Birthright Citizenship Ended by Executive Order


Yes, you have to take the same stats you already have, and stretch it across a greater number of people.

That lowers the rate.

Heck no, that’s part and parcel to how crime stats have always worked.

We’ve always known we only get part of the picture; it doesn’t hide the details we can clearly parse out.

We know for instance that urban blacks commit more crime, at 4x the rate than whites, and which is disproportionately committed against themselves. That wasn’t hidden at all. This despite being in a population whose report rate is lower than it is for any other race.

Hispanics meanwhile are following the same domestication trend of the Irish; who were more violent when they first showed up, but decreased as time went on.

Back in the 80’s they were nigh-equal to blacks, today, they’re half of blacks, and still falling.

Long term trends. It’s the bane to your entire argument. You act as if they don’t apply in sociology, as if the short term trends are all there is.

You’re also acting as if the Hispanic are developing the same way as the Urban blacks, when nothing shows that. The Irish or Italians are a far better comparison, to include the part where they give up their racial identity and start identifying as white.


That’s not how % of arrests work. If I have 30,000 convicts and 50% of them are Martians, it doesn’t matter if the population of Martians in my state is 50,000 or 8,000,000. They’re still 50% of the convicts.

Similarly, the number of Martians in my state doesn’t affect how many crimes are reported. If there are 100,000 crimes, there are 100,000 crimes. Literally the only impact of the Martian estimate will be how it impacts the total state population estimate. So if Martians are 10% of the population of 10,000,000 vs 20% it would change the crime rate from say 1/400 to 1/440. This is not some mind blowing difference.

The aggregate per capita crime rate is a poor way to measure immigration anyway. The biggest problem still remains the huge consumption of healthcare and education, as well as wage stagnation. They mostly commit crimes against each other. While I’m not crazy about the rampant identity theft and drugs pouring over the border, that’s probably #5 or #6 on my list.

Their likelihood of reporting crime is similar.
And we’ve already gone over the lack of distinction between Mexican “Hispanic” and Cuban/Puerto Rican/Dominican, etc “Hispanic” in most of the data/studies. They’re extremely different. We don’t have many Cuban and Argentinean drug cartels.

A plurality of our legal immigrants should probably be “Hispanic”. But they should be ranging from the entire Latin American region, and not one single country.


Cwolf, you’re thinking in snapshot terms, when we don’t live in a snapshot. We live overtime.

The point is, reported Hispanic crime rates fell, and they have fallen dramatically. If you’re saying their population increased over that time, that means either we’ve gotten worse at detecting crimes, or
that the population is becoming less crime prone.

And given what we can detect going on among Urban Blacks, who are comparatively worse to police, it doesn’t seem to me the argument “we got worse at detecting” has much going for it.

It’s the same situation at the border. Trump’s own appointed head of CBP says we’re in a 47-year low. He knows full well we don’t see everyone who crosses; his point is that what they do see has clearly fallen, and that it isn’t likely illegals have suddenly hit upon some measure to dramatically hide their numbers.


Still, tens of thousands are streaming across our unprotected southern border almost daily. That alone would lead one to believe that the numbers of illegals in American is VASTLY larger than the “official” data suggests.


Yet were in a 47-year low.

And people go back.

Any argument you make of “don’t know how many come over” , equally applies to how many go back.

You don’t know how many do Dave, but the CIS seems to think more went back than arrived last year.

And since the CIS wants more immigration restriction, and the wall, I’m going to love your tapdance when you explain to me why CIS would be lying.


The constant total of illegal immigrants is higher, yes. The influx/rate slowed down a lot under Obama, and may have stopped under Trump. Eventually the criminals in the group end up in prison, so the rate of new crimes would go down as the entire group isn’t growing very much anymore.

That’s an important distinction vs “So we should now take NEW waves”. Because the new waves will again bring more problems.

Chucking criminals in prison for long periods of time is probably the leading reason crimes have been falling among all ethnic and income groups. A certain % of people are by far the highest risk for crime, and once they’re gone, there isn’t going to be as much crime.


We KNOW roughly how many are coming here by simply extrapolating from how many are CAUGHT coming here illegally. We have no way of knowing how many are leaving because we don’t “catch” them doing so. I fail to see your point, AS. We’ve been hearing that “we have 11 million illegals here” for the last 30 years. The leftists tell us that we CAN’T deport them now because now they’ve been here for “as much as 30 years” and have American-born kids. If they are reproducing, then they are MULTIPLYING the number of illegals here. I categorically reject the idea that the 14th Amendment give automatic “citizenship” to any baby born on U.S. soil. I does NO SUCH THING. That means that every child born to an illegal while that illegal is in the U.S. is a citizen of their parents home country…NOT the U.S. and is also here illegally.


Except criminality started declining among Hispanics ( and everyone else) more than two decades earlier. It was declining while rates of illegal immigration were rising in the 90’s, and the mid 2000’s.

I agree though that we got better at law enforcement, and isolating the rest from the bad apples. Technology has allowed us to be more precise, and more quickly find where crime emanates from, right down to the block or house.

Which once again means that we’re better off than previous eras who absorbed bigger waves than we have today. We have more means at our disposal to navigate the difficulties, along with a more dire need for them to be here.

I can’t stress it enough; younger populations are also more crime prone. Yet we need a younger population, as the problems of an aging, graying population, are far worse than just that.


Oh I’m saving this. For 5 years you’ve denied this Dave, no take backs now. :wink:

? Yes we do.

Further, if they were using welfare, less are on the rolls.

If they were working jobs, we see more labor shortages.

The very things you’ve said yourself they do, gives us another way to extrapolate how many are going back.


…and yet, we DON’T.


Yes we do. We have an idea of how many leave, which means when less arrive, we know the number has gone down.


BS. We don’t even know how many are HERE today. For 30 years we were told there were 11 million or so. Then Harvard did a “study” and found out that there were between 20 and 30 million illegals here, so we were being lied to by the government for those 30 years previous. The margin of error of that “study” is the same as we were lied to about for all those years, for Pete’s sake! SOME estimates are that there are closer to 50 MILLION here illegally!


It wasn’t just one study. And the people making them, included CIS and the Center for Migration Studies, who are trying to argue for less immigration.

Why would they lie? I don’t see a good answer to that.

I think it’s more likely that people in Red States are just seeing more of the illegal population than they;re used to, because illegals are leaving the Blue States due to high cost of living, and lackluster economies.

Also, I’d just like to point this out one more time: Mexico’s fertility has bottomed out.

They have less and less people to give us, and if other places aren’t sending enough people to match the waves Mexico used to give, then’s perfectly expected that the total illegal population would stagnate.

Meaning, we would have the same number for years and years.


If the issue is “fertility” why do they keep sending us waves of males between the age of 17 and 35, then? The last two “caravans” from Central America were 75% male and most of the women were what the Germans call “zaftig” sort of putting the lie to the “starvation” claims they are making at our border.


Most of those weren’t Mexicans; you’re proving my point.

And you already admitted we know how many are coming, thus, the Central Americans who are coming today, don’t match the numbers of Mexicans who were coming 20 years ago.

The new sources of migrants, don’t match the old one when it was at its peak.


Yet there are still THOUSANDS of illegals attempting to broach our borders…a percentage of which are coming to either get on the government teat or create other forms of mischief, such as rape, robbery, murder, child molestation, kidnapping, drug sales and transport and other forms of mayhem.


Human condition; you’d have that regardless.

And you’d be better able to control it, if you didn’t stop normal people from coming, but gave them an access point.

It’s because you stop normal people, that the bad ones can hide amongst a forest.


“Normal” people don’t intentionally break the law just because doing so will eventually benefit them. “Normal” people respect the law and adhere to it.


They do when you don’t give them another choice.

And that’s the point; the lawful system is intentionally blocking people who shouldn’t be blocked. Too many for the wider market to accept.

If you block too many, it’s the same as creating the black market.


Nonsense. We’re not “blocking people who shouldn’t be blocked.” We’re blocking people who refuse to follow OUR laws about coming into the country. If they refuse to follow THOSE laws, why would we EVER get the idea that they’ll be law-abiding contributors to this country after they disappear into our urban wildernesses? In a LOT of cases, our skepticism about them is well-justified.