The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Trump administration’s first year of immigration policy has relied on claims that immigrants bring crime into America. President Trump’s latest target is sanctuary cities.
“Every day, sanctuary cities release illegal immigrants, drug dealers, traffickers, gang members back into our communities,” he said last week. “They’re safe havens for just some terrible people.”
As of 2017, according to Gallup polls, almost half of Americans agreed that immigrants make crime worse. But is it true that immigration drives crime? Many studies have shown that it does not.
Immigrant populations in the United States have been growing fast for decades now. Crime in the same period, however, has moved in the opposite direction, with the national rate of violent crime today well below what it was in 1980.
In a large-scale collaboration by four universities, led by Robert Adelman, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo, researchers compared immigration rates with crime rates for 200 metropolitan areas over the last several decades. The selected areas included huge urban hubs like New York and smaller manufacturing centers less than a hundredth that size, like Muncie, Ind., and were dispersed geographically across the country.
According to data from the study, a large majority of the areas have many more immigrants today than they did in 1980 and fewer violent crimes. The Marshall Project extended the study’s data up to 2016, showing that crime fell more often than it rose even as immigrant populations grew almost across the board.
In 136 metro areas, almost 70 percent of those studied, the immigrant population increased between 1980 and 2016 while crime stayed stable or fell. The number of areas where crime and immigration both increased was much lower — 54 areas, slightly more than a quarter of the total. The 10 places with the largest increases in immigrants all had lower levels of crime in 2016 than in 1980.
And yet the argument that immigrants bring crime into America has driven many of the policies enacted or proposed by the administration so far: restrictions to entry, travel and visas; heightened border enforcement; plans for a wall along the border with Mexico. This month, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California in response to the state’s restrictions on local police to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants charged with crimes. On Tuesday, California’s Orange County signed on in support of that suit. But while the immigrant population in the county has more than doubled since 1980, overall violent crime has decreased by more than 50 percent.
There’s a similar pattern in two other places where Mr. Trump has recently feuded with local leaders: Oakland, Calif., and Lawrence, Mass. He described both cities as breeding grounds for drugs and crime brought by immigrants. But Oakland, like Orange County, has had increasing immigration and falling crime. In Lawrence, though murder and robbery rates grew, overall violent crime rates still fell by 10 percent.
In general, the study’s data suggests either that immigration has the effect of reducing average crime, or that there is simply no relationship between the two, and that the 54 areas in the study where both grew were instances of coincidence, not cause and effect. This was a consistent pattern in each decade from 1980 to 2016, with immigrant populations and crime failing to grow together.
In a majority of areas, the number of immigrants increased at least 57 percent and as much as 183 percent, with the greatest increases occurring in the 1990s and early 2000s. Violent crime rates in most areas ranged between a 43 percent decline and a 6 percent rise, often trending downward by the 2000s. Places with a sharp rise in the immigrant population experienced increases in crime rates no more frequently than those with modest or no growth in immigration. On average, the immigrant population grew by 137 percent between 1980 and 2016, with average crime falling 12 percent over the same period.
Because the F.B.I. changed how rape was defined in its crime figures, that category could not be included in this analysis. Focusing on the other components of the violent crime rate — assaults, robberies and murders — still fails to reveal a relationship with immigration rates.
Most areas experienced decreases in all types of violent crime. The change in assault rates ranged from a 34 percent decline to a 29 percent rise, while robbery rates declined in the range of 12 percent to 57 percent, and murder rates declined in the range of 15 percent to 54 percent.
This analysis is one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies of the local immigrant-crime relationship. It spans decades of metropolitan area data, incorporating places with widely differing social, cultural and economic backgrounds, and a broad range of types of violent crime.
Areas were chosen to reflect a range of immigrant composition, from Wheeling, W.Va., where one in 100 people was born outside the United States, to Miami, where every second person was. Some areas were home to newly formed immigrant communities; other immigrant pockets went back generations. Controlling for population characteristics, unemployment rates and other socioeconomic conditions, the researchers still found that, on average, as immigration increases in American metropolises, crime decreases.
The foreign-born data, which is collected through the census, most likely undercounts the numbers of undocumented immigrants, many of whom might wish to avoid the risk of identifying themselves. They are, however, at least partly represented in the overall foreign-born population counts.
This is not the only study showing that immigration does not increase crime. A broad survey released in January examined years of research on the immigrant-crime connection, concluding that an overwhelming majority of studies found either no relationship between the two or a beneficial one, in which immigrant communities bring economic and cultural revitalization to the neighborhoods they join.
This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for its newsletter, or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter. Anna Flagg is an interactive reporter for The Marshall Project.
There are some links in the OA which have not been recopied here.
Tags
Who is online
680 visitors
For those few who appreciate facts.
I actually appreciate HONEST facts. The facts you gave us do not differentiate between ILLEGAL and LEGAL immigrants, nor between Naturalized or Legal Alien Residents. Therefore, your facts are not honest and just lump every immigrant together, when there is a huge difference between each class of immigrant and the other classes. For instance, Illegal immigrants have already broken the law to get or stay here, so how can we expect them to actually follow the law in the future? Legal immigrants have followed the law and can be expected to continue following the law in the future due to their past actions. Naturalized Citizens have gone through the process of coming to the country legally and have the goal of INTEGRATING with the rest of US society. Legal Alien Residents have followed the law to get here and have stayed here legally, but want to keep their original citizenship for some reason or another. Each group needs to be counted separately and their statistics need to be separate from the other groups to show a clear picture of the actual situation. Your facts and charts do not do this.
Ah, the left justifying criminals again. No one is speaking out against legal immigration; but illegal immigrants, who are in direct violation of our laws already. Trying lump all illegal immigrants into the same pool demeans legal immigrants.
Why doesn't the study just use illegal immigrants? Too small of a sampling pool? MS-13 and other gangs of illegals factor in too much?
It wouldn't fit their talking point of trying misrepresent the other side. The second they put illegal immigrant in front of their talking point people would stop reading.
You didn't read the seed, did you?
I think that's obvious from this sentence at the end of his comment,
Apparently you didn't. No where does it differentiate between illegal immigrants and legal ones.
But, since the left seems to view all immigrants the same- that is to be expected.
While the right just keeps lying about immigrants.
Wrong, the right isn't trying to lump illegal immigrants (who are already in violation of US Laws) with legal ones. That is happening solely on the left.
The right isn't disparaging legal immigrants. We simply want our laws enforced. Just like any other country would.
Interesting data you've brought to us today Bob. It seems to me that when immigrants enter an area, the criminals leave. Hmmmm.
That would be an overstatement, at best.
It should be enough to say that immigrants to this country commit fewer crimes that the indigenous population. However illegal immigrants are more vulnerable than the population at large because they lack access to law enforcement like you or I have. This attracts predators, who know their crimes will never be reported because the victim fears deportation.
It would also be fair to add that most illegal immigrants would like very much to be legal, tax-paying immigrants.
Which is exactly why sanctuary cities are such a good thing and it's why law enforcement broadly supports them.
Is that supposed to excuse the crimes they do commit? Also remember that the illegal aliens are all criminals just because they are here in the first place.
Sanctuary cities are a terrible idea, as is DACA. We are a nation of laws, and we can't go around just ignoring them because "feelings". Seriously, people need to raise the bar and expect better.
What we're telling these people is "you're still as illegal as hell, but we're not going to do anything about it......well...at least not today."
Bullshit. We need an immigration structure where these people become legal and have the same rights you and I have, and we should settle for nothing less.
Dude. C'mon.
Of course they are. That doesn't mean our immigration laws are a prime example of outdated stupidity.
I have to disagree with you here, sanctuary cities are a good idea as is DACA, the reason is that like you said, illegals are vulnerable to crimes, the sanctuary cities allow law enforcement to work with illegals to stop crime that is committed against them without having to inform ICE. DACA works because it give kids that came here at a very young age because, their parents brought them, these kids don't know any other country except this one and, probably have no idea what their home country is like and, may not even know the language that well of that home country, DACA gives them a legal path to citizenship if they haven't committed any crimes and, continue to get an education or, have a job, it even allows them to serve in the military and, earn citizenship that way, it is a win, win for us.
So, should we just obey those laws with robotic precision? If so then, anyone caught speeding should get a ticket every time but, cops sometimes give them a pass, a shoplifter should get the same sentence as the man with a gun robbing a convenience store. Do you agree with that?
If they can be under the DACA program and, are, how is that bad?
That is what programs like DACA are all about.
Ignoring laws is never a good idea. Sanctuary cities are simply putting a band-aid on our melanoma and pretending we're curing it. DACA is so ridiculous it's almost insulting.
I don't understand how liberals, of all people, accept this. For decades if not longer, liberals have acted as the collective conscience of our society. They are the people who can always be counted upon to defend the defenseless, even if their ideas are sometimes wholly impractical.
We should change the laws we feel are problematic. That's the whole point of living in a democracy.
Speeding? Yes. We have those laws for a reason. They should be enforced.
Shoplifting and armed robbery are different crimes, and our laws recognize that. So giving the armed robber the same sentence as the shoplifter is an example of what YOU suggest, which is enforcing laws when we "feel" like it.
You would NEVER accept this idea with any other group of people or any other set of laws. You would never tolerate a law prohibiting women drivers just because we weren't going to actually enforce it.
No...they're not. They are the opposite of that. They are about ignoring a problem so we'll all "feel" better it.
We should just call them what they are....which is "don't ask, don't tell". That wasn't acceptable for gay people, because we actually give a shit about them. We don't really care about illegal immigrants, as long as our lawn gets mowed and our toilets get cleaned.
Actually, I was talking about giving the shoplifter the same sentence as the armed robber, they are both theft from a commercial establishment so, why not give the shoplifter a five year sentence like the armed robber would get?
We aren't talking about women drivers here, we are talking about kids that were brought here by their parents illegally and, they grew up here thinking that they were legal, plus, with DACA there is a set of rules that the immigrant kids must follow and, it isn't all immigrant kids that can be under DACA, they must not have committed any crimes and, while under DACA the must attend school, work or, join the military to achieve legality and, citizenship.
Yes, they are.
No they aren't, have you ever looked at the rules for DACA? I bet you haven't. Here, a little light reading for you,
This was put into place by Barack Obama because, the Republicans in congress at the time refused to act on any new legislation concerning immigration.
Maybe you don't care but, don't include me in that "we".
It's not the job of state or local LEO to enforce federal immigration laws. Read Arizona v US for details.
.
Exactly right. Which is why your subsequent comments on the matter are irrational.
I am SO glad you asked. Easy answer...
Because we have a LAW that says not to do that.
We're talking about the rule of law. You are trying to justify abandoning the rule of law because of how you feel. That's a horribly bad idea. If the law needs to be changed, we actually have mechanisms for doing that.
DACA pretends those laws don't exist so people who don't really care very much about immigrants but don't like to be confronted with that fact can "feel" better and not have to hear news stories about them being deported anymore.
What a phenomenal thing for Democrats to campaign on then.
If you cared, there is no way in hell you would find DACA acceptable. You would be demanding a path to citizenship for these people. In the case of the ones who have been here 20 years or more, it should be a very, very short damn path.
I'm so glad you said this,
Trumps administration and, the DOJ are denying applications to those seeking asylum and, then taking their children away and, putting them in foster care or, holding areas like the ones shown on TV, you know, the ones with cages. They are also denying people who wish to seek asylum entry at a port of entry so that they are forced to cross at an illegal place of entry so, that they can be arrested and, charged with illegal entry. This has all been proven in the past few months, that is why there are judges here in the U.S. telling the administration to make it right.
That does NOT mean individual cities can circumvent federal law.
Soooo, those folks on the Right who were defending states rights when it came to gun laws, marriage laws, housing laws and, laws that discriminated against a certain class of people were wrong or, do states rights only apply to states that see things your way?
States' rights are sacred!
... as long as those states are doing the "right" thing...
LOL, exactly what I was trying to get across. If the states are doing things that the Right agrees with then, they can have rights that over ride federal laws but, if the Right doesn't agree with them then, they ain't got no rights. Just like the restaurant owner who told a certain someone to leave her restaurant recently.
More and more, we see that the Emperor has no clothes: that the right has no principles other than racism for the masses and tax-cuts for the rich.
Federal law takes precedence. I'm not sure what guns laws you're referring to (and don't care), but I have stated openly for years that DOMA and all laws like it are very obviously unconstitutional on multiple grounds.
If changing the subject to "bizarre inconsistencies" and trying to hide behind positions you hope I would defend is the best you can manage, you must be conceding the point.
And the state's aren't permitted to enforce federal immigration law.
So, you don't believe in states rights any more? In the state of California the governor supports what those cities are doing and, I would bet that in the other sanctuary states, the governor supports the cities who are sanctuary cities.
It does seem that you support Trumps decision to break asylum law by having the border patrol turn people away at a port of entry and, not let them claim asylum.
So, you would agree that Mike Pence when he was governor of Indiana went against the Constitution when he passed his "religious rights" law that allowed business owners to discriminate against the LGBTQ community?
OK...so you've definitely given up now.
Do endeavor to document where they have broken asylum law. Your own quote on the matter says "asylum MAY be granted". Do you really intend to assert that anyone who claims "asylum" must be admitted?
Asylum is to be decided by a judge in an immigration court, not by the border patrol at the port of entry or, the agents holding the immigrants at an immigration jail.
Notwithstanding yet another of your desperate attempts to change the subject and move the goalposts.....
I personally disagree with refusal of service to gay people....within reasonable parameters.
For example, I disagree with the Colorado baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. I would, however, defend his right not to be forced to decorate said cake with...to take an extreme example... two men engaging in intercourse or wearing assless chaps.
As far as Pence goes, I don't live in Indiana and I'm unfamiliar and unconcerned with Indiana law. If it's unconstitutional, it will be struck down.
Regarding the earlier topic of marriage laws, I think almost all marriage prohibitions are unconstitutional. And yes, I opposed Texas' idiotic marriage law at the time.
Bans on gay marriage and even polygamy are based on religious teachings and therefore IMO clearly violate the establishment clause. It is waaaay past time we got government out of people's bedrooms.
Yes. Which is happening as capacity permits.
I'm not sure you have a grasp of the scale of the situation.
The Trump Administration made it worse with their zero tolerance rule and, yes, it is just a rule of this administration and, not of any other.
The zero tolerance rule has not increased the volume of asylum seekers at our borders. Zero tolerance policies are also, by their very nature, not illegal.
I do find it interesting how people who do not live in border states develop fervent opinions on immigration when they cannot possibly understand the scale. I grew up in South Florida during the 1980's, and was there for the Mariel boatlift. Until you have experienced a migration the size of the City of Peoria arriving in your town within a 9 month time period, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
DHS estimates that there are 1.7 million illegal immigrants in Texas, and another 2.3 million in California. At some point, resources get strained to the point where they cannot possibly bear the volume.
That is not what I am talking about and, you know it. The number of people being HELD under the zero tolerance rule has increased, before those folks who were seeking asylum would be allowed to go with a sponsor and, wait for their court case to come up, now, they are arrested at the border and, placed in holding until they can be FORCED to sign a return letter and, then are deported to their home country, their kids are placed in HHS custody until they can be placed in foster care, this is were the strain becomes greater because neither the justice system nor HHS is prepared for the influx of kids and, adults.
They are when they violate international and, domestic laws, which this one does, that is why the administration finds itself in court trying to defend it now.
I lived in Florida during that boatlift, in Miami, I know about it, I know how they put those people in "camps" that weren't fit for any animals much less a human being, I was also a kid in Florida when the first Cuban refugees came over from Cuba. So, don't tell me I don't understand, you don't know me and, you sure as hell don't know what I've seen in my life.
Read the above statement for my comment on this.
Then it is up to Congress to change the law, not the president or, the DOJ, that is what Congress is there for, if Congress isn't doing its job then a new Congress must be elected.
I didn't "know it". You've been grasping at straws to justify your feelings for 5 posts now. You'll understand if I don't read minds.
Yes.
And when they were denied asylum, they just would just "forget" to leave.
Correct. NOBODY is prepared for the influx. That is the point. That's what border states have been trying to tell everyone for years.
*sigh* "Zero tolerance" policies are....by definition....a refusal to tolerate any violations of the law. IF...and it's still very much an if...border authorities have violated other laws, that's a separate issue.
Well if you understand it, and indeed you remember the Orange Bowl, and you indeed remember the struggle of trying to find work for 100,000 immigrants all at once, and you actually remember that the most willing employers were cocaine cartels..... then I shouldn't have to point out that the need for logistical support is a much more real issue than your "feeling" sorry for people.
Well bloody hell. After three days and 85000 words of bleeding heart/rationalization nonsense, you have FINALLY come to see reason.
Yes. We need to change the damned law. Until then...as you say... it is not up to the president to "defer action". And it is not up to leftist mayors to interfere with federal authorities doing their jobs.
Asylum seekers aren't violating the law when they are ALLOWED TO CROSS THE BORDER AT A PORT OF ENTRY, in fact they are obeying the law, were the law gets broken or, violated is when border agents take it upon themselves to arbitrarily deny asylum seekers entry at the ports of entry because they know that as soon as they cross that border and, put their feet on American soil they can ask for asylum and, must be processed for that but, if they cross anywhere else they can be arrested as illegals and, deported. Also, arresting them and, "forgetting" to put down that the immigrant asked for asylum and, then having them sign paperwork to deport them that is in English and, not in their native language by telling them that they will be allowed to see their kids is wrong. What makes it criminal, IMO, is that hidden within that document that they sign is a statement that they are giving up all rights to their kids by signing that paperwork and, aren't being told that, that line is in there.
Then it shouldn't be up to the president to change things so that the borders are totally closed to anyone with brown skin and, open to anyone with white skin.
Two words that I've used before and, that have been used by the Right in many cases in the past, "States Rights", unless of course you only think the Constitution applies to the things the Right wants done you will agree that the cities within states who are supported by the government of the state have the right to disobey any federal law they find unconstitutional or, any rules set forth by an administration.
Emotional melodrama.
BTW, how many white skinned come across the Mexican border seeking asylum?
Do not allow states or municipalities to disregard federal law. I'm not sure how that's in question.
Desperate diversionary tactics. Again.
Please cite me claiming any state or municipality has the right to override federal law. I'll wait.
Our border isn't just at the south were Mexico and, the U.S. meets, our borders, (you will notice that I used a plural form here), are to the south, north, east and, west, not every immigrant comes in through Mexico. I'm all for legal immigration but, we get more people coming in on a visa from none brown skin country's, ie, Europe, that simply let their visa's run out and, then stay, that makes them illegal, yet, you don't hear Trump speak about them, except to say he wishes there were more of them. Hmmm.
From the same article, this says a lot about Trump, he doesn't understand that these immigrants come with their own set of values, most Muslims are conservative in their ideals, (I bet you didn't know that did you) so, they tend to vote Republican, when Republicans aren't threatening to tear down their places of worship.
So, you don't believe in the Constitution, got it. Amendment 10 of the Constitution, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]
Cited by the U.S. Constitution. The tenth and, fifth amendments.
Ivanka was always legal.
She's White.
Really? Can you source where President Trump says he wants more people from Europe with expired visas?
I am very interested in where you pulled this bullshit from.
No they don't.
Where did you gather this information from? Or is this your opinion that you are stating as fact?
What I meant was he wanted more people from Europe since they're white.
Most of these people come here on a visa, like Melania did and, over stay their visa's like Melania did.
Try reading something beside Breitbart,
You just can't help but spew your opinion as fact can you?
So tell us how many of those people visited our country and how many overstayed?
You must have the numbers for you boast you want to keep selling.
Hey how about that majority of Muslims vote Republican comment? I'm still waiting for that source to.
"There were 12.1 million immigrants living in the country illegally as of January 2014, according to the most recent estimate from the Department of Homeland Security ."
"A Center for Migration Studies report estimates that 44 percent of those in living in the U.S. illegally in 2015 were visa overstays."
That means about 5.4 million undocumented immigrants in 2015 were from visa overstays.
Try comment 3.1.36
An opinion piece is your source?
Hold on let me stop laughing...
Okay I thought myself that they tended to vote democrat and according to pewresearch I am right.
17% Republican to 62% democrat
Got anything besides a opinion piece?
So what are you trying to say?
Are you trying to help Galen on her statement/opinion that...
So you can catch up she stated that a majority of Europeans come here and overstay there Visa.
Maybe the two of you can prove this twice as fast eh?
You will have to ask her what she classifies as being European.
Maybe you missed it but, that "opinion piece" is from a conservative rag, it was written by a conservative so, if you won't believe something that not only came from one of YOUR sources then what makes you think that anything else I post would satisfy you?
Impasse
Bahahaha from your own link.
okay
how can you throw out the last comment then call impasse?
The impasse cannot be used if you made a comment above it to a member. [ph]
Or....because they can support themselves.
Talking Points Memo? Really?
"Most" immigrants from Europe overstay their visas? Documentation on that?
My source? No it was your source. Who the hell you trying to impress.
Why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of burying your head in the sand and making more false acquisitions.
You can't even admit that your own opinion link says that Muslims vote Democrat. And on top of that where is the proof that most Europeans violate there Visas bullshit you were spewing?
Now have a good day.
Dude....Talking Points Memo? What's next..."Angry Leftist Weekly"?...."Socialist Claptrap Journal"?
No. But the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration happens there.
Citation?
He was obviously talking about legal immigrants.
The list of shit he obviously doesn't understand is long and illustrious. When did this conversation become about him? Are we changing the subject again?
Do not project your own ignorance onto other people. Of course I know they tend to be conservative. News flash...Mexican families tend to be very conservative, too.
Your attempts get sadder and more pathetic with every post. And more tedious. Article 6. Supremacy Clause. *yawn*
So are you so far gone now that you can't differentiate between something I've said and the Constitution?
Just posting unrelated, random bits of the Constitution now, eh? Just anything to avoid conceding a point? What's next, random quotes from Shakespeare? If you're taking requests, Merry Wives of Windsor is one of my favorites.
OK, since Perrie won't let me call impasse I'll answer you. If you will notice that statement from my link it says that the conservative Muslims can't trust the Republicans to look out for them so, they went to the political party that would look out for them, in their opinion, the Democrats so, it is the Republicans fault that these conservative minded people went to the Democratic Party, it is the Republicans fault that their numbers aren't growing but, shrinking, it is the Republicans fault that people in this country aren't voting for them and, that they, the Republicans have to gerrymander districts just to get a large enough block of voters to hold onto their seats in Congress and, in local races.
Won't let you?
Do you have a hard time comprehending what people say to you?
This means that you can't slip in the last comment after you have been proven wrong and call impasse.
Is that so hard to understand?
And I didn't ask for a excuse of why Muslims vote Democrat. You said a Majority of them vote republican. You trying to dance away from your statement now?
Maybe now that you admit you were wrong you can put your skills to backing up your other statement.
I already know this is bullshit but please link your source to this profound knowledge you have that most Europeans overstay there Visa.
You are the one who doubled down on it.
So please come forthwith your secret source of knowledge.
Yes, by your source I meant a source that you should be able to trust if you are a conservative,
This is the source I used, you will notice it says, THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE.
False ACQUISITIONS? Never heard of those.
It is admitted by the person writing this pieces opinion that the reason Muslims are voting Democrat instead of Republican is because Republicans can't be trusted to have these folks interests at heart and, that has been proven out in places like NT every day.
They currently hold both houses of Congress, the WH, and 33 of 50 governorships.
I think you'll find quite a lot of people are voting for them.
DELETED … THE FUCKING HORSE YOU RODE IN ON.
You can fuck the horse but not the member who rode in on it. (A. Mac)
What does that mean?
Where is your source that most Europeans overstay there Visa.
So out of 45 million 120k is most? Is this more of that Liberal Math?
You assuming shit?
So, who cares besides you? Your own link proved you wrong.
Here try this
It is from Pew research, They put out a lot of Polls and its been my experience that Democrats put a lot of faith in polls.
But, but, but ……..Trump.
Wow Galen must be a favorite of A.Mac he deletes the Fuck you but then comments to it basically letting it stand.
[ You do not have the right to harass any member here. ]
I wish that was true.
It should be true. But the fact is that "harassment" is not punished by the CoC. The CoC does care what members do, only what members say.
NT should identify improper behavior such as harassing, trolling, vandalizing, ... and act against the authors. Rather than suspending someone because they used a "bad word", behavior should be examined... and either rewarded or repressed.
That is what is essentially wrong with the CoC today.
Another argument that is fatally flawed from the start because it conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration. This is not by accident. It's intentional. Conservatives always say they support legal immigration but oppose illegal immigration. At the risk of mixing too many metaphors, this writer is preaching to the choir while arguing against a straw man.
The Department of Homeland Security can track inmates in federal prison (they haven't yet figured out how to count the people in local jails and state prisons). Keep in mind that the federal system only accounts for 10% of the incarcerated population.
DHS says there are over 58,000 suspected aliens (meaning: "foreign born") in federal prisons (about 32% of the total federal inmate population). Over 37,000 are confirmed as aliens and of those, 94% are here illegally .
There are 35,334 confirmed illegal aliens in federal custody.
Many are likely incarcerated on nothing more than immigration charges and are awaiting deportation. Many are there for more serious crimes. Every single one of them who has committed some non-immigration crime contributes to the crime rate. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. But for them being in this country and committing crimes, the crime rate would be lower than it is.
We can do a simple thing that will help lower the crime rate because it will make it harder for criminals to enter the country. Build a wall. I also support other measures that will help keep these criminals out of the country. No single act needs to solve the problem all by itself to be useful.
Both groups have significantly lower criminality rates than citizens have.
False. Illegal immigrants have a 100% criminal rate. Everyone who crosses our border illegally has in fact committed a crime
Everyone?
Oops..
Lock her up!
I disagree, but you are missing the larger point. i.e. It doesn't matter if illegal aliens commit crime at a lower rate than citizens. What matters is that they commit any crime at all. It's crime that's easily avoidable.
If you could prevent 100% of illegal immigration, you would also prevent 100% of illegal alien crime. That's a goal, not a reality, of course, but we can take steps to drastically reduce the influx of illegal aliens. In doing so, we would prevent crime - not all crime, but quite a bit.
Our options are more limited with citizen criminals. They have a right be here, even though they're criminals. For them, we will have different approaches. But if you can save some lives just by building a wall and cracking down on unauthorized travel in other ways, we could avoid many crimes and make the lives of citizens more secure. I can't fathom why anyone would be against that.
If the concern is crime than it would make far more sense just to deport any US citizens convicted of a crime and use undocumented immigrants to replace them. Let's start with Trump's criminal gang.
Please don't waste my time and I promise I will try not to waste yours. It has already been explained to you that citizens cannot be deported. As I said, they have a right to be here. Exile doesn't work because everywhere else is some other country, and no country is obligated to take our criminals.
So, I'll quote myself and pose the question more directly.
What are you against that?
Did you not see where I said people who cross the border illegally is a criminal? Overstaying visas etc is not criminal at this time. I'm open to changing that if you are though? Entering the country without going through the proper points of entry and documented is in fact a crime. Therefore 100% of people who enter our country illegally are criminals. Any source that says they commit less crime is intentionally ignoring that and can't be trusted
*eyeroll* Oh good grief.
Excuse me for the typo. Why are you against that?
Then how about we just lock away all of our criminal citizens permanently and replace them with undocumented immigrants? At least we'd have a better class of people in society that way. We could also task them with keeping a close eye on the remaining citizens, a demographic which we know has a much higher rate of criminality than immigrants.
I'll ask it again. I won't be responding to ridiculous hypotheticals. Why are you against simple, legal measures that will lower crime and improve the security of the citizens of this country?
If you think the people who sneak into this country are so awesome, you could always try to emigrate to their country. Problem is that country probably won't take you.
You became a Republican very quickly.
Do you have to have the "/s" tag to know when sarcasm is being used?
That's exactly why I'm suggesting that we replace our criminal citizens with undocumented immigrants since they have a far lower rate of violent crime than American citizens have.
You missed the words "simple" and "legal." Answer the question.
With Skrekk? Yes. This absurdity is apparently being advanced as a serious argument.
So is the one which xenophobic and racist conservatives were advancing when they misappropriated Mollie's image to condemn all undocumented immigrants.
Spin all you like, the fact is SHE BROKE THE LAW. She is a CRIMINAL. PERIOD.
Again, what do you have against securing our borders and protecting the people who are citizens of this country?
[Removed]
Not spinning anything. I never brought visas up. I was clearly talking about illegal border crossings and stated as much. Putting words in my mouth and then saying I'm spinning it? How can I spin something I never brought up?
At the time, was she a citizen? No. She is a criminal illegal alien invader.
Actually, a person who overstays a B1/B2 visa can be barred from coming back into the country and, working on a B1/B2 visa has the same result, unless of course the company you work for, in your home country sent you to work in the U.S. which means that when your visa runs out in 6 months you must change your visa or, leave the country.
So, she broke immigration law and, should have been deported back to Slovenia.
so you just keep repeating things that I never said or referred to? What sense does that make? Slower this time... I 👏🏻wasn't 👏🏻Talking 👏🏻About👏🏻 Visa👏🏻 Immigration 👏🏻
I already explained this to you. I said from the beginning and made it very clear.. I'm only referring to criminal illegal border crossings. If you can't act like an adult in the discussion why jump in and waste your time and mine?
Yea. Overstaying your visa has consequences. It is a civil offense though. Separate issues and again... I'm more than open to making it a criminal offense. She overstayed her visa or whatever. Bottom line is she ended up being approved and suffered no real civil consequences. Separate issue...
illegally crossing our borders is a criminal offense.
I have explained I was referring to the criminal entry into the US. Someone else bringing up the visa as a "gotcha" talking point is irrelevant to what I said and a very weak strawman.
Let's see how this works out. First, seeking asylum isn't a criminal offense but, when you, as a border guard, refuse to let an asylum seeker enter the country at a port of entry thus forcing them to enter at another spot that isn't legal to enter at then you become complicit in a crime so, I think that any border agents who did this need to lose their jobs at the very least. Now, for the "crime" part of this,
You know, I don't think that Melania qualified under any of these, she should have been returned to her home country and, forced to file for another visa......in three years but, then she might not have met her sugar daddy Trump.
But you're okay with the federal crime (misdemeanor, subject to up to 6 months in jail) of overstaying a visa? Should we let everyone off who does so?
You can claim asylum at any embassy. You don't have to be at the border. You also are not entitled to enter the US anytime you want.
Not sure why you put crime in quotation marks. Are you trying to imply border sovereignty isn't a real crime? I guess to those who want open borders
again. Not talking about m labia and visas. She was awarded a visa so whatever. Strawman argument. She isn't in jail and she wasn't deported so obviously anything she did wrong didn't happen or wasn't deportation worthy. So not an issue
Let's start here,
So, it would seem that your claim is wrong.
You can still claim refugee status at an embassy. Maybe not asylum. Regardless. No one is entitled to enter the US because they want to OR if we deny them entry. Border sovereignty. Just like every other country.
But it's not illegal to do so.
Never said it was. It is illegal to try and cross the border without approval or going through the proper channels. Like pretty much the rest of the world.
I submit that it is more likely that I will be hurt or, be in danger of someone born in this country sooner than I would be of someone born somewhere else in the world so, building a wall or, securing the borders to the point the Right wants wouldn't make any more safe than if the borders were "open".
Now, you are the one moving the goal posts, we have been talking about people seeking asylum at the border at our ports of entry and, being denied by border patrol agents the ability to cross the border which would allow them to claim asylum. Part of the test is that the person seeking asylum must have both feet on the U.S. side of the border, agents aren't allowing them to step across the border at a port of entry so, they must cross somewhere else and, then claim asylum and, when they do they are arrested as an illegal and, as was stated in my previous post, going to an embassy does not allow a person to ask for asylum.
Wasn't moving the goal posts. I admitted I used the wrong word. You can claim refugee status at embassies though.
But we can stick to asylum cases.
There is no law that says asylum seekers have to be let in. Just the process in which it occurs. When 90% of asylum seekers are denied you can't just let them in. And once denied or they don't want to wait for the process and illegally enter the US. They are now illegal immigrants
Link your source for this, here's mine,
If you bother to read this in full, from beginning to end you will see the administration is lying to you and, other Americans.
The right's hypocrisy on this is astounding. They found ONE person murdered by an illegal immigrant and they tripped over themselves to politicize it and make sure it was all over the news.. But... An American walks into a school and mows down 17 kids with a semi-automatic rifle? 'Well we can't talk about that right now, we need to wait until the grieving is over and send some of those thoughts and prayers!'
300+ mass shootings a year and he right doesn't say a WORD, but one woman murdered by an illegal? They can't stop talking about it...
Sickening.
Deplorable as usual
1) Define "mass shooting"
2) What would you like us to do about it?
4+ victims, that's been the FBI's definition for at least the last 20 years.
Do something? How about the right stop pretending it's not a problem?
That's fine. And just to clarify, I looked it up and in more than half those cases, everyone survived.
I'm not pretending it's not a problem, and I don't know anyone who is. So, now I have two questions.
First (asked already and not answered): What would you like to do about it?
Second: Who on the Right is saying that shootings aren't a problem?
Wow, no problem then. Just for grins, of those survivors how many were left permanently maimed, e.g., a Steve Scalise kind of injury? Does the fact that none of those republicans died at that softball field diminish your outrage? It sure didn't seem so at the time.
I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I just want everyone to understand what we're talking about.
Victim doesn't = dead.
So the questions remain unanswered. What should be done about it and who on the Right is making the case that mass shootings are not a problem?
What I think the right does is 1) deflect to other gun violence as more urgent, and 2) make the case that most proposals wouldn't be effective in stopping mass shootings.
E.A Ans I have often wandered, why the excessive talk about " Gun Crime " and at the same time total avoidance of the greater more lasting " Drug Crime " do some have a vested interest?>
Since all L.E. Agencies will attest that Gun Crime " is Fueld by Drugs, so what needs to be treated to stop that cause?
I wish I could point to one thing, but it's such a complicated issue. I'd like to think that people with jobs, loving families, and hope for the future don't turn to drugs or gangs. For the most part, I think that's true, but there are always exceptions. The thing is, it's pretty hard to legislate things like jobs, loving families, and hope (no matter how many political posters the word appears on). Achieving these things gets into social concerns like values and culture. Change takes generations. Politics doesn't typically have the toolkit for that.
E.A Good points. but my experience has shown that the Rich are just as prone, the workaholics, The Family Orientated, so it is indeed a deep, very deep reason .
Just an aside if I may, see who are more likely to commit suicide, and I Dare say it is more likely to be the empathetic, then the self cantered ones, Crime comes in many different forms and " wolf clothing " is just one!
Yet never surprising.
there is no myth it is a simple fact.
the second they cross our border illegally they broke the law.
That is not a violent crime. Stay on the topic.
That is, charitably speaking, a lie. Many people presenting themselves at the border, usually in the form of women with children, are doing so legally on the basis of requesting asylum. They are illegally being classified as law breakers by the Scumbag administration in violation of our own and international asylum and human rights conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory:
It was this criminally negligent flouting of our own laws that separated thousands of children from their parents--several hundred of which may result in being permanently cut off since on top of the criminality the massive negligence and incompetence of ICE and accomplices have perpetrated.
Like this phony asylum seeker and her little girl? Don't ever think that there are only a few of these phonies. They've been taught the ropes in their countries of origin.
You show a picture of exactly the kind of person I'm talking about--an asylum seeker. They are legally entitled to come to the border and seek refuge, not be treated by garbage and reviled by people who've never experienced anything like these people are subjected to in countries we've helped ruin in Central America.
Oh wow, you found ONE...does that mean that they are ALL fake?
Wrong. Here's the truth about Sandra Hernandez. Did you know that she had previously been deported? Enjoy the read.
nice job on that Hernandez find wooooooohoooooo one example(yes i am aware there are other stories). I just get such a kick out of this kinda of suggestion that seeking legal refuge here doesnt count for those who have tried but if you sneak in after trying the legal means then you are a worse human.
in the end, per the topic there seems to be some false hoods that some citizens are not understanding about those who are illegal, mainly that they cause a lot of criminal issues and to be honest , they dont. They just want to make that same green paper money you and i do and believe in surviving longer here then where they came from.......
SIDE THOUGHT ( have you actually sat back and wondered what it would be like to know some of your family members would be dead if you came from where some of these people do).......... i can sit here in my comfortable office, in my comfortable home , with my over sized tv (ready for MN Viking football) and two almost luxury vehicles, enjoying my food from my overly large smart fridge(which my kids eat out of to much) and have a road map on how i can live with out issues until i am old and gray, and be able to afford a nursing home (maybe ) )
By the way i cant think of more then the ONE national new story in the last month other then (always sad ) immigrant killing like the tibbets vs the normal weekly news story exposure of say, ummm>>>>>>> those legal guys doing dirt in the catholic church against our own legal children (cough cough I cant wait to see the same fuss over these guys. (but yes that is a separate topic for another day)
But it is the only way i can illustrate that YES illegal immigration is wrong that it happens but i find them to be less of a threat then those that are here legally. (i am really not good at saying something so simple,simply)
It's OK. Sometimes, it's difficult for some folks to say simple things in a simple way. I enjoyed reading your rambling and often off-topic comment.
You said it. It's the purest expression of simpleness I've ever seen. Well done.
well smart ass- put your foot in mouth, because i do volunteer at mary shelter place up here in MPLS. And i cant tell you which person is illegal or not because they are just people that i can help at the time i am there. And yet it is funny that you think my comment was about what i have and thus your reply shows how absolutely sad your input is because you proved my point. I am humble enough to remind myself that life is not great for those who try to get here and even after they do. Can you do that?
Also i drive through a predominately Mexican area. And also love a good authentic Mexican meal and not one issue i have seen. But 2 stories up here in the last 3 weeks about abusive WHITE SUBURBAN HUSBANDS have been in the news. But yet not one story about the area of MPLS where illegals or any where in the state of MN can be found about the criminal actions of those folks. (not suggesting that we have not had a story about illegals criminal activity)
do you get it.
I agree that crossing the border is unlawful and yet the people i see and hear the most about is the legal folks who have everything a ILLEGAL is trying to work and live for. I am not afraid to admit this is as much of a problem as Illegals here, do you agree?
they are still criminals who broke our laws.
they do not deserve to be here and we have no obligation to let them stay.
And if a death of an American citizen results from that employer hiring and hiding that illegal?
His employer was a forever voter and prominent Iowa Republican politician.
Or did that fact escape you?
today's left is always at odds with itself
they want wages to increase but they do not want to get rid of the illegals that will always work cheap.
I guess they only want higher wages if the govt mandates it. but if the business is forced to raise wages because of fewer illegals available who will work cheap? well,,, now... that's just crazy talk... LOL
I do but it's so much more fun to do that to yours.
It's the big Republican donors that have agricultural interests that don't want immigration reform....
Like Tropicana, Pepsi, Coca Cola, Quaker just to name a few and that have paid million to Republicans to NOT implement changes.
But that truth would be too much for you to admit to.
Here's a brief description of what Honduras is like and why this woman keeps trying to get out:
Please note the recurrent and universal role the US government and the US illicit drug market has played in all the countries in this region for decades. While people like you turn a determined blind eye to foreign meddling in our elections you give these desperate people a kick in the face and gleefully want to see them sent back to a high probability of rape, torture and murder. This country was built in large part by generations of people like this who came here for similar reasons (and who were also subjected to the same hatred you show toward these desperate men, women and children). You claim to be patriots and love this country but you act like something entirely the opposite.
and sadly you keep wanting to suggest that legal immigrants get your help and yet they do a lot more dirt then the non legals.
and its great you live that close--so again this must have skipped over your head. that if i live 2000 miles away and there are still illegals it goes to my point again that they come THIS FAR for the money and yet i have not seen in my news how much criminal activity they cause.
i agree come legally or get out but i surely cant hate on those who dont. i sure am not going to blame them for crime they dont do compared to our good old legal immigrants much less white folks.
Perhaps you should do some research. Sandra Hernandez's only desperation is that she illegally entered the USA - TWICE. The 2nd time, she kidnapped her youngest child and abandoned her husband and older children, and then illegally entered the USA after having been previously deported. This time, she tried to enter as a "refugee" with a toddler who couldn't verbalize mommy's lies. Sandra's husband is a ship captain who said he makes good money and that the family has a comfortable and safe life in Honduras. Sandra is now a FELON CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.
Feel free to continue your "foreign meddling in our elections" derail if you wish, but I'm done with this.
Thanks.
All that verbiage proves is how desperate she is to get away from what really is a hell hole.
No, I advocate criminal prosecution for an employer (of 4 years) that paid, housed and knew the employee was an illegal immigrant, through his negligence and illegal act of harboring an illegal alien and that his act of breaking the law resulted in the death of an American citizen.
Not even close...
Here's an interesting story about how the Trump regime has been ignoring the real data about refugees in order to push through anti-refugee policies:
and i would agree but at the same time i am sick of seeing, reading, hearing about the legal residents that clearly make the news rotation more often then the illegals that happen to be here.
The problem is not legal immigrants it is the illegal ones. You know, the ones that committed a crime to get here in the first place. BTW did you know your article on the MYTH of the criminal (illegal) immigrant includes a picture of someone who was murdered by one? Doesn't that in itself displace the "myth"?
I'm really sick of reading this BS from you people who claim to be so dedicated to law and order and yet support, no encourage, the illegal behavior of the Scumbag who's despoiling the White House.
What damage would that be?
Such as?