Still waiting for one valid argument...

I knew it.

This tedious issue of illegal immigration has moved on from just outraging stupid people on message boards.

I heard stupid people arguing about it in my workplace this morning, a bunch of city councilors said stupid things to the newspaper, and McMenemy did what everyone knew he would do and wrote a stupid editorial.

We're approaching a singularity of stupid.

Let me clarify something, in case anyone is under the impression that I'm just calling people stupid because I disagree with their point of view. That's not actually the case.

There's certainly a discussion to be had about illegal immigration and how best to deal with it. Smart, sensible people can have different opinions on the issue. It's a very complicated issue, after all.

But what we're seeing is not smart, sensible people making rational arguments against allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses. If we were, this would be a wonderfully interesting topic to write about and discuss.

No, what we're seeing is a bunch of people putting forward the same fundamentally stupid non-argument. It boils down to saying "illegal is bad" and therefore anyone who's been labeled an "illegal immigrant" or the dehumanizing pseudo-noun "illegal" is bad and should be punished in petty and nonsensical ways.

This "argument" is actually perfectly encapsulated in McMenemy's editorial headline: "Rewarding people for breaking the law."

That's what it's all about. There's no argument about whether allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses makes sense or not. No, it's all about denying them the vast reward of being allowed to legally drive because they're ILLEGALS!

Dean Tran makes the same basic argument in his whining:

"I strongly believe this is an issue of right and wrong," Tran wrote in an e-mail responding to questions Thursday. "We should not condone illegal activities as we do not teach our children to engage in illegal activities."

Incidentally, note that the Sentinel initiated the questioning here. They're the ones trying to drum up outrage. They went looking for quotes condemning DeMoura, and found themselves a number of willing patsies. Way to get used, guys!

Here's the old dumb non-argument again.

Ward 2 City Councilor Norman Boisvert strongly disagrees with DeMoura's stance.

"I must be stuck in the old school," Boisvert said. "I believe anyone who comes here illegally should not be rewarded with a drivers license."

Boisvert is not anti-immigrant, he said, but he wants the laws to be obeyed.

Yes, what a wonderful "reward" driver's licenses are. It's not like anyone needs a driver's license. They're just a nice luxury item, like golden back-scratchers.

Also, please note: anyone who feels the need to state that they're "not anti-immigrant" is most likely anti-immigrant. It's like the people who say "I'm not a racist" before saying something incredibly racist. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Kevin Starr thinks illegal immigrants should have a way to become legal immigrants, and I agree with him. But what does he think about this specific driver's license issue?

Ward 4 City Councilor Kevin Starr disagrees with DeMoura's position.

"A driver's license is a privilege you have to earn," Star [Sic] said. "It's not a right."

Oh, Kevin. You're a nice guy, but that's a really stupid thing you said. You "earn" the privilege to drive by passing a driving test and paying a fee. There's nothing about that process that inherently disqualifies people who haven't gone through the proper immigration channels.

Believe it or not, even foreign tourists can drive legally as long as they have a valid license in their home country. Have they earned that privilege more than someone who's actually living here but has been labeled as "illegal"?

About the only one in the S&E article who gets it at all (besides DeMoura) is Jody Joseph:

Ward 6 City Councilor Jody Joseph is upset that Patrick has the committee to begin with, saying illegal immigrants should not be receiving any benefits from the state.

"I don't know how comfortable and easy we should make it for refugees and immigrants to come into the area if they are here illegally," Joseph said. "I don't understand the whole concept."

But Joseph is not opposed to DeMoura's stance on giving licenses to undocumented immigrants.

"The chief just wants to be able to identify all of them," he said.

Sure, the first part of that quote is stupid (way to attack refugees for no reason, asshole), but at least Joseph understands that this isn't about "rewarding" anyone, it's about pragmatism.

Chief DeMoura didn't suggest allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses as a reward, it's for purely pragmatic purposes. Let's actually see what he says:

DeMoura defended his comments Thursday. He said giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good policy.

"It's a procedural step that makes sense," DeMoura said.

It would allow police to be able to identify those immigrants during traffic stops or other police encounters, he said.

And the proposal would also give the state a way to get a fingerprint from the immigrant, he said.

Most illegal immigrants are people whose temporary work visas have expired, DeMoura said.

Clearly, this isn't about some stupid "reward", it's about making the job of the police easier. People have to drive. Not driving is really not an option if you live in Central Massachusetts and hope to have a job, or do pretty much anything.

There just aren't a whole lot of other options. Not everyone has an endlessly supportive friend who can ferry them around all the time. Not everyone has access to public transportation (which sucks around here). Taxis cost more than many people can realistically afford, assuming they can even get one when they need one.

And even if there were viable alternatives, the reality of the situation is that people are driving anyway. Doing this illegally causes problems. So instead of stamping our feet and whining about it, DeMoura put forward an idea that's very simple and solves a lot of problems.

So, can anyone point to problems that DeMoura's suggestion creates? I mean besides pissing off people who "earned" the privilege of having a driver's license by virtue of their mom getting knocked up while living in the United States?

Here's the closest I could find to an argument against DeMoura's suggestion, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with driver's licenses, it's just whining that anyone dare to give a shit about what happens to illegal immigrants. Cue Dean Tran:

And Tran thinks Patrick ought to be doing more for the legal residents of the state before he deals with illegal immigrants.

"If Gov. Patrick wants to help the people of the Commonwealth, he should be focusing his energy on creating jobs and lowering taxes," Tran wrote. "His committee is another representation of bigger government and more tax dollars going to waste."

Blah blah blah, typical conservative nonsense. You know, Dean, it is possible to do more than one thing at a time.

Or should we wait until every single problem faced by naturalized citizens is solved before we do anything for illegal immigrants? Because if that's how you think government works, it's no wonder you think Rachel is some kind of political genius.

Finally, McMenemy does present an "argument" that slightly deviates from the prevalent "stop rewarding the wetbacks" argument. Here it is:

Again, no matter how well intentioned DeMoura is, we think his proposal, if enacted, would only encourage more illegal aliens to come into Massachusetts, where residents and business owners are already paying high taxes which go, in part, to educating and housing illegal immigrants.

This, like everything that comes out of McMenemy's brain, is only valid in the peculiar little fantasy world that he inhabits.

I'll just discard outright the totally-unsupported-by-facts assertion that this would somehow turn Massachusetts into some sort of vacation resort for illegal immigrants. It's nonsense.

Also, please note that illegal immigrants pay less in taxes than citizens, but they also use less in services. Depending on who you listen to, they either use slightly more than they pay or pay slightly more than they use, but either way it pretty much comes out as a wash.

Sure, schooling illegal immigrants costs money, but illegal immigrants also pay into Social Security without ever getting any benefits from it. Sales tax hits everyone, of course. It's not a simple issue, unless you just choose to ignore all the complexities.

As for our "high taxes," Massachusetts was ranked 23rd in the country in 2008 for "tax burden." That puts us squarely in the middle. Of course, any tax is high in McMenemy's eyes.

But that's beside the point.

The point is, if you have a valid argument against allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses, go ahead and make it. But base it on the real world, not some imaginary land where driver's licenses are considered "rewards" and a police chief expressing a desire to do one very simple thing to make the job of the police easier is some deep moral outrage.

In other words, disagree with DeMoura all you want, but please stop being so fucking stupid about it.

Police Chief says something smart, outraging stupid people

Some days when I check the local newspaper for my daily fix of "what a fucking stupid world this is," I find something that I just know is going to explode into a giant shitstorm of stupidity so vast that even I will soon have to avert my eyes, lest my neurons start apoptosing out of sheer despair.

Today is such a day.

I present to you Fitchburg Police Chief wants illegals to have driver's licenses.

Stupid thing #1 is that headline. Apparently the S&E has given up even the pretense of being a real newspaper. By embracing the dehumanizing term "illegals" to refer to illegal immigrants they've demonstrated that they're just as blatantly biased as Fox News or WorldNetDaily.

But we already knew that, so let's look at the article itself. Which is actually not that bad.

Fitchburg Police Chief Robert DeMoura won a standing ovation Wednesday night by calling for driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants during the New Americans Agenda public hearing held at Fitchburg High School.

"Let's start with the simplest thing we can practically do," DeMoura said.

DeMoura said giving undocumented immigrants driver's licenses would allow them to legally work and commute in the community. It will also simplify the job for police when stopping drivers for alleged traffic violations.

"When we stop somebody, we want to know who we're stopping," DeMoura said.

Well damn, that makes an awful lot of sense. It's not like there's anything even approaching adequate public transportation in Fitchburg. People have to drive, so let's make sure they're doing it legally and with the proper training.

The article also contains some stories from illegal immigrants, who point out that it's ridiculously difficult to integrate into American society despite their desire to do so. Lack of SSNs and driver's licenses contribute to this, while of course the ridiculously convoluted immigration system itself is also at fault.

So, aside from its deeply idiotic headline, the article itself isn't the stupid I'm going to be focusing on. It's actually relatively decent for an article in the S&E.

No, the stupid is exploding elsewhere, in the comments on the story, which have already increased from 30 to 37 in the time I've been writing this.

In these comments the xenophobia, racism, and just outright stupidity run thick. If stupidity were gravity, we'd be well on our way to a singularity. There are maybe one or two sane people trying to stem the tide of stupid. It's a lost cause, guys! Get out before they drag you down!

As an exercise, I'm going to pick the "arguments" out of a set of some comments and see how concisely I can rip them to shreds. Most of the comments don't actually bother to make any arguments, and are just people being outraged and whiny, so I probably won't bother with those except maybe to briefly mock them.

Let's start!

Here's what "Jim" has to say:

What part of "illegal" do they not understand, we spend a fortunate enforcing immigration laws, and there are many valid reasons for doing so.

To suggest that we should ignore the laws, or look the other way is illegal as well, and we should expect everyone to enforce them.

Jim here uses the old "illegal means bad!" argument that you'll be seeing a lot of. But the more interesting part is the fact that this legal scholar believes not enforcing a law is also illegal, and that "everyone" should be enforcing immigration laws.

It is not illegal to not enforce a law. If it were, every cop would be breaking the law constantly (even more so than they do already). There are priorities to consider, because if you spend all your time enforcing the "keep off the grass" signs, it sort of lets other things get out of hand.

Also, "everyone" enforcing the law means vigilantes. Vigilantism actually is illegal. Next!

From "enough":

ok, so now the police sheif is actually condoning criminal activity? this is all so insame, i think i am going to vommit.

The Chief is condoning allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. There is nothing illegal about that. Don't blame him for your bulimia.

From HAHA:

So if DE dum dum is going to ignor that crime will he turn a blind eye to all other crimes commited by these illegal people? What about the people who pay his income are we exempt from the laws also?

Oh, the old "I pay your income salary so you have to do what I want" gambit! Well played!

Additionally, "illegal people" is not a thing. And if such a thing did exist, I'm sure the police chief would not turn a blind eye to all their "other crimes" which you seem to believe they commit.

Hmm, this is getting tedious. Let's mix it up with a quick listing of people who are shocked, shocked I say, at how nobody but them understands the meaning of the word "illegal." Also, please note that the proper spelling of "illegal" is in wingnut all-caps:

• "Doesn't the word ILLEGAL send up any red flags?? If they are not LEGAL citizens, why are they here?" - reply
• "How are ILLEGALS driving...whos car?" - Misfortune Teller
• "Illegal means not within the law; therefore, they should be issued the apt punishment, not a license." - Truffles
• "I am outraged that my tax dollars are being used to allow illegals to attend Schools and colleges." - Ken Burgess
• "I hate to be the bad guy here, and I do know quite a few foreigners without papers, but why should they enjoy ANY degree of comfort or service while they are here ILLEGALLY?" - eric
• "When you stop ILLEGAL aliens arrest them." - Concerned Citizen
• "Illegal is not a sick bird. [...] Wake up everyone, we are the MAJORITY. Let us not bow to ILLEGAL minorities. " - Kojak (who brings the funny before calling for a race war!)
• "F**k the illegals." [that was his entire post] - Jon from Lunenburg

Clear enough? These people really really really hate the word ILLEGAL. Also, brown people.

In case you can't follow their logic, the brilliant "Resident" spells it out:

If they are illegal we shouldn't be doing anything but deporting them. Honestly, this liberal bullsh!t is appalling.

Undocumented = illegal
illegal = breaking the law
breaking the law = got to jail, or leave the country.

Why is this chain of logic so difficult for people to understand?

Thanks, "Resident"! Your command of the English language is remarkable!

Of course, the reason people don't follow your "chain of logic" is because it's not actually logical. See, breaking the law doesn't actually equal "got [Sic] to jail, or leave the country."

Most of the time, breaking the law doesn't result in anything at all. Part of the time, it equals a fine or penalty of some sort. A tiny fraction of the time it equals going to jail, and an even tinier fraction of the time it equals deportation.

One more post, just for fun! Here's "believer"

are you freakin kidding me is right....you know just when you think you've heard it all you hear more!! nothing like catering to these cry babies, they should have rallied them up and sent them back to their own country, I mean one guy 20 dam years!! now that is a huge effort to become legal 20 years later........wow the U.S. is a dam joke to these people.

Cry babies? Pot, meet kettle.

Okay, so my attempt to briefly eviscerate their arguments has been foiled by everyone having failed to actually make any arguments beyond "ILLEGALS suck," which isn't actually an argument at all.

So let's just examine why these people are so hung up on the word "illegal," as if using that word instantly makes immigration a simple issue to deal with. As I see it, there are several factors that go into this.

• Lacking an actual understanding of the very complicated and nuanced issue of immigration, people latch onto the division of legal/illegal so they can pretend they understand it.
• They're all a bunch of racists who would like to get rid of all immigrants, but know they can't do anything about legal immigrants.
• They spend all their free time tossing Lou Dobbs' salad, and just automatically parrot back whatever bullshit he spews.
• They have serious daddy issues.
• "Illegal immigrant" is wingnut code for "Mexican," and wingnuts do not care for those lazy Mexicans one bit.
• It's the only word they can consistently spell right.

I suspect it's a combination of all of the above, mixed in with big heaps of jingoism and old-fashioned xenophobia.

In conclusion (at least until Jeff McMenemy writes an outraged editorial about this in a day or two), good job Chief DeMoura! If you're pissing off this many idiots, it just means you're doing something right.


UPDATE: The Telegram has a pretty crummy article on the same meeting, also using the word "Illegals" in the headline! What the hell, Telegram? You're supposed to be the paper for grown-ups! At least it doesn't focus as heavily on the stupid driver's license issue.

The comments there are similarly depressing. Jesus fuck, we're surrounded by dipshits.

Chief DeMoura's Scary Mixed-up Math

There's a particularly badly-written article in today's S&E about Gov. Patrick's visit to Fitchburg and the coming budget cuts.

I'll leave analysis of budget stuff to Jason though. It puts me to sleep.

What I'm interested in is this:

Police Chief Robert DeMoura said the city doesn't receive enough money to begin with for Community Policing. He said the state [sic] last year had the third highest violent crime rate for cities of comparable size, but it didn't receive proportional funding.

Yeah, horrible writing. I assume that should have said "the city last year...", not "the state last year..." That's the assumption I'm going to work under, anyway.

It's an odd statement anyway. Third highest sounds bad, right? But third out of how many? What's a "comparable size," anyway?

Fitchburg's population in 2007 was 40,180, so are we looking at 39,000-41,000 maybe?
Oh, there are only five cities in that range (Beverly, Holyoke, Fitchburg, Westfield, Arlington). Third out of five doesn't sound all that bad, actually.

We could add in Salem, Leominster, and Billerica if we go up to 42,000. So third out of eight? That doesn't sound too terrible either.

Let's be extra generous and give a range of 35,000-45,000. Then we have 14 whole cities to choose from! In addition to the previously-mentioned cities we also get Everett, Woburn, Marlborough, Pittsfield, Attleboro, and Methuen (from smallest to biggest). What a happy bunch of towns!

Now we encounter another problem. DeMoura was talking about the violent crime rate for last year. The 2007 figures aren't available on the FPD website, though I don't doubt they exist (the FPD can be a bit slow about updating their site). No matter, that wouldn't help us with the thirteen other towns anyway!

Instead, we'll go to the FBI, and specifically this report.

Notably, the FBI has a huge caution against ranking on its site. Among other things, it says:

These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.

Hear that, Chief? Don't rank things! It's a dumb idea!

But since he already did it, I suppose I might as well check his figures.

Except that I can't! When I try to get the violent crime number for Fitchburg, I'm instead directed to this footnote:

The data collection methodology for the offense of aggravated assault used by this agency does not comply with national UCR Program guidelines. Consequently, the figures for aggravated assault and violent crime (of which aggravated assault is a part) are not included in this table.

So I can't even really compare! Leominster and Westfield have the same problem, so that's 3 out of our 14 cities that are now junk.

To make matters worse, aggravated assault is the biggest of the four subcategories that go into the "violent crime" category. What the hell sort of data is DeMoura even using to make his claim that Fitchburg is the third worst? This seems increasingly like a made-up claim.

Well, I could compute a new number of violent crimes without aggravated assault, figure out the crime rate (which is number of crimes per 100,000 people), and compare that!

So I did. Here were the top 5:

1. Holyoke: 254
2. Everett: 187
3. Pittsfield: 185
4. Fitchburg: 149
5. Leominster: 94

Damn, so close!

This isn't a really valid way to do things though, because those aggravated assault figures make a big difference. (Perhaps this is why they warn against rankings!) With the aggravated assault figures back in (and Fitchburg, Leominster, and Westfield automatically excluded) we get:

1. Holyoke: 1,250
2. Pittsfield: 683
3. Everett: 511
4. Salem: 323
5. Attleboro: 320

The order on the lower end of the list is all screwed up too, so aside from Holyoke being the worst in both cases, the first list is useless for ranking.

Perhaps you're thinking that Chief DeMoura has access to Fitchburg's aggravated assault figures and could therefore have calculated stuff out to get our mysterious third place ranking? Maybe so, but Fitchburg's figures are calculated differently than all the other ones here, so they're not usable for that purpose.

I'm also betting he doesn't have Leominster or Westfield's figures. It wouldn't matter if he did, though, because they're unusable for the same reason Fitchburg's numbers are unusable.

What's the point of all this?

Simple, the claim that Fitchburg has the third worst violent crime rate among towns our size in Massachusetts is meaningless scaremongering. It's not supported by the facts, and even if he had some sort of calculation that he could make come out that way, it wouldn't mean anything.

I know DeMoura is pushing for more pay for his officers, but doing it through fear is just plain wrong.

By the way, when it comes to property crime, Fitchburg ranks 6th out of these 14. Leominster is fourth. Chief DeMoura didn't choose to highlight this number though. After all, it's not scary.