Poor folk aren't saying ' pay us or we'll commit crimes '. The crime is the natural result of poverty. A hungry man WILL steal.
The U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2013 undocumented immigrantsand their employerspaid $13 billion in payroll taxes alone for benefits they will never get. They can receive schooling and emergency medical care, but not welfare or food stamps.
Thieves get shot in Texas. Seems like, given enough time, the problem will sort itself out. You can take your ransom and go find a way to make money honestly.
There are plenty of sociology papers reviewing the relationship between poverty and crime, their conclusions are unclear: Sweden is famous for it's generous wefare net, school is free, excellent mass transit, fine public housing, generous public assistance, top notch healthcare, all well subsidized or even free, how could they have ANY crime if poverty were it's source?
The first two reasons occurring to me are mental illness and the excesses of youth. I'm sure there are plenty more. Try adding a couple yourself. It's a tad late to start questioning Aristotle.
Shooting thieves. Furthermore, if a thief is running off into the night with my belongings and I have no expectation of being able to get my stuff back, Texas law allows for shooting that thief in the back! God Bless Texas.
O0o00o Nice backhand, I should know, I played tennis once last year. Do you have one for all those millions of women who own guns too? Yeah, I didn't think so.
I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but no, he doesn't have "4 years of whatever he wants".
A swing and a miss, but you get an E for effort. Anything for those of us who are infirm and/or elderly?
I wasn't questioning Aristotle, The Economist was (citing Sariaslan in that Swedish paper). They suggest drug use contributes significantly, I expect it does. They also suggests it could be genetic and this also conforms with my view, I suspect negative traits like the tendency to use drugs and criminal behaviors are more prevalent in less successful communities. This is why there is higher criminality in the ghetto, not because they are poor. On the matter at hand, it is anticipated Trump will issue a new Executive Order to temporarily ban travelers from terror-prone countries until a better vetting process can be established. That "standing" issue is problematic because normally a court will require some evident impact, an actual harm to the plaintiff. Critics of the impugned order remark on it's potential harm, how banning students or faculty from certain countries could have an adverse effect, that immigrants from banned countries may provide valuable contributions to a state's economy, but the court usually demands a more tangible, actual, verifiable and measurable showing of harm. Indeed, it is always conceivable a harm could result, the true question is how far the court will stretch to find that conceivable harm -mindful their decision affects "standing" in many other cases too. This is the obvious flaw in Trump's original Order, the DoJ issued a corrected interpretation within 2 days of that Order barring application to Green Card holders, but the 9th Circuit 'ran with the ball', it was obvious Green Card holders had due process rights and the Court could easily blow Trump's order away (though there is precedent for the DoJ's "authoritative interpretation" being applied). Trump's new Order will exclude Green Card holders, it is expected this will preclude the due process claim and make standing more difficult to show. This is absolutely true (or was until the 9th Circuit claimed the opposite). I don't thing the Court in San Francisco can prevail holding non-citizens who are not permanent residents can assert due process rights overseas. Lefties insist non-resident foreigners abroad still have at least some due process rights: Indeed, but that vagarity in harm remains an issue, if the Court held that some Somalian Trump thought could be a terrorist could not be barred because he might attend university, earn a degree and contribute to the institution you can see how this would substantially broaden the number of potential plaintiffs who could assert standing, every taxpayer would have standing to challenge in court every item in any government budget! The courts would be overwhelmed.
