Author Topic: Episode #606  (Read 2554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LaPalida

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • To thy own self be true.
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2017, 10:14:51 AM »
Hey Steven I wanted to correct you on your claim about it being a civil offense to cross the border or to enter the country illegally. At 32:00 you say that 'coming into the country illegally is actually not a criminal offense, it's a civil offense'. It is in fact a criminal offense. There seems to be some confusion on the difference between coming into the country illegally and staying in the country illegally after having entered it legally. Both are offenses but the first one is criminal and the second one is civil. It seems that this often gets conflated. I didn't know about this until I looked it up after listening to the podcast.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html

Quote
Improper Entry Is a Crime

To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:

    Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than designated by immigration officers;
    Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
    Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.

The punishment under this federal law is no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry. These acts of improper entry -- including the mythic "border jumping" -- are criminal acts associated with illegally immigrating to the United States.

Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

I understand that people who are saying that the people that cross the border illegally are 100% criminal are technically correct but they are equivocating. Most of the time when people debate about illegal immigrants committing crime they mean hard crime (felonies) like assault, robbery, rape etc. Things that are related to hard crime and gang activity.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 05:24:32 AM by LaPalida »
"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
- Mark Twain

Offline smudge

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2017, 10:17:49 AM »
Terrific new on the lawsuit.  :)

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2017, 11:35:26 AM »
How do the numbers look if you don't correct for the socioeconomic factors, regarding immigrants and crime? If you assume that many immigrants are in the more "crime-ridden groups", you still get more crime with more immigrants? I'm not claiming to state facts, I just wonder if that's the case. Like if you look at the totals in prison, not correcting for said factors, are immigrants overrepresented then? If this is the case, is not the correcting factors skewing the appearance of the results? If all immigrants are poor, and poor people commit more crime, wouldn't more immigrants still mean more crime? Trying to understand what the numbers are, and how they're corrected and adjusted for this and that.

I know that in my part of the world, there is a pretty substantial overrepresantation of immigrants and foreigners in prison. Local heads of police in several neighbouring countries here have kind of broken their "politicly correct silence" lately about an apparently ominous trend in crime and immigration. Situation may be different in the US.

As I stated in Reply #9 above, the over-representation of immigrants in prison is due primarily to the multiple biases in law enforcement and the courts. People of color and poor people are also over-represented in prison. Most immigrants suffer from a double-whammy: being poor they cannot afford the lawyers who keep most rich criminals and many middle-class criminals out of prison, and not speaking English (in the case of many immigrants from Latin America) puts them at the mercy of cops who are skilled at eliciting false confessions and in many cases are prejudiced against them for being foreigners.

There are plenty of innocent people in prison, but more significantly, there are many, many more rich and middle-class criminals who never go to prison because they can afford lawyers who can work the system. This skews the proportions.

Prison population is a failed method of assessing crime statistics because it simply does not represent actual criminality.

A much better measure is the one Steve mentioned on the show: There is less crime in cities with large immigrant populations.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline VinceRN

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 1
Re: Episode #606 - Immigrants and Crime
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2017, 09:46:41 PM »
I think one thing got left out that would explain lower crime rates in immigrants.  The self selecting for non criminals one seems obvious of course, but I would also think that knowing they could be deported if caught would also tend to stop people that might modify the behavior of some folks that might otherwise commit some crimes, at least for minor crimes.  I am also kind of surprised there are not better statistics on people in prison.


Offline ralfsen

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2017, 03:01:41 AM »
I don't know enough to debate the number of innocents and language-problems and corrupt cops actually influencing the numbers to a significant degree. Seems unthinkable where I live tho. I do agree that the lower crime in cities with more immigration study is interesting and should be a good measure. Would love to have heard the numbers and methods on that one too.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4657
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2017, 09:01:33 AM »
I don't know enough to debate the number of innocents and language-problems and corrupt cops actually influencing the numbers to a significant degree. Seems unthinkable where I live tho. I do agree that the lower crime in cities with more immigration study is interesting and should be a good measure. Would love to have heard the numbers and methods on that one too.

Where do you live?

Those of us who are white and middle-class in America have a very different experience with the police than poor people and people of color do. Working with the homeless for about 5 years I saw the police treat homeless guys and Native Americans very differently than they treat middle-class white folks. Even well-meaning cops treated these guys very differently. It's hard to believe that the nice cops who arrested me would treat Indians so differently, but they did.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline LaPalida

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • To thy own self be true.
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2017, 09:37:32 AM »
Hmm I'm trying to interpret the Pew graph and from what I understand it seems to show that, if we take a slice of an age group say 16 year olds, 25% of the criminals are native born, 23% are second gen. immigrants and ~17% are first gen. immigrants. So that makes up 65% of the criminals. Who are the rest 35%? Tourists?



The other question that arises immediately is this: the graph shows that, if you divide immigrants into second gen and first gen immigrants, they are not any more likely to commit a crime than a native born (in fact less likely) however there are more native born people than immigrants living in the US so wouldn't that mean that immigrants are more likely to be criminal because there are less of them but more of them commit crime in proportion to their respective population? Or was the sample population that was examined equally representative of native born and immigrant born? Also if put first gen immigrants and second gen together to represent all immigrants then the picture changes to 40% which means that there are nearly twice as many criminals who are immigrants than native born.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 05:27:59 AM by LaPalida »
"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
- Mark Twain

Offline gebobs

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2017, 10:07:38 AM »
I tried looking up the article but could only get abstracts. The key here would be to get their definition of prevalence. I don't think it's a percentage of a whole. What I think the chart shows is the percentage of each age group in each subset that has been involved in a crime in the previous year. Thus, ~25% of native born 16yos were and ~24% of 2nd gen 16yos were etc.

Of course, 2nd gen is a subset of native born. I'm not sure it's necessary to distinguish them since their statisical prevalence is nearly identical to 2nd gen+ native born.

I think it might be a good idea to put all teenagers on lockdown until their 20th birthday. ;-)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 10:16:11 AM by gebobs »

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4978
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2017, 01:17:59 PM »
Hmm I'm trying to interpret the Pew graph and from what I understand it seems to show that, if we take a slice of an age group say 16 year olds, 25% of the criminals are native born, 23% are second gen. immigrants and ~17% are first gen. immigrants. So that makes up 65% of the criminals. Who are the rest 35%? Tourists?

That's not what the graph is showing.

According to this graph, if you take a slice of 16 year olds, 25% of the native born 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime, 23% of the 2nd gen 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime, and 17% of the 1st gen 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime.

It is not a pie chart of all crimes committed.  I would imagine that the 25% of native born 16 year-olds who have been involved in a crime would be a MUCH larger proportion of the number "all crimes committed by 16 year-olds", as I don't imagine that the ratio of all native born to 2nd gen to 1st gen 16 year-olds is 1:1:1.
Big Mike
Calgary AB Canada

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4231
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2017, 02:04:09 PM »
there are legitimate concerns specific to islam that we should be able to talk about without bigotry.

True. There's certainly a lot of actual bigotry around, but in my personal experience the term "Islamophobia" tends to be thrown around a lot by people who don't like criticism of Islam (particularly by Islamists). People like Harris and Hitchens are often branded Islamophobes in order to taint their arguments as racist.


As Sam Harris is wont to point out, there have been no death threats leveled against Matt Stone and Trey Parker by the LDS.
"The home of the brave and the land of the free; the less you know, the better off you'll be"

Warren Zevon

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10899
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2017, 02:21:43 PM »
there are legitimate concerns specific to islam that we should be able to talk about without bigotry.

True. There's certainly a lot of actual bigotry around, but in my personal experience the term "Islamophobia" tends to be thrown around a lot by people who don't like criticism of Islam (particularly by Islamists). People like Harris and Hitchens are often branded Islamophobes in order to taint their arguments as racist.


As Sam Harris is wont to point out, there have been no death threats leveled against Matt Stone and Trey Parker by the LDS.
I'm moderately surprised that that there hasn't been at least one.  It just takes one dipshit/crazy person with an email account.  Even if the vast majority of Mormons think the Book of Mormon was hilarious, there has to be one crazy mormon out there. 

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6025
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2017, 02:03:00 AM »
Iirc, the controversy regarding the effects of minimum wage increases on employment comes down to whether you find state-panels or contiguous-county pairs more persuasive. 

State-paneling: Isolate out enough confounding variables to compare one state to all other states.  Regional heterogeneity is a problem.  Tends to show employment losses. 

Contiguous-County Pairs: Use adjoining counties separated by state borders as natural experiments.  Shows effects averaging out to approximately zero.  Much of the field considers this as superseding state-panels for methodological reasons but certainly not all.

Personally, I find the second more persuasive.
Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Offline LaPalida

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • To thy own self be true.
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2017, 04:03:28 AM »
Hmm I'm trying to interpret the Pew graph and from what I understand it seems to show that, if we take a slice of an age group say 16 year olds, 25% of the criminals are native born, 23% are second gen. immigrants and ~17% are first gen. immigrants. So that makes up 65% of the criminals. Who are the rest 35%? Tourists?

That's not what the graph is showing.

According to this graph, if you take a slice of 16 year olds, 25% of the native born 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime, 23% of the 2nd gen 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime, and 17% of the 1st gen 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime.

It is not a pie chart of all crimes committed.  I would imagine that the 25% of native born 16 year-olds who have been involved in a crime would be a MUCH larger proportion of the number "all crimes committed by 16 year-olds", as I don't imagine that the ratio of all native born to 2nd gen to 1st gen 16 year-olds is 1:1:1.

Hah I think you're right. I originally interpreted it similarly but got confused when someone else interpreted the graph the other way because they thought that it was ridiculous that 25% of 16 year olds were criminals. It could be that most people interpret 'crime' and 'criminal' as something terribly violent which a lot of it is but I bet that a lot of the 16 year olds get their sentences for smoking weed or something like that.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 04:17:38 AM by LaPalida »
"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."
- Mark Twain

Offline ralfsen

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2017, 04:09:54 AM »
I don't know enough to debate the number of innocents and language-problems and corrupt cops actually influencing the numbers to a significant degree. Seems unthinkable where I live tho. I do agree that the lower crime in cities with more immigration study is interesting and should be a good measure. Would love to have heard the numbers and methods on that one too.

Where do you live?

Those of us who are white and middle-class in America have a very different experience with the police than poor people and people of color do. Working with the homeless for about 5 years I saw the police treat homeless guys and Native Americans very differently than they treat middle-class white folks. Even well-meaning cops treated these guys very differently. It's hard to believe that the nice cops who arrested me would treat Indians so differently, but they did.

Scandinavia

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4978
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: Episode #606
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2017, 11:18:11 AM »
Hah I think you're right. I originally interpreted it similarly but got confused when someone else interpreted the graph the other way because they thought that it was ridiculous that 25% of 16 year olds were criminals. It could be that most people interpret 'crime' and 'criminal' as something terribly violent which a lot of it is but I bet that a lot of the 16 year olds get their sentences for smoking weed or something like that.

I think the biggest factor in catching more people is the definition of "involved in" a crime.  That is a MUCH broader net than "committed" a crime would be.

I would think that you could word "involved in" loosely enough that it would be shocking not to have a much higher number - having been in a car where the driver exceeded the speed limit could, under some definitions of "involved in a crime", count as Yes for instance.  So it ends up being a major researcher degree of freedom to let you introduce whatever bias you want - all that most people are going to see is the graph, not the detailed minutiae of your methods.
Big Mike
Calgary AB Canada

 

personate-rain