In some websurfing a week or two ago, I found this post, in which one Alan Wall, a blogger apparently living in Mexico (which sounds pretty cool, really), cited a Mexican official who said that the U.S. was deporting too many immigrants back to Mexico, 56% of whom were criminals convicted of crimes in the U.S. Okay, interesting stuff. But Mr. Wall begins his article,
“Open border promoters are fond of telling us that illegal aliens “aren’t criminals”. But just recently…”
That is, he established a position right away using this report as evidence that illegal aliens are criminals, in some generalized sense. This was annoying to me, and it’s untrue, as far as anyone currently knows. I couldn’t find a place to comment on Mr. Wall’s blog entry on Vdare.com, so I emailed him. My email said,
This article was pretty fascinating, in its core. However, in writing, you make two mistakes, one based on lack of knowledge of research, and one based on simple logic.
1. The reason people who study this issue (not all of them are “open
border promoters”) keep saying that [most] “illegal aliens ‘aren’t
criminals’” is simply because that is what the best research so
far tells us. It’s not mystery science; it’s the same kind of
research that tells us how many people we have in our country, and
what kind of crops are being grown in Kansas. By innuendo, you
place more faith in the expressed opinion of one Mexican official
than in dozens of scientific research projects, including the data
from tens of thousands of actual people. This decision on your
part seems to reveal your biases.2. If this official’s numbers are correct (over 56% of re-deported
immigrants are convicted of crimes in the U.S.), this still does
not mean that a majority of those **entering** the U.S. in the
first place are criminals. In fact, the same research you seem
bent on ignoring shows that most Mexicans entering the U.S.
(legally or illegally) go to great pains not to break laws or
otherwise come to the attention of the authorities. All we can say
from Mr. Moreno’s data (assuming it’s accurate) is that a majority
of those the U.S. government catches and chooses to deport have
been convicted of a crime.Another problem here is that I’m not sure (from your article) whether Mr. Moreno is talking about only illegal aliens (entirely possible), or all immigrants. It is likely that legal immigrants who have not yet obtained residency or citizenship could be disproportionately targeted for deportation, especially if deporting them would make beds available in overcrowded prisons and jails. If I were the government, I’d start sending back the immigrants who were committing crimes, and leave the law-abiding ones alone, wouldn’t you?
Or maybe you’re just in favor of keeping everyone out who’s not already here. The pattern of selective attention to only certain kinds of facts and logic in your blog post suggests as much.
I couldn’t find a link to post this as a public comment on your blog. I hope you will see fit to do so.
I know, it was maybe just a tad bellicose. I should have been more conciliatory, perhaps. Also maybe I should have pointed out the questionable wisdom of taking mid-level bureaucrats’ assertions at face value. Alan Wall’s reply:
All illegal aliens, regardless of what else they do, are lawbreakers. However, a signficant proportion of them commit other crimes as well.
The Mexican government defends illegal aliens in the U.S., and will often use this phrase “they’re not criminals”. However, Mexican officials in less guarded moments point out that some of them are, even by Mexican standards.
Not exactly addressing the criticisms, so I wrote back:
So your defense to the criticism includes no consideration of actual data, no new thinking, and no acknowledgment of the main criticisms I presented. Brilliant. I’m sure you have a great audience who never questions such things. I still invite you to place my comment publicly on your blog post.
Yes, my irritation was showing (*blush*). I am a little ashamed, but perhaps you will also see that Mr. Wall didn’t even address any of the glaring (to me, anyway) flaws I suggested in his original post. He wrote back:
In your message, you never disproved one thing in my blog entry. But, if you’re really determined to see your name in print, send your message to the letters section at VDARE.COM, to jguzzardi@vdare.com
I did so.
Now, as a warning, I tell you that this conversation is about to become hopelessly juvenile. And my part is not much more mature than Mr. Wall’s:
Mr. Wall,
I referred to an entire body of research that casts major doubts on your blog entry (if you need them, I can get you several citations for the research I refer to), and I also pointed out serious errors in the thinking that went into it (I can also probably find a good textbook on logic, if you like). Replying that I haven’t “disproved” anything is not a convincing defense of your position. The more important point, in my opinion, is that your blog post didn’t *prove* anything. In fact, it used innuendo and implication to suggest something that is almost certainly not true. It’s not my job as a reader to prove things; however, it *is* your job, as a supposed journalist, to check your facts and think more carefully before publishing things.
At your suggestion, I have sent my original letter to the “letters” section. Thank you for the link.
Sinking lower…
You continue to rant on, yet you haven’t disproved one thing in my blog entry.
And lower…
Yes, I have. The fact that you can’t see it is a separate issue.
….aaaaaaaand rock bottom:
No you haven’t.
Once the dialogue is at the second-grade level, I don’t think there’s anywhere else to go except perhaps into the colorful world of profanity and “yo mama” jokes. So I’m stopping. Except, of course, to post the conversation here so my friends can mock us both. :D
0 comments ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment