Well at least we agree the Government is spending too much.... Maybe if we didn't spend so much on people that shouldn't be here?
Trump Right, NBC and Macy's Wrong
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Begs the question. How to keep them out? It will cost (more) money.
Lol, that's funny coming from someone on the left....
It's just more leftist situational morality. When a Repub is in power and the border is porous, these cretins are aghast and rally around the unions position against illegal immigration.
According to a recent study released from the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 30,558 criminally-convicted illegal immigrants, with a total of 79,059 convictions altogether, in 2014.
Furthermore, the CIS report shows that among the 904,000 illegal immigrants who have ignored orders to leave the U.S., approximately 167,527 of these are convicted criminal immigrants.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/h...he-facts-about-illegal-immigrants-and-crimes/
Furthermore, the CIS report shows that among the 904,000 illegal immigrants who have ignored orders to leave the U.S., approximately 167,527 of these are convicted criminal immigrants.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/h...he-facts-about-illegal-immigrants-and-crimes/
"According to ICE records, the agency released 30,558 convicted criminal aliens in FY 2014. These individuals had been convicted of 79,059 crimes, including 175 homicides, 373 sexual assaults, 186 kidnappings, and 14,014 impaired driving offenses."
Leave it to a Heritage Foundation writer to leave out the details, which are here. Build that wall Mr. President, to reduce traffic offenses.
Leave it to a Heritage Foundation writer to leave out the details, which are here. Build that wall Mr. President, to reduce traffic offenses.
Tell it to the family of Kate Steinle. Or the family of Bob Barry Jr., a popular sportscaster from OKC who was killed in a traffic accident by an illegal immigrant driving unlicensed. (Who had been deported several times)
http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=29397646&catId=112032
Instead of doing something silly like securing our boarders lets do something that's actually constructive and effects the solution.... Let's blame a flag.
Funny because you have a wrong preconception. Both parties spend, but have different priorities. Hence, the question as to whether it is worth spending $29 billion per year to prevent both few serious illegal immigrant crimes and prevent the demonstrably lower rate of serious crime committed by illegal immigrants. Trump is wrong, he's appealing to emotion, xenophobia. I'll concede that dems also employ that fallacy, by appeal to compassion.
Securing our borders further costs too much in comparison to what it will save us, the ROI is negative (even taking into account the impossibility of valuating the horrors of rape and murder). Still, team right will argue that the cost of comprehensive and effective gun control is too high (it wouldn't prevent enough murders) to pay in terms of the risk (certainty?) of government tyranny, for one thing. Different priorities.
Trump should focus on his sure-fire plan to defeat ISIS. Who's going to argue with him over that?!
Edit: "tell it to the family of..."
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]
Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.[3][4][5]