Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Senate Democrat takes heat for grilling photo snafu in Father's Day post (thehill.com)
Senate Democrat takes heat for grilling photo snafu in Father's Day post (thehill.com)

I chuckle when pols do some "man of the people" photo and screw it up, badly.  

That is not unusual. For example, people tend to have pretty low regard for the education system, but tend to give pretty high marks to their own schools. People tend to like their neighborhoods and be against them changing, which is why zoning ordinances and HOAs have become popular. This is despite the fact that housing shortages are very real and drive up inflation. So, yes, I understand not wanting your neighborhood to change - it is a very common response that drives a lot of policy.

Which is definitely my main point - our immigration policy is based a lot on feelings and not a lot on data.

Hmm, I wonder why we have a housing shortage. 

You don't suppose it has anything to do with the millions of immigrants do you?

Back to crime:
Your study is, in any case, irrelevant. We are stuck with native crooks. We are NOT stuck with foreign crooks. The acceptable level of immigrant crime is NOT "same as natives", it is ZERO. We have NO NEED for additional criminals. Why are we willingly importing them?

It depends.

If I'm picking communities to relocate to, obviously the one with 1,000 and 10 murders per year.

If we are talking about my existing community of 100 and you are asking if I want to change it by importing 900 people including 5 murders, I'll pass.

You would prefer that crime increase?

This is evidence of a flawed thought process. This is the "well if it saves JUST ONE life!" we can justify anything. 

Let's put it another way.

Let's say America chose to allow 1,000,000 high-value foreigners to immigrate. We're talking PhD STEM grads. Proven entrepreneurs. Independently wealthy individuals. 

The catch is that one of them (we don't know which one obv) happens to be a violent criminal who has hidden it from everyone and will murder one American citizen. 

Does that one death make it bad pollcy? If you say no, and you say it's good policy, then "you would prefer that crime increase". 

The Latin immigrants here tend to congregate in certain areas for obvious reasons and many live in older apartment buildings packed 8 or so to a one bedroom.  

One of the MARTA lines running out that way used to called the Yellow Line, but they changed the name to Gold Line because a lot of Asian immigrants live along it.

There is some really good Asian and Mexican food out that way, but it's a drive for us.  This place has an odd name but is so popular they opened 3 more,  one nearer us.

Food Terminal

They claim to be Malaysian, but the menu looks mostly Chinese to me, which I guess makes sense.

This is evidence of a flawed thought process. This is the "well if it saves JUST ONE life!" we can justify anything.

Let's put it another way.

Let's say America chose to allow 1,000,000 high-value foreigners to immigrate. We're talking PhD STEM grads. Proven entrepreneurs. Independently wealthy individuals.

The catch is that one of them (we don't know which one obv) happens to be a violent criminal who has hidden it from everyone and will murder one American citizen.

Does that one death make it bad pollcy? If you say no, and you say it's good policy, then "you would prefer that crime increase".

It is not a flawed thought process because that isn't the rationale that I am employing.

IF we were taking solely the "high-value foreigners to immigrate. We're talking PhD STEM grads. Proven entrepreneurs. Indepently wealthy individuals."

If our actual policy looked anything even remotely like that, then I'd be fine accepting the logic that getting one bad apple along with 999,999 tax-paying, innovating, contributing citizens is obviously a good deal.

That would be a good deal even simply on a "net lives" basis because one of those 999,999 STEM grads would surely invent something that saved at least one life.

The biggest problem with our system is that generations of Presidents (from both parties) have steadfastly refused to uphold their oaths by actually securing the Southern Border.

I said MUCH earlier in this thread that the border should be secured EVEN IF we choose to allow more-or-less unlimited immigration because even if we aren't going to put any limits on quantity, we should still be identifying and screening those who are entering.

Your argument about trade-offs can't even be addressed currently because we have absolutely NO IDEA who or how many are arriving.

If that problem were resolved, THEN we could move on to discussing trade-offs and numbers.