MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Most ICE Detainees Aren't Criminals, Report Reveals

As if we needed any more evidence that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants aren't bringing crime into the country.

Tina Burch/ZUMA Press/NewscomTina Burch/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Immigration hardliners would have us believe that letting undocumented immigrants into the country leads to more crime.

Democrats "want to have illegal immigrants pouring into our country, bringing with them crime, tremendous amounts of crime," President Donald Trump said in January. That claim was nothing new. Announcing his candidacy in June 2015, he infamously asserted that Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs" and "crime" into the nation.

But there's little evidence to suggest that undocumented immigrants are more prone to crime. In fact, according to a report released Tuesday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, the majority of individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have never been convicted of a crime. And even the ones who have are mostly low-level offenders.

TRAC's report, which is based off ICE data, notes that 44,435 people were in ICE custody at the end of June. (For comparison, that's up about 14 percent from 39,082 at the end of the 2015 fiscal year.)

Fifty-eight percent—25,920—of ICE's 44,435 detainees had never been convicted of a crime. An additional 21 percent, or 9,358, had Level 3 convictions on their record. According to ICE's standard operating procedures, Level 3 is the lowest classification of crime.

TRAC also noted which types of convictions were the most common:

For those who had been convicted, the most frequent crime was illegal entry (a misdemeanor), followed by driving under the influence of alcohol. Conviction for a miscellaneous assault was third, and a simple traffic offense was the fourth most frequent offense.

Less than 16 percent of ICE detainees—9,358—had ever been convicted of Level 1 offenses (homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, weapons-related crimes, etc.). Five percent—2,253—of detainees were convicted of Level 2 crimes like burglary, larceny, fraud, and traffic violations.

The new data is not particularly surprising. ICE deported more than 220,000 people in the 2017 fiscal year, most of whom were not exactly hardened criminals. According to TRAC, 79,270 had no criminal convictions. Illegal entry or reentry into the U.S. was the most serious offense for an additional 35,000.

Trump, for his part, has pledged to go after the "bad hombres." But while he and other conservatives focus on high-profile crimes committed by illegal immigrants (like the murder of Mollie Tibbetts), these sorts of tragedies do not represent the behavior of most undocument immigrants.

As Reason's Ronald Bailey has pointed out on several occasions, research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. Plus, the benefits of both legal and illegal immigration generally far outweigh the costs.

Photo Credit: Tina Burch/ZUMA Press/Newscom

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.

  • PeteRR||

    Nothing illegal, other than being here illegally...

  • Cathy L||

    I'll bet you've never committed a misdemeanor.

  • damikesc||

    He never said he committed no crimes, either.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Being Jewish was de-facto illegal in NAZI Germany.

    Being an illegal human is illegal in the USA today.

    When humans are outlawed,
    Only outlaws will be human!

  • damikesc||

    Why, yes, the Holocaust and border security are identical. The EXACT same thing. Why, we've probably KILLED millions of illegals, right? Tons of bodies.

    And don't walk back your asinine comparison. You made it intentionally. You're a fucking moron for doing so.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Well, Hitler didn't start doing his worst until the war was well under war. When you're killing folks right and left on the battlefield, and civilians as "collateral damage", a few more million dead (deliberate genocide) is easy to "justify" as well... Just a few more deaths, a few more drops in the ocean. Hitler said (before the war) that he wanted to send the Jews to Madagascar, just as we're now sending illegal humans (and, supposedly accidentally, some Hispanic-looking native-born Americans) back to Mexico. The Jew-killing didn't start till the war was already well underway.

    So we have to wait till Der TrumpfenFuhrer starts HIS shooting war, for the analogy to run to completion! The hate is already there; we're just waiting for a full-blown shooting war to provide cover.

  • damikesc||

    Yes, illegals are treated just like the Jews were in 1935.

    Cannot figure out why nobody takes the open borders crowd seriously.

  • k2000k||

    Are you then equally opposed to laws punishing trespassing on private property? I mean, you sound like a retard either way but at least if you are you are then consistent in your retardation.

  • SQRLSY One||

    No,private property trespassing laws are OK be me, because collectivism is not involved. The collectivism involved in saying that all public properties belong to all of us legal humans can not be used by illegal humans, strikes me as odious, because we are collectively acting on arbitrary criteria. I understand that we do need some border control. We have TOO much, at TOO great a cost in our freedoms! Including my individual freedom to associate with the excluded illegal humans. But I do admit there's judgment calls involved here, it is not math or particle physics.

    Last but not least, WHY are we picking on Hispanics, when they have not been the guilty ones associated with terrorism?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Anarchost dont want any USA government to enforce it sovereignty.

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    I'm willing to bet that he hasn't committed one of "homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, weapons-related crimes, etc."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cathy L solution to nonAmericans disregarding our imigration law is Americans not saying anything because the Lefties create too many statutes.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Immigration hardliners would have us believe that letting undocumented immigrants into the country leads to more crime.

    You can argue about whether illegal aliens increase the crime rate, but I am not sure how you can argue they don't lead to more crime. Some number of them are going to commit crimes and unless you contend that their very presence causes others in the country to commit less crime, then you are going to have more crime.

  • Cathy L||

    Are you suggesting the opponents of illegal immigration are concerned with the absolute number of crimes and not the crime rate? If that's the case why aren't they in favor of mass sterilization of Americans?

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Trade offs.

    People would like less crime, but the downside of mass sterilization isn't worth it.

  • SQRLSY One||

    The downsides of turning the entire USA into a police state to ferret out illegal humans isn't worth it, either.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Depends on your definition of "police state".

    A stricter immigration system would have kept out Mohammad Atta and his ilk along with the '93 WTC bombers.

    A timeline where we didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan might be worth e-verify.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Good and thoughtful points...

    If we weren't so PC, we'd put a MUCH bigger onus on potential Islamofascists than on Hispanic immigrants though. And The Donald's list of "bad" Islamic nations was entirely political, not practical... The major source nations of where our USA Islamofascist terrorists were left OFF of that list!

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Yeah, Trump has been pretty much a disappointment on immigration.

  • TW||

    That would be the list that he got from his predeessor, right?

  • ||

    A stricter immigration system would have kept out Mohammad Atta and his ilk along with the '93 WTC bombers.

    That would an "immigration system" where you simply don't let people enter or leave the country for any reason.

  • BYODB||


    That would an "immigration system" where you simply don't let people enter or leave the country for any reason.


    And don't forget, they wouldn't have stopped Tim McVeigh or the UNA bomber either. Relying on immigration to 'stop crime' is a curious proposition unless the specific crime is 'trespassing' I'd think.

  • Nardz||

    This is an incredibly stupid rebuttal, Cathy

  • EscherEnigma||

    By that line of reasoning, having babies causes crime.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Less than 16 percent of ICE detainees—9,358—had ever been convicted of Level 1 offenses (homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, weapons-related crimes, etc.).

    See, this is why I became a fan of Reason in the first place. It's fact-based open borders advocacy like this that made me choose Reason over HuffPo and Salon as my main source for news and politics.

    I urge my fellow libertarians to tell all your friends and family about this eye-opening statistic. If you know anyone who's still on the wrong side of history on the issue of abolishing ICE, hit them with this knowledge. Not even 16% of ICE detainees are the type of people you might not want in this country. That means the overwhelming majority of what ICE does is indefensible.

    #AbolishICE
    #OpenBorders
    #NoBanNoWall

  • KevinP||

    Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona


    Quotes:
    Using newly released detailed data on the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.
    ...
    Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

    If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.
  • vikeincheeseland||

    Good Lord I hope you are being sarcasting.... only 1 in 8 are bad. smgdh

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Everyone that crosses the border or overstays their visas have committed a crime.

    100%

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    I assume you meant, "everyone who crosses the border illegally..."

  • Dillinger||

    everyone *has* also if yer gonna...but i wasn't

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    Yeah I saw that typo after I posted. But no edit. I accept the shame of a typo in a correction.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I blame this glitchy Reason website :)

  • sarcasmic||

    Where's the victim?

    I thought libertarians opposed victimless crimes.

  • Dillinger||

    .

  • sarcasmic||

  • Gilbert Martin||

    When the illegals move into blue states and get counted in the Census, that data is used for determining the number of representatives in Congress. And so even if the illegals themselves can't vote that dilutes the voting power of everyone else in the country relative to that of the legal voters in those blue states who are then more enabled to enact leftist authoritarian policies on the rest of us.

    And that means the rest of us are all victims of that illegal immigration.

  • sarcasmic||

    Perhaps a 3/5's compromise?

    It's not like they're persons. They don't have papers.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Very amusing.

    However it doesn't refute my point.

  • sarcasmic||

    That sounds like a problem with the census.

    If you do want to go that route, then isn't anyone who doesn't vote a problem?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That sounds like a problem with the census."

    The Constitution specifies that method be used for determining representation.

    You are still not refuting my point.

    Illegal immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum. If the country was already set up to run on a libertarian basis with maximum individual freedom and minimal government authority to regulate, tax and redistribute then more people coming in wouldn't be much of a problem.

    But it's not set up that way and so it can and does impose marginal costs on those who are already in the U.S. legally.

    Get all that other stuff fixed first before we can talk about unlimited migration.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "If the country was already set up to run on a libertarian basis with maximum individual freedom and minimal government authority to regulate, tax and redistribute then more people coming in wouldn't be much of a problem."

    Wrong. Import people who don't believe in liberty, and when they vote, you get a less free country.

    Countries are people.

    Bring in a bunch of people with different values, and you end up with a country with different values, and a government that reflects those changing values.

  • Dillinger||

    question my voting power regardless of the immigration argument

  • Cathy L||

    And we're also all victims of our neighbors who have children.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Irrelevant to the point.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's not the fault of the undocumented immigrants how citizens have chosen to set up our systems for proportional representation.

    When the illegals move into blue states

    So it's only a problem if they move into blue states?

  • BYODB||

    I'll take you seriously when you take a 50% pay cut and mail the other half to random people in Mexico. Since you pretend to understand the issue, I'll assume you'll understand that this is the logical outcome of your preferred policy in a nutshell.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why nobody takes the open border people seriously.

    Ken Schultz makes good open border arguments and he acknowledges that people on his side of that position make it harder for him.

  • ||

    I'll take you seriously when you take a 50% pay cut and mail the other half to random people in Mexico.

    Couldn't we then also raise our incomes by creating even more classes of people who are forbidden to work?

  • BYODB||


    Couldn't we then also raise our incomes by creating even more classes of people who are forbidden to work?

    Probably, it's what was done about a hundred years ago and what continues to be done today via a multitude of labor regulations and diktats from the state through various associations. I'm not in favor of that, I just feel obligated to continue repeating that it's what pretty much the entire country thinks is a good idea so expecting it to change even this century is pretty absurd.

    I've been trying to convince far leftists that things like the minimum wage are a terrible idea for something like 30 years with virtually no success.

    The most hostile party to open immigration are the Democrats given their opinions on labor and social transfer payments. I'm sure there are indeed racist reasons for wanting to keep out immigrant labor, but frankly the income angle seems far more likely to me. If you're a roofer, for example, you'd be able to command a far higher wage if it wasn't for illegal immigrant labor.

  • ||

    The most hostile party to open immigration are the Democrats given their opinions on labor and social transfer payments.

    I think it's certainly fair to point out the self-contradiction there. "It's bad to have laws restricting these people from working, but those people over there? Yeah, fuck them."

    I also agree, re the roofer, that the abstracted argument about comparative advantage is cold comfort to the guy who's out of work because an immigrant was willing to work for less. Nice for the guy who owns the building, not so much for the people building it.

    I have mixed feelings about the whole situation, but also a basic lack of faith in the government to be good at choosing who can come here and who can't.

  • BYODB||


    I have mixed feelings about the whole situation, but also a basic lack of faith in the government to be good at choosing who can come here and who can't.

    If it's any consolation, I'm the same way. I have a deep seated belief that immigration isn't the problem, but rather an end result of many other problems that most people are willing to ignore. Not foundational problems, but rather things that have mostly arisen post-FDR.

    Anyone who believes that you can have an expansive welfare state and a heavily regulated commerce system that goes hand-in-hand with open immigration must believe in some sort of caste society, in my view.

  • ||

    When the illegals move into blue states and get counted in the Census, that data is used for determining the number of representatives in Congress.

    And since they never go to TX or AZ . . . oh, wait.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarians are fine with some crimes having The People as a victim, represented by the state.

    Its why perjury is a crime and that is okay with Libertarians.

  • ||

    Its why perjury is a crime and that is okay with Libertarians.

    No. Perjury is a crime because it has an actual victim (the party whose case is being damaged by the lie). "The People" are not a thing that can be harmed.

  • BYODB||


    "The People" are not a thing that can be harmed.

    I'm not so sure that's true. I don't necessarily agree with LC on this either but, say, welfare fraud could be considered a crime with a diffused 'victim' among the populace. I'd agree that 'the people' are just a concept, and as such cannot actually be 'harmed', but one could say that all individuals are very slightly harmed by the fraud via higher taxation than would otherwise be necessarily because of the fraud.

  • ||

    Well, fair enough - I could agree with the idea that "The People" could refer to the class of people that is, for example, harmed by "quantitative easing," much like the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.

    But that's still a class defined by actual harm to the individuals in the class. LC1789 sounds to me like he's talking about the more traditional concept of "crimes against the state," or things that are simply "an affront to the system" rather than things that cause actual harm to anyone. And that's bullshit Louis XIV kind of stuff that is in no way "libertarian."

  • BYODB||

    I agree that you'd need to be able to define the class or group of people who are actually harmed, and that just saying 'the people' isn't really a definition.

    There's a pretty fine line, I suppose, between rule of law and crimes against the state. Immigration is one of those things where the line gets blurry for some people.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not all perjury has a victim. Sometimes you sign a falsely court document and the state is the victim of perjury.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Not all perjury has a victim thats a real person.

  • Dillinger||

    (photo) ICE got that same guy again?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Jose or Hose B?

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    "Less than 16 percent of ICE detainees—9,358—had ever been convicted of Level 1 offenses (homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, weapons-related crimes, etc.). Five percent—2,253—of detainees were convicted of Level 2 crimes like burglary, larceny, fraud, and traffic violations."

    I don't know about anyone else, but 21% of people who have committed crimes such as homicide, kidnapping, burglary, fraud, etc seem like a very large percentage.

    I certainly wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood where 1 out of every 5 people had committed these crimes.

    This says to me that they're actually doing an okay job at identifying the people who are "bad hombres" since the percentage of "bad hombres" they pick up is much higher than would be expected if the anti-ICE propaganda is to be believed. CNN tells me that they're going after the good illegal immigrants, but these stats tell me they're doing okay. Okay, not perfect. But when has government ever done something perfectly?

  • ||

    So if we round up everyone in your neighborhood, including you, and 1 out of 5 turn out to be criminals, your incarceration would be something you would consider "Okay, not perfect?"

  • SQRLSY One||

    How many illegal humans have been caught blowing on an unauthorized cheap plastic flutes? Is that crime included in these them that thar here sadistics?

    (To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ ) … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

  • THCorCBDthatistheQuestion||

    I shared your site with a person with COPD the other day. Thanks for creating it!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Woo-Hoo!!! Thank You for the Thank You!!!

  • Libertymike||

    Am I welcome at the Church of Scienfoologists Quest for Religious Liberty, Sincerely?

  • SQRLSY One||

    ALL are welcome to the Church of Scienfoologists Questing for Religious Liberty, Sincerely!!!

    And unlike Scientology, us Scienfoologists are NOT required to make giant "donations", or ANY donations, to "access the technology"! The "tech" is FREE at http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ ...

    I am still waiting for the FDA to tell me how to gain recognition for our Church, sad to say...

  • Michael Cook||

    Torture statistics enough and they will confess to anything. Actually, if 16% have been convicted of level 1 offenses, that is a pretty darn high number for a youngish population sample from countries with sketchy criminal history records and where we don't even know for sure that the criminal histories being searched relate to the correct identities of the people in custody.

    Besides all that, add to the 16% the 5% that were convicted of Level 2 offenses like burglary, larceny, fraud, and traffic violations. Some of the posts here would suggest that we should not be concerned with people who are scofflaws regarding traffic violations but I have had two close relatives seriously injured by illegals who were repeat DWI's without valid operator's licenses or insurance! One was driving a vehicle that had been stolen months before and had been passed through a network of "owners" with a variety of borrowed license plates and bogus paperwork.

    Lastly, a lot of misdemeanors anymore are domestic violence charges which soak up a ton of police and court resources, as well as social service and eventually welfare services. Gets us up to 25%, easy.

    It is pretty cheeky of Joe Setyon to claim these numbers prove that ICE detainees are at or above acceptable American behavior norms. Dems and their Fake News Corps lie about this by comparing illegal crime stats to the worst Big Blue City stats and not to the rest of America.

  • KevinP||

    Joe Seyton: research shows that immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are actually less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.

    The studies proving that "immigrants are law abiding" willfully conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants have been fingerprinted and have been through criminal background checks many times before becoming permanent residents, so it is not surprising that they are more law abiding than average. Something as small as shoplifting is enough to reject an application.

    Illegal aliens have not been vetted by anyone, and in many cases don't even possess traceable documents issued by their own home country. Sure, there are many farm worker illegal aliens who are not criminals, but there are large numbers of illegals who are criminals, usually preying upon their own ethnicities. In Texas alone, in a four year period, 39% of murders were committed by illegal aliens.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So a full sixth of ICE detainees have been convicted of a violent crime? With 220,000 deportations and that percentage holds up that is about 33,000 violent offenders who were kicked out of the US.

    This is good statistic for the open borders crowd, how?

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't thing the "open borders crowd" is against jailing and deporting violent offenders.

    It's that 187,000 people who haven't committed a crime other than lacking a permission slip that they're talking about.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Except they are using that its only less 16% of those caught by ICE as a reason to shut down immigration enforcement. They may be willing to deport the violent offenders but they don't seem to be for doing anything to catch violent illegal immigrants.

  • sarcasmic||

    You really think they want to shut down all immigration enforcement? I don't. Pointing out the absurdity of the current system doesn't necessarily equal advocating for no system at all.

  • damikesc||

    They don't want to shut down all immigration enforcement.

    They just oppose every single option for immigration enforcement.

    It's totally different.

  • sarcasmic||

    Resources used to catch people who don't have their papers in order are resources that are not being used to catch criminals who like hurt people and stuff, you know?

  • Mickey Rat||

    There is always some undefined methodology that is more perfect than what we are doing now, therefore we should cease and desist what we are doing now.

  • damikesc||

    Well, ICE isnt really used for domestic law enforcement.

    So, can you list border control policies you would support?

  • ||

    So, can you list border control policies you would support?

    Deport people who are convicted of felonies and stop sweeping for otherwise law-abiding people?

  • damikesc||

    So, allow illegals until they commit "serious" crimes? Them crossing the border is, for me, more than enough of a crime to toss them out.

    There is a way to come here. We're not required to take in everybody nor do we want to take in everybody.

    We need a wall because people like you won't allow us to have a border.

  • BYODB||


    We need a wall because people like you won't allow us to have a border.

    This is the point where it gets stupid, just to be 'that guy'. A wall is a impractical, expensive, and a virtually impossible proposition in terms of actual effectiveness. You can't be a fiscal conservative and want a border wall at the same time in the United States.

    Choose the form of your destroyer!

  • ||

    A wall is a impractical, expensive, and a virtually impossible proposition in terms of actual effectiveness.

    And it's not actually buildable. People who think it is don't understand anything about construction.

  • BYODB||


    And it's not actually buildable. People who think it is don't understand anything about construction.

    I don't know about 'impossible', but I also know virtually nothing about construction.

    I do know that walls have had known workarounds for probably at least 4000 years and that there is no way in hell you can effectively guard the 1900 something miles of southern border, let alone the oceans, and the only ways that I can think of that would let you at least pretend that you are guarding them all would be an affront to human rights.

    I also know that there is no way in hell the costs could ever equal any perceived benefits.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a way to come here.

    Yes. And it is absurdly cumbersome.

  • retiredfire||

    And it is absurdly cumbersome.
    Not to the more than a million people, who manage to maneuver through the process, each year.

  • sarcasmic||

    We're not required to take in everybody nor do we want to take in everybody.

    Believe it or not, it is possible to recognize the current system as absurd without advocating for no system at all. There is a whole hell of a lot of middle ground between the current system and totally open borders. Miles and miles of open ground.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's the same false dichotomy that the Trump tariff supporters use when they accuse people who complain about his trade war of masturbating to the trade policy before him. The only people masturbating are Trump's protectionist, xenophobic sycophants. Oooo! Oooo! Fuck those illegals! Oooo! Oooo! Fuck those Chinese commies! Oh yeah, baby!

  • ||

    So, allow illegals until they commit "serious" crimes?

    Well, we let you run around until you commit a "serious" crime, don't we?

    Them crossing the border is, for me, more than enough of a crime to toss them out.

    Maybe you should advocate changing the law to make that a felony. If you had to choose between committing resources to catching murderers and rapists and committing resources to catching people who crossed the border without your permission, which would you choose?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    He's not going to answer that question. The closed-border crowd never seems to want to talk about the costs or tradeoffs of their policies.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So, allow illegals until they commit "serious" crimes?

    Who do those uppity illegals think they are, thinking that they have liberty and rights and shit?

  • BYODB||


    Deport people who are convicted of felonies and stop sweeping for otherwise law-abiding people?

    I'm not much in favor of punishing one group of people less than another for the same crime, but at the same time I'm not in favor of paying tax dollars to keep non-citizens in jail.

    Quite the predicament, although these individuals have decided to subject themselves to American law by virtue of coming here against those laws so there's a pretty good argument to put them in jail provided they're being punished the same as a citizen for the same crimes.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think their point is that going after people who don't have their papers in order isn't necessarily going to catch people who have committed violent crimes. Especially if the resources used to catch those 187,000 people who did not commit a violent crime were instead used to catch people who did.

  • ||

    ^ This.

    It's pretty much exactly the same as deciding that "drugs cause crime" and that therefore rounding up drug-users who have committed no other crime counts as "fighting crime" while rapists, murderers and thieves run free.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    I don't thing the "open borders crowd" is against jailing and deporting violent offenders.

    Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy would like a word with you.

  • k2000k||

    So if someone was squatting on your property, who has committed no other crime than being on your property without your permission you'd be cool with that? Good to hear. Jose! you and your amigos can stay at Sarcasmic's place.

  • ||

    So if someone was squatting on your property, who has committed no other crime than being on your property without your permission you'd be cool with that?

    Right up until I ask them to leave and they refuse, yes.

    Why - does this discussion have something to do with your personal property?

  • BYODB||

    Get rid of American labor protections and wage controls, along with all professional associations, and then maybe immigration would be fixed.


    Does anyone with half a brain see that happening?

  • SQRLSY One||

    I would ***LIKE*** to see what you propose, there, yes (get rid of all licensing, too).

    Sad to say, I cannot see this sort of thing happening, short of MAJOR changes... Like a nuclear war maybe? After a nuclear war, I doubt that there will be any meat-inspection regulators preventing me from selling you a half-rotted possum in exchange for some sharpened rocks!

  • BYODB||

    Precisely, and licensing is often overseen by the professional associations I mention above. At least this is almost always the case in medical, which are the only groups I'm readily familiar with.

    The fact is that American labor and wage policy is inherently contradictory to open borders, so what's being asked is that American's willfully destroy their own wages and earnings to benefit illegal immigrants specifically.

    That no one bothers to notice this among the open borders crowd is interesting, but the general popularity of the libertarian brand should tell us that enough people notice to make libertarian a non-starter politically. I suppose standing on principle as your ship sinks around you is noble, in a really stupid kind of way.

  • Libertymike||

    Honest to GAWD (pun sincerely intended), I responded to BYODB's post by invoking your name and coupling it with mine in support of interring the ABA, the AMA, and the FDA and when I pressed submit, the squirrels swallowed my post.

    Then, I return to this thread and voila - the Most Righteous Feelz has spoken as I imagined he would.

  • BYODB||

    My experiences with the AMA tell me that they are perhaps the biggest impediment to expanding the supply side of Doctor's in the United States.

  • Libertymike||

    The AMA is just bloody profligate.

    Ditto for the state licensing boards. In Mass, its the Board of Registration in Medicine.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I see we agree on a lot, just not all of it...

    "...standing on principle as your ship sinks around you is noble, in a really stupid kind of way."

    Ship Libertopia has never sailed at all, she's not sinking, she's an underwater submarine, lurking and shooting torpedoes at HUGE inflated ideas in people's head, about what all good Government Almighty can do for us!

    Yes, you're right, if we open flood-gates for more cheap labor to come here, AND did away with licensing and restricted supplies of doctors, barbers, etc., many of us would have to take a pay cut. BUT we could get a LOT more cheap food, services, lawn-mowing, baby-sitting, and on and on!

    In summary, if we did away with a too-tight border AND the Nanny State, we'd have to take pay cuts, yes, some or many of us, but MANY-MANY of us could buy cheaper goods and services! Net-net, we'll end up ahead this way. Final illustration of this? Run history backwards, North and South American never got invaded by Europeans or any other immigrant invaders. Would the peoples of North and South American now be better off?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Another way to put it is, I as a tech worker (me and all my buddies) are SOOO glad that Government Almighty protects our jobs with tariffs and prevents illegal humans from taking our jobs. But many of us frankly resent that our autos cost so much, and would be glad to see the auto industry no longer protected from competition so much (by ditto methods), and would like to buy cheaper AND better cars!

    Meanwhile, the auto workers look at us tech workers the exact same way, but opposite... THEY want "jobs protections", but they also want to buy better and cheaper computers!

    And all of us tech workers AND auto workers would like to see cheaper and better medical care!!!

    Less Government Almighty meddling all around will benefit us all, if we give up the illusion that Government Almighty can help MEEEEE by screwing YOU over, because it always eventually turns around, and Government Almighty screws over MEEEE for YOUR benefit!

  • Libertymike||

    Okay, now tell about the ALCS and NLCS.

    Do you think the Sox will displace the world champion Astros?

    Do you think the Dodgers will best the Brewers and get back to the World Series?

    Also, who should win the AL MVP? Mookie or J.D.?

  • SQRLSY One||

    Holy Wow, Batman!

    I haven't got two neurons that I can rub together, on the subject of sports! All that I can tell you is that a butt-ton of Government Almighty workers and sycophants are bad sports, and hard-working (or retired), sincere libertarians are good sports!

  • Libertymike||

    BTW, I spent some time earlier today at your website. Lots of good stuff.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Thanks Kind Sir Dude Sir!!!

  • damikesc||

    Yes, you're right, if we open flood-gates for more cheap labor to come here, AND did away with licensing and restricted supplies of doctors, barbers, etc., many of us would have to take a pay cut. BUT we could get a LOT more cheap food, services, lawn-mowing, baby-sitting, and on and on!

    "Sure, I have no job but look at how cheap goods are now!!!" seems like something an idiot would say.

    I guess we have to sacrifice some folks for the "common good", eh? Sounds totes libertarian.

  • BYODB||


    I guess we have to sacrifice some folks for the "common good", eh? Sounds totes libertarian.

    Actually, it is in this case since American wages are artificially high virtually (but not entirely) across the board. It's a natural result of stopping the market distortion that is a minimum wage among the other things I listed above. It's not even a complete list, just a list of the more obvious offenders.

    Don't get me wrong, a higher wage is better for those who earn it. Those who don't, however, are fucked or have to work below the radar in the exact same market niche that illegal immigrant labor operates in.

    Why do we bash on illegal immigrant labor, but hold up the American working in the black market to a different standard?

  • BYODB||

    I suppose I should also clarify and say that some immigration controls will probably always have to exist, if for no other reason than because there will always be some group that is perceived, perhaps even rightly, as dangerous. There's no guarantee those 'protections' will work, but it's also smart to at least try and limit immigration from countries that are suffering from, say, AIDS or Ebola epidemics.

    There are perfectly rational reasons to exclude certain groups, largely on a temporary basis assuming you'd consider 10 to 15 years 'temporary'. How to effectively do that is always the question, but no practical or realistic answer has yet been provided by anyone that isn't worse than the disease (E-Verify, for example, which is a burden on business that I'd consider unconstitutional).

    A wall being one of the more hilarious examples of 'we must do something, this is something we could do, therefore we will do this'.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "I guess we have to sacrifice some folks for the "common good", eh? "

    Yes! Doctors and regulators, barbers, even coffin-makers where unlicensed coffin making is not permitted because ???? One might hurt or kill a corpse!?!?

    Some licensing is utterly absurd (interior decorators and flower arrangers too) and so, if they have to take a pay-cut hit so that others can make an honest living, I am WAAAY on board!!

    Also, if everyone takes a 50% pay cut, but then afterwards everything is 50% cheaper, we have a net-net gain or loss of nothing, and then Government Almighty is simplified, and then the savings will come in eventually!

  • EscherEnigma||

    So get rid of Freedom of Association then.

  • BYODB||

    It has nothing to do with freedom of association when boards are empowered to control entry into a profession by the state Escher.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Aren't people entering the country criminals by definition?

  • smalleyd||

    I'm guessing that if an illegal immigrant committed an actual crime while in the US, they wouldn't be detained by ICE. They'd be in jail or prison. It's not clear how this report vindicates the Reasonoid talking point.

  • EirkKengaard||

    " . . . letting undocumented immigrants into the country leads to more crime."

    Perhaps . . . and perhaps not. We have invited in a lot of people from cultures that condone crime, and those people commit crimes here. Look up HHS OIG Most Wanted. Look up Armenian Medicare fraud. Look up Nigerian Fraud. If it were not "verboten" I would list dozens of examples.

    In any case, the important question is what should our population be and why, and that question is never asked, much less discussed. Why is that?

  • ||

    The important question is what should our population be and why, and that question is never asked, much less discussed.

    Oh, it's discussed Just by people who are not libertarians pretty much by definition.

  • BYODB||

    I always love the term 'social progress' since it's incredibly vague and everyone has a different definition of 'progress'. It's a dead giveaway that someone has pretty darn certain beliefs in terms of where society should freeze forever.

  • zombietimeshare||

    Great, they aren't all criminals—except for the being in the country illegally part. So, photograph, fingerprint, and DNA type them before sending them back to their home country with the warning that if they come back illegally they will end up in jail.

  • 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.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Oh yeah?

    Illegal humans are tax slaves even more so than most of us USA citizens are… They pay into Social Security, but cannot benefit! See "The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes" (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one... AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....es/499604/

    Prepare to kick them all out, and then watch Social Security collapse! That might be a good thing in the long run, but I am afraid of roving bands of elderly, angry thugs in wheelchairs, banging on my doors, demanding tea and Ensure, or maybe plumb juice!

  • buybuydandavis||

    End the tax slavery of illegals NOW!
    Deport them all!

  • vikeincheeseland||

    are you insane? if they were not criminals they could not be detained.

  • SQRLSY One||

    AKA, Government Almighty has NEVER made mistakes!!!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    "...undocumented immigrants aren't bringing crime into the country."
    But they become problems once they're here in numbers all out of proportion.

  • Nardz||

    So...
    What's the difference between illegal immigrants and invaders?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Fifty-eight percent—25,920—of ICE's 44,435 detainees had never been convicted of a crime."

    How many had been arrested for crimes?
    Prosecuted and acquitted for crimes?
    Had pending criminal charges?

    And, oh yeah, were in the country illegally?

    If they're here illegally, they should be detained until they are deported.

    With the shiny new Pomo Reason, the truth in the article will be found in the obviously relevant facts omitted from the story.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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