El Paso border fence cut crime dramatically

[Mountainmanbob]

Taken directly from the article.

AUSTIN — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday told President Donald Trump that the border fence in El Paso helped drastically reduce the city's crime rate and shows why a wall along the nation's southern border would be effective.

M-Bob

 

[sfs]

Taken directly from the article.

AUSTIN — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday told President Donald Trump that the border fence in El Paso helped drastically reduce the city's crime rate and shows why a wall along the nation's southern border would be effective.

Also taken directly from the article.

"In his remarks, Paxton said El Paso had a high crime rate before the fence was constructed and that the rate of crime dropped substantially after it was completed.

That was not the case."
Paxton was lying. That's what the article you linked to says. That's the point of the article -- that the claim about the fence reducing crime is false. And yet you're repeating that claim here. Did you read the whole article?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Taken directly from the article.

AUSTIN — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday told President Donald Trump that the border fence in El Paso helped drastically reduce the city's crime rate and shows why a wall along the nation's southern border would be effective.

M-Bob

And the moon is made of cheese. I said it, so it must be true.

 

[USincognito]

Taken directly from the article.

AUSTIN — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday told President Donald Trump that the border fence in El Paso helped drastically reduce the city's crime rate and shows why a wall along the nation's southern border would be effective.

M-Bob

Paxton is a party apparatchik and an indicted criminal. Why should anyone believe anything he says about this? Any why do you keep appealing to a false authority? Did you even read beyond the headline? You know, where they debunked Paxton's claims?

 

[98cwitr]

Paxton is a party apparatchik and an indicted criminal. Why should anyone believe anything he says about this? Any why do you keep appealing to a false authority? Did you even read beyond the headline? You know, where they debunked Paxton's claims?

ad hominem; presumption of innocence hasn't been stricken from our legal system just yet.

 

[USincognito]

....I fear it will (or already is) the downfall of our country. No one takes the time to read more than a few sentences....

And in this case it's all the more ironic given that the source cited was a Fact Checking article.

 

[sfs]

ad hominem

From the Wikipedia article on ad hominem arguments: "When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial."

In this case, strong evidence has also been presented that the factual claims of the person in question were wrong. Would you care to address the actual falsehood of the actual claim that is the basis for this thread?

 

[98cwitr]

From the Wikipedia article on ad hominem arguments: "When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial."

In this case, strong evidence has also been presented that the factual claims of the person in question were wrong. Would you care to address the actual falsehood of the actual claim that is the basis for this thread?

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
adjective: ad hominem

1. 1.
   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

adverb
adverb: ad hominem

1. 1.
   in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2. 2.
   in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.

USIngonito's argument attacks the person, rather than the statement.

Not exactly because I don't believe the OP contains any falsehood. But saying someone is a liar and nothing they say should be believed based on a 3 year old indictment seems a bit fallacious IMO.

 

[USincognito]

ad hominem; presumption of innocence hasn't been stricken from our legal system just yet.

1. How does the presumption of innocence change the fact that he's an indicted criminal?
2. The fact that he's a party apparatchik is a fact, not an ad hominem.
3. Odd how you ignored the fact that the entire thread is based on a falsehood and that all of Paxton's claims have been debunked and chose to focus on one phrase of one post.

 

[USincognito]

USIngonito's argument attacks the person, rather than the statement.

Paxton is a party apparatchik and an indicted criminal. Why should anyone believe anything he says about this? Any why do you keep appealing to a false authority? Did you even read beyond the headline? You know, where they debunked Paxton's claims?

 

[98cwitr]

1. How does the presumption of innocence change the fact that he's an indicted criminal?
2. The fact that he's a party apparatchik is a fact, not an ad hominem.
3. Odd how you ignored the fact that the entire thread is based on a falsehood and that all of Paxton's claims have been debunked and chose to focus on one phrase of one post.

1. He's indicted on criminal charges. He hasn't been convicted, so you calling him a criminal is inaccurate (currently).

2. apparatchik refers to a member of the communist party. He's not communist that I am aware of; unless you're using that term in a derogatory fashion for Republican. Are you?

3. I haven't seen those claims debunked. Did I miss a post?

Disclaimer:

I also don't believe in walls, but I also do not believe in criminality or harboring it. If it takes a wall to deter an influx of criminals into this country so be it. We're already having a horrible time dealing with the criminals already in this country. Enter the country legally if you wish to come here. I welcome all who wish to flee injustice for a better place. America is a better place for them; albeit assimilation is key to creating a lasting society in which we are all heterogeneously mixed.

 

[USincognito]

1. He's indicted on criminal charges. He hasn't been convicted, so you calling him a criminal is inaccurate (currently).

Fine. Accused felon and criminal defendant Ken Paxton.

2. apparatchik refers to a member of the communist party. He's not communist that I am aware of; unless you're using that term in a derogatory fashion for Republican. Are you?

I guess that's what I get for taking political science 30 years ago - the knowledge that the apellation doesn't only apply to members of the communist party.
Definition of APPARATCHIK

2: a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (such as a corporation or political party)

Did You Know?
In the context of the definition of "apparatchik" (a term English speakers borrowed from Russian), "apparat" essentially means "party machine." An "apparatchik," therefore, is a cog in the system of the Communist Party. The term is not an especially flattering one, and its negative connotations reflect the perception that some Communists were obedient drones in the great Party machine. In current use, however, a person doesn't have to be a member of the Communist Party to be called an "apparatchik"; he or she just has to be someone who mindlessly follows orders in an organization or bureaucracy.​

bold mine

3. I haven't seen those claims debunked. Did I miss a post?

If you are unaware of the fact that the claims have been debunked, and that even the title of this thread is misleading, then you've missed a whole bunch of threads. I'd suggest reading the entire article linked in the OP. Note first how the thread title is "El Paso border fence cut crime dramatically" while the actual article title is "Did construction of a border fence cut down on crime rates in El Paso?".

 

[SummerMadness]

You really should read the articles you link to:

There is never a shortage of people that try to take an unrelated policy and claim it caused a drop in crime. Everything from praising racist walls to praising racist police have been foisted as crime deterrents, when it's quite obvious that the drop in crime is not on account of these practices as crime dropped everywhere.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't even know how to process this thread.

 

[Southernscotty]

You want civilians to shoot people trying to cross the border?

No friend. I would never want anyone shot or anything like that. [Just as a deterrent]

 

[sfs]

There is never a shortage of people that try to take an unrelated policy and claim it caused a drop in crime. Everything from praising racist walls to praising racist police have been foisted as crime deterrents, when it's quite obvious that the drop in crime is not on account of these practices as crime dropped everywhere.

Yeah, but what's, um, special here is that crime actually increased, not decreased.

 

[Halbhh]

Did construction of a border fence cut down on crime rates in El Paso?
"El Paso used to have one of the highest crime rates in America," Paxton said. "After that fence went up and separated Juarez, which still has an extremely high crime rate, the crime rates in El Paso now are some of the lowest in the country. So we know it works."

The article you linked says:

"The border fence was authorized by Bush in 2006, but construction did not start until 2008.

From 2006 to 2011 — two years before the fence was built to two years after — the violent crime rate in El Paso increased by 17 percent."
-- From the link in post #1:
Did construction of a border fence cut down on crime rates in El Paso?

 

[Halbhh]

When I read the article for a nanosecond I wondered why the OP had even posted this thread when the facts of the source refute the statement he made in the title, and therefore undermine the very agenda trying to be promoted. Then I realized that so many people simply will not bother to read the article, and instead will rush to hit the winner rating trusting that the title and brief summary are correct because they align with what they want to believe. This is a prime example of how misinformation is spread.

Good point.

I read the article because I used to live, literally, in sight of the border, near the main border crossing, in El Paso, as a young child.

At night, in the 1970s, the border patrol would drive by slowly in the early night and shine spotlights from the road into the fields around our house.

Do you know whether anyone in the thread that believed the thread title found out it was false? I'm truly interested to know if anyone learned something.

 

[Halbhh]

However common horse sense tells me that a country fixes it's problems by firstly stopping all outside aid to others...

This reminded me of how it's the opposite for us --

"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." - Christ Jesus our Teacher

When the U.S. gave as a country in a big way, $103 billion in 2014 adjusted dollar value -- the Marshall Plan -- after World War II, it resulted in a spectacular good outcome of a stable and prosperous Western Europe. Is that a benefit to the U.S.? For comparison, in 2017: "...foreign aid between the U.S. State Department and USAID totaled $50.1 billion, or just over 1% of the budget." which isn't really small or large. For comparison again, the 2019 budget proposal from the administration: "The FY 2019 President's Budget for the State Department and USAID is $39.3 billion..."
Bloomberg
United States foreign aid - Wikipedia
Budget | U.S. Agency for International Development


But today, in 2019, it would likely be to the advantage of the U.S. to help change the situation in the Northern Triangle of Central America, for our own sake in addition to theirs.

 

[rambot]

You really should read the articles you link to:

ROFL!

This should not be happenning 3 posts into a thread Mountain bob. You should read your sources.