Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Feb 2018, 10:26 am

freeman3 wrote:The Arizona study is definitely concerning if accurate. The study was done by John Lott, a guy with a checkered history in the gun debate. It has already been pointed out that he used the classification "non-citizen deportable" as meaning only illegal aliens when of course it could mean immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens. I looked at the study and we don't have access to the raw numbers so we don't even know that his calculations are correct. This is the guy who put forth "studies" that right to carry laws reduced violence which have been contradicted by other studies. I would like to see a non-partisan researcher take a look at the Arizona data and verify Lott's conclusions rather than just rely on conclusions in a non-peer reviewed paper from a guy who is partisan on the issue. Again, concerning if accurate. But Lott's reputation is such that his findings cannot be relied upon unless corroborated.


That's fine. However, it's more insightful than any I've seen.

Talk to LEO, anyone who works the line. They will tell you that there are illegal immigrants from all over Central and South America in their jails. They will tell you Spanish is extremely handy. They will tell you that gangs, like MS-13, are a serious problem.

Not all illegal aliens are "dreamers." Many of them are here to steal. Think about it. If you're a thief in a poor country, how does that work? Or, you can cross the porous border of the US and get to where the cash is.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10969
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Feb 2018, 11:41 am

Fate
You can't use an absence of statistics as an argument to disprove his argument.


Since he's trying to "prove" his argument with statistics, you certainly can.
When the data being used (The Facts) are widely disputed - you can't prove anything using them
And again, my point originally was just that. There are no reliable statistics.

That's a great problem within the US justice system and law enforcement system . Unreliable and inconsistent information across the nation.
That's particularly true of the police shootings, which the PRIDE Act was an attempt at regulating.
https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=247
But its apparent in the debate around illegal aliens and crime as well.
But of course, we could always rely upon anecdotal stories from LEO....

The NRA knew how important it was to their cause to eliminate the production of research into Gun violence. Eliminating CDC research into gun violence with the Dickey Act has ensured that there is no central reliable source of data - so you end up with posers like John Lott....
Seems likely to me that the study RayJay's article talked about may have similar problems that Lotts gun violence research did...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Feb 2018, 1:29 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
You can't use an absence of statistics as an argument to disprove his argument.


Since he's trying to "prove" his argument with statistics, you certainly can.
When the data being used (The Facts) are widely disputed - you can't prove anything using them
And again, my point originally was just that. There are no reliable statistics.


They aren't "widely disputed." There's been one study that effectively looked at the issue with raw numbers. I cited it.

But its apparent in the debate around illegal aliens and crime as well.
But of course, we could always rely upon anecdotal stories from LEO....


Right, why listen to those who actually know? Maybe we should listen to jackasses from Canada?

The NRA knew how important it was to their cause to eliminate the production of research into Gun violence. Eliminating CDC research into gun violence with the Dickey Act has ensured that there is no central reliable source of data - so you end up with posers like John Lott....
Seems likely to me that the study RayJay's article talked about may have similar problems that Lotts gun violence research did...


NRA is a red herring. It has nothing to do with illegal aliens.

Drive on.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 5:38 am

Here's a fairly scholarly, if not independent view, of the situation.

https://cis.org/Examination-US-Immigrat ... ious-Crime

The author's conclusion is different than my own: He wants to reduce legal immigration as well. But he does make many interesting points and goes beyond the political pronouncements of both the left and right.

Ricky:
He's conflating crimes with victims... Consider that illegal aliens not reporting crimes against them has nothing to do with the level of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
Its not like illegal aliens only commit crimes on other illegal aliens.


As the author makes clear, Ricky's point above demonstrates his lack of knowledge of what's really going on..

The explanation, this report argues, is that much of the crime, a lot more than structured studies would suggest, isn't being reported. For one thing, immigrants are victims of crimes committed by fellow immigrants (all the more likely to be hidden from view if the assailant is a family member or close relative), and are often too scared, bound by custom, or fearful of deportation. This tendency may be heightened by the insularity of certain immigrant cultures, especially where concentrated in low-income neighborhoods.


I do agree with Ricky that we need more definitive stats on this. However, the data and evidence that we do have strongly suggest that illegals commit crimes at a higher level than the national population.

Here's a well thought out piece in the Citrus County Chronicle. http://www.chronicleonline.com/opinion/ ... l#comments
This report stipulates “as of fiscal 2009, the total alien, non-U.S. citizen population was about 25.3 million, including about 10.8 million aliens without lawful immigration status.” Mr. Hoven, correctly interpreting this data, states, “Since the population of the U.S. was about 306.8 million in 2009, non-citizens comprised 8.25 percent of the population and illegal aliens about

3.52 percent.” Since illegal aliens “represented 25 percent of the federal prison population then, and almost 39 percent in 2013,” this group was incarcerated for serious crimes at a rate significantly higher than the general U.S. population. Regarding illegal aliens’ propensity to murder, the GAO data supports Mr. Hoven’s contention: “Look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22 to 37 percent of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52 to 8.25 percent of the population.”
It is clear from the GAO report that illegal immigrants commit serious crimes at a rate far exceeding that of legal immigrants and native-born citizens.


Here's the GAO study. https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 6:44 am

I took a look at the GAO study. They sampled 1,000 out of a total number of 249,000 criminal aliens (non-citizens). That obviously introduces a massive amount of error. They then estimated that the 249,000 had been ARRESTED for 25,000 HOMICIDES. This Citrus Chronicle then takes those estimates to find that non-citizens committed a vastly disproportionate number of murders in this country.

Well, you have huge uncertainty created by sampling only 1,000 out of 249,000, as previously noted. Secondly, homicides are not just murders but manslaughter, involunslaugter, etc--any type of wrongful conduct that causes a death. And of course these are arrests. We don't know if the criminal aliens actually committed the crime. Also more than person could be arrested for one homicide, further distorting the numbers. You cannot try and estimate the number of murders committed based on these GAO stats.

The other article had a lot of observations but was a little thin on statistics.

We need good research with careful methodology on crimes committed by immigrants. Clearly, there is a good deal of anti-immigrant bias right now and we need to have reliable stats before we start drawing conclusions about the criminal propensity of immigrants.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 9:00 am

freeman3 wrote:Clearly, there is a good deal of anti-immigrant bias right now and we need to have reliable stats before we start drawing conclusions about the criminal propensity of immigrants.


Okay, but what we do know is that some locales are shielding convicted criminals from being deported. That is absurd, illegal, and causes American citizens to be less safe.

I like what ICE is doing in Los Angeles. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/16/ ... s-angeles/

"Sanctuary cities" are going to make situations worse for immigrants and citizens.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 11:10 am

I don't think that is a fair article. Sanctuary cities do release immigrants with serious records to ICE. They just don't release those with minor records to ICE. These raids are just politics, that's all.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 11:34 am

freeman3 wrote:I don't think that is a fair article. Sanctuary cities do release immigrants with serious records to ICE. They just don't release those with minor records to ICE. These raids are just politics, that's all.

So, you're saying sanctuary cities honor detainer requests? Any support for that?

And, what is considered "minor?" Really. What is "minor?"
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 1:42 pm

Here is a good article on what goes on in California. No sheriff honors detainer requests...because they essentially violate the Fourth Amendment for jails to hold prisoners past the due date. Those in state prison are held for 48 hours past the due date. So the most serious criminals are delivered to ICE. County jails in California are for misdemeanors and some felonies are now served there.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Here is a discussion about the constitutionality of these ICE detainer requests.
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/issue ... ainers.pdf
https://www.cato.org/blog/kate-steinle- ... ity-policy

San Francisco will not deliver a prisoner over to ICE unless there is a court order to do so. In the Steinle case there was no “active ICE warrant or judicial order of removal for him [Lopez-Sanchez]

http://www.catrustact.org/uploads/2/5/4 ... signed.pdf

If ICE knows enough to issue a detainer request...they know enough to start deportation proceedings and get an immigration judge to sign an arrest warrant. There is a legal mechanism for them to get local police cooperation..ICE just refuses to do it. They can't ask local law enforcement to act unconstitutionally because they are just too lazy to get a court to say that there is probable cause to have a jail deliver a prisoner to ICE. You can't hold just a prisoner because it's "obvious" they have violated the immigration laws. No one has actually made that determination. It's not constitutional just to hold people. ICE needs to do their job. I mean, what if another police department called up Twin Towers and said "hey, you guys got a guy we like for a crime...can you hold him for 48 hours past the release date? Sheriff deputy: "You got an arrest warrant for him? "Uh, no." Click.

Certainly the way I phrased things was wrong. The reason San Francisco does not release serious criminals to ICE...was they don't have them to release. They might have them before trial but if they're convicted they go to state prison. And those criminals do get released to ICE. The CATO Institute noted that San Francisco denied 98% of ICE detainer requests the year before Steinle's death so apparently there are some cases that the city finds it is in their bests interests to cooperate.

I am not sure how the mechanism works if these ICE detainer requests are not constitutional for a jail to deliver a prisoner to ICE. ICE shows up at the exact moment they are released?

Rather than grandstand and complain about sanctuary cities...ICE should figure out how to do this right. It ain't rocket science.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 1:52 pm

freeman3 wrote:Here is a good article on what goes on in California. No sheriff honors detainer requests...because they essentially violate the Fourth Amendment for jails to hold prisoners past the due date. Those in state prison are held for 48 hours past the due date. So the most serious criminals are delivered to ICE. County jails in California are for misdemeanors and some felonies are now served there.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html


No, they don't. When a person is here illegally, the government can detain them. Otherwise, there's no point in having a border.

If ICE knows enough to issue a detainer request...they know enough to start deportation proceedings and get an immigration judge to sign an arrest warrant.


So, why doesn't ICE? Do they just refuse to obey the law? If it's so easy, why is ICE so stubborn? Or, are you presenting half the truth--or less?


There is a legal mechanism for them to get local police cooperation..ICE just refuses to do it. They can't ask local law enforcement to act unconstitutionally because they are just too lazy to get a court to say that there is probable cause to have a jail deliver a prisoner to ICE. You can't hold just a prisoner because it's "obvious" they have violated the immigration laws. No one has actually made that determination. It's not constitutional just to hold people. ICE needs to do their job.


Great. Then I'll vote for whoever will send ICE into your Confederate stronghold and enforce the law.

Certainly the way I phrased things was wrong. The reason San Francisco does not release serious criminals to ICE...was they don't have them to release. They might have them before trial but if they're convicted they go to state prison. And those criminals do get released to ICE. The CATO Institute noted that San Francisco denied 98% of ICE detainer requests the year before Steinle's death so apparently there are some cases that the city finds it is in their bests interests to cooperate.

I am not sure how the mechanism works if these ICE detainer requests are not constitutional for a jail to deliver a prisoner to ICE. ICE shows up at the exact moment they are released?


Because the lives of Americans are secondary to the freedom of illegal aliens.

Rather than grandstand and complain about sanctuary cities...ICE should figure out how to do this right. It ain't rocket science.


Why don't we just put down the Rebellion and have done with it?

Seriously, you can have "sanctuary status" until it's pried out of your cold, dead hands.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 2:09 pm

Did you ever arrest someone for violating an immigration law? If not...why not? If you didn't...apparently you failed to do your part to stop illegal immigration! I guess you support sanctuary cities, too...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 2:16 pm

Seriously...if you get convincing data that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate amount of crimes then I will support much greater enforcement.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 2:24 pm

The data is convincing me; it's just not convincing you. :)

Changing sides, some of the stories that are coming out are heart wrenching. Illegals who have been members of their communities for decades, working jobs, supporting families, paying taxes, volunteering in their communities, etc. are being deported. Lives are being shattered. I know it's the law, but something is wrong when we take good people and round them up after 30 years of living in America. Can't we show any judgement in this country?

BTW, 39% of US Noble prize winners since 2000 in Chemistry, Medicine, and Physics have been immigrants. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande ... 70e70a117b

That just 1st generation. The US is so lucky that the most talented people in the world want to come here. Letting them in is a no brainer, but it is challenging us.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 3:02 pm

freeman3 wrote:Seriously...if you get convincing data that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate amount of crimes then I will support much greater enforcement.


Okay, and if you show me any good reason to keep illegal aliens who have been convicted of ANY crime in the US, I will support sanctuary cities.

In the meantime, they'll just keep killing, robbing, and raping folks, in addition to other ways they wreck the lives of innocent Americans. I know two young women whose lives have been irreparably damaged by illegal immigrants behind the wheel in California. I'm sure the two drivers will be in CA for many, many years. Be proud of that!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3035
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 4:57 pm

It's just not that simple. To be draconian enough to prevent any illegal aliens coming and some of them doing harm...you're going to have be ruthless with a lot of people like RJ describes and, moreover, have a hostility towards immigrants that's going to take away the immigrants winning Nobel prizes and starting Fortune 500 companies. Hostility towards illegal aliens...eventually spills over into hostility towards legal immigrants. A legal Mexican immigrant comes from the same culture that an illegal Mexican comes from. The Trump reform spelled that out. It did not matter whether people from certain countries were legal or not...we don't want them.

The whole premise of White Nationslism is that these immigrants do not have our values and are hurting our country. It doesn't matter if they are legal or not. And we have to stop the influx of immigrants because they are changing America for the worse.

RJ seems to clearly favor legal immigration but also sees negatives of illegal immigration. If everyone thought like he does I don't think there would be an issue of fixing illegal immigration problems. Because we know his heart is in the right place. But that's not true with a lot of the anti-immigration crowd.