(06-21-2018 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 06:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 05:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 03:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO - this is two times in a row you've either twisted or misunderstood my words with regards to #1. And it's annoying because I explained it already. The preface I applied in the first sentence applies to the second - if it didn't, why would I have prefaced the first use of the phrase "all immigrants?"

And I'm sorry you find my response to #2 disturbing. I find the fact that Trump suggested all illegal immigrants were "infesting" our country to be disturbing. It's a dehumanizing phrase that does not take the humanity of the vast majority of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border into consideration.

Okey-doke. In the future I will peruse all your previous writings to see if what you said is what you meant.

Kind f a ticky-tack point for somebody who is hanging his hat on an interpretation of the word "infestatation" to support a charge of racism.

and was it him or you that applied it to the illegal immigrants "crossing our southern border"? From the quote you gave us, "Trump saying that all immigrants coming to the US illegally are "infesting" America". So you limit it to the southern border and claim it is racist? Good one.

My unease with your attitude in #2 lies more in your use of claiming racism for statements that do not mention race because the preponderacy of the subject group is of one group or another. Most illegals coming across our southern border are Hispanic. So are most of the legals. Most of the illegals coming in from the Northwest are Asian. So are most of the legals.

If I were to complain that the Indian casinos charge for things that other casinos provide free, is that racist? It's true, but that is beside the point. Or would it be better to say that hey have racist policies since most of the people they charge are white?

I think it dangerous to assume that actions and policies that cover everybody are racist because the impacted persons are slewed more to one group or another. Are speed limits in far south Texas racist, because they impact Hispanics more than speed laws in Wyoming?

Or, I don't know, maybe just ask if that's what I meant? If there seem to be two competing ideas in two different sentences, maybe it's better to ask for clarification than assume and attack? Sure, I could have been clearer as Tanq suggested, but since both of my sentences referenced the same tweet, and that tweet by Trump was clearly talking about all illegal immigrants, I figured it was obvious that I was talking about illegal immigrants. But hey, I guess I shouldn't have assumed.

But see, this is a prime example of what is making the Quad almost unbearable lately. We have stopped debating topics and policy for the most part and what people are saying or trying to say, and instead we're falling into some awful habits. We regularly talk past each other and don't address what others say, we often attack what we think that others are saying if there is some confusion, we're often projecting what we think one's stance would be onto them and then asking that person to defend that stance, we nitpick a single detail of an argument, as opposed to the crux of it, and so on. And mind you, I'm not saying I'm not guilty of any of these - I'm sure I am.

Just look at this situation here. First, you've tried twice to get me to explain the thoughts and opinions of not only a monolithic group (the left and Democrats), but of a specific person.

Then, instead of confirming a confusing statement you went on the attack about a position you thought I was making, and for some reason tied it to a position I've never taken (not using the word "illegal immigrant").

Then, you asked me a question about a position I hadn't taken, about why that tweet was being viewed as racist - not why I viewed it as being racist. But yet, when I provided a response to why that tweet could be considered racist, you attacked me as if that was my own opinion. I never said I thought it was racist.

Heck, I never said the tweet from Trump was explicitly racist - I answered your original question about what topic might be warranting the "racist" label. I was providing you an analysis of the situation, which you then turned personal by asking me personal questions about the situation. My opinion on the tweet, which you had not asked for, is that it is another example of Trumps overly nationalistic stance, that looks down upon outsiders and others. The word "infesting" has a serious dehumanizing component to it. And I did extrapolate

Then, instead of attacking the crux of my argument, which was that using the word "infesting" is dehumanizing, you take umbrage with my characterization of what specific illegal immigrants Trump is talking about. My opinion that he is being nationalistic and awful for using "infesting" to describe illegal immigrants does not change with their port of entry.

And finally, to this immediate thread, I do not see why you're trying to argue that Trump's tweet wasn't focused on illegal immigration on the southern border. As I said above, it doesn't really matter when you look at the crux of my argument, but even stranger, it doesn't make sense. Trump's tweet was clearly about illegal immigration on our southern border. He mentions MS-13 (which is a Central American gang), and it was tweeted at a time when we're dealing with an immediate crisis at the southern border. Are you seriously trying to argue that his tweet was not talking about the illegal immigration on our southern border? What context clues lead to you think he's also talking about, say, Europeans over staying their visas?

Well, in the interest of brevity, I will say these few things:

1. I asked if you would explain JAAO's accusation of racism, since he is not doing so. It appeared you accepted the challenge. Sorry. I thought we were debating civilly.

2. I still want to know what racist statements he was referring to when he said " the hateful and racist language being used to justify it".

3. I guess I am just tired of illegal border jumpers being called immigrants. Perhaps it makes me sensitive to the lack of differentiation between legal and illegal that I see so often from the MSM and the Democrats. I have no problem with Juan or Vladimir coming to the US legally, and jumping through the proper hoops. I have a big problem with Jose and Wolfgang sneaking in illegally and being treated as if they were the same as Juan and Vladimir. Either we have open borders or we have immigration controls. Neither situation is racist.

To #1 - I was answering why some felt it was racist. As you said, you asked me to explain what JAAO was likely talking about, so I used my knowledge of current events to fill in that gap. You then applied that analysis to me personally, without actually asking what my stance was. Do you get why I'm frustrated with how that evolved? How you went from asking me to explain what someone else was referring to, to then attacking the position and saying it was mine?

To #2 - I'm not going down that aisle, lest you misconstrue what my responses are again.

#1 _ yep I assumed you thought that was what he was talking about, and it seemed that you were in agreement. But if you say you are in disagreement, then you are disagreement. Wait, is that what you said?

#2 - There are no racist statements, just the MSM bloviating about imaginary racism.

#3 - are you opposed to saying simply and clearly what you think immigration law and policy should be? I cannot find anybody left of center-right who will tell me what they are for. All they want to do is say they are against this, that, and the other, if Trump is for it.I think the left has no position but to be anti-Trump. IN RETURN, i WILL TELL YOU WHAT i THINK SHOULD BE DONE.

(06-21-2018 10:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  #3 - are you opposed to saying simply and clearly what you think immigration law and policy should be? I cannot find anybody left of center-right who will tell me what they are for. All they want to do is say they are against this, that, and the other, if Trump is for it.I think the left has no position but to be anti-Trump. IN RETURN, i WILL TELL YOU WHAT i THINK SHOULD BE DONE.

With respect to how to handle illegal immigrants once they are caught see my post: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15353633

What about you? What is your position on immigration law and policy? I really don't know besides being mad that Dems (and many on the right, mind you) have been outraged over the Trump administrations decision to establish a zero tolerance policy for those who are caught crossing illegally.

edit: oh heck, I'll throw you a bone and give you some more thoughts on the topic. Illegal immigration isn't good - I don't think we should have completely open borders, as you suggest that Dems do. But just because Dems and others are opposing immigration proposals by Trump, which primarily focus on wasting money on a wall or result in the unnecessary separation of families, doesn't mean they, or others who oppose those two policies, want open borders - that's a broad leap to make that opposition to bad policies = proponents of equally bad policy.

I think we need to do a few things to help fix our immigration problem. We need to focus on the causes of people being willing to illegally enter the US, and I think there are two areas we could focus on. One is the gang/drug cartel violence that encourages people to leave their country. By legalizing pot, we would be able to reduce the revenues of many cartels, stressing their resources. The other is developing a region that is vibrant and stable. We need to continue to also support investment in these Central American companies, and offer financial and policy support to them as well. Trump has proposed to cut back on the financial support, and our reduction in State Department roles has greatly diminished our ability to continue to work in the region. Luckily, Trump is still fully encouraging private investments in the region.

And as we continue to try and help treat the causes of illegal immigration, we can handle illegal immigrants in one of the many manners the CATO institute highlighted - those all seem far more humane, and often, cost effective.

(06-22-2018 12:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 10:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  #3 - are you opposed to saying simply and clearly what you think immigration law and policy should be? I cannot find anybody left of center-right who will tell me what they are for. All they want to do is say they are against this, that, and the other, if Trump is for it.I think the left has no position but to be anti-Trump. IN RETURN, i WILL TELL YOU WHAT i THINK SHOULD BE DONE.

With respect to how to handle illegal immigrants once they are caught see my post: https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15...id15353633

What about you? What is your position on immigration law and policy? I really don't know besides being mad that Dems (and many on the right, mind you) have been outraged over the Trump administrations decision to establish a zero tolerance policy for those who are caught crossing illegally.

Who said I was mad that Dems have been (yada yada yada)? I am not mad at all. I am disgusted that much has been twisted and untruths published in an effort to influence the elections. But I stated my opinion already. Go back and find it if you care. But mad? Not so. bad assumption.

I was more interested in a comprehensive immigration policy than just how to handle illegals who are caught. I would like to know what legislation the Dems ought to introduce and push regarding current illegal residents, DACA kids, procedures for illegals, and future policies. I see no effort on the part of Dems to cooperate in creating any sort of change, just a constant wailing about Trump, which seems to be JAAO's problem also. They just want a good campaign issue and could care less about the illegals. If they cared, they would work across the aisle. Instead, they show why they call themselves The Resistance.

I would allow a short, one-time, amnesty period where the illegals currently living here could go in and start the process to become legal, whether registering as a resident alien, starting the process to be naturalized, or whatever other process is needed. This would include the filing and payment of tax returns. Just like the rest of us. Once the amnesty period is over, then go to near to zero tolerance. They had their chance, if they don't take it, its on them. Allow a judge to determine is they have a good excuse.

In lieu of a wall, I would step up patrol and enforcement using the money earmarked for a wall. In certain limited stretches of the border, a wall would be a deterrent, but only with adequate patrol. I would enhance the technology available to the Patrol. This would also enhance the economy along the border.

If an illegal is caught, whether it is 5 minutes or 5 years later, deport. If his family came with him or joined him/her, deport them as a family. Once again, allow a judge to determine if there are mitigating circumstances.

Unaccompanied children to be vetted by humanitarian personnel before being allowed to stay. Some MS-13 members are 13-17 years old.

What else do you want to know? I used to not care about illegals. I considered them a part of the national economy. But that was long ago, before I knew what I know now. On an individual and personal basis, I find them to be much like the rest of us, and I have had extensive personal experience with them. Some are good, some bad. Some moral, some not. some honest, some not. Some dangerous, some not. Less education than us generally, but often (not always) a willingness to work hard at hard work.

It seems odd to me that Dems are putting so much stock into Manafort's failure to file a piece of paper a decade ago, but the failure of these people to file anything is given a pass. Not just a pass, but an actual reward. That little bit of hypocrisy does make me a little bit mad.

Now, your comprehensive plan.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/border...li=BBnb7Kz

Just seeing this and won't say much on here.... but I DO want to say a few things.... which probably apply to vastly more comments, perhaps even more than these. These just stuck out to me in a quick review....

First, I agree that zero tolerance policies are bad. The ONLY thing they're good for is to expose the problems in laws so that they can be fixed. Giving discretion SOUNDS like a good thing in that it allows good people to let other good people go free in violation of the letter of the law, but it ALSO allows bad people to charge good people under a bad law.

The solution is to fix the law, not selective enforcement... otherwise it's not really a law, is it?

(06-21-2018 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Possibly referring to this tweet:

Quote:Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

Trump saying that all immigrants coming to the US illegally are "infesting" America has raised some hackles from what I've seen. I appreciate that Trump, for once, didn't hide that when he was denigrating all immigrants, and not providing an out for his water carriers.

This is a poor and self-serving interpretation of what he said. That's like saying that the purpose of the USDA is to stop milk, no matter how bad it is from being sold is saying that all milk is bad.

First, he said illegal immigrants... and then you separate the two words in great part to diminish them... in your mind, they're just like any other immigrant... which I've heard many legal immigrants be offended over... not in any way saying it was intentional... just saying that the knife can cut two ways if we choose to see things that way

Second, while I disagree (based on the milk statement) that he meant that all illegal immigrants are bad, they ARE breaking the law... and by definition, that is at least debatably bad on SOME level. Whether its a 0.1 on a 100 scale or a 99.9 is a matter of personal opinion, but it's certainly not a VIRTUE for someone that they are crossing illegally into a country? If that's the only 'bad' they've done, then fine...

The best you have is that he could have chosen his words more carefully. I'm sure Obama would have... I don't think he ever said much that wasn't scripted... he was (at least early in his presidency) rather famous for using teleprompters well but struggling off the cuff. Trump is vastly less polished and careful. People offended 'hearing' what you're hearing are either looking for support for an idea that they already hold... or they have a huge interest in something that 'the speaker' is vastly less interested in and parsing words to try and uncover 'hidden meaning'.

(06-21-2018 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 04:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Haven't posted much here lately, and honestly, I think I'm done. After the horrific things being done in our name at the border and the hateful and racist language being used to justify it, I have lost interest in debating anyone who still supports this monster.

Was it because I used the words "witch hunt"?

Maybe I can get an answer here. What do you think our immigration policies should be?

If you can, answer in in the positive mode - it should be this and this and this.

Also, I don't know of any hateful and/or racist things being said. Could you give some examples and/or links?

Ted Cruz has actually put forth legislation that would address the issues the Trump admin created by implementing a zero tolerance policy for all first time immigration offenders.

I think one aspect isn’t realistic given that I doubt even the increase in judges he proposes would deal with the backlog of cases AND all new cases.

One of the main problems is the Flores consent agreement. All kids have to released from custody after 20 days; albeit they still have to show.

What has been set up is a zero tolerance that guarantees a huge influx in children being held -- nothwithstanding the huge increases both in accompanied children coming forth, not just 'being caught'. Further, the application for asylum is now pretty much de rigueur amongst many groups.

Logic dictates five options:

a) release all accompanied children and their parents (hoping they will show for proceedings, for what I can gather about a less than 40 per cent proposition;
b) massively increase the numbers of 'family incarceration centers' (and to hell with the Flores consent decree and/or relitigate with respect to accompanied minors);
c) pursue a 'stick our head in the sand' policy (ala Obama) for illegal immigration (move away from a zero tolerance to a 'just catch and deport the bad apples) -- i.e. catch and release for the most part);
d) massively curtail the use of asylum for certain groups;
e) massively increase the support to judges and infrastructure to deal with the crush.

Correct on the causes. The Trump admin chose a nuclear option when they went Ton 0 tolerance and then lied their asses off about it.

From what I’ve read, option A, when done with a case worker of check in procedure works about 99% of the time. There was a program operated until 2015 or 2017 that used a case worker to track and assist immigrants through immigration court and had a >99% success rate in making sure the immigrants showed up at court and did not disappear.

so if it happened in 2015, is this Obama's fault?

I'm not actually saying that. It was a joke (much like A FEW of the current accusations) The president can't possibly know everything, especially the unintended repercussions of things that might have looked good on paper and/or were part of a 20,000 page bill


Here is my question though if I'm understanding...

Are we saying that 99% of people showing up to illegally cross our borders that are being caught, registered and released 'follow up' with appointments that a pending investigation could mean deportation?? I'm not believing that. What am I missing?

(06-22-2018 12:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just seeing this and won't say much on here.... but I DO want to say a few things.... which probably apply to vastly more comments, perhaps even more than these. These just stuck out to me in a quick review....

First, I agree that zero tolerance policies are bad. The ONLY thing they're good for is to expose the problems in laws so that they can be fixed. Giving discretion SOUNDS like a good thing in that it allows good people to let other good people go free in violation of the letter of the law, but it ALSO allows bad people to charge good people under a bad law.

The solution is to fix the law, not selective enforcement... otherwise it's not really a law, is it?

(06-21-2018 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Possibly referring to this tweet:

Quote:Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

Trump saying that all immigrants coming to the US illegally are "infesting" America has raised some hackles from what I've seen. I appreciate that Trump, for once, didn't hide that when he was denigrating all immigrants, and not providing an out for his water carriers.

This is a poor and self-serving interpretation of what he said. That's like saying that the purpose of the USDA is to stop milk, no matter how bad it is from being sold is saying that all milk is bad.

First, he said illegal immigrants... and then you separate the two words in great part to diminish them... in your mind, they're just like any other immigrant... which I've heard many legal immigrants be offended over... not in any way saying it was intentional... just saying that the knife can cut two ways if we choose to see things that way

Second, while I disagree (based on the milk statement) that he meant that all illegal immigrants are bad, they ARE breaking the law... and by definition, that is at least debatably bad on SOME level. Whether its a 0.1 on a 100 scale or a 99.9 is a matter of personal opinion, but it's certainly not a VIRTUE for someone that they are crossing illegally into a country? If that's the only 'bad' they've done, then fine...

The best you have is that he could have chosen his words more carefully. I'm sure Obama would have... I don't think he ever said much that wasn't scripted... he was (at least early in his presidency) rather famous for using teleprompters well but struggling off the cuff. Trump is vastly less polished and careful. People offended 'hearing' what you're hearing are either looking for support for an idea that they already hold... or they have a huge interest in something that 'the speaker' is vastly less interested in and parsing words to try and uncover 'hidden meaning'.

(06-21-2018 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 08:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Was it because I used the words "witch hunt"?

Maybe I can get an answer here. What do you think our immigration policies should be?

If you can, answer in in the positive mode - it should be this and this and this.

Also, I don't know of any hateful and/or racist things being said. Could you give some examples and/or links?

Ted Cruz has actually put forth legislation that would address the issues the Trump admin created by implementing a zero tolerance policy for all first time immigration offenders.

I think one aspect isn’t realistic given that I doubt even the increase in judges he proposes would deal with the backlog of cases AND all new cases.

One of the main problems is the Flores consent agreement. All kids have to released from custody after 20 days; albeit they still have to show.

What has been set up is a zero tolerance that guarantees a huge influx in children being held -- nothwithstanding the huge increases both in accompanied children coming forth, not just 'being caught'. Further, the application for asylum is now pretty much de rigueur amongst many groups.

Logic dictates five options:

a) release all accompanied children and their parents (hoping they will show for proceedings, for what I can gather about a less than 40 per cent proposition;
b) massively increase the numbers of 'family incarceration centers' (and to hell with the Flores consent decree and/or relitigate with respect to accompanied minors);
c) pursue a 'stick our head in the sand' policy (ala Obama) for illegal immigration (move away from a zero tolerance to a 'just catch and deport the bad apples) -- i.e. catch and release for the most part);
d) massively curtail the use of asylum for certain groups;
e) massively increase the support to judges and infrastructure to deal with the crush.

Correct on the causes. The Trump admin chose a nuclear option when they went Ton 0 tolerance and then lied their asses off about it.

From what I’ve read, option A, when done with a case worker of check in procedure works about 99% of the time. There was a program operated until 2015 or 2017 that used a case worker to track and assist immigrants through immigration court and had a >99% success rate in making sure the immigrants showed up at court and did not disappear.

so if it happened in 2015, is this Obama's fault?

I'm not actually saying that. It was a joke (much like A FEW of the current accusations) The president can't possibly know everything, especially the unintended repercussions of things that might have looked good on paper and/or were part of a 20,000 page bill


Here is my question though if I'm understanding...

Are we saying that 99% of people showing up to illegally cross our borders that are being caught, registered and released 'follow up' with appointments that a pending investigation could mean deportation?? I'm not believing that. What am I missing?

I think what you're missing is a data source...

Because yes, that is what we're saying. Read the CATO article I posted. It goes into detail on the many programs that have been used over the years to manage illegal immigrants who are apprehended at the border but not jailed.

Two key programs.

One is the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program that started in 2004. It basically uses mainly electronic, but some in-person methods to monitor illegal immigrants who are in deportation proceedings. In 2012 (which is the last year with reliable data - CATO does not explain why): "4.9 percent absconded and 4 percent were arrested by other law enforcement agencies. The other 91.1 percent complied with their court orders and either left the country or earned some sort of legal status. Appearance rates at immigration courts were 99.6 percent."

The other is the Family Case Management Program, which used (shut down in 2017) case workers to keep track of illegal immigrants and help them navigate the court systems. "About 99 percent of all migrants in the program made it to their ICE-ERO check-ins, 100 percent made it to their court appearances, and only 2 percent absconded into the black market after receiving removal orders." It's fairly intensive, and as CATO notes, scaling up could be difficult or impossible.

I think we often too much rely on our own opinions to evaluate any problem, and while our own common sense may not be able to reconcile the fact that people immigrating illegally don't want to leave, it turns out, with proper monitoring and assistance, most will follow the proper procedures and go through the court system, event if there is a chance of deportation, and that's because they may also be granted asylum or temporary status.

And to the Trump language comment, we've already gone through this, I was not trying to separate illegal and immigrant - go back a few posts about that and my mistake in thinking y'all would still understand I was talking about illegal immigrants. Careless language use there.

The other thing is that the words the POTUS speaks have power, which is why Obama was so careful. Trump's used of the word "infest" to describe ALL illegal immigrants is dehumanizing. You're right that illegal immigrants are committing a misdemeanor on their first offense, and that is bad. But it is not so bad as to say those who are committing that crime are "infesting" the country, as if they are a plague or a bunch of rodents. Words have power, and sorry if y'all can't handle the criticism of the POTUS for poorly choosing how he speaks. I mean, do you really want to defend someone who states that illegal immigrants (a term that includes thousands of non-violent asylum seekers) are trying "to live in or overrun to an unwanted degree or in a troublesome manner, especially as predatory animals or vermin do?" I won't really defend others' stance that the statement is racist - but I'll defend that fact that it's a bad take. A very, very, very bad take.

I have no problem with castigating Trump as a piss-poor speaker / communicator.

But, I would say that the first portion of your definition absolutely fits the issue of illegal immigants to a great extent.

Quote:"to live in or overrun to an unwanted degree "

Note the conjunctives used in all portions of the sentence is an 'or', not an 'and'. This includes the connection to the portion I omitted.

I do think that the estimation of 3-5 million illegals a year is an absolutely clear indication that there is an absolutely massive tidal surge "to live in" by the sheer estimated numbers of illegal immigrants on an annualized basis. At its top end that represents 2 percent annualized growth --- kind of a big, eye-popping number for annual population trends.

And yes, I am being a nit-picky ******* I guess. But note, I am using precisely the proffered definition put forth. And, I would definitely say that the situation does fit that proffered definition. So in that way, the statement is fairly accurate.... I dont think anyone could argue the opposite that the issue *doesnt* fit that portion.

If one automatically takes the 'illegals are like rats' approach to the use of the term, I can see the issue. But again, one needs to somehow automatically assume that is the context intended.

But, I guess the 'proper' definition really kind of lies whether you hate the guy in an inherent sense to begin with or not.

I dont like the guy, did not vote for him, and if offered a reasonable alternative would vote for that Democratic alternative. But when half the proffered definition fits and the other proffered definition fails, yeah, he should be more careful. Donald isnt that careful, without a doubt.

But I find it awfully shrill to say that the word use, in which one of the definitions in no doubt fits, is 'racist' and is 'unfit' is almost as bad demagoguery as what is being alleged by the people screeching the loudest.

(06-22-2018 01:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 12:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just seeing this and won't say much on here.... but I DO want to say a few things.... which probably apply to vastly more comments, perhaps even more than these. These just stuck out to me in a quick review....

First, I agree that zero tolerance policies are bad. The ONLY thing they're good for is to expose the problems in laws so that they can be fixed. Giving discretion SOUNDS like a good thing in that it allows good people to let other good people go free in violation of the letter of the law, but it ALSO allows bad people to charge good people under a bad law.

The solution is to fix the law, not selective enforcement... otherwise it's not really a law, is it?

(06-21-2018 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Possibly referring to this tweet:

Quote:Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

Trump saying that all immigrants coming to the US illegally are "infesting" America has raised some hackles from what I've seen. I appreciate that Trump, for once, didn't hide that when he was denigrating all immigrants, and not providing an out for his water carriers.

This is a poor and self-serving interpretation of what he said. That's like saying that the purpose of the USDA is to stop milk, no matter how bad it is from being sold is saying that all milk is bad.

First, he said illegal immigrants... and then you separate the two words in great part to diminish them... in your mind, they're just like any other immigrant... which I've heard many legal immigrants be offended over... not in any way saying it was intentional... just saying that the knife can cut two ways if we choose to see things that way

Second, while I disagree (based on the milk statement) that he meant that all illegal immigrants are bad, they ARE breaking the law... and by definition, that is at least debatably bad on SOME level. Whether its a 0.1 on a 100 scale or a 99.9 is a matter of personal opinion, but it's certainly not a VIRTUE for someone that they are crossing illegally into a country? If that's the only 'bad' they've done, then fine...

The best you have is that he could have chosen his words more carefully. I'm sure Obama would have... I don't think he ever said much that wasn't scripted... he was (at least early in his presidency) rather famous for using teleprompters well but struggling off the cuff. Trump is vastly less polished and careful. People offended 'hearing' what you're hearing are either looking for support for an idea that they already hold... or they have a huge interest in something that 'the speaker' is vastly less interested in and parsing words to try and uncover 'hidden meaning'.

(06-21-2018 10:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-21-2018 08:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 09:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ted Cruz has actually put forth legislation that would address the issues the Trump admin created by implementing a zero tolerance policy for all first time immigration offenders.

I think one aspect isn’t realistic given that I doubt even the increase in judges he proposes would deal with the backlog of cases AND all new cases.

One of the main problems is the Flores consent agreement. All kids have to released from custody after 20 days; albeit they still have to show.

What has been set up is a zero tolerance that guarantees a huge influx in children being held -- nothwithstanding the huge increases both in accompanied children coming forth, not just 'being caught'. Further, the application for asylum is now pretty much de rigueur amongst many groups.

Logic dictates five options:

a) release all accompanied children and their parents (hoping they will show for proceedings, for what I can gather about a less than 40 per cent proposition;
b) massively increase the numbers of 'family incarceration centers' (and to hell with the Flores consent decree and/or relitigate with respect to accompanied minors);
c) pursue a 'stick our head in the sand' policy (ala Obama) for illegal immigration (move away from a zero tolerance to a 'just catch and deport the bad apples) -- i.e. catch and release for the most part);
d) massively curtail the use of asylum for certain groups;
e) massively increase the support to judges and infrastructure to deal with the crush.

Correct on the causes. The Trump admin chose a nuclear option when they went Ton 0 tolerance and then lied their asses off about it.

From what I’ve read, option A, when done with a case worker of check in procedure works about 99% of the time. There was a program operated until 2015 or 2017 that used a case worker to track and assist immigrants through immigration court and had a >99% success rate in making sure the immigrants showed up at court and did not disappear.

so if it happened in 2015, is this Obama's fault?

I'm not actually saying that. It was a joke (much like A FEW of the current accusations) The president can't possibly know everything, especially the unintended repercussions of things that might have looked good on paper and/or were part of a 20,000 page bill


Here is my question though if I'm understanding...

Are we saying that 99% of people showing up to illegally cross our borders that are being caught, registered and released 'follow up' with appointments that a pending investigation could mean deportation?? I'm not believing that. What am I missing?

I think what you're missing is a data source...

Because yes, that is what we're saying. Read the CATO article I posted. It goes into detail on the many programs that have been used over the years to manage illegal immigrants who are apprehended at the border but not jailed.

Two key programs.

One is the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program that started in 2004. It basically uses mainly electronic, but some in-person methods to monitor illegal immigrants who are in deportation proceedings. In 2012 (which is the last year with reliable data - CATO does not explain why): "4.9 percent absconded and 4 percent were arrested by other law enforcement agencies. The other 91.1 percent complied with their court orders and either left the country or earned some sort of legal status. Appearance rates at immigration courts were 99.6 percent."

The other is the Family Case Management Program, which used (shut down in 2017) case workers to keep track of illegal immigrants and help them navigate the court systems. "About 99 percent of all migrants in the program made it to their ICE-ERO check-ins, 100 percent made it to their court appearances, and only 2 percent absconded into the black market after receiving removal orders." It's fairly intensive, and as CATO notes, scaling up could be difficult or impossible.

I think we often too much rely on our own opinions to evaluate any problem, and while our own common sense may not be able to reconcile the fact that people immigrating illegally don't want to leave, it turns out, with proper monitoring and assistance, most will follow the proper procedures and go through the court system, event if there is a chance of deportation, and that's because they may also be granted asylum or temporary status.

And to the Trump language comment, we've already gone through this, I was not trying to separate illegal and immigrant - go back a few posts about that and my mistake in thinking y'all would still understand I was talking about illegal immigrants. Careless language use there.

The other thing is that the words the POTUS speaks have power, which is why Obama was so careful. Trump's used of the word "infest" to describe ALL illegal immigrants is dehumanizing. You're right that illegal immigrants are committing a misdemeanor on their first offense, and that is bad. But it is not so bad as to say those who are committing that crime are "infesting" the country, as if they are a plague or a bunch of rodents. Words have power, and sorry if y'all can't handle the criticism of the POTUS for poorly choosing how he speaks. I mean, do you really want to defend someone who states that illegal immigrants (a term that includes thousands of non-violent asylum seekers) are trying "to live in or overrun to an unwanted degree or in a troublesome manner, especially as predatory animals or vermin do?" I won't really defend others' stance that the statement is racist - but I'll defend that fact that it's a bad take. A very, very, very bad take.

And Lad, to one not leaning naturally progressive, Obama's speech was in no way, shape, or form 'careful' (in the way of 'I am not trying to incite people'.) Nor were many of his overt actions.

I suggest you ask Bibi Netanyahu how he liked his cold roast beef sandwich while waiting for a speaking time with O on a visit to the White House.

Or, perhaps Zimmerman family is another good example of Obama not at all being 'careful' with his speech.

I will say that Trump and Obama are interesting contrasts. One is a blumbering fool of a speaker who says and does dickish things, and another specifically, intentionally, and articulately says and does dickish things.

(06-22-2018 01:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to the Trump language comment, we've already gone through this, I was not trying to separate illegal and immigrant - go back a few posts about that and my mistake in thinking y'all would still understand I was talking about illegal immigrants. Careless language use there.

I guess Trump's mistake was in thinking all his words would be noted, instead of those people who insist he said all mexicans are rapists and criminal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact...aeec77002f

Quote: But it is not so bad as to say those who are committing that crime are "infesting" the country,

What word would be more accurate?

Quote: "infesting"

What word would be more accurate?

Really, we have said he needs to choose his words better. What word would be better? What word(s) did Obama/Clinton/the other Clinton use?

Lad brought this up, and he has made some good points. When I think of an infestation, I think of termites or lice. Parasites. Of course not all illegals are parasites or want to be, but some are and some do. That little girl in the photo will be going to school in a few years. Will her mother be contributing her fair share to the tax base? Will they be on food stamps, or in Section 8 housing?

The left likes to give the impression nearly all the illegals are noble unfortunates, honest as the day is long, strong morals, who just want a better life for their family. I am sure some are, maybe even most, but it is no more or less a fabrication than that they are parasites. But sometimes, a better life for them is actually a life on government assistance.

The problem with the illegals is that they are the most uneducated and unskilled portion of the population. No rocket scientists wading the river. I estimate the median level of education is third grade. I would prefer to see accomplished people wading in, but that's just not the case.

In any case, what word(s) should Trump have used to describe this problem? Occupying?

Lad, I'll read the report.

We don't get 100% compliance with people in prison or on parole. I find it unbelievable that every single person who was arrested for crossing illegally over an 8 year period was 100% accounted for at all times.
Yes, I don't know... but I also know when something doesn't smell right.

The argument that Presidential words have power is weak. He's responsible for what he says... not what you hear. You inferred things he didn't say. If he said what you heard him say, there would be a large number of ACTIONS behind those words.

When Obama said 57 states, it didn't change anything... because that isn't what he meant. Presidential mis-statements, hyperbole and poorly phrased words only RARELY have consequences.

I find it funny that you chastise me for my preconceptions, and then engage in them yourself. Your position on 'immigrants' has been said by the left for 2 years now.... with nothing but using 'what you heard' as evidence that he is anti-immigrant.

(06-22-2018 06:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lad, I'll read the report.

We don't get 100% compliance with people in prison or on parole. I find it unbelievable that every single person who was arrested for crossing illegally over an 8 year period was 100% accounted for at all times.
Yes, I don't know... but I also know when something doesn't smell right.

The argument that Presidential words have power is weak. He's responsible for what he says... not what you hear. You inferred things he didn't say. If he said what you heard him say, there would be a large number of ACTIONS behind those words.

When Obama said 57 states, it didn't change anything... because that isn't what he meant. Presidential mis-statements, hyperbole and poorly phrased words only RARELY have consequences.

I find it funny that you chastise me for my preconceptions, and then engage in them yourself. Your position on 'immigrants' has been said by the left for 2 years now.... with nothing but using 'what you heard' as evidence that he is anti-immigrant.

Each statistics is presented for the specific program that the illegal immigrants entered - not for all that crossed the border.

And there was an action behind trump’s words - he directed his DOJ to put a zero tolerance policy in place that required jailing all first time offenders. Are you saying Trump had a brain fart like Obama when he used the term infested? It seems more in line with a Freudian slip based on his previous statements and actions that seemingly never paint any illegal immigrants in a good lights. If this was the first time Trump had said something that could have been misconstrued as being denigrating to illegal immigrants or people Fromm poor countries, I could see your point, but if you need me to list all of the other, similar comments, I can.

And I wasn’t chastising you for your preconceptions - I wasn’t pointing out an issue we all deal with. Please re-read my post, I used the term “we” for a reason. I was very intentionally trying to not chastise you because of how much sense your comment made if you hadn’t seen the information I had.

And also about your last point - are you suggesting that only actions can be used to judge a person’s character? That’s what it sounds like to me.

He is not anti-immigrant. He is anti-illegal immigrant. I guess those who oppose him must be pro-illegal immigrant.

Why do we call these people immigrants anyway? Isn't that like calling a burglar a boarder? Just because he got into your house doesn't mean he has the right to live there.

(06-22-2018 07:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He is not anti-immigrant. He is anti-illegal immigrant. I guess those who oppose him must be pro-illegal immigrant.

Why do we call these people immigrants anyway? Isn't that like calling a burglar a boarder? Just because he got into your house doesn't mean he has the right to live there.

It isn’t clear with Trump really. Remember his comment about not wanting immigrants from s***hole countries?

And that leap of logic is the same as suggesting that those who opposed his zero tolerance policy must want open borders, or that those who opposed the ACA must have wanted poor people to die. Bad tas across the board.

And I think we call “these people” immigrants because they are attempting to immigrate. They do so illegally, which is why they’re labeled as illegal immigrants. Same way we call a squatter a squatter instead of a burglar.

I don’t know this, but any idea what percent of illegal immigrants come seeking asylum and how many end up being guilty of committing crimes Post-crossing? I’ve always heard that they are less apt to commit crimes than the general population and provide more revenue to the federal governments than they receive.

I know that the process for becoming a legal US resident, and the process for becoming a citizen is exacting.

A very good friend of mine, when I met him, was Australian and had green-carded via the lottery here. And he applied for citizenship. He very nearly was deported during the process --- for the terrible crime of driving his sports car +30 (at 3 in the morning on an otherwise empty road).

When you have that magic green card or path to citizenship, I will grant you that they are law-abiding to the teeth --- they have something very valuable to lose if they f-up in the absolute slightest.

Being raised in El Paso, my experience is that crime is far more prevalent in the illegal groups than from those that I knew in the 'green card' program.

And the rate of bona fide asylum-seekers (essentially treated as green card residents for purposes of subject to deportation) I would hazard is no more than 5 per cent.

The question isnt necessarily 'what is the recidivism' for asylum-seekers. Having a 'crime rate of .2 per cent' across maybe 5 per cent of a population is more likely subsumed in the entirety of the crime rate probably a factor of ten or more across the other 95 per cent.

And also, the asylum issue clouds the 'real rate'. It is interesting to see influxes of populations coming from 'asylum-easy' countries as opposed to other countries. And, tbh, I am good friends with people whom I knew from the the oil exploration days who massively gamed the asylum de jour issue to gain residency here.

So, to be blunt, while I am sure that there are numbers of people who are legitimate asylum seekers, I am also more than positive that the 'favored origin de jour' is (and has been not just in the recent past but in the deep past) gamed like hell in the issue of emigrating.

Also, since it is actually relatively easy (compared to and opposed to say, Vietnam or Laos or Nigeria) to trek to the United States from Central America, that problem is probably worse than what I expect it to be.

(06-22-2018 09:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 07:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He is not anti-immigrant. He is anti-illegal immigrant. I guess those who oppose him must be pro-illegal immigrant.

Why do we call these people immigrants anyway? Isn't that like calling a burglar a boarder? Just because he got into your house doesn't mean he has the right to live there.

It isn’t clear with Trump really. Remember his comment about not wanting immigrants from s***hole countries?

And that leap of logic is the same as suggesting that those who opposed his zero tolerance policy must want open borders, or that those who opposed the ACA must have wanted poor people to die. Bad tas across the board.

And I think we call “these people” immigrants because they are attempting to immigrate. They do so illegally, which is why they’re labeled as illegal immigrants. Same way we call a squatter a squatter instead of a burglar.

I don’t know this, but any idea what percent of illegal immigrants come seeking asylum and how many end up being guilty of committing crimes Post-crossing? I’ve always heard that they are less apt to commit crimes than the general population and provide more revenue to the federal governments than they receive.

In that case, we need to have more of them - say, a dozen times more. Maybe we can get the crime rate closer to zero with enough of them, and the government can show a surplus.

I wonder how they provide revenue to the Federal Government if they don't file taxes. I am guessing income tax evasion is not one of the crimes they get charged for. Probably helps those crime rates if the authorities cannot find them to charge them.

I think what Trump wants is quality immigrants. Doctors, nurses, engineers, professors, in lieu of people to hold "slow" signs. You are going to get more of those from developed countries than shithole countries, like Somalia. Few, if any, of those wading the river would classify that well.

No idea of how many are seeking asylum, and from what. True asylum seekers, as opposed from those who just don't like the place they are, should be handled separately. So it is dangerous in San Salvador? Well, it is just as dangerous in portions of Chicago. Asylum from war and natural disasters, yes. That is true asylum.

OO, do you actually have data to back up the comment about parts of Chicago being just as dangerous as San Salvador? Because El Salvador as a whole has a murder rate of 116 homicides per 100,000 people on 2016. Chicago was 29 per 100,000...

And where are you getting this “true asylum” definition from? Or is that just your opinion?

And to how illegal immigrants pay federal taxes, just do some googling. But here is info on the federal taxes they pay.

[quote]The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.[\quote]

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do...explainer/

(06-22-2018 11:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I know that the process for becoming a legal US resident, and the process for becoming a citizen is exacting.

A very good friend of mine, when I met him, was Australian and had green-carded via the lottery here. And he applied for citizenship. He very nearly was deported during the process --- for the terrible crime of driving his sports car +30 (at 3 in the morning on an otherwise empty road).

When you have that magic green card or path to citizenship, I will grant you that they are law-abiding to the teeth --- they have something very valuable to lose if they f-up in the absolute slightest.

Being raised in El Paso, my experience is that crime is far more prevalent in the illegal groups than from those that I knew in the 'green card' program.

And the rate of bona fide asylum-seekers (essentially treated as green card residents for purposes of subject to deportation) I would hazard is no more than 5 per cent.

The question isnt necessarily 'what is the recidivism' for asylum-seekers. Having a 'crime rate of .2 per cent' across maybe 5 per cent of a population is more likely subsumed in the entirety of the crime rate probably a factor of ten or more across the other 95 per cent.

And also, the asylum issue clouds the 'real rate'. It is interesting to see influxes of populations coming from 'asylum-easy' countries as opposed to other countries. And, tbh, I am good friends with people whom I knew from the the oil exploration days who massively gamed the asylum de jour issue to gain residency here.

So, to be blunt, while I am sure that there are numbers of people who are legitimate asylum seekers, I am also more than positive that the 'favored origin de jour' is (and has been not just in the recent past but in the deep past) gamed like hell in the issue of emigrating.

Also, since it is actually relatively easy (compared to and opposed to say, Vietnam or Laos or Nigeria) to trek to the United States from Central America, that problem is probably worse than what I expect it to be.

To be clear, there’s strong evidence that illegal immigrants, as a whole (not just asylum seekers), are less likely to commit serious crimes. That’s most likely due to, you know, being here illegally and not wanting to get deported.

Wash Po summarizes a CATO study and an article from the journal Criminology that dive into this a bit. If anything, I think you can at least say that illegal immigrants, once in the country, are no less likely to commit a crime than a legal citizen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...ore-crime/

It seems like we’re speaking in anecdotes a lot at the moment, even though there is a mountain of data on illegal immigration right at our finger tips.

(06-23-2018 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, do you actually have data to back up the comment about parts of Chicago being just as dangerous as San Salvador? Because El Salvador as a whole has a murder rate of 116 homicides per 100,000 people on 2016. Chicago was 29 per 100,000...

And where are you getting this “true asylum” definition from? Or is that just your opinion?

And to how illegal immigrants pay federal taxes, just do some googling. But here is info on the federal taxes they pay.

Quote:The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do...explainer/

Lad, you are the one parsing words, so I call your attention to the difference betweeen "parts of Chicago" and "Chicago". I am sure the violent crime in areas along the lake and around the Obama house is very low. Just think of it this way: I am talking about the parts you would not want to immigrate to.

Yep, it is my opinion that a true refugee is not one who looks around and say "I hate this shithole. It will be better in the US." But feel free to give me your definition. So far it seems to include everybody who knocks at the door (or sneaks in a window).

On taxes, i was using a combination of personal experience and common sense. When I was just out of college, I ran payroll for a company that did maintenance on railroad tracks. One day, I told the comptroller that I thought the data I was being given was corrupted. He laughed and explained that the problem was the "wetbacks", the word used for illegals back then, not giving dood info on their tax forms. It seems that according to my data, there was 40+ individuals (by name) living in one apartment (by address) and using one SSN. All 40 of them claimed 10 dependents, minimizing the withholding. Now why would they minimize withholding? Because they could not get it back without filing a tax return. Common sense tells me the illegals of 50 years ago and now are the same. Less to the government, more in their pockets "to make a better life for their families". When you are an uneducated and unskilled worker working for low wages, every penny of take home counts. Anecdote #2: One summer that I was in school, I worked in a sawmill. About 2/3 of the workforce were illegals. yep, every one of them claimed maximum exemptions. I don't know of any reason for this attitude to have changed. Do you? Are we just getting a more public-spirited class of illegals now?

Yep, they cannot get around the deduction for FICA, and so they just abandon it. Why not get a SSN and work toward having a bit of cash in retirement like the rest of us? No, wait, that would put them on the IRS horizon.

I used to think, fine, leave them be, let them come up here and work a while and leave some taxes in the cash register when they leave. But it seems now they don't go back. They are called immigrants now, and immigrants come to stay.

Now I have answered your question, please answer the one I asked you. What word should have been used in place of "infestation"? I bet if we asked the natives who saw the English "immigrants" coming ashore 400 years ago and they saw the US now, infestation might be the word that comes to their mind.

(06-23-2018 10:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, do you actually have data to back up the comment about parts of Chicago being just as dangerous as San Salvador? Because El Salvador as a whole has a murder rate of 116 homicides per 100,000 people on 2016. Chicago was 29 per 100,000...

And where are you getting this “true asylum” definition from? Or is that just your opinion?

And to how illegal immigrants pay federal taxes, just do some googling. But here is info on the federal taxes they pay.

Quote:The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/how-do...explainer/

Lad, you are the one parsing words, so I call your attention to the difference betweeen "parts of Chicago" and "Chicago". I am sure the violent crime in areas along the lake and around the Obama house is very low. Just think of it this way: I am talking about the parts you would not want to immigrate to.

Yep, it is my opinion that a true refugee is not one who looks around and say "I hate this shithole. It will be better in the US." But feel free to give me your definition. So far it seems to include everybody who knocks at the door (or sneaks in a window).

On taxes, i was using a combination of personal experience and common sense. When I was just out of college, I ran payroll for a company that did maintenance on railroad tracks. One day, I told the comptroller that I thought the data I was being given was corrupted. He laughed and explained that the problem was the "wetbacks", the word used for illegals back then, not giving dood info on their tax forms. It seems that according to my data, there was 40+ individuals (by name) living in one apartment (by address) and using one SSN. All 40 of them claimed 10 dependents, minimizing the withholding. Now why would they minimize withholding? Because they could not get it back without filing a tax return. Common sense tells me the illegals of 50 years ago and now are the same. Less to the government, more in their pockets "to make a better life for their families". When you are an uneducated and unskilled worker working for low wages, every penny of take home counts. Anecdote #2: One summer that I was in school, I worked in a sawmill. About 2/3 of the workforce were illegals. yep, every one of them claimed maximum exemptions. I don't know of any reason for this attitude to have changed. Do you? Are we just getting a more public-spirited class of illegals now?

Yep, they cannot get around the deduction for FICA, and so they just abandon it. Why not get a SSN and work toward having a bit of cash in retirement like the rest of us? No, wait, that would put them on the IRS horizon.

I used to think, fine, leave them be, let them come up here and work a while and leave some taxes in the cash register when they leave. But it seems now they don't go back. They are called immigrants now, and immigrants come to stay.

Now I have answered your question, please answer the one I asked you. What word should have been used in place of "infestation"? I bet if we asked the natives who saw the English "immigrants" coming ashore 400 years ago and they saw the US now, infestation might be the word that comes to their mind.

There’s literally no point in having this conversation - I’ve posted hard data that refute your two, anecdotally-based assumptions and you double down on them. Do you have any evidence that suggests that even parts of Chicago have a similar murder rate as all of El Salvador? And your anecodotal story about illegal immigrants is definitely true, but given that I provided a well researched source that says that illegal immigrants pay $9 billion in pay toll taxes annually, you’re story Ian obviously not indicative of the whole.

And Trump could have said that illegal immigrants were overrunning our borders, were coming here in great numbers, were overwhelming our resources, and on and on. All of those do not suggest that all illegal immigrants are parasites, and not people.