Confirmation of the Obvious: Illegals Commit More Crime

[Fat Cat]

Your posts form a tautology, i.e., a statement that is true by it's form. You say illegals commit more crime and then say all illegals have committed a crime by definition of being illegal. It's your safe space for the argument.

It actually makes sense that people who have more to lose if they get caught take greater pains not to commit a crime. And the data supports it.

I remember sitting in my second drivers re-education class after getting too many speeding tickets again, and listening to my fellow students whine about how the legal speeds were low, laws were stupid,etc. Most of them were taking the class to get back their license. The instructor said, I know most of you are still driving, and you will go to jail if you get pulled over, so you are obeying the law. So don't tell me you can't. Everybody looked at each other, like, who me?

What are you talking about? Illegals commit more crime than native citizens even if you set aside their illegal entry. Or did you miss the part of the SCAAP study that said the numbers excluded federal detainees while you were speeding through a school zone on your way to a Beto rally?

[Sangoma]

My point is not dumb: not every criminal is incarcerated. I can argue that illegal immigrants are less likely to get best legal representation and therefore their incarceration versus arrest rates are higher. Is this argument unreasonable? Of course, you need another study to answer this point, but hell, you found one that agrees with what you already believe, no need to look further. So every objection to your opinion is dumb.

You said:

Wikipedia cites 24 references related to immigration (both legal and illegal) and crime in the USA. One has to take every one of them apart in order to be able to voice an opinion on the subject.

That is dumb.

Your point now, which has changed, is that they may not receive adequate legal representation and thus be incarcerated at a higher rate. I don't think that's unreasonable, in fact I think it's likely. But, a few points about that: (i) incarceration can occur both before and after a trial so legal representation is not necessarily a factor; (ii) they are in the country illegally and therefor are already subject to incarceration, other crimes notwithstanding.

Am I qualified to voice medical opinion even if I haven't read every study? Are you trying to make me laugh or building a straw man?

Neither; I am illustrating to you the stupidity of your original comment. Which, judging from your reaction, you now acknowledge if only in a backhanded way.

I didn't change my point - I made two in my first post: one, the necessity of reading more than one article in order to form an opinion and two, that the article you referenced has a flaw in that it presents a secondary outcome, incarceration and extrapolates this data to make conclusions about crime actually committed by illegal aliens.

Point one is directly connected with your question about my professional competence. If you credit me with the notion that one has to read every study on the subject in order to make qualified comment - that is a straw man. Obviously, you don't have to read all of them, but you have to read more than one and enough to be able to understand the problem and be aware of opposing arguments; then you can make your own opinion. Even then it is not guaranteed to be the final answer, as we are all biased one way or another.

[Fat Cat]

I didn't change my point - I made two in my first post: one, the necessity of reading more than one article in order to form an opinion and two, that the article you referenced has a flaw in that it presents a secondary outcome, incarceration and extrapolates this data to make conclusions about crime actually committed by illegal aliens.

That's a pretty searing insight, so thank you. I, too, made more than one point: illegals both commit more crime and are incarcerated at a higher rate. So there! And what exactly are you arguing: that they don't or simply that my research methodology doesn't meet your exacting standard? Because only the first topic is interesting to me.

Point one is directly connected with your question about my professional competence. If you credit me with the notion that one has to read every study on the subject in order to make qualified comment - that is a straw man. Obviously, you don't have to read all of them, but you have to read more than one and enough to be able to understand the problem and be aware of opposing arguments; then you can make your own opinion. Even then it is not guaranteed to be the final answer, as we are all biased one way or another.

Don't hyperventilate brah, I'm sure you're a fine professional. Deep breaths. So tell me, what are the raft of studies that you have carefully evaluated to formulate your opposing argument?

[Sangoma]

I think you should re-read what I wrote in the first post:

The only way to answer any question in a meaningful way is to do a systematic literature review. Wikipedia cites 24 references related to immigration (both legal and illegal) and crime in the USA. One has to take every one of them apart in order to be able to voice an opinion on the subject. Taking the complexity of the topic into account the comment ""This study should put to rest, once and for all..." sounds amateurish.

One remark: the study quoted at the beginning of this thread talks about the incarceration rate and not crime rate. Though related they are not the same.

In plain English: one study is not sufficient to make a conclusion on a complex topic. Your study - by the Right Wing anti-immigration group - does not prove that illegal immigrants commit more crime. I don't have an opposing argument here, but - again - the study you referenced does not "...put to rest, once and for all..."