What should be done about illegal immigration?

The misleading data produced by academics and think tank researchers that show a lower incidence of crime by aliens is based upon a comparison of data that include all foreign born residents with data for the native born population. Because these data compare all foreign born residents to the native born population, they are largely irrelevant to describing the illegal alien crime incidence.2

A lower incidence of crime should be expected from a foreign born population that is largely legal immigrants and long-term nonimmigrants. This population includes persons who are screened for any previous criminal activities before they can get a green card, persons who are again screened for criminal activity before they can become U.S. citizens, and persons such as foreign students and professional workers who are at the least required to state under oath whether they have any criminal history before they can get a visa. In other words, this is a population carefully screened to assure that they are unlikely to engage in criminal activity. Something would be very wrong with our visa screening process if research did not reveal that the foreign-born were less likely to have committed crimes in the United States than the native-born population.

The same cannot, of course, be said for the illegal alien population. Their presence in the United States is based on their either illegally entering the country or entering under false pretenses. Those who sneak into the country undergo no form of screening for criminality or any other grounds for exclusion. Many in the illegal alien population end up incarcerated as a result of criminal activity at the time of their illegal entry, e.g., drug smuggling or alien smuggling. Other illegal aliens owe alien smugglers for assisting their illegal entry and end up being co-opted into criminal activity, such as drug distribution or prostitution, to pay off the debt.

The apparent linkage between illegal alien status and a higher incidence of crime was suggested in the data presented in a recent study of the costs of illegal immigration in Arizona.3 That study noted that Arizona in 2000 had the highest per capita rate of illegal aliens in the country and also ranked at the top of a number of crime indexes. It had the nation's highest per capita rate of property crimes, the highest rate of vehicle theft, and the 2nd highest rate in the country of larceny theft. For burglaries, it ranked 5th, for murders 9th, and for robberies and aggravated assaults it ranked 15th in the country.4

There is nothing about the population in Arizona that would appear to explain this pattern of crime incidence other than the illegal alien population and the proximity to the border with Mexico.

Lots of information and graphs focused on ILLEGALS at this site which I believe have been posted before but warrant posting again:
LOOK HERE

Foxfyre wrote:

Lots of information and graphs focused on ILLEGALS at this site which I believe have been posted before but warrant posting again:
LOOK HERE

That's the reason of that organisation, isn't it?

FAIR is an immigration reduction organisation, certainly unbiased and objective in the matter?
(Remember what you ask as kind of sources from others, Foxfyre?)

Personally, I really don't mind the kind of source (if it is not a right-wing-racist-fascist) if their claims are well to be followed or if they present primary sources.

I only notice that you used a biased source.
And now do the very same what you accuse others to do: namely to excuse that use of such with a "yes, but ....".

Nothing negative with it.

Certainly not.

Ehem, why do YOU think so about our "biased" sources?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Certainly not.

Ehem, why do YOU think so about our "biased" sources?

I don't unless those sources try to make a point by omitting critical facts or use information in such a way that the "facts" become dishonest or devious or incompetent or incomplete or distorted. I would rather be right than spend all my time trying to make wrong look right. Show me credible information that illegals in this country are not committing a disproportionate amount of crime against the property or persons of others, and that will be my mantra on that subject.

Methodology and Findings

Data collected in the SCAAP reporting system were stated in terms of incarceration days. This eliminates any distortion based on length of sentence. Nationwide there were nearly 600 million incarceration days reported, and the number of those days attributable to identified and suspected illegal aliens were about 24.5 million incarceration days. That suggests that one of every 22 prisoners is a deportable alien (4.54%).

Thus the likelihood that an illegal alien will be among those incarcerated (1 in 22) is significantly greater than the share of adult illegal aliens in the country (1 in 34). It is this greater likelihood of being incarcerated that clearly demonstrates that illegal aliens are disproportionately involved in criminal activity.

I don't have those sources here, Foxfyre.

When I studied law and social work, I've learnt in criminology that the reasons for a probably higher criminalisation of such a group.

When working the justice department (as probation officer and in prisons) and with the police, I've noticed the results.

This experience is, however, only related to Germany .... and to the reading of books and listening to profesors (re international).

As said already on the first pages of this thread, I think, any immigration should be regulated by the market.

If there are different laws, I consider them kind of stupid.
Which neither alters them nor makes a breaking of these laws legal.

There are more native born criminals then immigrant criminals? Wow, that's a surprise. I suppose the fact that there are proportionally more native born Americans then immigrants in the country might have something to do with that?

Question remains that your graph doesn't answer is what percentages are they? What percentage of illegal immigrants are incarcerated compared to what percentage of native born Americans are there?

McGentrix wrote:

There are more native born criminals then immigrant criminals? Wow, that's a surprise. I suppose the fact that there are proportionally more native born Americans then immigrants in the country might have something to do with that?

Don't pretend to be that dense, McG. Incarceration rates are obviously a measure on a per capita basis.

McGentrix wrote:

Question remains that your graph doesn't answer is what percentages are they? What percentage of illegal immigrants are incarcerated compared to what percentage of native born Americans are there?

I put in a couple of hours research to locate the page that graph came from. I avoided the one-sided nonsense from both sides (like that crap Foxy's trying to pass off as real ). What I found is that there is no source that accurately separates the illegals, immigrants, Hispanics, etc. It does demonstrate conclusively, however, that immigrants in general are many times less likely to be criminals than American born Citizens. Anyone with a brain can figure from the fact illegals make up such a tremendous percentage of all immigrants, that their tendency towards crime must therefore be lower than average as well. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

There are more native born criminals then immigrant criminals? Wow, that's a surprise. I suppose the fact that there are proportionally more native born Americans then immigrants in the country might have something to do with that?

Don't pretend to be that dense, McG. Incarceration rates are obviously a measure on a per capita basis.

McGentrix wrote:

Question remains that your graph doesn't answer is what percentages are they? What percentage of illegal immigrants are incarcerated compared to what percentage of native born Americans are there?

I put in a couple of hours research to locate the page that graph came from. I avoided the one-sided nonsense from both sides (like that crap Foxy's trying to pass off as real ). What I found is that there is no source that accurately separates the illegals, immigrants, Hispanics, etc. It does demonstrate conclusively, however, that immigrants in general are many times less likely to be criminals than American born Citizens. Anyone with a brain can figure from the fact illegals make up such a tremendous percentage of all immigrants, that their tendency towards crime must therefore be lower than average as well. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

I don't think that you can take immigrant crime rate and then decide that illegal crime rates must be the same. That doesn't seem like a logical step, does it to you?

That like suggesting that native born crime rates are at x percentage and therefore black native born crime rates must be around the same rate despite the numerous statistics showing black crime rate is unreasonably high (due to lots of circumstances I'd rather not discuss in this thread).

Most immigrants that come here legally put forth an extra effort to fit in and keep out of trouble as they like living here and realize that a criminal life would place that life in jeopardy. The same can not be said of illegal immigrants can it?