I find it funny when people cite statistics regarding undocumented immigrants.
I know what you mean, but undocumented in this context means without immigration documentation rather than that the authorities know nothing about them. The estimates of illegal migration are made from US Census Bureau data - there's a bit of information about the methodology here.
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Except if your actions on your own time can/will negatively affect the business that you work for.
Assume a racist, who is quite vocal on social media works for a car dealership. The owner has every right to fire that individual if even one person comes to him and says "your employee said this, is this what your company stands for? If so, I am never purchasing a vehicle from this establishment as long as that person works here and I will inform everyone I know to do the same."
This muddles up more if the racist also uses his social media to talk about the business he works for. He is now also a voice regarding the business.
Now the correct thing to do, is get the employee to write an apologetic tweet, inform him/her that they need to set all their social media to private and to keep those views private and to never bring them into the workplace as it would be grounds for dismissal if they ever do in the slightest. But an outright firing to save the hassle and to prevent another PR disaster wouldn't really be out of the question.
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Actually, in the US, employees have very few rights in regard to employment. Most employment in the US is “at will” and your employer can terminate your employment for any reason or no reason, except for a few legally protected reasons like discrimination or retaliation (or if you are a member of a union and have an actual employment contract that specifies dismissal procedures). Since “racist” is not a legally protected class (although I’m sure Sessions is working on changing that), one can be fired for being a racist, even if it is on your own time.
@WarChiefZeke these things would certainly matter if illegal immigrants increased the chance of someone experiencing a crime - but they don't, they substantially reduce it.
Except, of course, for the ones we were mentioning, i.e sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. Or is your argument now that these increased victims are both statistically insignificant, and non-existent?
1) Using arrests data would suggest that the presence of illegal immigrants increased the number of sexual assaults in Texas during 2015 by 14. On the other hand it reduced homicides by 30 and the overall total of crime by 25,129.
Okay, you made me do math. While normally I reward this with fire, I suppose I have an answer for ya.
You're going to have to go through this math with me because I am getting vastly different results.
2015 in Texas there were 18,636 sexual assaults.
Assuming illegals were only a measly 1% of sexual assaults, that puts them at 186 for that year. Not 14.
Oh, I was using report data rather than arrest data, but that still makes it higher than 14.
Here's a numerical example to illustrate how that works:
Not relevant to your actual example here, or even the discussion, but I was reading some of the references of your study and they talked about the mass movement of immigrants and how it's not all been uniformly negative crime reducing depending on where you do.
I think this is an interesting point, being that traditional immigrants, even illegal ones, in places like Texas have established communities to belong to already in place. There is less assimilation in other parts of the country.
"Prior research finds that Latino immigration reduced violence. We argue that this is because they settled in traditional immigrant areas. But recent migrants settled in new destinations where the immigration–violence link is more complex. Contrary to previous findings, we observe that (1) Latino homicide victimization is higher in new destinations; (2) Latino immigration increases victimization rates, but only in new destinations and only for Latinos entering after 1990, when they fanned out to new destinations; and (3) Latino deprivation increases victimization only in new destinations because, we speculate, these new areas lack the protective social control umbrella of traditional destinations. Thus, the “Latino paradox” may be less useful than time‐honored sociological frameworks for understanding the link between Latino immigration and violence. "
You neglect to mention that the vast majority of those crimes would have been caused by native-born citizens. Your 16,000 arrests calculation is based on TOTAL arrests, not just those of illegal immigrants. You're just engaging in pure scare-mongering here.
I did mention that, actually. I said it was 2% of total arrests, not arrests of immigrant populations.
None of the links you've posted previously provide any evidence for your repeated suggestion that illegal immigration leads to more violence
That was your study that said that, actually, about another study of it's kind.
But I guess you could call sexual assault and kidnapping somehow not violent.
illegal immigrants were 3% more likely to be arrested for sexual assault than native-born citizens, while legal immigrants were 72% less likely.
Sounds like legal immigration enforcement is the way to go, then, for vastly reduced sexual assaults. That is a major reduction, wouldn't you say?
So, if you want to make a difference in preventing sexual assault and rape, start with native-born males. They are the ones committing the vast majority of these heinous crimes.
I don't think you understand per-capita. This is only true because native borns are the vast majority population. They do it less, on average, not more.
Here's a numerical example to illustrate how that works:
I am going to assume the model of migrants adding to the population and total crime rate because that one is more realistic, people aren't leaving Texas in higher than average rates and probably not because of illegal migration even if so.
I find it funny when people cite statistics regarding undocumented immigrants.
I agree heavily with this, there are countless problems involved in getting accurate numbers any which way regarding illegals. The biggest one for me being; if an illegal commits a crime against an illegal, what are the chances they will risk deportation to report the crime? Likely close to zero.
I don't disagree but sometimes I wonder about a form of government where a meth addict's vote counts the same as a B.S. Chemist (me). Most Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if you gave them an open-book test, and that's including Google Maps. Pretty sad if you ask me...
@Balrog99 Hehheh, I recently heard a lady call in to a talk radio station asking how close N. Korea was to S.Korea.
Something just occurred to me. What if Hamas' rocket attacks are not intended to kill Israelis? What if they're just there to provoke Israel?
I've been thinking about Hamas' rocket attacks and the use of human shields. The rocket attacks have a habit of causing property damage, but very rarely result in casualties despite being, well, rockets. Why launch rockets unless you plan on killing people? And if you planned on killing people, how can you be so bad at it for so long without improving your aim?
Now, there are two theories about why Hamas uses human shields:
1. It discourages Israel from opening fire because Israel doesn't want to get innocent civilians killed, protecting Hamas militants 2. It encourages Israel to kill innocent civilians so Hamas can paint Israel as the bad guy, degrading Israel's public image while improving Hamas' image compared to Israel
If the second theory is true, then maybe the rocket attacks have a similar purpose: provoking Israel into making some aggressive move that will make Israel look like the bad guy, without causing a death count that Israel could cite as proof that Hamas was the bad guy.
Other people have already pointed out the basic logic: punch a big guy hard enough to get him to give you a black eye, but not so hard that you leave a bruise on him, then take a selfie with the black eye and try to convince everyone that the big guy is a bully. But maybe incompetence is not the reason for the scarcity of rocket-related casualties. Maybe Hamas is deliberately targeting its rockets to avoid getting anyone killed.
I don't think you understand per-capita. This is only true because native borns are the vast majority population. They do it less, on average, not more.
Yes, I do. Native-born citizens were 83% of the Texas population by the CATO study, but 89.6% of the arrests for sexual assault and 91.8% of the convictions. 89.6 and 91.8 are greater than 83. So, native-born citizens are being arrested and convicted for sexual assualt at rates greater than the average of the entire population, not less. If native-born citizens were arrested and convicted of sexual assault less than the average of the entire population, they would make up less than 83% of the arrest and conviction pools.
I don't think you understand per-capita. This is only true because native borns are the vast majority population. They do it less, on average, not more.
Yes, I do. Native-born citizens were 83% of the Texas population by the CATO study, but 89.6% of the arrests for sexual assault and 91.8% of the convictions. 89.6 and 91.8 are greater than 83. So, native-born citizens are being arrested and convicted for sexual assualt at rates greater than the average of the entire population, not less. If native-born citizens were arrested and convicted of sexual assault less than the average of the entire population, they would make up less than 83% of the arrest and conviction pools.
If you do, you are selectively forgetting it where it matters. You gave three numbers, illegals, native borns, and legals. Illegals were higher than natives with legals being the lowest, by quite a bit actually. All of this makes sense and is not at odds with that I said.
A recent poll (41% Trump supporter, 59% Anti Trump) suggests most people would simply want illegals turned away rather than separated during arrest, as I had suggested before.
I don't think you understand per-capita. This is only true because native borns are the vast majority population. They do it less, on average, not more.
Yes, I do. Native-born citizens were 83% of the Texas population by the CATO study, but 89.6% of the arrests for sexual assault and 91.8% of the convictions. 89.6 and 91.8 are greater than 83. So, native-born citizens are being arrested and convicted for sexual assualt at rates greater than the average of the entire population, not less. If native-born citizens were arrested and convicted of sexual assault less than the average of the entire population, they would make up less than 83% of the arrest and conviction pools.
If you do, you are selectively forgetting it where it matters. You gave three numbers, illegals, native borns, and legals. Illegals were higher than natives with legals being the lowest, by quite a bit actually. All of this makes sense and is not at odds with that I said.
You were the one who said "[Native-borns] do it less, on average, not more." That is a false statement. They don't. They were arrested and convicted at higher rates than the average. I didn't bring up averages. You did.
Illegal immigrants were slightly higher than native-borns on arrests per capita for sexual assault, but LOWER for convictions. The study does not give a standard deviation for the per-capita rates, so it is hard to say if 3% is statistically significant. Also, the CATO study noted that "if [the Texas data] errs, it is likely to overcount the convictions and arrests of illegal immigrants".
I also note that the CATO study found that the per-capita murder conviction rate was over 25% higher for native-born citizens than for illegal immigrants.
Okay, you made me do math. While normally I reward this with fire, I suppose I have an answer for ya.
You're going to have to go through this math with me because I am getting vastly different results.
2015 in Texas there were 18,636 sexual assaults.
Assuming illegals were only a measly 1% of sexual assaults, that puts them at 186 for that year. Not 14.
Oh, I was using report data rather than arrest data, but that still makes it higher than 14.
I thought the question we were addressing was whether illegal immigrants increased or reduced the number of crimes. Therefore the figures I calculated were the impact of the differences between the arrest / conviction rates for illegal immigrants vs native-born Americans. Thus for instance there were 65 actual arrests of illegal immigrants for homicide, but that is 30 fewer than would have been expected if all the illegal immigrants were replaced by native-born Americans.
All the figures I gave are derived from the Cato report, but you do have to do some calculations to get those differences. Here's the spreadsheet I used to do that:
The quoting sequence in your long post above is a bit confused, so I'll pick out a couple of other points you made to answer - text taken from your post is in italics: Except, of course, for the ones we were mentioning, i.e sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. Or is your argument now that these increased victims are both statistically insignificant, and non-existent? By normal statistical definitions they are insignificant given that they account for 1.9% of arrests / 0.18% of convictions. It does seem odd to me to be so concerned about very small increases in a few categories of crimes and not concerned about the major reductions in other categories (such as homicide). I suspect that you are still thinking that adding illegal immigrants to population increases the crime rate, but it doesn't as I explained before. The overall numbers of crimes will rise if population rises, but at a lower rate than the population growth - hence the chance of a crime being experienced by any given individual reduces.
None of the links you've posted previously provide any evidence for your repeated suggestion that illegal immigration leads to more violence
That was your study that said that, actually, about another study of it's kind. I addressed this before. The Cato report did not say that illegal immigration leads to more violence. It said that another study had suggested that there may be more violence by Mexican illegal immigrants than other nationalities. However, even if that is the case that doesn't affect the fact that illegal immigration overall reduces the incidence of violence.
None of the links you've posted previously provide any evidence for your repeated suggestion that illegal immigration leads to more violence
That was your study that said that, actually, about another study of it's kind. I addressed this before. The Cato report did not say that illegal immigration leads to more violence.
Not the cato report, the one study you added indepentently to the discussion. I quoted it directly.
"These people"...."invade".....and for good measure, a call for the straight-up suspension of the judicial system and due process. Totally normal.
Well at least he called them people. Small praise there. Overall several steps backwards but a tender age step forward in that he wasn't calling them animals.
Still he's calling for abolishing the united states judicial system. Kind of a big step, no? One when crossed won't be uncrossed.
Another day another person from Trump using racial slurs. Is this innuendo or dog whistling. It's something eh. Revealing.
Apparently the Fox guy there apologized, four hours later - "During a heated segment on 'Fox & Friends' today, I should have chosen my words more carefully and never used the offensive phrase that I did," he wrote. "I apologize to Joel Payne, Fox News and its viewers."
So it "might" have been a very very poor phrase to use and not intentional. Still it goes to show the mindset of this former assistant campaign manager of Trump's when the thing that jumps to mind when discussing issues with a black person is to use the phrase "cotton picking mind".
None of the links you've posted previously provide any evidence for your repeated suggestion that illegal immigration leads to more violence
That was your study that said that, actually, about another study of it's kind. I addressed this before. The Cato report did not say that illegal immigration leads to more violence.
Not the cato report, the one study you added indepentently to the discussion. I quoted it directly.
OK. That's the report at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175 I've read it again and I think you must be referring to the study by Green (2016), which is the only one previous to this with a specific focus on undocumented immigrants.
I've tracked down the study by Green, which can be found here. Access to the full report requires a subscription, but here's the synopsis of the study:
"Objectives To test the “Trump Hypothesis”: whether immigrants are responsible for higher levels of violent and drug‐related crime in the United States, as asserted by Donald Trump in his 2015 presidential campaign announcement. This is achieved using recent crime and immigration data, thus testing the common public perception linking immigrants to crime, and providing an updated assessment of the immigrant‐crime nexus.
Methods Rates of violent crime and drug arrests by state are pooled for 2012–2014. These are compared against pooled statistics on foreign‐born and Mexican nationals living in the United States, as well as estimates of undocumented foreign and undocumented Mexican population by state. The data are analyzed using correlation and multivariate regressions.
Results Data uniformly show no association between immigrant population size and increased violent crime. However, there appears to be a small but significant association between undocumented immigrant populations and drug‐related arrests.
Conclusions Results largely contradict the Trump Hypothesis: no evidence links Mexican or undocumented Mexican immigrants specifically to violent or drug‐related crime. Undocumented immigrant associations with drug‐related crime are minimal, though significant. The Trump Hypothesis consequently appears to be biased toward rhetoric rather than evidence."
The study I quoted is over a much longer period and uses stricter methodology. It included comment on the findings of the paper by Green as follows:
"Indeed, in a recent meta‐analysis of the 51 macro‐level immigration–crime studies conducted between 1994 and 2014, not one was aimed at explicitly examining unauthorized immigration flows (Ousey and Kubrin, 2017). Since that time, we are aware of only one study in which the association between unauthorized immigration and violence was investigated. In that study, Green (2016) found that undocumented immigration is generally not associated with violent crime, though unauthorized immigration from Mexico may be associated with higher rates of violence. Although informative, several limitations of this study warrant further inquiry. Most notably, the analysis is cross‐sectional, thus, limiting both the substantive questions under consideration and the analytical leverage to answer them. Substantively, cross‐sectional analysis cannot answer the focal question motivating criminological debates on unauthorized immigration: Has the increase in undocumented immigration increased violent crime? Because unauthorized immigration is necessarily a process that unfolds over time, cross‐sectional analyses are ill‐suited for use in answering this question. Moreover, the methodological distinction between cross‐sectional and longitudinal analysis in immigration–crime research is a salient one. As Ousey and Kubrin (2017: 1.13) noted in their meta‐analysis, “our findings underscore the fact that the choice between cross‐sectional and longitudinal data and analysis procedures is a critical one that likely impacts findings and conclusions in this area.” They concluded that because longitudinal research provides greater analytical rigor, such as superior ability to control for confounding influences, more weight should be given to the findings from longitudinal studies. To date, however, the literature currently lacks a longitudinal assessment of the consequences of undocumented immigration for violent crime (but see Light, Miller, and Kelly, 2017, for an examination of drug and alcohol crimes)."
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Actually, in the US, employees have very few rights in regard to employment. Most employment in the US is “at will” and your employer can terminate your employment for any reason or no reason, except for a few legally protected reasons like discrimination or retaliation (or if you are a member of a union and have an actual employment contract that specifies dismissal procedures). Since “racist” is not a legally protected class (although I’m sure Sessions is working on changing that), one can be fired for being a racist, even if it is on your own time.
Actually, hate speech is protected under freedom of expression when being used politically. It's the very reason why organization like the westboro baptist church can say and do some of the crap they do and if proven that you were fired for you ideology, you can actually fight it in the courts.
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Except if your actions on your own time can/will negatively affect the business that you work for.
Assume a racist, who is quite vocal on social media works for a car dealership. The owner has every right to fire that individual if even one person comes to him and says "your employee said this, is this what your company stands for? If so, I am never purchasing a vehicle from this establishment as long as that person works here and I will inform everyone I know to do the same."
This muddles up more if the racist also uses his social media to talk about the business he works for. He is now also a voice regarding the business.
Now the correct thing to do, is get the employee to write an apologetic tweet, inform him/her that they need to set all their social media to private and to keep those views private and to never bring them into the workplace as it would be grounds for dismissal if they ever do in the slightest. But an outright firing to save the hassle and to prevent another PR disaster wouldn't really be out of the question.
Second verse same as the first. That person Is CHOOSING to drag the other employment into it. It's a commonly used tactic to silence opposing opinions and ideas by using two commonly known fallacies, Guilt by association and poisoning the well. You're second paragraph is mute because now because you're now trying to push the goal post so the persons job and social media are more connected, compared to the general public who's social media and Jon aren't usually intertwined like that.
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Actually, in the US, employees have very few rights in regard to employment. Most employment in the US is “at will” and your employer can terminate your employment for any reason or no reason, except for a few legally protected reasons like discrimination or retaliation (or if you are a member of a union and have an actual employment contract that specifies dismissal procedures). Since “racist” is not a legally protected class (although I’m sure Sessions is working on changing that), one can be fired for being a racist, even if it is on your own time.
Actually, hate speech is protected under freedom of expression when being used politically. It's the very reason why organization like the westboro baptist church can say and do some of the crap they do and if proven that you were fired for you ideology, you can actually fight it in the courts.
Speech is protected from government interference and prosecution. However, freedom of speech protections do not extend to private associations, including employment. If you post a racist diatribe on Facebook or have a bumper sticker on your car that your employer does not approve of, you can be fired.
Again there are some exceptions. If you are fired because of your race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, medical condition, pregnancy, or age (over 40), then you have redress in the courts. There are also protections for whistleblowers (e.g., those reporting safety violations to OSHA) and those engaging in union organizing activities. Some states have greater protections for workers, e.g., protecting those who have filed workers compensation claims or unpaid wage complaints. Public sector employees have more protections, since their employer is the government.
Union employees have the benefit of an employment contract, which would govern the dismissal process. This can also apply to organizations with a published "employee handbook" that lays out dismissal procedures. However, these last examples aren't due to any rights granted by the Constitution, they are due to the terms of the contract (or implied contract in the case of an employee handbook) between the employer and employee.
Article 11 and 13 passed in the UK...I'll shed some tears for you guys... Prepare to be black listed from most nonUK sites.
Whats all that about?
I think @DragonKing means the EU instead of the UK. The EU Legislative Committee passed the new EU Copyright Directive, which will need to be implemented by all EU members (which won't include the UK as of March 29, 2019, so they likely won't be affected).
In brief, Article 11 says that sites that link to news sites and/or quote parts of news articles will have to pay a "link license fee". It is meant to force big content aggregators like Google and Facebook to pay content creators like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
Article 13 flips the current way that websites are held responsible for copyright violations. Rather than only having to remove content when a rightsholder files a complaint, websites will be responsible to actively monitor content posted by users in order to prevent posting of copyrighted works using "effective content recognition technologies".
For a company like Beamdog, they would potentially need to verify that every mod posted on the forums didn't contain unauthorized third-party material (e.g., sound clips, portraits, etc..) or simply ban posting of mods.
EDIT: Even if a company like Beamdog is considered too small to be required to actively filter uploaded content, sites commonly used for mod-hosting (e.g., GitHub, soon to be acquired by Microsoft) will be required to scan and filter uploaded user content.
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Actually, in the US, employees have very few rights in regard to employment. Most employment in the US is “at will” and your employer can terminate your employment for any reason or no reason, except for a few legally protected reasons like discrimination or retaliation (or if you are a member of a union and have an actual employment contract that specifies dismissal procedures). Since “racist” is not a legally protected class (although I’m sure Sessions is working on changing that), one can be fired for being a racist, even if it is on your own time.
Actually, hate speech is protected under freedom of expression when being used politically. It's the very reason why organization like the westboro baptist church can say and do some of the crap they do and if proven that you were fired for you ideology, you can actually fight it in the courts.
Depends, are the being racist on their own time or during work hours? When you're working you're not just representing yourself but you're being seen as part of a privately/government owned organization and you are controlled by their rules. If you can't follow them than they have the right to terminate you. When you're working you shouldn't be bringing your ideology, whether it be race, religion, or gender politics with you unless that's part of your job.
On your own time? *BLEEP* NO! That's no different than companies like blizzard or wizards of the cost going through it's customers social media posts and banning members from there game from not having the ideology they believe they should. No companies power should be able to reach outside of it's own domain and infringe on other people's rights. Of course I'm speaking from the states here, I know places like the UK doesn't actually have "rights" but instead have "privileges" which the government can take away.
Except if your actions on your own time can/will negatively affect the business that you work for.
Assume a racist, who is quite vocal on social media works for a car dealership. The owner has every right to fire that individual if even one person comes to him and says "your employee said this, is this what your company stands for? If so, I am never purchasing a vehicle from this establishment as long as that person works here and I will inform everyone I know to do the same."
This muddles up more if the racist also uses his social media to talk about the business he works for. He is now also a voice regarding the business.
Now the correct thing to do, is get the employee to write an apologetic tweet, inform him/her that they need to set all their social media to private and to keep those views private and to never bring them into the workplace as it would be grounds for dismissal if they ever do in the slightest. But an outright firing to save the hassle and to prevent another PR disaster wouldn't really be out of the question.
Second verse same as the first. That person Is CHOOSING to drag the other employment into it. It's a commonly used tactic to silence opposing opinions and ideas by using two commonly known fallacies, Guilt by association and poisoning the well. You're second paragraph is mute because now because you're now trying to push the goal post so the persons job and social media are more connected, compared to the general public who's social media and Jon aren't usually intertwined like that.
Racism isn't an opinion. It's stereotypical prejudice.
A company has core values. Those core values need to be shared by the employees who work for the company to maintain a positive brand image. If any employee does not share those core values, they should at least attempt to not oppose it publicly. Racism (or any -ism) especially since it'd be hard to prove the racist would give the same type of service to everyone who walks into the business.
Tom Arnold, Roseanne Barr's ex-husband, claims to be in possession of tapes of Donald Trump that have not been made public. Not sure what to make of this. There are elements of truth, but it could also be just hype.
I've heard there are tapes, for example, from the Apprentice that are sealed away with Trump being racist Trump. These can't be released without breaking one of Trumps famous NDAs though (like Stormy Daniels had to sign) with potentially millions in damages. Mark Burnett, producer, says a firm no on releasing that footage.
Anyway make of it what you will. Tom Arnold seems to be implying in tweets and photo of them together he and his buddy Michael Cohen were going to work together - but Cohen denies that.
There's apparently a docuseries coming out from Tom Arnold /Vice about the search for the tapes. Here's a trailer.
Illegal migrants are making everyone safer, man what a huge leap...I hate to repeat myself, but according to data presented in this thread:
"Of the 46 crimes for which we have arrest data, there were higher arrest rates for illegal immigrants relative to natives for the seven crimes of commercial sex, federal offenses, gambling, kidnapping, sexual assault, violations of Texas tax law, and vagrancy. "
So again, I guess if you don't mind more sexual assault and kidnapping, you could say you are safer. I think it is more accurate to say it is safer for *men* to be around illegals.
You'll have to pardon me if I take the Cato Institute with a handful of salt.
So? They get ARRESTED for it more often, but they get CONVICTED of it less often, straight out of this SAME report.
Let me add the sentences directly before and after your quote.
Per 100,000 people in their respective groups, there were more arrests of natives for homicide and larceny than there were arrests of illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrant arrest rate for sexual assault was about 3 percent higher than for native-born Americans.
...
Arrests for those seven crimes totaled just 1.9 percent of all state and local arrests in Texas in 2015
So I guess if you want way more murder and theft, you don't mind the natives (citizens).
Also, allow me to translate those into REAL numbers, not rates per 100k people.
It's 457 sexual assault arrests for illegal immigrants. (25.4 per 100,000 people, illegal immigrant population of 1.76M), I'm also really giving the doubt here, I rounded up to 1.8M.
It's 5,609 sexual assault arrests for Americans. (24.6 per 100,000 people, 22.8M population)
Several things I note from their cited report.
The quality of the Texas DPS data is excellent and, if it errs, it is likely to overcount the convictions and arrests of illegal immigrants because it counts more total arrests than another DPS source.
Funny that.
It is important to note that the Texas DPS data report the number of convictions and arrests, not the number of people actually convicted or arrested. For instance, if a Texas court convicts a single person of two different offenses or of the same offense twice, then the Texas DPS data will count that as two convictions.
Sexual assault is another serious crime that commentators disproportionately blame on immigrants. However, there were only 12.68 sexual assault convictions of illegal immigrants per 100,000 in 2015, about 11.5 percent fewer than for native-born Americans in the same year (Figure 4).
Again, that is only 228 convictions for sexual assault against an illegal immigrant. Whereas the 14.33/100,000 for natives is 3267 convictions against natives.
Illegal immigrants were more likely to be convicted of gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy than natives, but those crimes constituted only 0.18 percent of all convictions that year in Texas.
...
786 convictions for all four types of crimes in 2015.
The Few. The Dangerous. The Park Bench Sleepers.
For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 56 percent below that of native-born Americans.
You're going to have to explain how illegal immigrants are being arrested at 60% of the rate of Native Americans and convicted at 44% of the rate of natives and tell me why I should be scurred of those mythical murderers and rapists.
And I live in Texas. SOUTH Texas. And I am most definitely not Hispanic.
A 15-year-old migrant has gone missing after walking out of a detention center in Texas. Apparently officials at the center were not actually considered law enforcement and could not force the teenager to stay. All they could do was ask him not to leave. We don't know where he is or why he left--to find his parents, who apparently had been separated from him? To find shelter with someone else? Just to get away from the detainment center? To leave the country? A little boy should have a home, but if his parents are locked up, where does he go and how does he get there?
Handling children and making sure they're safe and accounted for seems complicated if there are still kids out there who haven't been reunited with their parents. If the separation before conviction policy has been reversed, these families should be reunited, but that has yet to happen. I wonder what's slowing things down? They should have records of whose parents go where, which would mean all you'd have to do is get someone to drive them to their parents and have them taken in.
But the circumstances in which the children were taken didn't necessarily involve bookkeeping or taking notes. Sometimes kids were snatched away from their parents by lying to the parents, saying the kids would be right back when in reality they had been taken away. If the people who stole the children didn't document the names of the parents, the names of the kids, and the names of the facilities where they had been separated, then you don't have the information you need to effectively reverse the policy.
That's one of the reasons why these processes need to go through existing channels: you need documentation in order to know what's going on. It's weird that people who entered the country without documentation are being handled by people who also process them without full documentation.
Airbus said it would leave UK in the case of a hard-brexit
Hard brexit supporters say Airbus is trying to dictate UK it's policy. All I see here is business, Airbus is heavily connected to the EU and needs a constant legislative chain for its components and services. If there is a hard brexit where the UK is no longer bound to EU laws it would be harmful for Airbus, so it's better for them to move their activities on their "home soil". They're just warning people first.
Though the decision was already made when article 50 was triggered I'd say
Comments
Assume a racist, who is quite vocal on social media works for a car dealership. The owner has every right to fire that individual if even one person comes to him and says "your employee said this, is this what your company stands for? If so, I am never purchasing a vehicle from this establishment as long as that person works here and I will inform everyone I know to do the same."
This muddles up more if the racist also uses his social media to talk about the business he works for. He is now also a voice regarding the business.
Now the correct thing to do, is get the employee to write an apologetic tweet, inform him/her that they need to set all their social media to private and to keep those views private and to never bring them into the workplace as it would be grounds for dismissal if they ever do in the slightest. But an outright firing to save the hassle and to prevent another PR disaster wouldn't really be out of the question.
You're going to have to go through this math with me because I am getting vastly different results.
2015 in Texas there were 18,636 sexual assaults.
Assuming illegals were only a measly 1% of sexual assaults, that puts them at 186 for that year. Not 14.
Oh, I was using report data rather than arrest data, but that still makes it higher than 14. Not relevant to your actual example here, or even the discussion, but I was reading some of the references of your study and they talked about the mass movement of immigrants and how it's not all been uniformly negative crime reducing depending on where you do.
I think this is an interesting point, being that traditional immigrants, even illegal ones, in places like Texas have established communities to belong to already in place. There is less assimilation in other parts of the country.
"Prior research finds that Latino immigration reduced violence. We argue that this is because they settled in traditional immigrant areas. But recent migrants settled in new destinations where the immigration–violence link is more complex. Contrary to previous findings, we observe that (1) Latino homicide victimization is higher in new destinations; (2) Latino immigration increases victimization rates, but only in new destinations and only for Latinos entering after 1990, when they fanned out to new destinations; and (3) Latino deprivation increases victimization only in new destinations because, we speculate, these new areas lack the protective social control umbrella of traditional destinations. Thus, the “Latino paradox” may be less useful than time‐honored sociological frameworks for understanding the link between Latino immigration and violence. "
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tsq.12009
I did mention that, actually. I said it was 2% of total arrests, not arrests of immigrant populations.
None of the links you've posted previously provide any evidence for your repeated suggestion that illegal immigration leads to more violence
That was your study that said that, actually, about another study of it's kind.
But I guess you could call sexual assault and kidnapping somehow not violent. Sounds like legal immigration enforcement is the way to go, then, for vastly reduced sexual assaults. That is a major reduction, wouldn't you say? I don't think you understand per-capita. This is only true because native borns are the vast majority population. They do it less, on average, not more. I am going to assume the model of migrants adding to the population and total crime rate because that one is more realistic, people aren't leaving Texas in higher than average rates and probably not because of illegal migration even if so. I agree heavily with this, there are countless problems involved in getting accurate numbers any which way regarding illegals. The biggest one for me being; if an illegal commits a crime against an illegal, what are the chances they will risk deportation to report the crime? Likely close to zero.
Another day another person from Trump using racial slurs. Is this innuendo or dog whistling. It's something eh. Revealing.
I've been thinking about Hamas' rocket attacks and the use of human shields. The rocket attacks have a habit of causing property damage, but very rarely result in casualties despite being, well, rockets. Why launch rockets unless you plan on killing people? And if you planned on killing people, how can you be so bad at it for so long without improving your aim?
Now, there are two theories about why Hamas uses human shields:
1. It discourages Israel from opening fire because Israel doesn't want to get innocent civilians killed, protecting Hamas militants
2. It encourages Israel to kill innocent civilians so Hamas can paint Israel as the bad guy, degrading Israel's public image while improving Hamas' image compared to Israel
If the second theory is true, then maybe the rocket attacks have a similar purpose: provoking Israel into making some aggressive move that will make Israel look like the bad guy, without causing a death count that Israel could cite as proof that Hamas was the bad guy.
Other people have already pointed out the basic logic: punch a big guy hard enough to get him to give you a black eye, but not so hard that you leave a bruise on him, then take a selfie with the black eye and try to convince everyone that the big guy is a bully. But maybe incompetence is not the reason for the scarcity of rocket-related casualties. Maybe Hamas is deliberately targeting its rockets to avoid getting anyone killed.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-battleground-tracker-sharp-divides-over-immigration-separation/
"These people"...."invade".....and for good measure, a call for the straight-up suspension of the judicial system and due process. Totally normal.
Illegal immigrants were slightly higher than native-borns on arrests per capita for sexual assault, but LOWER for convictions. The study does not give a standard deviation for the per-capita rates, so it is hard to say if 3% is statistically significant. Also, the CATO study noted that "if [the Texas data] errs, it is likely to overcount the convictions and arrests of illegal immigrants".
I also note that the CATO study found that the per-capita murder conviction rate was over 25% higher for native-born citizens than for illegal immigrants.
All the figures I gave are derived from the Cato report, but you do have to do some calculations to get those differences. Here's the spreadsheet I used to do that:
The quoting sequence in your long post above is a bit confused, so I'll pick out a couple of other points you made to answer - text taken from your post is in italics:
Except, of course, for the ones we were mentioning, i.e sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. Or is your argument now that these increased victims are both statistically insignificant, and non-existent?
By normal statistical definitions they are insignificant given that they account for 1.9% of arrests / 0.18% of convictions. It does seem odd to me to be so concerned about very small increases in a few categories of crimes and not concerned about the major reductions in other categories (such as homicide). I suspect that you are still thinking that adding illegal immigrants to population increases the crime rate, but it doesn't as I explained before. The overall numbers of crimes will rise if population rises, but at a lower rate than the population growth - hence the chance of a crime being experienced by any given individual reduces.
None of the links you've posted previously provide any evidence for your repeated suggestion that illegal immigration leads to more violence
That was your study that said that, actually, about another study of it's kind.
I addressed this before. The Cato report did not say that illegal immigration leads to more violence. It said that another study had suggested that there may be more violence by Mexican illegal immigrants than other nationalities. However, even if that is the case that doesn't affect the fact that illegal immigration overall reduces the incidence of violence.
Still he's calling for abolishing the united states judicial system. Kind of a big step, no? One when crossed won't be uncrossed. Apparently the Fox guy there apologized, four hours later - "During a heated segment on 'Fox & Friends' today, I should have chosen my words more carefully and never used the offensive phrase that I did," he wrote. "I apologize to Joel Payne, Fox News and its viewers."
So it "might" have been a very very poor phrase to use and not intentional. Still it goes to show the mindset of this former assistant campaign manager of Trump's when the thing that jumps to mind when discussing issues with a black person is to use the phrase "cotton picking mind".
I've read it again and I think you must be referring to the study by Green (2016), which is the only one previous to this with a specific focus on undocumented immigrants.
I've tracked down the study by Green, which can be found here. Access to the full report requires a subscription, but here's the synopsis of the study:
To test the “Trump Hypothesis”: whether immigrants are responsible for higher levels of violent and drug‐related crime in the United States, as asserted by Donald Trump in his 2015 presidential campaign announcement. This is achieved using recent crime and immigration data, thus testing the common public perception linking immigrants to crime, and providing an updated assessment of the immigrant‐crime nexus.
Methods
Rates of violent crime and drug arrests by state are pooled for 2012–2014. These are compared against pooled statistics on foreign‐born and Mexican nationals living in the United States, as well as estimates of undocumented foreign and undocumented Mexican population by state. The data are analyzed using correlation and multivariate regressions.
Results
Data uniformly show no association between immigrant population size and increased violent crime. However, there appears to be a small but significant association between undocumented immigrant populations and drug‐related arrests.
Conclusions
Results largely contradict the Trump Hypothesis: no evidence links Mexican or undocumented Mexican immigrants specifically to violent or drug‐related crime. Undocumented immigrant associations with drug‐related crime are minimal, though significant. The Trump Hypothesis consequently appears to be biased toward rhetoric rather than evidence."
The study I quoted is over a much longer period and uses stricter methodology. It included comment on the findings of the paper by Green as follows:
Second verse same as the first. That person Is CHOOSING to drag the other employment into it. It's a commonly used tactic to silence opposing opinions and ideas by using two commonly known fallacies, Guilt by association and poisoning the well. You're second paragraph is mute because now because you're now trying to push the goal post so the persons job and social media are more connected, compared to the general public who's social media and Jon aren't usually intertwined like that.
That's the fastest way to get doxxed, just saying.
See: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123024596
Again there are some exceptions. If you are fired because of your race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, medical condition, pregnancy, or age (over 40), then you have redress in the courts. There are also protections for whistleblowers (e.g., those reporting safety violations to OSHA) and those engaging in union organizing activities. Some states have greater protections for workers, e.g., protecting those who have filed workers compensation claims or unpaid wage complaints. Public sector employees have more protections, since their employer is the government.
Union employees have the benefit of an employment contract, which would govern the dismissal process. This can also apply to organizations with a published "employee handbook" that lays out dismissal procedures. However, these last examples aren't due to any rights granted by the Constitution, they are due to the terms of the contract (or implied contract in the case of an employee handbook) between the employer and employee.
You can read more about the controversial Articles 11 and 13 here:
https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-all-thats-good-and-pure-about-the-internet-1826963763
In brief, Article 11 says that sites that link to news sites and/or quote parts of news articles will have to pay a "link license fee". It is meant to force big content aggregators like Google and Facebook to pay content creators like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
Article 13 flips the current way that websites are held responsible for copyright violations. Rather than only having to remove content when a rightsholder files a complaint, websites will be responsible to actively monitor content posted by users in order to prevent posting of copyrighted works using "effective content recognition technologies".
For a company like Beamdog, they would potentially need to verify that every mod posted on the forums didn't contain unauthorized third-party material (e.g., sound clips, portraits, etc..) or simply ban posting of mods.
EDIT: Even if a company like Beamdog is considered too small to be required to actively filter uploaded content, sites commonly used for mod-hosting (e.g., GitHub, soon to be acquired by Microsoft) will be required to scan and filter uploaded user content.
A company has core values. Those core values need to be shared by the employees who work for the company to maintain a positive brand image. If any employee does not share those core values, they should at least attempt to not oppose it publicly.
Racism (or any -ism) especially since it'd be hard to prove the racist would give the same type of service to everyone who walks into the business.
I've heard there are tapes, for example, from the Apprentice that are sealed away with Trump being racist Trump. These can't be released without breaking one of Trumps famous NDAs though (like Stormy Daniels had to sign) with potentially millions in damages. Mark Burnett, producer, says a firm no on releasing that footage.
Anyway make of it what you will. Tom Arnold seems to be implying in tweets and photo of them together he and his buddy Michael Cohen were going to work together - but Cohen denies that.
There's apparently a docuseries coming out from Tom Arnold /Vice about the search for the tapes. Here's a trailer.
THE HUNT FOR THE TRUMP TAPES with Tom Arnold (Trailer) - ...
Warning: direct quote from President Trumps access Hollywood audio
More reading.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/tom-arnold-tapes-michael-cohen-donald-trump/index.html
So? They get ARRESTED for it more often, but they get CONVICTED of it less often, straight out of this SAME report.
Let me add the sentences directly before and after your quote. So I guess if you want way more murder and theft, you don't mind the natives (citizens).
Also, allow me to translate those into REAL numbers, not rates per 100k people.
It's 457 sexual assault arrests for illegal immigrants. (25.4 per 100,000 people, illegal immigrant population of 1.76M), I'm also really giving the doubt here, I rounded up to 1.8M.
It's 5,609 sexual assault arrests for Americans. (24.6 per 100,000 people, 22.8M population)
Several things I note from their cited report. Funny that. Again, that is only 228 convictions for sexual assault against an illegal immigrant.
Whereas the 14.33/100,000 for natives is 3267 convictions against natives. The Few. The Dangerous. The Park Bench Sleepers.
You're going to have to explain how illegal immigrants are being arrested at 60% of the rate of Native Americans and convicted at 44% of the rate of natives and tell me why I should be scurred of those mythical murderers and rapists.
And I live in Texas. SOUTH Texas. And I am most definitely not Hispanic.
Shit thanks for catching that slip up, lol I said UK instead of EU. Excuse me while I hope bonk myself on the head lmao
Handling children and making sure they're safe and accounted for seems complicated if there are still kids out there who haven't been reunited with their parents. If the separation before conviction policy has been reversed, these families should be reunited, but that has yet to happen. I wonder what's slowing things down? They should have records of whose parents go where, which would mean all you'd have to do is get someone to drive them to their parents and have them taken in.
But the circumstances in which the children were taken didn't necessarily involve bookkeeping or taking notes. Sometimes kids were snatched away from their parents by lying to the parents, saying the kids would be right back when in reality they had been taken away. If the people who stole the children didn't document the names of the parents, the names of the kids, and the names of the facilities where they had been separated, then you don't have the information you need to effectively reverse the policy.
That's one of the reasons why these processes need to go through existing channels: you need documentation in order to know what's going on. It's weird that people who entered the country without documentation are being handled by people who also process them without full documentation.
Hard brexit supporters say Airbus is trying to dictate UK it's policy. All I see here is business, Airbus is heavily connected to the EU and needs a constant legislative chain for its components and services. If there is a hard brexit where the UK is no longer bound to EU laws it would be harmful for Airbus, so it's better for them to move their activities on their "home soil". They're just warning people first.
Though the decision was already made when article 50 was triggered I'd say