It could be that erudition has a limited shelf life.
JIG.
That is all.
Let me try a different approach. If I can show you crime data from just one of the border states, and the victim’s number enough to fill up a football stadium would you agree to a new wall with better border security?
We are talking about less than 1% of the amount the government spent, and I haven’t even touched on the jobs it would creat for the project.
https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm
Between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018, these 186,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 292,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 539 homicide charges; 32,443 assault charges; 5,695 burglary charges; 36,840 drug charges; 395 kidnapping charges; 15,859 theft charges; 23,487 obstructing police charges; 1,650 robbery charges; 3,428 sexual assault charges; 2,152 sexual offense charges; and 2,949 weapon charges.
DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 120,000 convictions including 238 homicide convictions; 13,559 assault convictions; 3,138 burglary convictions; 17,806 drug convictions; 173 kidnapping convictions; 7,064 theft convictions; 11,264 obstructing police convictions; 1,011 robbery convictions; 1,689 sexual assault convictions; 1,148 sexual offense convictions; and 1,280 weapon convictions.
^^ There you have, USA citizens being prey upon by illegal immigrants. The data is from the Texas Department of Safety. Just imagine if I added in New Mexico, Arizona, and California. How many victims do you think we’d have then? Keep in mind much of crime goes unsolved, so the true number of victims exceed the amount of convictions.
No. Next question.
Border security is fine, which might even include walls/fencing where appropriate. A coast-to-coast wall as proposed by Trump is a waste of time and money.
Yes, I posted data from The Department of Public Safety and local law enforcement agencies in Texas. It’s an unbiased web site.
Its crystal clear the amount of crime from illegal immigration is a high number. See the above post, and feel free to comment on it.
My argument is not to get caught int he weeds saying Illegals commit less crime than the average Joe American USA citizen. My point is it happens in large numbers from people who are here illegally. After reading the below, do you now agree with me?
https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm
Trump didn’t say A coast-to-coast wall, Beep. We have plenty of natural barriers, and he said as much.
Besides Coast to coast implies the West coast to the East coast. We are talking about the southern border states with Mexico only.
What do you think about the number of victims in just one of the border states. Does it shock you?
Have you read a single post that completely refutes this pile of cherry-picked and selective bullshit?
How many of these crimes are against American citizens vs. against other immigrants? Where are the stats on crimes committed by Americans in Texas?
Why do you have no concern for the crime victims at the hands of American criminals?
From post #12
Source
Where are the crocodile tears for the 746 Texans who were killed by a fellow citizen?
That’s still coast to coast. Pacific Ocean to the Gulf Of Mexico.
It’s in the GOP platform, placed there sometime during the campaign. Where did the idea come from other than Trump?
Let me try a different approach. If I can show you the crime data from just one of the border states, and the victims of left-handed criminals number enough to fill up a football stadium would you agree to forced euthanization of all left-handed citizens?
We are talking about less than 1% of the amount the government spent, and I haven’t even touched on the jobs it would creat for the project.
I think this is a type of particularly noxious emotional manipulation. Remove any demographic of people, and you will remove all crimes caused by them. You could cut crime in Arizona by a massive portion if you removed all white men from Arizona. But of course, that’s an absurd, cruel way to look at things. From that article:
Arguing about public policy with someone whose anti-immigration is always uniquely frustrating, because your opponent has a trump card they wouldn’t otherwise be able to use in any normal debate; which is to say, “What if a whole gigantic population of people I don’t like simply vanished, taking their problems with them?” Take, for example, the issue of mass school shootings in the U.S. This is a complicated problem, and I might posit a variety of contributing factors that need to be examined: easy availability of firearms, lack of access to mental health support, toxic masculinity, the stultifying atmosphere of U.S. schools, and the attendant sense of powerlessness this creates in young people, etc. Now, imagine my opponent simply says to me, “This has gone too far. The problem is teenage boys. No more teenage boys. Get rid of them.” I might reply that there are a lot of teenage boys in the U.S., and most of them are not shooting anybody! And maybe the ones who are disposed to shoot people could be prevented from doing so if we reached them early enough! “No,” my opponent says, “that’s an unacceptable risk. There will be no more teenage shooters if we get rid of the teenagers. They have no right to be here. Their parents were foolish to have had them in the first place.” And of course, this is strictly correct; so what can I say?
This is approximately how it feels to argue about immigration. I can agree with Murray that somebody murdering a journalist over a Muhammad cartoon is bad, or that someone plowing a truck into a crowd in the name of Allah is bad, or that the mass groping of women at a rock concert is bad. I can point out that these awful events have complex causes, and that attempting to prevent future incidents of the same kind will require a lot of thoughtful community work. Murray will simply say that all of the people who committed the above-cited crimes are immigrants or descendants of immigrants; therefore, the problem is immigration, and the solution is to restrict immigration. If there are no immigrants, there will be no murders or sexual assaults by immigrants. Problem solved.
If this line of thinking sounds reasonable to you, I am not sure I will get far persuading you otherwise. Extremist attacks, like school shootings, are an infrequent but terrifying phenomenon with a variety of social causes, and treating millions of Muslims (or immigrants generally) as somehow guilty of terrorism by proxy is not a proposition that any morally serious person could entertain.
No, not really.
If Trump is going to be your hero, then shouldn’t you be familiar with his proposal? Although I admit this is difficult since as a conman, he changes his story on regular basis.
Trump has said (among other things):
- that it would be coast-to-coast,
- a big beautiful wall,
- maybe up to 40 feet tall,
- made of concrete,
- but possible to see through (because drug lords through drugs over the wall and it might hit somebody in the head),
- made of steel slats; and, most importantly
- Mexico would pay for it
I would put forth that even if Mexico would pay for it (which they won’t making Trump incredibly stupid to think that they would), then the wall as proposed by Trump is still a wasteful idea that will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, and by extension do almost nothing to reduce the crime being committed against USA citizens. A good border security plan would be much wiser, which is something the bulk of Democrats support. So if you want to reduce illegal crime, then you should urge your USA citizen friends (out of curiosity, are you a USA citizen?) to vote Democrat, and stop the Republicans from wasting time and money, and reduce illegal immigrant crime.
Budget Player Cadet, well put. It’s even stupider if you focus on undocumented immigrants, because this is an artificial category, in important ways. Like “illegal drugs,” it can be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. If, tomorrow, we declared all those physically present in the US to be legal residents, the number of crimes committed by those here illegally would immediately drop to zero, forever!
As your cite mentioned, this sort of thought experiment is unlikely to change the minds of those like Ancient Erudite who are amazingly invested in the error that “undocumented immigrant” (or just “immigrant,” among the worst of these folks) is automatically equated with some list of bad traits and effects.
Unbiased? I don’t believe that.
I don’t think he’s all that misinformed; I think that’s been the position of the border security warriors all along. When people say “I’ve got no problem with legal immigration, but…” I tune them out. It’s like when racists say “I’m not a racist, but…”
Listen to them a little longer and you’ll hear them say we have too much immigration in this country anyway, and that they nobody should be allowed in the country unless they speak English.
Trump’s election was the result of White America’s anxieties about an increasingly non-white country.
Hmmm, as a left handed american, I feel as though I have been falling way behind on my quota.
And what can raise the crime rate is if crimes do not get reported. If reporting a crime means interacting with law enforcement and possibly being deported, then you don’t involve the police in preventing crime in your neighborhood.
That means that you either allow it, or you use extra-judicial vigilante tactics to respond to it.
Eh, I’ve heard it bolth ways.
From your source, these numbers are:
1: Over 7 years of data collection. Naturally, crime stats get bigger the more years you collect them.
2: At least half of these crimes are non-violent.
3: Do not represent arrests vs. convictions
4: Do not characterize the number of people who arrived via ports of entry vs. arriving through a wall.
Finally, if you look at Texas other crime numbers, you see that citizens committed over 10 times as many crimes as immigrants.
If we care about reducing the number of violent crime victims, it seems like we need to do a much better job of policing native-born Texans, which would necessarily result in more policing of immigrants too. None of that involves a wall.
- Do you understand how much, for example, 0.5% of government spending is?
- if the wall is 0.5%, then the Federal government can only get 200 things. That’s not much, nationwide.
Let’s start off by adding up the numbers: “539 homicide charges; 32,443 assault charges; 5,695 burglary charges; 36,840 drug charges; 395 kidnapping charges; 15,859 theft charges; 23,487 obstructing police charges; 1,650 robbery charges; 3,428 sexual assault charges; 2,152 sexual offense charges; and 2,949 weapon charges” adds up to 125,437; that’s fewer than half of the “more than 292,000” offenses. What were the other 166,000 or so that weren’t even worth mentioning?
Next: what percentage of these people snuck across the southern border via a route that would be blocked by the wall? If a large percentage entered legally and simply overstayed, then the wall may not make much difference, and other measures might be more useful (such as more efforts to locate overstayers).
Three: what is the actual nature of these charges? For example, there’s an awfully high number of “obstructing police” charges; is that actual interference, or merely failing to tell the cops they were illegal? How many of the drug charges were trafficking, versus mere possession of personal-use quantities? How many were charged (much less convicted) of felonies?
To my eye, it looks like we are actually talking something more like 20 to 30K felonies over an eight-year span, or maybe not even that many. That’s more like 3000 felonies per year. How many actual people does that represent? 292K charges / 186K aliens = 1.57 charges per person; does that ratio hold when we limit to felonies, or are we really talking about a couple of hundred people per year charged with a dozen felonies apiece?
If we are talking about making a downpayment of $5 billion (against a total cost perhaps ten times that) to block a couple of hundred felons, is that the most effective use of law enforcement dollars?
The wall* is not going to be built, especially by Emergency Declaration. It’s just not going to happen.
The reason is simple: Texas. We don’t want it.
It wasn’t even close in 2018, and this attitude has hardened since then. Really hardened, though I have yet to find any TX polls since the shutdown began.
The GOP is pushing to be the force behind the largest eminent domain land grab in the history of this State, putting Ted Cruz and John Cornyn in the cross hairs for a fight they cannot win politically.
You think Ted Cruz wants to defend kicking old white men and Hispanic Abuela’s out of their centuries-owned family ranches? You think the optics of this will play well for the GOP in a state which is already 43% Hispanic? (“We gotta keep the Hispanics out, Jorge! Uh… well, not you.”) You think it’s desirable on the part of the RNC to placate the demands of racist Michiganders and South Carolinians at the expense of Texas?
This is why the GOP hasn’t supported the wall to any extent. To do so puts Texas in play, serious play. Maybe for 1 election cycle, maybe 2… maybe longer (as long as the court cases take, that’s for sure, and that will be at least a decade)… but it will be in play if this wall ever gets approved (especially by the SCOTUS - that will go over well here, lol, as we all know that Texas is a state which reacts favorably to Federal overreaching).
And the GOP can’t win shit without Texas. Period. There is no combination of small-assed rural States which will make up for our 38 (and growing! 
) electoral votes in the College. There’s no winning with the 2nd largest state going purple. (And with the number of liberal Californians pouring in here, that may be sooner than many think.)
And the same problem exists in AZ (11 EV’s), though I am not as familiar with the politics there.
Regardless, Texas will ensure this wall will not get built.
*Offically lost its capitalization status on Friday.