Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
It is absolutely hilarious that the Cato institute is getting called out for 'shitting out bad studies' by fellow conservatives.
Setting aside that, this article portrays all of the studies are coming from one person. But that's not the case.
Literally just pulling off the top results from google scholar:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JaGRGfauOG8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA385&dq=immigrant+crime+rates+vs+citizen+crime+rates&ots=SWy7CXct8S&sig=VB7zBvzFoHYVMjz9Dpg4J-Tbxlo#v=onepage&q=immigrant%20crime%20rates%20vs%20citizen%20crime%20rates&f=false
https://www.ojp.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3%3C457::AID-PAM4%3E3.0.CO;2-F
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022427818799125
These are authored by different people, and they all come to more or less the same conclusion, that immigrants have lower crime rates than the existing population.
I take issue with your article's interpretation of the studies by Nowrasteh, but in the end I don't care enough to go over that when there are plenty of other studies confirming the same result.
Do the "plenty of other studies" have the same flaw? Are they looking at illegal immigrant crime or just immigrant crime?
The PNAS study you cited has the same flaw, it's using Texas data for illegal immigrant status.
The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice was a study about immigration and crime not illegal immigration
The criminal justice essay was about immigrant crime not illegal immigrant crime.
The Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime was not a study about illegal immigration and it used data from the 1980s.
Institutional Completeness and Crime Rates in Immigrant Neighborhoods was a study on immigration not illegal immigration.
Some people say PNAS is huge and has given them a lot of pleasure.
How is that a flaw? Texas is very much involved in this issue.
Prove to me that there any significant difference in crime rates between documented immigrants and undocumented immigrants (beyond the occasional misdemeanor of illegal entry that half the time isn't even always a part of this).
Texas’ crime data only counts illegal aliens who have already been caught and fingerprinted by the Department of Homeland Security.
You couldn't provide sources to back up your claim now you make new claims and instead of backing them up you ask that I do. The socio-economic difference in those two groups alone is going to show a difference. illegals commit murders at a 30% higher rate then the rest of the population. 4 of your 5 studies showed legal immigrants had lower crime rates than the rest of the population.
https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality
So what?
No, you made an implicit claim that there is a difference in crime rates between immigrants and undocumented immigrants. Support it.
Crazy, it's almost like adding prisoners to the count increases the rates. Go with something peer reviewed next time.
You tried to pass of studies on immigrant crime rates as illegal immigrant crime studies and got caught.
Adding prisoners to the rate that were not added initially. They're correcting the rate.
See the problem with the only source you could find on illegal immigration crime is that Texas does not count illegals in their rate unless they've all ready been identified as illegals. Your study is comparing identified illegals to unidentified illegals and legals.
Are you going to catch me breathing next? Like I already said, this point is irrelevant, as you have yet to prove a difference in rates between immigrants and undocumented immigrants.
No, they're adding prisoners to the rate only for one group. They're fucking up the numbers.
You tried to pass off studies of legal immigrats as illegal immigrants, got caught and now demand that I prove that they are different because you know you can't find any studies to support that claim.
They are moving misidentified prisoners from one group to another. Illegals in prison for a crime in 2012 that were not identified as illegals but were later identified move from the legal group to the illegal group. Are you claiming legals were misidentified as illegals?
Go learn what a null hypothesis is and come back to me.
No. I'm saying they're only giving the immigrants the "counting prisoners" treatment. They're not treating immigrants and citizens equally in their "analysis".
How do you think the null hypothesis applies?
You'll have to explain what you mean by the "counting prisoners" treatment. How do you think they are not treating immigrants and citizens equally in their analysis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies?wprov=sfla1 Literally the second paragraph talks about the unreliability of this organizations studies
In the article 11 studies are listed under the Controversial reports section the one I provided is not one of them.
In this visual aid you are Charlie Brown and the CIS is Lucy you trusted their methods and acumen after they yanked the football 11 times.
It's right to be suspicious but with out any proof that this study if flawed you falling into an ad hominem logical fallacy.