Actually I have. And I told you why the studies are not reliable.
Yes - you said:
"I dont think thats true. Becauae we dont actually keep track across America who is illegal and who is not when they are arrested. There are states who have laws against it. Also we know that many illegals wont report crime because they are illegal. I know that is used all the time, but it cannot be used as it is not good research."
This is so vague as to be meaningless. What does "across America" mean? At the national level? You might even be correct about that - I'll have to double check. But these studies are more specific.
EG: The study by Light & He uses TEXAN STATE data with specific definitions in a specific time and place. I'm mean -
this study is from PNAS for crying out loud! The classification is based on information from
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
ICE - it's quite specific and not as vague and fluffy as your magic hand waving suggests!
We make use of uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens between 2012 and 2018. We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. In addition, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing over this period. The differences between US-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are robust to using alternative estimates of the broader undocumented population, alternate classifications of those counted as “undocumented” at arrest and substituting misdemeanors or convictions as measures of crime.
They work illegally and drive down wages by working for less.
Imagine that instead of spending "
$45 billion for detaining immigrants - more than it received in the last 15 years combined" (on what is basically a demagogue's photoshoot) America spent a fraction of that in processing asylum claims and then even liberalising some rules around 'economic migrants' with significant hardships. They would be legalized - and as the studies above DO show - are generally so grateful to the new host country that they commit LESS crime - as we HAVE established.
(The statistics do not lie - even though you try to shew them away.)
If tgey meet the criteria I have no problem with keeping them here. However the VAST majority of them do not meet the criteria.
Evidence? You're good at the big bold assertions thing - but not so much with supplying evidence.
First - there could indeed be quite a high number of 'economic migrants' fleeing horrible poverty - rather than the strictest definitions of 'refugee' status.
Second - you could have a point in that studies about THESE definitions could be wildly interpretative depending on the biases of the agency producing them. As opposed to the quite clear definitions of "Documented" vs "Undocumented" immigrant crime above. Although I suspect the most 'agenda driven' studies will actually be by those MAGA agencies or 'experts' hired by the current administration to prove their point. This could be quite difficult to get to the bottom of!
Third - ever read the Old Testament? About how to treat 'aliens' in the land? Gleaning laws? Concerns for poverty? The general ethic of love your neighbour - and who does the neighbour turn out to be in the Good Samaritan story?
They lied to get in. Just because some of these folks have legitimate claims doesn't mean all if them do. Thats your mistake. Having your emotions manipulated....
... Have children born here and then have people who's emotions can be manipulated, like you, call for them to stay. You are being manipulated.
First - children born in the USA are citizens.
Second - you keep telling me WHY I'm wrong without proving THAT I'm wrong. That's a Bulversim - something CS Lewis argued was the great logical error of our time. Stop trying to psychoanalyse me - someone you've never met - to explain to me WHY I'm motivated to ignore your assertions when you have not really contributed any
data. I will try to resist Bulverising you and patronising you by explaining your emotions and motives to you - if you will please extend to me the same courtesy. (I don't think I've done that yet - but sometimes I write late and I tend to be a little crankier after dark.
So apologies if I already have done something like that.)
Third - I happen to have a bit of a Social Sciences background. It was a while ago - and not a full degree. (Just a 2 year Advanced Diploma - which I topped.) I have been involved in researching how to research - in analysing surveys and questionnaires for leading questions - and am aware that some aspects of the Social Sciences can be quite issue driven and warped. I'm also a bit clued in to how they do this. I'm no expert - and it's been a while - and I burned out horribly in child protection work decades ago. But I'm aware. Just letting you know - as your magic hand waving above wouldn't get a pass mark in some of the classes I took.
