Suspended licenses, unlicensed, or improperly licensed driver?

On 2016-08-11 06:54, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000 criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".

Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all). You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)


I meant math.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-08-10 16:20, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-6, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:33:35 AM UTC-7, Sir
Ridesalot wrote:
After reading a number of accident reports wherein the driver
was either unlicensed or driving with a revoked/suspended
license i got to wondering just how many such drivers are on
the road and also how many improperly ie illegally licensed
drivers are also one the road. In Toronto Canada I knew a
fellow who was geting concerned about taking road tests for his
friends. he was concerned because he'd done it so many times
that he was beginning to think that the DVM testers were
getting suspicious. As my friend explained it, "One Chinese
looks like any other Chinese to the DVM".

I've read that the U.S.A. has upwards of 35,000,000 illegal
persons living in the United States. To put that number into a
better perspective, it's nearly equal to the entire population
of Canada. How many of them driving have licenses that they
themselves tested for?


I don't think anyone really knows and that may be the reason it's
hard to come by statistics. Nobody will say in a poll "Oh yeah, I
drive sans license".


We're seeing more and more accidents where the driver flees
the scene or tries to flee the scene. Is the fact that so many
drivers are driving illegally with no license or a
revoked/suspended license a contributing factor?


That, plus all those without mandatory insurance converage. Either
because they can't "afford" it or they have such a bad record or
accident history that nobody insures them.

What makes it worse is a shameless money grab which morally is
right down there with racket schemes: Lots of taxes called "court
fees" and such are tacked on, turning a $150 ticket into $450
ticket. Much of this is used to finance plush court buildings and
other "necessary" government stuff. Regular folks don't have that
kind of money, can't pay, and then their license won't get renewed.
Since they'd lose their job if they can't drive ... they keep on
driving.


What can ANY one who gets hit by one of them, whether
bicycling, driving or walking do to be recompensed for ay pain
and sufferig or loss of income?


Only if you have your own insurance, else not.


One thing for sure, "the times they are a changing" and not for
the better in many cases.

I haven't done the research, but over 10% of the total population
of the US is "illegal?" Wow, I'm voting Trump. What one can do
is buy a good UIM/UM policy.
http://www.bikelaw.com/2014/10/27/in...on-bicyclists/


You Second Amendment people also know what to do.


I have uninsured motorist coverage on my car policy. Question:
Does anyone know whether that policy would also cover my on my
bicycles? Also for my own liability in case I mess up and cause an
accident? Since by now my cycling mileage per year has become 3x
that of my car mileage it begins to matter.

Your homeowner's policy would cover that -- which has an exclusion
for aircraft, auto and watercraft, but not bikes. Your auto
insurance policy covers you when driving a scheduled vehicle or
(depending on the policy) any motor vehicle you use with the
permission of the owner, except for vehicles regularly provided to
you (so you don't get a policy covering one vehicle to insure a
fleet). UIM/UM coverage applies when you are injured by a motor
vehicle, even if you are on foot or on a bike.


I don't quite follow. UIM is AFAIK only available on the car insurance
policy and we have UIM on those. But I've never heard of UIM being
available on a home owner's policy. I can ask my Farmer's Insurance
folks but they will probably be scratching their head as well.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-08-10 22:25, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:51, Joerg wrote:
Since they'd lose their job if they can't drive ... they keep on driving.

Maybe, maybe not. My friend told me,
"In my neighborhood, a bicycle means you lost your license for DUI"


In the more seedy parts of cities maybe but certainly not out here. The
bicycle mode share hovers around 0.1% because of the paltry or
non-existent infrastructure. So people keep driving.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 11/08/2016 10:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 16:20, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-6, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:33:35 AM UTC-7, Sir
Ridesalot wrote:
After reading a number of accident reports wherein the driver
was either unlicensed or driving with a revoked/suspended
license i got to wondering just how many such drivers are on
the road and also how many improperly ie illegally licensed
drivers are also one the road. In Toronto Canada I knew a
fellow who was geting concerned about taking road tests for his
friends. he was concerned because he'd done it so many times
that he was beginning to think that the DVM testers were
getting suspicious. As my friend explained it, "One Chinese
looks like any other Chinese to the DVM".

I've read that the U.S.A. has upwards of 35,000,000 illegal
persons living in the United States. To put that number into a
better perspective, it's nearly equal to the entire population
of Canada. How many of them driving have licenses that they
themselves tested for?


I don't think anyone really knows and that may be the reason it's
hard to come by statistics. Nobody will say in a poll "Oh yeah, I
drive sans license".


We're seeing more and more accidents where the driver flees
the scene or tries to flee the scene. Is the fact that so many
drivers are driving illegally with no license or a
revoked/suspended license a contributing factor?


That, plus all those without mandatory insurance converage. Either
because they can't "afford" it or they have such a bad record or
accident history that nobody insures them.

What makes it worse is a shameless money grab which morally is
right down there with racket schemes: Lots of taxes called "court
fees" and such are tacked on, turning a $150 ticket into $450
ticket. Much of this is used to finance plush court buildings and
other "necessary" government stuff. Regular folks don't have that
kind of money, can't pay, and then their license won't get renewed.
Since they'd lose their job if they can't drive ... they keep on
driving.


What can ANY one who gets hit by one of them, whether
bicycling, driving or walking do to be recompensed for ay pain
and sufferig or loss of income?


Only if you have your own insurance, else not.


One thing for sure, "the times they are a changing" and not for
the better in many cases.

I haven't done the research, but over 10% of the total population
of the US is "illegal?" Wow, I'm voting Trump. What one can do
is buy a good UIM/UM policy.
http://www.bikelaw.com/2014/10/27/in...on-bicyclists/



You Second Amendment people also know what to do.


I have uninsured motorist coverage on my car policy. Question:
Does anyone know whether that policy would also cover my on my
bicycles? Also for my own liability in case I mess up and cause an
accident? Since by now my cycling mileage per year has become 3x
that of my car mileage it begins to matter.

Your homeowner's policy would cover that -- which has an exclusion
for aircraft, auto and watercraft, but not bikes. Your auto
insurance policy covers you when driving a scheduled vehicle or
(depending on the policy) any motor vehicle you use with the
permission of the owner, except for vehicles regularly provided to
you (so you don't get a policy covering one vehicle to insure a
fleet). UIM/UM coverage applies when you are injured by a motor
vehicle, even if you are on foot or on a bike.


I don't quite follow. UIM is AFAIK only available on the car insurance
policy and we have UIM on those. But I've never heard of UIM being
available on a home owner's policy. I can ask my Farmer's Insurance
folks but they will probably be scratching their head as well.


In Quebec we have no fault insurance. Our bikes are usually covered
under homeowner's insurance if you have it. But there's a rider in our
liability that covers accidents involving pedestrians, cyclists etc.
The problem is that no one knows about this. A guy in my club got
t-boned by a car and his bike was trashed. A while later at lunch
someone was telling him how it sucks that he didn't have homeowners
insurance. He said yeah, the cops wouldn't even give him a copy of the
police report because he had no claim. I looked into it and the cops
were wrong. First because he had every right to a copy of the police
report. He was able to get one on his own after the fact. And
secondly, they were wrong about his not having a claim. But to file the
claim, you need a copy of the report.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:20:46 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 12:51:45 PM UTC-6, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:22, jbeattie wrote:

I have uninsured motorist coverage on my car policy. Question: Does
anyone know whether that policy would also cover my on my bicycles? Also
for my own liability in case I mess up and cause an accident? Since by
now my cycling mileage per year has become 3x that of my car mileage it
begins to matter.

Your homeowner's policy would cover that -- which has an exclusion for aircraft, auto and watercraft, but not bikes. Your auto insurance policy covers you when driving a scheduled vehicle or (depending on the policy) any motor vehicle you use with the permission of the owner, except for vehicles regularly provided to you (so you don't get a policy covering one vehicle to insure a fleet). UIM/UM coverage applies when you are injured by a motor vehicle, even if you are on foot or on a bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

As a pedestrian or bicyclist, in a collusion with an automobile, you are covered by your Automobile (or bicyclist non-owner) vehicle insurance, including medical and underinsured / uninsured provisions. If stolen, homeowners covers. Otherwise medical covers you and if a road defect you insurance (or you) can sue the department owning the road.

On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000 criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".

Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all). You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to understand.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000 criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all). You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 11/08/2016 1:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000
criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all). You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to
understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.



Not sure why you put up with the insults.

To your point though, a higher rate of incarceration for immigrants
doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that more immigrants try to
follow the law or in fact do follow the law. Most people understand
that minorities are more represented in the prison system than
non-minorities.

On 2016-08-11 10:27, Duane wrote:
On 11/08/2016 1:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000
criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all).
You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to
understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.



Not sure why you put up with the insults.

To your point though, a higher rate of incarceration for immigrants
doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that more immigrants try to
follow the law or in fact do follow the law. Most people understand
that minorities are more represented in the prison system than
non-minorities.


Well, they get there because they haven't followed the law and committed
some sort of serious offense. I doubt that there is any discrimination
where offenses are weighed more with illegal immigrants than anyone
else. So a higher rate means a higher percentage are not following the
law when it comes to felonies.

BTW, I consider the act of illegally living and working in a country an
offense. And so does the law. Therefore, it is a fact that nearly all
illegal immigrants have not followed the law. The very few exceptions
are kids dragged into the country illegally by their parents at a very
young age and those need to be helped.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 11/08/2016 1:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 10:27, Duane wrote:
On 11/08/2016 1:19 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-11 09:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2016 9:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 23:37, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 21:02:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2016 6:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 14:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2016 3:05 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-08-10 11:48, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 08-10-2016 13:27, AMuzi wrote:
Similar situation as regards firearms. For a guy who's illegal
anyway,
or felon in possession, stolen firearm, used in commission of a
crime
etc etc no amount of 'licensing' rules will make any difference
whatsoever.

On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are very careful to
obey the
law because they don't want to attract attention.


One would want to think so but the reality looks different:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

From what I can tell, there are roughly 10 or 11 million illegal
aliens
in the U.S. The paper you linked talks about roughly 250,000
criminal
aliens in five years.

I think you just proved Mr. Groleau's claim that most illegal
immigrants
are very careful to obey the (other) laws, so they don't attract
attention.

(Not that I'm in favor of illegal immigration, mind you.)



Once again I need to remind you to read more carefully. Quote from
above
link, page 30 "Further, the total number of SCAAP illegal aliens
incarcerated in, California state prisons in fiscal year 2008 was
about
27,000, which accounted for about 10 percent of all inmate days".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Considering that CA had about 30M people that year it would mean
that of
the 10-11M illegals a full third would need to live in California
alone
to make illegals behave teh same (and not more carefully at all).
You
really believe that?

If the inmates who are illegal aliens amount to more than half (i.e.
"most") of the illegal aliens, then you have a point. So far, you
don't
seem to have a valid point.

I don't have any current numbers but the PEW reported that in 2011
about 7% of the California population was illegal aliens and some 10%
of the work force.


7% sounds about right. So when the percentage in the population is 7%
but that in the prison system is 10%, then ... but for Frank that
seems
too much match :-)

The math mistake is yours, and as with 4th graders baffled by "word
problems," it's not in the manipulating of the numbers; it's in
understanding the concepts.

If your numbers are accurate, than you might be correct in saying "a
higher percentage of illegal immigrants are in prison."

But the claim by Wesley was that most illegal immigrants try to obey
the
(other) laws. To dispute that, you need to compare the number of those
immigrants that disobey laws, vs. the number that obey laws.

Despite your record here, I'm surprised this is hard for you to
understand.


I have underlined the salient words. If you still do not understand why
10% is more than an assumed (high) percentage of illegal immigrants in
the CA population of 7% I can't help you.



Not sure why you put up with the insults.

To your point though, a higher rate of incarceration for immigrants
doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that more immigrants try to
follow the law or in fact do follow the law. Most people understand
that minorities are more represented in the prison system than
non-minorities.


Well, they get there because they haven't followed the law and committed
some sort of serious offense. I doubt that there is any discrimination
where offenses are weighed more with illegal immigrants than anyone
else. So a higher rate means a higher percentage are not following the
law when it comes to felonies.


http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

It's not that the offenses are necessarily weighed more for minorities,
illegal or not.

BTW, I consider the act of illegally living and working in a country an
offense. And so does the law. Therefore, it is a fact that nearly all
illegal immigrants have not followed the law. The very few exceptions
are kids dragged into the country illegally by their parents at a very
young age and those need to be helped.