Should criminal foreigners be deported?

[NosPortatArma]

What I never asserted: That immigrants who commit crime do not predominately target other immigrants. That immigrant towns are happy towns where immigrants hold hands and break into song as if they were in a disney movie.

What I asserted: That immigrants commit crime to a fraction of the crimes committed by natives. That immigrant towns are the first stop of new arrivals who, using the pre-established networks, begin to integrate and search for their first temporary job to pay off the debt of coming to the host country.

You really like jumping to conclusions, don't you? This is the second time and I will expect an apology this time. Even though I am not a migrant myself [as of yet, you never know] my family on both sides have immigrant backgrounds. From Istanbul where they were deported from in 1953 for ethnic reasons, and from Ismir where due to the Lausane treaty they were 'exchanged' from. Members of my family have lived as gastarbeiders. So I think I have a pretty clear understanding of what immigration and deportation is. You can un-facepalm yourself now.

Immigration works through push and pull factors existing between the host and the origin country. Every study ever done on immigration asserts this. The 'push' factors could be as immediate as war, economic catastrophe etc and indirect such as lack of opportunity, low wages etc. So, despite your claim of voluntarily deciding to leave your country, its more probable you were sufficiently pushed by your origin country to make that decision. No one just decides to leave like that. The emotional bonds with the home country are strong and to break them requires a long process. The international literature on migration has pointed towards this process.

Talking about immigration, you make a mistake into working the Greek friends you have into the conversation. For anyone who doesn't know how the EU works, ever since the Schengen treaty the EU nationals are free to work, travel and live in other EU countries. In addition, while deportation is possible the process is so painstakingly bureaucratic and time consuming that the story of the little girl ousted in a night raid shows the ridiculousness and the double standards of deportation practices and whom you mean to be foreigners.

You talking about Greek economy and the brain drain and how you're doing so much better because of reasons is an obvious attempt at derailing the conversation. Since I am lazy and I have no will to break your prejudice on this subject, I will point you towards the documentary Debtocracy to do it for me.

Having said the above, you assert that deportation assists the immigrant communities from having criminals living amongst them. While I understand the logic behind the argument, I think that getting to serve the sentence should not be compounded by deportation due to the fact that criminals are hardened and more connected with crime in prison, only to be unleashed in the origin country that they decided to leave from. Here's a report pointing towards deportation acting as an export of criminality to the origin countries.



Studies on migration have shown a cyclical model of importing a reserve workforce, the immigrants, to the host countries to assume tasks too odious for the natives and estabish new status classifications through the employment of immigrants in personal services. Reading up a little on migration will leave you with no doubt of this process. I suggest starting with sociologists Huw Beynon or Richard Brown. Also, I think I provided a link to the Human Rights Watch in my previous post. Have you read it, or I do the research for nothing?

While you personally don't "put" the immigrants anywhere, countries are moving people around to accomplish their needs for very low skill, very low pay work needs.

As I already pointed out above, it is unethical to put criminals to jail, harden them up, connect them with an international network of criminals they meet or associate during their time in prison and then ship them off to their country of origin. The case of El Salvador, in the link from the Doctors without Borders should be sufficient proof of this argument.

Again, due to human rights treaties you cannot 'legally' treat someone less than anyone else, citizenship or not. That's discrimination and it incurs a hell of a fine if proven to be the case. Your citizenship gives you the extra right to be able to vote and to be voted on for public office, in some countries' cases enroll in the army and civil service. I don't argue that discrimination doesn't happen in practice, but its not the outcome of any legal stature; it is the outcome of prejudice, bigotry and legal loopholes that allow for such practices to continue.

no i did not read it. It is their choice if they want to come here to work. i view it as them commig here voluntarily, not that we "bring" them here or "use" them. that is misleading words imo.

that is an argument for how prisons are run, not an argument against putting people in prisons per se.

nonsense, states can deport non citizens, it happens all the time.

[Infidel144]

That was sly. The quote you base your question on discusses the discrimination of citizens and non-citizens under the law. I never asserted that deportation of unauthorized immigrants who committed crimes is discriminatory. Only that it is unethical because you dump hardened criminals from your jails back to their respective countries.

Which seems, at least in part a response to this by NosPortatArma:
"By what, other than the law, are citizens and non-citizens supposed to be treated differently?... Being a citizen means you are treated differently.. importantly, if you are not a citizen the state has less responsibility for you, so it can ship you off if you are a problem."
While, of course, the thread is about deporting criminal aliens.

[Kritias]

Which seems, at least in part a response to this by NosPortatArma:
"By what, other than the law, are citizens and non-citizens supposed to be treated differently?... Being a citizen means you are treated differently.. importantly, if you are not a citizen the state has less responsibility for you, so it can ship you off if you are a problem."
While, of course, the thread is about deporting criminal aliens.

You're trying to make me argue with myself. I'm on to your tricks. I asserted that deporting criminals after their jail time is unethical. NosPortatArma argued that citizens and non citizens are treated differently under the law. That's not the case. The difference of citizenship lays in the civic rights you have in your home country. Any discrimination on ie jail time due to race/ethnicity etc is denounced by human rights committees and watches. Read the links I provide and stop misrepresenting my arguments.

[Cookiegod]

Kritias, you did it again, so I'll ask you: What makes you bundle immigrants all immigrants together in one group?! You say you don't, you say I should apologise for calling you out for bundling their suburbs into one happy happy town. And yet you do exactly that. You excuse the actions of the criminals with the honesty of the good. Care to explain to me by what logic that makes sense?

I have pointed out repeatedly that the main victims of immigrant crimes are other victims, and doubly so, for they get to suffer the bad rep on top of it.
You didn't answer that argument at all, other than saying you didn't say that. Well, it's a fact. It doesn't even matter what country in the world you look at. Criminals target their own demographic.
In the case of immigrant communities that means, if you let those gangs take over their neighbourhoods, they often actually DO have to leave involuntarily.

See the irony there? You want the criminals to stay because of all the good folk who, yes, exist, but not only can you not explain how those two groups are related, but the good people are actually intimidated, robbed, and in some cases forced to flee.

So no, there isn't anything I think I need to apologise for. I judged and read you correctly, whereas you didn't get half the arguments I brought up, and failed to actually counter a single one of them in a meaningful way.

You do the demographics trick a second time by claiming that immigrants only do a fraction of the crimes committed by natives. Well, no. Apart from again the pointless whataboutism by pointing to the innocent when no one here is talking about having the innocent deported, there's no way that claim holds up. In absolute numbers the natives do more crimes because they are a far larger part of the population, but in relative numbers the criminality rates are far larger per capita in immigrant demographics. And not deporting any of them at all would increase that crime rate significantly, since the Pareto discipline always holds true. Don't want the ghetto's to be those cancerous places that make everyone miserable who has to live there? Throw those people out who drag it down, and have most immigrants thank you for it.

[Kritias]

I am genuinely interested to know the reasoning for why they shouldn't be deported. I can mostly understand the logic even if I don't agree with it, but for this issue I seriously can't think of any reason. Except for these reasons of course, which I do understand:

* They face death, torture or something similar if they are deported

*We dont know where they come from.

But there are many cases where neither of those apply, and it's those I'm interested in hearing why they should be allowed to stay in the country. So please enlighten me. Now if you don't think this is happening, I can tell you that only something like 10-20% of foreign rapists are deported from Sweden (depending on definitions).
https://www.bra.se/download/18.25f91..._2000-2014.pdf

If you can't think of a reason to keep them here either, then maybe you have ideas why many governments, notably Sweden, only deport a minority of criminal foreigners.

no i did not read it. It is their choice if they want to come here to work. i view it as them commig here voluntarily, not that we "bring" them here or "use" them. that is misleading words imo.

that is an argument for how prisons are run, not an argument against putting people in prisons per se.

nonsense, states can deport non citizens, it happens all the time.

You are the one who started this thread. You are the one genuinely interested in reasons not to deport criminals. You are also the one not to read up on the sources given contrasting your beliefs.

What's up with that? Is it possible you don't really want to know and debate the opposing side, but that you just opened this thread to air your prejudices about migrants? Also, we are not arguing whether deportation of criminal immigrants happens all the time - everyone knows that it happens. Your thread reads 'Should criminal foreigners be deported?', doesn't it?

I'm really sorry to say this but every study on migration has shown that people are shifted around to fill the work needs in the developed countries. There's a reason you get immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, from Africa, from Asia, Latin America and India at so much higher rates than from Western Europe and Northern America.

In case at some point in your life you ever decide to really, genuinely take an interest on immigration and how and why they come to the countries they do, then pick up a book called The Changing Shape of Work by Richard K. Brown. It's a good intro in examining the migration issue. If.

Kritias, you did it again, so I'll ask you: What makes you bundle immigrants all immigrants together in one group?! You say you don't, you say I should apologise for calling you out for bundling their suburbs into one happy happy town. And yet you do exactly that. You excuse the actions of the criminals with the honesty of the good. Care to explain to me by what logic that makes sense?

I have pointed out repeatedly that the main victims of immigrant crimes are other victims, and doubly so, for they get to suffer the bad rep on top of it.
You didn't answer that argument at all, other than saying you didn't say that. Well, it's a fact. It doesn't even matter what country in the world you look at. Criminals target their own demographic.
In the case of immigrant communities that means, if you let those gangs take over their neighbourhoods, they often actually DO have to leave involuntarily.

See the irony there? You want the criminals to stay because of all the good folk who, yes, exist, but not only can you not explain how those two groups are related, but the good people are actually intimidated, robbed, and in some cases forced to flee.

So no, there isn't anything I think I need to apologise for. I judged and read you correctly, whereas you didn't get half the arguments I brought up, and failed to actually counter a single one of them in a meaningful way.

You do the demographics trick a second time by claiming that immigrants only do a fraction of the crimes committed by natives. Well, no. Apart from again the pointless whataboutism by pointing to the innocent when no one here is talking about having the innocent deported, there's no way that claim holds up. In absolute numbers the natives do more crimes because they are a far larger part of the population, but in relative numbers the criminality rates are far larger per capita in immigrant demographics. And not deporting any of them at all would increase that crime rate significantly, since the Pareto discipline always holds true. Don't want the ghetto's to be those cancerous places that make everyone miserable who has to live there? Throw those people out who drag it down, and have most immigrants thank you for it.

I think you misunderstand my argument so I am going to repeat it once more.

But before we continue: in a sentence you assumed I had never been around immigrants and called me an sjw. When I told you this isn't true, you made fun of my country's financial situation, its brain drain and made fun of my neighbors. When I told you off on that too and presented my argument, you assumed that I had no relevant experience of immigration so I was unsuited to speak about the argument. The non-immigrant lectures the immigrant, you called it. I proved you wrong on that front, too. You misunderstanding what I demand an apology for looks more like a dodge because of your failed assumptions, than an honest misunderstanding claiming I asked you to apologize about 'happy towns'. I am expecting an apology for the above listed assumptions in your next post.

Now, the argument.

I hold it to be morally reprehensible for a country to jail migrants for their crimes be they serious or not so serious, connect them with further crime in jail, harden them up and then, once their term in prison is served, deport them back to where they came from.

The reason is quite simple: The criminal firstly left the country of origin and immigrated to the host country where he committed a crime. What do you think they will do once they get back to the country of origin after the deportation? They will attempt to migrate again, this time to a different country, if not the same one that just deported them. So a criminal who is thus been ie in America is now being exported to end up in ie Germany. This is just a country's slimy way of taking a problem and literally dumping it on someone else. Why should Germany, in this example, and its immigrants there have to put up with the criminal of the example?

You are arguing from a personal point of view, and I can understand the anxiety to get rid of thugs and murderers. But a society must act better than an individual, and consider the collateral damage a superficial handing of an issue such as crime can cause to people who are at no fault.

And even in the case where the criminal does not migrate and stays in the country of origin, now you have a hardened criminal who is also connected to interntional crime plaguing your former countrymen. Ludicus has already pointed out the problems arrising from connecting criminals together and then exporting them here:

What worries me most: according to the Interpol there are thousands of international gangs operating in the EU, and 70% of these operate in multiple countries with members from across the world. Among the gangs detected in my peaceful country, there are criminals from 60 countries, that they have "international criminal cooperation, mobility and range" (sic)
Even worse, Europol: Organized crime goes ′high-tech′ | News | DW | 09.03.2017

Do you not think that deportation and re-immigration as I describe above could have played a major role in this sad state of affairs?

Moving on.

You somehow think that I bundle criminals and everyday laymen together, failing to recognize their differences. I have not done this. I said that the process of migration is the same for both groups. You also claim that the everyday laymen are those who are most suffering under the foreigners who commit crime and you press that issue as if I had claimed otherwise. I told you before and I will repeat now - I do not assert that foreigners who commit crime do not target other immigrants predominately. If you read my first post here you will find the link from Cato Institute where the researchers state that very clearly.

You also understood from my posts that I believe the immigrants and the criminals live in some sort of harmony in their neighborhoods. I have also not said that. I said that immigrants who first come to a country do so because they are drawn there by incentives of the said country and knowledge of previous conationals who have successfully migrated there. Several ethnicities also tend to bundle together or with people coming from familiar countries. In the book Street Corner Society for example, you see Italians, Greeks and Albanians living in close proximity to each other in America. New arrivals also use the networks of the conationals present in the area to first find employment and accommodation - the case of the Greek Orthodox church and the AHEPA organization in America, for example, assists Greek immigrants who reach America for the first time.

What I said was that immigrants as a whole commit crime to a far less degree than native populations, and that they are the least probable group to commit any crimes primarily because they are grateful to be accepted (even begrudgingly) somewhere and some out of fear of what might happen with authorities they know nothing about. The few who do commit crimes commit a wide range from assault and battery, to fraud, to profiteering, to murder. I pressed this argument to claim that demagogues beat the drum of immigrant crime constantly and are by far the most responsible for the bad rep given to the immigrants than the criminals themselves. The media predominantly will take us by storm with the off murder of a native by an immigrant on the few occasions that this happens, but they generally will not care to depict the same fervor when the victim is an immigrant. Sadly, the argument for most people is to send immigrants back because immigrants will rape and kill the natives.

Ironically, the video you embedded serves my argument way more than it serves yours. Somali families send their young kids back to Somalia, a very unstable country atm as the narrator explains, because of knife crime in London. Of course these knife crimes do not occur everywhere in the city, just on the immigrant quarters. Segregated and basically forgotten by the police and the British state in general, the Somali are left to fend for themselves. And many believe that since they are not safe in London, then they should better send their loved ones back to Somalia and hope their kids will be safer there.

And the question is: where is the State? Are the Somali not employed in British businesses and generate wealth for the UK? Why does the British state not intervene to better police these neighborhoods and crack down on crime? As I said to NosPortatArma, the reason has been amply described in the migration literature - immigrants and brought for work needs as a reserve army, are generally considered to be disposable and are handled superficially by the state that hosts them.

Deportation of the criminals is a superficial solution, a quick patch to solve a problem by taking it and dumping it somewhere else. As I have said in this thread before, a better way of handling immigrant crime wouldn't be to deport the criminals but to better secure the immigrant neighborhoods to make immigrant crime harder to spread if not to take place. Prevention will always beat after-treatment of a phenomenon.

You also also assume that by the Pareto principle, if you take the minority who causes the greatest number of crimes and get rid of them you have solved all your crime related problems. Well, guess again. The vacuum you just created is going to be filled with new criminals, those held at bay by the criminals you just deported. Since crime is often related to deprivation and most importantly relevant deprivation, if you do not treat the cause of the issue but only its symptoms you will keep on getting the same result - crime in the ghettos, where the least protected will suffer.

Deporting the random criminal you managed to catch isn't going to solve the problem for the Somalis in London, or anyone else for that matter - someone else will take the place of the deportee. What will make a difference is the state to intervene to combat the reasons crime happens and better police their streets so to prevent most crimes from happening (as they generally do in non-immigrant neighborhoods).

Societies have dabbled with deportation for quite some time now. And guess what? It never succeeded in dealing with the problem of crime. It happened in ancient times. Aristotle himself was deported for defacing the local currency with his dad. It happened in the medieval ages. It happened during the Renaissance. Back in the 1700s English penal colonies were set up where poor and criminal Englishmen and others were sent en masse.

It has never worked. It's just a superficial non-solution. It doesn't address why people commit crime in order to stop it. So, no.

Relative deprivation is the lack of resources to sustain the diet, lifestyle, activities and amenities that an individual or group are accustomed to or that are widely encouraged or approved in the society to which they belong. Usually connected to theories of deviance and theories of anomie.

Anomie: Also spelled anomy, in societies or individuals, a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals. The term was introduced by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his study of suicide. Merton's theory of anomie is a borrowing but essentially different from that of Durkheim. ... Its essence is that anomie is a social response, or adaptation, due to a disjuncture between socially approved means (e.g., education, opportunity, occupation) and culturally accepted goals (earn high income, the pursuit of happiness and success) that leads to crime in order to accomplish the goals.

I hope I have sufficiently answered your arguments. If not, I am more than happy to debate why I think deporting criminals is not only morally wrong, but also not working.

Don't forget the apology.

[Aexodus]

There's a reason you get immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Balkans, from Africa, from Asia, Latin America and India at so much higher rates than from Western Europe and Northern America.

You also have people like Tony Blair who don’t help

[Sir Adrian]

They broke the laws of X country, X country either has to enforce the law in an equal way as they would full citizens, or not enforce the law.

The law is what the country makes it to be. There is nothing stopping a country from making the deportation of criminals into law. In fact France did that to CEE gypsies in 2008, only it failed to take the necessary step of banishment from entry.

If the home country considers that the criminal did not break any law there then it has no reason to incarcerate him. That's not a problem.

If you live somewhere for 30 years you are probably a citizen of that place by then, and if you did not opt to take citizenship knowing full well that any crime will result in deportation then that's your problem really. We need to stop coddling people like they are mentally handicapped.

First anyone with a valid visa or residency status of any type should be tried and punish in the country that let them in legally.

Why? You say that it should but provide no logical reasoning.

Yrou system in many cases would likely see people avoid any punishment (potentially quite significant ones if the destination county of deportation has limited laws for extraterritorial jurisdiction)

So? I've seen this fallacy in many. Incarceration is not about punishment. It is about removing a social danger until such a time that that person is rehabilitated and no longer proves a danger to society.

The purpose of prisons is not to lock people up because they were naughty children and now they have to sit in a corner, it is to keep society safe and provide an organized cadre in which to rehabilitate criminals*. That american, and most other nations, prison systems fail to do that in a very spectacular fashion is a very true and very sad fact of life - which is why deportation is the best solution.

Deportation frees the state from the burden of caring for the criminal, it prevents the creation of national gangs and ensures that when and if the criminal returns he will be fully rehabilitated - either due to living freely in his home country or by being too scared of permanent deportation to misstep.

*no everybody can be rehabilitated but those people are in the minority.

[Cookiegod]

I am expecting an apology for the above listed assumptions in your next post.
[...]
Don't forget the apology.

All right, all right! Ready for my apology?

in a sentence you assumed I had never been around immigrants and called me an sjw.

What I said:

It's really easy to be a political correct sjw if you haven't experienced that world, or haven't family members who feel threatened by it. Because I do.

I spoke generally in that sentence, and hyperbolically. I wasn't referring to you with that sentence, nor was I insulting anyone there.

-> I'm not going to apologise for you not being able to read, nor for you not understanding the concept of hyperbole, nor for you choosing to misread & interpret it in the most negative way.

When I told you this isn't true, you made fun of my country's financial situation, its brain drain and made fun of my neighbors.

I can't even quote anything I said here, because that's completely made up. It's also false given that I'm very sympathetic to Greece, have Greek friends, and think the country is being mistreated by the general EU.

I referenced the brain drain as another example for immigration having devastating effects on their country of origin - I specifically made clear that wasn't relevant to the deportation debate other than you forcing it in:

But this thread isn't about immigration, per se, which again, I'm not against. A big part of my social circle is nonnative as well. I do have a problem with the sugar coating and the imbalance that ruins their country of origin, but that's besides the point. This thread isn't about immigration per se, it's about deportation.

So no, I'm not going to apologise for you not being able to read and making stuff up.

When I told you off on that too and presented my argument, you assumed that I had no relevant experience of immigration so I was unsuited to speak about the argument.

Actually, you were the one assuming I had no relevant experience in immigration several times including here:

Clearly, you don't know how immigration works.
[...]
Let me inform you that I am and I still live in Greece. In a once middle class neighborhood during the 60s that turned into an immigrant dumping ground during the 80s - 90s and still is today. I know very well how it feels to be living right next to immigrants. It has also eliminated much of my bias and prejudice, too.

And my reaction was this:

Well congratulations. A non-immigrant telling an immigrant he doesn't know how immigration works.

And yeah. Living next to someone isn't the same thing as being one. So your appeal to ethos (-> Aristoteles) doesn't work.
But more importantly, I repeatedly pointed out that it's irrelevant. No one is talking about targeting the immigrant communities in general. We're only talking about criminals. Yet you keep making talk about the criminals a talk about everyone else.

The non-immigrant lectures the immigrant, you called it.

I apologise for making a 100% accurate statement.

I proved you wrong on that front, too.

Uh... I apologise for not having seen you prove me wrong... on anything so far?!

You don't even have to prove me wrong. A solid argument would be a fine start. It's ok to disagree. It's very good to debate.

You misunderstanding what I demand an apology for looks more like a dodge because of your failed assumptions, than an honest misunderstanding claiming I asked you to apologize about 'happy towns'.

You know, it's fine to misread me maybe once or twice. If you do it more than that you are either a) unwilling or b) unable to face the argument.

Most of your argument then builds on the presumption US (natives) vs THEM (immigrants). You don't see the problem with that? Doesn't that seem a bit right-wing to you, if you think about it?
You think "Greektown/Chinatown/Koreatown" is one big happy happy family with a united front? You think the criminals living there get up at 7AM, travel to a different neighborhood and "work" there? No, the overwhelming majority of victims have criminals of the same demographic.

You think the average immigrants works hard to pay taxes so some lowlife can go to jail and afterwards go right back to make his life worse?
You think he's happy about the gangs threatening his kids, not the kids of some upper class white family, no, his kids worse? Or just as bad, them influencing his kid a bad way and send them on a downwards spiral that has them end up in jail as well? The hell they do.
[...]
So stop pretending like immigrants are some sort of Illuminati doing a big conspiracy that stick together no matter what. They/we are not. No one wants the thugs more gone than their communities.

I don't know if you're familiar with the concepts of hyperbole and rhetorical questions. A hyperbole means an obvious exaggeration.
A hyperbole is not made as an accusation, but rather to emphasise the argument one is making. In this case me.
Rhetorical questions have obvious answers - in this cases "no".

The argument I made repeatedly was very simple. It is a very right wing argument to say "all immigrants are the same".
I pointed out to you that this is what you built your argument on. I also pointed out to you repeatedly, that immigrant communities are the ones being harmed.

Which brings us to this:

I hold it to be morally reprehensible for a country to jail migrants for their crimes be they serious or not so serious, connect them with further crime in jail, harden them up and then, once their term in prison is served, deport them back to where they came from.

Jails shouldn't harden the criminal. In those countries where it happens, the justice system is obviously broken. Because the main goal isn't/shouldn't be revenge, but rehabilitation. This thread isn't about justice systems though.

You are, however, portraying it as an inevitability that people get hardened in jail. Which again is false. I don't know about you, but my social circle includes serious crime. I'm not going to give some personal anecdotes, because they are irrelevant in every way except one: Jails don't necessarily lead to further criminalisation.

The reason is quite simple: The criminal firstly left the country of origin and immigrated to the host country where he committed a crime. What do you think they will do once they get back to the country of origin after the deportation? They will attempt to migrate again, this time to a different country, if not the same one that just deported them. So a criminal who is thus been ie in America is now being exported to end up in ie Germany. This is just a country's slimy way of taking a problem and literally dumping it on someone else. Why should Germany, in this example, and its immigrants there have to put up with the criminal of the example?

That is one possibility, but again, not a necessity.
People might stay. If they do, they are no longer connected to the environment that they committed them in.
Your claim that they will be repeat offenders is false.

If people decide to migrate again, that's their right. A country has the right to declare an individual unwelcome, just like you have the right to kick a guest out of your apartment. You do not have the right to prevent them from entering someone else's apartment. According to your logic, you should not be allowed to throw unwelcome guests out of your apartments due to the risk of them entering someone else's apartment in return.

What I agree with you on, and was pointing out earlier, was that yes, immigration practices by governments are often very slimy. Just not in this context.

You are arguing from a personal point of view, and I can understand the anxiety to get rid of thugs and murderers. But a society must act better than an individual, and consider the collateral damage a superficial handing of an issue such as crime can cause to people who are at no fault.

Now you are deriding my arguments to have been purely emotional, when they were rarely that. I pointed out that these so called "humanitarian" concerns have extremely detrimental effects on the communities the people are part of.
But that derision becomes more ironic, if you didn't state it after saying this:

Now, the argument.

I hold it to be morally reprehensible

And even in the case where the criminal does not migrate and stays in the country of origin, now you have a hardened criminal who is also connected to interntional crime plaguing your former countrymen.

Hm, I wonder if I haven't adressed that point before...
Oh wait!!! Yes, I have

Deportation reduces crime here but does not necessarily lead to an increase at his country of origin - he is more likely to have a network there that aids his rehabilitation.

And before that:

you can expect people to have a better functioning social network/family at home to aid them in their rehabilitation. If they are career criminals, they will either have to rebuild from scratch or, if part of organised crime, that organisation's ability to work internationally will have been reduced.

Ludicus has already pointed out the problems arrising from connecting criminals together and then exporting them here:

What worries me most: according to the Interpol there are thousands of international gangs operating in the EU, and 70% of these operate in multiple countries with members from across the world. Among the gangs detected in my peaceful country, there are criminals from 60 countries, that they have "international criminal cooperation, mobility and range" (sic)
Even worse, Europol: Organized crime goes ′high-tech′ | News | DW | 09.03.2017

In no way does this relate to deportation at all:
1: We aren't just talking about gang crimes.
2: COOPERATING and OPERATING aren't the same. Most gangs act locally, but trade of course with other gangs as well. E.g. smuggling drugs from Rotterdam.
3: Gang members are recruited locally - in the ghettos where they live. Just because they "operate" (i.e. mostly smuggling, cybering or cyberscamming) "internationally" (i.e. mostly just across the EU), doesn't mean that a deported person will have a criminal network in their country of origin. It's simply irrelevant that a gang operated for example across the Øresund if the perp is sent back to some place in Africa. To my knowledge, there's very little connection between the crime world in e.g. Europe and that in Subsaharan countries.
4: In those cases where all that you claim is the case, sending them back will still hamper the gangs international operations. Keeping them here will enable them to pick up right where they left it.

Do you not think that deportation and re-immigration as I describe above could have played a major role in this sad state of affairs?

As a matter of fact, I don't think that it can have played a major role in this.

You somehow think that I bundle criminals and everyday laymen together, failing to recognize their differences. I have not done this. I said that the process of migration is the same for both groups. You also claim that the everyday laymen are those who are most suffering under the foreigners who commit crime and you press that issue as if I had claimed otherwise. I told you before and I will repeat now - I do not assert that foreigners who commit crime do not target other immigrants predominately. If you read my first post here you will find the link from Cato Institute where the researchers state that very clearly.

Huh. Let me read that original quote of yours again:

The money it costs to trial, jail and guard the few comparatively immigrants who do get to commit crimes [check Cato Institute link on my first post here] is clearly been offset by the benefits a next-to-nothing workforce brings into the economy.

Help me out here. Are you saying the country benefits from the criminals themselves? Because to me it seemed like you were talking about immigrants as a whole in that second half of that sentence.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. So let's look at that next reply by you when I called you out on that:

What I asserted: That immigrants commit crime to a fraction of the crimes committed by natives. That immigrant towns are the first stop of new arrivals who, using the pre-established networks, begin to integrate and search for their first temporary job to pay off the debt of coming to the host country.

Oh damn. You tell me how you aren't bundling criminals and everyday laymen together here.

Tell me how any of that logic of yours works without you bundling them together. Because time and again and again and again you keep referring to the innocent when this is about the criminals. What you derided as my "personal view" is nothing but a rebuttal of your argument. The criminals are ruining immigrant communities, that is a fact. Yet you keep referring to the everyday laymen as if deporting the criminals was to their detriment.

What I said was that immigrants as a whole commit crime to a far less degree than native populations, and that they are the least probable group to commit any crimes primarily because they are grateful to be accepted (even begrudgingly) somewhere and some out of fear of what might happen with authorities they know nothing about. The few who do commit crimes commit a wide range from assault and battery, to fraud, to profiteering, to murder.

1: You are - again - bundling immigrants together. Like there's no difference between those who come as doctors and engineers, and those who come without any qualifications at all. Like there's no difference between the crime committed by the various immigrant nationalities. I already pointed to the brain drain principle. Countries don't act out of kindness. If you're highly educated, your chances of getting in are very high. Yet once again, you're bundling into one group. The mental gymnastics that you repeatedly go from saying you're not doing it, to once again doing it, is simply astounding.

I pressed this argument to claim that demagogues beat the drum of immigrant crime constantly and are by far the most responsible for the bad rep given to the immigrants than the criminals themselves.

And other demagogues like to pretend that there's no crime problem at all. Meanwhile, if you live in the wrong neighbourhood of Malmö, you'll not get any deliveries from UPS, because it's too dangerous, nor your mail from Postnord, because it's too dangerous, nor should you go out at night, because it's too dangerous.
But sure. Instead of adressing the problem, let's keep the troublemakers right where they are and be mad at demagogues instead.

Click the meme to see explosions.

The media predominantly will take us by storm with the off murder of a native by an immigrant on the few occasions that this happens, but they generally will not care to depict the same fervor when the victim is an immigrant.

Some media, yeah. And?
I have already pointed out to you, that the immigrants are the main victims of said crimes. You conceded that point. So how does your media rant help them?

Sadly, the argument for most people is to send immigrants back because immigrants will rape and kill the natives.

What is the argument you're trying to make here? That immigrant criminals should be allowed to stay, because they rape and kill immigrants as well?

Ironically, the video you embedded serves my argument way more than it serves yours. Somali families send their young kids back to Somalia, a very unstable country atm as the narrator explains, because of knife crime in London. Of course these knife crimes do not occur everywhere in the city, just on the immigrant quarters. Segregated and basically forgotten by the police and the British state in general, the Somali are left to fend for themselves. And many believe that since they are not safe in London, then they should better send their loved ones back to Somalia and hope their kids will be safer there.

In what parallel dimension does this help your case?

You repeatedly claimed that their neighborhoods is where the rehabilitation of immigrant criminals should happen - not in their countries of origin. Clearly that isn't working.

I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that they are dragging the rest of their communities down with them. And yet you want that approach to be emphasised even stronger.

And the question is: where is the State? Are the Somali not employed in British businesses and generate wealth for the UK? Why does the British state not intervene to better police these neighborhoods and crack down on crime? As I said to NosPortatArma, the reason has been amply described in the migration literature - immigrants and brought for work needs as a reserve army, are generally considered to be disposable and are handled superficially by the state that hosts them.

So you want the immigrant communities to have the burden of rehabilitating the criminals. At the same time, you're outraged that the immigrants aren't protected from the criminals enough. You don't see the irony there, do you? And once again: You're outraged that the state is doing nothing, yet the case that you're making here, is that the state shouldn't do something. Criminals should stay here and not be sent away. This is some next level mental gymnastics.

Deportation of the criminals is a superficial solution, a quick patch to solve a problem by taking it and dumping it somewhere else. As I have said in this thread before, a better way of handling immigrant crime wouldn't be to deport the criminals but to better secure the immigrant neighborhoods to make immigrant crime harder to spread if not to take place. Prevention will always beat after-treatment of a phenomenon.

So you do see this as a fix. How does keep them here help the everyday layman?

It doesn't.

You also also assume that by the Pareto principle, if you take the minority who causes the greatest number of crimes and get rid of them you have solved all your crime related problems. Well, guess again. The vacuum you just created is going to be filled with new criminals, those held at bay by the criminals you just deported. Since crime is often related to deprivation and most importantly relevant deprivation, if you do not treat the cause of the issue but only its symptoms you will keep on getting the same result - crime in the ghettos, where the least protected will suffer.

Huh. Weird. I thought crime was preventable. Now you say it's not.

You are also portraying this as if prevention and deportation were contradicting approaches. As if they were irreconcilable. That is simply not the case. Therefore that argument is simply vapid and goes nowhere. And the claim that deporting some will simply spawn others is also false. If anything, criminals do tend to induce others into crime. The more you have, the more bad influence on the rest of society.

Deporting the random criminal you managed to catch isn't going to solve the problem for the Somalis in London, or anyone else for that matter - someone else will take the place of the deportee. What will make a difference is the state to intervene to combat the reasons crime happens and better police their streets so to prevent most crimes from happening (as they generally do in non-immigrant neighborhoods).

Do you have numbers to prove that claim? Especially since you say that it's like this everywhere. As if the Swedish police in Malmö was hating on immigrants.

As if Sadiq Khan and the Metropolitan police, who now more than ever have been on that inclusivity drive, have done anything to make that situation better:

Societies have dabbled with deportation for quite some time now. And guess what? It never succeeded in dealing with the problem of crime. It happened in ancient times. Aristotle himself was deported for defacing the local currency with his dad. It happened in the medieval ages. It happened during the Renaissance. Back in the 1700s English penal colonies were set up where poor and criminal Englishmen and others were sent en masse.

It has never worked. It's just a superficial non-solution. It doesn't address why people commit crime in order to stop it. So, no.

You're dealing with absolutes now, as if deportation working would mean there would have to be no crime at all. Well, why stop there? Police has existed for a long time. Yet we still have crimes. Let's disband the police. We have lifeguards on the beaches, yet people drown from time to time. Well that means they're useless, right?

See, no one here is going to argue against crime prevention. I'm very much in favour of that. I do not believe that extra policing would solve anything, but you're free to believe in that as well.
I seriously doubt that police is neglecting every ghetto in the first world. That I do not believe. But heck, you can believe that as well. Because none of those approaches are conflicting with deportation. Heck, if anything, the opposite is true: Having criminals returning to the very social environments that they committed the crimes in, increases the likelihood of them returning to their former "lifestyle".

I hope I have sufficiently answered your arguments. If not, I am more than happy to debate why I think deporting criminals is not only morally wrong, but also not working.

I'd be happy to see your case for both of those claims: Both the moral one and the practical one.

There is no human right on immigration. If I were to move to Greece, the Greek state would act on the assumption that I'll behave. If I don't, if I start stealing, robbing and raping, they will have the right to send me back where I came from. Because clearly me being there wasn't working out. And all those other immigrants in Greece would have nothing to do with it.
Referring to others, who are not doing the crime, would have no positive impact on my case.

If you were to invite me into your apartment, and I were to misbehave, you'd have the right to kick me out, right? Or why is it in that situation different?

[Kritias]

All right, all right! Ready for my apology?


What I said:
I spoke generally in that sentence, and hyperbolically. I wasn't referring to you with that sentence, nor was I insulting anyone there.

-> I'm not going to apologise for you not being able to read, nor for you not understanding the concept of hyperbole, nor for you choosing to misread & interpret it in the most negative way.
I can't even quote anything I said here, because that's completely made up. It's also false given that I'm very sympathetic to Greece, have Greek friends, and think the country is being mistreated by the general EU.

I referenced the brain drain as another example for immigration having devastating effects on their country of origin - I specifically made clear that wasn't relevant to the deportation debate other than you forcing it in:


So no, I'm not going to apologise for you not being able to read and making stuff up.
Actually, you were the one assuming I had no relevant experience in immigration several times including here:

And my reaction was this:

And yeah. Living next to someone isn't the same thing as being one. So your appeal to ethos (-> Aristoteles) doesn't work.
But more importantly, I repeatedly pointed out that it's irrelevant. No one is talking about targeting the immigrant communities in general. We're only talking about criminals. Yet you keep making talk about the criminals a talk about everyone else.

I apologise for making a 100% accurate statement.
Uh... I apologise for not having seen you prove me wrong... on anything so far?!

You don't even have to prove me wrong. A solid argument would be a fine start. It's ok to disagree. It's very good to debate.
You know, it's fine to misread me maybe once or twice. If you do it more than that you are either a) unwilling or b) unable to face the argument.

I don't know if you're familiar with the concepts of hyperbole and rhetorical questions. A hyperbole means an obvious exaggeration.
A hyperbole is not made as an accusation, but rather to emphasise the argument one is making. In this case me.
Rhetorical questions have obvious answers - in this cases "no".

The argument I made repeatedly was very simple. It is a very right wing argument to say "all immigrants are the same".
I pointed out to you that this is what you built your argument on. I also pointed out to you repeatedly, that immigrant communities are the ones being harmed.

Which brings us to this:
Jails shouldn't harden the criminal. In those countries where it happens, the justice system is obviously broken. Because the main goal isn't/shouldn't be revenge, but rehabilitation. This thread isn't about justice systems though.

You are, however, portraying it as an inevitability that people get hardened in jail. Which again is false. I don't know about you, but my social circle includes serious crime. I'm not going to give some personal anecdotes, because they are irrelevant in every way except one: Jails don't necessarily lead to further criminalisation.
That is one possibility, but again, not a necessity.
People might stay. If they do, they are no longer connected to the environment that they committed them in.
Your claim that they will be repeat offenders is false.

If people decide to migrate again, that's their right. A country has the right to declare an individual unwelcome, just like you have the right to kick a guest out of your apartment. You do not have the right to prevent them from entering someone else's apartment. According to your logic, you should not be allowed to throw unwelcome guests out of your apartments due to the risk of them entering someone else's apartment in return.

What I agree with you on, and was pointing out earlier, was that yes, immigration practices by governments are often very slimy. Just not in this context.

Now you are deriding my arguments to have been purely emotional, when they were rarely that. I pointed out that these so called "humanitarian" concerns have extremely detrimental effects on the communities the people are part of.
But that derision becomes more ironic, if you didn't state it after saying this:


Hm, I wonder if I haven't adressed that point before...
Oh wait!!! Yes, I have

And before that:


In no way does this relate to deportation at all:
1: We aren't just talking about gang crimes.
2: COOPERATING and OPERATING aren't the same. Most gangs act locally, but trade of course with other gangs as well. E.g. smuggling drugs from Rotterdam.
3: Gang members are recruited locally - in the ghettos where they live. Just because they "operate" (i.e. mostly smuggling, cybering or cyberscamming) "internationally" (i.e. mostly just across the EU), doesn't mean that a deported person will have a criminal network in their country of origin. It's simply irrelevant that a gang operated for example across the Øresund if the perp is sent back to some place in Africa. To my knowledge, there's very little connection between the crime world in e.g. Europe and that in Subsaharan countries.
4: In those cases where all that you claim is the case, sending them back will still hamper the gangs international operations. Keeping them here will enable them to pick up right where they left it.
As a matter of fact, I don't think that it can have played a major role in this.
Huh. Let me read that original quote of yours again:

Help me out here. Are you saying the country benefits from the criminals themselves? Because to me it seemed like you were talking about immigrants as a whole in that second half of that sentence.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. So let's look at that next reply by you when I called you out on that:
Oh damn. You tell me how you aren't bundling criminals and everyday laymen together here.

Tell me how any of that logic of yours works without you bundling them together. Because time and again and again and again you keep referring to the innocent when this is about the criminals. What you derided as my "personal view" is nothing but a rebuttal of your argument. The criminals are ruining immigrant communities, that is a fact. Yet you keep referring to the everyday laymen as if deporting the criminals was to their detriment.

1: You are - again - bundling immigrants together. Like there's no difference between those who come as doctors and engineers, and those who come without any qualifications at all. Like there's no difference between the crime committed by the various immigrant nationalities. I already pointed to the brain drain principle. Countries don't act out of kindness. If you're highly educated, your chances of getting in are very high. Yet once again, you're bundling into one group. The mental gymnastics that you repeatedly go from saying you're not doing it, to once again doing it, is simply astounding.
And other demagogues like to pretend that there's no crime problem at all. Meanwhile, if you live in the wrong neighbourhood of Malmö, you'll not get any deliveries from UPS, because it's too dangerous, nor your mail from Postnord, because it's too dangerous, nor should you go out at night, because it's too dangerous.
But sure. Instead of adressing the problem, let's keep the troublemakers right where they are and be mad at demagogues instead.

Click the meme to see explosions.

Some media, yeah. And?
I have already pointed out to you, that the immigrants are the main victims of said crimes. You conceded that point. So how does your media rant help them?
What is the argument you're trying to make here? That immigrant criminals should be allowed to stay, because they rape and kill immigrants as well?
In what parallel dimension does this help your case?

You repeatedly claimed that their neighborhoods is where the rehabilitation of immigrant criminals should happen - not in their countries of origin. Clearly that isn't working.

I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that they are dragging the rest of their communities down with them. And yet you want that approach to be emphasised even stronger.
So you want the immigrant communities to have the burden of rehabilitating the criminals. At the same time, you're outraged that the immigrants aren't protected from the criminals enough. You don't see the irony there, do you? And once again: You're outraged that the state is doing nothing, yet the case that you're making here, is that the state shouldn't do something. Criminals should stay here and not be sent away. This is some next level mental gymnastics.
So you do see this as a fix. How does keep them here help the everyday layman?

It doesn't.
Huh. Weird. I thought crime was preventable. Now you say it's not.

You are also portraying this as if prevention and deportation were contradicting approaches. As if they were irreconcilable. That is simply not the case. Therefore that argument is simply vapid and goes nowhere. And the claim that deporting some will simply spawn others is also false. If anything, criminals do tend to induce others into crime. The more you have, the more bad influence on the rest of society.
Do you have numbers to prove that claim? Especially since you say that it's like this everywhere. As if the Swedish police in Malmö was hating on immigrants.

As if Sadiq Khan and the Metropolitan police, who now more than ever have been on that inclusivity drive, have done anything to make that situation better:

You're dealing with absolutes now, as if deportation working would mean there would have to be no crime at all. Well, why stop there? Police has existed for a long time. Yet we still have crimes. Let's disband the police. We have lifeguards on the beaches, yet people drown from time to time. Well that means they're useless, right?

See, no one here is going to argue against crime prevention. I'm very much in favour of that. I do not believe that extra policing would solve anything, but you're free to believe in that as well.
I seriously doubt that police is neglecting every ghetto in the first world. That I do not believe. But heck, you can believe that as well. Because none of those approaches are conflicting with deportation. Heck, if anything, the opposite is true: Having criminals returning to the very social environments that they committed the crimes in, increases the likelihood of them returning to their former "lifestyle".
I'd be happy to see your case for both of those claims: Both the moral one and the practical one.

There is no human right on immigration. If I were to move to Greece, the Greek state would act on the assumption that I'll behave. If I don't, if I start stealing, robbing and raping, they will have the right to send me back where I came from. Because clearly me being there wasn't working out. And all those other immigrants in Greece would have nothing to do with it.
Referring to others, who are not doing the crime, would have no positive impact on my case.

If you were to invite me into your apartment, and I were to misbehave, you'd have the right to kick me out, right? Or why is it in that situation different?

Ahhh yes. The infamous ‘I was just being hyperbolous/satirical/caustic/comedic/rhetorical etc’ line of defense. First of all, a tip of the hat to your linguistic genius. It could have flied if only you had shown some self-restrain and not double down on the insults by implying my imbecility with the ‘if you can’t read’ comment. Sorry, cookie, but I’m gonna need this apology.


Let’s see who’s targeted in practice. Since this subject is varied, I’m going to employ the U.S as a case study since a) their rhetoric of deportation echoes across the world, and b) the U.S are the foremost recipient of migrant populations.


If you go to ICE webpage you can see the reports on the statistics of the deportees and a rough sketch of the reason for deportation. So, in 2011 there were 396,906 people deported, out of which 1,119 were convicted for homicide; 5,848 were sex offenders; 44,653 were deported for drug possession; and 35,927 were driving under the influence. Let’s do math: out of 396,906 people deported only 87,571 were deported based on a, debatable in the latter two cases, serious criminal activity leaving about 309,335 people who were deported as criminals for… Immigration law infractions. I can go on with the following years if you want, but I’m just going to give you 2015 as a reference.


In 2015 there were 462,463 deportations. Out of them, 8,246 were criminals condemned for murder, assault, or robbery, 11,611 were high-risk travelers and 225,342 were the so-called inadmissible individuals – those who entered illegally and couldn’t apply for asylum. The rest 217,264 were also branded as criminals and were deported for… immigration law infractions.


What’s happening here? Simply put in this article, the penalization of immigration law infractions, combined with legislation to streamline due process by limiting the rule of judges has created a very wide population who falls under the new categorization ‘alien criminals’. Why is this happening? Simply put, immigrants are employed as a reserve army workforce and since 1996, deportation has been used as a tool to regulate the workforce flow between developed countries. You can read more about this process here.


So, are we discussing criminals or are we discussing immigrants? In practice we are and we should be discussing the second, because the immigrants as a whole are being targeted as evidenced by the above statistics. The real question should also be why we take a very frivolous minority to justify the expulsion of millions of people who have done minor infractions and bundle them all as criminals.


So when we are debating about this very small minority of people doing serious crimes, my argument regarding hardening jails and exportation to other countries stand. You play around with the meaning of ‘criminal’ here, on the one post meaning those who are murderers and rapists etc and on the other those who are branded ‘criminals’ for petty crimes. Won’t fly, cookie. You have to choose who you mean and stick to it. Speaking off, when I said that comparatively to the crimes the criminals have done and the amount of money generated in the economy I was CLEAR I meant that jailing and guarding them are offset as a cost. Do not mix up my argument, its very bad form.


Moving on, the argument of the guest in the apartment is wrong in so many levels. Firstly, if I am making them work and force them to pay rent they’re not my ‘guest’ but my ‘tenant’. And as any tenant, my tenants are protected from my abuse under a series of laws; I can’t just throw them out because I don’t like them. Only in the case of immigration can I make my tenant look as a person of public risk and throw them out pronto. If they were my guest as you claim, then they are protected by ethics and traditional laws that make their expulsion from my apartment a formalized process with their ability to make it up to me to change my mind. This is more the case of the EU citizen migrating to another EU country than the ones getting deported all the time, namely citizens of the so-called third world.


You keep on insisting I bundle immigrants together, yet you’re the one generalizing when you’re saying some nationalities commit some crimes and other don’t – that’s also bigoted fyi. It’s not nationality but social class that makes the difference in crime with the people on the higher castes committing the more refined ‘white collar crimes’ like profiteering, loansharking, extorting, embezzling etc. But of course I am the one who bundles immigrants together with my insistence of certain nationalities committing different crimes. Oh. Wait. That’s you.


You’ll also need to apologize for implying that I am a demagogue – there’s no end to the insults you’ll throw, is there? I never said there’s no crime, even though the positioning of different parts of different posts taken out of context could be seen as such. Again, you’re arguing against what you think I mean without reading what I actually mean – I am pretty clear in what I say, I believe. But thanks for implying I am a cool guy who doesn’t look at explosions too. You hurt me, then you love me. Confusing.


The media rant doesn’t help the immigrants and if you read what I said and the quote you actually use you’d see I am saying the exact opposite. Since according to you I can’t read, mayhaps you could be a good lad and show us how it’s done by not mistaking the quote you use. Also, don’t use a single sentence. I may write complicated sentences but as a general rule of thumb the meaning is not lying between just two periods.


As for my argument, pretty simply put I say deportation has never worked in helping anyone or combating crime so maybe try to intervene with the police force instead to guard the streets better. It would also create more jobs since more policing would be required. Which brings me to the UPS argument – the UPS won’t deliver because certain neighborhoods are too dangerous for delivery men. Instead of demanding better protection from the state you’re in, you decide pile up the pressure that gets the majority of non-criminal, non-felon, plain-infraction-doers deported. Check the statistics and the links I provided. Go to the webpages. To do away with the few bad apples, they are burning down the apple trees.


Again, my argument is that the state should intervene to better police and better protect – instead what has been happening is to simply take everyone even remotely liable of accusation, bundle them together like criminals and deport them. People are not killers, rapers, robbers as a whole – a very minor minority is. Nationalities and skin colors are not criminal by themselves. Taking these few men and deporting them instead of putting them on longer sentences and more psychiatric evaluations to make sure of their rehabilitation. You’d prefer them to be in jail for x amount of years and then to make perfect sure they won’t keep on doing their evil ways, let’s throw them somewhere else too.


You’re also misrepresenting what I mean about deportation leading nowhere but since you’ve been doing that for the entirety of the post I think you didn’t miss the point, you just didn’t like it. I am going to repeat it here: Crime doesn’t happen just because. There are economic reasons that fester, promote and abate crime – capitalism itself in a large extend is reliant on crime as many researches have shown [here, here, here, here, here, here, here]. The reason is very simple. If you have a lot of people chronically deprived (cause of crime) with no way to escape their poverty, then you have social unrest and chaos. Since you seem to like memes let me give you one in return, to better understand what happens when people are left poor for too long with no way out;



What did the nation states do to combat this event? They generally look the other way when crime occurs in the majority of the cases, intervening when the crime is so horrifying that they have to and generally blame it on minorities to make people angry at the wrong tree. Economic crime for example works as a de-pressurizing force, allowing for some mobility where there would be none and keeping the rest of the poor in line by actually terrorizing them. It’s no coincidence that most of the robbers and outlaws served some nobler cause or other. You can read more about this in Hobsbawm’s work, the Bandits.


On the existence of human rights on migration let me introduce you to the United Nations and their actions to establish a global commitment on protecting the human rights of about 2,3 billions of people migrating as we type.


So, the practical reason. Deportation doesn’t work because a small minority of serious criminals are actually caught every year. If you check ICE’s statistics above they generally catch around 6,000 a year from 2011 to 2017 in a vastly populous nation which means either a) there’s not so much violent crime, or b) there are not so many foreign violent criminals or c) even though there’s enough crime done by foreigners there’s are not many who get caught. Whichever of the three events may be the case, deportation doesn’t work to combat foreign crime, so it’s ineffective. Worse, the statistics show that the majority of people deported are only nominally criminals, most of them having committed minor infractions on migration law.


The moral reason is even simpler – if you consider a person who has never committed a crime before in their life and they do so in America, we must ask which specific parameters enabled their criminal behavior in the country to emerge. The action is tied to the locus it took place, so the punishment and later rehabilitation is also tied to the same place. So punishing them and then deporting them beats the purpose, only dumping the responsibility of dealing with the criminal on someone else. But if you consider that the person had committed a crime before in their lives, then we must ask where did they came from and why weren’t they sustained there to disable their wrong-doing. So, in either case the criminal is under the obligation of the country under which they have committed the crime, and the moral imperative should be to act in order to prevent others from getting harmed by them. Since this isn’t being done, it’s immoral.

I hope I've answered your questions. Please read the links and argue my points as they have been stated throughout this thread without altering their meaning, detestable as they may be to you.

In the opposite case, I will not proceed with my argumentation but will point out your tactics in altering my argument - as many times as I have to.

You will not win a fight by trying to make me look as something different than what I am.

Don't forget the apology.

[Cookiegod]

Ahhh yes. The infamous ‘I was just being hyperbolous/satirical/caustic/comedic/rhetorical etc’ line of defense. First of all, a tip of the hat to your linguistic genius. It could have flied if only you had shown some self-restrain and not double down on the insults by implying my imbecility with the ‘if you can’t read’ comment. Sorry, cookie, but I’m gonna need this apology.

Need =/= Deserve.

Well thank you very much for calling me a linguistic genius. But those are very basic rhetorical devices. I can't say I have heard about that "infamous line of defense" before.
If this keeps happening to you, you should seriously consider the common denominator. Your reading comprehension might need some improvement. Especially since this was so much in your face, that I simply cannot fathom how you can't recognise them as such. Either way: I'm not responsible for you desperately needing to misread my arguments in the most ridiculously implausible, negative way instead of the obvious one.

Let’s see who’s targeted in practice. Since this subject is varied, I’m going to employ the U.S as a case study since a) their rhetoric of deportation echoes across the world, and b) the U.S are the foremost recipient of migrant populations.


If you go to ICE webpage you can see the reports on the statistics of the deportees and a rough sketch of the reason for deportation. So, in 2011 there were 396,906 people deported, out of which 1,119 were convicted for homicide; 5,848 were sex offenders; 44,653 were deported for drug possession; and 35,927 were driving under the influence. Let’s do math: out of 396,906 people deported only 87,571 were deported based on a, debatable in the latter two cases, serious criminal activity leaving about 309,335 people who were deported as criminals for… Immigration law infractions. I can go on with the following years if you want, but I’m just going to give you 2015 as a reference.


In 2015 there were 462,463 deportations. Out of them, 8,246 were criminals condemned for murder, assault, or robbery, 11,611 were high-risk travelers and 225,342 were the so-called inadmissible individuals – those who entered illegally and couldn’t apply for asylum. The rest 217,264 were also branded as criminals and were deported for… immigration law infractions.


What’s happening here? Simply put in this article, the penalization of immigration law infractions, combined with legislation to streamline due process by limiting the rule of judges has created a very wide population who falls under the new categorization ‘alien criminals’. Why is this happening? Simply put, immigrants are employed as a reserve army workforce and since 1996, deportation has been used as a tool to regulate the workforce flow between developed countries. You can read more about this process here.


So, are we discussing criminals or are we discussing immigrants? In practice we are and we should be discussing the second, because the immigrants as a whole are being targeted as evidenced by the above statistics. The real question should also be why we take a very frivolous minority to justify the expulsion of millions of people who have done minor infractions and bundle them all as criminals.

Oh yes. The US. The country where people get life in jail for stealing a chocolate bar. The country where the private prison sector is the fastest rising industry, and where the prisoners get to work as slaves. It's funny that you didn't even choose a statistic that matters in any way at all. All this above = completely irrelevant.

So when we are debating about this very small minority of people doing serious crimes, my argument regarding hardening jails and exportation to other countries stand. You play around with the meaning of ‘criminal’ here, on the one post meaning those who are murderers and rapists etc and on the other those who are branded ‘criminals’ for petty crimes. Won’t fly, cookie. You have to choose who you mean and stick to it. Speaking off, when I said that comparatively to the crimes the criminals have done and the amount of money generated in the economy I was CLEAR I meant that jailing and guarding them are offset as a cost. Do not mix up my argument, its very bad form.

I'm not mixing up your argument. It's ridiculous, irrelevant, and you're still bundling people together for no reason whatsoever.

You play around with the meaning of ‘criminal’ here, on the one post meaning those who are murderers and rapists etc and on the other those who are branded ‘criminals’ for petty crimes. Won’t fly, cookie.

Accusing me without providing evidence won't fly, Krittie.

Moving on, the argument of the guest in the apartment is wrong in so many levels. Firstly, if I am making them work and force them to pay rent they’re not my ‘guest’ but my ‘tenant’. And as any tenant, my tenants are protected from my abuse under a series of laws; I can’t just throw them out because I don’t like them. Only in the case of immigration can I make my tenant look as a person of public risk and throw them out pronto. If they were my guest as you claim, then they are protected by ethics and traditional laws that make their expulsion from my apartment a formalized process with their ability to make it up to me to change my mind. This is more the case of the EU citizen migrating to another EU country than the ones getting deported all the time, namely citizens of the so-called third world.

You are telling me that if your tenant starts committing serious crimes in your apartment, that you are not allowed to kick him out? Huh. That's a new one for me. Maybe because that's completely BS.

You keep on insisting I bundle immigrants together, yet you’re the one generalizing when you’re saying some nationalities commit some crimes and other don’t – that’s also bigoted fyi. It’s not nationality but social class that makes the difference in crime with the people on the higher castes committing the more refined ‘white collar crimes’ like profiteering, loansharking, extorting, embezzling etc. But of course I am the one who bundles immigrants together with my insistence of certain nationalities committing different crimes. Oh. Wait. That’s you.

Lol. So now you're making up from thin air. I'll need proof on that. So quote me.

You’ll also need to apologize for implying that I am a demagogue – there’s no end to the insults you’ll throw, is there?

...
My recollection seems to be a bit rusty. Will you show me where I've called you that?

I never said there’s no crime, even though the positioning of different parts of different posts taken out of context could be seen as such. Again, you’re arguing against what you think I mean without reading what I actually mean – I am pretty clear in what I say, I believe. But thanks for implying I am a cool guy who doesn’t look at explosions too. You hurt me, then you love me. Confusing.

Sigh. This is getting ridiculous.

The media rant doesn’t help the immigrants and if you read what I said and the quote you actually use you’d see I am saying the exact opposite. Since according to you I can’t read, mayhaps you could be a good lad and show us how it’s done by not mistaking the quote you use. Also, don’t use a single sentence. I may write complicated sentences but as a general rule of thumb the meaning is not lying between just two periods.

lol. Yeah, I can read. And this is gold. Your reading comprehension is so low, you think "the media" and "your media rant" are the same thing.

As for my argument, pretty simply put I say deportation has never worked in helping anyone or combating crime so maybe try to intervene with the police force instead to guard the streets better. It would also create more jobs since more policing would be required. Which brings me to the UPS argument – the UPS won’t deliver because certain neighborhoods are too dangerous for delivery men. Instead of demanding better protection from the state you’re in, you decide pile up the pressure that gets the majority of non-criminal, non-felon, plain-infraction-doers deported. Check the statistics and the links I provided. Go to the webpages. To do away with the few bad apples, they are burning down the apple trees.

Are you claiming now that because of deportation of criminals, "non-criminal, non-felon, plain-infraction-doers" get deported?! Where do you get that from on your webpages?!

You keep saying you don't bundle the criminals and the innocent together. Yet you keep making it about the innocent?

Again, my argument is that the state should intervene to better police and better protect – instead what has been happening is to simply take everyone even remotely liable of accusation, bundle them together like criminals and deport them. People are not killers, rapers, robbers as a whole – a very minor minority is. Nationalities and skin colors are not criminal by themselves. Taking these few men and deporting them instead of putting them on longer sentences and more psychiatric evaluations to make sure of their rehabilitation. You’d prefer them to be in jail for x amount of years and then to make perfect sure they won’t keep on doing their evil ways, let’s throw them somewhere else too.

First of all: You pretending I had said anything of nationalities or skin colours being criminal by themselves is simply psychotic.
Secondly, I explicitly said the following:

See, no one here is going to argue against crime prevention. I'm very much in favour of that. I do not believe that extra policing would solve anything, but you're free to believe in that as well.

Unlike you, I can prove it when I accuse you of lying about what I said.

Thirdly: You yourself keep talking about the US in your post. The country with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Now you think their prison sentences should be longer. ¯\_(T_T)_/¯wtf

Fourthly: Gonna quote myself again:

none of those approaches are conflicting with deportation. Heck, if anything, the opposite is true: Having criminals returning to the very social environments that they committed the crimes in, increases the likelihood of them returning to their former "lifestyle".

And yet you're repeating the same thing again, even though I already adressed that.

You’re also misrepresenting what I mean about deportation leading nowhere but since you’ve been doing that for the entirety of the post I think you didn’t miss the point, you just didn’t like it. I am going to repeat it here: Crime doesn’t happen just because. There are economic reasons that fester, promote and abate crime – capitalism itself in a large extend is reliant on crime as many researches have shown [here, here, here, here, here, here, here]. The reason is very simple. If you have a lot of people chronically deprived (cause of crime) with no way to escape their poverty, then you have social unrest and chaos. Since you seem to like memes let me give you one in return, to better understand what happens when people are left poor for too long with no way out;

First of all: I'm not going to debate capitalism with you. It's simply irrelevant.
Secondly, you keep emphasising the social causes, but ignore the personal responsibilities of the offender. If the poor guy has such a sad existence that he has to resort to crime, then maybe he should go home. I'm sure his life there will be so much better.

Thirdly, my meme joke was funny and on point. Yours isn't.

What did the nation states do to combat this event? They generally look the other way when crime occurs in the majority of the cases, intervening when the crime is so horrifying that they have to and generally blame it on minorities to make people angry at the wrong tree. Economic crime for example works as a de-pressurizing force, allowing for some mobility where there would be none and keeping the rest of the poor in line by actually terrorizing them. It’s no coincidence that most of the robbers and outlaws served some nobler cause or other. You can read more about this in Hobsbawm’s work, the Bandits.

On the existence of human rights on migration let me introduce you to the United Nations and their actions to establish a global commitment on protecting the human rights of about 2,3 billions of people migrating as we type.

I'm not going to debate migration in general with you. Because once again it's irrelevant.

So, the practical reason. Deportation doesn’t work because a small minority of serious criminals are actually caught every year. If you check ICE’s statistics above they generally catch around 6,000 a year from 2011 to 2017 in a vastly populous nation which means either a) there’s not so much violent crime, or b) there are not so many foreign violent criminals or c) even though there’s enough crime done by foreigners there’s are not many who get caught. Whichever of the three events may be the case, deportation doesn’t work to combat foreign crime, so it’s ineffective. Worse, the statistics show that the majority of people deported are only nominally criminals, most of them having committed minor infractions on migration law.

Well yeah. If only a small minority of serious criminals are caught each year means it doesn't work and should therefore not be done at all, then it follows those serious criminals shouldn't be jailed or prosecuted at all either. I mean, jailing and prosecuting them obviously doesn't work, since only a small minority of them are actually caught every year.
Time for you to go home, cops! You're disbanded!

The moral reason is even simpler – if you consider a person who has never committed a crime before in their life and they do so in America, we must ask which specific parameters enabled their criminal behavior in the country to emerge. The action is tied to the locus it took place, so the punishment and later rehabilitation is also tied to the same place. So punishing them and then deporting them beats the purpose, only dumping the responsibility of dealing with the criminal on someone else. But if you consider that the person had committed a crime before in their lives, then we must ask where did they came from and why weren’t they sustained there to disable their wrong-doing. So, in either case the criminal is under the obligation of the country under which they have committed the crime, and the moral imperative should be to act in order to prevent others from getting harmed by them. Since this isn’t being done, it’s immoral.

Heh. I already adressed that. Deportation is not the punishment. It's them having overstayed their welcome. Having served their sentence, they are free and therefore no ones responsibility. That doesn't mean they have a right to stay.

I hope I've answered your questions. Please read the links and argue my points as they have been stated throughout this thread without altering their meaning, detestable as they may be to you.

You didn't answer a single question, nor did you face a single argument I made in a normal way. It's what I've stated repeatedly: You're either unwilling or unable to do so. My guess is, it's both.

In the opposite case, I will not proceed with my argumentation but will point out your tactics in altering my argument - as many times as I have to.

Pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and altering your argument are two different things. Unlike you, I can, and have repeatedly, proven repeatedly that you're making wild, and false claims about what I've said. In stead of ever facing the argument - which again, you probably can't.

You will not win a fight by trying to make me look as something different than what I am.

And yet that's what you're trying to do to me? ^^

Don't forget the apology.

Oh it's too late. Can't remember having received one from you.

[Kritias]

Need =/= Deserve.

Well thank you very much for calling me a linguistic genius. But those are very basic rhetorical devices. I can't say I have heard about that "infamous line of defense" before.
If this keeps happening to you, you should seriously consider the common denominator. Your reading comprehension might need some improvement. Especially since this was so much in your face, that I simply cannot fathom how you can't recognise them as such. Either way: I'm not responsible for you desperately needing to misread my arguments in the most ridiculously implausible, negative way instead of the obvious one.

Oh yes. The US. The country where people get life in jail for stealing a chocolate bar. The country where the private prison sector is the fastest rising industry, and where the prisoners get to work as slaves. It's funny that you didn't even choose a statistic that matters in any way at all. All this above = completely irrelevant.


I'm not mixing up your argument. It's ridiculous, irrelevant, and you're still bundling people together for no reason whatsoever.

Accusing me without providing evidence won't fly, Krittie.

You are telling me that if your tenant starts committing serious crimes in your apartment, that you are not allowed to kick him out? Huh. That's a new one for me. Maybe because that's completely BS.

Lol. So now you're making up from thin air. I'll need proof on that. So quote me.


...
My recollection seems to be a bit rusty. Will you show me where I've called you that?

Sigh. This is getting ridiculous.

lol. Yeah, I can read. And this is gold. Your reading comprehension is so low, you think "the media" and "your media rant" are the same thing.

Are you claiming now that because of deportation of criminals, "non-criminal, non-felon, plain-infraction-doers" get deported?! Where do you get that from on your webpages?!

You keep saying you don't bundle the criminals and the innocent together. Yet you keep making it about the innocent?

First of all: You pretending I had said anything of nationalities or skin colours being criminal by themselves is simply psychotic.
Secondly, I explicitly said the following:
Unlike you, I can prove it when I accuse you of lying about what I said.

Thirdly: You yourself keep talking about the US in your post. The country with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Now you think their prison sentences should be longer. ¯\_(T_T)_/¯wtf

Fourthly: Gonna quote myself again:
And yet you're repeating the same thing again, even though I already adressed that.

First of all: I'm not going to debate capitalism with you. It's simply irrelevant.
Secondly, you keep emphasising the social causes, but ignore the personal responsibilities of the offender. If the poor guy has such a sad existence that he has to resort to crime, then maybe he should go home. I'm sure his life there will be so much better.

Thirdly, my meme joke was funny and on point. Yours isn't.

I'm not going to debate migration in general with you. Because once again it's irrelevant.

Well yeah. If only a small minority of serious criminals are caught each year means it doesn't work and should therefore not be done at all, then it follows those serious criminals shouldn't be jailed or prosecuted at all either. I mean, jailing and prosecuting them obviously doesn't work, since only a small minority of them are actually caught every year.
Time for you to go home, cops! You're disbanded!

Heh. I already adressed that. Deportation is not the punishment. It's them having overstayed their welcome. Having served their sentence, they are free and therefore no ones responsibility. That doesn't mean they have a right to stay.


You didn't answer a single question, nor did you face a single argument I made in a normal way. It's what I've stated repeatedly: You're either unwilling or unable to do so. My guess is, it's both.

Pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and altering your argument are two different things. Unlike you, I can, and have repeatedly, proven repeatedly that you're making wild, and false claims about what I've said. In stead of ever facing the argument - which again, you probably can't.

And yet that's what you're trying to do to me? ^^

Oh it's too late. Can't remember having received one from you.

As I warned you on my previous post I am going to spend this one to show how you try to misrepresent what I say.

To begin with, and because you keep on saying that's irrelevant, there's an ongoing debate on social sciences for almost a hundred years now surnamed the Nature vs Nurture debate. What it means is whether a social phenomenon is caused simply due to the surfacing nature of the individual or whether there's a process in society that nurtures that criminal nature until the phenomenon is actualized.

What does that mean for crime? You hold that crime is the result of bad people doing bad things and there's an end to the discussion. A very simple example of the Nature argument. I hold the opposing view that crime is nurtured in society until a person becomes a criminal.

You may dislike this argument, but its a valid argument to make - and one criminologists and sociologists have been making for quite some time now. I provided links to a lot of researches pointing towards the same thing. So saying that something is simply 'irrelevant' is a very gross misrepresentation of my argument, and it frankly doesn't respect the time and effort I put into writing and researching it.

Next, you dish on the U.S and it's perceived jail hysteria and call them irrelevant to the debate whether deportation of foreigner criminals should be done. I fail to understand how the country with the most deportations per year on the basis of 'criminality' is irrelevant. It is not. We are talking about deportation and the U.S have deported millions since the 2ooos.

You also mix up my argument on the fact that jailing and guarding people who commit crimes is offset in cost by the amount of money the immigrants generate in the economy. I've shared links to that, check them out.

Your assumption that all people worthy of deportation are rapists, gang members and murderers on all your posts on this thread - and all the videos you brought as arguments - points towards that, cookie. The argument you type just underneath that, the serious crimes of the tenants, show you mean that everyone deported are serious criminals. And that's not the case, cookie.

Here? Differences committed by the various immigrant nationalities - ja toh, bigoted.

Like there's no difference between those who come as doctors and engineers, and those who come without any qualifications at all. Like there's no difference between the crime committed by the various immigrant nationalities.

You seem to wilfully misrepresent what I wrote by 'media rants' and then pile on with the insults. If I were so wrong, certainly you wouldn't need to insult me to feel better now, would you cookie?

I'm not only stating that 'non-criminal, non-felon, plain-infraction-doers' get deported, I said they are the majority of the deportees. Did you check the ICE database link I included in the last post, or are you just denying this happens oft-hand? Read the links.

Again, here

Like there's no difference between those who come as doctors and engineers, and those who come without any qualifications at all. Like there's no difference between the crime committed by the various immigrant nationalities.

Who are those nationalities who commit different sorts of crimes compared to you? They're muslims, for example?

Once again, I am talking about the U.S precisely because they are the foremost country in the world that deports people. Not to base this discussion on the prime candidate is kind of an omission, right? It's like debating communism and not include the USSR if you need it in a more clear example.

Also, I'm saying that people who end up in prison for serious crimes like rape and murder should be monitored to ensure they are perfectly safe before allowed to return to society once again. I think this is reasonable, no?

Addressing one of my points yourself doesn't make your position more correct - or mine for that fact. We're just debating on what we believe on.

So, debating the economic system that all researches show is on the root for crime since it causes privation to the level necessary for committing crime is irrelevant? How?

So, the process of migration has no impact on talking about the foreign criminals as opposed to the native criminals? How?

Well yeah. If only a small minority of serious criminals are caught each year means it doesn't work and should therefore not be done at all, then it follows those serious criminals shouldn't be jailed or prosecuted at all either. I mean, jailing and prosecuting them obviously doesn't work, since only a small minority of them are actually caught every year.
Time for you to go home, cops! You're disbanded!

No. That's not what I said. You misrepresent again. Read the quote of me you use. Deporting doesn't solve crime and in fact it's not designed to - deportation just relocates the workforce. Which is why people branded as criminals are mostly those who do minor infractions instead of murders and rapes - read the post and the ICE statistics.

Heh. I already adressed that. Deportation is not the punishment. It's them having overstayed their welcome. Having served their sentence, they are free and therefore no ones responsibility. That doesn't mean they have a right to stay.

Deportation just relocates people - the U.S detainees about to deported now are going to go other places, maybe Europe, or maybe sneak back into the U.S; the entirety of these people are branded as illegal aliens and criminals. You again confuse those the state brands as criminals with those actually commit serious crimes like murder etc. And even in those cases, someone is going to get stuck with them because of deportation. Is it or is it not the responsibility of a country to prevent people from getting hurt because of criminals operating inside their borders? You say it should only protect the people living within their borders, I say it should protect all people.

Maybe another, easier example can help. Let's assume that you have an infectious disease but you're not a citizen of the country you currently live in. If they allow you to fly from the airport, you will infect other people in other countries. If they contain you and quarantine you they will ensure that no one gets hurt by what you have. Deportation of a murderer without rehabilitation is as immoral as allowing someone with an infectious disease to travel.

PS: I am NOT saying that murder=disease. I'm giving an easier to understand example.

You didn't answer a single question, nor did you face a single argument I made in a normal way. It's what I've stated repeatedly: You're either unwilling or unable to do so. My guess is, it's both.Pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and altering your argument are two different things. Unlike you, I can, and have repeatedly, proven repeatedly that you're making wild, and false claims about what I've said. In stead of ever facing the argument - which again, you probably can't.

Up to point you have denied to see my argument as it is but have tried to misrepresent it, you've avoided to review links and articles and to discuss ideas. You have mischaracterized my argument regarding immigration and its connection to crime. You've also seem not to have understood what I meant about a crime taking place in a particular locus, and so the connection between criminality and place. Also saying I didn't answer in a normal way is kind of weird... Did I answer abnormally? Because then I did answer and you're in conflict with your own statement. Also, your obvious goading in your last couple of posts show that you mostly try to annoy me than to debate - a very common and very unsuccessful tactic with me as you will discover, cookie dear.

My suggestion: read my posts, one by one, from the start of the thread. Open every link. Pour into them, study them. And then we can proceed with the argumentation.

Don't forget the apology. Because you piling up on the insults is touching a breach of rules by right about now.

PS: What do you mean you didn't like my meme?

[Cookiegod]

You quoted that exact sentence twice and still came to that interpretation? Yeah, sure. I'm out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kritias]

You quoted that exact sentence twice and still came to that interpretation? Yeah, sure. I'm out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So, you won't be reading my posts and links and researches included in the thread to continue this argument? That sucks.

Saying different nationalities commit different crimes is pretty straight forward as an argument of differentiation of ethnic correlation to crime. If there's any other interpretation, I'd like to see you spin this.

[Cookiegod]

See, your "researches" are part of the problem. Not only are you unable to engage with the arguments of the others in a normal way, you are bad at presenting your own.

Capitalism, nature vs. nurture, etc... If you can't stay on point, that's already a bad sign. But those are wildly unrelated.
I don't need to look at some ICE statistics to see which people can be criminalised for insufficient reasons, because that does absolutely 0 to address the topic. I can take your word for it and even agree that it's a silly thing to criminalise, and yet that doesn't move your case (that no immigrant criminal should be deported on principle) even one yota.

There is no ICE data (or by anyone else to my knowledge) that shows deportation to have no effect on crime.

And that's one of the recurring themes one can see in your argumentation. It's just a big mess.
You're basically throwing out statistics, papers, with no strategy, no thought whatsoever on how that pushes your point.
You could post data about climate change, and it would help your case just as much.

And when it comes to your reading comprehension, I honestly thought you were trolling earlier. But you really don't do hyperboles, rhetorical questions, reductio ad absurdum, etc. at all, do you?
Which is weird, since all three of those date back to the ancient greeks, the latter to Aristotelian analytics ("ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις"). Whom you yourself referred to at one point. Though again not in a way that helps you.

But even other arguments that were straight forward and easy to read were completely ignored by you, or warped to the most negative, weird intepretation you could come up with. No matter how improbable it's gotta be. No matter how contradicted it is by the rest.

[Kritias]

See, your "researches" are part of the problem. Not only are you unable to engage with the arguments of the others in a normal way, you are bad at presenting your own.

The problem is when a very complex issue is put on white & black (no pun intended) terms, cookie. The academic community has spent thousands of work hours to prove that even the simplest thing isn't as simple as the sentence: some people commit crime and we need to get rid of them. Questions as how, why, by what means, by which process, by what context play important roles in deciding an issue. Also, does the quotation marks around the word researches hint to your disdain towards the academic community? Because that would be a problem indeed. And I linked to highly prestigious publishers, too.

Capitalism, nature vs. nurture, etc... If you can't stay on point, that's already a bad sign. But those are wildly unrelated.
I don't need to look at some ICE statistics to see which people can be criminalised for insufficient reasons, because that does absolutely 0 to address the topic. I can take your word for it and even agree that it's a silly thing to criminalise, and yet that doesn't move your case (that no immigrant criminal should be deported on principle) even one yota.

I'm fervently staying on point - the difference we have is that you frame the argument more on a black & white (no pun intended) terms, and I disagree with you. The ties of migration to crime is put under serious question by the academic community so there goes the 'foreigner' part from the title. Capitalism as a system tends to generate inequality, and deprivation leads to crime. The specific mores of a country, even a city might influence the type of crimes committed. If we are debating who should be deported, we need to see who the criminal foreigners are first, and how they became so.

Then by excluding those not worthy of deportation, we can say who may be deported or not. In my case, I say no one. This is strategy by the way, since you didn't understand where I was going with this.

There is no ICE data (or by anyone else to my knowledge) that shows deportation to have no effect on crime.

Read that quote again: I said it's either ridiculous outcome 1, ridiculous argument 2 or logical argument 3. I meant since you can't prove 1 & 2 yet they must be false according to experience, it stands to reason it must be 3.

And that's one of the recurring themes one can see in your argumentation. It's just a big mess.
You're basically throwing out statistics, papers, with no strategy, no thought whatsoever on how that pushes your point.
You could post data about climate change, and it would help your case just as much.

I can't convince you to read my points if you don't want to. Were you to take a step back and read the whole thing again, you'd see it makes perfect sense.

And when it comes to your reading comprehension, I honestly thought you were trolling earlier. But you really don't do hyperboles, rhetorical questions, reductio ad absurdum, etc. at all, do you? Which is weird, since all three of those date back to the ancient greeks, the latter to Aristotelian analytics ("ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις"). Whom you yourself referred to at one point. Though again not in a way that helps you.

I didn't think that its a prerequisite for my interlocutor to enjoy my literary style, only to understand my points. I'm sorry it disappoints you but it does not prove me wrong.

But even other arguments that were straight forward and easy to read were completely ignored by you, or warped to the most negative, weird intepretation you could come up with. No matter how improbable it's gotta be. No matter how contradicted it is by the rest.

Have I? Because I've been debating you on this for days now, and you've tried to annoy me on multiple occasions by misrepresenting my arguments and outright insult me. Even here, these sentences can be seen as passive-agressive

But you really don't do hyperboles, rhetorical questions, reductio ad absurdum, etc. at all, do you? Which is weird, since all three of those date back to the ancient greeks, the latter to Aristotelian analytics ("ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις").

Is this a racial comment that all Greeks are supposed to debate like Plato, for example? And what do you mean by weird? Are you insinuating something by saying that's weird it doesn't happen here since I am Greek and since ancient Greeks did it? I am not taking offense on this one, even though I probably should given your recent comments.

Also, you didn't answer my question so I will ask again:

Saying different nationalities commit different crimes is pretty straight forward as an argument of differentiation of ethnic correlation to crime. If there's any other interpretation, I'd like to see you spin this.

[Amagi]

I would deport them all. You can´t go into a foreign country and start messing around there.

[Ludicus]

...but forcing disintegrated Iraq and Syria to take care of unrepented terrorists can morally be rather controversial, no?

You are absolutely right...
---

I would deport them all.

I can't say I'm surprised by this statement, coming from a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier. #1

[Amagi]

I can't say I'm surprised by this statement, coming from a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier. #1

totally forgot about that thread, but I remember this one.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1) The word “hoax” in its harshest sense applies to what was done. Although there may have never been a formal meeting to hatch the hoax, that was not even needed. There certainly was an “incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mindreading by a far-flung bureaucracy” (words lifted from Raul Hilberg) among the victors, and especially among the Jews.. The tale of the six million was to be a huge dead albatross around the necks of the entire German people (not just the Nazis) to “keep them down” forever. .Whether the hoaxers actually believed their own propaganda and outright lies hardly mattered. The Germans, the most civilized and most highly educated people on the planet, had to be “re-educated” and ”democratized” by people who had themselves committed far worse atrocities than anything the Nazis were ever accused of committing. Those same victors also continued to hold hundreds of millions of people in virtual slavery and misery. The hoax has succeeded perfectly. Germany which had contributed far more to human enlightenment in its brief period of independence than any other country from its founding in 1871 until 1945—was reduced to making expensive automobiles and machinery, and enslaved with guilt and endless payments and apologies to people who were never exterminated to begin with.

2) The American-Zionist axis has phosphorised German children, atom-bombed Japanese children, treated Vietnamese children with Agent Orange and Iraqi children with depleted uranium. It is high time the defeated, the humiliated, the wronged replied with what I have long called ‘the poor man’s atomic bomb’, that is, with historical revisionism; that weapon neither kills nor mutilates anyone; it kills only the lie, the slander, the defamation, the myth of the ‘Shoa’, along with the abject Shoa Business dear to Bernard Madoff, Elie Wiesel, the horde of ‘miraculous survivors’ and the murderers of Gaza’s children

Professor Robert Faurisson

3) "...As a Roman Catholic priest I say to you...question the existence of gas chambers in the Third Reich. It is the right of those who seek the truth to be allowed to doubt, investigate and evaluate. Wherever this doubting and evaluating is forbidden, wherever someone demands that he must be believed, an arrogance arises that is blasphemy to god. That is why. If those whom you doubt have their truth on their side, they will accept any questions gracefully and answer them patiently. They will no longer hide their proofs and their records. If these are lying, they will cry for the judge. That is how you recognize them. The truth is always graceful, while lies cries out for earthly judges." -Pastor Viktor R. Knirsch

[Ludicus]

totally forgot about that thread, but I remember this one.

"The Germans, the most civilized and most highly educated people on the planet, had to be re-educated and democratized"

...and the Jews were responsible for their own destruction.Let's laugh together.




This is kind of off topic, I know.

[Pontifex Maximus]

My position for the US:

1. You have no right to be here whatsoever.

2. We may choose to allow you to stay if your asylum application is compelling.

3. Any other admission to our country is a boon, for which you should be hugely grateful.

4. You should be committed to American ideals, and shed whatever ideology or allegiance you held prior to being granted access/asylum.

5. We do not care what you look like, what god you worship, or whatever belief or position you hold in relation to us deciding whether or not you should be here.

6. Are you going to be a leach on our services, or a net gain on them? We understand if you're a leach for just a bit before being a bet contributor, hell, that's what most of us use it for.

7. If you are a criminal ( we see so much murder, traficking, rape, child molestation, etc on the border) we have processes to weed you out, liberate your victims, prosecute you, and ensure the people at the border remain free from your predation.

But no. All of this is "racist" according to democrats. I can't explain why this is racist, the democrats just assure us that it is.