The 'Migrant Crime' Wave, Debunked
Plus, an AI-generated version of the same article


In the June 2024 issue, we explore the ways that artificial intelligence is shaping our economy and culture. The stories and art are about AI—and occasionally by AI. (Throughout the issue, we have rendered all text generated by AI-powered tools in blue.) To read the rest of the issue, go here.
"The United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime," said former President Donald Trump during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border in February. "It's a new form of vicious violation to our country."
Trump's remarks came at a tense moment in the nation's sentiment toward immigration. Over half of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center in February said that "the large number of migrants seeking to enter the country leads to more crime." The much-publicized murder of Georgia college student Laken Riley—for which a Venezuelan illegal immigrant, José Antonio Ibarra, was charged—helped spark a media firestorm.
"Over the past month, Fox News hosts, guests and video clips have mentioned 'migrant crime' nearly 90 times, more than half of those in the past 10 days," reported The Washington Post's Philip Bump in late February. Other right-of-center media outlets echoed that tenor.
Some undocumented immigrants have committed atrocious crimes, but there are many reasons to doubt that recent incidents prove America is suffering a surging migrant crime wave.
Crime is actually down in the cities that received the most migrants as a result of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's busing operations. "Overall crime is down year over year in Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, New York and Los Angeles," NBC reported.
"We don't have real-time data, but the partial crime data that exist for this year show consistent declines in major crimes in major cities," concurs David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. "The most significant crime spike in recent years occurred in 2020—when illegal immigration was historically low until the end of the year."
This aligns with historic trends. In 2015, the Migration Policy Institute found that undocumented immigrants have a lower rate of felony convictions than the overall U.S. population does. Criminologists Graham Ousey and Charis Kubrin, going off of "more than two decades of research on immigration and crime," concluded that "communities with more immigration tend to have less crime, especially violent crimes like homicide," wrote The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler.
Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at Cato, found that illegal immigrants have a lower homicide conviction rate in Texas than native-born Americans do. "Few people are murderers, and illegal immigrants are statistically less likely to be murderers," wrote Nowrasteh. "We should understand that more enforcement of immigration laws will not reduce homicide rates."
Some politicians still think that "migrant crime" is such a problem that the government should crack down on legal pathways to residency for the country's undocumented population. "How many more innocent victims must be harmed," Trump asked in a video posted to Truth Social in February, "until we stop this invasion….and remove these illegal alien criminals from our country?"
Cracking down on undocumented immigrants might appeal to the emotions sparked by high-profile crimes. But academic research and crime statistics suggest it won't actually change the crime rates.

- What we asked for:
Illustration showing migrant crime wave but that data tell a different story
- What DALL-E says it gave us:
The illustration captures the contrast between the sensationalized narrative of a "Migrant Crime Wave" and the reality as shown by data. On one side, it depicts the exaggerated notion of chaos and crime, while the other side reveals a peaceful community supported by statistical evidence of decreasing crime rates and harmonious coexistence.
Migrant Crime Wave? Data Tells a Different Story
Reason asked ChatGPT-4 to write an article about the same topic as the human-written article above. All AI-generated text is shown in blue. Read more about what we asked for.
By ChatGPT-4
In the wake of Laken Riley's tragic murder, allegedly committed by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant who entered the U.S. illegally, political responses have reignited fiery debates around immigration and crime. Former President Donald Trump's visit to Eagle Pass, Texas, encapsulated this sentiment starkly: "The United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It's a new form of vicious violation to our country," he declared. Yet, a closer examination of comprehensive data and studies challenges the narrative of a sweeping "migrant crime wave."
Contrary to popular belief, recent research offers a different perspective on the relationship between immigration and crime. A detailed analysis by the Texas Department of Public Safety (2012-2018) revealed that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates compared to their native-born counterparts. Specifically, U.S.-born citizens were found to be over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes, suggesting a disconnect between public perception and reality.
Further evidence from a Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) study emphasizes this point, showing that immigrants are significantly less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals. In fact, according to SIEPR and additional research from the Cato Institute, immigrants today are about 30 percent less likely to be incarcerated than their U.S.-born white counterparts and even less so when compared to the broader U.S.-born population.
The narrative of immigrant-induced crime fails to hold up under scrutiny. Data from the University of Wisconsin–Madison underscores that undocumented immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, challenging the rationale behind claims of a migrant crime wave.
The politicization of such incidents, while understandable from an emotional standpoint, risks overshadowing the nuanced realities of immigrant contributions to society. The vast majority of immigrants, documented or otherwise, come seeking better opportunities, contributing to the United States economically, culturally, and socially. Allowing isolated incidents to color perceptions of an entire demographic not only distorts the truth but also undermines the foundational principles of fairness and justice.
As the debate over immigration and crime continues, it's crucial to anchor our discussions in facts rather than fear. The evidence is clear: immigrants are far from the primary drivers of crime in the United States. Acknowledging this truth is a step toward more reasoned and productive conversations about immigration policy and the value of immigrant communities across the nation.
CHATGPT-4 is a subscription-supported large language model developed by OpenAI, an AI research organization.
- What we asked for:
"I'm writing an article about the myth of a crime wave in the U.S. committed by migrants. Can you provide me with some helpful studies and data points that I can use in the piece?" - What ChatGPT-4 gave us:
1. Texas Department of Public Safety Analysis (2012-2018)
2. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Study
3. Cato Institute Analysis
4. University of Wisconsin–Madison Study (2012-2018) - What we provided:
1. A lede: "The news hook for this article is the political response to the murder of Laken Riley, (allegedly) committed by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who immigrated to the U.S. illegally."
2. A quote from Donald Trump
3. Writing samples for analysis and replication: Two previous articles by Fiona Harrigan for the TOPICS section of Reason, "Are U.S. Strikes on Houthis Constitutional?" (May 2024) and "America's Immigrant Brain Drain" (October 2023).
—JASON RUSSELL
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Let’s hope that AI fully replaces the staff here at Reason and soon.
Here’s where Fiona announced she was fibbing:
“But academic research and crime statistics suggest it won’t actually change the crime rates.”
A big “suggest” along with vague allusion to “statistics”.
Her evidence is “partial crime data” for the current year in a handful of Texas cities and a WaPo article by the performative Philip Bump slagging Fox News.
This year’s “partial crime data” was then compared somehow to a decade-old paper by the totally impartial ‘Migration Policy Institute’, telling us that illegals before 2015 didn’t commit as much crime as regular Americans, if you ignore the one where they illegally snuck in to the country.
Because of course what is happening right now is the same thing as pre-2015 and illegals avoiding deportation are so easy to keep stats on.
She then invokes Alex Nowrasteh whose website repeats the same study “The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 2.4 per 100,000 illegal immigrants in 2015” as proof.
As for the ChatGPT-4 article, I use it every day for writing, and there is absolutely no way that this was all that was entered.
“I’m writing an article about the myth of a crime wave in the U.S. committed by migrants. Can you provide me with some helpful studies and data points that I can use in the piece?”
That may have been the instructions preamble, but as admitted further on, they gave it the lede they wanted, the Trump “quote”, and two other Fiona articles to cite and imitate, all which require further information to process correctly and give the desired result.
That was more ChatGPT-4 collated than written.
This year’s “partial crime data” was then compared somehow to a decade-old paper by the totally impartial ‘Migration Policy Institute’, telling us that illegals before 2015 didn’t commit as much crime as regular Americans, if you ignore the one where they illegally snuck in to the country.
Even setting aside the "If you ignore the B&E, they're less criminal." this is like saying "More crimes are committed in private homes by nearby residents than are committed by strangers in truck stops."
they gave it the lede they wanted, the Trump “quote”
Yup. I don't know what Shikha did to get fired, but Fiona (and ENB and Emma and Binion and Boehm) aren't the least bit better.
Can AI make a sammich?
You also have areas like LA who will not arrest illegals for crimes that can lead to deportation. Nor do they report residency status in their crime data.
That may have been true at one time(tho I doubt it),hard to find data. But now,many illegals start off as Mules,guns drugs,even kids.
They continue their evil ways governed by Coyotes.
Then the shoplifting craze is surely perpetrated by them.
Since illegal aliens are here, you know, illegally then by definition the millions of them pouring over our border at the behest of Brandon is a wave of crime. Just one American injured or killed by an illegal is one that did not have to happen. Dems have blood on their hands
Since witches are here, you know, illegally then by definition the millions of them are illegally causing crop failures, stillborn calves, diseases, death, and the torture and ritual killings, and blood-drinking, of Christian newborn babies!!! FEELZ, not statistics, snotistics, and facts, should drool the days of our lives!!!
Hey....SQRLSY ONE....Witches aren't illegal.....
Biden's
Broken
Border
Bloodbath
Bears
Beets
Battlestar Galactica
"Michael!"
So, here's the problem with the migrant crime wave.
Illegal aliens are criminals by nature. The mere fact that they're even IN America illegally necessarily makes them criminals.
This is not rocket surgery. It doesn't take a robot to figure this out.
But you may be relying on one, as an argumentum ad verecundium, to rationalize your asinine stance. Which really throws into question the "Reason" namesake.
WHO invited your ancestors to the USA? Humans (today's modern species root stock) evolved in Africa; They are an invasive species everywhere else!!! Go back to Africa NOW!!!
If we did, you’d tell us we’re colonizing it.
Because we’d improve it. And assert governance to keep and continue those improvements.
Which is apparently something you hate.
So then illegal sub-human immigrants NEVER improve ANYTHING, right? Did yer tinfoil hate-hat tell you that?
Which is it then? Forced colonization of an indigenous population is good or bad?
(Also, just for fun - what happens when the colonizers take the indigenous population backwards? Good or bad? )
Freedom is good. Slavery is bad. All-is-for-The-Hive collectivist ownershit of the Magic Lines In The Sand, And Who May and Who May Not Cross Them (and who may and who may not perform productive labor on Our Collectively Owned Magic Soil) is SLAVERY! Fuck off, slavers!
You didn't answer the question.
Forced colonization of an indigenous population is good or bad?
Criminality, like politics, is genetic. If we let in illegals who have criminality running through their blood, they are going to have criminal children. Not only that, but they and their offspring are going to vote for Democrats since they are all socialists. Illegals create generational criminality and leftism. They must be stopped.
Fuck off, Sarc. You squeal "don't attack the person" and then every chance you get you're calling them racist or worse for pointing out the obvious.
AT is absolutely right. Because illegal aliens are illegal because they are actively and knowingly breaking immigration laws, they really are "are criminals by nature".
Also, "illegal alien" isn't a race, you disingenuous fuck. Neither is Mexican.
Because illegal aliens are illegal because they are actively and knowingly breaking immigration laws, they really are “are criminals by nature”.
Are people who defy drug laws “criminal by nature”? They must be.
What about those who refuse to obey gun laws in places like New York or California. They must be “criminal by nature.” And they’re armed too. Ready to start murdering.
Anyone who doesn’t obey every traffic law is “criminal by nature” as well. Piloting a deadly weapon without obeying every single sign is like shooting a gun into a crowd.
Yup. If you don’t obey every arbitrary law to the letter, you’re no different than a murderer or a rapist.
‘If you don’t obey every arbitrary law to the letter, you’re no different than a murderer or a rapist.’
That is not in the slightest what he said. You know that, right? Was that hyperbole to try and make a point?
Also, are you saying immigration laws are arbitrary, i.e. nations don’t have the right or responsibility to control their borders?
That is not in the slightest what he said. You know that, right?
What else does "criminal by nature" mean other than that?
are you saying immigration laws are arbitrary
I’m saying that the process for legal immigration into this country is arbitrary, yes. Unjust too. Saying “they do it too!” doesn’t justify injustice.
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf
'criminal by nature' means exactly that, someone inclined to commit a crime (which is logical as they are in the act of committing one.) That is a far cry and fairly ludicrous to leap to thinking that that would mean they would be inclined to commit any heinous crime. A jaywalker isn't 'inclined' to commit first degree murder, but they certainly are inclined to continue to jaywalk and other, similar level of crimes. Making ridiculous leaps like you did looks pretty silly.
Your opinion about legal immigration is just that; your opinion. If our country wants to set a limit of how many new folks we admit, we are certainly within our rights to do so. We have no responsibility to throw open our borders (and our social welfare system) to the people of the world.
‘criminal by nature’ means exactly that, someone inclined to commit a crime
Problem with that is twofold. One, people who are in the country illegally have an incentive to not commit crimes because they don't want to be deported, and two the numbers say otherwise.
That is a far cry and fairly ludicrous to leap to thinking that that would mean they would be inclined to commit any heinous crime.
Tell that to the people who bring up Liken Riley whenever the subject of illegal immigration comes up.
We have no responsibility to throw open our borders (and our social welfare system) to the people of the world.
Always with the false dichotomy of the current system or no borders at all. Never fails.
'One, people who are in the country illegally have an incentive to not commit crimes because they don’t want to be deported, and two the numbers say otherwise.'
People who are in the country illegally have an incentive to continue to commit crimes, whether they be labor crimes or due to their poverty. Loads of folks on this board have already pointed out why and how the numbers being reported are skewed.
'Tell that to the people who bring up Liken Riley whenever the subject of illegal immigration comes up.'
So people are not allowed to point out an example of where an illegal alien was allowed into this country, committed crimes, continued to be released, and finally graduated to murder? Pointing out the catch and release nature of our immigration system seems pretty fair game; I thought you thought our immigration laws were arbitrary, right?
'Always with the false dichotomy of the current system or no borders at all. Never fails.'
In no means is this a false dichotomy. It is a choice between actually maintaining our immigration laws and effectively limiting the number of people who enter our country annually or not following those laws, giving in to the tide of illegal immigration. In what way possibly is that a false choice? It isn't, so why are you trying to insert logical fallacies into this?
People who are in the country illegally have an incentive to continue to commit crimes, whether they be labor crimes or due to their poverty.
So we’ve moved from murder to working under the table. What a heinous crime.
So people are not allowed to point out an example of where an illegal alien was allowed into this country, committed crimes, continued to be released, and finally graduated to murder?
Sure they can point it out. And I can point out that they’re using the fallacy of composition by implying that every illegal immigrant is like that person.
It is a choice between actually maintaining our immigration laws and effectively limiting the number of people who enter our country annually or not following those laws
What about changing the laws to make it easier for those who want to work to enter the country legally and fill some of the millions upon millions of job openings in this country?
In what way possibly is that a false choice?
You absolutely exclude and deny any possibility of changing current law. All or nothing.
It isn’t, so why are you trying to insert logical fallacies into this?
I’m not the one presenting a false dichotomy.
'So we’ve moved from murder to working under the table. What a heinous crime.'
It was you who made the leap from crimes like illegal immigration to murder, not me. Why are you okay with allowing crimes to occur? If you are okay with certain crimes, are other not allowed to be okay with that? Are others allowed to have opinions that the law should be followed?
'Sure they can point it out. And I can point out that they’re using the fallacy of composition by implying that every illegal immigrant is like that person.'
No one is saying (certainly not me) that every illegal immigrant is like that person. They are pointing out how broken the system is, which I thought you agreed to?
'What about changing the laws to make it easier for those who want to work to enter the country legally and fill some of the millions upon millions of job openings in this country?'
There is already a process for a non-citizen to enter the country to do this. Why allow non-citizens to enter the country to fill these positions if there are Americans out of work? Do you just mean into non-skill positions? Why do you want to import 'millions upon millions' of unskilled laborers into the country?
'You absolutely exclude and deny any possibility of changing current law. All or nothing'
If your position is to change current law, feel free to try. However I would assume you have to admit that 'changing current law' to increase the amount of legal immigration as a band-aid fix to cover up for our lack of will to reduce illegal immigration is essentially doing just that; admitting we can't control our borders and are at the mercy of how many people simply want to cross our border illegally. Not a false choice as you describe.
Ask him about the generous welfare of 150B a year next. He has me on mute. Sarc thinks it is fine to steal from citizens to give to those violation the nations laws.
There is already a process for a non-citizen to enter the country to do this.
You missed the part where I said it should be easier.
Why allow non-citizens to enter the country to fill these positions if there are Americans out of work?
Because Americans don’t want to fill those positions! Duh!
However I would assume you have to admit that ‘changing current law’ to increase the amount of legal immigration as a band-aid fix to cover up for our lack of will to reduce illegal immigration is essentially doing just that; admitting we can’t control our borders and are at the mercy of how many people simply want to cross our border illegally.
Not at all. Most of the people who enter this country illegally are economic refugees. If you don’t like that term come up with a different one, the point is that they just want a fucking job. When current law makes that impractical or impossible, and their desire to improve life for themselves and their family is greater than their desire to enter the country legally, they choose family.
If you really want to reduce illegal immigration, then make it easier for those folks to enter legally. They don’t enter illegally because it’s fun. They do it because the legal path won’t work for them. So make it work.
‘You missed the part where I said it should be easier.’
You missed the part where I said that was your opinion, which a lot of others don’t share.
‘Because Americans don’t want to fill those positions! Duh! ‘
So to clarify, you indeed are proposing to allow (your words) ‘millions upon millions’ of unskilled laborers into the country? And you ignore the societal cost which hasn’t even come up as a point of discussion?
‘If you really want to reduce illegal immigration, then make it easier for those folks to enter legally.’
Who is presenting the false choice? If I want to reduce it then wish it away by letting more of them in legally? Is that a joke?
Your whole argument seems to be premised on that we owe them a job (you referred to them as economic refugees and that they simply want a job). You ignore the social safety net that these folks (and their families) would then qualify for, and the resulting cost to the nation. You can’t blithely ignore that.
I tell you what, if letting these folks in but making the distinction that they and their family members are disqualified from any and all benefits of our social safety net (including education), then we may have a discussion. How about it?
You missed the part where I said that was your opinion, which a lot of others don’t share.
The immigrants are coming anyway. Make it easier or make it illegal. Won't change anything.
So to clarify, you indeed are proposing to allow (your words) ‘millions upon millions’ of unskilled laborers into the country?
I said there are millions upon millions of jobs openings. You said I want immigrants to fill them all.
And you ignore the societal cost which hasn’t even come up as a point of discussion?
You ignore that every wave of immigration has been met with the same attacks, and the attacks have always been unfounded.
If I want to reduce it then wish it away by letting more of them in legally?
If you want to reduce it you're fighting a losing battle.
Your whole argument seems to be premised on that we owe them a job
lol way to twist words!
You ignore the social safety net that these folks (and their families) would then qualify for, and the resulting cost to the nation.
You ignore that I'm talking about those who want to work, unlike the Americans living on the dole who refuse to take jobs that are beneath them.
I tell you what, if letting these folks in but making the distinction that they and their family members are disqualified from any and all benefits of our social safety net (including education), then we may have a discussion.
That's a great idea. Refuse to educate their children and deny them access to services that they pay taxes for. Why not count them as 3/5 of a person while you're at it?
‘The immigrants are coming anyway. Make it easier or make it illegal. Won’t change anything.’
Other crimes happens anyway as well. That is a really silly argument, and again it is you who is presenting a false dichotomy.
‘I said there are millions upon millions of jobs openings. You said I want immigrants to fill them all.’
You voiced a need (the job openings) and voiced that you want immigration to be much easier. It doesn’t take a genius to read that you are positing that (il)legal immigration will fill that need. Don’t back away from that sentiment; own it.
‘You ignore that every wave of immigration has been met with the same attacks, and the attacks have always been unfounded.’
Complete nonsense. Again, you ignore completely the societal cost, which at this point would be wrapped into our national debt from past waves of illegal immigration. Not rocket science, but for some reason you are hand-waving this away.
‘If you want to reduce it you’re fighting a losing battle.’
Wow, that couldn’t sound any more like ‘just lay back and enjoy it’ in the case of rape. Again, false dichotomy.
‘lol way to twist words!’
You said they just want a job, and therefore we should make immigration laws easier for them to come, as if it is our responsibility to employ them. Don’t back away from your position; own it.
‘You ignore that I’m talking about those who want to work, unlike the Americans living on the dole who refuse to take jobs that are beneath them.’
You want to address American citizens on the dole, fine. Its sort of a separate issue I would think. It is the height of ridiculousness to think that bringing more economically disadvantaged people to this country will not make that worse. Did you even read what you wrote before you hit submit?
‘That’s a great idea. Refuse to educate their children and deny them access to services that they pay taxes for. Why not count them as 3/5 of a person while you’re at it?’
And there is all the desperation in a nutshell. Appeal for ‘the children’ (because of course we owe them an education, right?), and their impoverished families (who if they are unskilled and low income are most likely ‘working under the table’ as you put it, meaning they are most certainly not paying FICA or income tax, and in some states are eligible for state benefits. All of their children are required by the state to be educated, which isn’t free.) And you go with the hat trick at the not so veiled accusation of racism? Is that what you normally do?
Sarc, 1.5M people figure out how to legally immigrate a year. Please stop being racist and saying foreigners can't figure out paperwork.
And your lie about doing jobs Americans won't do is still a lie.
You've been given the stories of citizens training up replacements, Americans lining up for meat packing jobs, etc etc.
You just blindly continue repeating false narratives despite having counter information handed to you over and over.
Youre not intelligent. Youre an activist using bumper stickers.
David Perry, you just conducted a master class on debating Sarc and pointing out all of his inconsistencies and logical fallacies. Well done, sir!
Read through the graphic and compared it to the CIS website, and frankly in what way is in 'arbitrary'?
Again, we are allowed to limit the number of people who can come into our country, and making those rules based on family or a skilled position you can obtain seems the opposite of arbitrary.
It is the very definition of arbitrary. The immigrant must meet certain standards set by the personal preferences of the politicians who wrote the laws.
What's wrong with a legal way for people who just want to work to enter the country and work, without jumping through hoops for a decade or more?
What’s wrong with a legal way for people who just want to work to enter the country and work, without jumping through hoops for a decade or more?
What's wrong is there is a legal way that exist today. You may not like it, the people who want to come here may not like it, but that is the law that is on the books today. Advocating for a change in the law is okay. Allowing a mass migration to circumvent the law because it is not as easy as they want it to be does not make it okay, and, in fact, is currently illegal under the current law.
That is complete nonsense. We have established clear benchmarks on who we allow to enter our country legally.
If you have a familial tie, it makes sense to allow that person to become a citizen.
If you can benefit the country with a skill, it makes sense to allow that person to become a citizen.
If you want to reduce the wait times, I would think that is more to the resources available to the federal offices who control these things, like vetting etc.
There is a legal way for people to enter the country nearly immediately, the H-1B visa process. If you want to push for more of those, go right ahead. I would posit that the counter-argument is why bring in more folks from other countries and instead maybe incentivize companies to help Americans get trained to do these jobs?
Again, these are all of your opinions (that aliens should be allowed to enter much more simply to occupy American jobs). Others are also allowed to have them. It should be obvious that I share pretty much the exact opposite of you. I think the resources of this country should be primarily reserved for American citizens, and that the country has a responsibility to control its borders.
As soon as you agree that all sponsors are 100% liable for any costs for migrants coming here you’d have an argument.
Instead you ignore every negative externalities, deny every negative externalities, and push ignorant appeals to emotion.
Your argument is literally the open borders argument from Marxists. It is why you ignore things like crime and welfare.
You also ignore all the studies showing the unchecked immigration is a large driver of inflation and housing costs. A country can't magically create infrastructure for 10M new people who have never contributed a dime prior to crossing illegally.
What if the law itself is unjust and infringes on fundamental liberties? Is it morally okay in that case to ignore the law?
The law isn't unjust you marxist fuck.
The law is for controlled migration in order to be able to ramp up infrastructure.
Likewise you, just like sarc, ignore the unjust outcomes of crimes and welfare on citizens here as you lie about migrants and their effects on communities.
Welfare is unjust, it is theft. Yet you demand it.
What if the law itself is unjust and infringes on fundamental liberties? Is it morally okay in that case to ignore the law?
Depends on if it's immigration law or not. Those laws are set in stone like The Commandments. Everything else is up for discussion.
Allowing a mass migration to circumvent the law because it is not as easy as they want it to be does not make it okay, and, in fact, is currently illegal under the current law.
I liken it to setting a national speed limit of 35mph, and treating all violators the same. People who just want to get to work a little quicker are treated the same as people drag racing in a school zone. It's dumb. Best to accept that people are going to go faster and raise the limit accordingly while busting drag racers than to treat every lawbreaker like a criminal.
Or to put it another way, people are coming here for economic opportunity regardless. Give the ones who just want to work an easier legal path, then focus on busting actual criminals.
Depends on if it’s immigration law or not. Those laws are set in stone like The Commandments. Everything else is up for discussion.
IKR? I don't understand how the same people who bitch and moan (mostly justifiably) about regulations, tax laws, drug laws, "three felonies a day", all sorts of laws which restrict our liberties all the time, will turn around and say "the law's the law!" when it comes to immigration law.
The same government which passes stupid and ridiculous drug laws and tax laws is equally capable of passing stupid and ridiculous immigration laws.
I don’t understand how the same people who bitch and moan (mostly justifiably) about regulations, tax laws, drug laws, “three felonies a day”, all sorts of laws which restrict our liberties all the time, will turn around and say “the law’s the law!” when it comes to immigration law.
I do. It's because they can only argue against the current system or no laws at all. They can't imagine anything else.
Nation-states exist, created by the citizenry, and entrusted with certain powers and responsibilities.
A nation-state having laws on who may emigrate, how many may emigrate, when and where they have to enter said nation-state, is no more unjust or immoral than a hippie commune doing the same.
To state otherwise is a tacit admission of not wanting nation-states to exist at all.
Which is a fine, if misguided (my opinion), position to have from a libertarian perspective. But it is by no means the only libertarian position to have.
Man you two are pathetic. Keep advocating for migrant welfare. That is all youre actually doing. Stealing from citizens to give to others. Your continued sophistry is literally pathetic.
This country is more generous with immigration than any other country dumbass.
How is common migration enforcement arbitrary?
“This country is more generous with immigration than any other country…”
Bullshit! Certainly not as a percentage of the native population!
Based on the information provided in the search results, the countries with the highest percentage of their populations being immigrants are:
United Arab Emirates – 88% of the total population
Qatar – 77%
Kuwait – 73%
Bahrain – 55%
Oman – 46%
Singapore – 43%
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-with-the-highest-proportion-of-immigrants/
Why do you lie so much?
Why do you lie so much?
If he didn't lie then he wouldn't have a reason to breathe.
What is the lie sarc?
1.5M legal immigrants. Over 400k other Visas from things like H1B.
I know ignorance is your forte.
“Although the United States is outside the top 20, it still has by far the most immigrants of any other country (50 million vs. 16 million in second-place Germany).”
That’s probably what Jesse was referring to. Straight from the squirrels link.
Even morons can cherry-pick their stats! Twat a surprise! 50% of a 3,000,000-unit build being defectives are the same as 50% defective in a 4-unit build in the factory, am I right? And 7 good units out of a 3,000,000-unit build is MUCH better than 5 good units out of a build of 10 units? Ignore the 2,999,993 defects v/s 5 defects, shall we?
Please do NOT become a factory manager, idiots!!!
POPULATION SIZES MATTER, hello?!?! WHERE did y'all go to stupid-school?
The only person cherry picking stats is the one using percentages of small (both in land mass and in population) countries instead of raw numbers or comparing something similar to the US (comparing/contrasting the US to the EU would be more appropriate).
Never mind that I didn’t “pick” anything, I literally just quoted your link.
I see! The stats selected to support your view are impartial, and the ones selected to support my view are cherry-picked! A 4-unit factory build is then MORE statistically significant than a 3,000,000-unit build, for verifying your factory processes!!!
Figures don't lie, but liars figure!
First, I never expressed my view on immigration.
Second, a middle schooler knows using similar things yields better results for comparing/contrasting. Sorry you can’t seem to grasp this very basic concept.
"Qatar – 77%
Kuwait – 73%
Bahrain – 55%
Oman – 46%"
All four of these are oil kleptocracies with massive numbers of foreign workers. Not "immigrants" as we use the word.
"Are people who defy drug laws “criminal by nature”? They must be."
Yes, Sarcasmic, you fantastic fucking idiot, because they are breaking a law.
Are they a good idea? No, they're a terrible idea because they don't work.
Are the drug laws justified? For heroin and meth? Yes, absolutely, but justified doesn't mean practical. For weed and acid? No.
But still, breaking drug laws is still currently criminal by nature under the law, even if the law is useless.
How did you get this fucking stupid? Did mom smack you too hard?
But still, breaking drug laws is still currently criminal by nature under the law, even if the law is useless.
Does that make them subhumans who are "criminal by nature" like the vermin who break immigration laws?
Look at sarc trying to invoke Hitler again. Never a care when dems do it.
Have you learned who Laken Riley is yet?
So, what, they all just accidentally came to America and are here illegally here by happenstance? There was no planning, no intent, no conscious decision, no concentrated effort on their part? They were just randomly wandering around in the Mexican dirt and happened to all coalesce in the same place to illegally cross a border? (Never mind those tour guides they’re all holding that inform them what to do and what to say when they get here.)
Wow, what odds!
These are criminals who are intentionally and knowingly committing crime. Yes. Criminals. By. Nature.
Normal people don’t do this sort of thing. YOU – YOU YOURSELF – wouldn’t do this sort of thing if you were planning a trip to France or Norway or Japan or Australia. TELL ME I’M WRONG.
Sure, and technically correct is the best kind of correct. But illegal border crossings are not the crimes that really affect people directly, which is the real concern here.
I'm not at all convinced by this "debunking", but all you are doing is avoiding the actual question of whether the influx of immigrants has increased violent and property crimes.
Talk to a rancher on the border and let them know they aren’t effected. Or hospitals along the border. They’d be glad to hear it.
actual question of whether the influx of immigrants has increased violent and property crimes.
If a single illegal immigrant commits a crime, crime has increased correct?
We won’t get a straight answer on violent and property crime numbers because so many cities are just not bothering to solve cases (looking at you Houston).
Either that or, well both really, they refuse to get or report on immigration status data and just call everyone citizens.
But illegal border crossings are not the crimes that really affect people directly, which is the real concern here.
Insurance fraud isn't the kind of crime that really affects people directly. Dumping toxic chemicals into a river a hundred miles away isn't really the kind of crime that affects people directly. Illegal drug use isn't the kind of crime that really affects people directly. Insider trading isn't the kind of crime that really affects people directly.
Except that it does, you're just refusing to consider HOW it affects them in order to rationalize its commission. Because it does, even if you don't appreciate the effect. Which is why it's a crime. The harm is quantifiable.
Yeah I gotta add"Reason"turned me away some time ago.
"Migrant Crime Wave? Data Tells a Different Story"
The data shows 75% want a [Na]tional So[zi]alist empire of theft.
The data shows 51% are taking welfare right now.
The only way immigration doesn't cause more crime is if you want to pretend armed-theft of others by gov-guns isn't a crime.
"Crime is actually down in the cities that received the most migrants"
So people breaking into the nation illegally to steal jobs from Americans and suck up taxes they didn't pay actually REDUCES crime. The mere presence of illegal aliens makes American criminals go straight! Well, that and decriminalizing crime.
We should try this with other things, like let's have people who believe a man magically becomes a biological woman just by saying he's a woman teach our kids to make them smarter!
Well, that and decriminalizing crime.
No. No. No. That's been disproven too. Don't believe your lying eyes or what the rational part of your brain is telling you. Bringing in more migrants and releasing people for petty crimes only stabilizes communities and drives down crime. Any riots that result are mostly peaceful, the vaccines are 100% safe and effective, with no downsides, the economy is up, and crime is down.
And they accept jobs way below minimum wage,no taxes paid and no assimilation required.
I'm bored of refuting this moron. Anyone needing an explanation of why she's full of shit, please just browse the comments on her previous articles.
Good God, you're literally using debunked studies to demonstrate that the crime wave has been 'debunked'!
Misuse of Texas Data Understates Illegal Immigrant Criminality
The studies you rely on are called out by name for making the same basic mistake: Assuming that you know for sure somebody's immigration status at the point where they enter the legal system. One of the studies was worse: It took people's WORD for whether or not they were illegal immigrants, on the assumption that nobody would ever lie about that...
Ever read anything about the founder of CIS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton
Classy guy.
Hey look. Sarc used an ad hominem which he swears he never does.
“Hey look. Sarc used an ad hominem which he swears he never does.”
And a non sequitur, which he also points out is always the crime of others.
Also the Wiki article calls the guy a "white nationalist" because he criticized the SPLC, and the SPLC called him racist for doing so.
And as we all know the SPLC totally isn't a Democratic Party smear shop, super-PAC and direct mail racket posing as a civil rights organization.
That article reads just like Sarcasmic.
Now tell me how it’s ad hominem and non sequitur to being up Margaret Sanger in the context of Planned Parenthood. Oh, silly me. It’s different when you do it. When you do it it's a powerful indictment. When I do it it's time to attack.
Well, what you're doing right now is again a non sequitur for switching the topic to abortion.
No. You attacked me for bringing up the founder of your favorite anti-immigration organization. So I compared what I did to bringing up the founder of Planned Parenthood, which invariably happens when that topic is being discussed. And it’s always “gotcha” because she, like the founder of this organization you are defending, was a eugenicist. That’s apples to apples, bub. But you know this. You’re just being a piece of shit liar as always.
Because abortion being set up in poor and minority neighborhoods, like Planned Parenthood, is exactly the eugenics of Margaret Sanger.
Using her name to point this out isnt dismissing the data, it is propping it up.
Unlike you dismissing information because of someone who didn't even write the article you are choosing to ignore dumbass.
"No. You attacked me for bringing up the founder of your favorite anti-immigration organization."
Brett was talking about the results of the study, not your DNC smear job on the CIS founder. Switching the topic to to him was totally non sequitur, you fantastic fucking slimeball.
Let's see you make the same argument next time someone brings up Margaret Sanger.
That's a joke of course, because everyone knows you'll defend that person.
Principals, not principles.
Already answered for you. So extra retarded.
You realize they aren’t the same thing right?
Right?
Now you're committing the Tu Quoque fallacy, after being called out on committing the Ad Hominem fallacy.
Classic
You know what? I don't care.
They identified a gross problem with the studies, that invalidated their results. That's true even if you don't like this Tanton guy.
In fact, Tanton died back in 2019, he didn't have anything to do with conducting this study.
Why don't you apply the same reasoning to Planned Parenthood? The woman who founded it was a real piece of work. And Tanton?
He founded one of the chapters himself, for the same reason Sanger did: To keep undesireables from reproducing.
Why don’t you apply the same reasoning to Planned Parenthood?
Why don't you apply the same reasoning applied to Planned Parenthood to CIS?
Can you explain why PP is so prevalent in black neighborhoods? They do not provide medical assistance (cannot even do breast exams).
The ghost of Margaret Sanger?
Sarc is too dumb to understand PP operates under the vision Sanger set up for eugenics. It has nothing to do with data.
It isnt an ad hominem.
For sarcs attack to ignore the data he used purely an ad hominem.
If PP points out real data, or real problems with somebody's study, I listen to them. You haven't refuted the information in that study, or the basic mistake they identified, you're just precisely using ad honinem to avoid having to.
Can you post another source other than WikiPedia? Seriously, that site is bottom-of-the-barrel reliability.
Its sarc. It is either that or google.com
Wow, Wikipedia. Long known as an impartial purveyor of information.
And I thought you loathed ad hominem attacks.
Ever learn that you shouldn't cite wikipedia? It's particularly relevant as there is an edit war on Yasuke's page.
And, once again, as I have indicated the fundamental mechanics of their analysis is retardedly self-serving and/or self-fulfilling.
“The vast majority of crimes everywhere go completely unsolved either way, but we caught fewer guilty people in the 5 mi. around the local truck stop than we did in the 5 mi. around our local police station. Plus, a larger fraction of both groups were more regional to the area under investigation.”
Uh, one explanation is that migrants are, by some mystery you don’t even purport to exist let alone explain or test, inherently less criminal but another explanation, and let me be clear that this doesn’t preclude the previous explanation, is that you’re a bunch of lazy, dishonest, self-serving ghouls who don’t care one wit about the truth or immigrants one way or the other and never really have.
Wonder how much crime committed by illegals against other illegals isn't reported due to fear of deportation. I'd suppose that it's a significant figure.
Who cares? Let them eat each other.
"We don't have real-time data, but the partial crime data that exist for this year show consistent declines in major crimes in major cities," concurs David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.
Assumptions from partial data yay!
Also it is already well known the data reporting for national crime data is not being reported by the major cities. In fact multiple cities have been found closing cases without even an investigation to lower crime incidents.
https://www.kron4.com/news/national/cities-nationwide-not-reporting-crime-data-to-fbi/amp/
It is bad data.
Stop pushing this bullshit from the Brennan Center.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/increased-illegal-immigration-brings-increased-crime-almost-23-federal
A 2021 Department of Justice report revealed that 64% of federal arrests in 2018 involved noncitizens, despite them comprising only 7% of the population at that time. While the Biden administration fails to provide continuous updates on illegal alien crime data, Texas’ Department of Public Safety maintains a running database of such incidents. Other states should follow suit.
Changes to FBI reporting measures in 2021 have left one third of police agencies not reporting data. Including new york and los angelas.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/07/13/fbi-crime-rates-data-gap-nibrs
Likewise many of the sanctuary states discussed here dont check immigration status of crimes. But you know who does? Texas. And what does the data show...
https://nypost.com/2022/10/19/what-the-media-tell-you-about-illegal-immigrant-crime-is-plain-wrong/
An article in which Fiona either lies through her fucking teeth because she knows how wrong she is, or a perfect demonstration of GiGO. Bad data invalidates any possible point she might try to make.
Once upon a time, libertarians believed liberty was a natural right of all human beings. Anyone who defended the State's actions to deny liberty was a "statist".
How things change.
The United States has the plenary power to exclude aliens.
Liberty is leftist. True libertarians understand the people need to be tightly controlled, especially when it comes to immigration and trade.
And another asshole praising stealing from citizens to give to non citizens. The definition of liberty is somehow socialism to idiots like you two.
Do you find it odd that all your agreement is with known leftists here?
Rubbish.
To be fair, sarc is an idiot.
That’s one hell of a strawman you’re building there sarc.
Let’s see if it catches fire.
Hey asshole. Stealing from some to give others isnt liberty. Migrants cost over 150B last year. That isn’t liberty.
Nearly three dozen hospitals were bankrupted and forced to close because of being forced to treat these "newcomers" at their expense.
Yours will be next.
From Arizona. Southern Arizona lost all Trauma 1 centers except 1 in Tucson over the last 2 decades due to illegal immigrant care.
A study was just published showing hospitals increasing costs by nearly 20% due to the latest mogrant surge for private plans to recoup costs.
Nuh-uh. Inflation! (tm) has just been reduced to 3.4%.
Once upon a time, libertarians believed in Santa Claus too. Then most of them learned TANSTAAFL and that some forms of fraud are harmless and some aren't.
Since when does libertarianism include the tenet, "imagine there's no countries........"
My version doesn't.
On Planet Libertopia there would be no countries. Here on Earth, we have to live with the reality of nation-states. We can't survive being the only country without boundaries.
We can’t survive being the only country without boundaries.
Biden/Harris is giving it a damn good try though.
You misspelled Anarchist.
Libertarianism (just like any other political system) requires at least a minimum state.
Biden's
Broken
Border
Bloodbath
How many military age young Chinese men have made their way into this country? twenty thousand, fifty thousand?
The cartels have taken over the Reservations in Montana.
Your town is next .
How many more innocent women will be raped and murdered by these "newcomers"?
Remember Laken Riley. Say her name.
No, there is no uptick in "migrant" crime. What white bread conservatives are seeing is poverty. Poverty is a big driver of crime as financial desperation can lead to acts of desperation. And impoverished areas tend to be areas high in ethnic minorities. Which white bread conservatives mistake as brand new migrants that Sleepy Joe has deliberately imported. It's total nonsense.
Back in the 70s the white bread meme was that Blacks and Hispanics in the inner cities were all criminals and druggies. We've gotten past that. Now it's all ethnic people in inner cities are criminals and druggies. It's the same xenophobic attitude. The same old story.
What do the poorer neighborhoods in America look like? Those are who the middle class nativists point to as the criminal class.
of course the nativist populists in the commentariat will call me names for this. They refuxe to see their own xenophobia and racism. But take a step back and look at where the attitude is coming from. It's not coming from any actual evidence of Trump/Biden importing criminals, but their suspicion against Other People.
"Poverty is a big driver of crime as financial desperation can lead to acts of desperation."
You have the issue backwards.
Poverty does not cause crime. Crime, though, very much does cause poverty.
If poverty caused crime, the Great Depression would have had more, say, homicides than the time preceding it. For example, in the US, the rate of homicides per 200,000 in 1928 was 8.6. In 1935, it was 8.5. And reduced from then on.
"And impoverished areas tend to be areas high in ethnic minorities."
So, it is because of their ethnicity? Seems like a sketchy argument. Why do very poor white locales not have the same crime rate as, say, Oakland, CA?
"They refuxe to see their own xenophobia and racism."
You're the one claiming that multi-ethnic locales have higher crime issues.
Poverty does not cause crime. Crime, though, very much does cause poverty.
Not at all. Poverty causes crimes of desperation.
Like what happened to Elizabeth Smart?
That's dumb.
No, it is not.
Was Brian Mitchell desperate?
Were these men desperate?
https://uk.legal.narkive.com/TJ9LQgw8/nazi-nithings-wall-of-shame#
Weird take as you claim all the illegals are desperate yet dont commit crimes.
"Not at all. Poverty causes crimes of desperation."
Statistics do not back this up.
Crimes of desperation are caused by many issues. Poverty is not one of the big ones.
It's not crime, it's poverty. Poverty is nicer sounding than crime. Even though poverty creates crime.
Empathize with the criminals please. Crime is necessary.
So….. bring in more outside poverty then, yes? We don’t have enough?
Lol. Idiot.
Until Fiona tells us how she wishes she could trade places with Liken Riley she can shut the fuck up.
Great point. She was killed by an illegal, which means all illegals are murderers. Impeccable logic.
She was killed by someone who should not have been in this country. And would not have been had immigration laws been enforced.
Do you get that logic?
Sure I get the logic. Do you also get that cherry picking a horrible crime and holding it us as a reason to round up illegals is committing the fallacy of composition?
All Illegals should be rounded up.
They are illegal, get it?
And would not have been had immigration laws been enforced.
I think that is a flawed conclusion right there. It's basically the nirvana fallacy. It assumes that it's possible to stop free people from migrating into the country from just harsher enforcement of the law. It can't be done, not on any practical level at least. Harsh enforcement of drug laws can't stop drug use, harsh enforcement of prostitution laws can't stop prostitution, and harsh enforcement of immigration laws can't stop migration.
But if you are going to blame "the system" for every bad outcome, then why not apply that same standard elsewhere? Is it the case that every death from drug overdose is the result of the lack of enforcement of drug laws? Or is it because the drug user is responsible for making poor choices?
When do we get to blame the individual for the individual's choices?
Tell us how Trump lead an insurrection on J6 again.
At the border, obviously.
The US government exists to serve it's citizens.
Anyone else that it serves is at our discretion, and can, and should, include no one else.
It can’t be done, not on any practical level at least.
Every other country DOES do it.
You don't think other countries have problems with illegal immigration too? The only ones that don't have a problem, are not because they are good at enforcing their laws, it is because virtually no one wants to migrate there.
Since not all murderers are caught we should legalize and encourage murder.
Same with rape and theft; Jeff is engaging in the perfect solution fallacy.
America is full of racist assholes, why would anyone want to immigrate here?
Because they think they'll fit in?
No other country has anywhere near the proportion of illegal immigrants the US has. We are in a class by ourselves in that regard. Likewise with our near-absence of border security. Almost everyone does a much better job than we do—because powerful people here WANT massive illegal immigration and hordes of refugees.
Nice try. There is no flaw in claiming that the absence of Jose Ibarra would not have prevented Liken's death, unless you want to invent a fantasy world where someone else would have murdered her that day.
And given that authorities had multiple opportunities to expel him, there is no nirvana required.
Now tell us about how you don't lock your doors or use a bank to hold your money because they are not flawless.
So you have learned who Laken Riley is, progress people.
What we asked for:
Illustration showing migrant crime wave but that data tell a different story
That picture is unintentionally hilarious. Is that Kenosha on the left?
They also provided some of Fiona's prior work, so the ChatGPT certainly was harmed by idiocy before anything started.
I almost miss the understated hysteria of Dalmia at this point.
I thought it looked right at home on the inside of a Sublime "April 29, 1992 (Miami)" album jacket.
Not that a 3-decades-old on-the-ground depiction of rooftop Koreans surrounded by, uh, slightly more domestic lawlessness (The following content may contain graphic or violent imagery) really bolsters Fiona's narrative politically.
Claim:
Every single plan for mass deportation of illegal immigrants will infringe upon the liberty of citizens or legal residents (or both).
Prove me wrong (if you can).
How about you prove your own assertion first.
ChemJeff is a pedophile enabler. Prove me wrong if you can.
He did argue that active illegal alien pedophiles that had molested children while in holding for crossing the border should just be released into the US and just trust they show for their asylum dates
Any deprivation of liberty is worth cleansing the blood of the nation of this poisonous vermin.
Just as any deprivation of liberty is worth getting our factories back from China.
Remember, liberty is for leftists. True libertarians understand that people need to be controlled.
Remember, liberty is for leftists. True libertarians understand that people need to be controlled.
I know this is offered in sarcasm, but I think it is sadly disturbingly close to the current zeitgeist of the modern Republican party. It is something like:
"Liberty is what is causing all the chaos and disorder and immorality. Liberty is what enables trannies to pretend they are the wrong sex, liberty is what permits books in school libraries that turn kids gay. Therefore what we need is a strongman authoritarian leader that creates order and stability and morality."
Yep.
Liberty to pretend you're a woman? Fine with me.
Liberty to pretend you're a woman, and force your way into women's sports, and force the rest of us to play along?
THAT'S not "liberty."
force the rest of us to play along?
Where is the FORCE? This is not Canada, there is no LEGAL consequence to you if you "misgender" or "deadname" someone. Now, that doesn't mean there won't be potentially some SOCIAL consequences. You might be shunned or ostracized or banned from private property if you do that. But that is not them "forcing" you, that is them exercising THEIR liberty to respond how they see fit to YOUR speech.
Do you think the government should require everyone to use pronouns of the sex assigned at birth?
How many lawsuits have you been given Jeff?
Point to me where I mentioned the government.
Force as in demanding society writ large bend the knee and accept your delusions as reality.
Actual evidence instead of facebook memes saying otherwise? This angers the chuds.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
OK, several problems here.
1. It’s no surprise that LEGAL immigrants have lower crime rates because they are required to produce a criminal background check before coming here.
2. Estimates of the rates of ILLEGAL immigrant crime is hampered by the fact that we just don’t know how many are here. So all the studies you referenced above regarding rates, involved guesswork.
3. If illegal immigrants do commit fewer crimes, then wouldn’t that be a serious blow to those that excuse the black crime rate by claiming crime is caused by poverty and discrimination??
4. Maybe the migrants are different here, but in Europe, there is no question that migrants disproportionately contribute to crime:
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/germany-violent-crime-climbs-to-historic-highs/
Right now, France is struggling to combat the violence caused by the Mooslim invaders.
Fiona is either a lying activist or not intelligent enough to understand grasp the facts.
Yes.
Embrace the power of and.
Got it in one.
It's lying activist.
While I agree with the writer insofar as my own research show no "migrant crime wave", the author uses worthless sources and actually debunks herself. I wrote a piece on FB a few days ago talking about the demographics of crime. Here's the link:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0SESuv5jP4HwMHik8TatNLEh2dvfCVW4BJwTTvCM1zqxRYUxrXz4efBp2Mynua6SDl&id=100077207396200
I compare the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Victimization data for the years 2021 and 2022 - the latter year is the most recent. As I discuss at various places on my FB site, which goes back to early 2022, the FBI UCR and police reports generally are worthless for everything except murder. There is a nearly 60% undercount. Read the main article and you'll see that "Hispanic" crime rates are about the same as "White" crime rates - something that should not be the case if all of these almost exclusively "Hispanic" immigrants are mostly a bunch of criminal thugs. Today, I added a reply to the original posting, commenting directly on this article. In it, I point to the BJS data showing a big INCREASE in "urban crime" from 2021 to 2022 and the rate of urban crime per 1,000 population is the highest over the five year period from 2018 to 2022.
Media generally have no clue about actually criminology - libertarians don't seem any better.