This includes a huge number of arrests for crossing the border.
If you ignore immigration crimes, non-U.S. citizens are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.
Without context, this is a textbook case of lying with statistics.
If you ignore immigration crimes, non-U.S. citizens are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.
Without context, this is a textbook case of lying with statistics.
"The five crime types for which non-U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court were:
illegal reentry (72% of prosecutions),
drugs (13%),
fraud (4.5%),
alien smuggling (4%),
misuse of visas (2%).
The five crime types for which U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court were:
drugs (38% of prosecutions),
weapons (21%),
fraud (12%),
public order (12%),
alien smuggling (6%)."
Remember, these are prosecutions in courts, some crimes and activities are more likely to get caught than others, and the same plays out with prosecutions. Some evidence is easier than others to obtain and process. So somebody stepping over a physical line on camera much easier to have the prosecution cut and dry over say a drug deal. With that, I'd love to see the headcount/resources utilised in total cost per prosecution. Again, some types of crime may well be almost production line with dedicateds courts running 24/7. Such details are lacking for a true picture.
Though I'm fairly sure such a headline/subject title initially is click baity to the max. Bit like saying that ET caused a rise in "alien smuggling" as 1983 saw a rise in such court cases.
{EDIT - I must remember the double spacing quirks}
So, the reading I'm seeing, is non-U.S. citizens are more than twice as likely to be arrested and prosecuted for a non-immigration based crime.
Being interdicted for being present illegally for the first time (never deported before) isn't even counted as a crime in these stats; those are civil proceedings, not criminal.
prosecuting the act of them coming here in the first place.
You wouldn't ignore a subset of crimes, but you might give more a more detailed breakdown of statistics if that is necessary to avoid misleading people.
For example, lets say I pointed out that people who go to the doctor are more likely to die than people who don't go to the doctor. In fact, the more people go to the doctor, the more likely they are to die. That's pretty misleading since it doesn't control for how healthy the person is. People are going to assume that statistics are meaningful and don't just give out raw data that is totally meaningless due to selection bias.
So, if you are comparing illegal immigrants living in the US to US citizens, guess what, 100% of the illegal immigrants have committed a federal crime, but almost no US citizens commit federal crimes. But this is dumb to quote, since yea we already know they are here illegally, it's right in the stupid name. What we actually care about is whether the people living in this country without a visa are going to shoot us in the face or steal our stuff, since if they are here committing a bunch of crimes like that we can honestly ask whether we should kick them out or not. This question has been studied for over 100 years and the answer is ALWAYS NO.
https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-crime-assessing...
I always hear this brought up, but I’m not sure one should be so confident in that conclusion. The answer could always be “no”, but that doesn’t mean the answer is right. Using obviously-incomplete data to come to a conclusion like that seems to imply an agenda.
An honest answer would be “we really don’t know”. If most illegal aliens don’t report the crimes of other illegal aliens, isn’t there a possibility that illegal aliens do commit more crime than US persons? There certainly is! Also, look further into the murder imprisonment rate differences between illegal aliens and US persons.
https://bongino.com/do-illegal-aliens-really-commit-fewer-cr...
I can't explain how statistics work in a post on hackernews, but you should understand that it is possible to quantify uncertainty, and authors of studies are asking the same questions you are when they think about their data. Well, maybe some authors of some studies are morons or have a political axe to grind, but when basically all the studies agree that is called a strong consensus and whenever a consensus exists in a field there are people trying very hard to overturn it. Overturning an accepted 'truth' in a field will basically make your career, it is highly significant, and this is partly what keeps science on the right track. So we can be about as confident in this as we can in anything.
Also conservative talk radio isn't a reputable source to quote, mostly because political pundits (on both sides) lie almost all the time. It's basically their job description.
The same lack of critical analysis behind your question was also missing in the responses to Lombroso’s work in the late 19th century[1], essentializing and legitimating phrenology.
[1] https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/the-born-crimi...
How the nuance of those laws are defined is a social, cultural, and political exercise in power.
You intentionally changed my example of an unprovoked murder of a neighbor with the intent to steal their property to some other, totally different example that has no bearing on the debate. Congratulations, you're a hack.
The question is whether humans have (at least some) consistent views across societies, or whether we are complete tabula rasa. This isn't even a serious debate anymore, clearly there are lots of consistent features that do not vary across any human society, and are even found among primates and other mammals such as dogs and whales and other social sea mammals.