Fair enough. But you seem to be less concerned with crimes like Mollie Tibbetts’ murder as part of the overall crime rate, and more concerned with it as specifically a violent crime committed by an undocumented immigrant. I’m trying to understand why that is, and I was verbalizing my guess. In my view, crime is crime. Can you elaborate on why it is significant to you that this particular crime was committed by an undocumented immigrant?
It seems like one that should be easier to prevent than most. Just enforce our existing immigration laws and Mollie Tibbetts would still be alive (well, at least very likely still be alive).
We enforce all of our existing laws (immigration or otherwise), and crime still occurs. Why do you think enforcing existing immigration laws is so easy, and what makes you so convinced that they are not being enforced? Is it the simple fact that anyone is able to illegally enter the US at all?
Out of all the crimes that are committed in the US, there is something about crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in particular that you and many others on the right find especially upsetting. I still contend that it has a lot to do with the conviction that illegal entry into the US is a grave violation of US citizenship, which you perceive to be a sacred asset akin to human life itself. Am I that far off?
Y’know, if we deported all the immigrants, we’d have zero crime committed by immigrants… Would you support that?
I’ve already responded to this line of questioning. You are conflating legal and illegal immigrants. I am not.
On a scale of 1-10, how strenuously would you say we have been enforcing our immigration laws over the past, let’s say, decade or two?
Crimes committed by illegal aliens seem, at least in large part, preventable if we’d do a better job of enforcing existing immigration laws. I wouldn’t describe the illegal aliens’ violation of our immigration laws (at least in cases where it’s not accompanied
by drug smuggling and the like) as “grave”, and I wouldn’t call US citizenship “sacred” either. So, in sum, for me at least, you seem off the mark by quite a bit, but I doubt this will disabuse you of this belief about the attitude you imagine many of your opponents hold.
A murder performed by a legal immigrant is just as tragic as a murder performed by an illegal immigrant. Your argument seems to be that if we had no illegal immigration, we’d have no crime by illegal immigrants. Fair. But if we had no legal immigrants, we’d have no crime by them either. Isn’t that just as good of an argument?
Remember, implied in your argument is all manner of measures with their own tradeoffs. We cannot simply snap our fingers and be rid of all illegal immigrants. You’re trying to shift that balance by simply pointing out that if we didn’t have illegal immigration, we’d lack the crimes they commit. But this applies to LITERALLY EVERYONE. In fact, it applies to most demographics more than illegal immigrants, because illegal immigrants most likely commit significantly less non-immigration-related crime than natives! It’s a nonsensical argument.
And that is logically conclusive. How can you argue with such a circular premise? If we have no Neptunian aliens arriving on our shores, we wouldn’t have Neptunian illegal aliens committing crime here? Yeah?
Don’t engage the bullshit BPC. Ain’t worth it.
Hey, if there were no people, we’d have no crime!
HAH!
We could eliminate shoplifting by closing all the stores.
Maybe you should set some kind of baseline. For instance:
USA Today article
So where does the strenuousness of homicide enforcement fall on a scale of 1-10?
iMHO, significantly more than the effort we have been putting into immigration enforcement. Call it a 7.
It’s also an accurate argument, but it ignores the fact that we already have, at our disposal, a legal mechanism for removing the illegal aliens for a crime they have committed. We don’t have a similar legal option for citizens or non-criminal immigrants.
Yes, that’s an approach that, while it would be successful at eliminating shoplifting, I’d label a “radical” step. Have you noticed I’ve been drawing a distinction between “radical” and “reasonable” actions in this thread?
So then would you be satisfied with stopping or removing 60% of illegal immigration attempts?
Sure. We could, in a pinch, reinvent banishment. That’s hardly impossible. Your argument just doesn’t actually prove anything. Remove any population, and you won’t have their crimes. This isn’t an argument for removing illegal immigrants in any meaningful way.
There are something like 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, right? If we removed 6 or 7 million of them, I’d call that good progress.
Well it doesn’t quite work that way. You would have to look at the total number of attempts and see if we’re hitting 60%, unless you think everyone who wants to can cross in with impunity right now. But I can’t imagine you think there is zero enforcement at the moment.
Sure it is, because (and this is the thing that makes illegal immigrants unique among all the population groups we’ve discussed in this thread) they’re not supposed to be here anyways.
The violent crime rate among illegal immigrants is not statistically different from legal immigrants or native born citizens, actually native born citizens have the highest conviction rate . The propensity to have psychopaths among each group is very similar.
I personally believe we should open the borders and allow people that wish to come here to work to get a simple work visa, and then hold employers accountable to collecting and remitting taxes on all employees, That helps our economy to grow and thrive. Let the market determine who they want to hire.