Page 1 of 211
Posted on January 24 at 5:33 p.m.
I'd like to see the author's sources for this information. Also, is the author referring to both returns and removals? Returns are those nabbed at the border and sent back. Removals are those taken after they have already been here.
Of course returns will almost all be exclusively Latino due to our shared border with Mexico. I would be surprised at a higher removal rate for black men as they would likely be illegal immigrants from Africa. Returns from Africa should be insignificant.
If there are more male illegal immigrants than female, I would expect return and removal rates to be higher for men obviously. Again, this is all data dependent.
And since there is no way to determine how many illegal immigrants are here, or how many of each race and sex are here, how are the author's conclusions even possible?
The author has no references for her data. Without that, it can only be concluded that there is no data to back up her conclusions and this is strictly the speculation and opinion of the author.
On Mass Deportation Targets Black and Latino Men
Posted on January 24 at 4:01 p.m.
OK DD, you have me there. Politicians of both parties most often DO NOT comply with the wishes of the voters despite their obligation to do so.
On Doing Her Job
Posted on January 24 at 3:05 p.m.
The voters of the county have spoken twice. They spoke with measure D that allocated funds for freeway expansion, most of which has been diverted by politicians with special interests for there own pet projects.
The voters spoke again with measure A. Don't let the politicians hoodwink us again. We have already spent too much on curbouts, bulbouts, etc. The voters clearly want the freeway expanded, the politicians have an obligation to comply with the will of the voters.
Posted on January 23 at 6:13 p.m.
Word definitions are the basis for rational discussion. Fortunately, I hold myself to a higher standard than most of those you are referencing. So should everyone that wants to participate in intelligent dialogue.
On No Love Lost over 'Illegal' Headlines
Posted on January 23 at 4:59 p.m.
People can make any assumptions they want, but it doesn't make it fact. I don't rely on others with an agenda to define words for me. A dictionary is more suitable for that purpose. If we all use our own definitions for words, then rational discussion is impossible.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Word definitions are facts.
Posted on January 23 at 4:44 p.m.
Well, not exactly. The DMV will ONLY process original application driver's licenses on Saturday, so there could theoretically be some citizens and legal immigrants. But since the new law just took effect AND the DMV ONLY processes original application driver's licenses on Saturday, If the picture was taken on Saturday, the vast majority were surely illegal immigrants.
Posted on January 23 at 4:42 p.m.
Well, not exactly. The DMV will ONLY process original application driver's licenses on Saturday, so there could theoretically be some citizens and legal immigrants. But since the new law just took effect AND the DMV ONLY processes original application driver's licenses on Saturday, The vast majority were surely illegal immigrants.
Posted on January 23 at 3:50 p.m.
Anyone who says that "Latino" is synonymous with "Illegal" has already lost their credibility as well as their objectivity. How can anyone have a rational discussion based on that assumption?
Posted on January 23 at 2:49 p.m.
"The reason 44% of the population may be intentionally offended is only if the word "illegal" is made synonymous with "Latino.""
I think you need a vocubulary lesson.
Or maybe you have just been smoking "Latino" substances. I got a ticket last week for "Latino" parking.
And I guess you think that calling people with documentation "undocumented" is the best semantic choice.
You're one of these people that gets their jollies by playing semantic word games at the expense of the truth.
Posted on January 23 at 7:01 a.m.
Was the line longer than usual? If so, a reasonable case could be made that people were in line because that was the first day a new law took effect.
If there's a long line outside the Apple store on a day a new iPhone is introduced, would it be racist to assume that the people were in line to buy the new iPhone or should it just be assumed they were in the Apple store for other routine purposes?