Illegal immigration - Does it unduly affect US crime rates?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Anjelica, Feb 21, 2018.

  1. Anwolf

    Anwolf Valued Member

    You sound like someone who's never actually met a 'big bad scary weed dealer'.
     
  2. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    What I'm actually doing is posting like someone who owns and runs a martial arts forum, a place that promotes martial arts and a healthy lifestyle.

    A place someone can come to for information on health, fitness, spirituality, emotional help and so on.

    You can walk your own path.
     
    Hannibal and axelb like this.
  3. axelb

    axelb Master of Office Chair Fu

    I've met far too many dealers, and they may have redeeming factors, but the bottom line is they are, no matter what they deal, driving organised illegal crime.

    This is categorically not good, no matter how friendly, or nice they may be, they are knowingly part of the problem for the benefit of themselves.

    I've lost good friends to drugs, others are a shell of what they used to be, some got out ok, and those "friends" who got involved in dealing where what I considered good people, until I realised what they were part of.

    "Easy money.".. and a lot of it for the price of other people's health and life, is in my opinion categorical bad.
     
    Simon likes this.
  4. Anwolf

    Anwolf Valued Member

    I agree that it is bad in that it finances criminal industry as a whole, however I think the system that has criminalised marijuana is to blame for this, not the people selling it. One of my closest childhood friends has been in and out of mental institutions now due to drug abuse, but you can't lay the blame entirely on the dealers door. People know what the risks are when they take drugs.
     
  5. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    Really , how many times have you heard , or even said “marijuana is completely harmless” ?
     
  6. Anwolf

    Anwolf Valued Member

    It's not completely harmless. But like alcohol and tobacco, it should still be legal.
     
  7. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    But currently it isn't and therefore we at MAP take the stance laid out in our ToS.

    1.13 Drugs:
    Conversations relating to manufacturing and "hyping" (promoting or sensationalizing) of drugs and drug use are not welcome at MAP.
     
  8. Anwolf

    Anwolf Valued Member

  9. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    I'm not sold on "if it is illegal it is bad". I can only agree that if something is illegal it's illegal and that should be changed in the most democratically correct way possible if it is in the interest of the people.
     
    hewho, axelb, aaradia and 2 others like this.
  10. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Divorcing the element of legality for a moment, does that same logic apply to say, fast food chains:

    There’s a Nationwide Boycott of Wendy’s Underway

    Not trying to muddy the waters, but am interested in how far you can extend personal responsibility of product chains. It seems like at this point there's an opacity to anything you buy, and most consumers have no idea what they're supporting.
     
    axelb and Anwolf like this.
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    And that additionally adds context to claims surrounding "they do more crime"

    Legality aside - and it isn't universally illegal ergo not a clear cut issue there - the actual percentage of the "immigrants" (illegal or otherwise) doing crime is not disproportionately high; the PROSECUTION and INCARCERATION of them is...a combination of Policing strategies ("you go where the fish swim"), inherent institutional bias (people with more to lose in the US get more "second chances" which is ironically a reversal of the UK) and the fact that ANY act done by an "illegal immigrant" BY NATURE will result in a custodial term
     
  12. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Agreed. The proper course of action IMO is to work to change a law/ policy you don't agree with. But in the meantime it is still factually illegal. It seems like some on here want to say, it doesn't count as a crime because they don't think it should be one. It doesn't work that way.
     
  13. axelb

    axelb Master of Office Chair Fu

    I was wondering if someone would counter with that argument :D and it's a valid point:
    I would say the same logic applies, if they are involved in illegal activity harming others, then you are contributing to the problem.

    With a legal business, at least they have better exposure to the public for what goes on, and people can be held accountable to change it.
     
    philosoraptor likes this.
  14. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    It's a crime, but not all crimes are equal.
     
  15. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Yes, but the key part here in the context of what I and others are saying is that it is STILL A CRIME- factually speaking. And one doesn't get to dismiss that fact. Like you said, change the law, but it is still the law.

    The context of my point is that I really object to Angelica on here saying IMO borderline racist statements about Mexican illegal immigrants bringing drugs to America. When she is guilty herself. I don't think she or others on her behalf gets to dismiss her crime because it was "just Marijuana." Even if someone does not think it is on par with Heroin or other drugs morally, factually she is guilty of the same crime- dealing drugs. She broke the law, yet wants to discredit illegal Mexican immigrants en masse for breaking the law? No, doesn't wash with me in that context.

    BTW, my state just voted to make that drug legal. And that was done by popular vote. The people spoke and changed the law. However, State law declares it legal, but that conflicts with the Federal law, which has not decriminalized it. It is in a weird flux right now.
     
  16. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    So it is still illegal and people shouldn't be selling it.
     
    Dead_pool likes this.
  17. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    It isn't that easy. In the next few months, it will be possible to buy it through legally sanctioned businesses. And California will collect legal taxes from the sales. And it will be government regulated. The Federal agencies could possibly come enforce Federal law, but will they? Under the Obama administration, state laws were respected and he said the Feds would not pursue the matter. Under the Trump administration, it is said they will. We will have to wait and see.

    Federal vs State rights to assert what is legal is what is being questioned now. I suspect ultimately, this will go before our Supreme court to settle whether State or Federal rights have ultimate jurisdiction.

    I do find it hypocritical that the current government asserting Federal rights in this matter, usually argue for States rights most of the time.

    State vs Federal rights/ laws are confusing to many Americans. I imagine it is extra hard to comprehend if you aren't American.

    Mind you, this JUST happened. As in the law took affect at the beginning of the new year (2018). Before then it was illegal in my state as well- both in State and Federal laws. And regulating it is still a work in progress.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2018
  18. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    Its important to note, in this particular case, it was illegal in the state they were in anyway.

    So its not any kind of defence.
     
  19. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    I'm not sure how valid this is.. . . But....

    State vs. Federal Law: Who Really Holds the Trump Card? | HuffPost

    "The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what’s known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you’re in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails."
     
  20. aaradia

    aaradia Choy Li Fut and Yang Tai Chi Chuan Student Moderator Supporter

    Nope nothing I am saying is a defense, just pointing out the complexity of the issue here at this time in America. And I wanted to show that what PiP said can happen. That people can work to change a law they don't like. It takes time and it is a messy complicated process though, but it can happen.
     
    axelb and Dead_pool like this.

Share This Page