And just like that...

submitted by useless_aether from (pbs.twimg.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]indianusjones 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Perhaps, but you need to justify your position regardless.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't. I'm not the one making a claim. They are making a claim that all of the sudden democrats don't want immigrants anymore. I haven't seen that from any reputaple news agency. It's up to the original claimant to defend their postion. Hitchen's Razor. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's not up to me to disprove it.

[–]indianusjones 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I take my previous reply ("This is the claim you made...") back as we'd moved to your claim "but he is wrong on this point."

I happily agree with you that the person making the original claim has the burden of proof.

We now focus on your statement held in the original post, that is, liberals suddenly don't want illegal aliens as it's now proposed that the immigrants will now be transferred to sanctuary cities.

The implication, of course, is that liberals (or democrats, etc.) realize they face an increase in crime, traffic, additional burden on social, health, policing, and education services, etc. with the influx of illegal aliens coming to their city. Please tell me if you think my analysis here is incorrect as I can provide statistics to show that this is in fact true.

I'm not trying to be slick here--we can only infer at the original post's point. The idea I presented above seems reasonable given the effect illegal aliens are known to have on the "native" population. The evidence spans historically also (1920's, etc.).

Your statement, "no, you're wrong" implies a counter claim. In this case you're implicitly saying, "no, sanctuary cities are actually welcoming the idea of a flood of illegal aliens."

To this I'd say you're right--I read an article that read about a politician slamming the President for the idea but careful to also say that the immigrants are welcome.

When we ask the population, however, we find that they feel immigration should be reduced. I highly suspect that the outcome would be sharper if we factored for race. Notice I'm not racist, just stating the numbers.

So you are, in fact, making a claim by telling the person they are wrong. You are under no obligation to provide evidence for this but your argument is weak if you do not provide evidence for your counter-claim.

If a police officer writes you a citation for speeding with a radar gun's printed record you can't just say, "you're wrong" without evidence.

edit: comma

[–]indianusjones 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Full disclosure: I live in Oregon. We've been taking illegal aliens in the ass for years. Our schools used to be good but are now overburdened. Our healthcare was statistically and observably better but are now over-burdened by health issues (something like 46% of all health-related costs) caused by immigrants.

The list goes on: higher crime rates, traffic, etc.

On top of all this illegal aliens don't pay taxes at the rate Oregonians do and, to add insult to injury, the immigrants bring their dependents with them.

Meanwhile, the argument is, "immigrants will do the work Americans won't do." Bullshit. The truth is that farmers can skirt labor laws using immigrants.

And for what? So we can save a few bucks on our produce?

So in reality, the farmers make higher profits while we--those who paid taxes and built the infrastructure--foot the bill and deal with the crime.