Why do we constantly here this nonsense about how arresting criminals is "splitting up families"? Ok, I guess we only here about it in the case of illegal alien identity thieves being arrested.
Why do we not here about it other times? Because we all recognize that kids shouldn't be around their criminal parents. But in the case of criminal aliens everyone likes to pretend that they are just breaking that one silly law that doesn't matter anyway.
Just imagine how a child's perception of law enforcement changes when he finds out that mommy and/or daddy is a criminal alien. Imagine how it can enable the child to learn to justify breaking other laws because after all, mommy and/or daddy do it and the mayor of Portland applauds them.
Imagine the kind of company this child will be around because criminals like to hang out with other criminals. ID theft, rape, drunk driving and drug dealing: it's all ok because we don't want to split up families... as long as you are also an illegal alien.
25 comments:
Because we all recognize that kids shouldn't be around their criminal parents.
So you as a convicted meth dealer makes us wonder how your children are doing. Possessing weapons illegally and have been in a gang makes you a very bad influence for them. Any chance you will be putting them up for adoption so they will be protected?
Yeah they do these big drug sweeps and Kids are involved but in those cases you don't hear "splitting families apart".
Like the other BS line of "only here for a better life", to justify crime.
All they can do is parrott BS lines, falsely claim this is "Racist" talk OR pretend that no one can come legally.
This BS is why their Amnesty agenda is failing as most Americans can see thru the BS.
*****NOTICE******
On this Blog you can read comments from the Far-Left on Daniel's previous challenges in life (he is not running for office) However someone who wants to RULE the WORLD-Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who also had challenges with Drugs, has a Daddy & Brother who are Muslims is completely ignored and never mentioned.
They call it "Selective memory".
Here's an idea:
Though Daniel denies it, economists and others have clearly demonstrated a need for low-skilled immigrant workers to fill jobs for which natives either do not pursue or cannot meet demand. My hunch is that many of the illegals here working would rather be here legally, but channels are not open to them right now (15 year wait on a green card for Mexicans).
How about we rectify the situation by increasing quotas for Mexican visas, thus clearing the backlog?
Now the vast majority are no longer criminals. Then our interior enforcement efforts can be directed to those who really need to be deported: those who have come here and committed crimes.
All seems pretty simple to me.
Anon 919:
As I understand it, Barack - who is a Christian - did not really know his father. Not that it matters.
One (of many differences) between Miglavs and Obama, is that Obama doesn't spew mean-spirited rhetoric, and advocate for the harsh treatment of criminals. Miglavs on the other hand, wants to the throw the book at all criminals, despite having not served one day in jail for his crimes. One might conclude, therefore, that Miglavs is a hypocrite.
Anyway, are you saying that a Muslim, not that Obama is one, should never be President of the US? Is there something in the constitution stating that elected officials should be of a certain faith?
Oh...where to start. No time. Back later. Daniel, you are pathetic.
One might conclude, therefore, that Miglavs is a hypocrite ...
Might? If nothing else, Miglavs is a poster child for hypocrisy.
(And a poster child for stupidity, because he doesn't understand why he's a poster child for hypocrisy ...)
"This BS is why their Amnesty agenda is failing as most Americans can see thru the BS."
Is that why the GOP will nominate a restrictionist this year? Oh wait, they're nominating someone who supports comprehensive reform with a path to citizenship.
Why is it that minutemen, who have a hard time getting more than a dozen people to attend their "rallies" always think their opinion is shared by "most Anmericans"?
Recommended reading for "rule-of-law" conservatives everywhere: Former LA prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," published by Vanguard Press. Daniel: I'm sure Mr. Bugliosi, who is as tough-on-crime as they come, would appreciate getting a plug from you, since you have such strong "rule of law" credentials. What say you? You can't go wrong with this: He's a Republican, he's law enforcement, and he's going after someone who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of human beings -- some of them themselves patriotic conservative Americans such as yourself.
I'll look forward to your enthusiastic endorsement.
P.S. Patriotic conservative Americans who like guns, even!
This "criminal alien" thing always kills me. Miglavs and his ilk just make this shit up about the criminal propensity of illegal immigrants (or sometimes, just Mexicans) in order to try to scare more people into supporting their cause.
Well, here's a simple paradox that I've raised here before and no one seems to have an answer: not Daniel (who-needs-data?) Miglavs or Anthony (CIA Factbook) Delluca or anyone else.
Anyway:
Fact #1: Since the 1990's, we've seen a rapid increase in the size of the illegal immigrant population residing in the United States.
Fact #2: During the same period we've witnessed a substantial DECREASE in rates of both violent and property crime.
If illegal immigrants are so prone to violent and property-related criminality, how is it possible that these crime rates have decreased during the same period that the number of illegal immigrants has so rapidly increased?
Could someone please explain this?
Daddy & Brother who are Muslims? Why would that matter? Oh, you hate Muslims, right. Another bigot. Keep talking, bigot. The media actually reads this blog to get a sense of the anti-immigrant movement. You are doing a great job selling it to them. Remember, OFIR is a member group of New Nation. Want to know who they are, see for yourself.
This is just some of their articles:
"Chimpout.com" - (Dark crime news and commentary forums)
"N*ggermania" - (Dark crime news and commentary forums)
Ethnic Crime News Clips
Black males in the news - (Breaking news on black males in the news)
Load the mexican trash up and ship that shit back to mexico.
>If illegal immigrants are so prone to violent and property-related criminality, how is it possible that these crime rates have decreased during the same period that the number of illegal immigrants has so rapidly increased?
Because you have confused rate with proportion.
Every week I buy a basket of fruit. Lets say a total of 24 pieces.
8 bananas
8 oranges
8 plums.
Slowly, I get tired of all this fruit. Its a lot to eat every week. But, I kind of really like the plums so, now I buy:
6 bananas
4 oranges
9 plums
I now buy 19 pieces of fruit. My rate of fruit purchase has gone from 24 per week to 19, but, the proportion of plums has increased.
I'm really sick of all this fruit. Now I buy only 12 pieces:
1 Banana
1 Orange
10 plums
I have cut my fruit rate in half, but the proportion of fruit that is represented by plums has increased dramatically.
r huse shops heavy on the bananas.
R-huse, what in the hell are you talking about? Crime rates ARE proportions. Let's assume, for a moment that each murder is committed by one and only one person. If, in a given year, there are 15 murders per 1,000 persons in the population, then 1.5% of your population consists of murderers. If you then raise the proportion of violent offenders - as Daniel contends illegal immigrants to be - resident in the population, the crime rate should go up not down.
You may want to shoot Robert Sampson from Harvard University, who has written on this very paradox, and let him know that he too is confusing rate with proportion. I'm sure he will be mortified to learn of this confusion.
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/sampson/
Anon 11:19, Robert Sampson is a trained scientist who chairs the Sociology Department at Harvard, has a vitae would fill several posts on this blog, is widely published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other periodicals, has been on this earth a bit longer than Miglavs, and he appears to be thoughtful, extraordinarily intelligent, and articulate.
Obviously, nothing he has to say would be of ANY interest here.
This is Miglavia.
>If, in a given year, there are 15 murders per 1,000 persons in the population, then 1.5% of your population consists of murderers.
Um, and that would be your first mistake. Anyone who has studied crime at all knows that the vast majority of crime is committed by a relatively small percentage of the population. Obviously Mr. Sampson seems to either have omitted that from his study, or you missed it upon reading it.
At any rate, the point is, you are still confusing rate with proportion. A rate of 15 murders per 1,000 does not in the least bit indicate that 1.5% of your population are murderers as it assumes each murder is carried out by a single individual.
Hope that clears it up, this really doesn't seem that difficult a concept to grasp.
Sorry, the above, and this, are for Anon 11.19.
Excuse me for belaboring the rate and proportion thing, but it is really the key to what is wrong with your thesis. Understanding the difference between the two is central to the apparent confusion on the issue.
I buy a gun, I go shoot 15 people in my town of 1,000. Assuming no other murders, the murder rate is then 15 per 1000. The proportion, of murderers to non murderers is 1 in 1000.
15 people buy guns. They each shoot one person in the town of 1,000. Assuming no other murders, the murder rate is still 15 per 1,000. The proportion of murderers is now 15 in 1000.
I hope this does clear it up. If you are saying that after reading Sampson's report, he is using rate and proportion interchangeably, then that is really inexcusable of him.
Id gladly debate him any time on this rather elementary issue. Rate and proportion are vastly different things and anyone who is chair of a department studying this sort of thing should know that.
Rhuse - I'm sure he'd debate you right back. Shoot him an e-mail. Your technical obsession with the difference between rate and proportion misses the entire point.
First of all, a crime rate is computed as a proportion. It is the ratio of crimes to persons in the population at a given time. In the numerator you have crimes committed and in the denominator, the population. Then you multiply it times 1000 to get the crime rate per 1,000 persons. What is a ratio if not a proportion?
Secondly, can you explain to me how this isn't somewhat paradoxical in light of Daniel's assertion that illegal immigrants are disproportionately prone to criminal offending. If you add more of these criminally prone people to the population, shouldn't the crime rate go up?
As I type, I'm looking at a figure in a report authored by Professor Sampson in Contexts, a publication of the American Sociological Association, Winter 2008. The figure clearly shows that as immigration (which is increasingly comprised of undocumented immigrants) increased through the 1990s, the homicide rate dropped precipitously.
The question is really quite simple. If illegal immigrants are disproportionately prone to criminality, especially of the violent sort, how is it possible for this trend to materialize?
>Rhuse - I'm sure he'd debate you right back. Shoot him an e-mail.
He would? Do you seriously think Sampson would make the argument that rate and proportion, especially in the context of a criminological study, are to be used interchangeably? If so he has no business doing crime studies as it makes his argument incredibly easy to defeat, as I have shown.
>Your technical obsession with the difference between rate and proportion misses the entire point.
Not really. Your entire point rests upon conflating the meaning of the two terms. Thus noting the distinction between the two is central to the lack of merit in the argument you are making
>What is a ratio if not a proportion?
A ratio is a proportion. No one has ever argued otherwise. However a rate is not a ratio.
Once again, this is central to your point, the confusion of rate and proportion, and now it would seem ratio. The misunderstanding of this has caused you to draw an entirely erroneous conclusion.
>The figure clearly shows that as immigration (which is increasingly comprised of undocumented immigrants) increased through the 1990s, the homicide rate dropped precipitously.
That's fine, however drawing the conclusion that therefore illegals do not commit homicide is assigning causation to single correlation. A big no no in any sort of scientific study.
>The question is really quite simple. If illegal immigrants are disproportionately prone to criminality, especially of the violent sort, how is it possible for this trend to materialize?
Fairly simply, if you have a large population with a homicide rate that is going down, accompanied by an influx of a population prone to homicide, the rate could go down simply because the new population is committing homicide at an alarming, rate proportional to their numbers but less so than the rate of decrease that was occurring in the larger whole.
Once again, this is why your and, apparently, Sampsons misunderstanding of the difference between rate and proportion is the key problem with the argument you are trying to make.
Once again, another example:
Year one:
A population of 100 has ten car thief's within it that steal one car per year each year.
The proportion is 10 car thieves per 100 within that population ( 10% ), the rate is also 10 thefts per 100 (cannot be expressed as a percent ).
Year two:
Times get good, employment goes up, drinking goes down, the thieves find other means of employment, 8 give it up. The two left still commit one theft a year.
At the same time, because of all this good news, a new group moves to town. The group consists of 5 people. All of them are thieves, thus the proportion within that group is 100%. This new group, continues to steal at a rate of one car theft per year for each of the 5 members of the group.
So, in year two, we have had a highly crime prone but small group, 100% of whom are thieves move into a town, and the theft rate is now 7 ( 2 from the original group + 5 new members =7 ) thefts per 105 of population (the 100 original members, plus the 5 new murderers ).
So the car theft rate drops - from 10 per 100 to 7 per 105 at the same time a highly crime prone population moved in to town.
Hopefully this clears it all up.
Rhuse - It's refreshing to actually have someone on this blog willing to deal in facts and logical argument. You make good points, but just because you are able to imagine a numerical scenario whereby purported disproportionately cime-prone immigrants increase in numbers even while the violent crime decreases, doesn't mean it is any more plausible than what I, following Sampson, am arguing.
In fact, in light of empirical evidence in existence (let me know if your interested in some sources) showing that the foreign-born tend to commit fewer crimes than U.S.-born persons, I would argue that your artificial scenario is not very plausible.
I think the main point is this. The rhetoric of Daniel (and so many others) leads to a clear hypothesis: as immigration increases, so does crime. Can we at least agree that the existence of a correlation in the opposite direction should lead anyone concerned with truth to temper rhetoric and reassess blanket claims of immigrant criminality?
I can't do justice to Sampson's argument, you'll have to dig it up for yourself. Essentially, he suggests that there is good reason to conclude the opposite of what reactionaries such as Daniel are asserting (i.e., immigration REDUCES crime).
He has already addressed criticisms similar to yours.
For example, he writes with respect to the trend of increasing immigration and decreasing homicide that it "juxtaposes two trends and nothing more--correlation doesn't equal causation. But it does demonstrate the trends are opposite of what's commonly assumed, which is surely not irrelevant to the many, and strongly causal, claims that immigration increases crime. Descriptive facts are at the heart of sound social science, a first step in any causal inquiry."
He goes on with his argument: "So let us proceed on the assumption of a substantial negative association across individuals, places, and time with respect to immigration and violence. What potential mechanisms might explain the connections and are they causal? Thinking about these questions requires attention be paid to confounding factors and competing explanations. Social scientists worry a lot about selection bias because individuals differ in preferences and can, within means, select their environments. It has been widely hypothesized that immigrans, and Mexicans in particular, selectively migrate to the United States on characteristics that predispose them to low crime, such as motiviation to work, ambition, and desire not to be deported...This scenario is undoubedly the case and central to the argument--social slection is a causal mechanism. Namely, to the extent that more people predisposed to lower crime immigrate to the United States (we now have 35 million people of foreign-born status), they will sharply increse the denominator of the crime rate while rarely appearing in the numerator. And in the neighborhoods of U.S. cities with high concentrations of immigrants, one would expect on selection grounds alone to find lower crime rates. Selection thus favors the argument that immigration may be causally linked to lower crime..."
Actually I would agree with a lot of what Sampson says here. However none of it addresses the issue at hand since what you seem to be citing is addressing immigration. I don't think that anyone, myself included, is arguing that immigration is linked with increased crime rate.
What I argue is that illegal immigration, a very different thing than the immigration Sampson is discussing; could be argued as causally linked to higher crime rates. Sampson touches on this in your citation of him:
"What potential mechanisms might explain the connections and are they causal? "
The answer to this is obvious - Illegal immigrants by definition have a demonstrable propensity for committing crime, they broke the law to get here, they broke it again if the obtained work, and broke it a third time if they gave fraudulent documentation to obtain that work.
The only possible argument in the other direction would be that possibly they broke the law just to gain entry and work, but in order to avoid deportation they thence forth follow the letter of the law so as not to attract the attention of the authorities. This would be a fairly weak argument as fear of deportation is obviously quite low given the numbers who work quite openly in almost any service environment one cares to name, the fact that numerous cities constantly declare themselves "sanctuary cities" and the fact that local law enforcement quite often has it as a policy to never ask immigration status of any arrestee and the fact that illegal aliens seem to constantly hold protests out in the open, with no arrests ever being made for deportation purposes. Their fear of deportation seems quite slight given their actions.
As for my example being implausible because foreign born citizens are less prone to crime than native born, hogwash. Anyone who asserts that being born in this country automatically imbues one with a greater propensity to crime than someone borne in another country is simply playing games with the statistics at best or coming at things from a racist perspective at worst. Crime reports might indeed show that immigrants have a lower rate of crimes committed than native born ( interestingly, if we go just on prison population, the exact opposite is true when considering illegal aliens ). However one has to consider that the immigrant sample in any such a study would have had some sort of background check or screening at least on a minimal level before being granted visas. The native born sample would not. Thus any such study is not starting with comparable groups.
Still, if illegal immigrants were disproportionately prone to crime, shouldn't we see increases in violent crime as their numbers increase in the population? Shouldn't the existence of the opposite pattern lead us to scrutinize the plausibility of Daniel's theory?
Sampson actually addresses this criticism: "Perhaps a bigger concern is that we need to distinguish illegal from legal immigration and focus on the many illegal aliens who allegedly are accounting for crime waves across the country...By one argument, becasue of deportation risk, illegal immigrants are afraid to report crimes against them to the police, resulting in artificially low official estiamtes in th Hispanic community. But no evidence exits that reporting biases seriously affect estimates of the homiced victimization rate--unlike other crimes there is a body. At the national level, then, the homicides committed by illegal aliens in the United States are reflected in the data just like for everyone else. The bottom line is that as immigrants poured into the country, homicides plummeted. One could claim crime would decrease faster absent immigration infloes, but that's a different argument and concedes my basic point.
There is also little disputing that in areas and times of high legal immigration we find accompanying surges of illegal entrants. It would be odd indeed if illegal aliens descended on areas with no other immigrants or where they had no pre-existing networks. And so it is that areas of concentrated immigration are magnets for illegal concentration. Because crime tends to be negatively associated with undifferentiated immigration measures, it follows that we can disconfirm the idea that increasing illegal immigration is associated with increasing crime.
Furthermore, our Chicago study did include both legal and illegal immigrants. I would estimate the illegal status at roughly a quarter--but in any case no group was excluded from the analysis. The other important point is that the violence estimates were based on confidential self-reports and not police statistics or other official sources of crime. Therefore, police arrest biases or undercounts can't explain the fact that first generation immigrants self-report lower violence than the second generation, which in turn reports less than the third."
OFIR Racists and Bigots O' my said...
I don't understand that website. They are pointing out a lot of different races commit crimes besides white. Why cannot a group of whites( I did not look long at the website) bring out information and the truth? Is any of that information false?
They have black, asian, gay and other groups at colleges. They do no have white groups. Why is that?
Racist groups such as Nation of Islam and La Raza are given leave to practice racism and nothing is said about them. Why cannot whites have bring up FACTS without being called racist? You do know that when a white person hurts another person of another race, the racist groups like La Raza and Nation of Islam scream racism, when other races commit crimes against whites, you don't hear shit. Why is that? I thought people of all races can have their civil rights violated, not just blacks, asians or whatever.
You are clearly a person with a low IQ who thinks only white people can be racist. I hope you did not breed or have plans of doing so.
Post a Comment