Inside Trump’s Search for a Health Threat to Justify His Immigration Crackdown

[placeholder]

  President-elect Donald J. Trump’s advisers have spent months trying to identify a disease that will help them build their case for closing the border.

 

  He is likely to justify his plans to seal off the border with Mexico by citing a public health emergency from immigrants bringing disease into the United States.

  Now he just has to find one.

https://archive.ph/1NxfC#selection-861.0-865.28

 

[mokwit]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

  President-elect Donald J. Trump’s advisers have spent months trying to identify a disease that will help them build their case for closing the border.

 

  He is likely to justify his plans to seal off the border with Mexico by citing a public health emergency from immigrants bringing disease into the United States.

  Now he just has to find one.

https://archive.ph/1NxfC#selection-861.0-865.28

 

Who wouldn't believe a couple of immigrants writing in a propaganda rag on Trump immigration policy.

 

I am sure crime levels will give Trump enough reason.

[EVENKEEL]

Oh the horror. 

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Who wouldn't believe a couple of immigrants writing in a propaganda rag on Trump immigration policy.

 

I am sure crime levels will give Trump enough reason.

Thanks for the bigotry.You know the authors are immigrants how? Because their surnames look strange to you.. I remember not long ago Vivek Ramaswamy was being blasted by MAGA supporters who berated him for judging Americans on the grounds that he was a foreigner. And of course there was the campaign by right wing loonies, led by another loony, that claimed that a guy with the funny surname of Obama was born in Africa.

 

If crime levels are the problem that needs to be addressed, it's best search where the highest percentage of native born Americans can be found.  They have a higher crime rate than do undocumented immigrants.

 

New Cato Research Shows That Illegal Immigrants Are Less Likely to Be Convicted of Murder in Texas

In a new Cato Institute policy analysis released today, I examine data from Texas on homicide rates for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born Americans. Over the ten years from 2013 to 2022, the homicide conviction rate in Texas for illegal immigrants was 2.2 per 100,000, compared to 3.0 per 100,000 for native-born Americans and 1.2 per 100,000 legal immigrants.

Accordingly, illegal immigrants were 26 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be convicted of homicide, and legal immigrants were 61 percent less likely (Figure 1). This general trend also holds for 2022, where the illegal immigrant homicide conviction rate was 3.1 per 100,000, 1.8 per 100,000 for legal immigrants, and 4.9 per 100,000 for native-born Americans (Figure 2).

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-cato-research-shows-illegal-immigrants-are-less-likely-be-convicted-murder-texas

 

[mokwit]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for the bigotry.You know the authors are immigrants how? Because their surnames look strange to you.. I remember not long ago Vivek Ramaswamy was being blasted by MAGA supporters who berated him for judging Americans on the grounds that he was a foreigner. And of course there was the campaign by right wing loonies, led by another loony, that claimed that a guy with the funny surname of Obama was born in Africa.

 

If crime levels are the problem that needs to be addressed, it's best search were the highest percentage of native born Americans can be found.  They have a higher crime rate than do undocumented immigrants.

 

New Cato Research Shows That Illegal Immigrants Are Less Likely to Be Convicted of Murder in Texas

In a new Cato Institute policy analysis released today, I examine data from Texas on homicide rates for illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born Americans. Over the ten years from 2013 to 2022, the homicide conviction rate in Texas for illegal immigrants was 2.2 per 100,000, compared to 3.0 per 100,000 for native-born Americans and 1.2 per 100,000 legal immigrants.

Accordingly, illegal immigrants were 26 percent less likely than native-born Americans to be convicted of homicide, and legal immigrants were 61 percent less likely (Figure 1). This general trend also holds for 2022, where the illegal immigrant homicide conviction rate was 3.1 per 100,000, 1.8 per 100,000 for legal immigrants, and 4.9 per 100,000 for native-born Americans (Figure 2).

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-cato-research-shows-illegal-immigrants-are-less-likely-be-convicted-murder-texas

 

So what? Do you really think that proves anything? One study by an institute with an agenda, in one location, and no analysis of how they got the numbers, what their definitions etc were. I am sure there are other studies that show the opposite. What about crime other than murder, like theft, robbery rape? why are they focusing solely on one crime, because it gives the slant they want?

 

Seriously, posting ONE study just makes you look "unsophisticated" to anyone with any training in data/sampling/statictics etc.

 

Grok: The Cato Institute, adhering to its libertarian principles, generally advocates for more open and liberal immigration policies. Here's a detailed look at their stance:

    Open Borders: Cato often promotes the idea of significantly reducing restrictions on immigration, arguing that free movement of people can benefit both the immigrants and the host country economically. They advocate for open borders or at least a much more open immigration policy than what is commonly practiced.
    Economic Benefits: The institute frequently publishes research highlighting the economic advantages of immigration, such as increased innovation, higher economic growth, and contributions to public finances. They argue that immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in government services, countering arguments about welfare dependency.
    Civil Liberties: Cato supports the rights of immigrants, including undocumented ones. They argue against policies that infringe on civil liberties, like mass deportations, workplace raids, or restrictions on legal rights. They often critique laws and policies that they believe violate individual freedoms.
    Refugee Policy: On refugees, Cato tends to advocate for more humane and accommodating policies, arguing that the U.S. should uphold its historical role as a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution or conflict.
    Legalization and Pathways to Citizenship: They have supported amnesty or legalization programs for undocumented immigrants already in the country, suggesting that these individuals should be given a path to citizenship or at least legal status, arguing that this would be more beneficial than enforcement-only approaches.
    Criticism of Restrictions: Cato frequently criticizes restrictive immigration policies, border enforcement strategies like walls or increased militarization, and policies that they see as xenophobic or unnecessarily punitive. They view these as not only ineffective but also contrary to American values of opportunity and freedom.
    Integration and Assimilation: Rather than fearing cultural dilution, Cato often points to evidence that immigrants assimilate into American society, contributing to cultural richness and economic dynamism.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, mokwit said:

So what? Do you really think that proves anything? One study by an institute with an agenda, in one location, and no analysis of how they got the numbers, what their definitions etc were. I am sure there are other studies that show the opposite. What about crime other than murder, like theft, robbery rape? why are they focusing solely on one crime, because it gives the slant they want?

 

Seriously, posting ONE study just makes you look "unsophisticated" to anyone with any training in data/sampling/statictics etc.

 

Grok: The Cato Institute, adhering to its libertarian principles, generally advocates for more open and liberal immigration policies. Here's a detailed look at their stance:

    Open Borders: Cato often promotes the idea of significantly reducing restrictions on immigration, arguing that free movement of people can benefit both the immigrants and the host country economically. They advocate for open borders or at least a much more open immigration policy than what is commonly practiced.
    Economic Benefits: The institute frequently publishes research highlighting the economic advantages of immigration, such as increased innovation, higher economic growth, and contributions to public finances. They argue that immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in government services, countering arguments about welfare dependency.
    Civil Liberties: Cato supports the rights of immigrants, including undocumented ones. They argue against policies that infringe on civil liberties, like mass deportations, workplace raids, or restrictions on legal rights. They often critique laws and policies that they believe violate individual freedoms.
    Refugee Policy: On refugees, Cato tends to advocate for more humane and accommodating policies, arguing that the U.S. should uphold its historical role as a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution or conflict.
    Legalization and Pathways to Citizenship: They have supported amnesty or legalization programs for undocumented immigrants already in the country, suggesting that these individuals should be given a path to citizenship or at least legal status, arguing that this would be more beneficial than enforcement-only approaches.
    Criticism of Restrictions: Cato frequently criticizes restrictive immigration policies, border enforcement strategies like walls or increased militarization, and policies that they see as xenophobic or unnecessarily punitive. They view these as not only ineffective but also contrary to American values of opportunity and freedom.
    Integration and Assimilation: Rather than fearing cultural dilution, Cato often points to evidence that immigrants assimilate into American society, contributing to cultural richness and economic dynamism.

First off, in the article there was a link to the study.

The reason that Cato uses Texas is because it's the one state that classified convicted parties by immigration status. It's also the second largest state by population and has a mix of urban and rural populations.

And what makes this particular study extremely compelling is that it just focuses on murder rates. Other kinds of crimes can be underreported depending on the priorities of the local police forces. But homicide is the one crime that pretty much has to be reported.

Here is an excerpt from the study with a link:

"Criminal conviction data for crimes other than homicide are included, but readers should interpret them with caution because the quality of the data is suspect. The conviction and arrest rates of illegal and legal immigrants, separately and together, were lower than those of native-born Americans for homicide and all crimes in Texas during the 2013–2022 period."

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/illegal-immigrant-murderers-texas-2013-2022

 

I see that you offer no defense of your bigotry in regard to the 2 reporters.

 

[mokwit]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, in the article there was a link to the study.

The reason that Cato uses Texas is because it's the one state that classified convicted parties by immigration status. It's also the second largest state by population and has a mix of urban and rural populations.

And what makes this particular study extremely compelling is that it just focuses on murder rates. Other kinds of crimes can be underreported depending on the priorities of the local police forces. But homicide is the one crime that pretty much has to be reported.

Here is an excerpt from the study with a link:

"Criminal conviction data for crimes other than homicide are included, but readers should interpret them with caution because the quality of the data is suspect. The conviction and arrest rates of illegal and legal immigrants, separately and together, were lower than those of native-born Americans for homicide and all crimes in Texas during the 2013–2022 period."

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/illegal-immigrant-murderers-texas-2013-2022

 

I see that you offer no defense of your bigotry in regard to the 2 reporters.

 

Most crimes are not murders, murders represent a tiny fraction of crimes and domestic murders are a high percentage of murders, so you would expect higher percentage of murders within family groups vs a group with a higher proportion of single males. Quite possibly immigrant criminals* gravitate to other states where the state is softer on crime.

 

With "research" from an organization with an agenda you have to be very careful that there hasn't been cherry picking which is then defended by framing the cherrypicking as being done to make the ensure the methodology was robust.

 

There is nothing "bigoted" in noting that immigrants who are not at the lower threatened socio economic strata tend to be pro immigration, especially from countries where extended families are the norm. It seems to you that an observation that you don't like  is "bigotry"

 

I seem to remember myself and others tried to explain to you about surveys and how they can be distorted and what data you need to be able to judge the validity, but it went over your head.

 

*let's be clear, many are decent people looking for a better life.

 

 

[tai4de2]

I'm amazed that some people seem to think the rate at which illegal aliens commit crimes matters in the discussion about whether to deport them.

 

We don't need to justify it any more than simply noticing that they're in the USA illegally.

 

Buh-bye!