Illegal Immigrants Commit More Crimes Than Native Born Americans

[Straight Shooter]

A report based on conviction data suggests that illegal immigrants in Arizona commit crimes at twice the rate of other residents.

According to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, illegal immigrants between ages 15 and 35 account for 3 percent of Arizona’s population but make up approximately 8 percent of the prison population, the Washington Times reported.

John R. Lott Jr., CPRC president and the report's author, said the crimes of which these illegal immigrants were convicted tended to be more serious. His findings challenge previous assertions that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes.

Previous studies on the topic usually don't compare conviction data between legal and illegal populations, Lott said.

“There appears to be a huge difference between the two groups,” he said. “The type of person who goes through the process to legally immigrate in the United States appears to be very law-abiding versus even the U.S.-born population."

John Lott is an economist, political commentator, and long-time gun rights advocate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-crimes-than-native-born-americans-study.html

Facts don't lie

 

[Jack Davenport]

Omg!

 

[sean miguel]

aren't illegal aliens in a perpetual state of criminality? as in they're committing a crime every second they spend on American soil?

#GTFO

#BuildThatWall

 

[Jack Davenport]

aren't illegal aliens in a perpetual state of criminality? as in they're committing a crime every second they spend on American soil?

#GTFO

#BuildThatWall

Trespassing

 

[earlyriser]

Maybe depends which country they come from and what was normal there

 

[ApolloBalboa]

Do the Pilgrims count as illegal immigrants? I mean, we are talking about Native (born) Americans here. :dunno:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Do the Pilgrims count as illegal immigrants? I mean, we are talking about Native (born) Americans here. :dunno:

The 14th amendment never intended for children of illegals to be considered “ natural born citizens” as an illegal cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States. SCOTUS should have decided this issue decades ago.

That old tired pilgrim canard again.

The pilgrims were settlers, there was no government established nor laws pertaining to who and how someone could emigrate here.

 

[ApolloBalboa]

The 14th amendment never intended for children of illegals to be considered “ natural born citizens” as an illegal cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States. SCOTUS should have decided this issue decades ago.

That old tired pilgrim canard again.

The pilgrims were settlers, there was no government established nor laws pertaining to who and how someone could emigrate here.

That was by no means intended to be a serious argument, though I'd be willing to bet that they (the pilgrims) did more unlawful stuff than people think. They seem like bad hombres.

 

[Jack Davenport]

That was by no means intended to be a serious argument, though I'd be willing to bet that they (the pilgrims) did more unlawful stuff than people think. They seem like bad hombres.

Yeah, they did plenty of unlawful stuff. Like wanting to live without religious persecution, so they moved to Holland before they came to America ( New World)

 

[Will E Worm]

Do the Pilgrims count as illegal immigrants? I mean, we are talking about Native (born) Americans here. :dunno:

No.


Solutreans

The 14th amendment never intended for children of illegals to be considered “ natural born citizens” as an illegal cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States. SCOTUS should have decided this issue decades ago.

That old tired pilgrim canard again.

The pilgrims were settlers, there was no government established nor laws pertaining to who and how someone could emigrate here.

Yes. :hatsoff:

 

[Straight Shooter]

There are many solid arguments for why the United States should not grant legal status to unauthorized immigrants, as opponents of immigration reform, have argued for years now.

But as the debate continues to rage, one particular mantra is heard from opponents of legalization, perhaps more consistently than any other:

"My ancestors came here legally."

So too, the argument holds, must today's immigrants. We're a nation of laws, we must be consistent, and we must not reward law breakers.

It's a mighty handy argument that worked wonders for opponents of the legalization bills that have died in Congress over the past two decades. It's logical, and draws a clear moral distinction between previous generations of law-abiding immigrants and today's border-jumpers. It heads off allegations of xenophobia, allowing the speaker to say it's not immigrants he or she is against, just illegality.

It works, too, because it rings true with Americans. The images burned into our brains of previous immigration waves come largely from newsreels and photos of immigrants disembarking at Ellis Island, one at a time, orderly, legally.

There's one problem with the argument. It's utter hogwash.

First of all, for hundreds of years, as immigrants poured in by the hundreds of thousands from the 1600s to the early 1900s, there were simply no federal immigration laws to break.

Unless you were a criminal or insane (or after 1882, Chinese), once you landed here, you were legal.

Crediting yesteryear's immigrants with following the laws is like calling someone a good driver because they never got caught speeding on the Autobahn.

"Only 1 percent of people who showed up at Ellis Island were turned away," said Mae Ngai, author of "Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America."

"What that statement is ignorant of is that we didn't always have restrictions. It's a fairly recent phenomenon."

Level the playing field hypothetically, and the argument becomes even more preposterous.

Imagine today's immigration laws, which make it impossible for most poor foreign farmers to immigrate legally -- in effect in, say, 1849.

Somewhere in Ireland, a starving farmer turns to his family, their mouths green from eating grass in the midst of the potato famine.

"We could escape to America and have food to eat," the farmer says. "But I'd never do that without a visa. That would be a violation of U.S. immigration law."

Ridiculous, of course. That farmer would have done exactly what today's Mexicans, Chinese and Guatemalans are doing by the millions -- get to the United States so they can feed their families, and worry about getting papers later.

Which brings us to the second reason the "my ancestors came legally" argument is absurd.

It's because lots of people's ancestors simply didn't.

Once Congress put immigration quotas in place to keep out less desirable Eastern and Southern Europeans in 1921, they began sneaking in by the thousands.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/think_your_immigrant_ancestors_came_legally_think.html

 

[Jack Davenport]

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/think_your_immigrant_ancestors_came_legally_think.html

Imagine today's immigration laws, which make it impossible for most poor foreign farmers to immigrate legally -- in effect in, say, 1849.

I find it difficult to take seriously any opinion by a journalist that can’t even spell “ emigrate” correctly, especially when arguing for more immigration.

 

[georges]

https://conservativetribune.com/tru...tm_source=Email&utm_medium=conservative-brief

 

[georges]

More interesting news about this subject:
https://www.westernjournal.com/even-joe-scarborough-admit-americans-agree-trump-immigration/
https://www.westernjournal.com/illegals-will-leave-us-congress-fails-reach-daca-agreement/
https://www.westernjournal.com/let-dhs-chief-reveals-ms-13-exploiting-border-loophole-enter-us/
https://conservativetribune.com/illegal-asked-to-stop-urinating/

 

[xfire]

^Whore-Hey(s), why don't you try a source that isn't blazing with bias?

 

[georges]

^Whore-Hey(s), why don't you try a source that isn't blazing with bias?

Weren't the medias more than heavily biased back when Obama was president??? These medias are not your usual liberal main stream liberal medias which is why I prefer them.

 

[xfire]

I don't think the biases of various media has changed significantly over the last thirty years, but there are more of them and more ways to reach the consumer. Blatant bias shouldn't be used as a primary source.

 

[sean miguel]

as opposed to subtle bias.

 

[xfire]

as opposed to subtle bias.

As long as it doesn't interfere with factual information dissemination, I see no problem. That's not what you get at places like MSNBC, Fox News, HuffPo, or Brietbart.

 

[sean miguel]

As long as it doesn't interfere with factual information dissemination, I see no problem. That's not what you get at places like MSNBC, Fox News, HuffPo, or Brietbart.

When Rachel Maddow aired Trump's tax return that was entirely factual information.