Disqus - Latest Comments for GeorgeSorwell

Re: Can Reid Get Re-Elected In Spite Of Himself?

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:27:24 -0000

Harry Reid is pretty widely disliked--even I don't like him.

But you can't beat something with nothing.

It will be interesting to see if claiming the mantle of "Tea Party" will be enough.

Re: Resurgent Racism

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 21 May 2010 08:48:06 -0000

If Rand Paul stops saying what he believes because it's too controversial, he's going to end up as just another politician saying what he hopes will get him elected. That process seems well under way.

By the way, I think it's an over-reaction to complain that this post made Paul out to be, even remotely, a Nazi.

Re: Obama’s Exposed Left Flank

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:51:14 -0000

Tidbits--

They may not be to your liking, but this USA Today article has a sidebar list of Obama's accomplishments.

The article also says voters haven't embraced his accomplishments, which I agree is true enough. Maybe he's willing to spend his political capital in pursuit of goals he considers important? I throw this alternative out there, just in case someone finds it worth considering.

It's also possible that when, push comes to shove, large numbers of people might not really prefer hyper-partisan obstructionism.

In closing, here's the handy translation tool from Google.

Re: Capitalism Works

GeorgeSorwell — Mon, 10 May 2010 08:58:35 -0000

I agree with DaGoat: the wars are nothing but a hole where the money goes down the drain.

Re: TMV Announces New Comment Format

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:42:49 -0000

Thanks for providing a forum for commentary.

I also hope to see the regulars keep up the discussion over here.

Re: Capitalism Works

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:20:17 -0000

Tidbits--

I hate to be one of those guys who leaves a bunch of comments in a row.

But I agree with you, the deficit is a very important problem that should be dealt with sooner than later. And like you, I'm kind of dubious about how serious anyone is about it. The whole keep-your-government-hands-off-my-Medicare attitude shows the general level of confusion among the borrow-and-spend electorate.

Still, I think the interventions of the Fed and the stimulus package kept the economy from spiraling down into another Great Depression.

Re: Capitalism Works

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 07 May 2010 13:49:41 -0000

Tidbits--

For the record, I also believe that the private sector needs to drive the economy.

But sometimes the private sector stalls.

Re: Capitalism Works

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 07 May 2010 12:41:13 -0000

Well, I was going to make pretty much the same point Mikkel just made about the need for the government to run deficits.

Instead, here's link to a report from the Wall Street Journal called "Economists Credit Fed For Alleviating Crisis". And here's a quote:

The $787 billion stimulus package was a good for the economy, but the Federal Reserve played the biggest role in rescuing the U.S. economy from the financial crisis, according to the majority of economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

And:

Thirty-eight of the 54 surveyed economists, not all of whom answered every question, said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect.

Not that I expect to convince anybody, but as they say on the internet, read the whole thing.

Re: Arizona – Silent Boycott Is The Real Fear

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 07 May 2010 09:40:37 -0000

One of the prices most commonly paid for principle is finding oneself in the minority of public opinion.

Hear, hear!!

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 07 May 2010 09:34:55 -0000

EEllis--

I confess to a similar weariness. Also, since I embarrassed myself with an unforced error here, I'm not loving this thread.

Still, I think my points hold up.

Lots of people who call themselves conservative throw around that 30% number. I've never been able to figure it out. You did explain it to me, so thanks. It shocked me at first, but looking a little deeper, I don't think it passes the Twain test. It doesn't accurately reflect reality. I appreciate your willingness to reconsider it.

I currently don't live near the border, but I used to live in Arizona. I used to go down to Nogales a couple of times a year. It's true that the Mexican border guards had less interest in looking at my passport and more interest in giving me a coupon for whatever restaurant their cousins owned--but I'm a white guy with a Midwestern accent. I didn't know any illegals and have no particular personal insight into their difficulties going back. If I were illegal, though, I wouldn't go too close to anyone wearing a badge. It just seems like common sense to me. I should probably be a little more skeptical of my libertarian sources, however.

As for the "fence" being an impediment to return, that also just seems like common sense to me. Here's yet another lengthy PDF, this time by a sociologist who studied illegal immigration. It's mainly about the folly and dysfunction of our border policy, but in the executive summary on the first page he says the following:

Enforcement has driven up the cost of crossing the border illegally, but that has had the unintended consequence of encouraging illegal immigrants to stay longer in the United States to recoup the cost of entry. The result is that illegal immigrants are less likely to return to their home country, causing an increase in the number of illegal immigrants remaining in the United States.

Naturally, you can take that or leave it, as you like.

I appreciate the fact that you made me think things through more than I normally would have. Unless you're planning to unleash new data, please feel free to have the last word.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 06 May 2010 23:05:11 -0000

My fault. You did specify it was FEDERAL prison and I missed that. I am embarassed to have missed that. I apologize.

However...

I did start to wonder about the emphasis on FEDERAL. That seemed a little cherry-picked to me. So I looked for sources that combined Federal and State totals. The most recent data I could find was a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from June 2008.

[EDIT TO ADD: Can't directly link to the PDF, so hopefully you can get it from this page.]

Table 1, on page 2, gave the total number of Federal and State prisoners as 1,610,584 (210,114 federal, 1,409,442 state).

Table 20, on page 19, gave the total number of non-US citizen prisoners as 94,724 (28,995 federal, 65,729 state).

94,724 / 1,610,584 = 0.0588134, or 5.88134%. And that percentage refers to "non-US citizen aliens", which includes legal as well as illegal aliens. The percentage of illegals is something lower than 5.88%. I don't know what that percent is, which makes it hard to compare apples to apples to apples and oranges to oranges. But that is a considerably lowered PRONENESS to crime than your 27% implies. Also, there are plenty of studies (you can read one here) documenting the lowness of immigrant incarceration rates. Plus, you can go back up this thread and look at the whole bunch of math I did about incarceration rates in Maricopa County based on statistics that you, EEllis, brought into the discussion. I think I'm on pretty firm ground here. 27% is way out of line.

As to the fence and other increased border security, they exist to impede crossing the border. I doubt any illegal would be eager to cross out of the US though a guarded checkpoint, fearing arrest. And the fence is just as high on the side going out as it is on the side coming in. I honestly don't see why you keep calling me illogical. It's illogical to think they'd like to catch a ride back from ICE.

Okay, so I came back and addressed this post, just like you asked.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:32:59 -0000

Well, I realize I said you could have the last word, but I think I have to correct something you wrote.

You claimed this PDF says there are 180,000 total prisoners. Actually, Table 5 on page 4 says that in 2004 there were 1,391,781 men and 104,848 women incarcerated in prison. It says this quite clearly. Again, that's Table 5 on page 4.

1,391,781 + 104,844 = 1,496,629.

On page 9 of the other PDF it does say there are 49,000 criminal aliens, although there is nothing about how many of them are here illegally.

49,000 / 1,496,629 = 0.032704. That's a 3.2704% rate of criminal aliens in 2004. It's nowhere near 27%. Not even close to 27%.

This seems like a pretty big mistake--big enough to be worth a correction. It's certainly possible you can explain the discrepancy.

Like the previous facts I argued here on this thread, these numbers come from sources you provided.

By the way, this is a public thread. Anyone can go back and see what I wrote and what my sources are. I'm not insecure about that.

Again, even if all you want to do is call me names, you're welcome to the last word.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Thu, 06 May 2010 09:59:43 -0000

EEllis--

You seem like a nice enough guy. But I don't think you're getting my point.

As for source on criminal aliens--it's a 38-page PDF. It's thirty-eight pages long!! Throw your readers a bone and cite a page. I cited pages on that 12-page PDF on crime in Maricopa County you provided earlier. (By the way, I did a search on "29%", "29 %", "twenty-nine", "twenty nine" and "twenty" and it said no matches were found for any of them.)

Also, you seem to think I'm lazy because I won't look up your sources for you!!

Then, you complained:

So your context is that illegal aliens in AZ only commit crimes in the one county?

I was taking information from that 12-page PDF that you provided. You brought up Maricopa County. You did. That seemed to me the basis of your argument, so I took information from the same source. I was trying to compare oranges to oranges. I'm not sure why that seems unfair to you.

Your next complaint:

The fact that nothing shows that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than the general pop, which was your point before, means nothing if you can keep arguing even though your not sure what you are arguing about or if your argument has any Bering on your original point.

Actually, I made my original point by quoting from Radley Balko:

Immigrants—yes, even illegal ones—simply aren’t prone to crime. The process selects for people who want to make a better life for themselves and their families. Not generally the sort more likely to rape and murder. The bill will also likely make actual crime worse because it will make illegals much less likely to cooperate with police.

Anyone can go back up the thread and read this. The point--quoting again--"Immigrants—yes, even illegal ones—simply aren’t prone to crime." Not PRONE to crime. My point wasn't some BS story that immigrants don't do crime ever at all--it was that they they're not prone to crime. Again, anyone can go back up the thread and read the point I actually made.

As for bus rides provided by ICE, doesn't that also include a criminal record? Even if it doesn't, possibly your local illegal might be afraid of ICE?

As I said, you seem like a nice enough guy. You're obviously intelligent and well-informed. But you seem kind of trapped by your preconceptions.

You could say the same thing about me. So here are my preconceptions.

In my own family history, there are people who came here unable to speak English. And even after they got here, some of them never spoke a word of English in their whole lives.

The group disfavored by this legislation won't be illegals, it will be all Latinos. I think Tidbits put it quite eloquently:

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Whenever in our history we have singled out a minority ethnic group for disparate treatment, a majority found reason at the time to believe it was justified, only to realize later in the lens of history how wrong it was. It takes far more insight to see an injustice as it is happening than it does to wait a generation and acknowledge it in retrospect.

Illegals come here because there is a market for their labor. America is not threatened by bus boys and fruit pickers. In fact, America benefits from lower produce prices and clean eating utensils at restraunts. It's called Capitalism. I like it.

Feel free to have the last word.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 05 May 2010 18:20:20 -0000

EEllis--

The Federal prison system had 29% of what? Criminal aliens? Illegal aliens? And what's your source?

I've never heard of any free bus rides back to Mexico? The logic that says the fence keeps them in seems perfectly reasonable to me. And it's obvious that's what the author is saying--the fence is keeping the illegals from going home, that's why there are more of them here.

The long article you linked said, on page 7, "Maricopa County found 2,973 of reported violent crime to be committed by illegal immigrants". It didn't say how many of those violent crimes were caused by repeaters. Even if all 2,973 were committed by separate individuals aren't there hundreds of thousands of illegals in Maricopa County? Isn't the large number of illegals what motivated this bill? If there are 100,000 illegals, that would be just under a 3% rate of violent criminal. If there are 200,000 illegals, that's just under 1.5% If 300,000, it's less than 1%. (On page 5 of that PDF you linked, it says there are 530,000 illegals in the state of Arizona.) That's somewhere greater than 97% of illegals who aren't prone to committing crimes. That's my context. So let me return to the point first made by Tidbits: Police should devote their limited resources to stopping the violent criminals of whatever origin.

And presumably, they will devote their limited resources to just that.

Which is why I say this bill is nothing but a cynical ploy by a bunch of Arizona politicians to push the hot button and benefit politically.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Wed, 05 May 2010 09:11:28 -0000

EEllis--

I appreciate the fact that you're being pretty reasonable.

But I did NOT put out any BS about immigrants not doing any crimes. What I'm saying is that the hard numbers in your own source--as opposed to statistics (you've already indicated here that you know Twain said about them)--of undocumented alien criminals is small compared to the number of undocumented aliens overall. What I said--and let me quote myself--was actually this: "As Tidbits said, it is wiser to focus the limited resources of law enforcement on the destructive element." You can go back up and see that for yourself.

As for that 30% stat of yours, I also have spent some time scrounging around for it and can't find it. If you can, great--but if you can't, you should admit it.

As how you know they'd come back, here's the whole thing I quoted earlier:

Massey says the number of people coming illegally has not risen appreciably in the last couple of decades. But the number staying has climbed, because anyone who leaves faces a harder task returning.

Had the government not cracked down at the border, he says, “the undocumented population would be half what it is now.” A fence intended to keep illegal immigrants out is serving beautifully to keep them in.

Let me repeat that last part:

Had the government not cracked down at the border, he says, “the undocumented population would be half what it is now.”

And:

A fence intended to keep illegal immigrants out is serving beautifully to keep them in.

Those who come here face a harder time returning--to Mexico!!!

That's what my source is saying.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 04 May 2010 08:27:27 -0000

EEllis--

Earlier in this thread you claimed that 30% of the Arizona prison population were undocumented aliens. But that's just not true.

Now, I'm NOT calling you a liar. I am definitely NOT calling you a liar.

But you did fall for a bogus statistic.

Does that bother you at all?

And I'm curious about this claim you made:

The illegals that come tend to stay longer because it's harder to get back and forth but they would come back anyway so at best it cuts down their visits home not keeps them in the US when they would otherwise leave permantly.

How do you know "they would come back anyway"?

It's my opinion that this whole thing is nothing but a cynical ploy to push a hot button and benefit politically.

It's working.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Mon, 03 May 2010 22:40:40 -0000

EEllis--

On Page 7 of that PDF, it says, "Maricopa County found 2,973 of reported violent crime to be committed by illegal immigrants".

2,973.

Of course, I don't mean to downplay any violence. But 2,973 criminals is surely a very small percentage of all the illegals in Maricopa County.

As Tidbits said, it is wiser to focus the limited resources of law enforcement on the destructive element.

And--again, I don't mean to downplay violence--that Radley Balko article I linked to earlier in this thread says that violent crime has actually declined significantly in Arizona--by 19% over past decade.

The Balko article also has an OHenry-style twist at the end:

Massey says the number of people coming illegally has not risen appreciably in the last couple of decades. But the number staying has climbed, because anyone who leaves faces a harder task returning.

Had the government not cracked down at the border, he says, “the undocumented population would be half what it is now.” A fence intended to keep illegal immigrants out is serving beautifully to keep them in.

Re: Obama: Whatever It Takes To Clean Oil Spill – Limbaugh: Why Bother?

GeorgeSorwell — Mon, 03 May 2010 13:56:15 -0000

Limbaugh, of course, has no responsibilities beyond stroking the prejudices of his target audience.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Mon, 03 May 2010 13:50:57 -0000

I'm interested in your source for that stat about 30% of the Arizona prison population being undocumented.

Thank you in advance.

Re: Sledgehammers And Nuances, Illegal Immigration Is Complicated

GeorgeSorwell — Mon, 03 May 2010 08:08:29 -0000

Here's some more nuanced commentary from Radley Balko. Here's a quote:

Immigrants—yes, even illegal ones—simply aren’t prone to crime. The process selects for people who want to make a better life for themselves and their families. Not generally the sort more likely to rape and murder. The bill will also likely make actual crime worse because it will make illegals much less likely to cooperate with police.

Re: Arizona Legislature Passes Ban On Ethnic Studies – Boycott Grows

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 02 May 2010 11:01:43 -0000

Tidbits--

I hate to muddy this thread with a discussion of hate crimes legislation.

But I don't see hate crimes as being unjust. I see them as a reasonable response to the ongoing social problem of committing violence against people simply because of their membership in some group. I see them as being fair, reasonable, responsible and, yes, just.

I remember having this discussion with you at TMV. And in fact I remember our discussion as being quite stimulating, and therefore quite pleasant. I have often found myself on the internet defending hate crimes legislation. Generally, I get called all sorts of names and whoever I'm arguing with leaves in a huff. The discussion I had with you, however, was rational. (It's a shame that all the comment threads vanished at TMV, or I'd provide a link to our discussion there.) As I recall, my arguments were not so easy for you to dismiss and the discussion ended with our respectful agreement to disagree--not with your triumphant exposure of me as a partisan hack.

As I'm sure you know, hate crimes legislation were upheld 17 years ago in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling written by William Rehnquist for a court that included Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Anyone else might interested in reading about the case of Wisconsin v Mitchell. (Sorry--I can't seem to properly format a link to the Wikipedia page.)

Now, of course you don't have to approve of that ruling.

Surely, though, you will concede that 17 years is long time.

And undoubtedly you will agree that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are no liberals.

It is, in fact, so easy to defend hate crimes legislation that even a conservative hero like William Rehnquist was able to do it--and able to make it stick.

Re: Arizona Moves To Amend New Immigration Law

GeorgeSorwell — Sun, 02 May 2010 10:17:09 -0000

EEllis--

I guess the comments are out of order. I didn't realize until now that you were replying to my comment that is actually below this one.

You're saying Arizonans already have to provide proof the citizenship if stopped by police for a traffic violation?

Also, you haven't answered the question of how to enforce the law without using ethnicity as the stepping off point.

Re: Arizona Moves To Amend New Immigration Law

GeorgeSorwell — Sat, 01 May 2010 08:02:08 -0000

I am not a lawyer. But it seems obvious to me that the only way to make this work is to enforce it across the board.

That means everyone, not just Mexican-looking people, will have to prove their citizenship at every traffic stop by any police officer.

I don't see any other way.

Re: Arizona Moves To Amend New Immigration Law

GeorgeSorwell — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:52:41 -0000

My guess is that this is won't be enforced in any systematic way.

It's all just a bit of Kabuki theater, designed to make it appear that Arizona politicians are a bunch of profiles in courage.

They're just pushing the hot button.

That's all.

Re: Petitions, Boycotts And Lawsuits – Arizona Gets What It Deserves

GeorgeSorwell — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:35:39 -0000

I completely agree with what Tidbits--who is an Arizonan--says in this post. However, I don't have any doubt that this legislation is popular in Arizona.

I'll be interested to see if there is any significant economic pain.