Border wall

Immigrants, Not the Wall, Have Made El Paso Safe, Mr. President

The city was among the safest in the country long before the wall was built.

|

President Donald Trump has been going around the country claiming that El Paso, a border city in Texas, had a crime problem…until it got a

Border Wall
Jonathan McIntosh via Foter.com

wall. "It used to have extremely high rates of violent crime—one of the highest in the country, and considered one of our Nation's most dangerous cities," he asserted in his State of Union address. "Now, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of our safest cities."

And then, earlier this week, he went to El Paso itself and proclaimed that the city was proof that walls work: "I've been hearing a lot of things: 'Oh the wall didn't make that much of a difference.' You know where it made a big difference? Right here in El Paso."

Trump is right that El Paso is one the safest cities in the country. He's just plain wrong that the wall has anything to do with it.

As former Reasoner Radley Balko pointed out back in 2009, if one extrapolated from conventional wisdom on both the left and right, El Paso would be "one of the scariest cities in the world."

After all, its poverty rate then was over 27 percent (now it's 20 percent), median household income was $35,600 (now it's $44,431), well below the national average of $48,000 (now it's $59,000). It was three-quarters Hispanic, and one-quarter foreign-born (the same as now). And given that it was nearly impossible for low-skilled immigrants to work in the United States legitimately, a significant percentage of the foreign-born were likely unauthorized. Worse, El Paso had lax gun laws. But the real kicker was that it was right next to Ciudad Juarez—which is one of Mexico's scariest cities, thanks to the presence of drug cartels.

But, in fact, Balko noted, El Paso had just 18 murders in 2008. By contrast, Baltimore, with roughly the same population, had 234!

Did the wall have anything to do with that?

The resounding answer is "no." The construction on the El Paso wall started in 2008, two years after President George W. Bush passed the Secure Fence Act (and locals lost a lawsuit against building the hideous structure), and was completed in 2009. But FBI figures show that El Paso's violent crime rate fell 17 percent from 2006 to 2011.

Although, by national standards, El Paso's violent crime rate was never high, it spiked in 1992 and then started a major downward trend in 1997 with the steepest declines settling in around 2002. In fact, it reached its lowest point ever in 2006, two years before construction on the wall even began—and crept up slightly in 2010, the year after the wall went up. But, overall, violent crime has by and large stayed at under 3,000 incidents per year for the past 11 years. Indeed, El Paso experienced 356.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2017—compared to the national average of 382.9.

Correlation is not causation so there is no reason to believe that the wall was actually responsible for responsible for this small uptick, especially since the city's crime rate fell again to its lowest 2006-level again around 2013.

The intriguing question is why does a city with El Paso's socio-demography have such a low crime rate?

One explanation is that the community policing approach it has deployed for the past two decades has been extremely effective. But part of the reason might also be its large foreign-born population.

Again, correlation is not causation, but here's Balko:

Many criminologists say El Paso isn't safe despite its high proportion of immigrants, it's safe because of them.

"If you want to find a safe city, first determine the size of the immigrant population," says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Massachusetts. "If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you're likely in one of the country's safer cities. San Diego, Laredo, El Paso—these cities are teeming with immigrants, and they're some of the safest places in the country."…

Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that, in fact, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be behind bars than are the native-born. This is true for the nation as a whole, as well as for cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border such as San Diego and El Paso.

These findings track Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh's recent research on immigrants and crime in the Don't Tread on Me state:

In 2015, Texas police made 815,689 arrests of native-born Americans, 37,776 arrests of illegal immigrants, and 20,323 arrests of legal immigrants. For every 100,000 people in each subgroup, there were 3,578 arrests of natives, 2,149 arrests of illegal immigrants, and 698 arrests of legal immigrants. The arrest rate for illegal immigrants was 40 percent below that of native-born Americans. The arrest rate for all immigrants and legal immigrants was 65 percent and 81 percent below that of native-born Americans, respectively. The homicide arrest rate for native-born Americans was about 5.4 per 100,000 natives, about 46 percent higher than the illegal immigrant homicide arrest rate of 3.7 per 100,000. Related to this, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services recently released data that showed the arrest rate for DACA recipients about 46 percent below that of the resident non-DACA population. (Emphasis added.)

Why are immigrant-heavy cities safer? Listen to Balko:

"Overall, immigrants have a stake in this country, and they recognize it," Northeastern University's Levin says. "They're really an exceptional sort of American. They come here having left their family and friends back home. They come at some cost to themselves in terms of security and social relationships. They are extremely success-oriented, and adjust very well to the competitive circumstances in the United States." Economists Kristin Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl argue that the very process of migration tends to select for people with a low potential for criminality.

Immigrants are not criminals and foreigners are not enemies. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

233 responses to “Immigrants, Not the Wall, Have Made El Paso Safe, Mr. President

  1. Still waiting for the OBC explanation why Illegal Aliens shouldn’t be eligible for MediCaid, Section 8, LiHEAP, Food Stamps, etc.

    1. Jesus Christ, avoid this thread, chemleft did his little shit all over the thread hissyfit again.

      1. So I was right and he is still shitting up the thread.

        However, he also comically admitted that he is an idiot drug warrior and that he thinks illegal aliens are no better than junkies.

        1. Ahahaha this thread has been a gold mine I take back everything I said, chemleft shitting up the thread was just the precursor, he painted himself into a corner and it was glorious.

          1. That’s some promising hype.

            Incidentally, Ted Cruz wants to use the $14 billion in assets seized from el chapo to fund border wall.
            Sounds like a plan

            1. It does doesn’t it?

    2. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

      So I started….>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

  2. everyone in san diego happens to disagree with you. the wall there is widely popular and effective no matter how much you want to ignore it

    1. Hardly anyone north if Imperial Beach even knows there’s a wall there, let alone has an opinion on it.

      1. Not really true. I’m from North County and we knew… but you’re right that we didn’t have an opinion on it. It worked though so it had been really interesting hearing people claim otherwise. It never occurred to me though that people expected the wall to totally work against illegal immigration and drug smuggling – mine oc is, I felt in greater SD right that but it elyafi didn’t really finish our understanding of the value.

        1. Good lord autocorrect fucked that up. I don’t even know what the hell that could have been at the end. The gist is that no, we didn’t think it was a total solution, but it didn’t really diminish the value that having a wall vs not having one did have.

    2. That was my first thought reading the tag line, “Now do San Diego/Tijuana.”

  3. Visit Canyon County Idaho, especially Caldwell, or Pasco, Washington, both with extremely large illegal immigrant populations. Both are easily some of the most criminal and violent areas of their respective states. I’ve only visited El Paso once, for one night. In a matter of five blocks I counted three Border Patrol vehicles. This was 1997. Is it possible that El Paso has a high presence of BP and thus illegals, especially criminal illegals, avoid this city? I would also state at that time San Antonio had a real gang problem and most of it was illegal aliens. The Army actually told us to avoid the barrio at the time and we had a drive by on post even.

    1. Are you saying we need walls *inside* the country too?

      1. No, and you know that was a non-sequitor. Nothing in what I pointed out called for interior walls. I was pointing out that illegals do increase crime in areas where they make up a substantial part of the community. Pointing to two rather well patrolled cities and saying see, illegals don’t cause crime is as disingenuous as your question was.

      2. No, and you know that was a non-sequitor. Nothing in what I pointed out called for interior walls. I was pointing out that illegals do increase crime in areas where they make up a substantial part of the community. Pointing to two rather well patrolled cities and saying see, illegals don’t cause crime is as disingenuous as your question was.

        1. Stats say otherwise for Pasco…..

          https://www.areavibes.com/pasco-wa/crime/

          Lots of other sources confirm those findings.

          1. Same for Caldwell. Stats are slightly above average for Idaho, but then again, it’s full of Mormons and still quite lower than the national average.

            https://www.areavibes.com/caldwell-id/crime/

            1. So you actually just proved my point about Caldwell being higher then the rest of the state. Thank you.

            2. Also only parts if Idaho are heavily Mormon. Idaho native, my family first homesteaded in Idaho in the 1850s.

            3. If you want to have a FAIR discussion of crime stats, you need to NOT look at the “national average” because that itself is a bullshit number.

              The national average includes hell holes like Chicago, Detroit, etc. In other words the national average includes the insanely high levels of black crime, AND native born Hispanic crime as well.

              The real proper way to look at this shit is to compare it to NON DYSFUNCTIONAL communities, namely whites and Asians. When you do this you will see that illegal immigrants have crime rates FAR higher.

              In short, unless crime filled ghettos are where you set the bar for “acceptable” levels of crime… The national average is a useless figure to use.

              1. I wonder what a Right / Left leaning to Crime map would look like. Rumor has it – I read somewhere – Felony Criminals run in the 80%+ of them being Registered Democrats and I know Chicago and Detroit are hugely Left-Leaning.

                1. Oh yeah. I could easily see it being 80%+ Democrat for most crimes. It’s the mentality of the people. Conservative minded people just aren’t the types to go running around stealing shit etc. One can largely just look at the demographics of those in prison, and how those populations vote, and reverse engineer it.

                  That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if it got a lot closer to even on certain types of white collar crime. Many a businessman may end up fudging some numbers here, or lying a bit there, which may be illegal depending on context.

          2. I said some of the highest, not the highest. Ellensberg, Yakima and a few others also are as violent or more violent. And guess what they have in common with Pasco and the rest of the Tri-Cities?

            1. In fact Pasco’s crime rate is triple Pullman or Puyallup and both of which are about half the population of Pasco. It is comparable to major metropolitan areas such as Spokane, Yakima and Seattle (though they all surpass Pasco).

              1. Actually looking at the data, Washington state period is pretty shitty anymore. Yakima has always been a shithole. Ellensberg has fewer property crimes but more murders. Clarkston has a ton of property crime. I will admit my evaluation of Pasco was not as solid as I thought it was.

      3. Are you saying we need walls *inside* the country too?

        Yes. Otherwise, the roof collapses.

      4. We HAVE them. Around jails, police stations, military forts and establishments, junkyards, schools (remember the days when we kids used to be able to walk onto ANY school grounds after school and play pickup football and baseball, use the basketball hoops, etc? No more…… high chainlink fences with video camera surveillance) most businesses that have any property, truck and train yards, Amtrack stations, including the track itself, Pelosi’s mansion, DieFie’s too, the White House(used to be open, cars in the street in front, no more), airports, inside the terminal and surrounding the airfields) the dunp/landfill/transfer station, most freeways including the interchanges, most of my neighbours, and theirs too, post office mail processing facilities and official vehicle parking areas, federal facilities of all kinds, (used to be you would just walk on in to the Federal courthouse, right into the courtrooms and all, but now there are chainlink fences outside, and TSA styly but nastier “security checks” to even take the elevator up to the passport office. I had to give them the razor blade from my box knife, despite the fact I wasn’t trying to board an airplane, the nasty wench still would not let me enter, her supe wondered what the kerfuffle was and when I explained it he told her to let me go.. she was HOT, as in insulted, no she was NOT hot as in cute)

        Oh yes we have walls. Everywhere BUT the border. Canada’s border we DO have them, though. Tried to enter Canada lately?

        1. Ok then. Feel free to donate to the gofundme then. Or I assume you’ll be writing Mexico to get the funds?

          The wall- a simple idea for stupid minds.

          1. Retard.

            Frankly the wall is one of the ONLY government programs I would willingly duff up extra money for.

            You morons think people expect the wall to MAGICALLY stop 100% of crossings… Nobody expects that. But I think it is very easy for the wall to pay for itself in cost savings, since illegals are all net negative tax payers native born people have to subsidize. Keep in mind all native households that make less than $50-60K are also net negative, and the average illegal income is WAY less than this… So don’t even TRY to argue otherwise.

            If it shaves the numbers 10% it will pay for itself. If it cuts them 50% it will be AWESOME. If it’s higher than that then it’s a total homerun.

    2. Considering a certain amount of patrolling leads to a reduction in crime by citizens, I’d bet it’s more due to the BP patrols than anything else.

      1. That is probably the case. The illegals avoid El Paso and the wall probably does cause them to avoid it even more, or allow fewer patrols. This could mean that the BP can focus human resources on other areas.

  4. The more Reason posts these, the less I agree with their position on iLLEGAL immigration.

    1. Illegal.

      I don’t understand the hoopla about it. He wants $5.7 billion. Give him a bone, say, $4 billion. Let it happen and see where it goes. If it works – even by discouraging – great. If not, not only did it cost peanuts, but you get to scream ‘I told you so’. But to die on this hill? For what? Because it’s ‘immoral’? Please. I see nothing wrong in a country wanting to secure the flow of illegal immigration as it sees fit.

      Up here, we now have a similar issue – probably thanks to Trump’s election – as perfectly healthy and safe people are claiming ‘asylum’. It’s not sitting well with Canadians. Imagine if we had the same problems America faces with illegal immigration. We’d probably be banned from Twitter for our stance. This is the land of PEACE, ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNMENT after all.

      1. I see nothing wrong in a country wanting to secure the flow of illegal immigration as it sees fit.

        Why should there be a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration?

        It is analogous to the distinction between “legal” and “illegal” drugs. Why? Just legalize them all.

        1. “It is analogous to the distinction between “legal” and “illegal” drugs.”

          Only if you’re stupid and bad at analogies.

          1. Yeah, it doesn’t really follow, I take drugs and that is a me thing with no real cost or effect beyond my body and mind.

            1. But what if you turn into a drug addict then go on welfare and become a net burden on all of us? Why wouldn’t that be an argument in favor of restricting your liberty to take drugs?

              1. So, you are comparing illegal immigrants to drug addicts to make your point.

                That should tell you how stupid it is.

                If you don’t want to pay for drug addicts, stop choosing to do so fuckwit.

              2. So illegal immigrants are a burden on all of us?

                1. If the welfare consumption of some illegal immigration is enough to justify the war on illegal labor, then why isn’t the welfare consumption of some drug addicts enough to justify the war on drugs?

                  1. Because you could choose not to pay for the addicts.

                    What are you not getting?

                  2. “If the welfare consumption of some illegal immigration is enough to justify the war on illegal labor,”

                    No one said that anywhere, Mr King-of-the-Strawmen.

              3. Why wouldn’t that be an argument in favor of restricting your liberty to take drugs?

                Because it is your choice to do that. Are you actually asking me why your choice is a reason to restrict my liberty? When you could instead just choose not to pay for me?

                YOU chose to pay. That’s on YOU.

                1. YOU chose to pay. That’s on YOU.

                  I don’t choose to pay for welfare. I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for the welfare of the lowlife loser druggies who become hooked on pain pills and heroin and all the rest of that crap. Their addiction causes harm in my life whether they realize it or not. Why shouldn’t I get a say on whether those drugs are legal? If they weren’t legal, those druggies wouldn’t get the drugs and then I wouldn’t have to pay for their loser asses to go on welfare.

                  1. Their addiction causes harm in my life

                    By that logic you’re admitting that you think illegal aliens should be banned.

                    1. Is that so.

                    2. “chemjeff radical individualist|2.13.19 @ 4:03PM|#

                      Is that so”

                      Ha! The pain of realizing it is so and you did it to yourself is palpable in your post!

                      Lololol habitual dick-stepper Jeff, stepping on his dick again.

                    3. This is delicious. Thank you for joining our side in dismissing OBC arguments, and admitting illegal aliens are welfare recipients and therefore a drain on society

                    4. Actually, I was playing a devil’s advocate argument. I’m demonstrating how the drug warrior arguments and the border restrictionist arguments are largely one and the same.

                      Thank you for joining our side in dismissing OBC drug legalization arguments, and admitting illegal aliens drug addicts are welfare recipients and therefore a drain on society

                      Therefore, ban the drugs/illegal humans! Amirite?

                      If not, then please explain how one can be for drug legalization but in favor of banning illegal labor.

                      Summary: You can’t, not in any consistent way.

                      If the illegal humans consuming welfare is enough of a justification to have closed borders, then the drug addicts consuming welfare is enough of a justification to make drugs illegal.

                    5. “Actually, I was playing a devil’s advocate argument. ”

                      No you’re just a lying Douchbag who can’t admit he said something stupid and looks like an asshole because of it.

                    6. “If not, then please explain how one can be for drug legalization but in favor of banning illegal labor.”

                      It HAS been explained to you you fuckong idiot. That is how you ended up stepping on your dick.

                      Jist because you can’t refute any of it doesn’t mean you can jist ignore it.

                  2. “I don’t choose to pay for welfare. I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for the welfare of the lowlife loser druggies who become hooked on pain pills and heroin and all the rest of that crap. Their addiction causes harm in my life whether they realize it or not. ”

                    I had no idea you were an idiot drug warrior who thinks illegal aliens are no better than junkies.

                    Learn something new every day.

                  3. “I don’t choose to pay for welfare”

                    You don’t pay for it at all.

                    “‘I’ve been told that unless a person makes a high five-figure salary, that the person is a net drain on the public purse in terms of benefits taken vs. taxes paid”

                    I giuess you forgot you posted that and will now try to laughably convimce us you make enough that you’re not a net taker.

                  4. “…If they (drugs) weren’t legal, those druggies wouldn’t get the drugs…”

                    Tell me you didn’t say that.

                    1. Well the border restrictionists certainly seem to believe that if the “border is secure”, that immigrants won’t somehow find a way into the country nonetheless.

                      So yeah it is the same stupid argument on both counts. Just making some activity illegal via government fiat doesn’t actually stop the activity. Same with drugs, same with migration.

                    2. Here is the difference Jeff:

                      We’re stuck with useless native born drug addicts. We WOULD be better off without deadbeats… But there’s not practical or moral way to get rid of them.

                      With low skill illegal immigrants, we’re NOT helpless to get rid of them. We have, uh, the entire history of mankind expelling people from their nations they don’t want there on our side.

                      Barring certain people from entry is not immoral, and can be quite practical. You wouldn’t want to argue we MUST let in known terrorists, criminals, or heroin junkies would you? Then why should we let in KNOWN low skill, next to useless, net negative tax payers?

                      Even if many of them are decent people, it just doesn’t make any practical sense.

                    3. vek, bingo. Good post.

          2. Or legal vs illegal guns.

            1. What if you take one of those scary looking guns and shoot a room full of children? Why wouldn’t that be justification enough to ban the scary looking guns?

            2. Or legal vs illegal guns.

              Uh… while lots of libertarians are in favor of legalizing guns more liberally, plenty are in favor of restricting access to explosives and ordinance. Pretty much because they’re area-effect weapons and libertarians like to draw an imaginary line around themselves or other people and pretend they should/shouldn’t be legally culpable in/outside that imaginary line.

              Are you trying to say that if the border were dissolved, but undocumented immigrants couldn’t open savings accounts or get loans to buy cars you’d be OK with that?

              1. I don’t think he knows what he is saying, he seems to be trying to play “gotcha”.

        2. Yes, just throw the door open with no control and no background check. Nothing could go wrong, it will be a Utopia. Fuck, if you want Trump to win keep making this stupid argument. Most Americans, especially legal immigrants, hate the idea of open borders. It is a stupid argument to make. You could argue looser immigration, but unregulated will never be allowed.

        3. “”Why should there be a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration?”‘

          Ask every other country in the world. They seem to know.

        4. Are you serious about the distinction?

          If so, patently absurd.

          1. Why is it absurd?

            1. You’ve been told. You just choose to ignore it.

            2. Because half illiterate in their own (non English) language dish washers ARE NOT the same thing as PHD holding engineers.

              I’m fine with the engineers, be they European, Asian, Indian, or EVEN HISPANIC.

              I’m also NOT fine with half illiterate dishwashers, no matter where they’re from or what their skin color is. It’s pretty simple shit retard.

        5. because there ARE requirements established for anyone to leave one country and move to another as a resident. Or even to visit. Have you ever crossed into Mexico driving your own car, to take a long road trip all the way to Guatemala? I did. I had carefully researched the requirements, paid way too much money fot the Mexican car insurance that is MANDATED (caught without it, its the carcel for you, Chupa, and they don’t feed you in those places. Paperwork, stamps, buying required permits and tansit documents cost even more money and took us three hours. Then whenever we crossed from one state into another we got the Third Degree, papers checked, car inspected…. entering Guatemala was even worse… closed till oh six hundred, six different windows, car inspected to verify VIN, body number, engine number and type, all paperwork checked to match, paid for a “delousing” of the OUTSIDE face of the tyres only, not the inside, several new sheets of documents, fees, more permits.. three hours.

          Either come in here in full compliance with the laws in place, or go find a different country that will just let you walk in. (maybe Somalia, Sudan, but only from the south, some parts of the Turkish border……

          “Imigrate” means to comply with all those laws, thus ALL immigration is “legal”. Don’t comply with the laws, you are not an “immigrant” but a lawbreaking invader. Get it right. When is the last time you “immigrated” into your kitchen to snag another 3.2 beer from your fridge?

        6. If you don’t like the law, get it changed. If you want me to abide by laws you support, I expect you to do the same for laws I support. This is what elections are for. This is how civilized society works.

        7. “Why should there be a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration?”

          Why should there be a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” violence? Self-defence, murder, same thing, right?

          Why should there be a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” sex? Fucking a 20-year-old and fucking a 10-year-old, same thing; it’s all just fucking, right?

      2. Please. I see nothing wrong in a country wanting to secure the flow of illegal immigration as it sees fit.

        I get some of the cries about separating families and losing people in the detention bureaucracy, but at the high level, a crime who’s nominal punishment is putting you right back where you are? I fail to see the inherent immorality of it and, actually, see it as a more libertarian solution to other penal issues.

      3. The very fact that illegal immigration is far far lower where there is a wall already proves they work.
        The stupid argument that walls don’t work defies logic.
        Even it a wall slows immigrants down enough for border patrol to get to the point these immigrants are scaling the wall then this in itself will certainly act as enough of a deterrent to prevent crossing where there is a wall.

        As for being ‘immoral’, I have no idea what makes anyone believe it is immoral for any country to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country to become a massive drain on the resources of that country.

        America takes in thousands of legal immigrants. Trump has stated many times that he has absolutely no problem with this. Countries MUST be aware of who is entering the country to prevent serious criminals and terrorists from getting in. Even including the fact that millions of illegal immigrants are there because they have overstayed their visas, at least they were vetted before being allowed through a legal checkpoint.
        Imagine the crap that can be brought in by a smuggler crossing the border illegally.
        The real question should be ‘why would you NOT want to stop illegal immigration’?

  5. The intriguing question is why does a city with El Paso’s socio-demography have such a low crime rate?

    Could it be because El Paso is 94% white?

    The census says that it’s 80% white Hispanic and 14% white non-Hispanic.

    Because only people infected with white liberalism call them ‘brown’. You know, racists.

    1. And Baltimore has a growing immigrant population from Sub-Saharan Africa

    2. One thing people don’t like to talk about is that NOT all Hispanics are the same…

      We have many legal Hispanic immigrants that are from the middle and upper classes. They’re just as solid and legit as any Anglo. Then there are the lower classes.

      Almost all illegal immigrants come from what is essentially their ghetto class to working class at best. Basically no middle class people come here illegally, because they’d be going DOWN the ladder by moving here.

      If white Americans EXCLUSIVELY from the trailer park were moving to a certain country, there would be MASSIVE problems with that population for generations. It may eventually sort itself out, but it would take a lot of time. The thing is, no sane country would WANT to take in only white trash, just as we should not be taking in only Hispanic trash.

      This is all common sense shit here. The Hispanics coming in illegally ARE NOT doctors and engineers… They’re the ones that dropped out of school in 6th grade, and then maybe learned how to cook, wash dishes, or cut grass… If they didn’t just become thugs that is.

  6. Mexico’s murder rate has skyrocketed. There is no law and order; there are cartels and gangs who kill and torture as they please, even entire villages, and they never spare the women and children. They take cell phone videos to impress others with their acts of violence. Beheading, burning alive, exploding a son’s head in front of his father, unfortunately all this and more happens and the videos get posted to the internet.

    Meanwhile, Gallup polling shows 42 million people south of the border are ready to invade our country if we keep up this open borders gimmick of encouraging them to scam the asylum system to get in illegally. Of course, the vast majority of those aren’t vicious serial killers, but even so, the prospect of their mass migration is resoundingly against the best interests of the average American in every way.

    1. Can you explain how your continued presence in this country is merited? Why do you deserve citizenship or even residency here?

      1. Do you just not understand what the concept of nation state means and need it explained to you or do you reject it entirely? If it is the former, then say so and we can explain to you why your point is completely idiotic.

        If it is the later and you just reject the legitimacy of nations at all, then say that. But after you do, understand that other people do not and stop talking past them and assuming they share your rejection.

        1. Why do you deserve citizenship or legal residency, John? Why should we continue to tolerate your presence here?

          1. Because I was born here and the sovereign nation of the US has decided I do. If you reject that soverieghnty, then say so. You think you are being clever here but you are just showing that you don’t understand the issues involved or even your own argument.

            1. Oh okay. So you haven’t actually *done* anything to *merit* citizenship, you just happened to have been born in the right place at the right time. It’s almost as if you were born on ‘magic dirt’ that bestowed liberty on you.

              1. “Oh okay. So you haven’t actually *done* anything to *merit* citizenship, ”

                John served in the military, which has basicallh always counted as the most important type of “something” one can do to merit citizenship in a country.

                But keep making a fool of yourself jeff.

              2. If more socialists, communists, and muslims were allowed into the US, Jeff could be happy

                The rest of us would be in the killing fields or bread line or being stoned to death, but Jeff would be happy

                1. If more socialists, communists, and muslims were allowed into the US, Jeff could be happy

                  No. I would be indifferent. You would be upset, but I wouldn’t care.

                  1. No one believes that jeff. You burned all your credibility.

                  2. “The rest of us would be in the killing fields or bread line or being stoned to death” — BUT, Jeff would be “Indifferent” and “Wouldn’t Care”. Yep, He’s a D-Team Cheerleader alright.

              3. John and I were both born here, which, by long accepted definition, MAKES us citizens of this nation, particularly in view of the FACT that both of each of our parents were citizens when we were born here.

                On the other hand, Pedro Miguel Eduardo Maria Lopez-Gonzales was born in Mexico, and, just as with John and I, long standing custom and law makes HIM a citizen of THAT country.

                Now, whenever ANYONE wished to exchange his citizenship in one nation for that of another, there are rules established by each country as to how to accomplish that. A good friend of mine from another country just last month completed the process, takes several years AFTER being a LEGAL resident here for five years or so. Our Constitution has assigned the responsibility to CONGRESS to establish a “uniform rule for natualisation”, and the Congress, it being within their authority to do so, has assigned the authority for establishing the rules and protocols for the first step of that naturalisation process (getting here in the first place) to the President. Go find the law, enacted about 1965.

                1. If you don’t LIKE all this, perhaps you should go find a different country that does it the way YOU like it, and move there. OR work toward ratifying the US COnstitution to change who decides how these things work.

                  Do you hae a driving license? How about a bank account? What RIGHT to you have to have them> What can you do WITH them that you cannot legally do without them? WHY don;t you just drive anyway, without that piece or paper/plastic on yor person? There ARE “legal” and :”illegal” drivers. And I’ll bet you are one of those who thinks anyone wanting to possess a firearm needs to register with the governemnt, get a Mother May I Card as a precondition to owning one, and a different Mother May I Card before he can take that thing with him anywhere.

                  1. Seriously. Jeff is such a moron.

                    I was born here. Both my parents were born here. All my grandparents were born here. All but one of my great grand parents was born here. My family helped settle the wild west, and has a city in California named after our family. Another side of my family has been here since BEFORE the revolutionary war.

                    So you can suck a big fat cock Jeff. My family has shed blood, sweat and tears to BUILD this country into what it is today. Some fuck from overseas, who can’t even do anything with their own country, just waltzing in here and fucking my country up… Hell no. They can do it the legal way, or not at all.

                    THIS concept of citizenship being a birthright by virtue of being of a place is ancient tradition, and makes logical sense too. Other than that you gotta follow the rules set by those with that birthright, or conquer it from those people.

                    It seems many are trying to conquer it, just without guns. Idiots like you seem to love it too.

        2. Do you just not understand what the concept of nation state means and need it explained to you or do you reject it entirely?

          I love the socialist progressives who use rhetoric like “What you want this to be like the Wild West?”, “You think we should operate like Victorian Era England?”, or “You want to adopt the principles of a time when slave labor and hazardous working conditions?” and then advocate for social hierarchies that were abandoned before the bronze age.

          1. Westworld or like the real wild west?

            Either way I’m down

      2. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        1. That’s not an answer. Why do you deserve citizenship and/or legal residency?

          1. Because the United States was created to secure the blessings of liberty for “ourselves and our Posterity” (that’s me).

            1. Why do you deserve the blessings? What have you done to merit those blessings?

              1. “Why do you deserve the blessings? What have you done to merit those blessings?”

                Oh, well, perhaps nothing, because humanity as a whole may deserve nothing but eternal death. And yet, Grace abounds.

            2. You’re descended from the Founding Fathers? Cool.

              1. No Juice, he was born in the country they created. And according to the laws of that country, he has a right to live here. If you don’t recognize the power of a nation to determine who has the right to live there and who doesn’t, then you don’t recognize the nation state. If you don’t, then good for you but most people disagree with you.

                If you do, then your point is idiotic. Either way, you seem not to understand what is going on here and like Jeff keep making points that do nothing but illustrate that.

                1. I didn’t ask who has the legal right or not. I asked what he, and you, have done to *deserve* having that right in the first place. And you still haven’t answered.

                  1. The converse of that question is what have the immigrants done to deserve to be here? I would argue that as a taxpaying, veteran, son of a veteran, grandson of a veteran and great grandson of a veteran that I have done a lot to deserve to be here.

                    1. And no, I am not arguing for Heinlein’s view that veteran only deserve citizenship a la Starship Troopers, I am making the argument that I have done stuff that benefits this country. And most working class citizens and the wealthy working class does do a lot that benefits this country.

                    2. Even being born benefits the country as it helps replace those who die and helps maintain the working population.

                    3. Even being born benefits the country as it helps replace those who die and helps maintain the working population.

                      Huh. So a person born on the “right” side of the border, becomes a benefit to the country because that person maintains the working population.

                      But a person born on the “wrong” side of the border, becomes an illegal immigrant invader stealing American jobs from those who rightfully deserve it.

                      Do I have that right?

                    4. Huh. So a person born on the “right” side of the border, becomes a benefit to the country because that person maintains the working population.

                      But a person born on the “wrong” side of the border, becomes an illegal immigrant invader stealing American jobs from those who rightfully deserve it.

                      twisty turney, are we? First part, spot on. Second, dead wrong. HOW is it that that person, born on the other side of the border, is NOT a benefit to the country of HIS birth by maintaining the working population?

                      EACH of us is born where we were born, of NO fault cjhoice or action of our own.

                      And yes, if one does not belong here by virtue of complying with ALL the laws of this nation, they they do NOT deserve to “steal Americain jobs from those who rightfully deserve them”. Stealing is taking something that does not, by right, accrue to you but to another.

                    5. There is no right or wrong. That is just where they were born. If you were born at these coordinates then you are a citizen of Lilliput. If you are born at these other coordinates you are a citizen of Balnibarbi. Very objective.

                    6. I love how you ignore all of my points except one and then totally mischaracterized my point. However, I will play along, no you don’t have it right. I was answering what I did to deserve to be here. By the laws of the land (and almost all of humanity) by being here, a citizen of the country, I deserve to be here more than someone who wasn’t born here. I do not do anything to deserve to be a citizen or in their country indefinitely though. To further the point, someone who has went through the process of becoming a legal residents has done more to deserve to be here then someone who ignored that process and came here against established law and precedent. In fact the latter actually makes it difficult for the former to come here. The fact is that illegal immigration is factored into the number of legal immigrants are allowed into the country. So illegal entries actually harm those who attempt to come here legally. This time, they have violated the NAP. And by disrespecting the laws of this land they have violated the NAP. Convince people to change the law, don’t simply ignore it. But you know you can’t get the law changed, so you are okay with illegal entry even though they do cause harm to those following the rules. Polls tend to show legal immigrants have the highest rate of disapproval of illegal entries. It is also why fisherman and hunters tend to be the ones most likely to turn in poachers.

                    7. Good luck getting an answer to this one

                  2. Stupid comment. You do not have to do anything to deserve the right to be a citizen of any country other than be born in that country and bear allegiance to that country and no other. Where you are born determines your nationality.
                    Also, you can become the citizen of America by the process of naturalization. This is a legal process, and that process must be followed. The first step of this process is to enter America legally.
                    It you disagree with this process, then work to change it from the correct political means, or find another country which suits you stupid notion of open borders.

              2. “You’re descended from the Founding Fathers? Cool.”

                Read again — We the People (not just the founders, but all of the People). Yes I have ancestors going back that far here. But even if I didn’t, the purpose stated in this preamble is evergreen and applies to the People today just as it did then.

          2. why don’t you just fo and ask God why He dedided this one and that one, and you, apparently, were born HERE and thus made citizens if THIS country, and NOT in Mexico thus a citizen of Mexico, then ask Him WHY Carlos Miguel Bautista Ortega de Cruz y Vasquez was born in Mexico instead of the UNited States?

            You are being petulant and childish, demanding an answer to a statement of settled fact

            Why is there air, or sun, or dirt, or……….

            Why do polar bears live in cold NOrthern Ontario Canada but NOT in cold Switzerland?

      3. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. That’s part of the contract called the Constitution. Of course, contracts are apparently meaningless to you.

        1. I was about to answer the same – Adding that anyone born here and isn’t committing acts of Treason by trying to enact a revolution into Socialism or Communism entirely against the Constitution (definition of the USA) is what constitutes a “deserving citizen/legal residency in the U.S.”.

          If one’s excuse to residency is followed by acts of Treason then excuses of “deserving” go out the window and words such as INVASION fit.

    2. I’ve been told that unless a person makes a high five-figure salary, that the person is a net drain on the public purse in terms of benefits taken vs. taxes paid. What is your salary? Are you a net taxpayer or a net moocher?

      1. Net taxpayer.

      2. I am a SUPER net tax payer, since I’m still a single guy… And that income is for a FAMILY. Thank me for supporting all the illegals Jeff! It’s my money paying for all their shit.

  7. If crime in El Paso had gone down: “See? That proves walls work! We need more walls!”
    If crime in El Paso didn’t change: “That proves nothing. We still need a wall!”
    If crime in El Paso had gone up: “That just proves illegal immigration is an even bigger problem than we thought, and we need an even taller wall!”

    No matter what the numbers say, they can always be spun in a way to support the wall!

  8. Shikha: *presents statistics*
    Commenters: *presents fear and anecdotes*

    Conclusion: Close the borders!

    1. “chemjeff radical individualist|2.13.19 @ 1:30PM|#

      No matter what the numbers say, they can always be spun in a way to support the wall!”

      “chemjeff radical individualist|2.13.19 @ 1:37PM|#

      Shikha: *presents statistics*”

      Jesus Christ you’re fucking stupid. Make up your fucking broken ass low functioning mind.

    2. Shikha presents a single data point and a single analysis and attempts to draw causation from correlation while claiming that isn’t what she is doing. She does not entertain any other reason why this state of affairs may be occuring. She makes a fallacious argument that supports her, and your, widely unpopular stance. You will lose this argument unless you can come up with something better.

    3. Statistics:

      1. Mexico set a new record for all-time high murder rate in 2018 — for the second year in a row

      2. The economic impact on Americans of immigration to the U.S. is a $500 billion annual wealth transfer from poor to rich

      3. Israel border wall reduced crossings by 99.9%

      4. In Texas, illegal aliens were arrested and charged with more than 298,000 crimes, an average of over 39,000 per year, from June 1, 2011 to the end of 2018. Though some of these arrests were for nonviolent crimes, such as theft, burglary, or drug offenses, they also include many violent crimes: 624 homicides, 1,911 robberies, and 3,955 sexual assaults (which, under Texas law, include rapes).

      1. Statistics:
        Rank Name Nation Murders Population Murders per 100K
        20 Ciudad Ju?rez Mexico 814 1,448,859 56.16
        N/A* El Paso USA 23* 683,577* 3.3*

        *Numbers compiled separately.

        Literally, the only thing separating El Paso from Juarez is the wall and Shikha, true to form, fails to note that Baltimore’s murder rate that year *still* wouldn’t have put it up there with Juarez, Tijuana, etc.

    4. borders are, by established law, already secured. Theproblem is they who refuse to abide by the securing of those borders.

      Take a road trip and see what happens when you come up to the boundary between the US and Canada. Make certain you don’t have your car’s insurance papers with you nor the registration for your car. Since you don’t believe in authority, leave your driving license and Mother May I Card to carry your concealed handgun with you at home, too, bot DO make certain you bring that handgun… and make certain you have the original factory supplied fifteen round “standard capacity” magazines, and two boxes 100 rounds each of spare ammuniition, hollow point defensive, the same stuff the city police in your hometown use. See how eager they are to let you drive on into Canada……… now, ask yourself “what gives me the RIGHT to drive my car without proper papers or ID ANd having my handgun in the glove box loaded, into Canada?
      You will have plenty of time to ponder these things from the inside of your own private jail cell in Canada….. because that is where you will end up, at least for a while. Make sure you explain to them what you’re trying to explain to us here…..

  9. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IMMIGRATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

  10. Immigrants made the city safe? So, the place would be dangerous if left to those filthy natives? That seems to be Dalmia’s position here. The facts are as follows

    When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.

    They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows.

    Yes it did reduce the number of illegal migrants.

    As far as crime

    Federal data illustrates just how remarkable the turnaround in crime has been since the fence was built. According to FBI tables, property crimes in El Paso have plunged more than 37 percent to 12,357 from their pre-fence peak of 19,702 a year, while violent crimes have dropped more than 6 percent to 2,682 from a peak of 2,861 a year.

    The overall crime rate in El Paso continued to fall last year, prompting city leaders to trumpet the good news in a press release that noted, “Because El Paso is a border town, its low crime rate may surprise you.”

    http://nypost.com/2018/01/13/w…..-it-works/

    1. Yes correlation isn’t definitive proof of causation but it is certainly not preclusive of it either. The 6% reduction in violent crimes is significant but still small enough that it could be attributed to other factors. But the 37% drop in property crimes is enormous. Building a wall and making it so people can’t come into El Pase, commit a robbery and easily go across the border likely has a lot to do with that drop.

      The facts are what they are and the wall made El Paso a more livable place.

      1. Building a wall and making it so people can’t come into El Pase, commit a robbery and easily go across the border likely has a lot to do with that drop.

        John, all the immigrants have to do when they come to steal air conditioners, televisions, stereos, computers, furniture, etc. is bring a ladder. You act like it’s some sort of feat to carry a 65″ TV up a 20′ ladder over a razor wire fence.

        1. There is actual studies that show walls do decrease crossings dramatically. Of course they don’t stop it completely but they do decrease it. They also decrease the need for humans to enforce the border and allow them to prioritize official ports of entry.

  11. Again she mixes immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Hey Chemjeff, how many illegal immigrants have you taken into your home? No borders right?

    1. Our legal immigration system conducts very extensive vetting of people and does not let anyone with a criminal history into the country. Then once they are here, they know that if they are convicted of a crime they lose their status and are deported back to where they came from.

      So, yeah, they are as a group less criminal than native born people. How could they not be? And indeed, keeping criminals out of the country is most of the point of having an immigration system. So, the fact that they are not criminals is proof the system at least in that regard is working.

      Dalmia must think her readers are amazingly stupid if she thinks using crime statistics from legal immigrants is going to convince anyone that illegal immigrants present the same risk of criminality.

      1. Our legal immigration system conducts very extensive vetting of people and does not let anyone with a criminal history into the country. Then once they are here, they know that if they are convicted of a crime they lose their status and are deported back to where they came from.

        I kinda think, for some crimes, it actually makes a lot more sense from a moral/libertarian perspective. “You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.” is certainly a lot less forceful than “They’ll put you in a cage for that.”

        Imagine if Chicago just deported its hand gun violators back to their state of origin or exiled them to WI, IN, or TX rather than locking them up in the overcrowded, underfunded prison system. You want to discharge your weapon in the air? Here’s an complimentary one-way ticket to beautiful Harding County, SD where you can fire your gun into the air ( or pretty much any other direction) all you like.

    2. Do you support ending the welfare state? Yes? So how many starving children do you feed every night at supper time?

      Do you oppose abortion? Yes? So how many unwanted children have you adopted? Huh?

      1. I donate heavily to Lutheran Social Services which does both of those. Additionally, I have attempted to adopt but the fact is is that it’s extremely difficult with long waiting lists and numerous hoops to jump through. It is so much easier for a woman to abort then it is to put her child up for adoption.

      2. I donate heavily to Lutheran Social Services which does both of those. Additionally, I have attempted to adopt but the fact is is that it’s extremely difficult with long waiting lists and numerous hoops to jump through. It is so much easier for a woman to abort then it is to put her child up for adoption.

      3. I donate heavily to Lutheran Social Services which does both of those. Additionally, I have attempted to adopt but the fact is is that it’s extremely difficult with long waiting lists and numerous hoops to jump through. It is so much easier for a woman to abort then it is to put her child up for adoption.

      4. It is the people who create those childen whose responsibility it is to take care of them. They don’t have the right to murder them in the womb any more than they have the right to neglect and starve them after they are born. Understanding that does not in any way imply a duty to take on their responsibility anymore than recognizing any responsibility does.

        You really have no idea how dumb you sound do you?

        1. Oh I see. So what you’re saying is, it’s not my responsibility to take care of illegal immigrants, it’s their own responsibility to take care of themselves. Glad we agree!

          1. We have no obligation to let them into the country. You really have no idea how this works.

            1. Aaand you segue into a non-sequitur. Got it!

              1. Letting them into the country where they will be taken care of by the welfare state is a non-sequitur from discussing whose responsibility it is to take care of them?

                You don’t know what “non-sequitur” means do you?

          2. correct it is NOT your responsibility to take care of illegal foreign invaders (immigrants are, by defintion, in compliance with the laws, those NOT in compliance with the laws are NOT immigrants.. Get that straight)
            Nor is it mine, but our government think otherwise, taking far too many of MY tax dollars and doing just that….. so they have determined that it IS our responsibility to take care of the illegal foreign invaders…. to the time of some $Bn600 annually.
            Of one tenth of that one year’s burden would be diverted to the Wall, it would return as savings within two months of completion of rhe wall.

      5. I support letting them starve!

        Handouts are a waste. The only types of charities I would support would be ones where people were given skills to care for themselves. Teach men to fish, don’t give them fish.

  12. Yikes. It isn’t the illegals who commit most of the crimes anyway, it’s usually their children…

    1. which, since they are born here, are not tallied with the illegal foreign invaders, but local residents, which then skews the REAL numbers, does it not?

      1. Yup. Hispanics are 35% of murders per year, only ~16% of the population… So WAY over represented. The only groups worse than them is blacks… In other words Hispanics make crime FAR worse anywhere in the country where they go, provided they’re not displacing blacks, which would in fact be lowering the crime rate.

        Stats aren’t always nice.

  13. You really can’t overstate how dishonest organizations like reason and CATO are on immigration. This CATO post about illegal immigrant crime is a perfect example. It turns out that even CATO has to admit

    The most recent report found that 20 percent of all inmates in federal prison are foreign-born and about 93 percent of them are likely illegal immigrants.

    So illegal immigrants make up around 18% of the federal prison population even though they are about 4% of the overall population. That is pretty strong evidence that illegal immigrants are more likely to be criminals than the native population.

    Oh but CATO says you can’t say that. The report is “confusing” because it doesn’t include state prisons. CATO never explains why illegal immigrant criminals would be any more likely to end up in federal prison than state prison such that the federal prison numbers are somehow inflated over the state prison numbers. Instead CATO sites their own estimates of illegal alien incarceration rates as rebuttal to DHS’ hard numbers.

    1. The DHS numbers are not samples but known numbers. The fact that they contradict CATO’s estimates and difer from them wildly is pretty good proof CATO’s estimates are completely bogus. But according to CATO, it means the DHS numbers don’t reflect reality and for reasons they can’t explain illegal immigrants end up in federal prison at a staggeringly higher rate than any other group of criminals.

      http://www.cato.org/blog/anoth…..arceration

      That is just pathetic. It is just pathetic thinking and CATO showing itself to be a hack organization that has no interest in the facts as they are.

    2. Devil’s advocate: are the majority of illegal immigrants in federal prison there for violating federal immigration law, or are they there for non-immigration related crimes? I don’t think the former’s the case, but if it were, we could induce that state prison populations wouldn’t have as large a percentage of illegals.

      In practice, I think the federal criminal stats are probably on par with illegal immigrants’ representation in state prison populations. Illegal immigrants to the US are disproportionately male, lower-income, and young. Or, exactly who makes up the vast majority of prison populations everywhere.

      1. No. The federal prison numbers do not include those people in ICE detention. And very few aliens are charged and sent to federal prison for purely immigration crimes. They are deported. So, 99% of the illegal immigrants in federal prison are there for committing a crime that has nothing to do with immigration.

        1. Not surprised.

          CATO playing these kinds of statistical games isn’t new. My favorite was when they tried to claim that the average illegal immigrant was more law-abiding than a citizen. Which they did by comparing illegals, who were predominantly dirt-poor, to other dirt-poor Americans, like those multi-generational law-abiding types in places like the old Cabrini Green, etc…

          Comparing illegals to the average American, or even the median American, didn’t go so well…

          I’ve never figured out why the United States, in a time when unemployment was running rampant—so not in the last year or two of Trump—felt it had to import a new peasant class. Nor why libertarian think-tanks were so gung ho to import a class of people who mostly, culturally, had ideals that are antipathic to most of the ideas that underlay libertarianism.

          Finally, I’ve also never gotten a satisfactory answer from the open borders crowd to this: in a world with very low transportation costs, and near historic lows for technical barriers to human migration, at what point does the rest of the world stop coming to the United States to improve their lot? When things here aren’t as good as they would be in, e.g., Lagos? Why wouldn’t most of the several billion people on this rock, who live lives that are greatly economically inferior to those of the poorest American, come to this country? And do the people who already live here have a right to not want to live in Lagos?

          1. The problem is that many Americans are already living in Lagos.

            1. No, they’re not. Let’s not overstate things. The worst colonia, or Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, or slum in any major American city, has nothing on the average existence for a dweller in most of the Third World megalopolises. Else the average dweller of those places wouldn’t be clamoring to come here, and live in said slums.

              Now, the rich in someplace like Lagos, or Karachi, or Manila? Yeah, not so different from here. Albeit a lot more intensive security precautions, but I wonder if the rich in those places have more in common with the rich here, and share many of the same cultural values, than the rich in the United States share with the poor in the U.S?

        2. Not sure as to the actual statistics – and not to argue with you but instead present a more accurate picture – but every day there are hundreds of illegal immigrants being arraigned in federal courts all across the nation for violating immigration-related laws: 8 USC 1325 (Improper Entry; a misdemeanor), 8 USC 1326 (Illegal Re-entry), 18 USC 1546 (Fraud/Misuse of Documents), and 8 USC 1324 (Bringing/Harboring Aliens, also known as alien smuggling)… these last three all felonies that, if convicted, could garner a sentence between a few months to several years. US Attorneys along the SW border will testify that over 80% of their casework is comprised of these-type cases and similar statutes.

  14. It’s kind of a shame, really, that all of these vastly superior people (for I have been assured many times here that they are vastly superior) don’t stay in their home countries and bring them the prosperity they supposedly bring us. Unless, perhaps, the dirt north of the Rio Grande is magic dirt?

    1. One of the things I find interesting about open borders Libertarians is how oddly Marxist they are. I don’t mean Marxist in their economics. They are not communists. They are Marxis in their philosophy and view of human nature. Marx considered religion and culture to be opiates that blinded people to their true motivations which were entirely economic.

      Open borders Libertarians share this assumption with Marx. They totally reject idea that Mexico sucks because the people who live there have certain cultural values and behaviors that they would bring with them to another country. To Libertarians all that stuff is just opiates that is preventing the people from becoming their true selves, which is some kind of perfect economic unit of labor. If we just allow them, they will lose the chains of their culture and their values and follow their true selves and come to the US and pursue their destiny as interchangable units of labor pursuing their economic self interest.

      When you think about it, it is batshit crazy.

      1. Yes, shitholes are shitholes because of the residents.

        If you import all of the residents you also import the shithole.

        Merit based immigration where folks who something to offer our society, businessman, doctors, engineers would be the filter.

        The same gnashing of teeth happens when a shithole urban neighborhood is being gentrified. Everyone gets their panties twisted over the fact that he p[resent residents are generally evicted. Duh, that is because the neighborhood sucks because of the present residents.

        1. Open borders Libertarians sound like leftists when they talk about these counties. According to them it is just bad luck they suck so badly.

          1. OT: Just read the article and some comments on the Michelle Carter / involuntary manslaughter matter over at Volkoh and lc1789 kicked ass.

            1. I wil check it out. Good for him. Is that the case where the vicious teenage girl told her boyfriend to kill himself? I am honestly not sure what to think about that case. The kid was getting out of the car and called her and she told him to get back in. It is a really outragous and unlikely set of facts. And that makes it hard to figure out what the law should be.

              1. You got it.

                Last week, the SJC affirmed the Superior Court’s conviction. The case was tried to the judge who held that the Commonwealth had established facts sufficient to warrant an involuntary manslaughter charge.

                What the girl did was nasty, no doubt. But, the boyfriend was 18, she was 17 and he had wanted to kill himself for quite a while.

                The interesting legal issue is that the prosecution charged her with involuntary manslaughter and went about proving its charge by introducing all sorts of intentional acts.

                Nevertheless, lc 1789 stuck to his strict constructionist guns in a back and forth with other commenters.

                1. Involuntary manslaughter doesn’t mean it was an accident. You can intend to do the act. It just means you didn’t mean to harm or kill the person but the act was so reckless as to be criminal.

                  This is a close case but I am actually okay with it if the facts are what I have heard they are. If I know the person is suicidal and they are telling me that they are in the car trying to suffocate themselves but getting out and I tell them to get back in, I think I am guilty of reckless disregard. The only real issue is whether mere words alone could constitute reckless disregard. And I think they can. Suppose you are opening a container that I know contains a deadly poisonous snake and you ask me about it and I say, go for it knowing you are likely to get bit. I think that is manslaughter and so is this if the facts are as they seem.

                  1. Yes, you are right about the fact that intentional conduct can be the actus reus of involuntary manslaughter. My mistake.

                    How far are you willing to go with regard to swallowing agency? Of course, if we are talking about a minor, a 10 year old for example, or if the adult has diminished capacity, I can see that the issue of agency is not applicable.

                    Your hypothetical: I better know my poisonous snakes!

                    1. “Nevertheless, lc 1789 stuck to his strict constructionist guns in a back and forth with other commenters.”

                      So now he’s got cheerleaders….and boyfriends? Bwahahahahaha……this place is going to hell.

        2. Merit based immigration where folks who something to offer our society, businessman, doctors, engineers would be the filter.

          So why should we tolerate your presence here? Why don’t you prove to us why you deserve legal residency and/or citizenship.

          1. The proof of the pudding is in the eating

      2. They totally reject idea that Mexico sucks because the people who live there have certain cultural values and behaviors that they would bring with them to another country.

        Who does this? Not me. Of course people bring their values with them when they migrate. My position is, as long as migrants don’t violate the NAP, I don’t care what values they bring with them. I am not interested in creating a homogeneous conformist society. If I did, that would make me a conservative, not a libertarian.

        1. . My position is, as long as migrants don’t violate the NAP, I don’t care what values they bring with them.

          And the fact that you can’t see the connection between their values and their propensity to violate the NAP is one of the most amazing examples of stupidity I have ever seen on here.

          1. Although I don’t think chemjeff is stupid at all, in fact I think he is smart, you make a very good point. In fact, its a point that I must readily concede as others poke fun at my zealous adherence to the NAP.

            1. There is nothing wrong with adhering to the NAP. Where people go off the rails is when they assume that anyone else is going to adhere to it as well. If everyone adhered to the NAP, we would live in paradise and there would be no need for government.

              1. Who assumes that everyone will adhere to the NAP? I don’t. Of course people won’t always adhere to the NAP. That is why we have police and courts and a system of justice, even in a minimal libertarian state. It’s not about assuming that everyone will follow the NAP. It’s about prejudging a group of people assuming that they won’t follow the NAP based on simplistic caricatures of the group.

                1. Who assumes that everyone will adhere to the NAP? I don’t. Of course people won’t always adhere to the NAP

                  You assume that their culture and values have nothing to do with that propensity. And it is damned charitable of you to think that sacred immigrants should go to jail for the crimes they commit. You expect people to suffer those crimes for your principles. But hey, you might get around to supporting prosecuting those crimes because you just care that much.

                  1. You assume that their culture and values have nothing to do with that propensity.

                    I assume no such thing. I just don’t care one way or another. ONCE AGAIN, John, it depends on what an individual *does*, not on what an individual’s culture is.

                    You expect people to suffer those crimes for your principles.

                    Kinda like you and the Second Amendment, right?

                    1. No, nothing like it actually.

                2. “It’s about prejudging a group of people assuming that they won’t follow the NAP based on simplistic caricatures of the group.”

                  Probably because they’ve already violated the NAP by forcing entry into territory contrary to that territory’s rules and procedures for granting entry.

                  1. Probably because they’ve already violated the NAP by forcing entry into territory contrary to that territory’s rules and procedures for granting entry.

                    Sigh. Once again.

                    Suppose Alice and Bob are neighbors on adjacent parcels of land, and Alice invites Bob onto his property. Now there just so happens to be an international border separating Alice’s and Bob’s real estate. The moment that Alice steps over the property line, and sets foot on Bob’s property, *by invitation*, against whom has Alice committed aggression, precisely? Hmm?

                    Answer: no one.

                    1. Answer: Everyone in the nation, who have collectively chosen a government to make those decisions on their behalf. The government as representative of the people has a right to make that rule. Alice does not have a right to ignore and break that rule and expect no consequences.

                    2. Answer: Everyone in the nation, who have collectively chosen a government to make those decisions on their behalf.

                      Who owns Bob’s property? The collective, or Bob?

                      Who sets the rules for what Bob may do on his property? The collective, or Bob?

                      If you answer “the collective”, then congratulations, you just might be a socialist! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a few exciting ideas for you to consider.

                      You can’t have it both ways. If you want to argue that Bob is the property owner, then Bob ought to have the sovereign right to decide who may or may not enter his property, even if those people are foreigners. But if you don’t want Bob to have that power, then you don’t really believe in Bob’s private property rights, and are totally willing to subordinate those rights in the name of the collective. And if that’s the case, it’s only a matter of degree the amount of socialism you’re willing to support.

                    3. You apparently don’t realize the corner you’ve put yourself in here.
                      Your argument is that only people living directly on the border can invite illegals in (obviously they wouldn’t be illegal under those circumstances in your scenario). That those people invited must stay on only the property of the property owner who invited them, which means no hospital access, public road/land use, air travel, etc.
                      You’ve conceded that it is only explicit invitation that gives them the right to be here, and that’s assuming they can enter and reside without interacting with anything in public domain.
                      Gonna be tough to accomplish

                    4. Jeff, you fucking idiot.

                      LOOK it’s simple. If in order to allow one freedom, freedom of international movement, you will destroy THOUSANDS of freedoms… Logically, one is a moron to not simply ignore that one freedom.

                      It’s that simple. You’re violating MORE freedoms by not violating a single freedom. DONE.

          2. Unlike you, John, I try to judge people on their individual actions and on their individual merits, and not cast collective judgment based on a simplistic view of a set of values that I cannot even be sure that every member of that group believes in.

            But hey, John, maybe we should do things your way, and the next time I see a group of people wearing MAGA hats, I’ll just prejudge them as a bunch of racist Nazi assholes without even bothering to inquire about their genuine beliefs. Sound fair to you? No? Oh, then maybe you shouldn’t apply the same type of standard to a group of people that you don’t like either.

            1. Unlike you, John, I try to judge people on their individual actions and on their individual merits, and not cast collective judgment based on a simplistic view of a set of values that I cannot even be sure that every member of that group believes in.

              That is because you are an idiot who doesn’t know or won’t accept how the world works. Just because individual results may be different doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a true generality. Moreover, the fact that individual people from a particular group may be wonderful, doesn’t change the overall effect of admitting large numbers of that good into the country, whatever those effects are.

              You commit the same fallacy you strawman and accuse me of only in reverse. It is just as stupid to assume that because on person in a group is one way that they all are or that the group as a whole doesn’t have generalized characteristics. If they didn’t, there would be no such thing as culture and no difference between groups of people.

              Your view is that because some individuals in a group maybe good, it is everyone’s duty to suffer the negative consiquences of letting the entire group in. You are no different and no better than the worst racist who thinks every person can be judged entirely by their culture. In fact, you are kind of worse. The racist at least understand what he believes. You don’t even get that far.

              1. Your view is that because some individuals in a group maybe good, it is everyone’s duty to suffer the negative consiquences of letting the entire group in.

                No, John.

                I believe that individuals ought to be judged by the content of their character.

                You don’t.

                That’s the bottom line difference.

              2. You are no different and no better than the worst racist who thinks every person can be judged entirely by their culture.

                So what precisely do you think *you* are doing, John?

                1. Hey Jeff, should we invite ISIS members to our country? I bet one of them is a good person

                2. He’s wiping the floor with you.

            2. ” I try to judge people on their individual actions and on their individual merits, and not cast collective judgment based on a simplistic view of a set of values that I cannot even be sure that every member of that group believes in.”

              You have never, not once, demonstrated any such effort or ability that you claim.
              Indeed, you are among the most collectivist minded people who post here.

              1. you are among the most collectivist minded people who post here.

                Like judging everyone who sets foot in this country without the correct papers from the state as being welfare mooching invaders? You mean like that kind of collectivism?

                1. No one said everyone. And no one has even said we can’t allow legal immigration from those countries. What we have said is that they need to follow the same law as everyone else. Why is that so fucking difficult for you to grasp? Oh I know why, because it is easier for you to argue your straw man argument then to actually address our points. Because you realize that demagoguery is the only possible way to win this argument with the population as a whole. Open borders will never won the argument so your only recourse is to demagogue and obfuscate.

                2. “chemjeff radical individualist|2.13.19 @ 5:37PM|#

                  you are among the most collectivist minded people who post here.

                  Like judging everyone who sets foot in this country without the correct papers from the state as being welfare mooching invaders? You mean like that kind of collectivism?”

                  There you go again. Aptly demonstrated.
                  We’ve had this discussion before. You’ll be unable to cite one instance where I’ve referred to the problem of illegal immigration being that of welfare. Because it’s not my argument.
                  You constantly handwave away objections to pro-illegal immigration as racist xenophobia, then accuse others of being collectivist.
                  Your arguments are driven by your own emotional and intellectual insecurity, because your identity is tied up with being an “inclusive individualist”. Thus you never learn from your mistakes when they’re pointed out, and continue to see those who don’t favor illegal immigration as an illegitimate monolith.
                  I do believe you’re blind to this – as zealots are necessarily blind to their inconsistency

                  1. Jeff, if you ACTUALLY judged people as individuals… You would be OKAY with excluding half illiterate morons who vote leftist, in favor of educated people who aren’t commies.

                    But you’re not. You want to PREJUDGE all the people as being AWESOME. That’s really what you’re doing, despite all evidence to the contrary.

  15. Where does Reason get these batshit crazy writers?

    Do you really think that Jose and his family just decide to immigrate illegally and they walk across Mexico and make it happen. Or the caravan folks just stroll across the entirety of Mexico illegally without a hitch. You have to be a special kind of dumb fuck to believe that.

    MS-13 control illegals immigration along with drug trafficking and prostitution . As much as the retards at Reason want to stick their heads in the sand that is reality.

    1. MS-13 control illegals immigration along with drug trafficking and prostitution .

      Not coincidentally, all three are victimless crimes that violate fundamental liberties and serve only to enrich the criminal element.

      When confronted with the stupidity of the war on drugs, libertarians rightly demand that drugs be legalized.
      When confronted with the stupidity of the war on prostitution, libertarians rightly demand that sex work be legalized.

      When confronted with the stupidity of the war on illegal labor, however, certain libertarians demand “let’s double down!”

      1. War on illegal labor. Hmmmm, the only reason to verify people at the border is for labor control? There is no national security issues? No public safety or health issues? No crime issues? Just labor issues right?

        1. Hmmmm, the only reason to verify people at the border is for labor control?

          That’s certainly the big one. “They’re stealing our jerbz” after all. Oh while they simultaneously loaf around on welfare. Or something.

          There is no national security issues? No public safety or health issues? No crime issues? Just labor issues right?

          Sure, there are also all of those other issues in play. But here is what you don’t seem to realize. There are also a whole host of issues in play with the exercise of every other form of liberty as well.

          You don’t think there are “national security issues” or “public safety or health issues” or “crime issues” in play when it comes to, say, the liberty to own a gun? (What about school shootings?) How about the liberty to freely associate? (What if criminals associate and form a gang/syndicate?) How about the liberty of having a free press? (What if foreign agents use the liberty of the press in order to spread propaganda?)

          So perhaps the right to own guns should be restricted by the state, so as to cut down on the “crime issues” and “public safety issues”. Or perhaps the right to freely associate should be restricted by the state, so as to cut down on issues. Or the freedom of the press. No? You don’t agree? Great! Now explain why it should be any fucking different when it comes to migration. Because reasons? Because status quo fallacy? That isn’t good enough.

          1. 1) the rights you listed are specifically protected by the US constitution
            2) also specifically listed in the US constitution is the duty of our elected government to repel invaders, aka anyone who seeks to or does enter US territory contrary to the wishes (expressed through laws and procedures) of The People

    2. If you want to disempower MS-13, stop giving them an opportunity to get rich.

      1. Like stopping them from entering the country? I agree

  16. Do the open borders libertarians not understand that the more they make their arguments, the less support they have? The more batshit crazy they get, the less likely they will get their way? That it is backfiring on them. Even a number of Democrats are now starting to give lukewarm support to stricter enforcement at the border.

  17. Do the open borders libertarians not understand that the more they make their arguments, the less support they have? The more batshit crazy they get, the less likely they will get their way? That it is backfiring on them. Even a number of Democrats are now starting to give lukewarm support to stricter enforcement at the border.

  18. Why are immigrant-heavy cities safer? Listen to Balko:

    “Overall, immigrants have a stake in this country, and they recognize it,” Northeastern University’s Levin says. “They’re really an exceptional sort of American.”

    Yeah, that’s one theory. Here’s another: the native-born US population is about 13% black. The immigrants population is what, 2 or 3 percent black? Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

    1. “Yeah, that’s one theory. Here’s another: the native-born US population is about 13% black. The immigrants population is what, 2 or 3 percent black? Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.”

      I had a very unfortunately funny conversation with a lefty trumpeting a map of gun ownership rates and saying it directly positively correlated with crime rates. Which it did, sort of.

      I pointed out though, that what the crime rate map really correlated strongly to, and more so than a map showing average income for an area, was the percentage of African-American population in the given area. Oops.

    2. Illegal immigrants ARE NOT SAFER. In fact, they commit crimes at a 3 times higher rate than American citizens. 33% of Federal inmates are illegal aliens yet they’re supposed to be less than 5% of the US population.

      Legal immigrants who pay a lot of money to go through the immigration process and wait in line for years are a whole different group.

      Obama’s third world refugees are NOT safer. The Somalis in MN and Maine are riddled with thieves, violent offenders and ISIS sympathizers and 75% are on welfare, never to get off.

      1. Politifact: mostly false.

        1. Link: Completely missing.

  19. What a BS article.

    FBI’s OWN DATA SHOWS crime dropped SIGNIFICANTLY after the first wall was built in 2008. El Paso started touting itself as a “safe border town” just after – knowing what an absurd statement that seemed to be given the violence of border towns.

    Reason has become as bad as any left wing rag.

    1. Total coincidence.

    2. “Violent crime has been dropping in El Paso since its modern-day peak in 1993 and was at historic lows before a fence was authorized by Congress in 2006. Violent crime actually ticked up during the border fence’s construction and after its completion, according to police data collected by the FBI.”

      Violent crime has been falling all over the country since the 90s for reasons that are only speculated on, but it’s probably legalized abortion.

      People don’t risk life and limb to come to this country looking for work only to seek out crimes to commit. Use some common sense.

      1. People don’t look for places with money to rob?

        You use some common sense dumbass.

        1. Drop some evidence on me and then all I’ll need is literacy.

          1. You need evidence that people look for places with money to rob?

            Seriously?

            1. I need evidence that swarthy heathens do it more than the general population. WTF? Are you dense as fuck or just pilled out all the time?

      2. Abortion or the phasing out if lead based paint and fuel, which is actually just as likely.

  20. Fuck off, Dalmia. No one loves you.

  21. “for low-skilled immigrants to work in the United States legitimately, a significant percentage of the foreign-born were likely unauthorized.” Likely doesn’t cut it. Sorry, next!

  22. I don’t see why this should be considered justification for ignoring the law. Is it OK to ignore tax laws, too? I’d like to get a definitive list of laws we get to ignore.

  23. Perhaps they could do their left-behind countrymen a favor, cross back over the river and make Juarez “safe”?

  24. This is absolutely stupid.

    The reason cities on the Mexican border are safer than cities elsewhere has nothing to do with immigration. It is instead very, very simple; in any metro area, crime that can move to the worst-policed areas does.

    Streetwalkers, drug dealers, fences, and the like operate in the least-policed areas of a metropolitan area because that’s where they’re least likely to be arrested. And as a result, related crime — assaults on streetwalkers, pimps beating up deadbeat johns, robberies of johns, violence between drug gangs, et cetera — congregates in those areas, too.

    The worst-policed areas of the Detroit metro area are in the City of Detroit, so those relocatable crimes and other related crimes, even when driven by demand from the population in the suburbs, show up in Detroit’s crime stats.

    The worst-policed areas of the San Diego-Tiujana metropolitan area are in Tiujana, the worst-policed areas of the Laredo-Nuevo Laredo metropolitan area are in Nuevo Laredo, and the worst-policed areas of the El Paso-Juarez metropolitan area are in Juarez.

    While by US standards El Paso might be poor, it is in context the rich suburb of “inner city” Ciudad Juarez. No sane criminal prefers to commit his crime where it will be investigated by the El Paso city police backed by the Texas Rangers and FBI rather than by the Juarez city/Chihuahua state/Mexican federal police.

  25. I used to live near el paso and I would say it has more to do with juarez being right across the border. It is easier to commit crimes there and if you want to move stuff across the border you drive 50 miles east or west then go through desert to get into the US. Plus even the cartels recognize it is safer to play nice on the US side of the border. When I was living near there they caught a cartel member who snuck into the US to live a with his drug money while still being part of a violent cartel south of the border.

    Also I think part of it might be illegals moving across the border are going to do everything possible not to get caught until they are farther from the border.

  26. The data shows that illegal immigrants commit crime at a much higher rate than legal immigrants. For homicides, the ratio is close to twice the rate which immediately shows the benefits of legal immigration versus illegal immigration. The arrest rate for illegals is triple that for illegal immigrants. Also, a comparison against “native” arrests and convictions is also misleading. In Texas the murder and arrest rates by minorities dominate. A more interesting comparison by Cato would be a comparison of illegals’ murder and arrest rates versus caucasians, blacks, and resident Hispanic US citizens

  27. As one who has been married to an immigrant (who read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead as a teen). for almost 30 years I will happily second Ms. Dalmia’s characterization of *LEGAL* immigrants. They freely express attitudes and values consistent with the Declaration of Independence. It’s only natural that people who value the rule of law, and respect our country enough to go through the long, complicated process of coming here legally would comport themselves as good guests, and/or citizens while they are here.

    Unfortunately, Ms. Dalmia persists in the error of conflating these fine people with those whose first act in the country is to break the law. By doing so, they are expressing disdain for the laws, culture and traditions that are the sources of the differences between this country and the ones they are allegedly fleeing. Why would they suddenly become the kind of people described in the article? Particularly when they are cheered on and even abetted by misguided souls who are already here? People who march on our borders in battalion and brigade strength behind the flags of other countries with the avowed intention of forcing their way into the country are most unlikely to be predisposed to assimilate. Instead, we are likely to see them forming separatist enclaves, perhaps with the results we see in eastern Ukraine, and other European countries.

    I was stationed along the East/West German border for over 3 years, and yes, walls and fences do work.

  28. Is it worth listening to some bullshit I’d scan and bypass?
    Transcript or STFU.
    You $2 donation is falling fast.

    CLICK HERE…?????? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  29. Does India have open borders?

    1. Definitely not, though they have a problem with Bengladesh analogous with ours on the Southwestern border. Kolkutta (Calcutta) and West Bengal state are overrun with impoverished people crossing the border. My wife and her family lived in Kolkutta off and on from when she was 8 until her parents passed away. During that time, the Communist Party won the state elections. They turned a blind eye to Bengladeshi crossings, and things basically went to s**t.

      Another immigration-related issue that bugs me is people who claim to have “dual citizenship.” We all know what Jesus said about serving two masters. How can someone give full loyalty to two countries? I think people who are naturalized U.S. citizens and claim to still be citizens of another country (I’m looking at you, Mr. Schwatzenegger) should either give up U.S. citizenship or be prosecuted for either perjury or fraud, because the citizenship oath includes renouncing fealty to any other country.

      India has an interesting way to help their former citizens maintain ties. “OCI” (forget what it stands for) is kind of a reverse green card that makes it easier for them to come and go, and exercise most of the rights of citizens, except vote and hold political office.

  30. Also, if we build a wall, we need to be consistent about it. Build a northern wall, too.

    I wonder if there is a scenario in which fedgov remained in charge of granting naturalized citizenship, but states bordering other countries retained soverign control over their physical borders with Mexico and Kanadia.

    That way, if Texans in Texas wanted to build a wall, they could go right ahead. Why shouldn’t Texas have a say about who comes into Texas from another country? That would probably be an uphill battle, since fedgov is granted authority over international immigration by the Constitution, but holy fuck we need some new ideas.

    I don’t support unlimited, border-free immigration, but I think a federal wall would be a boondoggle. It’s a massive undertaking, and fedgov just can’t competently manage it. No way.

  31. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…… >>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  32. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…….www.2citypays.com

  33. We lived in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas for almost two years a little over a decade ago. The permanent population at that time was said to be 85% Hispanic. (There was also a temporary population each winter of what was estimated as 100 thousand “winter Texan” tourists from Canada and the northern US.) We had a wonderful time. We often visited parks and wildlife reserves in rural areas right on the border and never worried about safety ( then, don’t know about now). As with towns of any size, there were places it was prudent to avoid, but the cities seemed pretty safe. Local friends told us the cities had little violent crime but a good deal of theft. We never experienced either. The politicians were crooked as snakes, but that is not different from most other places. As long as we have a welfare state and a leftist political party intent on using immigrants’ (or their children’s) votes to give them more power to harm Americans, there are reasons for restricting immigration. Coulter style fear of Mexicans is not one of them.

  34. Spare me the nonsense…

    All these stats are cherry picked, for one. There are other stats that show rates of crime being higher for illegal immigrants, although I don’t think I’ve ever seen similar results for legal immigrants overall, which makes sense.

    But even IF such stats were the norm, there’s an easy explanation: The “average” for Americans includes black Americans and native born Hispanics… Groups that commit ~85% of the murders annually in the US according to the FBI.

    In short, if illegal immigrants are displacing black communities, YES your crime will probably go down. If you’re adding them to the mix in a white or Asian area, the crime is going to sky rocket. If your bar for acceptable levels of criminality is “better than blacks” you are setting your sights too low!

    Like it or not PC pussies, facts are facts. You can argue ALL DAY LONG why crime rates are the way they are, but they are still very much what I just posted above in the here and now, AND have been proportionally the same for as long as we’ve been keeping accurate statistics. There is no nation on the world where blacks are not the highest crime rate group, including Africa. Hispanic nations (outside of Spain!) also tend to have some of the highest crime rates in the world.

    At least be HONEST when you’re trying to sell your line of thinking Reason!

  35. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k —->> http://www.payshd.com

  36. People who think the RATE of immigrant crime is relevant to the merits of immigration are fucking RETARDS.

    Seriously. Just the stupidest people in our society.

  37. Th NATIVE-BORN population includes a certain criminal prone 13%. If the “13%” MKEE shines were removed from the overall stats a completely different picture would emerge.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.