Breaking News: Local Resident Victimized by Legal American Citizen

One of my critiques of global warming alarmists is that they are trying to use a type of observation bias to leave folks with the impression that weather is becoming more severe.  By hyping on every tail-of-the-distribution weather event in the media, they leave the impression that such events are becoming more frequent, when in fact they are just being reported more loudly and more frequently.  I dealt with this phenomenon in depth in an older Fortune article, where I made an analogy to the famous "summer of the shark"

...let’s take a step back to 2001 and the “Summer of the Shark.”  The media hysteria began in early July, when a young boy was bitten by a shark on a beach in Florida.  Subsequent attacks received breathless media coverage, up to and including near-nightly footage from TV helicopters of swimming sharks.  Until the 9/11 attacks, sharks were the third biggest story of the year as measured by the time dedicated to it on the three major broadcast networks’ news shows.

Through this coverage, Americans were left with a strong impression that something unusual was happening — that an unprecedented number of shark attacks were occurring in that year, and the media dedicated endless coverage to speculation by various “experts” as to the cause of this sharp increase in attacks.

Except there was one problem — there was no sharp increase in attacks.  In the year 2001, five people died in 76 shark attacks.  However, just a year earlier, 12 people had died in 85 attacks.  The data showed that 2001 actually was  a down year for shark attacks.

Yesterday I was stuck on a stationary bike in my health club with some Fox News show on the TV.  Not sure I know whose show it was (O'Reilly?  Hannity?) but the gist of the segment seemed to be that a recent murder by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco should be taken as proof positive of the Trump contention that such immigrants are all murderers and rapists.  The show then proceeded to show a couple of other nominally parallel cases.

Yawn.   It would be intriguing to flood an hour-long episode with stories of legal American citizens committing heinous crimes.  One wonders if folks would walk away wondering if there was something wrong with those Americans.

One could pick any group of human beings and do a thirty-minute segment showing all the bad things members of that group had done.  What this does not prove in the least is whether that group has any particular predilection towards doing bad things, or specifically in the case of Mexican immigrants, whether they commit crimes at a higher rate than any other group in this country.  In fact, everything I read says that they do not, which likely explains why immigration opponents use this technique, just as climate alarmists try to flood the airwaves with bad weather stories because the actual trend data for temperatures does not tell the story they want to tell.

  • Jess1

    Pretty much missed the entire issue there, Warren. Sheesh.

  • Incunabulum

    Unless you're saying that these crimes wouldn't have happened if these people weren't here?

    Which is like saying that no one would be murdered if we made guns illegal.

    Criminals are gonna crime

    And there is, literally, no way of stopping illegal immigration short of putting up a 15 foot high wall around the *whole* country (north *and* south borders), manning it with armed people with shoot to kill orders, mandatory identification (and laws mandating you produce that ID on demand), and internal passports (and internal walls and checkpoints) to control movement.

    Personally, I'd rather have the 11ish million illegal immigrants than the above.

  • JBurns

    Aside from seeming to miss the core issue here that one law enforcement office refusing to cooperate with another law enforcement office on detaining a wanted individual (illegal immigrant or not) is really bad policy, here is at least one attempt to determine if illegal immigrants do, in fact, commit a disproportionate number of crimes (and comes to the conclusion that the answer is yes):

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/donald-trump-was-right.php

    I have a lot of sympathy for illegal immigrants -- I suspect the vast majority are not so different from our ancestors in risking death in coming to the U.S. so they can work hard and make a better life for them and their families -- but if someone comes here and starts committing crimes (whether it's violent crime or identity theft that can wreak havoc on someone else's life) that sympathy disappears quickly. And a government system that seems to treat an illegal immigrant criminal MORE favorably than a citizen criminal is really hard to defend.

  • https://www.teepublic.com/user/ECM Ergo

    Err, what? Yes, in fact, they would not commit the crimes if they weren't here....brilliant?

    Furthermore, you only need a wall* around the most grievous areas, unless you're suggesting that Mexican and Central Americans are going to hop planes, by the millions, to Canada? Is that what you're seriously suggesting? If you seal off the southern border, then the vast, vast majority of these crimes *stop*, period. We do not have a problem with *Canadian* criminality, we have a problem with Mexican and Central American criminality which, as our host elides, is not an issue of one-off instances of murder/rape/etc., as heinous as those are, but the sheer *percentage* of crimes committed by those groups.

    Your augment boils down to: *more* crime is OK, because, uh, free flow of labor!

    *You don't even need a wall: you just need to cut off benefits and jobs and the problem will take care of itself but, then, you'll come back around to the tiresome "free flow of labor helps everyone--even when people are being raped, etc., so, like, that's mean and stuff" mantra that has grown so tiresome and stale from the out-of-ideas libertarian eunuchs.

    (The fact that, up until fairly recently, I thought like some of you did still makes my head spin.)

  • Incunabulum

    "unless you're suggesting that Mexican and Central Americans are going to hop planes, by the millions, to Canada?"

    Why not.

    Or take boats.

    Or get a student visa

    Or any number of ways that people from other countries (some of who do things like try to blow shit up when they're here) do.

    My argument is not 'more crime is OK' but that 'the methods needed to stop this 'more crime' are worse than the crime itself'.

  • ErikEssig

    Kinda like the reporting on the "epidemic" white on black crime.

  • HenryBowman419

    Warren is correct in that anecdotes, which the media adore, don't give a true picture of what's happening. However, actual studies now make clear that non-citizens are in prison in numbers that far exceed their overall proportion of the population.

  • Nimrod

    You may think that illegal immigrants are a great source of sub-minimum-wage labor and that this is all great for business. And their entitlements get paid by the taxpayer, not the business owner, so even better for their employers!

    But when they start voting for statist policies that support regulatory capture, other rent seeking, higher taxes on businesses, etc, then you may not feel so great about them.

    Illegal immigrants are extremely over represented in the prison population. So add the costs of incarceration to any entitlements they end up with.

    The southern border can be guarded and a full wall is not needed. It is intentionally not being guarded. The legislative process that might have allowed for more secure legal guest workers was intentionally sabotaged by the Obama administration because it was more important to create a wedge issue and increase the pro-Democrat fraudulent voter pool than it was to protect citizens. And no doubt any sort of legal guest worker scheme would end up costing businesses more than hiring illegally, which is another strike against anything changing.

    All of the issues can be addressed but they are not being addressed due to political and economic corruption.

  • mx

    "refusing to cooperate with another law enforcement office on detaining a wanted individual"

    Is not quite what is happening here. A large number of cities are refusing to honor ICE "immigration detainers," which are basically requests for a local jail to continue to hold someone in custody for 48 hours, excluding weekends, (a timeframe routinely violated) after an inmate is supposed to be released until the feds check out their immigration status and pick them up. Hundreds of cities aren't honoring detainers because there's a reasonable belief, backed by some federal court rulings, that they violate the 4th Amendment. Detainers aren't warrants and people can't be held in custody merely on the basis of law enforcement's say-so. Since communities are on the hook for civil liability for illegal holds, there's a significant issue there.

    As for the Powerline article you cite, it refers only to federal cases. As the Washington Post points out today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/), federal crimes are not representative of criminal activity as a whole. Consider that there are far more felonies handled in California state courts alone than all criminal actions in federal courts for the entire country. One would expect a good portion of illegal immigrants involved in crimes like international drug smuggling to be charged in federal court. Many illegal immigrants are charged with federal crimes because they are, in fact, illegal immigrants. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that people who have, by definition, broken one or more laws will be more prevalent among the set of people who have been convicted of (or more likely, pled guilty to) breaking one or more laws.

    What's relevant here is the extent to which illegal immigrants commit non-immigration crimes, the vast majority of which will be handled in state courts. While we definitely need better data, the information we do have tells us that their overall crime rates tend to be lower than the average.

  • Ann_In_Illinois

    I lived in Hong Kong in the 1990s and occasionally had to go to the US Consulate there for various reasons. There was always a long line of people waiting outside, trying to go through the process of coming to the US legally. I have sympathy for those who come here illegally but have more sympathy for those trying to do it legally. Why should those who break our laws be favored over those who do not?

  • mx

    Let's look at that "process" shall we? Here's a handy flowchart from Reason: http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf

    If you're not the parent, spouse, or minor child of a US citizen, you have very few options to come to the US and work legally. Some of this is caused by the reality that there has been so much illegal immigration that we've tried to balance by imposing strict limits on legal immigration, but the end result is that there barely is a "line" for people to stand in.

  • mesocyclone

    You are right on the selection bias, but not on the conclusion. Illegal immigrants are law breakers, and when they break other laws they victimize citizens of the US. A very high percentage of federal drug inmates are illegal immigrants, and we are not talking folks caught with a little bit for consumptions. Other rates are also high.

    This is what one should expect - if you let people come across, while winking an eye, the law abiding folks are less likely to come. We have plenty of evidence of what this illegal immigration does. Coyote, take a drive out to, say, McDowell and 57th Avenue and look around. Yep - when you let a lot of poor Mexicans into town, you end up with a Mexican slum - except ours is perpetuated by our welfare state.

    I used to frequently monitor Phoenix Police before they encrypted their emergency ("chase") channels. It was a great way to tell how much and where violent crime was happening. 30 years ago, the hot spot used to be the poor black area near 24th St and Broadway. Now large parts of south and west Phoenix, and a little bit of north Phoenix are bad news. And... those are Mexican barrios.

    That is not selection bias - that is the reality of the American Southwest.

    Libertarians like Coyote seem to have this fantasy that Libertarian rights should cross borders, even though the natural outgrowth of that is the extinguishing of the free state as freeloaders come charging in from everywhere else. Yes... a bunch of illegals are hard workers... but their rates of poverty, crime, illegitimate births, etc, are higher by far than any native group other than blacks - who themselves were poor immigrants forced to come here.

  • Penkville

    In fairness the original news items focused on the amount of times these high profile criminals had been deported, which does seem a fair point. There might have been some mission creep in the reporting now but it's still a real issue. I don't see why even a libertarian state should be obliged to take on convicted criminals as citizens...

  • mx

    Furthermore, look at what actually happened in San Francisco. Lopez-Sanchez was in federal custody for illegal re-entry (tell that to people who think we don't care about illegal border crossers). Following his sentence, he was brought back to SF at the city's request for a 20-year-old marijuana warrant (nobody seems to know why the heck anybody cared about this). That warrant was then discharged and he was held, quite possibly illegally, in jail in San Francisco for three weeks even though he was no longer wanted or convicted of anything because ICE requested that he be held, yet failed to pick him up or secure an administrative warrant for his deportation (the Sheriff's Office apparently didn't call ICE either).

    Eventually, after three weeks, the Sheriff's Office concluded it had no legal basis to continue to hold him, so he was released. A few months later, he killed someone.

  • Titan28

    You sound like the Rotary or the Business Roundtable on this issue. I'll agree that Trump, whom I have no use for whatsoever, said a few stupid lines. But you need to take off the rose-tinted glasses. For starters, the government is making no distinctions among illegal immigrants. Murderers and gang members are as welcome as the hard-worker. San Francisco on top of that is a sanctuary city. Do you even grok what that means? You publish some great material here (85%). And I'm usually in complete agreement with you. You're sharp, cogent and on the ball, Coyote. You seem to have a slice of Milton Friedman's argument here, the one where he suggests borders are an impediment to the operation of free markets. But remember, before he accepted the idea of no borders among nations, the entire welfare state had to go. You are also all wet on immigrant crime. Check the statistics, and maybe go visit a California prison.

  • Scott Robinson

    What if there was evidence that illegal immigrants are more likely than the native population to commit crimes?

    Here is a suggestion that such evidence exists: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/donald-trump-was-right.php

    What do you think?

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    Fox News has been channeling W.R. Hearst in their exploitation of this tragedy for their yellow journalism crusade. The usual gun control sophists are kicking themselves for not beating Fox to the punch on this one. And since a large block of news consumers, following the lead of camera-seeking pundits, appear to think at a 4th grade level, the advertising revenue comes rolling in.

    The tragicomedy never ends.

  • paul davidson

    The government at all levels purposely makes it difficult to determine the true level of immigrant crime and ethnicity. Here's the Texas Top 10 most wanted fugitives and also sex offenders. Notice anything? http://www.dps.texas.gov/texas10mostwanted/

  • Nehemiah

    The problem with Warren's position is that the white girl in San Francisco would be alive if we closed our border and enforced our immigration policy. The perpetrator was deported 5-TIMES! That means he entered illegally at least 6-TIMES! Hello, does anyone else see a problem with that?

    Sure, American citizens are killed by other American citizens in high numbers, but that is not the point. This girl did not have to die, but did die at the hand of an illegal immigrant.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    Your link counts only federal convictions. Given (1) that federal convictions are a small proportion of total convictions, and (2) that arrested illegals are concentrated into Federal jurisdiction regardless of who arrests them, wouldn't you be interested to look at *total* Federal and non Federal convictions for non-immigration-related offences? It has been looked at. Do the think the results might affect your opinion?

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    It is less an issue of what the government does for them, and more an issue of what the government does to them. It is illegal for a Texan to exceed the speed limit in Ohio, but that doesn't mean or is right to assault that Texan, kidnap him, and forcibly transport him hundreds of mile away.

    You should be more sympathetic for how good people, legal or illegal, are being treated by immigration authorities. Legal vs. illegal gives poor guidance for judging right vs. wrong.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    And nobody seems to care that nativist fortress America is infringing upon Americans' rights to associate, and to peacefully use their property as they see fit. It is ironic, given their occasional rhetoric about liberty and free markets, that nativist conservatives are so emotionally anti free trade and anti property rights when it comes to immigration.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    So, because of this one tragedy, you'd like to see a policy imposed that would *increase* the murder rate?

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    I think you're too easily duped. Those are Federal numbers only. More representative numbers have been collected, but apparently don't fit the narrative. The only thing to be learned from that post is that powerlineblog is not credible.

  • Nehemiah

    ? Say what? I'd like us to enforce our immigration laws and see what happens.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    "go visit a California prison"

    They're full of American born Hispanics. And nation wide African Americans dominate prison populations. So what are you suggesting?

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    I know. Illegals commit non-immigration-related crime at a lower rate than the native population. So in addition to violating the human rights of American and non Americans, your wish would increase the crime rate.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    "rights should cross borders, even though the natural outgrowth of that is the extinguishing of the free state as freeloaders come charging in from everywhere else"

    You give credence to the claim that "we are all socialists now", since given the choice you choose to attack human freedom rather than socialism. Sadly, the American founding belief that men are endowed *by their creator* with certain unalienable rights appears long dead among nativist conservatives.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    Reference?

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    Since the list says nothing about their citizenship status, I can only assume you are referring to the fact that most on the list are young males. Are you saying you want young American males deported from the US?

  • Scott Robinson

    You've been saying it over and over here. I guess you believe that illegal immigration is irrelevant to criminality.

  • paul davidson

    You think it's a good sign? You're right, it doesn't say anything about citizenship because government doesn't want us to have the information. And did you happen to notice the ethnicity categorizing? Think that's an oversight?

  • jhertzli

    When X is outlawed, only outlaws will ...

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    "because government doesn't want us to have the information"

    Regardless of what government wants, we have the information--or at least much more meaningful and extensive information than a border state's most wanted list.

    "And did you happen to notice the ethnicity categorizing?"

    So of all the similarities, it is ethnicity you choose to focus on. Are you then trying to claim that the Hispanic American population in Texas tends to be younger than the non Hispanic population (since youth and gender are major correlates for crime everywhere and always). Or are you suggesting something more genetic?

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    I've posted several times, making different points, but I've only said that once. I'm not sure what you mean.

    But there have been several false claims made here about crime and illegal immigration--some so careless that it is hard to believe the falsehoods were not intentional.

  • paul davidson

    No, we absolutely do not have the information. Look at how they are categorized and you will see what I mean. Got nothing to do with genetics. Every group has its losers. The educated, upper classes with something to lose are not sneaking across the border.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista
  • paul davidson

    Lol, I never said the Texas list was conclusive of anything. It's just a data point that says a lot about how government purposely muddies up the problem. I click on one of the links, the Police Foundation one, and the implications, if you read it closely, are that we should build a wall on our southern border that would rival East Germany's. Since you linked it, you must have read it thoroughly so I don't need to explain why.

    If you care to look beyond your politically correct libertarian dreams, you might read the following study:

    "This study examines academic and government research on the question of immigrant crime. New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information. However, the newer government data indicate that there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement to work with federal immigration authorities.

    Among the findings:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that immigrants (legal and illegal) comprise 20 percent of inmates in prisons and jails. The foreign-born are 15.4 percent of the nation’s adult population. However, DHS has not provided a detailed explanation of how the estimates were generated.

    Under contract to DHS in 2004, Fentress, Inc., reviewed 8.1 million inmate records from state prison systems and 45 large county jails. They found that 22 percent of inmates were foreign-born. But the report did not cover all of the nation’s jails.

    The 287(g) program and related efforts have found high rates of illegal alien incarceration in some communities. But it is unclear if the communities are representative of the country:

    Maricopa County, Ariz.: 22 percent of felons are illegal aliens;

    Lake County, Ill.: 19 percent of jail inmates are illegal aliens;

    Collier County, Fla.: 20 to 22 percent of jail inmates and arrestees are illegal aliens;

    Weld County, Colo.: 12.8 to 15.2 percent of those jailed are illegal aliens."

    http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

    and so on. It goes on to explain why the overall data is incomplete and inaccurate and why that means the NBER study you linked is junk.

    oh, and while you're at CIS you might want to look into their study of immigrants and welfare use. Lots of good info there you have never seen before, but just because you absolutely have not looked for it, doesn't mean it absolutely does not exist.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    “Lol”

    Odd sense of humor.

    “I never said the Texas list was conclusive of anything. It's just a data point that says a lot about how government purposely muddies up the problem.”

    Nobody expects “conclusive” in these matters. But something more than meaningless isn’t too much to expect.

    “I click on one of the links,”

    I provided 4. And I can provide more. We all suffer enough from confirmation bias without making it an overt modus operandi.

    “the Police Foundation one, and the implications, if you read it closely, are that we should build a wall on our southern border that would rival East Germany's.“

    You mean the one that concludes: “the rise in immigration is arguably one of the reasons that crime rates have decreased in the United States”, and “if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the U.S. became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase”? Yeah, looks like you got the gist of that one.

    paul davidson 1: “we absolutely do not have the information”

    paul davidson 2: “‘newer government data indicate that there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement to work with federal immigration authorities’”

    So, which is it?

    “If you care to look beyond your politically correct libertarian dreams”

    Okay.

    “, you might read the following study:”

    Well, you could do worse than presenting results from the CIS (worse e.g., by presenting a Texas most-wanted list). But those particular results dance around foreign-born, deportable, immigration-related and non-immigration related categories. Teasing out non-immigration-related offences among illegal aliens, the numbers are not so impressive, and roughly close to the results of better documented studies such as those I linked for you. However, if you want to argue against ALL immigration, you might take that CIS report as given, but you would have to be a lot less skeptical than the even the CIS rightly is. Other sources have better documented methods.

    “It goes on to explain why the overall data is incomplete and inaccurate and why that means the NBER study you linked is junk.”

    Then by that standard I suppose it also goes on to explain why CIS’s own report is “junk”. Fortunately, for the less myopic, there is a preponderance of evidence from different sources. CIS’s major conclusion is to muddy the waters by casting doubt on all available evidence--useful, given what almost all available evidence has revealed.

    “Lots of good info there you have never seen before, but just because you absolutely have not looked for it, doesn't mean it absolutely does not exist.”

    Now that you’ve just found it and are so impressed, I assume you’ll at least stop with the “we absolutely do not have the information” nonsense, not to mention the silly wanted list “data point”. But this discovery should humble you enough to look even further than the cheer-leading squad.

  • paul davidson

    You mean the one that concludes: “the rise in immigration is arguably one of the reasons that crime rates have decreased in the United States”,

    Yeah, the one that makes unsupportable statements like the one you cited. You missed the meat though. Here's a hint: think generational.

    So, which is it?

    Uh, it's both. Both can be true if the unifying thesis is information is incomplete or intentionally disguised/scrubbed.

    Well, you could do worse than presenting results from the CIS (worse e.g., by presenting a Texas most-wanted list).

    Or I could cite an NBER study that relies on census guesstimates. That would be much, much worse.

    Teasing out non-immigration-related offences among illegal aliens, the numbers are not so impressive, and roughly close to the results of better documented studies such as those I linked for you.

    The better documented studies that rely on source material like census guesstimates and/or voluntary declaration of immigrant status by prison inmates. Ok.

    CIS’s major conclusion is to muddy the waters by casting doubt on all available evidence--useful, given what almost all available evidence has revealed.

    Oh, so then I didn't need to explain your "which is it?" gotcha question you posed, after all.

    Now that you’ve just found it and are so impressed,

    Nah, I've been following CIS and the immigration issue for years and have cited them numerous times, just not here. I understand their work is new to you, but just because you absolutely have not looked for it, doesn't mean it absolutely does not exist.

    I assume you’ll at least stop with the “we absolutely do not have the information” nonsense, not to mention the silly wanted list “data point”.

    Hey, here's another one! Funny how those data points add up after awhile. Yeah, yeah, I know you rely on pro-immigration studies instead of your lying eyes.

    http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

    But this discovery should humble you enough to look even further than the cheer-leading squad.
    You mean like this blog that cheers illegal immigration? Wow, you really lead by example in your quest for knowledge.

  • Bwawahaha

    Um, doesn't anyone else think that if immigrants had low crime rates, the government would report that data like it was the most important thing ever? They feds publish almost NOTHING on immigrant crime. I would consider that proof that immigrant crime is very high.

  • http://vikingvista.blogspot.com/ vikingvista

    “Yeah, the one that makes unsupportable statements like the one you cited. You missed the meat though. Here's a hint: think generational.”

    You mean the unsupportable statements supported by the presented data? I only referenced it to you in response to your claim that we “absolutely” don’t have the info, because those references, regardless of their conclusions, have considerable info. I subsequently referenced the conclusions only in response to your interpretation which, regardless of data on 2nd & 3rd generation immigrants (which you use while claiming we “absolutely” don’t have), is beyond ridiculous.

    “Uh, it's both. Both can be true if the unifying thesis is information is incomplete or intentionally disguised/scrubbed.”

    I see. So we “absolutely” don’t have the info which you use for your arguments. So you hold your beliefs because....you have a teleological pipeline to god?...words are just propaganda for maligning a group of people you hate regardless?...on your planet “don’t” and “do” are synonyms?

    “Or I could cite an NBER study that relies on census guesstimates. That would be much, much worse.”

    So, in your judgement, using census estimates, and all the other methodologies used in the academic literature, constitute poorer study design than simply presenting a Texas most-wanted list. I was wrong about you. You must be a respected epidemiologist.

    ME: Teasing out non-immigration-related offences among illegal aliens, the numbers are not so impressive, and roughly close to the results of better documented studies such as those I linked for you.

    DU: The better documented studies that rely on source material like census guesstimates and/or voluntary declaration of immigrant status by prison inmates. Ok.

    Read what I wrote again. I’m saying the results are COMPARABLE. So either also dismiss the CIS report from the Federal data, or accept both CIS and the studies showing low crime among illegals.

    ME: CIS’s major conclusion is to muddy the waters by casting doubt on all available evidence--useful, given what almost all available evidence has revealed.

    DU: Oh, so then I didn't need to explain your "which is it?" gotcha question you posed, after all.

    I don’t know what you’re on about here. The literature is fairly consistent. If you don’t like it, hanging your hat on its limitations is probably the best you can do. That is what CIS does, because the data do not support their agenda. It is good work that they carefully pull together some other data, even if they present it in a way that is misleading to people like you, but those results are weaker than what is already available--that is why they don’t claim that those results trump the conventional academic wisdom. Put aside the fact that the data aren’t that far off anyway.

    “Nah, I've been following CIS and the immigration issue for years and have cited them numerous times,”

    So, you’ve been following and citing an organization that “absolutely” doesn’t have the information? Is that because you like their prose, or...

    Look, you’re getting less coherent with each response. Just do honesty a favor and admit that instead of “absolutely don’t” you really either meant or now wish to mean “absolutely do”. Either that, or just express your dislike of illegals as a matter of personal taste and stop even mentioning information.

  • paul davidson

    You mean the unsupportable statements supported by the presented data?

    I mean this: crime rates declined during a period of increased immigration. So f'ing what? Immigrants make up a small % of the population. It absolutely could be true that the vast majority population committed less crime even while the much smaller immigrant % kept pace or even increased crime rates. Pretty simple. It's not like we haven't seen it go the other way. Crime and immigration both increased during the 1970's and 1980's. Shall we place all the blame on immigrants of the time period?

    You really thought you had something there, didn't you?

    So we “absolutely” don’t have the info which you use for your arguments.

    I have no idea what you're going on about here. My position is the data is incomplete and/or intentionally vague, scrubbed, or distorted. Nothing I've written says differently. I think there are a lot of clues that the immigrant crime problem is much worse than studies like the ones you linked indicate. The "Most Wanted" lists I've linked are such clues to rational people. I live in Maricopa county where 22% of felony defendants are illegal aliens. I don't know the % when you include legal immigrants, but it's got to be higher than 0. I see it all around me. Oh, but you have a study that tells me my lying eyes are incorrect. Hey, speaking of Maricopa county, here's another list! http://www.kpho.com/category/274550/manhunt-monday-mugshots
    Man, I'm really starting to think these extremely violent countries to our south just aren't sending us their best and brightest.

    So, in your judgement, using census estimates, and all the other methodologies used in the academic literature, constitute poorer study design than simply presenting a Texas most-wanted list.

    LOL. That's certainly a fair representation of what I've said and done so far. Way to argue honestly! Yeah, I do say it's bullshit to rely on alien criminals to self report their immigration status. You seriously don't see how illegals might be a tad hesitant to answer honestly? ( I don't expect I'll get an answer on that one. )

    Read what I wrote again. I’m saying the results are COMPARABLE. So either also dismiss the CIS report from the Federal data, or accept both CIS and the studies showing low crime among illegals.

    Uh, this is the CIS report that says(like I have been) the data is at best limited. Remember? You should, you keep whining about it. In your very next comment, in fact, you say: The literature is fairly consistent. If you don’t like it, hanging your hat on its limitations is probably the best you can do. That is what CIS does, because the data do not support their agenda

    So, you’ve been following and citing an organization that “absolutely” doesn’t have the information? Is that because you like their prose, or...

    I've been citing an organization that supports my contention that the data is inaccurate. Are you having some trouble following the conversation? Perhaps you should scroll up and re-read the thread.

    Just do honesty a favor and admit that instead of “absolutely don’t” you really either meant or now wish to mean “absolutely do”.

    You can't find any inconsistencies in my statements. You "absolutely do not" have any data that say otherwise. And dude, you wouldn't know honesty if it snuck across the border, crapped out some anchor babies and made you pay for it, and then violently assaulted your old lady.