Trump unveils new strict 70-point immigration enforcement plan

#226
#226
Well here's a realistic view of the big beautiful wall and pending immigration laws. Both are about forty years to late! Projections say whites will be the minority race by 2050 and as early as 2030. Posted this b/c people are saying the new laws are aimed at limiting non white immigration. :ermm:
 
#239
#239
Reason just debunked some commonly cited illegal immigration/crime research and/or how it's misinterpreted. It's pretty discouraging to see how bad/biased the methodology/usage of this data is:

[Kirsanow's] entire case is based on a gross misreading of the 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), a federal program that partially reimburses states and localities for the cost of incarcerating certain criminal aliens.

The SCAAP report shows that in 2009, there were 295,959 criminal aliens incarcerated in state and local prisons at any given time that year. From this number, he subtracts those in the country legally and assumes that the balance gives one the total number of illegal immigrants incarcerated that year. He compares that number with the population of illegals in various states to estimate their crime rates. Then he compares that rate with the crime rate of citizens to come up with a massively inflated "incarceration rate" of these aliens.

But here's the problem with his analysis:

...if a criminal alien was incarcerated for 10 short sentences, released after each one, and then re-incarcerated, then that single alien would account for 10 incarcerations under the SCAAP figure for that year. But Kirsnaow counts that as 10 individuals.
Click to expand...

This is a separate study:

the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) last December. It too misrepresented data when it estimated that "one-in-five of all persons in the [federal] Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94 percent of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present." That seems shockingly high as illegal immigrants are, at most, about 4 percent of the population. But if this report were right, they would be 19 percent of all prisoners.

But the report had no solid basis for its conclusion because it did not have all the prison data. If you scroll down beyond the report's press release and Summary of Findings, it admits as much. It notes:

This report does not include data on the foreign-born or alien populations in state prisons and local jails because state and local facilities do not routinely provide DHS or DOJ with comprehensive information about their inmates and detainees. This limitation is noteworthy because state and local facilities account for approximately 90 percent of the total U.S. incarcerated population. DHS and DOJ are working to develop a reliable methodology for estimating the status of state and local incarcerated populations in future reports.

Of course that didn't stop Fox News and other similar outfits from using it to peddle their "illegal immigrants are hardened criminal" line.

It is really important to bear in mind that the federal prison population is not representative of the incarcerated populations in state and local prisons. That's because federal prisons house illegal immigrants who commit immigration offenses. The ones who commit more serious crimes tend to be housed in state adult correctional facilities.

Only 85 total people who were convicted of murder were sentenced to federal prison in 2016. But the total number of murder convictions nationwide that year was 17,785. Clearly, only a small fraction of a percent of all murderers are incarcerated in federal prisons so most undocumented immigrants in these facilities are not hardened criminals.
Click to expand...

Here's something encouraging:

The Texas Tribune reported, after examining data obtained from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, that illegal immigrants are underrepresented in local jails. They are only 4.6 percent of Texas inmates while they make up 6.3 percent of that state's total population.
Click to expand...

And:

More recent research conduced by Michelangelo Landgrave and me finds similar results. We applied a statistical technique that is used to figure out the employment, age, and occupations of immigrants in the census to the incarcerated population data in the American Community Survey. This allowed us to estimate the percentage of illegals among the incarcerated. We found that even if one includes in the mix those in detention facilities—most whom are there for immigration-related offenses—illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. Excluding those in immigration detention yields an incarceration rate that is almost identical to that of legal immigrants: A dramatic 69 percent lower than that of natives.
Click to expand...

Restrictionists Are Misleading You About Immigrant Crime Rates - Reason.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#240
#240
so if you ignore some of their crimes they are better than the natives. no sh*t sherlock. You can't just ignore some of the crimes and say you have an unbiased report on the true number of criminals.

from what I read in the article and the way I understand the study they are removing anyone if they have an immigration charge, not specifying that they only removed the ones with ONLY immigration charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#241
#241
LouderVol said:
so if you ignore some of their crimes they are better than the natives. no sh*t sherlock. You can't just ignore some of the crimes and say you have an unbiased report on the true number of criminals.

from what I read in the article and the way I understand the study they are removing anyone if they have an immigration charge, not specifying that they only removed the ones with ONLY immigration charges.
Click to expand...

There are like 4 studies mentioned in the 1,500-word article, so a quote might help me to sort out your confusion. You're not trying to bury the lead, are you? Are you talking about this part? Maybe read it again...

We found that even if one includes in the mix those in detention facilities—most whom are there for immigration-related offenses—illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. Excluding those in immigration detention yields an incarceration rate that is almost identical to that of legal immigrants: A dramatic 69 percent lower than that of natives.
Click to expand...

What did you think of the rest of the article...you know, the parts you didn't cherry pick and (unintentionally?) misrepresent?
 
#242
#242
what that people lie and are biased in these articles? I would be shocked if that wasn't the case. just saying I don't find their methods to be a whole lot different. They are using different numbers to come up with different results.
 
#243
#243
LouderVol said:
what that people lie and are biased in these articles? I would be shocked if that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

So to be clear, you have no reason to believe the article is wrong about anything, other than the fact that some people lie?

They are using different numbers to come up with different results.
Click to expand...

They debunked interpretations of numbers and agreed with those researchers that the data isn't complete and then they showed different data. Why would anybody have a problem with incorporating multiple data sets, especially when the restrictionists agreed that there was a need for more data?

You're a good poster and are one of the smarter guys here, but you're hurting your cred right now.
 
#244
#244
n_huffhines said:
So to be clear, you have no reason to believe the article is wrong about anything, other than the fact that some people lie?



They debunked interpretations of numbers and agreed with those researchers that the data isn't complete and then they showed different data. Why would anybody have a problem with incorporating multiple data sets, especially when the restrictionists agreed that there was a need for more data?

You're a good poster and are one of the smarter guys here, but you're hurting your cred right now.
Click to expand...

wrong isn't the right word. I believe they are not presenting the whole truth in the snip its. I have no clue about the studies themselves besides the snip its. I find it incredibly dishonest to ignore some crimes to make the numbers look better even if you still present the whole number. Why do it, unless you are wanting to present a biased view?

And considering the fed numbers are separated from the state numbers I would agree with them that they are going to skew the numbers in the favor of the immigrants. Remove the native population from states who have performed federal crimes and you will skew those numbers too. A lot of times the feds won't try someone convicted at a lower level even if they have jurisdiction to do so. usually when the punishments are the same or worse at the lower level. or cases of concurrent incarcerations. In the immigrants case those numbers are flat out removed as lower levels don't have that jurisdiction.

to the last
Ron-Swanson-Says-Dont-Even-Care.gif

if something bothers me I am going to call it out.
 
#245
#245
LouderVol said:
wrong isn't the right word. I believe they are not presenting the whole truth in the snip its. I have no clue about the studies themselves besides the snip its. I find it incredibly dishonest to ignore some crimes to make the numbers look better even if you still present the whole number. Why do it, unless you are wanting to present a biased view?
Click to expand...

What crimes are they ignoring? For the 2nd time, can you please cite what you're talking about?

And considering the fed numbers are separated from the state numbers I would agree with them that they are going to skew the numbers in the favor of the immigrants. Remove the native population from states who have performed federal crimes and you will skew those numbers too. A lot of times the feds won't try someone convicted at a lower level even if they have jurisdiction to do so. usually when the punishments are the same or worse at the lower level. or cases of concurrent incarcerations. In the immigrants case those numbers are flat out removed as lower levels don't have that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if we had the data to combine both, it's not going to support the author's ideas?
 
Last edited:
#248
#248
I find it incredibly dishonest to dismiss an article because it includes more data than you want to see. They literally gave you numbers with and without immigration crimes. What is there to complain about? They presented the "unfavorable" data first (which was still favorable). It's not like they hid it in a footnote.

You are the dishonest and biased one.
 
#250
#250
n_huffhines said:
I find it incredibly dishonest to dismiss an article because it includes more data than you want to see. They literally gave you numbers with and without immigration crimes. What is there to complain about? They presented the "unfavorable" data first (which was still favorable). It's not like they hid it in a footnote.

You are the dishonest and biased one.
Click to expand...

I have never passed myself off as being incredibly honest or unbiased.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top