From this article.:
So, assuming these numbers hold up, at a rate of 429 arrests per 100, without those illegals here we would have had 1,124,409 fewer arrests in the U.S.
But wait, (apoligist excuses rationalizations go here).
Think I’ll make some popcorn.
Traffic tickets? Oh noes! I’ll bet there were a lot more traffic tickets than weapons charges, in which case, so fucking what?
I want more information. Of those 100, how many of them have arrest records and criminal records? What is the number of traffic arrests versus weapons arrests versus drug arrests versus violent crime arrests?
Is this something to take into consideration? Something to be concerned about? Absolutely. Is this one quote enough to forcibly remove all illegal immigrants regardless of their other characteristics? No.
Nice start. But I’m sure things will pick up.
But I’ll ask you, what number of these non-traffic violations would you deem acceptable?
Yeah. So what. Some cop was chasing down Johnny FenceJumper for a broken taillight while your wife was getting raped.
So what’s the thesis here? Some criminals commit more than one crime?
Just asking… I want to be sure I know which facts to ignore and which to rationalize.
To be fair, these were (according to the article) specifically arrests. It’s not like saying ‘they received a traffic ticket.’ They were arrested for them, which means they were taken into custody. Either the traffic infractions were egregious (like reckless driving or DWI,) or they were not paying their existing tickets and an officer had to be dispatched to take them into custody. Any way you slice it, it means a not insignificant expense to the municipalities in terms of police time, jail space, paperwork, etc. These guys cost more than they cross the border to earn - it would make more sense to pay them to stay in their country of origin.
magellan01, if you have a point to make about illegals, then could you please just make it? I gather that you don’t like them and think they should all be sent back to wherever they come from.
The full report is available here. From the report (pp. 29-30):
maybe, although IME (30 years working w/offenders) if you don’t have a valid driver’s license and are caught driving, you will indeed be arrested.
In any case, I’m always very leary of data which is presented in the way of the OP’s quote (“offenses ranging from traffic to drugs/weapons”), noting, too, that in some jurisdictions one can get arreseted for parking violations as well. Also the 'sampling" was of those arrested. So, who’s surprised that some one who’d been arrested, was well, arrested? this gives no productive data wrt to folks who were illegals but hadn’t been arrested.
to that end (and speaking specifically on the issue presented by the OP - the suggestion that crime would drastically be reduced by the rounding up and deportation of illegals), I’ve worked w/offenders in the community for 30 years, and the vast, vast majority of my clients are home grown as it were. so, in my experience, the mass rounding up of illegals would have very little (if any statistically relevant) effect on the crime rate.
feel free to be outraged on any other aspect of the issue, though. I would suggest that this, like many other issues, does not have a simple “either or” kind of solution.
Wow, what a bullshit argument. Are you suggesting that in the absence of illegal immigrants that police departments would shut down their traffic enforcement divisions?
I suspect the underlying argument is that “any police department in the face of finite resources should prioritize their activities, so that more time is spent on serious crime vs. relatively minor infractions”.
But maybe they meant something else.
Anyone have any idea what the figure would be for regular US citizens, or is a proven fact that Johnny BlueStripe only commits a year and immediately turns himself in to the police?
I’m no statistician but is 100 an accurate sampling size?
Precisely. And why can’t they get a valid driver’s license? Because of draconian and xenophobic immigration laws. I can’t personally blame a man for illegally immigrating when the economic disparity between Mexico and the US is so vast. Hell, the potential benefits would probably be worth any risk, up to and including the possibility of getting your ass shot off while crossing. You gotta feed your family, man.
Honestly, I also think that the US is creating this “crime wave” by way of these “tough on illegal immigration” laws, in the same way that the War on Drugs has created a bigger crime problem than it ever solved.
Let them in. We have the room, and the finances to help them out, and they, in turn, can do nothing but help us…provided we ever allow them out of the barrio. We are a nation made up of immigrants.
Sorry, tdn, I fugured most of those interested in this thread would have been people I’ve debated with on this topic before.
I am adamantly anti-illegal immigration. We need to do whatever we need to do to secure our borders now. We should be able to shut it down completely and know everyone who is coming in, and give them a criminal background check and health check. When we want/need more immigrants, particulalry seasonal labor, we should be able to easily and quickly let in the number we deem appropriate. To do this we need to refrorm our antiquated immigration laws. Given slots available, there is no reason whty coming into the country shold take as long as it often does. So,
You get the idea. If this interests you, I can recommend Pat Buchanan’s State of Emergency. He puts forth the true Conservative position.
zut, thanks for supplying the link to the study.
Your position is heartless, idiotic, and xenophobic. Honestly, it reminds me of Bill Cutting’s position in Gangs of New York. “America for Americans!”
It’s repulsive.
Your position is heartless, idiotic, and xenophobic. Honestly, it reminds me of Bill Cutting’s position is Gangs of New York. “America for Americans!”
It’s repulsive.
Out of interest, magellan (I don’t want to get into the whole immigration debate, since i’ll be the first to admit I know little one way or the other) what does the last item on your list do to help curb illegal immigration? It seems like just a cosmetic change.
Actually, the 14th Amendment does a bit more than that, but this isn’t the first time you’ve been talking out of your ass about things you don’t understand. Here’s the text:
*Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. *
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
And, BTW, your OP is pure trolling. The popcorn bit is a bit obvious, even for you.
Fuckwit.