Does everyone agree that Trump is nuts?

Here’s a survey of literature on the criminality of immigrants. Short version: “…[I]mmigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education.”

Perceptive skeptic that I know you are, I expect you will be able to find reasons to reject this study’s conclusions. But I’m providing it to make the tautology you provide (which I address below) insufficient to prove your point: present evidence that is not subject to whatever issues you take with the linked survey that supports a claim that illegal immigrants commit more crimes than native born citizens (but read below first on what’s really being claimed).

First, my understanding is that illegal entry into the US is a civil infraction, not a criminal infraction.

But a more important point is that the terms we’re using here are sloppy. Let’s say we made Christianity illegal, and we justified it by saying that Christians are much more likely to be criminals, which we proved by pointing to our new law which made all Christians criminals. QED? It doesn’t seem so. What we want to know is whether illegal immigrants commit other kinds of crime at higher rates than natural born citizens. The study linked above says no.

Hell the same shit was happening in ancient Rome, never mind 19th century Britain.
They flooded Rome with illegals seeking employment from the frontiers of the empire, especially from what was at the time barbarian Germany.
eventually German illegals were permitted to join the Roman army to defend Rome’s borders from German barbarians, for Romans grew too weary to fight.
After German illegals became the vast majority of the Roman army, they decided to turn on Rome for they had no loyalty to her, they saw themselves as German first, not Roman, and there was nothing the Romans could do.
We’re witnessing the beginnings of this happening now, some democrats want illegals to be able to run for office in California, eventually they will say they want to make them soldiers too, it’s only a matter of time.
Overtime successful nations with strong soldiers, working and middle classes atrophy, they let others on the fringes of society both on the top and bottom rungs keep exploiting them instead of resisting, until they collapse and are conquered.
This isn’t a right or left phenomenon, it’s a bipartisan one.

if you really want to get right down to it, territorial claims could invalidate the whole argument. Who or what belongs to whom is really a shady grey area, Mexico owed a large part of the South h west US and the war was founded on a matter of the same kind of rationale that Hitler used for territorial expansion.

What and how long can territorial claims be justified and on what ground?

Reparations, a hot subject in California, has been ok’d by legislature
concerning Indian rights for casino acquisitions. Some tribal members are getting filthy rich on it. These are parallel issued to territoriality, and God only knows where the boundaries are.
The whole thing is politics like usual.
Trump is clever and only using it for fortification.
Talk now of compensating slaves is growing as well.

The overclass use illegals, refugees and offshoring to exploit us, but these are not the only tactics they use, which’s why I side with the socialists on some things, but not on all, for they use crony socialism to exploit us too.
My thinking is bipartisan.
We need to support the right sort of radical populists on both the right, and left.
If a leftwing populist promises to reduce immigration and offshoring, or at least not increase them after a rightwing populist has reduced them, if they promise not to go after our freedoms, if they promise to reduce taxes and unnecessary regulations on the working and middle classes while increasing taxes and necessary regulations on the upper classes, I’ll vote for that leftwing populist.

Why stop there?
This land isn’t our land, it belongs to the natives.
I say only native Americans should be allowed to run for office, and if they wish for us to return all our wealth to them, or to nature, so be it, it’s their right.
Tear up the constitution and have the natives write us a new one.
Whatever they come up with, I’m sure it’ll be infinitely more civilized and just than anything we, the descendants of bloodthirsty tyrants, could ever hope to conjure.
Hell, why not commit suicide?
My life was only made possible by the genocide and enslavement of millions of people, so I have no right to it.
But why stop there?
Europe owes the world a debt too.
They should kill their sons and bequeath their daughters to the Muslims.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIXhJiiSIZ4[/youtube]

Jesus, Carleas, seriously? I could swear I read a quote by I can’t remember who that went…“There’s lies, lies, and statistics.” If the US has no count of the number of illegal immigrants, there can’t be any accurate overall US study either one way or the other. But I will comment on some things that the study is doing beyond the obvious of not having any accurate numbers. First, your study is discussing immigrants rather than qualifying whether they were legal or illegal immigrants. Secondly, they’re comparing unequal amounts of populations and the funny thing is that the study has no way to quantify how many illegal immigrants are even in the country at large for it was never a question on the census which not everyone fills out anyway. Plus, I’ll wager that legal immigrants (made up of peoples from around the world more so than illegal immigrants who are 90% Mexican/Latin American) commit less crimes than illegal immigrants. Of course, when you only offer as a figure 24% of the immigrant/illegal immigrant population compared against 76% of the natural born population there is going to be a larger percent of criminality against the larger percent of the population, in other words the figures used do not align. They should have taken the 24% figure of immigrants/illegals against the same 24% number of the native born population.
Since there are few sources of government records that actually record an inmates origin of birth let alone list the correct ethnicity or race of criminals(the FBI even lists latinos as white), finding any accurate research is challenging, but I’ve listed a few examples of states with higher immigrant/illegal immigrant populations and studies on those states that have differentiated between illegal immigrant and native born.

https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/illegal-immigrant-crime-by-the-numbers/ California has the largest state population in the US at 39.56 million. California also has the largest immigrant population in the US (legal and illegal immigrants) over 36% of the population. But who really knows since democrats in government, especially California democrats, want to keep the actual numbers a secret.

https://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000782

The following info was pulled from the above study.

I would venture to guess that there will be many more studies but will they have the accurate information they need about race and origin of birth? No, leftists want to conceal reality, it’s there modus operandi. Leftists want to keep the public at large placated with visions of sugarplum fairies dancing in their heads rather than shed any light on whats really going on in terms of the number of millions of illegal aliens and the races and birth places of illegal aliens who commit crimes more serious than driving violations and entering the country illegally.

From WendyDarling:

John Lott, Jr., PhD, Dean’s Visiting Professor at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton, in a Feb. 18, 2018 article, “Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona,” available at papers.ssrn.com, stated:

"Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens…

Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

K: did some research on Mr. Lott and he is an pro-gun fanatic whose research
was paid for by… the NRA…no bias there!!!

Steven Camarota, PhD, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), in a Jan. 10, 2018 article, “Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16,” available at cis.org, stated:

"21% of those convicted of non-immigration crimes were non-citizens — 2.5 times their share of the population…

Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:

42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions;
31.5 percent of drug convictions;
22.9 percent of money laundering convictions;
13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt);
17.8 percent of economic crimes (e.g. larceny, embezzlement, and fraud);
13 percent of other convictions (e.g. bribery, civil rights, environmental, and prison offenses); and
12.8 percent of auto thefts."

Steven Camarota: One Additional Caveat. Because it is easier to make an immigration case, federal prosecutors sometimes charge illegal immigrants only with immigration violations, even when they have committed serious non-immigration crimes. Once convicted, an immigrant will still normally serve some time and then be deported, which is often seen by prosecutors as good enough. This, of course, does not happen with citizens. But because of this, conviction data for non-immigration crimes will tend to understate the level of criminal activity among non-citizens.

Don’t let the mainstream media and illegal alien advocates tell you that illegal immigration is a ‘victimless crime’ and that they are here only to do the work Americans don’t want to do. Since each crime has a victim, 1,288,619 sounds like a lot of victimization to us. Also keep in mind that the 1,288,619 crimes are only the ones committed by the hard core illegal alien criminals who were finally caught and incarcerated. The ones not caught and the new criminals crossing daily are committing more crime each and every day.

WD: I would venture to guess that there will be many more studies but will they have the accurate information they need about race and origin of birth? No, leftists want to conceal reality, it’s there modus operandi. Leftists want to keep the public at large placated with visions of sugarplum fairies dancing in their heads rather than shed any light on whats really going on in terms of the number of millions of illegal aliens and the races and birth places of illegal aliens who commit crimes more serious than driving violations and entering the country illegally.

K: and as for Mr Camarota: he is a head of a radical right wing anti-immigration think tank…
so who exactly is trying to hide the facts? and who is trying to conceal reality?

Kropotkin

Moved.

Show your proof, Peter, that they are the liars you say they are, how their research is biased, show your evidence of wrong doing. Did they change numbers or make false statements? Show your “yes” then back that up with what’s accurate.

Leftists make accusations without evidence so this is your opportunity to present your evidence since evidence is what you forgot.

Most of the research that is done today has been educated by leftist ideology which has hallowed out liberalism, it’s all tainted whether it’s hard science or soft science, all in the name of supporting illusionary ideals of feeling good rather than observable reality that is accompanied by the irrefutable suffering which is life.

Universities themselves are radical institutions whose views are far left of the public.
It’s next to impossible for conservatives or researchers with no political bias to get funds for research that has political implications, so they have to look for external sources of funding. Why is someone or institution that’s pro-gun fanatical, but someone or institution that’s anti-gun or pro-illegal immigration moderate?
Most Americans are somewhere in the middle on these issues.
The public is the barometer of who and what is radical, not universities or the MSM.

You don’t seem to hold this against your own strongly held views that illegal immigrants commit more crimes. If there’s no way to know, the proper response is to withhold judgement.

Of course, this isn’t really a problem, we can make reliable estimates of the illegal immigrant population in a number of ways. If you are curious, check the methodology of your own sources for how they arrive at their estimates.

Nothing in this link addresses the criminality of illegal immigrants relative to citizens.

These sources have multiple problems.
Lott:
Though you complain that the survey I linked doesn’t differentiate legal and illegal immigrant, you again hold your own sources to a different standard. As the flaming left Cato Institute points out, Lott misreads the dataset he used, and lumps all immigrants subject to deportation as illegal immigrants, which they aren’t. Legal immigrants can be subject to deportation under a variety of circumstances, particularly almost all circumstances in which they’ll show up in a Department of Corrections database (which is what Lott uses. And, correcting for that error, Cato finds that, even making the most favorable assumptions possible, Lott’s own data show that undocumented immigrant’s incarceration rate in Arizona is lower than their share of the population of Arizona, suggesting less criminality.

Camarota:
Taking for granted that he accurately reports and interprets the dataset he’s using (not at all a given for Camarota, whose work has been characterized as “misleading and inaccurate” by multiple courts), Camarota looks only at federal statistics, which we should not assume to be representative of criminal convictions generally. In particular, immigrants can always move from state court to federal court, which they may be incentivized to do if the federal penalty is deportation and the state penalty is imprisonment. And states may me incentivized to pass cases involving immigrants to feds to get them off their plates, or because of greater federal expertise in dealing with such cases.

Unsourced:
You provide a quote without attribution that reads as an editorial, which makes the profound observation that “1,288,619 sounds like a lot of victimization to us”. I hope you’ll agree that this is nonresponsive (raw numbers tell us nothing about relative rates), and generally below what should be our standard of evidence.

Carleas wrote

So I went to the Cato Institutes paper and read it, then went back to Lotts paper and read it. Cato is wrong about what information Lott acquired. Lott gathered information that differentiated between documented and undocumented immigrants prior to sentencing.

Here are Lotts figures which the Cato paper does not contest.

However, undocumented immigrants only make up an average of 4.8% of Arizona’s population or less.

The Cato paper does not take into account how Lott actually acquired his information…Lott

Here is an excerpt from revisions to Lotts paper responding to the Cato reports findings and other erroneous critiques…

Lott’s research hasn’t been disproven by Cato. Try again, Carleas. Next I’ll look into the other research you have tried to discredit.

Why would I withhold judgement on criminals? Sneaking into our country makes them criminals from the get-go. Not all US citizens are criminals so illegals have already committed more crimes than native born citizens thus illegals have a criminal propensity to commit crime.

No, guesstimating is not an accurate way to conduct a study.

Carleas wrote

Still waiting for your evidence that federal statistics are higher than state and jail statistics.

Aside from the crime of sneaking into the country, I seriously doubt Hispanic illegals commit less crimes than average Americans, I mean Hispanics living in the US as a whole commit more crimes than average Americans, but even if Hispanic illegals commit less crimes than average Americans, it still makes sense to have strong borders and kick illegals out.
Mexico and central America’s gangsters and thugs are Mexico and central America’s problem, not America’s.
America will still be safer if they don’t allow anyone across the border until they can prove they’re not gangsters and thugs.
And America will still be more peaceful and prosperous if they don’t allow anyone across the border until they can prove they’ll be a socioeconomic, and cultural asset, not just for the bureaucrats, democrats and ruling class, but for ordinary working and middle class Americans.

They have to go back.

indeed, and part of the suffering of life involves feeling appalled at the millions of illegals storming your borders, as well as all the leftist clowns who defend them.

seems to me that the general mood of your statement is: a leftist’s objection to the right is a kind of illegitimate complaining, while a rightest’s objection to the left is not.

lemme explain what’s happening here. anybody who’s ideology is challenged will first blame the challenger for being ignorant, i.e., ‘conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong… why can’t you see that?!’… then, if the challenger remains unpersuaded, he/she will be called weak. in this case, the rightest has already concluded that the leftist isn’t ‘right’, so the rightest can’t imagine the leftist’s obstinacy as being something grounded in certainty and authority; ‘why is he so persistent? he’s clearly wrong.’ so all that’s left is to interpret the challenger as weak. the rightest feels like they’ve explained the rationale of their position thoroughly enough, and that the leftist must by now understand, surely, so to not give consent means only one thing; they are weak, because they claim to be victims of my ideology.

but the moment the leftist challenger gains any strength and momentum, the rightest starts complaining.

when, where and how this spirit of ressentiment originates (for anyone, right or left) could be considered a ‘meta-political’ existential circumstance of human nature that must be conveniently overlooked in order for these debates to proceed. nobody wants to admit that there is no ‘right’ way in this universe… only different ways with their own unique set of problems.

a conservative, to me, is a person who is ‘stuck’ in time and terrified of the future. in the year 3278, an evolved human species will look back at the ‘age of conservatism’ with amusement… as if they were watching old dukes of hazard episodes.

Is there a such thing as asylum against gangs? Many illegals claim to flee due to gangs not a dangerous tyrannical government.

chu got a problem with the norteños, ese?

And hence the cleverly disguised center from which Trump seeks to moderate the dissension between the left and right. Yes but is it real, or fake?