MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Undocumented Immigrants Are Less Crime Prone Than Native-Borns

More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime.

President Donald Trump has claimed that "illegal immigrants pouring into our country [are] bringing with them crime, tremendous amounts of crime." But there is practically no evidence to support such a suggestion, and lots that suggest otherwise.

Restrictionists cite a February study by economist John Lott that used Arizona corrections data to claim that illegal immigrants are more than twice as likely to commit crimes than other state residents. But Lott's findings are highly contested by other researchers. For example, the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh used better-quality data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to report that the "conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans."

Now a study in the journal Criminology has examined immigration and crime data from all 50 states from 1990 and 2014. The paper, written by Michael Light of the University of Wisconsin and Ty Miller of Purdue, finds that "undocumented immigration does not increase violence. Rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative."

"More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime," notes University of Wisconsin press release promoting the study. Indeed, "a 1 percent increase in the proportion of the population that is undocumented is associated with 49 fewer violent crimes per 100,000 people." Why would that be? Light observes that "immigrants are driven by pursuit of education and economic opportunities for themselves or their families. Moreover, migration—especially undocumented migration—requires a lot of motivation and planning. Those are characteristics that aren't highly correlated with a high crime-prone disposition."

You can add that to the reams of evidence that the benefits of immigration—both legal and illegal—are considerably greater than its costs.

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.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Would it be alright for the US to bring in all the immigrants who won't commit crimes and throw out all the citizens that do?

  • Rhywun||

    That's like a two-way open border or something. It just might work! I'm sure Canada or Mexico would be happy to take all our criminals off our hands.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Send to Australia, that is what's there for.

  • Juice||

  • ||

    Would it be alright for the US to bring in all the immigrants who won't commit crimes and throw out all the citizens that do?

    Why not divide the nation in half and then just make it legal to hang these criminals in the side that has to accept them?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Illegals have a 100% crime rate, so they all have to go.

  • Rhywun||

    What if Americans actually don't want any more "undocumented immigrants"? Maybe they're even looking at individual atrocities commited by the likes of MS-13 instead of just collectivizing the whole group the way this magazine likes to do. Do we just keep calling Americans stupid or is there actually any requirement to listen to their concerns?

  • I can't even||

    Maybe Americans don't believe in magic dirt? They look at Mexico and say "yuck", then realize that millions of Mexicans from the bottom half of their society won't be an improvement to ours.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Does this racist nonsense come from John Derbyshire? Who came up with this magic dirt theory?

  • I can't even||

    How is it racist?

  • ||

    It would only apply to poor, white people so how could it possibly be racist? /sarc

  • Shirley Knott||

    "Americans" as such do not have wants. Individuals want, aggregates do not.
    Fallacy of composition.

  • Rhywun||

    "Stupid" it is, then. Thanks.

  • Juice||

    What if Americans actually don't want any more "undocumented immigrants"?

    Some don't. Some do. Some don't care.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Two immigration threads at once??? I feel like I am being torn in two.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Like a zealous Catholic being asked to pit the welfare of your child against the dictates of your religion?

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Reason has their agenda and it's not what's best for Americans.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If that's not Reason's agenda, then what is?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Total elimination of everything that's important to conservatives, of course.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Those Monsters!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As we all know, a correct pro-America agenda would be to create yuuge border walls and conduct the biggest baddest War On Undocumented Labor that would make even the Prohibitionists and the Drug Warriors blush! What could possibly go wrong?

  • Harvard||

    Fewer taco stands?

  • Cyto||

    This view is too simplistic.

    I get it... Anti-illegal-immigration blow-hards use rhetoric about criminals being unleashed. So you have to counter this argument.

    But here's the thing.... Even though they are wrong about the overall effect of immigration or the likelihood of illegal immigrants committing crimes (other than immigration offenses), there are unquestionably criminal outcomes to our current policy of encouraging illegal immigration.

    First, there is an entire industry of organized crime to get illegal immigrants here. Sure, the primary victims are the immigrants themselves, but that doesn't change the reality.

    Second, there's the exploitation of workers with limited ability to enforce their rights. This can range from getting paid below minimum wages or unsafe work conditions all the way to the left's favorite boogie man: trafficking.

  • Cyto||

    Finally, there is the effect of displaced low wage workers.

    This is where the real friction is. Blue collar workers aren't just worried about "people who don't look like them" getting jobs. They are also worried that their value is diminished if you add another 10% at the bottom of the labor force. And mathematically they aren't wrong. If there was magically 10% less journalists to go around, you can imagine that the price of a good writer would go up.

    The answer to this one is much more complicated, wrapped up in things like expanded growth, jobs that native born blue collar workers don't want to do, etc.

    Like most intractable issues, the reality of this one is way more complicated than "nuh-uh! They totally aren't criminals!"

  • John||

    This is where the real friction is. Blue collar workers aren't just worried about "people who don't look like them" getting jobs. They are also worried that their value is diminished if you add another 10% at the bottom of the labor force. And mathematically they aren't wrong. If there was magically 10% less journalists to go around, you can imagine that the price of a good writer would go up.

    Sure they are. But Reason hates those people and his happy to see them suffer. These concerns only matter if you consider the people with them to be actual human beings who have morally legitimate interests. And the people at Reason and Cato don't see it that way.

  • BYODB||

    This is the problem that everyone wants to ignore, and is one reason why the Democrat party is losing support among some of their tradition blue union types. It's first and foremost a labor issue, and it's telling that no one at all seems to approach it that way.

    The right and the left both see this group as a source of cheap, unprotected labor. To their credit, Democrats seem to want to extend legal protections to these individuals but they seem utterly unaware that doing so would remove the one primary benefit of these undocumented workers. If they have all the same labor protections and minimum wage requirements, well then why would you hire one over a citizen? You're de facto increasing the black market labor supply in either scenario. And yes, this happens even among citizens. It's not a unique thing to this group.

    We already know, for a fact, that in the American labor market when you screw around with that bottom rung of unskilled labor most of what it does is drive them into welfare. How does this work with undocumented laborers? I don't think anyone really knows, and Democrats aren't saying if they want to extend welfare benefits to anyone who wanders across the border.

  • John||

    This is the problem that everyone wants to ignore, and is one reason why the Democrat party is losing support among some of their tradition blue union types. It's first and foremost a labor issue, and it's telling that no one at all seems to approach it that way.

    It is also one of the reasons why the Democratic hold on the black vote is more tenuous than ever. Black people are disproportionately affected by mass immigration of low skilled workers. But no one in the media ever seems to mention that. It is the thing that must not be said. Ever notice how when talking about immigration or trade it is always framed as some nasty fight among white people? It is the Devil "White Working Class" who objects to free trade agreements and immigration because apparently, no black person works in a factory or lives in the rust belt.

  • BYODB||

    Well, I'm of the opinion that much of the left see minorities as their property even while they mouth nice words towards them but it's hard to ignore the effects their preferred policies have wrought. How many African Americans have been killed before birth, again? It's curious how and when disparate impact gets mentioned and moreso when it doesn't.

    This of course mainly applies to the politicians on the left. I find that a lot of my leftist friends (which is honestly most of them) seem genuinely concerned about minorities it's just that their solutions treat minorities as non-persons, which really bothers me. It's like they don't think that minorities or women or (insert grievance group here) have any individual autonomy or should see the results of any of their actions. The implication, to me, is that they don't think these people are equals.

    They need a master race to show them the way. It's not a fair reading of their attitudes, but sometimes it drives me crazy. There's a very real overlap there with the alt-right, at least by my reading, if not in the motivations than in the solutions. That's scary shit.

    I know that the reason why is often just because they don't put any thought into the subject, they just watch the Daily Show and HBO and are never, ever exposed to deeper thought on the subject. They 'feel' things, but don't really think about them.

  • Agammamon||

    Their value might be diminished - its not but let's say that it is - but the cost of the goods and services will be reduced proportionately.

    Bob the Machinist, if he's a good machinist, is not going to get fired. He's not even going to see a pay reduction - just no raises - as Jesus la Maquinista comes to work alongside of him. But everything the Bob and Jesus' of the country make can now be sold for less because the cost of what is probably the single most expensive input - human labor - is reduced while Darren the Owner is still making the same amount of money per unit and potentially selling more units.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    First, there is an entire industry of organized crime to get illegal immigrants here.
    Second, there's the exploitation of workers with limited ability to enforce their rights.

    Good grief. Are you channeling the drug warriors, really? Because it's illegal, people get hurt from the illegality, therefore we must keep it illegal to protect the people who are ..... yada yada.

    Good golly grief. I cannot believe you recycled that tired drug warrior nonsense.

  • Cyto||

    Quite the opposite. I'm using the example of the drug war. Making something that people want enough to pay for illegal results in a black market. Black markets end up being run by organized crime if there is enough money in it. Simple as can be.

    The obvious answer isn't to make it more illegal. The answer is to eliminate demand. We tried this in the drug war with "Just say no!". Demand did go down quite a bit over a 30 year period. But not enough to eliminate the black market. So now we are edging toward legalization. That will undoubtedly work to eliminate the black market, if we ever get there.

    See the obvious parallel in immigration reform? The economic opportunity gradient between the US and 3rd world countries is too great. People are going to come here as long as that gradient exists. You can either make the US into a shithole that they don't want to come to, raise the standard of living in their country, or reduce barriers to immigration to allow legal immigration to displace the black market. Until then, there will be an unsavory element scraping the profit from the desperation of the migrants.

  • John||

    ou can either make the US into a shithole that they don't want to come to, raise the standard of living in their country, or reduce barriers to immigration to allow legal immigration to displace the black market.

    You can do that, but when you do you are getting rid of the self selection mechanisms that result in the immigrants you have now. Criminals don't come here now because they can't get in legally and when they come here illegally, they eventually get deported after the cops catch them doing something criminal. Allow free immigration and that doesn't happen.

  • Juice||

    The obvious answer isn't to make it more illegal. The answer is to eliminate demand.

    By force, of course.

  • Rich||

    "Very well. By *common-sense* force."

  • Agammamon||

    The answer is to eliminate demand. We tried this in the drug war with "Just say no!". Demand did go down quite a bit over a 30 year period.

    Uhm, no. Demand is not lower now than it was in 1970. In addition, availability is up, purity is up, and cost is down (adjusted for inflation).

    I have no idea where you got the idea that 'demand reduction' has ever worked except in the short term - like with Prohibition, demand dropped sharply for a couple years and then ticked up *above* what it was prior.

  • Agammamon||

    First, there is an entire industry of organized crime to get illegal immigrants here.

    I understand your concerns - but the industry of organized crime to get illegal immigrants here is, same as with drug smuggling, caused by the prohibitionists and the barriers to entry they've put up.

    Same with the exploitation of workers. They're exploited because they can't use the existing legal system - because of prohibitionist policies.

    To say that the policy of 'encouraging illegal immigration' is causing these effects is like saying that the demand for and people not spouting the government's stance on drugs is causing the crime associated with the black market in illegal drugs. Or prostitution. The harms caused by both activities is almost solely due to people attempting to evade the restrictions put in place or exploiting those who do not have access to normal social institutions due to those restrictions.

    Build the wall as high as you want, just reduce the difficulty of coming here and working legally - don't even have to make it easy to live here full time permanently or 'path to citizenship' bullshit - and the wall basically becomes irrelevant anyway.

  • Metalib||

    Prohibition doesn't drive demand, it's a response to need or want and state desire for control . If opportunities existed in (in the case of immigration) in a person's home country immigration wouldn't be an issue. Statists, elitists control poor laws and corruption in an immigrants home country force them to go elsewhere. Religious, economic, racism and caste structures that limit or suppress them cause them to take risks. What 2/3rrds of the immigrants to Europe are economic and what 90% of those crossing the US southern border are economic? Until their home countries fix their screwed up structure it's gonna keep happening. Rome had the same frickin problem, turned out good for them too.

  • colorblindkid||

    Correlation here with absolutely no evidence or examples of causation. What is relevant is the breakdown of the crimes in these areas.

  • Cyto||

    It isn't even that.... Crime has been trending down for decades. So any uptick in crime would possibly be swamped by the larger trend. Also, you have to talk about long-term effects. What about people who have been here for 30 years as never-legal residents? There's a lot to unpack here.

  • John||

    That is exactly it. This is a strict correlation study. Crime didn't go up where illegal immigrant populations increased. That does not establish causality. Ron and the authors pretend it does but it doesn't. Bailey should know better than that.

  • Tony||

    So you acknowledge that your president was outright lying though, correct? That is, on the most important plank of his entire campaign platform?

  • Cyto||

    This assumes facts not in evidence...

    to wit: that Trump has any idea of rates of criminality in immigrant communities. I highly doubt it. He seems to be swayed by anecdote, just as most people are. (It isn't lying if it is your honest opinion.)

    Don't believe it? Open a discussion on mass shootings in schools. You see the left become even more unhinged than the right is about M-13 gangsters raping and murdering old ladies in Nebraska. They are convinced that kids have a 20% chance of being killed by an M-16 wielding white supremacist during lunch break.

  • colorblindkid||

    Every year in America, all of these things happen once every week or two:

    An unarmed black man killed by cops
    An American killed by a previously deported illegal immigrant
    A kid is killed with an assault rifle
    A gay person is the victim of a violent hate crime

    All of these things happen less than 25 times a year.

    In a country of 330,000,000.

    Pick your irrational fear to use for political advantage.

  • Cyto||

    Nice observation.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    Great observation. I want to point out a small inaccuracy in your statement, which doesn't affect the validity of your point, but does give someone with a certain irrational fear grounds to critique your statement. "A kid is killed by an assault rifle" on average once every week or two, but in practice these events happen less frequently but to more kids at a time. All of the other cases almost never happen to a group of victims. So if you use this observation in a forum where the people you're sharing it with hold tightly to one or more of these irrational fears (especially if they're particularly enamored of the irrational fear of school shootings), you should probably change your wording to accommodate the fact that it's actually about the same number of killings, but that they sometimes come in groups.

  • Longtobefree||

    100% of illegal border crossers are criminals.
    Because they are not arrested or convicted of some other crime does not mean they are not criminals.

  • sarcasmic||

    100% of illegal border crossers are criminals.
    Because they are not arrested or convicted of some other crime does not mean they are not criminals.

    Arbitrary laws are arbitrary.

  • Tony||

    Less of a crime than speeding, which you probably do every day.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, if simply breaking a law makes you a criminal, we're all criminals. You exceeded the speed limit . . . ever? Did you have a cigarette or drink of beer before the legal age? Oral sex (for those of us over a certain age)?

    Harriet Tubman was a criminal.

    The Founding Fathers were criminals.

  • Tony||

    Deport the founding fathers!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony does not even know that the Founding Fathers are dead.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah I don't think he was *lying* per se, because that implies a state of mind with intent to deceive. I think he really believes that undocumented immigrants are rapists and murderers because that's what he heard on Fox & Friends.

  • Agammamon||

    So you acknowledge that your president was outright lying though, correct?

    Uhm, sure. Not only on 'the most important plank', but on *every plank*. And even on things that weren't even planks. Like what he had for breakfast that morning.

    And I acknowledge that Clinton lied, Sanders lied, Cruz lied, Fiorina lied, Obama lied, Bush (both of them lied). Hell, I'd say even Jimmy Carter lied. A lot.

    You think there's a gotcha there but we're libertarians. Even the dudes here who like Trump and voted for him trust him about as far as they can throw him. Its just that that is slightly further than they would have trusted any of the others.

    I don't understand why you can't get that.

  • Cyto||

    But it does prove that crime didn't go up where illegal immigrant populations increased.

    That is the implicit assertion in "illegal immigrants bring criminals to threaten our citizens". Showing that this effect didn't happen refutes the assertion. The causation that it doesn't prove would be "illegal immigrants keep crime low".

    What is hidden in there is this: What if crime would have gone down even more? Or what if it would have gone down less? This is much more difficult to get at. But we do know that the long term trend in crime is downward.

  • John||

    That is the implicit assertion in "illegal immigrants bring criminals to threaten our citizens". Showing that this effect didn't happen refutes the assertion.

    Not necessarily. What if the native crime rate went down for other reasons causing the overall crime rate to decrease despite not because of the influx of illegal immigrants? That is entirely possible. Consider too the possibility that illegal immigrants don't settle in the best neighborhoods. So what may be and I suspect is happening is the illegals displace the worst of the native population causing the crime in that area to decrease a bit. That, however, doesn't mean that illegals are as a group less criminal than natives as a group. It just means that they are less criminal than the worst elements of the native population.

    Thanks for your reasonable response. It would be nice to have a rational conversation about this without Tony shitting on the thread. Life would be so much better if actual adults could talk once in a while on here.

  • Libertymike||

    Speaking of actual adults, on the one hand, and Tony, on the other hand, and in an effort to appeal to whatever adult sensibilities he has, I asked him if he has an advance medical directive in place in the last thread.

    The adults in his family surely do not want to watch him looking at balloons all day long.

  • John||

    Tony is so far gone, I honestly think he would happily die at the hands of the state if they told him it was necessary for the cause. Darkness at Noon was based on an actual incident. I think Tony would be the same way.

  • Cyto||

    We do that at the other site. The tenor is much more collegial, even when disagreements are bone deep. Not sure what happened with your short tenure, sorry it didn't work out for you. The tone over there is half-way to the old Agitator days, with a 50% mix of random guys hanging out at the local McDonald's for breakfast gossiping about their families and such. It would be nice if we could have more of that and less troll-feeding here.

    In addition to the pollution of the atmosphere, the trolls ruin the chance to hone your thoughts with good argument from opposing points of view. That is something that I highly value. I tried to get that over at Huffpo, Slate, Salon... even at Jezebel. It just doesn't exist on the left.

    I've been around for more than a decade here, and we've always had an unhinged troll from the left crapping on the argument with facil takes that are not really worthy of refutation. It would be nice if someone who writes for Slate or New Republic would take up residence in the comments here, instead of a bunch of rejects from Jezebel who got booted from HuffPo for being too unhinged. (yes, that was a tripple-backhanded dig)

  • Cyto||

    "That" being rational discussions. Not dying at the hands of the state. Threading made that unclear.

  • Cyto||

    The downside is that it is more of a walled garden, so radically opposed viewpoints aren't there. Arguments are more of the "you are not libertarian enough" variety, as opposed to a "here's the reason that the state has to make all of your decisions for you" variety.

  • John||

    The discussion was fine over there. Swiss Servator just hates me and banned me from the site. The funny part was that the post that got me banned was a discourse about the limits of principles. I explained how you can't just appeal to your principles because principles conflict with each other in the real world. If they didn't, there would be no such thing as a moral dilemma. Life is hard because on the one hand just relying on your principles with no concern for the effects of your decisions makes you a fanatic but walking away from your principles can too easily just be a rationalization for self-serving or evil actions. The trick that no one ever masters is to figure out when compromising your principles is necessary to keep from being a fanatic but not doing so when it is just a rationalization for doing something wrong that benefits you.

    That point was just too much for someone, probably Swiss but maybe Sugar Free who is a sad shell of what he once was, to take.

  • sarcasmic||

    They left an open forum to set up a power-mad dictatorship, all in the name of liberty. Or something.

  • Tony||

    "They left an open forum to set up a power-mad dictatorship, all in the name of liberty. Or something."

    I'm pretty sure this is exactly what I've been saying would happen if libertarians ever actually got in charge. Kudos to reason for keeping things free for this long, truly.

  • Cyto||

    That's pretty straight first year philosophy course stuff. Makes for really fun all-night arguments.

    Modern life has made a lot of those scenarios more relevant. You see those discussions a lot in Artificial Intelligence arguments.

    Like all good arguments, I doubt there's a single answer that is satisfactory to all. Or even most.

  • John||

    Yeah, if I had known they were going to ban me anyway, I would have said something really offensive and nasty so at least given them a good reason and had some fun doing so. To get banned after making such a mundane and obvious point is puzzling the say the least.

  • Tony||

    It is so adorable how you pretend to be more entitled to be here than I. You are a Republican and Trump apologist. It's all you do. And while that is a common enough stance around here, it's no more libertarian than my worldview. And it's also rich for you to always be calling for adult discussion considering the feet-stomping bitch fits you so often get into.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony, you are not even in the slightest bit libertarian. You have no principles other than might makes right. You reject the NAP, support charity at the point of a gun, and would have no problem with people being executed for not believing in your climate religion.

    At least John support economic liberty. Mostly. That's more than can be said for any leftist.

  • Tony||

    Depends on how you define libertarian. I believe, and I'm correct, that I favor a far longer list of individual rights than you do. The typical libertarian is so stuck on the fallacy that government is the only thing that can infringe upon rights (along with the total absurdity that government is evil except when you need it for stuff) that he cannot get an inch farther into serious thinking about this shit. And "economic liberty" is a euphemism for low taxes and lax regulations. It doesn't necessarily have to do with any meaningful human liberty.

    So I'm simply a libertarian who likes his terms precisely defined.

  • sarcasmic||

    I believe, and I'm correct, that I favor a far longer list of individual rights than you do.

    As I said, you reject the NAP. Which means you support a host of positive rights. Rights which place an obligation on others. Libertarians reject positive rights because they require an initiation of force.

    The thing about negative rights is that they are not enumerated. Positive rights are. Each one must be defined, and then positively enforced. Negative rights are practically unlimited. They are enforced by not interfering.

    That makes you decidedly un-libertarian.

  • Tony||

    I don't reject the NAP so much as correctly believe it to be a completely inadequate and self-contradictory bit of rhetorical nothingness. Same with the distinction between negative and positive rights. Furthermore, even going by your problematic definitions of these things, nothing about property rights isn't "positive." It's literally a government entitlement that forces other people to do things for you.

    So no I don't call myself a libertarian. As I said, I believe in way too much liberty.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't reject the NAP so much as correctly believe it to be a completely inadequate and self-contradictory bit of rhetorical nothingness.

    So that basically means you reject it.

    Same with the distinction between negative and positive rights.

    We know you're not big on distinctions.

    It's literally a government entitlement that forces other people to do things for you.

    No, it's an enforcement of a negative right. Don't steal my stuff. Don't use it without permission. Don't vandalize it. As long as you leave me and my stuff alone we're cool. It places no obligation on anyone to do anything. Non-interference.

    But you just said you don't see a distinction between not doing something and doing something.

    Not taking is giving and not giving is taking.

    Liberty is the freedom to act without fucking with anyone's day, and to expect no one to fuck with your day.

    You want the "freedom" to force others do bend to your will. That is not liberty. That is tyranny.

  • Tony||

    People are forced to go around your property. You are entitled to shoot them if they do not engage in this positive action. You're just spinning and redefining words willy-nilly in order for you to keep property rights "negative," which is an absurdity.

    There's no need for any of this. Don't tie yourself down to definitions that are inadequate. Just explain what rights you favor and why they're good on their own merits. Stop making God do all your work for you, because I for one don't buy it.

  • sarcasmic||

    People are forced to go around your property.

    Um, no. No one is out there with a gun saying "Go around or I'll shoot."

    As long as you don't trespass, as in violate my property, there is nothing to enforce.

    Then again you already said you don't understand the distinction between positive and negative rights.

    Your inability to comprehend something doesn't mean I'm wrong for understanding it.

    Even wikepedia agrees that private property is a negative right.

  • Tony||

    "Some philosophers (see criticisms) disagree that the negative-positive rights distinction is useful or valid."

    That would be me.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dealing with a threat like murder, for instance, will require one individual to practice avoidance (e.g. the potential murderer must stay calm), others to protect (e.g. the police officer, who must stop the attack, or the bystander, who may be obligated to call the police), and others to repair (e.g. the doctor who must resuscitate a person who has been attacked). Thus, even the so-called "negative right not to be killed" can only be guaranteed with the help of some positive duties.

    Wow, there is so much wrong with that paragraph. Cops aren't obligated to stop attacks. They clean up the mess and investigate, if they feel like it. And even if they do, they're getting compensated. Same with the doctor. Talk about spinning. I'm dizzy trying to make sense of that garbage.

  • sarcasmic||

    You are hardly a philosopher. You are simply a thief and a thug who wants to use government to initiate force on your behalf because you're too much of a coward to do it yourself. But because most people have an objection to thieving and thugging, you try to dress it up in the language of liberty.

  • Tony||

    So you getting the positive duty of cops for both preventative and responsive tasks is not actually a positive right because they get paid? WTF? So do Medicare administrators.

    Your very right to life entails positive duties for other people. I go as far as to say that avoiding murdering you is a positive duty other people have, because I don't believe there is such a thing as "no action."

    But even if we accept the premise that there is a meaningful distinction, then we raise the question: why does that determine what government does? Why is it good?

    Agree or disagree with this: Government should spare no expense to protect even the luxuries of the rich from theft, but should spend not a single dime to address the basic material needs of the poor.

    If that's a necessary result of your positive-negative distinction and its application to government, then doesn't that simply make your requirement stupid and cruel?

  • Agammamon||

    It's literally a government entitlement that forces other people to do things for you.

    That's all you Tony. You're the one who can't see how to manage things without the state there to provide the violence for you.

  • John||

    Tony, you are a moron who never has anything interesting to say.

  • Tony||

    John, the funny thing is we agree on some things that are unorthodox here. The difference is I do not take my pragmatism and use it as an excuse for utter cynicism and hypocrisy like you do.

  • John||

    Occasionally Tony you do make a decent point. And I admit it when you do. But on any subject that in any way involves partisan politics, you just turn into a tiresome moron.

  • Tony||

    That's because you chose the wrong party.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony chooses the Democratic Party every time.

  • Tony||

    You acknowledge that the opposite thing you want to believe is even less substantiated, yes?

  • ||

    People don't complain about immigrants committing victimless crimes. So please don't quote us statistics about victimless American crime when the issues are rape, robbery, murder etc.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So link to studies that break down crimes in those areas. Or are you not actually interested in persuading people to your position?

  • Tony||

    No cost is too high to prevent a hypothetical brown person 2,000 miles away from hypothetically marrying my daughter! That's what cousins are for!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    All my cousins are white. It's nasty.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    BUCS's lady cousins all got flat asses and a pumpkin spice addiction.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They are truly basic.

  • Rhywun||

    Af.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, I'm open border. I keep saying this. And it's annoying that I keep saying it, everyone should hate me, instead of now where most people just hate me.

    Regardless. "More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime" is a loaded conclusion that can easily be shown to be false (Imagine a scenario where only violent criminals were coming over). The author of the paper himself makes that statement, and then qualifies it heavily. Which is the actual meaningful take-away. Not that more illegal immigration means less violent crime, but that the people who immigrate tend to be hard-working and heavily invested with improving their stature.

  • John||

    Even if that is actually true, it is not necessarily an argument for open borders. It is an argument that the current system is deterring criminals from coming here. It also just shows that since illegal immigrants are one petty arrest away from deportation, they try and avoid committing crimes. That fact doesn't mean that if we suddenly opened the border that they would continue to have such an attitude or that criminals wouldn't suddenly decide to give the US a try.

    The assumption behind all of these arguments is that the makeup of immigrants remains constant regardless of US immigration policy. And any reasonable person should see how absurd of an assumption that is regardless of their position on the issue.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is actually arguing for "open borders" you halfwit. Except some libertarians. But nobody important.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I am. Though Open-Border is another term that has several definitions and no one ever knows which one is being used.

  • John||

    Tony shut up. Really just shut up and let people who have something reasonable to say talk. We all know what you think. We all know how stupid you are. Just sit this one out.

  • Tony||

    You first asshole. You're a liar, a bigot, and a hypocrite, and I'm going to be here till the day you say uncle. Which I'm hoping is never.

  • Nardz||

    Or until the day your ability to project your own abject self-loathing onto others finally cracks and you have to face the truth of your own psyche, at which point you'll kill yourself.

    Either one.

  • Tony||

    Anything's possible.

  • sarcasmic||

    the people who immigrate tend to be hard-working and heavily invested with improving their stature.

    They're all murderers! Rapists! Welfare queens! Anchor babies! They use services and pay no taxes! They're all socialists! Democrats! They refuse to learn the language! They steal our jobs!

    Don't you understand? There are only so many jobs out there! Every job taken by an immigrant is a job taken from an American! They don't grow the economy! They only consume! They're like locusts! A Biblical plague!

    Aaaaauuuggghhh!

    Did I miss anything? C'mon Limbaugh fans. Help me out.

  • Longtobefree||

    We would love to help you out.
    Which way did you come in?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I rescind my comment after reading a bit of the paper I realize that the "More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime" is just a descriptive statement about the data, and not a conclusion.

  • John||

    The data is "less violent crime in the areas where they settle". That is an important qualifier.

  • Cyto||

    Also, I'll bet that we aren't accounting for crimes like driving without insurance, hit and run accidents, general traffic violations....

    I live in an area with a huge immigrant population from many nations, both legal and illegal. And I can tell you without fear of honest contradiction: There are areas where the majority of drivers do not follow the traffic laws of the United States. I've always put a lot of it down to a lack of English reading skills. Since they aren't sure what to do, they just kind of drive slowly through all of the intersections without regard to lights or signs. Navigating parts of Miami can be an adventure akin to driving in rural central America.

    There is no question that the likelihood that an undocumented immigrant who owns a car is going to stick around for the police after an accident is lower than a paralegal from Orlando.

    That being said... I've been hit-and-run twice. Both were from the same demographic group. Neither appeared to be illegal immigrants.

  • John||

    That is a very good point. It assumes that illegal immigrants only commit crimes in the areas where they live. Why is that a valid assumption?

  • Tony||

    Nobody believes your opinion on this subject is informed by anything except racism John.

  • John||

    Then stop shitting all over the threads Tony. Go away. Let the smart people talk for a while.

  • Libertymike||

    Why do we have to continue to point out that Mexican is not a race?

  • John||

    Or that most illegal immigrants are not Mexicans. Tony thinks every brown person who speaks Spanish is a Mexican. But it is all of us who are racists in his twisted little mind.

  • Libertymike||

    One of my best buddies from law school was half-Mexican.

    His father looked like Caesar Romero (funny, my buddy was no where near as handsome as his dad) and his mother was a mix of Polish, French, and English.

    My buddy was whiter than fucking Opie Taylor. Yet, he did the Lizzie Warren thing with college, law school, and job applications. Yep, he checked the Ole Mex box.

    We liked each other despite me being an anarchist and him being such a pukey progressive.

  • John||

    One of my good friends is a first generation immigrant from Monterey. Monterey is a very large and cosmopolitan city. He despises what is portrayed as Mexican culture in this country, which is usually Tejano culture the way a Manhattanite despises West Virginia. And his political views are to the right of Pat Buchanan.

    One of the things that annoy me most about Reason is how badly they stereotype Hispanics. Before the last election, Dalmia wrote about how the Hispanics are going to stop putting up dry wall and turn out to defeat Trump. What a racist bitch. She actually believes the typical Hispanic in this country is some illiterate illegal immigrant putting up drywall or mowing lawns.

  • BYODB||


    She actually believes the typical Hispanic in this country is some illiterate illegal immigrant putting up drywall or mowing lawns.

    Well, in their defense they don't give a fuck about legal immigrants and this might be a semi-accurate depiction of illegal immigrants in particular because, well, our immigration system selects specifically for skilled labor which would be likely to skew the illegal immigrants towards low-skill labor like dry-wall hanging.

    Plus, it's a simple observation that most construction crews are 90% Hispanic, at least here in Texas. I assume they are legal, and frankly I don't particularly care if they aren't. I'm not in competition for that work. I can see how someone who is might be mad about it, though. It's a lot of downward pressure on the value of your labor.

  • John||

    If I ever become some mad billionaire, I would take over the Reason foundation and replace the entire staff with HB1 labor. Let them actually suffer for their principles for once rather than everyone else.

  • Libertymike||

    The buddy I mentioned above, used to chide me for not hating the Brits enough. He thought it was bizarre that I didn't hate them with a passion because I am an Irish catholic.

  • John||

    My wife's boss is an Ulsterman. He tells me that the British treated the Scotts Irish much worse than the Irish Catholics. The Irish Catholics were not really even human to the British and thus could sometimes illicit at least benign compassion whereas the Scots Irish were protestants and fully human and worthy of the worst contempt.

  • BYODB||

    It's hard to hate the Brits at this point since they've so completely and utterly lost their empire, yet they want to pretend like that fact doesn't bother them.

  • Tony||

    Dream on fuckstain.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw Tony, doesn't like to be illuminated as the Reason troll that he is.

  • DajjaI||

    I agree but I also think it's time that a few of them take what they learn here about freedom and prosperity and bring it back to their home countries so that they don't have to come here in the first place. #nttawwt

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    The fundamental problem with this studies like this is that criminal illegal aliens who are deported don't show up in the stats.

    Example:

    The nation has 10 million residents.

    (Assume no births or deaths and that criminals don't reoffend to make the math easier).

    The population is split evenly: five million citizens and and five million immigrants. Both groups offend at the same rate of 1%. Citizens who offend serve their time and are released. Immigrants serve a one-year term and are deported.

    At the end of 10 years, the population of the country will 9,550,000:

    Lawful citizens: 4,500,000
    Criminal citizens (in jail and in society) 500,000
    Lawful immigrants: 4,500,000
    Criminal immigrants in jail: 50,000

    And 450,000 criminal immigrants have been deported.

    10% of citizens are criminals, but only but only 1.11% of immigrants are criminals.

  • John||

    That is an excellent point. Along those same lines is that it forgets that the illegal population is constantly being purged of criminals. If you are an illegal immigrant and a criminal, chances are your luck is going to run out and you are going to be deported long before a law abiding criminal. So, that purges the illegal population of criminals in a way that the native population is not. Moreover, it means that the lower criminality is the result of their illegal status. Make them all legal and you no longer are purging the criminal element and the crimes associated with the population go up.

  • BYODB||

    So what we're saying is that if an entry country was entirely undocumented immigrants, there would be virtually no crime?


    Cool story. Amazing even. Possibly bullshit, though.


    Subquestion A, why are 'undocumented' immigrants less prone to violence and crime than citizens?


    Subquestion B, how do you measure a group who's composition you don't know the details of in any accurate form or fashion? The very fact a group is 'undocumented' indicates that they are, well, undocumented. If you don't even know how many there are, how do you know what the rate of crime is for that group?


    That said, I'm having trouble getting into their methodology section at work so I might peruse that when I get home since I'm curious about it.

  • John||

    The methodology was that they look at crime in arbitrarily defined areas where the illegal immigrant population increased and found that the crime in those areas went down. As I pointed out above, that likely doesn't mean what Bailey is saying here. Bailey is claiming that this means that illegal immigrants are less criminal than natives as a group. No, that is not what it means. It means illegal immigrants are less criminal than the natives in the areas where they settle. That is a totally different proposition. Illegal immigrants don't move to good areas. This study just means that illegal immigrants are marginally less criminal than the lowest and most criminal elements of the native population.

  • BYODB||

    That was literally my point, in that his assertion in the headline is almost certainly wrong or at the very least unsupported. If it was true, a nation of undocumented workers would have a negative crime rate, which is ludicrous.

    This isn't me being in favor of or against illegal immigration, it's a simple observation of the study.

  • John||

    And it is a dead-on observation. I don't understand why Reason and CATO both feel the need to make dishonest arguments in support of their position on immigration. I am generally against mass immigration but even I don't think you have to lie to make a reasonable case in support it. Reason and CATO seem to disagree.

  • BYODB||

    At least this time I'm hoping they don't lump legal and illegal immigration into the same basket, that was a particularly bullshit CATO study. Like I say, though, I can't get into their methodology section here at work so I have no idea what they were measuring. I'm assuming they didn't put a 1 ton thumb on the scale this time, even though the conclusion in the headline is absurd at face value.

  • Libertymike||

    OT: If you are really interested in knowing that which truly constitutes progressivism, read James Ostrowski's work, Progressivism: The Idea Destroying America.

    Or, try Rothbard's The Progressive Era.

    One of the tenets of progressivism is reading the grants of power given to Congress expansively. Narrowly construing such grants of power, even construing the scope of such powers niggardly, as I do, is not progressive.

  • Libertymike||

    John, my post was for BYODB

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ John Cato is a propaganda mill for the 1% "At one time or another, acceleration of population growth . . . has been sought by militarists in need of cannon fodder, by rulers in search of hegemonic expansion, by industrialists in want of cheap and docile labor, by ecclesiastical spokesmen in search of souls, and by land and other speculators hungering for unearned increment." Joseph J Spengler in Population and America's Future November 17, 1975

  • Cyto||

    I tried having this discussion on gun control.... reading the second amendment as written and going to get a constitutional amendment to fix the problems with a true reading.

    There really isn't an appetite for discussing getting back to an honest judiciary and forcing the feds to get their legal house in order by amending the constitution to grant powers to the government needed to do the things we are doing. Most people can't even comprehend that it is an argument at all. They just turn back to the merits of the policy, ignoring a true reading of the constitution.

  • BYODB||

    I took college classes that covered the Progressive era pretty well, but I haven't read those two titles. I've never read anything by Rothbard, actually, but the reason is because I find Rothbardians insufferable most of the time. Probably a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, but it is what it is.

  • Libertymike||

    "it is what it is"

    You channeling some Bill Belicheck?

  • Nardz||

    Also:
    Nietzsche
    On the Genealogy of Morals

  • Cyto||

    There is a pretty good dataset from Texas. They document the immigration status of all arrestees. So they have a huge data repository of crime by immigration status.

  • BYODB||

    And, to whit, I'm in Texas and if memory serves people were a bit pissed off that Texas did that in the first place but it is indeed how you get data that isn't shit.

  • mtrueman||

    "So what we're saying is that if an entry country was entirely undocumented immigrants, there would be virtually no crime?"

    Yes, unless there are also undocumented police and judges. Increase the number of police and judges, (documented or otherwise) and, as long as they're doing their jobs, violent crime will also increase.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If I have a natural right to own a gun for any reason I wish, without having to get permission from the state (which I do), then I should have a natural right to sell my labor for any reason I wish, without having to get permission from the state.

    If the collective has no business butting into my personal decision on whether to own a gun, then the collective has no business butting into my personal decision on where I sell my labor, or from whom I choose to purchase labor.

  • John||

    Sure you do. But, the US government is under no obligation to recognize your natural rights if you are not a citizen. It is really that simple.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But, the US government is under no obligation to recognize your natural rights if you are not a citizen.

    Natural rights transcend national governments. A *just* government has an obligation to protect everyone's natural rights, citizens and non-citizens.

  • John||

    The government is bound to respect the rights of its citizens because of the consent of the governed. It owes nothing beyond basic morality like not murdering and enslaving them.

    And you don't believe a what you are saying anyway. If you did, you would be demanding other countries allow free immigration. Somehow only the US government is required to respect all of these rights. Mexico's or any other government, not so much.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It owes nothing beyond basic morality like not murdering and enslaving them.

    A just government is bound to respect all the rights of citizens, of which natural rights are a subset. But this "basic morality" as you call it is called respecting their natural rights. So we actually agree.

    Somehow only the US government is required to respect all of these rights. Mexico's or any other government, not so much.

    I said a *just government*. The US's government is more just than most. I would hope that all governments would act like just governments and respect the natural rights of all people.

  • BYODB||

    Of course, the problem with this idea is that if a just government has an obligation to protect everyone's natural rights it's going to spend a lot of time at war with...countries that don't...protect everyone's natural rights.

    Oh, shit, it's almost like this is actually one of the justifications we've used to go to war for over 100 years. Gee, that's weird innit?

    I don't disagree with you necessarily, in a less snarky vein, but you'll note that sending someone home is usually not considered that harsh of a punishment and there is no natural right to live wherever you want whenever you want or go wherever you want whenever you want. You run into other people's rights, too.

  • Tony||

    Sending someone to the specific place they were fleeing seems pretty cruel to me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Keeping illegals here against most American's wishes is pretty cruel for Americans too.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Of course, the problem with this idea is that if a just government has an obligation to protect everyone's natural rights it's going to spend a lot of time at war with...countries that don't...protect everyone's natural rights.

    No. Making a statement of principle is not equivalent to demanding that the principle be enforced by any means necessary. There is nothing terribly wrong with stating, for example, "Saudi Arabia has a horrible government that deprives its citizens of routine liberty, but invading it to liberate its people would do more harm than good in the long run".

  • Ken Shultz||

    All the studies I've seen comparing the criminal behavior of native-born Americans to illegal immigrants compared them by economic criteria.

    It isn't that illegal aliens, who make less than $15,000 a year, perpetrate fewer crimes than middle class, native born Americans who make $50,000 a year. It's that illegal aliens who make less than $15,000 a year perpetrate fewer crimes than native born Americans who make less than $15,000 a year.

    That illegal aliens who come here to work and make a living commit crimes (especially violent crimes) at lower rates than than the worst part of native born, inner city, Chicago and Detroit shoudln't surprise anyone--but we're torturing the data at that point.

    If we're saying that illegal aliens perpetrate fewer crimes than native born Americans, that information isn't helpful to middle class, suburban, Americans who are concerned about the crime rate going up--if we're talking about bringing in a slew of people who only perpetrate fewer crimes than native born Americans in areas that are rife with violent gangs and murder.

  • John||

    If we're saying that illegal aliens perpetrate fewer crimes than native born Americans, that information isn't helpful to middle class, suburban, Americans who are concerned about the crime rate going up--if we're talking about bringing in a slew of people who only perpetrate fewer crimes than native born Americans in areas that are rife with violent gangs and murder.

    Exactly.

  • Tony||

    You could use fewer words by saying what you mean: blacks are worse than illegals. Deport them too?

  • John||

    Because any time someone talks about poor people they must mean blacks right Tony? My God you are a racist. It is just shameless how racist you are.

  • Tony||

    Shameless is how much of a goddamn liar you are.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is the biggest shameless liar around these parts.

  • Ken Shultz||

    After I've made the point that the determining factor is the economic level of the people in question, Tony interprets that to mean that I'm making it about race.

    You're either being intellectually dishonest, Tony, or you're illiterate.

    P.S. And Tony doesn't seem to understand that I'm an open borders guy. Even if Tony isn't illiterate, he's an idiot.

  • Bubba Jones||

    bingo

  • Bubba Jones||

    Maybe if we end the drug war, we will reduce the desire of people to flee Mexico?

  • Bubba Jones||

    We could allow more doctors to immigrate from India and China, and let them practice medicine. That would drive down the cost of healthcare.

    Win Win.

  • JeremyR||

    That's impossible, because by definition, illegal aliens are criminals.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. Illegals have a 100% crime rate because being illegal violates US law.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime," notes University of Wisconsin press release promoting the study.

    That's a fucking weird statement.

    It may be 100% true that in our country, at this time, as an existing group, undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born (or citizens) do. The statement seems to imply that the more undocumented immigration you have, less violent crime will result. It's misleading at best.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, if adding more immigrants meant less crime in absolute terms, the illegal immigrants would be committing a negative crime rate.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    While the stated reasons may be true as to potential sources for a reduction in violent crime rates it could also be lack of reporting either by the undocumented immigrants and associated community or by state actors. Who wants to deal with a murder investigation when it's obvious the guy went outside to stab himself repeatedly then stumbled about the apartment to hide the knife.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Every illegal inside the USA has broken US law.

    Ron, its 100% criminality by illegals compared to a low crime rate for Americans.

  • Ranselaer||

    Maybe the 1st generation commit fewer crimes (doubtful, but I'll accept the conclusion for argument's sake). But their kids and grandkids aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars. I'll offer a tour of east LA for anyone who needs demonstrable proof.

  • rferris||

    Yikes, if they commit only 1/2 the crimes of natives...........this means that we are still increasing crime, because 1/2 added to existing crime is more crime than if we do not add the 1/2!!!

  • teeduke||

    Two observations: If it's true that "more undocumented immigration meant less crime", does that suggest that if we want to reduce crime rates further maybe we should keep all the illegals and strictly deport citizens and legal immigrants? Hey, it might work.

    And doesn't anyone have a problem with the statement that "more undocumented immigration meant less crime" since no one really seems to know how many undocumented immigrants are really living here? After all, we keep hearing all sorts of numbers: 10-million, 20-million, who really knows? And how many times are we told that these people are living in the shadows? Meaning they are off radar screens, including those of the researchers. I suspect their data isn't very reliable. Although I suppose we could put a question on the Census asking everybody to report their status. Might help.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Immigration is truly a difficult proposition to deal with. It near universally has lead to a strengthening of the far-right everywhere it has occurred in large numbers.

    That being said, it does seem statist and slightly evil for a government to decide who can live where if a seller is willing to sell to a buyer and an owner is willing to hire.

    I have two other concerns.
    1) In a democracy citizens should have a right to voice their opinions. If a government ignores the opinion of a populace to say no to immigration, this is anti-democratic. Is this an evil also? As a believer in democracy it is hard for me to say no.
    2) The rest of the world kind of sucks. It took America and the West a long time to get to where we are. I have a hard time believing that if we throw open the gates and invite everyone, no matter how dumb or smart or lazy or industrious, that somehow we would not regress to the mean. Perhaps the best individuals would self select. This doubly concerns me, however, as if anyone is provided a vote, what is to stop them from voting themselves the right to loot from the rest of the populace?

    There are a lot of suboptimal choices and many that tread immoral, evil paths in this immigration conundrum. I believe the best choice, as always, is stronger federalism and deeper democracy. Let each state explore the path that most closely aligns to their state. California can invite anyone and Alabama can close their borders to immigrants. Lets see how it all plays out.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Unfortunately for you, the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration after 1808. Most Americans don't want more illegals in the USA.

    The proper way to get your open border way is to amend the constitution. Good luck.

  • SomeDude68||

    The facts do NOT support this headline.

    Crime ratios are lowest for Asians, followed by Caucasians, third are Latinos, and forth are African Americans.

    -- New York sums it up... with - THIS crime report (link). About 40% of NY City is Caucasian... one would believe there would be more Caucasian crimes. However, that is NOT the case.

    -- Even with the FBI who combines Latino AND Caucasians into the misleading "White" category (link)., when reporting crimes... it is EASY to see WHO has the FBI's focus (link).

    PS: Even WIKIPEDIA says,... "yes, the headline IS wrong."

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    If that is so, why are so many of our prisons "packed" with Illegal Aliens convicted of "violent" crimes?
    Don't let that Open Borders door hit you in the backsides.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    "Studies" like this suffer from two large problems. Illegals don't typically call themselves "illegal". As a consequence, the number of illegals in the criminal justice system is massively underestimated. The GAO actually studied this issue. See GAO report GAO-11-187. Illegals are around 3% of the U.S. population, but around 10% of the prisoners. So much for the "fake news" about low-crime illegals.

    However, the real problem is worse. Crime rates rise astoundingly from the first generation (born abroad) to the second generation (born here). The second generation has neither the skills for "good" jobs nor the willingness to do "bad" jobs for low wages (competing with the next wave of illegals of course). Inevitably, very high crime rates are a consequence. Don't believe me? Check the Migration Policy Institute (a pro-illegal lobby) for the numbers. For example, MPI claims that crime rates go up by a factor of 7 for the children of Mexican immigrants.

    Unless Reason has some secret plan to prevent immigrants from having children, the U.S. is importing crime on a massive scale. That's bad. However, we are also importing societal failure which is even worse.

  • JoeBlow123||

    "rime rates rise astoundingly from the first generation (born abroad) to the second generation (born here)."

    I was actually pretty curious how the second and third generations did. If what you say is true then that is not exactly good.

  • EirkKengaard||

    The secret plan is to persuade the gullible that immigration is beneficial . . . and many fall for it . . . until they don't . . . but by then it is too late.
    If you read Peter Schrag's Paradise Lost, you will find an amazing ability to subconsciously recognize the downside of immigration while at the same time consciously promote immigration.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    There is one more (even worse) aspect of this. Illegals do tend to drive out (in some cases) even higher crime populations. To the extent that illegals "cleanse" areas of even worse criminals, crime may go down. This tells you something about the utter depravity of the pro-illegal alien lobby. They are even willing to stomach ethnic (racial) cleansing to promote Open Borders. Aside from the moral evil at work here, where do the cleansed criminals go? They don't just disappear from the face of the earth.

  • EirkKengaard||

    "More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime."

    Shameless propaganda

    Re crime, see the LAPD most wanted list. Or HHS OIG Most wanted. Quite obviously not mostly 5th generation Americans. Also, see studies that show children of one immigrant group commit crimes at twice the rate of the general population.
    See "The Second Generation in Early Adulthood: New Findings from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study"
    http://www.migrationpolicy.org.....inal-study

  • EirkKengaard||

    Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the United States middle class through higher housing (land) costs, greater competition for jobs, lower wages, higher taxes to pay for greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, tax fraud, other crime, higher taxes to pay for indigent healthcare (hospital closings), higher taxes for cost of public schools, price of college, degradation of the military, depletion of resources, burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the INCREASE of and change in the nature (more poor, more criminals, e pluribus multum) of the POPULATION since 1965, driven almost entirely by late 20th century entry of migrants (immigrants, illegals, h1b visa holders, visa overstays, refugees, etc) their families and descendants.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online