The abstract for that cite, that again, YOU posted, says this:
Are you just messing with us now, or what?
Because it highlights my point that there hasn’t been much research on this topic.
If that were the case, I would expect the article to say it. I can’t find where they say there hasn’t been much research on this topic. I DO see where they say there “aren’t readily available nationwide crime statistics broken down by immigration status”
But statistics are not the same as research, are they?
It says:
That is, I believe, the current extent of the research on the subject: very limited (“one such study” + “several others” = not a lot of studies) and somewhat conflicted.
You can “believe” whatever you want.
I base my thoughts on actual things, like the research YOU cited, which says:
You still haven’t grasped my point, have you? I wasn’t making the argument that illegal immigrants are more violent / criminal than natural-born citizens (I think the limited information available on the subject is conflicting). I was making the point that it was an area that has scant research.
If you are trying to make the point that it is an area that has scant research, why do you keep citing research that shows conclusions in that area?
Every cite you make to research in that area weakens your argument that “it is an area that has scant research”
I’m pretty sure every cite I’ve made has acknowledged or alluded to that fact.
I especially like this cite which states:
and:
But then goes on to say:
And they conclude that:
Remember, you cited this study for some reason. Why was that again?
Hey Ditka, while the research is conflicted about whether or not illegal immigrants commit far less crime than native citizens, you know who commits lots of crimes? Black people!
So to go back to that skittles metaphor, it’s like illegal immigrants are a huge bowl of skittles with a tiny number of poison skittles, and black people are a huge bowl of skittles with a tiny, but substantially larger number of poison skittles.
Leaving aside logistical difficulties, does it follow that we should deport all the black people?
Inquiring minds wish to know. 
We don’t have any mechanism for deporting American citizens, at least so far as I know. So no, it does not follow.
See post #206.
I just said leaving aside the logistical difficulties, and given that your main counterargument is logistical difficulties, if we could solve those, should we deport all the black people?
So that was an argument from ignorance, that figures…
No and it’s not “logistical difficulties” that cause me to object to the deportation of citizens. It’s not that we don’t have enough buses or planes or ICE agents. It’s the legal ramifications.
Citizens were either born here or went through the legal process to make this their homeland. Either way, at that point, there’s nowhere to deport them to. They aren’t visitors or uninvited trespassers from some other country. They’re citizens. There’s no legal option to deport them. If they violate the law, we can incarcerate them or punish them in various other ways, but “deportation” is a response reserved for non-citizens.
There’s a lot to discuss about immigration policy. What should our policy be? How do we create a policy that controls the border while at the same time recognizing that potions of our economy seem dependent on cheap migrant labor, particularly the agricultural sector, but also construction and restaurant work? We can even discuss crime as it relates to illegal immigration, though it seems that there is no correlation. It’s a difficult topic and requires far more study and expertise than anyone on this board is really capable of bringing to the table.
But one thing is clear. Poor Molly Tibbet’s tragic death has nothing to do with any rational debate. The only thing it shows is that some men will act violently towards perceived rejection from women, something that was never in doubt.
Again the exploitation of this woman’s death to stir up race hatred is disgusting and shameful, especially since the assholes doing it are acting against the express desires of Molly Tibbet’s family. But it will be effective, because people suck.
To put it another way, you’re saying it’s important that only American citizens get to rape and murder American citizens?
If you deported American men you would get the same result. In fact you’d prevent even more crime than by deporting immigrants.
Well, not exactly. First off, my favored policy had to do with “illegal immigrants” specifically, not “immigrants” generally. Secondly, I don’t see how deporting American men would “lead to fewer rapes and homicides of American citizens by illegal immigrants”. Thirdly, in your first sentence you say “the same result” and then immediately contradict yourself by changing to “even more crime” in the second sentence. But none of that is terribly relevant for this simple reason:
American men have not broken the law to enter the country illegally. Illegal immigrants have. That makes them deserving of deportation while American men are not. Do you understand this? Do you agree with it?
Besides, it would require a massive change in our legal framework, and probably the legal framework of wherever you imagine we’d deport American men to. No such obstacle exists to deporting illegal immigrants. I vote we start with the illegals.
No, I’m saying it’s important to take reasonable steps, in accordance with our laws and values, to reduce the number of American citizens that get raped / murdered.
ETA: BTW, I never saw the “bonus cite” you were going to offer in post #191. Was that an inadvertent omission or something else?