all of them that gets close to it is your passenger screening example. But passenger screening is about the possibility of one passenger by himself to take down a monument to the American economy and kill thousands of Americans in the flash of impact.

Correct, insurance has nothing to do with border security but has everything to do with statistics which are being used here to justify open borders.

Also, in this thread legal immigration is conflated with foreign nationals invading the US illegally.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

Let's say you have a 100 people in a town and 10 of them are illegal immigrants. Imagine an illegal immigrant raped and murdered someone in town yesterday.

Some town members are angry. They say this would never have happened if they didn't have those illegals in town.

Is that a rational point?

Well, only 1 out of the 10 illegals committed a crime. And if records show that there were 9 other crimes committed by regular citizens, the argument makes no sense. Getting rid of the illegals won't reduce the percentage of violent criminals--10%. It will only reduce the population.

To have any point, you have to establish that illegals commit more violent crimes than the rest of the population.

But the data shows that the more undocumented immigrants you have, the lower the violent crime rate.

If the mayor goes on TV and details how horrific that rape and murder was and brings out the victim's tearful mother, it's an appeal to emotion. It doesn't make the argument any more rational.

Can we agree that Trump's argument is irrational?

Um...

It sounds like your example sites 10 committed crimes.

10% of the crimes were committed by one of the residents.

If that resident was not there, the number of crimes would have been 10% lower as that crime would not have occurred and the total number of crimes would have been 9 instead of 10.

Reducing the number from 10 to 9 is a 10% reduction in the number. That's pretty straight forward.

I don't understand your logic.

 

[jnug]

Correct, insurance has nothing to do with border security but has everything to do with statistics which are being used here to justify open borders.

Also, in this thread legal immigration is conflated with foreign nationals invading the US illegally.



Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

That conflation is a Trump invention, invented during the hideous "lets make a deal" process of trying to attach significant changes to legal immigration policy to DACA to Wall funding in the Senate of the last Congress. That was one of the most ridiculously bent up, screwed up Bills in the history of the Senate and of the 4 options offered, all of them awful from my perspective, it attracted the fewest yes votes, only 39. In fact it is the only one of the four that reached 60 votes.....60 No's. The only one Trump supported attracted the least number of votes in a GOP majority Senate.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Absolutely. Statistics show that when you interact with native-born Americans (vs immigrants), you are much more likely to be interacting with violent criminals.









All these arguments make no sense. They all come down to "because SOME part of population commits murders, we should get rid of ALL such population". As such the VERY SAME argument applies to these scenarios:

- Because SOME LEGAL immigrants commit murders, we should stop ALL LEGAL immigration.

- Because SOME people who had served time in prison commit murders upon release, we should ONLY give out LIFE sentences.

- Because SOME people with guns commit murders, we should stop allowing ALL gun ownership.

I have no problem with enforcing laws and preventing illegal immigration just because it's ILLEGAL, but OP specifically is asking whether it should be done based on Trump's argument of crime and that's a completely wrong argument. If anything, crime statistics suggest we do the opposite.

Here's the simple part: If an alien is not allowed to be in this country illegally, they cannot commit any crimes, much less murder. If a person that commits a murder is also an illegal alien, then logic stands that if they were prevented from being here in the first place, the murder would never had happened, and the victim would still be alive. No nuance, no spin, just basic simple irrefutable logic.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Ummmm

If one of those immigrants stopped a murder or a rape by a legal citizen, would that murder or rape have occurred had not that immigrant been present?

Let me think about that???

Same principle. And, that happens from time to time, I'm sure. However, please explain to the family of the person murdered by an illegal alien how it all balances out due to your scenario and they should be glad that illegal immigration is allowed to continue, since that seems to be your point here.

 

[Slavister]

The OP asked about this one event.

This one event would not have occurred.

Same can be said about respective events in those other scenarios

 

[Slavister]

Here's the simple part: If an alien is not allowed to be in this country illegally, they cannot commit any crimes, much less murder. If a person that commits a murder is also an illegal alien, then logic stands that if they were prevented from being here in the first place, the murder would never had happened, and the victim would still be alive. No nuance, no spin, just basic simple irrefutable logic.

Yeah and that same exact logic applies to all those other scenarios I mentioned:

- If LEGAL immigrant were not allowed to immigrate, they would not commit the crime here. Because SOME LEGAL immigrants commit murders, we should stop ALL LEGAL immigration.

- If a person in prison were not allowed to leave, they would not commit a crime outside. Because SOME people who had served time in prison commit murders upon release, we should ONLY give out LIFE sentences.

- If a person with gun were not allowed to have a gun, they would not be able to shoot anyone. Because SOME people with guns commit murders, we should stop allowing ALL gun ownership.

See, same logic applies to all these.

As you said, no nuance, no spin, just basic simple irrefutable logic.