The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Migration and the "Military-Age Male" Fallacy
Don't fall for scaremongering about "military-age male" migrants crossing the border. They are actually less dangerous than native-born citizens of the same age and gender.

Military-age males are a dangerous, scary lot. Best to have as few of them around, as possible. I should know. I used to be one myself.
In recent months, GOP politicians and other immigration restrictionists have been sounding the alarm about the presence of large numbers of "military-age males" among migrants crossing the southern border. There is no justification for such alarmism. "Military-age male" migrants don't pose any special danger. Indeed, they are, on average, less dangerous than native-born citizens of the same description. Nor is there any reason to be much concerned about the fact that this group may be overrepresented among illegal migrants.
The definition of "military-age male" isn't clear. But, most likely, it refers to men between the ages of about 18 and 45 - the age group that includes most military personnel. If so, it's not surprising that illegal migrants may be disproportionately drawn from this category. After all, most migrants are fleeing poor and repressive societies in hopes of finding greater freedom and opportunity. For obvious reasons, men in their prime working years are more likely to migrate in search of employment than children or the elderly.
In addition, illegal migration often involves risks created by participation in an illegal market. Undocumented migrants may be victimized by criminals, detained in awful conditions by US authorities, or suffer other dangers. On average, men are far more risk-acceptant than women. Thus, it isn't surprising that they are more likely to be willing to risk the dangers of illegal migration. If you want to increase the proportion of women and children among migrants, the best way is to make legal migration easier, thereby making the process much less dangerous.
That said, the disproportion between men and women in the illegal migrant population is far from overwhelming. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that women make up 46% of the US undocumented immigrant population. That's only modestly lower than their proportion of the overall US population (about 51%). And, far from seeing a surge in the percentage of single males among undocumented immigrants, 2023 actually saw an increase in the percentage of undocumented migrants who come in family groups.
One concern about military-age male migrants is the fear that they might be terrorists. But the number of people killed in terrorist attacks in the United States perpetrated by illegal migrants who crossed the southern border from 1975 to the present is zero. Either the incidence of terrorists among males who cross the southern border is extremely low, or they are extremely bad at committing actual acts of terrorism. Male undocumented migrants actually have a substantially lower incidence of terrorist attacks than native-born citizens do.
There is also no good evidence that military-age male migrants are somehow agents of foreign military forces, planning an invasion. Being a military-age male doesn't mean you are likely to be a member of any actual military force or have any military skills. Similarly, the fact that younger males are, on average, better basketball players than women and older men, doesn't mean that most young men are actually professional basketball players, or have more than rudimentary playing skill. Calling them "basketball-age males" doesn't change that reality. I have criticized the "invasion" narrative in more detail here.
There is one kernel of truth to concerns about military-age males: men, especially young men, have a much higher crime rate than women do. They commit a hugely disproportionate percentage of violent and property crimes. For example, in 2019, according to FBI data, men accounted for almost 89% of those arrested for murder, and just under 97% of those arrested for rape.
However, if you worry about undocumented military-age males for this reason, you should worry about native-born ones even more. That's because undocumented immigrants have much lower crime rates than native-born Americans do. In Texas between 2013 and 2022, for example, undocumented immigrants (2.2 homicides per 100,000 people per year), are about 36% less likely to commit homicide than native-born citizens (3.0 per 100,000 per year). And that's without controlling for age and gender. If you do control for those variables, the gap between undocumented immigrants' and natives' crime rates becomes even larger, due to the greater proportion of younger males among the former.
Obviously, in any large group, there are going to be some dangerous individuals. The point is not that military-age male migrants are risk-free (they aren't!), but that the incidence of that risk is low.
Conservatives rightly condemn left-wingers who claim all men are potential rapists. While the incidence of rape by men is vastly higher than that by women, the vast majority of men are not rapists and never will be. The same reasoning applies to right-wing scaremongering about "military-age male" migrants. Stigmatizing a large group based on the crimes of a small minority is wrong. And that's especially true if the group's overall crime rate is actually lower than that of comparably situated members of the rest of the population (in this case, male native-born Americans).
In sum, there is nothing surprising or sinister about the relative overrepresentation of "military-age males" among undocumented immigrants. And these men are actually, on average, less dangerous than native-born Americans of the same age and gender.
Obviously, there are many rationales for immigration restrictions and harsh border policies unrelated to fear of military-age males, or even to crime and terrorism, more generally. Some are more defensible than fear of military-age males. I have tried to address many of them in other writings, such as my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. Here, I hope to help clear away a bad argument, so we can devote more attention to better ones.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
All true.
I keep in mind that the first American soldier to die in Iraq was an undocumented alien. Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, from Guatemala. We can contrast that with the military “record” of the native-born men who sent him there.
How did he get to Iraq without documentation?
He applied for asylum and it was granted. Five years later he enlisted in the marines. Non-citizens can enlist in the US military.
Then he was not undocumented.
EXACTLY....
the "Native-born men who sent him there"
like Sleepy Joe? John Lurch Kerry?? Chucky Schumer??
OK, I guess Lurch did serve, amazed his own crew didn't put him in a body bag.
Frank
Well! If the Migration Policy Institute says so!
They show their work. Are you saying it's all lies?
If so, do they have a history of lying you can point to?
Or, more likely, are you just being a nativist and lazy but want to post anyhow.
Most nativists are lazy. All are bigots.
"Nativist"?? is that a new way to say the "N-Word"??
I live in a town with a hefty number hispanics. One elementary school is dedicated to hispanic students. The only way a local kid across the street can go to his neighborhood school is to pass a spanish language test. If he fails, he gets bussed across town.
The point is, local law enforcement just doesnt charge illegals with crimes. It is far too involved and there is no state or federal help
Crime statics have been shamelessly compromised to tell a narrative.
Ignore the stats listen to this sourceless story? Yeah that sounds about your speed.
You have stats on illegals who commit crimes but aren't charged due to sanctuary like policies or other reasons?
I don't have overall stats, but I do have an incident that still angers me.
I was riding my [ordinary pedal] bike in San Jose, CA, a notorious "sanctuary city", about ten years ago. On a 35 MPH street, I was riding with traffic, legally. It is recommended that if you don't have a bike lane you can ride on streets that allow parking, because such streets are sized to allow parked cars and traffic, with a space between them where bikes and car doors can go as needed [but of course not simultaneously]. A driver opened his door in my path, and I slammed into it.
I called the police, who came out. They ascertained that the sole occupant of the car, in the driver's seat, had no drivers license and he admitted to being undocumented. I asked that a citation be issued.
The police called his boss, and was told that they couldn't prove that the guy had been driving, so no citation.
I fiddled with my phone, and in tens of seconds found https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-veh/division-11/chapter-9/section-22517/ which says that you don't have to be driving to deserve a citation for inflicting a "door prize" on a bicyclist. No dice. They ascertained that I didn't need ambulance transport, and they weren't going to do anything.
I did get a bit of satisfaction from the fact that the car door wouldn't close after the incident. The hinge was damaged in some manner, and the latch didn't line up with the coupling.
-dk
Would you have been less angered in the same circumstances except that the person who opened the car door was a thoroughly documented 70-year-old White male like, say, me?
Why?
I live in a town with a hefty number hispanics. One elementary school is dedicated to hispanic students. The only way a local kid across the street can go to his neighborhood school is to pass a spanish language test. If he fails, he gets bussed across town.
The point is, local law enforcement just doesn't charge illegals with crimes.
No. The point is you have a bunch of unjustified, bigoted, assumptions that lead to your comment.
Are all, or most, of those kids here illegally? Do you know, or are you just making that up?
What do you mean by “local kids?” Why aren’t the students at the school “local kids?” Let me guess. They’re not white. Here’s a clue: there are plenty of American citizens (and legal residents) who are Hispanic.
And how do you know whether local Hispanics (who you assume are illegal) are appropriately charged with crimes? You don’t have a fucking idea. Some guy in a bar told you that, and it fits your prejudices.
Oh, and before bitching maybe investigate what kind of results dual-language schools achieve.
Did Dr. Ed write this fake story for you, or did you come up with it all on your own?
“men accounted for …. just under 97% of those arrested for rape.”
Pretty sure in the days of my youth it was 100%. Incremental progress toward equal justice under the law.
the other 3% are men claiming to be women
That's funny
"That's because undocumented immigrants have much lower crime rates than native-born Americans do. "
Well! If . . . *checks notes* . . . Michael T. Light, Jinying He, and Jason P. Robey say so!
Oh, wait:
At least you have a substantive critique here, even if you present it like an ass.
Though I’m not sure your critique stands up well, either. From the paper:
According to the DPS, the compliance rate for these CCH data from 2011 through 2015 was 96%, and citizenship information is missing in only 3% of felony arrests
From CIS: Over time, authorities could identify additional illegal immigrants who were previously categorized as “other/unknown” and reclassify them as illegal, shrinking the other/unknown share and increasing the illegal share
CIS is technically correct, but not on point for this study. You’re trying to create much ado about a 3% that was excluded from the study anyhow.
The rest of the CIS thesis does some intra-database crosstagging between TX and census that I was unable to follow
Yup, and it's been pointed out to him, too.
Sarcastr0, what you're missing is that the citizenship information was missing in 3% of TOTAL felony arrests. But illegal immigrants are still a relatively small fraction of the population, so 3% of total felony arrests is perfectly capable of leading to a large change in the illegal immigrant total.
So, if you actually LOOK at the statistics in the paper he linked to, you can see that for 2012, the year in the study where they'd had the most time to correct that status, the homicide conviction per 100K looked like 2.7 based on status at trial, but by the time of the study had been corrected to 3.9; 1.44 times higher!
In almost all years, the illegal alien homicide rate got corrected from lower than native, to substantially higher.
For sexual assault, it went from substantially higher to hugely higher.
And, this paper has been pointed out to him, repeatedly. He's not ignorant of it, he's ignoring it.
Julian Castro would say that Central America was filled with rapists and wife beaters…that’s why we should give their women and children asylum. Cory Booker even helped 3 Cuban women fleeing domestic abuse attempt to get into America but were denied asylum due to Obama’s strict border policies.
I looked at both papers. The 3% unclassified is excluded from the first paper. That means the rate also does not include that group. So unless there is systematic bias in the unclassified group the criticism is incorrect.
As to the CIS paper it’s not a simple count they use to get their correction. I can’t really opine on their methodology.
The data does bear out that a very large proportion of the initial unknowns turns out to have been illegals. For example, for the year 2012, an additional 21 convicts were later identified as illegal, which represents 2.7% of the total persons convicted. Since something like 3% of the total were initially unknown, we can conclude the initial group of unknowns was heavily biased towards illegals.
Of course it's going to be: Almost all citizens are easily established to be citizens, and have no reason at all to obscure their status, while the illegals have every reason, (Outside sanctuary cities, of course!) to pretend to be citizens.
Just reasoning from this, you'd naturally expect most unknowns to be illegal aliens.
It's via a database, Brett, how do you obscure your status?
That being said, Mike does establish a systematic bias in the excluded group.
Identity theft?
"3% of total felony arrests is perfectly capable of leading to a large change in the illegal immigrant total"
Correct!
Note that in Texas in 2012, a total of 780 persons were convicted of homicide according to data in link from ML's post. Initially only 44 persons were identified as illegal when arrested, but later another 21 persons were identified as illegal. Those 21 additional persons represent just under 3% of the total persons convicted, while increasing the conviction rate for illegals by 47%.
And then it was pointed out that the CIS rebuttal was wrong, because it relied on data that double counted some crimes by illegals.
OK, link to that proof.
"Military-age male" migrants don't pose any special danger.
Seems quite a large number of "Military-age male" migrants crossed into Crimea from Russia in 2014, and it was quite a special danger.....
Sit back for a moment and realize your analogy here means you are arguing that Latin America has plans to invade the US.
Which Latin Americans specifically want to take over our government?
Chileans, Argentinians - Sold! When can you start?
Costa Ricans - Send a proposal, we'll look at it.
Brazilians - We'll give own local guys another chance, but check again in January.
The rest - Sorry, not taking applications.
Why are you arguing only Latin Americans are illegally coming across our southern border?
Because he very seldom accurately characterizes any argument he disagrees with.
That is not an "analogy". That is a real example of a large number of military age males being a very real danger.
But the idea that such a danger is applicable to us is a joke.
The concept that military age men, from a geopolitical rival, illegally crossing a border...just "might" present a risk is not a joke.
It's something that's happened before. It's a nice way to smuggle agents of that foreign country in, to do all sorts of bad things. Sabotage. Theft. Espionage.
It remains extremely telling that you need to take refuge in ‘the concept’ as well as jump back and forth between Latin America and China.
Sabotage. Theft. Espionage.
Tom Clancying in service of fearmongering.
I've never mentioned "Latin America". That's been your strawman.
Oh dear, so I gave you too much credit.
You are ignoring the vast majority of actual immigration, in favor of fearmongering about a *much* smaller population, and you making up some scenarios that would better appear in delightful trash like NCIS Los Angeles than real life.
No, it's a stupid way to smuggle agents of a foreign country in, because those people wouldn't have any legal status and would find it hard to operate in the country. Millions of people from China come here legally each year. (Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/214813/number-of-visitors-to-the-us-from-china/) Note that this is tourists; it doesn't include students, business visitors, diplomats, etc. Not to mention Americans that the Chinese government can recruit.
Well...figures that neither you nor Somin would say what type of
military age men.
Oh. Large number of military aged Chinese men crossing the southern border to illegally immigrate.
Gosh...not like China isn't a primary geopolitical rival....
https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/border/alarming-rise-in-military-aged-chinese-men-entering-us-illegally-border-patrol-union-
chief-warns/article_00831fe0-d016-11ee-8f22-1fc3bc785d38.html
China is not going to take us over either.
I'd say "don't be an idiot".
No, they have no short term plans to take us over, but they certainly could have plans to distract us during their invasion of Taiwan. By, say, taking down our power grid, or knocking out other vital infrastructure.
They could! But hacking seems a lot easier than whatever military fic you're cooking up.
Yes. Note the bait-and-switch. They talk about "military age men," and Russia-Ukraine, implying combat. But then they switch to talking about espionage and sabotage, as if those required military age men.
Gosh, what could go wrong with China smuggling military aged men, across the border, in order to dodge US border authorities?
Sabotage. Theft. Spying. Political manipulation.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/politics/fbi-chinese-agents/index.html
1. Your link has jack shit to do with the border.
2. Just coming in via normal channels gives you legitimacy that sneaking in does not.
3. If this is your concern, should we just expel all Chinese migrants? Because that's what you seem to be saying, which is some shitty fear-based nationalism and would be monumentally counterproductive.
4. Sabotage. Theft. Spying. Political manipulation. You linked to an example of something law enforcement was quite able to handle. You're just posting political thriller bullshit because defensive crouch nationalism is the GOP brand at the moment.
1. No, it has to do with Chinese agents deliberately, illegally, working in the United States to effect illegal actions. I wonder how Chinese Agents might illegally get into the United States?
2. "Sneaking in" avoids border security and those agents of the FBI that are looking for Chinese agents.
3. I'm saying we need increased border security because of point 2
4. Those are the cases that are caught. And after signficant detrimental effects. What about the cases that aren't caught?
Here's more on the damage.
Note the Chinese Government support.
https://www.propublica.org/article/chinese-organized-crime-us-marijuana-market#:~:text=Chinese%20criminal%20networks%20have%20taken,money%20laundering%20and%20human%20trafficking.
"Chinese Organized Crime Is Dominating America’s Illegal Marijuana Market"
First of all, this is not some Chinese government plot, you fearmongering tool.
Second of all the only Chinese crossing the border illegally are THE VICTIMS: "Among the victims are thousands of Chinese immigrants, many of them smuggled across the Mexican border to toil in often abusive conditions at farms ringed by fences, surveillance cameras and guards with guns and machetes. A grim offshoot of this indentured servitude: Traffickers force Chinese immigrant women into prostitution for the bosses of the agricultural workforce."
So basically you're a full on anti-Chinese bigot, wherein all criminality involving a Chinese national is a PRC plot.
You use this prejudice to fuel fantastic border-related scenarios in an attempt to make this about immigration.
You are the poster child for Prof. Somin's fallacy - congrats!
Chinese agents deliberately, illegally, working in the United States to effect illegal actions
So not about the border.
“Sneaking in” avoids border security and those agents of the FBI that are looking for Chinese agents.
So these are now internationally known Chinese agents? Seems a pretty bad move by China to choose those guys!
Those are the cases that are caught. And after signficant detrimental effects. What about the cases that aren’t caught?
It would be irresponsible not to speculate!
You post about these illegal departments, but then project way way beyond them. Which means you have nothing but a bad novella.
No, it doesn't, you utter moron. "Sneaking in" is what border security stops. Coming in legally is how you avoid border security. One shows one's passport/visa to the bored guy at the airport, who asks a few perfunctory questions and then waves one through, and then one is home free, here legally and able to act as one wishes.
They have already invaded....
You live in Maine, I don’t feel like the brown horde is a big thing in your life.
they already are, who do you think killed "Lincoln Riley" (HT Parkinsonian Joe), OJ?
I have no idea, and neither you do.
They’ve had a suspect for some time now, it’s not San Fran- Sissy-Co so he’s still in jail
Wow, is that a ridiculous analogy.
"After all, most migrants are fleeing poor and repressive societies in hopes of finding greater freedom and opportunity."
Except for the three divisions of Communist Chinese that have no way to leave the country without permission?
All the Chinese nationals I know left China to get away from the Communist regime.
The nativist bigots of today are just like the nativist bigots of 1940 who wanted to send German Jews back to Germany. They claimed that those Jews might be Nazi spies. And they said that with straight faces.
And in 1946 they claimed they could be communist spies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
("'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,' said the man behind the curtain pulling the strings and levers.")
Anyone who actually knows undocumented hispanics (like I do) knows that they keep their heads down and try to stay out of trouble. Committing a crime, particularly a violent one, would be really stupid. Even if you don’t know any, if you think about it without racial or cultural animus you would come to the same conclusion through logical deduction.
But their citizen anchor baby crotch droppings certainly don't.
Drunk driving comes to immediate mind as NOT keeping your head down and staying out of trouble....
Very gteat point!
So?
The extent of pure bigotry, ignorance, and xenophobia on display in these immigration threads is disgraceful.
I assume you’re right, having come to trust your commenting, though I’ve blocked those you are responding to.
you obviously didn't know the one who killed "Lincoln Riley"
"Anyone who actually knows undocumented hispanics (like I do) knows that they keep their heads down and try to stay out of trouble."
Of course they do, they don't want to be caught. But what you're failing to account for is that criminals are a relatively small fraction of society, so it's perfectly possible for most illegal aliens to behave in the manner you're related, and they could STILL have a much higher crime rate than natives or legal immigrants.
And just the fact that all illegal immigrants decided to come here illegally in knowing violation of our laws is enough to make a facial case for their having a higher proclivity to violate the law than people here legally. I mean, would you be shocked to find that shoplifters had a higher crime rate than the population at large? Why is illegally entering the country any different? The group is DEFINED by having violated a law!
That makes no sense.
facial case for their having a higher proclivity to violate the law
No, it is not. No more than jaywalking.
You are rationalizing being a bigot.
You end up based on the thinnest pretext prejudging that illegals contain the dark criminality in them and so even if they are incentivized to try, they're probably all doing tons of crimes.
Same song has been sung about blacks and the Chinese and the Irish and people who grew up in the ghetto and Musims and so on and so on.
Congrats on being part of a truly shitty club that has repeatedly been disavowed by history and keeps cropping up
Riiight. Hiking several thousand miles to illegally cross a nation's borders is the same as crossing a street not at a marked crosswalk. You're beclowning yourself here, Sarcastr0.
I don't give a damn about their race or ethnicity; If Swedish bikini models started sneaking across our border I'd demand they be deported.
The problem with comparing illegals to "native born Americans" in terms of crime is that blacks and legal Hispanics are included in that group. Illegals should only be compared to white Americans.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but this article says:
https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime
I know, these are just facts that are not likely to change anyone's deeply held priors.
He's not being sarcastic; he's a longstanding troll here who cosplays at being white supremacist.
We shouldn't be letting in any MAM, because there is no benefit to us, however we should set up a temporary work visa program for BAM's (Birthing Age Females (and I do mean female)). And if they find a genetic and financial.sponsor, for fertilization and financial responsibility they can get a green card and stay.
This is kinda coercive and pretty fucked up.
Genetic sponsor holy shit is this like neo eugenics satire?
Treat humans like humans. Support childcare. Don’t instantiate a foreign birthing program.
How can you not see the dystopia you are authoring?
Kasinski!
So much life experience, and so little learned from it.
Some people get older and smarter, and some get older and stupider.
How much life experience do you figure one gets living in an off-the-grid hermit shack a few miles from the middle of nowhere, idolizing fellow antisocial misfit Ted Kaczynski?
How is it coercive, when it's actually allowing something currently not allowed? I've never much liked the notion that giving people more options is "coercion" because the new options might, gasp!, be attractive.
"Don’t instantiate a foreign birthing program."
You haven't been paying attention: Making up for our low birth rate is literally one of the common defenses of high levels of immigration, legal or otherwise. He's just proposing to formalize it.
How is it coercive, when it’s actually allowing something currently not allowed
So that is actually a great way to coerce people, what are you stupid?
"if they find a genetic and financial sponsor, for fertilization and financial responsibility they can get a green card and stay."
1. I'm not too worried about our birth rate at the current junction.
2. If I were, I'd be into support for pregnant women, childcare, etc. Expand the EITC. I would NOT be into importing women for breeding sow purposes.
3. This is so dehumanizing (specific to women) that I cannot believe you don't see it. It reads like Handmaiden's Tail if you added a racial component.
"1. I’m not too worried about our birth rate at the current junction."
Then you're not paying attention.
"3. This is so dehumanizing (specific to women) that I cannot believe you don’t see it. It reads like Handmaiden’s Tail if you added a racial component."
You've got a lot of God damned nerve accusing anybody else about dehumanizing women after your bullet point #2. My wife came here via a fiancé visa. Go ahead, call her a "breeding sow".
Anybody who's spent much time in Hong Kong or Singapore can tell you its got a lot of benefits without the drawbacks of our chaotic lawlessness(both official and freelance).
10% of Hong Kong workforce is Indonesian and Filipina domestic workers. But we should not copy their system of a lower minimum wage, or requiring them to live in which does cause some unfairness.
I have not been to those places, but I have studied Singapore in policy classes.
There are a LOT of reasons why their situation is not translatable to the US.
In general setting up a system that dehumanizes a class of people for some perceived utility or another group of people can absolutely seem like it has a lot of benefits.
But the moment you put social utility ahead of individual dignity....
there is no benefit to us,
Bogglingly stupid. No benefit? What about that drywall the guy put up? What about the taxes (including payroll taxes) he paid? What about the guy who joined the army?
Adding to the work force is a benefit, especially in a period of low unemployment. Getting someone out of a dysfunctional society so they can be a productive person here is a benefit.
WTF are you thinking?
Plus, what do these immigrants get out of being American citizens other than a job?? A chance to live in a crappy (now overpriced) home in Texas with the worst weather on the planet?? If we just helped Mexico reduce their crime every Spanish speaking immigrant will retire in Mexico with towns that are much nicer than Texas and weather that is exponentially nicer than Texas. So they would get a SS check but Mexico would be on the hook for medical care in retirement.
What about all that extra expense for schools? What about the welfare? How about unemployment expenses for the citizen who'd have otherwise been doing that drywall?
Thanks to having high levels of services funded by progressive taxation, you actually have to get way above median income before people are paying enough taxes to fund their share of government expenses, and illegal immigrants are not known for having unusually high incomes. Almost all of them are net losses in terms of government finance.
If you check Europe, we're a low taxes low benefits country.
illegal immigrants are not known for having unusually high incomes. Almost all of them are net losses in terms of government finance.
Illegals are not eligible for the vast majority of entitlements.
How many times do people have to tell you this? You really are amazing at forgetting facts that get in the way of the shitty stories you want to tell.
that extra expense for schools
Schools invest in our future workforce, it's not an entitlement.
unemployment expenses for the citizen who’d have otherwise been doing that drywall
1. We don't have a high unemployment problem right now; rather the opposite.
2. The displacement of domestic workers is an effect, but attenuated. Hence the whole 'they do work Americans won't do' thing.
You're repeating debunked shit from like 2007. Incredible sustained inability to learn.
As I said above, these are just facts that are not likely to change anyone’s deeply held priors.
“ ”Military-age male” migrants don’t pose any special danger. Indeed, they are, on average, less dangerous than native-born citizens of the same description. ”
That’s not nearly as comforting as you seem to think it is.
Anthropologically speaking, a pretty good rule-of-thumb would be “Never trust unaccompanied groups of young males whom you don’t recognize and can’t predict”
It doesn’t really matter if they’re citizens or not.
Anthropologically speaking
Good fucking lord. We’re in real life in an actual situation with history and anything. We don’t need to fall back on airy generalities.
You think there is a threat brewing from Latino overthrow, or maybe voting in a Catholic theocracy? Or is it the Chinese coming across the border who will do a Covid 20 on us?
No, I just think that the single biggest source of war, violence, criminal behavior, and all other forms of aggressive unpleasantness is pretty much always going to be a small to medium size group of young, single, adult males from a different neighborhood or out-of-town, who didn't or couldn't invite any female dates to accompany them.
And that this hold true for pretty much any settlement, anywhere on earth, during any time period. Young Men on the move and without a moderating influence are ALWAYS suspect until proven otherwise. Doesn't matter WHERE they're from or WHAT their ultimate loyalty is.
I find small to medium size group of young, single, adult males is also the single greatest source of fart jokes. Could your family be under threat?
You're making a janky historical tendencies argument when we have actual history and an actual situation we can analyze.
And what the fuck are you talking about anyhow? Political leaders, resource conflicts, and and religion are the biggest source of war not hot single boys in your area.
Young Men on the move and without a moderating influence are ALWAYS suspect until proven otherwise
You're just saying shit now, eh?
who didn’t or couldn’t invite any female dates to accompany them
This is smelling a bit incel actually. assign all young males a female for their use or they will become SUSPECT!
You're just ignoring basic anthropology and socio-biology on the assumption that it doesn't apply in cases you find inconvenient.
You hate social science but suddenly you're into it?
But you're also ignorant about it. As you often complain about, social science is rarely predictive because there are so many scenario-specific variables.
So yes, generalized shit the above isn't applicable, because we have more specific information.
And, finally, the bullshit above is also actually not right. the single biggest source of war, violence, criminal behavior, and all other forms of aggressive unpleasantness is pretty much always going to be a small to medium size group of young, single, adult males from a different neighborhood or out-of-town is not true! War alone shows this guy is ignorant and lying.
Personally, I think the argument that the illegal aliens only assault, rape and murder a few people (or is the assumption that those crimes would happen anyway?) is about the most ridiculous argument I can think of for promoting open borders.
The truth of the matter is that many crimes are not classified as done by illegal aliens. Hell they can’t even get the booking info correct. Lakin Riley’s killer (in Georgia a couple months ago) was listed as “White” when in fact he was brown and an illegal alien. If you look at the list of most wanted criminals in Texas, many are listed as “white” when they are obviously Hispanic and from Mexico or another South American country. Such deliberate errors skews the statistics on those committing crimes. I suspect they do the same when it comes to whether someone is in our nation legally or not.
There have actually been articles and books written on the subject of “classifications”.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/10/31/the-arbitrariness-of-racial-classifications-get-attention-as-scotus-considers-affirmative-action/
That guy has changed his tune. He found a classification he thinks should be used strenuously by government to provide special privilege to a favored group.
Are San Francisco police officers misreporting the races of people they stop?
Yes, apparently mis-recording race and ethnicity in cases that don't go to trial is endemic. It would hardly be shocking if the same was true of immigration status, for comparable reasons, or even extended to cases where arrests happened. Certainly enough absurd mismatches between booking photos and stated race have been found.
Now, the above report presumes the reason is to hide racial discrimination. But it does acknowledge that it might have actually been to avoid getting in trouble for NOT discriminating where the perps were disproportionately minorities.
Did I miss the news about a trial?
You beat a bunch of Trump fans shouting "alleged killer" in response to a comment posted . . . . 17 hours earlier.
Carry on, worthless and bigoted clingers.
Yes, American Blacks commit more crimes per capita than any other racial group, what are we gonna do? send them back to Africa? (The Africans wouldn't let them in anyway)
Frank
We can learn from mistakes, and not bring in more criminal groups.
Technically, you can't send people back to a place they've never been.
These are Prof. Eugene Volokh's fans . . . and the reason he won't be a professor much longer.
I sometimes listen to right-wing radio broadcasts, such as "Markley, van Kamp & Robbins", "Hannity", and "Tom Sullivan". I use them as mental floss to stay sharp: "I know he's full of shit, but how exactly do I know that?"
I'm tired of hearing them using this label at least once in every segment discussing immigration. I halfway suspect they know they're wrong and do it anyway because they think it works. Or they could just be morons. Never a shortage of those among the shows' callers for certain sure.
Garrison Keillor was certainly prescient when he included ad spots for his "Fear-Mongers Shop: Catering To All Your Phobia Needs" on his Prairie Home Companion show. My memory is that these spoofs tended to focus on body-horror type stuff, like germs and cooties, but our current mongers go after folks' existential anxieties. The most important difference between Keillor and Hannity is, of course, that Keillor wasn't actually stoking people's fears to make a buck or two or two million.
Whatever happened to old Garrison? Or Al Franken?
NPR Radio sacked him with false accusations.
If you're talking Franken, he caved too fast, if they were all really false accusations. I have to think there was something real in there somewhere, even if the incident that initially sparked it was, literally, a joke.
Somin is making excuses for foreign invaders again.
Somin, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
If illegals are so damn productive, contribute so much, pay so much in taxes and commit so few crimes, then why is Massachusetts - little Massachusetts - allocating another $500 Million in the budget to "welcome" them - house them, feed them, and so forth?
Transition costs are an effect, as is localized economic churn.
But you're pushing something long term and absolutely unestablished by your example.
You know, you just baselessly refute anything counter to your preferred narrative. I confess I don't know what the "long term" thing that I'm supposedly pushing might be.
There were no such programs in the last century, when productive immigrants arrived here, and were required to demonstrate that they wouldn't be a burden on society, that they would be self sufficient, have private sponsors, and so forth. Now we're flying these people direct from their countries on our dime to cities across America, housing them, feeding them - I mean, look into it - a per diem for food, delivered, plus cash for snacks, and yes, even picked up and delivered dry cleaning courtesy of the state! No lie. It's ridiculous. And, how long will it be allowed to go on? There's a bill that limits the stay to 9 to 12 months, but immigrant advocates want it to be unlimited!
We in Mass have spent over $1B on this already.
What do you think my narrative is? I'm not in agreement with Prof. Somin's preferred border policies.
I refute bad arguments, generally from the right (I fully admit I let liberal arguments slide a lot more easily).
Your are conflating asylum (which did exist in the last century) with immigration. Those are utterly different policies with utterly different purposes and standards.
Learn about the thing you're unhappy about, so you can make cogent arguments. As it is, this looks like the usual inchoate anger at migrants that has been a thing in America almost since it's inception, and which the GOP cynically harnesses in the Trump era.
1) Your claim is a lie. The $500 million ask is for shelters. Shelters are not only for aliens.
2) The aliens in the shelters aren't illegal. They're asylum seekers.
It's not a lie. It's a typical lib/prog rhetorical hack to call anything they disagree with a lie. Give me a break.
Nowhere in the bill does it say "asylees," it refers to the money as to be used for "migrant shelters." Yes, it's primarily for aliens. Exclusively, I would say. For example, they evicted citizens from a low cost hotel on the cape, including some veterans, to make room for "migrants."
In addition, the admin has corrupted the definition of alyssum to accommodate these people.
Read this:
"The Biden administration has sought to use the CBP One system to encourage migrants to refrain from crossing the border illegally in between ports of entry. Unlike those who enter the country unlawfully, migrants who secure a CBP One appointment can apply for a work permit after being released from U.S. custody and do not have to satisfy the stricter asylum conditions of a Biden administration regulation."
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/mass-house-budget-includes-500-million-for-migrant-shelter-costs/3334474/
1) The new money is for aliens, because Massachusetts is a "right to shelter state" and aliens are crowding out the native homeless
2) Semantics. Most crossed the border illegally, and most are lying about their reasons for asylum, which is itself illegal. So they are illegal immigrants.
The lower crime rate argument is terribly misleading.
1) The violent crime rate in the US is 400 crimes per 100,000 people per year.
2) If the migrants violent crime rate is 25% lower than the native born Americans that means they commit 300 violent crimes per 100,000 migrants.
3) There have been 10,000,000 migrants let in by Biden policies.
4) Therefore we have suffered 30,000 violent crime this year that would not have happened if these migrants had not entered the US.
I wish someone, perhaps from O'Keefe's organization, would do a "black like me" kind of study, and go to South America and enter the U.S. somehow, illegally, or via the CBP One app, and then report on their experience. It would be interesting.
“In Texas between 2013 and 2022, for example, undocumented immigrants (2.2 homicides per 100,000 people per year), are about 36% less likely to commit homicide than native-born citizens (3.0 per 100,000 per year). ”
The Texas study again! ALWAYS that same Texas study. Both Reason.com and every left wing site grip that one Texas study like it’s the Holy Grail, since it’s the only major study that supports their views.
Well, there’s one big problem with that study – the calculations for crime rate totally depend on knowing the actual size of the illegal immigrant population. And they were using their estimate (a guess) since no one knows what the actual size is.
In Europe, migrants are wildly overrepresented in crime statistics, particularly sex crimes. So their migrants, coming largely from Islamic countries, behave differently than ours? Maybe. But now we are seeing an unprecedented rise in migrants to the USA not just from Central America, but Africa, the Middle East, even China. So it’s becoming our problem too.