# If the Feds won't do it, we will: localities take steps to curb illegal immigration **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838 "2006-05-08T02:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/141 "2006-05-13T23:44:29Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > So you don’t have any proof huh? I think most of us around here expected that. Ah, I was wondering for someone to come up with “us”, the old strength in numbers schtick. I guess if you feel the need, it makes sense. Now, perhaps you would like to share how one could “prove” such a thing. Go ahead, imagine IF the case were true, how would you go about proving what you ask to be proven? > [@CBEscapee](#): > > I did show what was incorrect. You must have missed it. Are you that dense? Even if you think you showed that I was incorrect, the point is that was not all that you did. You ascribed whatever you thought incorrect to dishonesty and lies. Or as a you put it “deliberate misrepresentations”. And you did it twice. > [@CBEscapee](#): > > Actually I didn’t know that. I wasn’t aware that sarcasm is prohibited. I thought I read within the past few weeks that :rolleyes: was not permitted. Other posters seem to know otherwise. And since tomndebb hasn’t raised the flag, I stand corrected. Unless you think that, too, was a lie or “deliberate misrepresentation” :rolleyes: > [@CBEscapee](#): > > Well it has been translated since and proved that the first point some dumbshit author tried to convince people of was totally false… I say this brings into question the authors credibility, don’t you agree? I agree. I’ve read his claim elsewhere, but according to the Constitution (which I also found in English), he is wrong. So, yes his credibility as a journalist comes into question. That does not mean that based on one error his entire article should be discounted, but if there is a pattern of such erroneous information, then yes, discount him completely. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/142 "2006-05-13T23:57:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The significant error in your statement was that, as written, it implied an ongoing an nation-wide problem when, in fact, it was a single incident in a single province that has not even been repeated. Oh, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: give me a break. Here is the original stastement: > [@](#): > > Additionally, excessive accommodation of one culture leads to an argument for all cultures. Right now, Canada is having to make accommodations for Sharia law, as Muslim’s insist that their legal traditions be recognized along with those of other laws. It is clear that the example was given just to demonstrate the claim that preceeds it. Whether it was Canada or Ontario is insignificant to the point being made. I agreed that the uncorrected timeline aspect was misleading, but come on, You know the point being made and that is not changed if I had substituted “Ontario” for “Canada”. But, since you seem to be in a hyper-captious mood in my direction (surprise, surprise), I will make your day and say “The great **tomndebb** is right! It would have been better if I had said Ontario instead of Canada.” I apologize for the grand confusion this must have caused to all involved. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/143 "2006-05-14T00:07:19Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > What certain things? Sorry, the laws haven’t been reworked yet, and I can’t read the future. > [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > BTW the borders aren’t open. I didn’t say the were. Reread the passage in question. I didn’t say “don’t”. I said “won’t”. You even quoted it. Here it is again. I’ll bold it and underline it for you, too. > [@magellen01](#): > > I’m not sure exactly what you are asking. I don’t know, what isn’t going to be allowed. It depends on how the new laws are crafted. But assuming we **won’t** have completely open borders, certain things will NOT be allowed. And we’ll have to enforce the laws in that regard, the same as we enforce all our other laws. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/144 "2006-05-14T00:13:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I think the last glitch from the board eliminated your “kill the messenger” response… :dubious: This coming from you!!! Mister any cite I disagree with is called into question. And then in the same paragraph you do the exact same thing that you acuse me of. There’s a phrase for that… Fair minded? No that’s not it… ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/145 "2006-05-14T00:24:05Z")
> [@](#): > > It is clear that the example was given just to demonstrate the claim that preceeds it. Whether it was Canada or Ontario is insignificant to the point being made. I agreed that the uncorrected timeline aspect was misleading, but come on, You know the point being made and that is not changed if I had substituted “Ontario” for “Canada”. It was given to demonstrate the claim AND FAILED IN ITS ATTEMPT. A single incident in a single province (in which one group is denied an accommodation that already existed for other groups) is not the same thing as anyone “having to make” any sort of accommodation. This is not about playing gotcha on the details; it is about you posting claims that immigration leads to serious problems and providing evidence that does not make your claim. It is pretty much like your constant refrain that _those people_ are refusing to assimilate. I let that one pass in this thread because we have been over it several times before, but you raise the issue as a given that we all must concede when all the evidence I can find indicates that you are simply wrong and that the rate of assimilation for the current crop of immigrants is a swift as (or faster than) the immigrants of previous generations. However, your claim was specifically that “excessive accommodation” was caus **ing** (_i.e._, creating ongoing) problems for some government. Yet, the example you chose was neither excessive accommodation nor was it causing ongoing problems. I am sure that you can find some sort of “excessive accommodation,” somewhere, but that particular example is not it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/146 "2006-05-14T00:25:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :dubious: This coming from you!!! Mister any cite I disagree with is called into question. And then in the same paragraph you do the exact same thing that you acuse me of. There’s a phrase for that… Fair minded? No that’s not it… Not paying attention is your forte, I mentioned before that using as a source a researcher that refers to the same group that uses her research too as a source for their information is something all right, but I would not call that a good cite. (Propaganda is what it deserves to be called) Only when one sees a reason and explains why a cite is dismissed it is not killing the messenger, you did it by just saying the Poverty Center was biased, that was enough for you to dismiss it, but I bothered to check and they were right regarding the late non medical doctor. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/147 "2006-05-14T01:11:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It was given to demonstrate the claim AND FAILED IN ITS ATTEMPT. A single incident in a single province (in which one group is denied an accommodation that already existed for other groups) is not the same thing as anyone “having to make” any sort of accommodation. When it was written they were “having to make”, as in being asked to make, as in having to decide what to do about it now that they were asked. I already conceded that that I should have updated the timeframe, which eliminates the problem. But you just carping on this is just you with your panties in a wad with the issue and/or me. I don’t give a shit which it is really. Either way, I’m sick and fucking tired of it. Then again, maybe we have different ideas of moderating. > [@tomndebb](#): > > However, your claim was specifically that “excessive accommodation” was caus **ing** (_i.e._, creating ongoing) problems for some government. Yet, the example you chose was neither excessive accommodation nor was it causing ongoing problems. I am sure that you can find some sort of “excessive accommodation,” somewhere, but that particular example is not it. Now your nitpicketty mood focuses you on yet another problem, one you haven’t mentioned earlier. In fact you left it out of what you quoted (Post 164) when you were pointing registering your complaints. And as if you didn’t already know, the point of the whole passage was the first part. The specific example was just that, one example. Not one intended to prove the claim beyond the shadow of a doubt. Your parsing sentences for legalistic certitude when the fancy strikes you is way past being fucking old. Now, I address you as a Moderator. **I request that you close this thread**. I shall respond no further. Wait an hour or two if you’d like so you can register a response and the jackals can have a final say. But the point of the OP is beyond any hopes of resurrection and the tone of the thread is not what I was hoping for here in GD. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/148 "2006-05-14T01:15:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Even if you think you showed that I was incorrect, the point is that was not all that you did. You ascribed whatever you thought incorrect to dishonesty and lies. Or as a you put it “deliberate misrepresentations”. And you did it twice. > > I agree. I’ve read his claim elsewhere, but according to the Constitution (which I also found in English), he is wrong. So, yes his credibility as a journalist comes into question. That does not mean that based on one error his entire article should be discounted, but if there is a pattern of such erroneous information, then yes, discount him completely. Even if I think I showed you to be incorrect? That’s a laugh. I said then I KNEW I was correct, which of course I was. Yes I do believe that the author of that claim was deliberately using a false statement to make his point. I also think the claims by the other author on the dengue/malaria threat were deliberately misleading and knowingly false and the object of these statements were nothing more than an attempt to villianize illegal aliens as a public health threat. I’m still waiting for you to prove that illegal aliens pose a health threat by dengue transmission. If you are going to make such wild claims then yes you do need to prove it. So again, put up or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838/149 "2006-05-14T01:27:53Z")
**magellan01** , you have been the poster who has posted the most veiled insults, the most hostility, and the most whining in this thread. I am quite happy to close this thread without allowing anyone else to rile you up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-feds-wont-do-it-we-will-localities-take-steps-to-curb-illegal-immigration/355838.md?page=7)