If he passed E-Verify, I don’t know what more you expect the employer to do. That’s a failure of government, not the employer.
The Governor is Republican, The federal congress representative and senators are Republican and the majority in the local congress is Republican too. Come to think of it, the President is also one too. They must be tired of winning. /s
And it should go without saying, but it has to be remarked that if the accused is found guilty that he should remain the rest of his life behind bars. And in any case the victim’s family does deserve condolences and support.
This is a very unwise argument, since it appears to concede that some inference about illegal immigrants in general does hinge on the facts of this one case.
Is E-Verify run by Republican partisans? Was it 4 years ago when Rivera passed?
Of course.
Changes no one’s mind among those sharing the board consensus, and easily ignored, at least as far as anyone speaking up, as the thread predictably shows.
That consensus position tends to focus on the contention, perhaps accurate*, that the serious crime rate is no higher among illegal aliens than the general population. But, assuming that’s true, it’s not necessarily air tight logic to proceed to the idea that one shouldn’t worry about crimes committed by people who could be excluded from the country. Assume for a moment it’s reasonable to have laws saying who can and can’t come to the country, rather than accepting anyone who wants to come. Assume those laws could practically be enforced more than they are being enforced. Then enforcing them more would exclude more criminals. It’s not as if illegal aliens replace native born (or legal immigrant) criminals. They add to the number of criminals. It’s doesn’t logically follow that if you want the immigration laws more effectively enforced it means you must prove illegal immigrants commit crime at a higher rate.
IOW seems to me the debate about criminal illegal aliens is generally a proxy. The board consensus would say it’s a proxy for racism on the other side. But on the board consensus side I believe it’s often a proxy for disputing the two assumptions I gave above.
*there are no definitive statistics. This link gives general narrative weight to indirect or small sample studies claiming the illegal immigrant rate is lower than general rate, but it also mixes in studies looking at immigrants, not illegal immigrants. Note that some of the findings illegals have a lower rate, and the push back on Lott’s study showing they have a higher rate, is by the conservative/libertarian Cato institute so it’s not strictly a left-right debate on an intellectual level.
NM
Now you are avoiding what it means when republicans control the government. If one wants to refer about failures in government, then it is pertinent to complain about the ones in charge right now.
Nothing bizarro about what I’ve written. Right wingers, like you and the OP, will use Rivera as a poster child in your ongoing campaign against Mexicans.
Not if the failure happened four years ago.
It seems like a legitimate argument to me. Because yes, some inference about illegal immigrants WILL be made by certain people, and it won’t be a good one.
I don’t think anyone is making the argument that all illegal immigrants are killers either.
Some, I’m sure, are good people.
At this point I don’t know if you’re referring to the cops or the illegal immigrants.
Claim without evidence: Maybe he didn’t do it! Maybe it’s a conspiracy by Trumpists to discredit illegal immigrants!
The evidence turns out to show that there was no conspiracy, he did do it.
How do you think that plays out?
There are evil individuals in any cross-section of society that you choose. If the rational position is that actions of one individual imply nothing about the behavior of an entire social group, then it’s a mistake to discuss the uncertain facts of case as though any such implication might hinge on it. Even if you do not intend to grant that assumption, it can easily be interpreted that you are doing so.
If there’s evidence of him being framed by local Trumpists with an agenda, that’s another matter, with depressing implications about our society. But I think you need to be careful about speculation when (so far as I’m aware) at the moment there’s not a shred of evidence to support this notion.
I don’t care if it is a frame up, or if he really did do it. It’s politically convenient for those pressing the “Illegal Immigrants are murdering thugs!” angle.
If it’s a frame up, and an innocent man is going to be imprisoned for life for a crime he didn’t commit, we should all care about that. I’d urge you to reconsider.
Let me try again.
“Whether or not it is a frame up that nobody ever finds out about, or if he really did do it, it’s politically convenient for those pressing the “Illegal Immigrants are murdering thugs!” angle”
So why were you challenging my point that it’s a poor idea to engage in unfounded speculation that this particular case might be frame-up, when such speculation can easily be interpreted to be granting an assumption that something broader about illegal immigrants does depend on whether that’s true or false?
I’m afraid I don’t understand your question here.
In that case, it seems to me the polite thing for Trump to do would be to stop claiming credit for things that happened four* or more* years ago.