Immigrant "sweep" nets over 2000 illegals

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I almost spit my diet sunkist out at that one..

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by carrie721

Ok -think we found anther song for the worst songs list!!

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Ok -think we found anther song for the worst songs list!!

haha! i know, so many elvis songs are soooo bad.

[DavidMn]

I wonder if Elvis' version of Return TO Sender was being played in the Patty Wagons as they rounded them up?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by carrie721

haha! i know, so many elvis songs are soooo bad.

is it bad that i actually LIKE that song..

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

is it bad that i actually LIKE that song..

not at all! there are many horrendous songs that i love.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

as for criminality, the article makes it very clear just how prevelant criminality is--just within the 2000 (!) that was rounded up

Yes, but the question is did they just happen to round up 2000 illegal immigrants and it turned out that a high percentage had criminal records. Or had they identified and were pursuing illegal immigrants with criminal records and/or in gangs and in the process arrested other illegal immigrants.

My sense is it is the latter, which is why the percentage is so high, making it seem like if you round up any group of 2000 illegal immigrants, you are going to find a sky high percentage of sex offenders, gang members, etc.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Yes, but the question is did they just happen to round up 2000 illegal immigrants and it turned out that a high percentage had criminal records. Or had they identified and were pursuing illegal immigrants with criminal records and/or in gangs and in the process arrested other illegal immigrants.

My sense is it is the latter, which is why the percentage is so high, making it seem like if you round up any group of 2000 illegal immigrants, you are going to find a sky high percentage of sex offenders, gang members, etc.

Yeah - I would tend to agree with that. I think this sweep was more of a propaganda tool aimed at showing Americans that illegal immigrants are also criminals...the articles are totally framed that way and I think it's sad.

[amber]

I agree, but also on the other side, poor and less educated populations do tend to be more crime ridden, and illegal immigrant populations tend to be more poor and less well educated.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Yes, but the question is did they just happen to round up 2000 illegal immigrants and it turned out that a high percentage had criminal records. Or had they identified and were pursuing illegal immigrants with criminal records and/or in gangs and in the process arrested other illegal immigrants.

My sense is it is the latter, which is why the percentage is so high, making it seem like if you round up any group of 2000 illegal immigrants, you are going to find a sky high percentage of sex offenders, gang members, etc.

I didnt get that impression at all. I think if the goal was to go after illegals with criminal records, you'd see higher numbers. this article had only about half of the deportees identified as criminals, which I think is probably consistent with a random sting operation...

remember, we are talking about law breakers in the first place so the fact that some of them also had criminal pasts doesnt surprise me.

[sparky]

2000 down, 10,998,000 to go.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sparky

2000 down, 10,998,000 to go.

I hate to say it - but I agree. And - if they came here without a visa - they are illegal no matter what the fukc group they are put with - that pisses people off, but it is the truth

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I hate to say it - but I agree. And - if they came here without a visa - they are illegal no matter what the fukc group they are put with - that pisses people off, but it is the truth

This issue is hard for me, it's really straining my super liberal membership. But i have found a way to reconcile.
There should be rules, but they absolutely should not be made by the people who are making them now.
Bad law is trying to be enacted. Good societies don't function on bad law.
Apparently we are operating on a "let 'em in, then arrest them!" plan.
I swear, there is a way to handle immigration that doesn't drive people to these extremes. My whole problem is that this is not an all or nothing argument, the way it has been here.
I don't love immigration. But I couldn't bring myself to enforce all the rules currently in place.
The whole system is f*cked up, which is neither the fault of the immigrants or the Americans.
Let me reiterate, I am only "against" immigration because of the siphoning of natural resources that America still has. But that goes for anyone who has too many kids. America is one of few countries who have environmental laws (weak though they are) and I absolutely do not want those to be eschewed because of demand. Especially since America's demand is the most of the whole world. We consume immense amounts of resources, and so when immigrants come they consume the same resources. Which are probably 5 fold at least what they would have consumed in their own country. We're like the capitalist needless consumer hellpit that will eventually render the whole earth unpopulable.

I don't approve of the damand that ignorant human populations make on world resources. And that doesn't necessarily mean immigrants.
Hello, people, it's called birth control, and if your faith says that is wrong, either way you should only have as many kids as you and your environment can support. Hey, you don't have food for your family. You think that's a hint?! The hint is, maybe keep it under two or three, and you could provide for your family.
Again, not just an opinion for immigrants, although from Mexico they tend to be more Catholic/anti birth control. But as far as I'm concerned, they could be anyone - if they're populating that fast, I'm still against it. Heck, mormons piss me off for the same reason!
It's called science, it's called human advancement, people - embrace it, it will make all our lives better, not to mention the health of the planet.

It's not a right to keep a child, it's work, and availability of resources.
Every other species on the planet is forced to live by this rule.
And since we have the means of birth control, with our big ol' brains, we should use it.
God, at this point animals are smarter than us. We have the tech, but remain in the dark, though the evidence is available. It's pretty sickening.

[Rickypt]

There have been some nice positive stories in SF Chronicle lately about the undocumented, providing some needed balance.

I never wrapped up the converation on the other thread. After my research, I admit that the cost of providing services to undocumented is higher than I thought. However, it (appears to be around $10 billion) is a rather small amount compared to our overall budget. I'm much more concerned about what we are spending on an immoral war.

I support amnesty for the current undocumented population. They are already here and I think it is next to impossible to think they can all be rounded up and sent home. Plus they have roots here and many with children who are in school and I support integrating them into our society. If they have a criminal record, then send them home.

At the same time, I support reform that strengthens efforts to slow future illegal immigration. Not dumb ideas like building a fence, but targeting businesses that hire/exploit immigrants, tougher enforcement of providing residency/citizenship when applying for things like public services, etc.

What disturbs me the most is that this has become such a defining issue for the 2006 election, proven by the outcome of the race to succeed Duke Cunningham. I believe the energy around illegal immigration this year started as a GOP ploy to take attention off the issues that should be key in this election. That doesn't mean I think people who oppose illegal immigration are part of that ploy, but there is definitely a reason it has reached such a crescendo this year.

It is just way low on my list of problems in this country and it will be a shame if the outcome of elections hinges on it, in my opinion. And that's pretty much all I have left to say on the issue. This is one where people have entrenched positions and there isn't much room for swaying.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I didnt get that impression at all. I think if the goal was to go after illegals with criminal records, you'd see higher numbers.

Well, it was indeed how I saw it. They were targeting known criminals. Just type "immigration sting" into Google news and read the articles. In San Diego, they rounded people suspected of being illegal immigrants as part of the sweep, but they weren't the main target.

So, obviously it worked to create the impression that if you take a group of 2000 illegal immigrants, that you're going to get a huge percentage of people who have created serious crimes like child molestation.

Here's a sample of what I found on Google.

http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/si...d=512588&rfi=6

The sting targeted individuals who had criminal records, including 146 with convictions for sexual offenses involving minors and 367 members of violent street gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13. About 640 of those arrested had been deported before and had returned to the country, according to a statement released by the agency.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the operation is part of a new get-tough strategy that is cracking down on the criminals who "perpetuate illegal immigration."

"The fugitives captured in this operation threatened public safety in hundreds of neighborhoods and communities around the country," he said. "This department has no tolerance for their criminal behavior and we are using every authority at our disposal to bring focus to fugitive operations and rid communities of this criminality."