The lefts love for illegal immigrants. Because who cares about federal law?

[panamaican]

I'm laughing, not crying. I'm also not worried about you or anybody else thinking I look stupid. Completely fine by me.

Of course it's fine by you. If looking stupid bothered you, you would have stopped by now.

Show me a race bait thread and I'll be happy to call that spade a spade. This particular OP didn't have a racial angle. You and others are the ones that first mentioned race.

And no, I'm not overextending the word "racism" to cover every random race related conversation. That's another misrepresentation of my stance - which is one that specifically pertains to the concept of race-baiting, and that concept alone.

You think that race-baiting has nothing to do with racism. Noted.

You're not overextending the word racism? Then why are you insisting that other people are bringing up "racism" and not just bringing up "race baiting"? You can't discuss one without the other. That would mean you've over-extended racism.

Race-baiting has nothing to do with racism. I would tell you look it up but you already did, the definition had nothing to do with racism. Yet, once again, you inserted "racism" into the definition of "race-baiting" even though wasn't there. notice a pattern yet?

 

[helltoupee]

I'm no expert in identity fraud, but if you can use stolen SSN for employment purposes, then what make you think they cannot use that SSN for other fraudulent purposes like get other benefits such as unemployment benefits, or borrow a loan, or apply for financial aid, or credit card account using the same SSN?

You certainly could, but that is not the reason the majority of illegals obtain fraudulent SSNs - it is simply to work, which leads to taxes being deducted, and is what I was taking issue with.

Regular American citizens also participate in identity theft, this doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of people obtain drivers licenses or SSNs with the express intent to commit as much.

 

[HomerThompson]

I'm no expert in identity fraud, but if you can use stolen SSN for employment purposes, then what make you think they cannot use that SSN for other fraudulent purposes like get other benefits such as unemployment benefits, or borrow a loan, or apply for financial aid, or credit card account using the same SSN?


It's mind boggling to think that open-border liberals think identity theft/fraud is OK...even if it's for employment purpose.

It's not stolen, it's fake. Jesus fucking Christ. Learn to read.

 

[BearGrounds]

Of course it's fine by you. If looking stupid bothered you, you would have stopped by now.

You're not overextending the word racism? Then why are you insisting that other people are bringing up "racism" and not just bringing up "race baiting"? You can't discuss one without the other. That would mean you've over-extended racism.

Race-baiting has nothing to do with racism. I would tell you look it up but you already did, the definition had nothing to do with racism. Yet, once again, you inserted "racism" into the definition of "race-baiting" even though wasn't there. notice a pattern yet?

Using unfair statements about race as a means to manipulate another race has nothing to do with racism. Right. Because it's not specifically aimed at stirring up racially motivated viewpoints at all....

 

[panamaican]

Using unfair statements about race as a means to antagonize another race has nothing to do with racism. Right. Because it's not specifically aimed at stirring up a discussion or a response about racist viewpoints at all....

Seems like you didn't read your definition. A person who is race baiting does not have to be racist themselves. The race-baiting statements do not have to be racist. The unfair use of statements does not require the statements to be racist, only used in an unfair manner relative to the conversation.

I know you're trying to pretend that some of this is you intentionally being difficult but a large part of is that you really don't understand the difference. Let me try and help you.

Johnny is talking to Brad about how proud he, Johnny, is to defy [insert racial stereotype]. Luke says to both of them, "People of [insert race other than Johnny's] are the best example of what you're talking about." (Note that there's nothing racist about Luke's statement). Luke isn't being racist against Johnny, Johnny's race or the other race he mentioned. Luke might just be making a statement to elicit a race based response from Johnny that causes an argument with Brad.

Luke might not believe a single thing he just said, Luke might not even care if it's true. Luke cares about getting Johnny and Brad into an argument about race. Why? Maybe Luke's just a dick. But being a dick doesn't mean Luke is also a racist. So, if Sam tells Luke to stop race baiting Johnny, he's not calling Luke a racist - he's calling out Luke for trying to push Johnny into a racially divisive conversation with Brad.

Understand now how calling out race-baiting is not the same as bringing up racism?

 

[BearGrounds]

Seems like you didn't read your definition. A person who is race baiting does not have to be racist themselves. The race-baiting statements do not have to be racist. The unfair use of statements does not require the statements to be racist, only used in an unfair manner relative to the conversation.

I know you're trying to pretend that some of this is you intentionally being difficult but a large part of is that you really don't understand the difference. Let me try and help you.

Johnny is talking to Brad about how proud he, Johnny, is to defy [insert racial stereotype]. Luke says to both of them, "People of [insert race other than Johnny's] are the best example of what you're talking about." (Note that there's nothing racist about Luke's statement). Luke isn't being racist against Johnny, Johnny's race or the other race he mentioned. Luke might just be making a statement to elicit a race based response from Johnny that causes an argument with Brad.

Luke might not believe a single thing he just said, Luke might not even care if it's true. Luke cares about getting Johnny and Brad into an argument about race. Why? Maybe Luke's just a dick. But being a dick doesn't mean Luke is also a racist. So, if Sam tells Luke to stop race baiting Johnny, he's not calling Luke a racist - he's calling out Luke for trying to push Johnny into a racially divisive conversation with Brad.

Understand now how calling out race-baiting is not the same as bringing up racism?

I never said a race-baiter has to be racist.

Inciting an argument about race, is playing a game based upon the concept of racism. You're pitting one race against another, based on an unfair racial premise.

Whether the baiter believes it or not is irrelevant, when strictly talking about whether or not the argument you create is related to racism in general.

A race-baiter is using bait to incite a racial quarrel. That is directly tied to the concept of racism.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Correct. Her illegal status is irrelevant to if she stole the items and what she did with them after the theft. It's the same crime regardless of immigration status.

Her illegal status is as irrelevant as the idea of her voicing the fact that she dropped out of school and is expecting a second child in order to score sympathy points.

No, you didn't. "Her life" would pretty much go back to her birth and everything up that point. They heard about the case - which is a case of a maid stealing rings from her employer.

Only the parts that would manipulate the jury mattered....which in this case is from grade 6 until now before she has a second child.

Jury foreman Jeffrey Memmott told The Washington Post the jurors felt sympathy for the woman who testified she dropped out of school after sixth grade, had one child and was pregnant with another but was not employed.

So common sense says that imprisoning a single mother with minor children for 20 years after she returned the stolen goods is better for society? Because housing the mother in a penitentiary helps society how? And turning the child into a ward of the state, also to be paid for by the state, helps society how?

This is you being disingenuous. Never did i insinuate that so you either cannot read or are injecting it conveniently so that you can make sense of a $60 fine which equally doesn't make sense. Im going to go ahead and disregard this part.

Also i would like to point out how you are clearly using the fact that shes a single mother as some sort of metric for the outcome of the punishment. If you can willfully admit that you are being sympathetic to her plight (as you say) and this is a determinant for and the jury then the sooner we can end this conversation and the ridiculous "Financial enrichment" angle you are trying to push here.

You're going to have to flesh out the "common good" that you're aiming for since the woman has and keeps the felony conviction on her record.

Not using sympathy as a metric for punishment since it obviously does not deliver justice and only breeds weakness where it doesn't belong, e.g the justice system. You seem to think i care about this little hussy which is the basis for your entire argument. What bothers me are the actions of the jurors leading with emotion and paying off a fine that is meant to be a corrective measure for the said criminal. Society does not become enriched because we absolve people of their responsibilities.

See above where we have no financial enrichment to the thief and the victim received their property back undamaged.

Not only do i fail to see the relevance of financial enrichment but so do the jurors. Of course though because you want to make sense of it you are going to produce this angle which no one cares about and is flimsy at best. Returning stolen property as a defense must seem like a great way to score more sympathy points but it does not absolve someone of the crime. Fuck her.

What exactly does 5 years in prison, for example, accomplish for society?

Nothing...........are you forgetting she's an illegal and is irrelevant to your society? Deport her ass, an illegal committing crimes and getting off the hook isn't exactly the time to discuss the finer points of a well run society which you are awkwardly trying to do.

 

[panamaican]

I never said a race-baiter has to be racist.

Inciting an argument about race, is playing a game based upon the concept of racism. You're pitting one race against another, based on an unfair racial premise.

Whether the baiter believes it or not is irrelevant, when strictly talking about whether or not the argument you create is related to racism in general.

A race-baiter is using bait to incite a racial quarrel. That is directly tied to the concept of racism.

A racial quarrel is not directly tied to the concept of racism. 2 white people quarreling over white America's role in Southeast Asia doesn't require the insertion of racism, although it is a racial quarrel. 2 black people quarreling over whether or not athletic focus is good or bad for inner city black youth isn't about racism, although it too is a racial quarrel. A white guy and a black guy could be arguing over whether or not interracial marriage leads to children with no sense of racial identity and whether or not that's good thing or a bad thing for those kids psychological development. Again, a race based quarrel but not automatically tied to the concept of racism - it could be about the psychology of child development with a focus on how race shapes personal perception. Racial quarrels, not racist quarrels.

You're basically treating everything that touches on race as being tied to racism. That is the over extension of the term to which I am referring.

 

[BearGrounds]

A racial quarrel is not directly tied to the concept of racism. 2 white people quarreling over white America's role in Southeast Asia doesn't require the insertion of racism, although it is a racial quarrel. 2 black people quarreling over whether or not athletic focus is good or bad for inner city black youth isn't about racism, although it too is a racial quarrel. A white guy and a black guy could be arguing over whether or not interracial marriage leads to children with no sense of racial identity and whether or not that's good thing or a bad thing for those kids psychological development. Again, a race based quarrel but not automatically tied to the concept of racism - it could be about the psychology of child development with a focus on how race shapes personal perception. Racial quarrels, not racist quarrels.

Except we're talking specifically about a racial quarrel incited by race-bait.

I also noticed that your example above involved different races. How quickly you've abandoned that.

How about we stick to this thread's content. Explain how it is race bait, and we can work from there.

You're basically treating everything that touches on race as being tied to racism. That is the over extension of the term to which I am referring.

Nope, just race-baiting. Which, by extension (not over-extension), involves the concept of racism.

 

[panamaican]

Her illegal status is as irrelevant as the idea of her voicing the fact that she dropped out of school and is expecting a second child in order to score sympathy points.

Okay....so you're agreeing that it's irrelevant?

Only the parts that would manipulate the jury mattered....which in this case is from grade 6 until now before she has a second child.

Uhm...manipulate the jury? . That's what jury trials are about. Convincing the jury to view your position/client favorably.

This is you being disingenuous. Never did i insinuate that so you either cannot read or are injecting it conveniently so that you can make sense of a $60 fine which equally doesn't make sense. Im going to go ahead and disregard this part.

Also i would like to point out how you are clearly using the fact that shes a single mother as some sort of metric for the outcome of the punishment. If you can willfully admit that you are being sympathetic to her plight (as you say) and this is a determinant for and the jury then the sooner we can end this conversation and the ridiculous "Financial enrichment" angle you are trying to push here.

You stated very clearly what you thought. I pointed out where i think your position lacked thought. Take for example that you think I referenced her being a single mother for sympathy when it's about the reality of society having to deal with her child while she's imprisoned.

That you didn't think that far into your argument doesn't mean I didn't. You put the mom in jail, you still have to deal with the minor. That's reality, we don't get to ignore it when deciding how to interpret the sentencing of the adult.

Not using sympathy as a metric for punishment since it obviously does not deliver justice and only breeds weakness where it doesn't belong, e.g the justice system. You seem to think i care about this little hussy which is the basis for your entire argument. What bothers me are the actions of the jurors leading with emotion and paying off a fine that is meant to be a corrective measure for the said criminal. Society does not become enriched because we absolve people of their responsibilities.

Right, so charity shouldn't exist. Gofundme pages shouldn't exist. People shouldn't personally reach out and financially help those who they think need help?

And I asked you to flesh out how a larger fine or a prison sentence was a more appropriate punishment given the facts of the case.

I know you really want this to be a sympathy play but you haven't addressed a single point I made regarding the facts, instead you're fixated on how the jurors acted after the case was done. If they had fined her the entire $2,500 and paid for it out of their pockets would it still bother you?

Not only do i fail to see the relevance of financial enrichment but so do the jurors. Of course though because you want to make sense of it you are going to produce this angle which no one cares about and is flimsy at best. Returning stolen property as a defense must seem like a great way to score more sympathy points but it does not absolve someone of the crime. Fuck her.

You're really slacking here. She wasn't absolved of the crime, she was convicted of a felony. And remorseful behavior has always played a role in sentencing. It also plays a role in parole hearings. "Why?" is probably what your short-sighted perspective is leading you to ask.

Because the point of the criminal justice system is also to rehabilitate the offender and make people aware of their errors. When a convicted felon shows genuine remorse for their misdeeds, there is less reason to apply a large punishment to help them get the point.

Nothing...........are you forgetting she's an illegal and is irrelevant to your society? Deport her ass, an illegal committing crimes and getting off the hook isn't exactly the time to discuss the finer points of a well run society which you are awkwardly trying to do.

Well, this was a state crime. So the state couldn't deport her. They would have to imprison her and wait until ICE gets around to deporting this nonviolent felon with a minor child who may or may not be an American citizen.

This is pretty bad stuff here, should I assume you posted this while distracted?

 

[panamaican]

Except we're talking specifically about a racial quarrel incited by race-bait.

I also noticed that your example above involved different races. How quickly you've abandoned that.

How about we stick to this thread's content. Explain how it is race bait, and we can work from there.



Nope, just race-baiting. Which, by extension (not over-extension), involves the concept of racism.

I've explained it in various ways based on the history of the subject matter, the TS's posting history and the OP's significant misrepresentation of the article's contents.

The examples I cited could easily arise from race baiting. And my above examples involved difference races and same races. 2 white people arguing about white people. 2 black people arguing about black people. A mixed group of 2 people arguing about people of mixed background. How much broader could I have made it?

We're going further and further from the original error. You said that other people were bringing up racism because they accused the OP of race-baiting. At every turn, you try to argue that accusing someone of race-baiting is the same thing as bringing up racism.

If you already agreed that no one was called a racist and your definition of race-baiting doesn't include racism then I'm just watching you insist that racism was brought up despite your presentation of evidence and your argument that it never occurred anywhere but in your head.

 

[MMAViewer]

I know alot of illegals that pay taxes. Americans don't always want to do what illegals do not matter how much you think.

Some do pay taxes but many are paid under the table and they are paid terribly low wages. If we made a path that was reasonable and paid a fair wage then it would open the door for any color of employee, that's how the free market works. I agree we need good laborers but we need to pay them fair and above the table. I am pro union and i am for raising the minimum wage to correspond with inflation.

 

[LMP]

I can't stand how everything has to be "left vs right".

It would be to expensive to around everyone up. What are we going to do while we wait for them to be processed? Put them in concentration camps? How about families where the children were born here? Those kids are US citizens.

Next are the people who don't care at all about illegals coming in. I guess you guys must be globalist. We as a nation should be able to vet the people coming into the nation. Allowing only people that have something to contribute to the nation.
Illegals also hold the wages of the lower class down. When we have more jobs then workers, yes bring people in to help fill those jobs. Just allowing anyone in because they want to come is not the best idea IMO.

Secure the border first. Give amnesty to those still in the country that aren't felons. Make it harder to employ people here illegally or to continue to employ people over staying their visas. Harsher penalties on employers knowingly employing people here illegally.

 

[BearGrounds]

I've explained it in various ways based on the history of the subject matter, the TS's posting history and the OP's significant misrepresentation of the article's contents.

The misrepresentation, whether intentional or mere error, had to do with the jury being aware of the person's illegal status. Nothing to do with race.

So, in other words, as for race-baiting, there wasn't any in this specific thread's OP, aside from that which occurred within your head.

The examples I cited could easily arise from race baiting. And my above examples involved difference races and same races. 2 white people arguing about white people. 2 black people arguing about black people. A mixed group of 2 people arguing about people of mixed background. How much broader could I have made it?

We're going further and further from the original error. You said that other people were bringing up racism because they accused the OP of race-baiting. At every turn, you try to argue that accusing someone of race-baiting is the same thing as bringing up racism.

If you already agreed that no one was called a racist and your definition of race-baiting doesn't include racism then I'm just watching you insist that racism was brought up despite your presentation of evidence and your argument that it never occurred anywhere but in your head.

Yes, accusing someone of race-baiting (when there is no evidence of it, especially) is bringing up the concept of racism by extension. Without racism being an element of the following argument, there's nothing to bait.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Okay....so you're agreeing that it's irrelevant?

To the case i agree it is irrelevant as is the sob story given.
You do agree that the details of her dropping out at 6th grade and being a single mother are also irrelevant no?

Uhm...manipulate the jury? . That's what jury trials are about. Convincing the jury to view your position/client favorably.

Yea that's all fine and dandy (not really) except for the fact that you said

No, you didn't. "Her life" would pretty much go back to her birth and everything up that point. They heard about the case - which is a case of a maid stealing rings from her employer.

Listen, i get you are a lawyer and usually they tend to be full of shit but could you at least stay some what consistent in your argument? You either recognize the sob story which was clearly that attempt at being viewed favorably or you do not. Why try to paint the situation differently until a quoted text from the article has you changing your tune completely. One moment "The jury only knows the crime" the next "of course she is doing that to look favorably" make up your mind and stop flopping around on this.

You stated very clearly what you thought. I pointed out where i think your position lacked thought. Take for example that you think I referenced her being a single mother for sympathy when it's about the reality of society having to deal with her child while she's imprisoned.

My position didn't lack thought it lacked your assumption that i wanted her locked up for 20 years because you are too lazy yourself to argue any other punishment. $60 is down right retarded and nothing you have said thus far has convinced me otherwise. Especially the "personal enrichment" angle...el oh el

That you didn't think that far into your argument doesn't mean I didn't. You put the mom in jail, you still have to deal with the minor. That's reality, we don't get to ignore it when deciding how to interpret the sentencing of the adult.

Your argument boiled down is essentially that it's better to keep her out of prison because it's cheaper bearing in mind that she has a baby on the way. Detain her until ICE can get there hands on her and deport her, that's also pretty cheap and we have one less convicted felon. Or do you not agree with that either?

Right, so charity shouldn't exist. Gofundme pages shouldn't exist. People shouldn't personally reach out and financially help those who they think need help?

People can do what ever they want with their money but for convicted felons who are illegal? No i don't think people should do that and they should also be ready for the criticism to follow. Great societal enrichment there genius.

And I asked you to flesh out how a larger fine or a prison sentence was a more appropriate punishment given the facts of the case.

To be clear i don't want her in prison unless there is a direct path for her deportation upon entry. A larger fine would be more appropriate so she can understand the full repercussions of theft. To be briefly, financially strangulated has always been a good deterrent for bad behavior. Besides this girl is an illegal who dropped out of school with one kid and another on the way at 19 years old and has just commited a crime. She is clearly not making good decisions and a simple fine of $60 being paid by at the charity of the jurors (with a $20 Profit mind you) does not seem fitting at all.

Would you agree to a certain amount of community service or is that also too harsh?

I know you really want this to be a sympathy play but you haven't addressed a single point I made regarding the facts, instead you're fixated on how the jurors acted after the case was done. If they had fined her the entire $2,500 and paid for it out of their pockets would it still bother you?

You aren't really making points as much as you are playing mental gymnastics which is what you usually do.

And yea i am fixated on that because that is my gripe with this. For some reason this is escaping you, perhaps you think we are in a court room rather than on sherdog which i will encourage you to strongly reconsider your surroundings.
Yes it would still bother me. I want there to be some form of rehabilitation, you clearly do not and no, being remorseful is not enough and it certainly is not unreasonable nor vindictive to want more than that.

You're really slacking here. She wasn't absolved of the crime, she was convicted of a felony. And remorseful behavior has always played a role in sentencing. It also plays a role in parole hearings. "Why?" is probably what your short-sighted perspective is leading you to ask.

Because the point of the criminal justice system is also to rehabilitate the offender and make people aware of their errors. When a convicted felon shows genuine remorse for their misdeeds, there is less reason to apply a large punishment to help them get the point.

Yea except you have no way of quantifying remorse and it's rehabilitative effects. So no there is no rehabilitation going on here twist and turn as you may.

Well, this was a state crime. So the state couldn't deport her. They would have to imprison her and wait until ICE gets around to deporting this nonviolent felon with a minor child who may or may not be an American citizen.

Ok you got a problem with that?

This is pretty bad stuff here, should I assume you posted this while distracted?

Oh fucking please. We have a lawyer trying to lecture us about whats good for society.
El oh fucking el

 

[P4p Islam]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/1...-convicted-her-stealing-5g-worth-jewelry.html

TLDR: Illegal commits theft. Jury feels bad that illegal is spawning and pays her fees after judge downgrades felony to a fine.

Ya done goofed by linking fake news.


Reported for faux news.

 

[franklinstower]

I'm disgusted that she stole, I'm equally disgusted that no one said a damn word about the people who hired an illegal.
Illegals shouldn't steal period, and there is no excuse for it. That said, people who hire illegals need to be held accountable as they are fucking the U.S. out of taxes and fucking legal citizens out of work.

The easiest and cheapest way to end illegal emigration is to go after the companies that hire them.