• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump should tell Congress to shove this bill up their _______

On "C", no need to repeat it. One of your reasons for opposing added border security was that illegal entry is not at the highest point its been in the last 50 years. Think about it. If I said we are not at the highest rate of river and lake water pollution in our history, would you conclude that no water treatment expansion or regulation is needed - would you accept that as determinative of sufficiently clean water? (I doubt it).

In short, comparing a bad case with the "worst" case is not a justification for accepting the bad case as the best that can or should be done.

Look all wordiness aside, it seems one of us just thinks illegal immigration is a bigger problem than the other.

Taking C. for example, comparing it to the 'high water mark' my point is if it is not as bad as it was then, and it wasn't an 'emergency' then how can it be now. I just don't feel triggered and threatened by the mere fact that people cross the border illegally - especially when many have good reason to do so.

As for the statistics from what was it, American Thinker? It was a tiresome read with fuzzy math. If they have to bend over backwards that hard in an attempt to 'disprove' the basic fact that illegals commit fewer crimes than native born Americans, then they're probably pushing an agenda. They're certainly not telling the truth.
 
i note the lack of a cite from you after a couple of requests

so, i must conclude that there is actually nothing which supports your wild ass claims

Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN.com

At issue is Obama's relationship with Ayers, an unrepentant radical who as late as 2001 said he wished he had done more to stop the Vietnam War. After years on the run, the federal government's case against Ayers and his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dorn, was thrown out due to illegal wiretaps and prosecutorial misconduct.

How ironic. Bill Ayers admitted he was "guilty as hell" and yet he goes free due to prosecutorial misconduct and illegal wiretaps and yet the current honorable President of the US does not get any relief from the radical wiretapping misbehaving leftist prosecutors seeking to find any dirt on him at all in order to fry him for beating Hillary in the 2016 election. Bill Ayers was charged with committing crimes he committed and yet he skated. Trump has not been charged with a crime and no evidence of a crime has been submitted, yet these illegally wiretapping crooked cops have created a rumor of a crime so that they can look for dirt of some kind that they still do not have after 2 years.

A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project. And yet Obama and his lying acquaintances claimed he hardly knew Ayers, which was a lie. Ayers was a neighbor. Obama bought a million dollar home (with Annenberg money?) in the same upscale neighborhood as Ayers and Ayers first introduced Obama to the world and the world to Obama from his own living room. And they both had their dirty hands deep in the Annenberg till.

"The specific job of the board of directors was to give out the money," said Stanley Kurtz, a conservative researcher for the Ethics and Public Policy Center and frequent Obama critic.

"Instead of giving money directly to schools, they gave the money to what they call external partners and these partners were often pretty radical community organizer groups," said Kurtz, who also has been reviewing the Annenberg Challenge's recently released records.


The multiple hundred million dollar cash cow foundation has since gone defunct and its records are sealed from prying eyes wanting to see exactly where the money went and through whose hands the money was passed and received. Democrats are all about hiding the truth or their own corruption. They are for transparency only in word, not in deed.
 
Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show - CNN.com

At issue is Obama's relationship with Ayers, an unrepentant radical who as late as 2001 said he wished he had done more to stop the Vietnam War. After years on the run, the federal government's case against Ayers and his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dorn, was thrown out due to illegal wiretaps and prosecutorial misconduct.

How ironic. Bill Ayers admitted he was "guilty as hell" and yet he goes free due to prosecutorial misconduct and illegal wiretaps and yet the current honorable President of the US does not get any relief from the radical wiretapping misbehaving leftist prosecutors seeking to find any dirt on him at all in order to fry him for beating Hillary in the 2016 election. Bill Ayers was charged with committing crimes he committed and yet he skated. Trump has not been charged with a crime and no evidence of a crime has been submitted, yet these illegally wiretapping crooked cops have created a rumor of a crime so that they can look for dirt of some kind that they still do not have after 2 years.

A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project. And yet Obama and his lying acquaintances claimed he hardly knew Ayers, which was a lie. Ayers was a neighbor. Obama bought a million dollar home (with Annenberg money?) in the same upscale neighborhood as Ayers and Ayers first introduced Obama to the world and the world to Obama from his own living room. And they both had their dirty hands deep in the Annenberg till.

"The specific job of the board of directors was to give out the money," said Stanley Kurtz, a conservative researcher for the Ethics and Public Policy Center and frequent Obama critic.

"Instead of giving money directly to schools, they gave the money to what they call external partners and these partners were often pretty radical community organizer groups," said Kurtz, who also has been reviewing the Annenberg Challenge's recently released records.


The multiple hundred million dollar cash cow foundation has since gone defunct and its records are sealed from prying eyes wanting to see exactly where the money went and through whose hands the money was passed and received. Democrats are all about hiding the truth or their own corruption. They are for transparency only in word, not in deed.

from this one and only cite i have ever seen you post:
A CNN review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved. Read CNN's fact check on Obama's connection to Ayers
[emphasis added by bubba]

FOUND NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE
 
Bring back the line item veto. Then the bill would look like Smollett's text messages of the racial incident or the DOJ's transcripts to congress.
 
Bring back the line item veto. Then the bill would look like Smollett's text messages of the racial incident or the DOJ's transcripts to congress.

again, proving Santayana was correct:
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. ...
Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia
 
It's called "re-brading". It was invented by Coke after they so cleverly canceled the original Coke and had to come back with something, so it was "re-branded" to "Classic Coke"

In this case Trump is trying to disguise the fact NOTHING has been done for the two years he had a majority and could have ordered up &10 billion without a peep. That's going to be a hard sell, even for the guy who spends three hours a day on his hair!

Actually, this rebranding is necessary because "build the wall" doesn't apply anymore. He is, in fact, building the wall. All that is left is to "finish the wall".
 
He is, in fact, building the wall. All that is left is to "finish the wall".

How many miles has he built, can you provide a link?

All fact checks I see show this to be false.

A. is easy: They're funding it. There is no emergency, crossings are down, illegal immigration is not a huge problem for those who don't hate Hispanics and it is and has been manageable for years, so they don't see the need to fun a new drastic 'solution' that's all. The Dems (actually all of congress including the GOP) cares enough to keep funding border security as it is, just not in the way Trump wants.

B. See A. They're not that big a problem, there's fewer of them than before, and despite coming illegally, most do no real harm and actually contribute to the economy. Yes it would be nicer if they did it legally but most people don't get their panties in a bunch over it. As for smuggling, some drug smugglers build tunnels, some fly drones over; most drive through legal ports of entry. Want to stop smuggling? Go to the source, take away their market.

C. Zero entry is a pipe dream. It's also a solution in need of a problem. If a wall were needed they'd have built one decades ago. Where barriers are required they exist and they still only provide a partial solution: people go over, under or around them. Why? Because despite the fact that red-hat 'America' doesn't like them, the country actually has a use for them.

D. See B and C. Over under and around. Like smuggling there is a market for cross-border laborers. Kill the need and you reduce the flow. The solutions look economic to me rather than the palliative symbolism of a largely ineffective physical barrier.

No point. I don't think they understand facts anymore.

Also every official stat I'm looking at shows Illegals with less crime rates than Naturals. I don't think that conservative blog he linked was accurate.
 
Last edited:
How many miles has he built, can you provide a link?

I don't know. No.

All fact checks I see show this to be false.



No point. I don't think they understand facts anymore.

Also every official stat I'm looking at shows Illegals with less crime rates than Naturals. I don't think that conservative blog he linked was accurate.

Wait. Are you presenting biased spin from another DP member as "fact checks"?

LOL!!
 
I don't know. No.



Wait. Are you presenting biased spin from another DP member as "fact checks"?

LOL!!

No, that was a separate statement.

Here are the fact checks to Trump's lies on much of the wall being built:

Fact Check: Trump’s Tweet on Border Walls in Europe - The New York Times
Fact Check: Donald Trump'''s Border Wall Speech From the Oval Office | Time
FACT CHECK: Trump Says 'A Lot Of Wall Has Been Built' As He Demands We Build More : NPR

If you don't even know why did you believe it?
 
There is no proof in that dodgy 2 paragraph opinion piece you just linked.

I checked in with agents at the Rio Grande Valley border sector to see if they knew what new "wall" Trump was talking about. They sent me information on construction for new border barrier announced last year.

The wall will be supplemented by "detection technology, lighting, video surveillance, and an all-weather patrol road parallel" to the barrier, according to a release sent out by the CBP in November.

And the $145 million for it didn't come from some long-ago-passed funding bill passed under former President Barack Obama. It was included in U.S. Customs and Border Protection's budget for fiscal year 2018. Unlike other parts of new barrier construction and reparation, Trump can actually take credit for this one!

Perhaps you think everyone mentioned in that article is lying? The agents, CBP, the writer?
 
Perhaps you think everyone mentioned in that article is lying? The agents, CBP, the writer?

No. Just the writer. He said they sent him information but never posted or quoted said information proving the wall is being built.

This would be breaking news everywhere, and it wouldn't be a 2 paragraph opinion piece.

How many miles have been built?
 
Last edited:
No. Just the writer. This would be breaking news everywhere, and it wouldn't be a 2 paragraph opinion piece.

Seriously? You think the Trump hating media would report this? Why?

It's good new. They never report good news about Trump.
 
Seriously? You think the Trump hating media would report this? Why?

It's good new. They never report good news about Trump.

FOX isn't even reporting it,they know better to source a 2 paragraph opinion piece that offers no proof or citation.

How many miles have been built? Or did it literally just start a few days ago when they got Congressional $$$ and only a few feet so far?

Are you sure it is a wall or just the 55 miles of fence as Congress dictated?
 
FOX isn't even reporting it,they know better to source a 2 paragraph opinion piece that offers no proof or citation.

How many miles have been built? Or did it literally just start a few days ago when they got Congressional $$$ and only a few feet so far?

Are you sure it is a wall or just the 55 miles of fence as Congress dictated?

If you had read the article, you wouldn't be asking those questions. The article answered them.

You are dismissed for wasting my time.
 
If you had read the article, you wouldn't be asking those questions. The article answered them.

You are dismissed for wasting my time.

He doesn't quote anyone saying the wall has already been built or provide proof. It's labeled opinion and he gives 2 quick paragraphs with no real quotes of what he claims.

Btw, Bollard Fencing placement started today. A 12 mile allotment. Not last week. But that's still just replacement.
 
BUT what's the point of informing you? If you can't tell me how many murders by illegal border crossers a year means the border security is acceptable, or why that number is acceptable, then there is nothing to argue over. What is "acceptable" is whatever "feelings" move you in the moment.

According to statistics, violent crimes by illegals is a "micro-drop" compared to the total violent crimes per year. And most research shows it to be at a lower rate than native born, minus one contested study.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/
Is Illegal Immigration Linked to More or Less Crime? - FactCheck.org
Illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than natural citizens - Business Insider
MOSTLY TRUE: Undocumented immigrants less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens | PolitiFact California

And as someone told me earlier in regards for such micro-drop violent crime totals,

So in a nation of 330 million and 9.1 million crimes per year, I think the "micro-drops" of a few crimes aren't worth your watery eyes, let alone a drop of your tears.

Apparently such a tiny percent of crimes isn't "worth your tears", or most certainly a wall.

No wonder it polls so poorly among most Americans, they seem to agree with your logic!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...national-emergency-lies-new-poll-confirms-it/
 
Last edited:
He doesn't quote anyone saying the wall has already been built or provide proof. It's labeled opinion and he gives 2 quick paragraphs with no real quotes of what he claims.

Btw, Bollard Fencing placement started today. A 12 mile allotment. Not last week. But that's still just replacement.

According the piece itself, though its buried at the bottom, its 6 miles of "wall" not described supported by various technology described as "proven effective" elsewhere whatever that means. That simply reads like Prototype 2 to me. 6 miles is about what I would build as a Prototype 2. Trump likely has enough money for that from the last CR, not the $1.375B just Appropriated.

Knock your mind out DonDon. Still does not offer much to context the opinion that Trump's efforts regarding this wall were and are entirely unserious. The preponderance of what is in the public domain very much supports that opinion more than any opinion offered that Trump ever did or intended to mount a serious effort to build the thing.
 
According to statistics, violent crimes by illegals is a "micro-drop" compared to the total violent crimes per year. And most research shows it to be at a lower rate than native born, minus one contested study.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/
Is Illegal Immigration Linked to More or Less Crime? - FactCheck.org
Illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes than natural citizens - Business Insider
MOSTLY TRUE: Undocumented immigrants less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens | PolitiFact California

And as someone told me earlier in regards for such micro-drop violent crime totals, Apparently such a tiny percent of crimes isn't "worth your tears", or most certainly a wall.

No wonder it polls so poorly among most Americans, they seem to agree with your logic!

In a country wherein only ONE US STATE has a majority that can pass the citizenship test used to become naturalized citizens, I'm not expecting the majority of hoi poli operate at any great level of cognition than my cat. (Those under 45 had an astounding 70 percent "F" letter grade).

And if illegals only committed 7000 crimes a year, not only would I not shed tears over so many ignoramuses, I'd be popping Champaign corks and declaring we have proof of existence of divine intervention.

I will parse through the articles to filter out all the misleading references to legal immigration from illegals (a step many habitual illegal defenders fail to do), exclude the media echoing the same the same study, and find the "loaded" basis of what remains - if any.

In the meantime, before we look at the studies and evaluations that persuasive that illegals do commit more crimes, here are some things to keep in mind:

1. Crimes committed by millions of illegal immigrants related to use of fraudulent SSI numbers, fake driver's licenses, forged green cars, and improper use of public benefits are never counted in these studies. In addition some, such as Cato, leave out broad classes of drug offenses, further distorting the actual crime rate.

2. Most government (at all levels) do not collect data of illegal alien crime convictions. To do such might draw fire from the pro-illegal constituency (e.g. identity groups and the Democratic party). So sources are intentionally limited.

3. In spite of this, most researchers try to ignore the few established sources that do provide data on criminal acts by known illegal aliens. They point to all types of alleged, and typically baseless, “flaws” in measuring the direct rate of incarceration. In actuality, however, the only real flaw, from the perspective of mainstream research organizations is that doing so confirms that illegal aliens commit other crimes at a higher rate.[/B]

So before you uncritically accept the "bums rush" assumption that there is only one study or evaluation that shows illegals commit crime that is not true - no matter where you obtained that "information".

Most recently, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, did a detailed study based on firm data on incarcerations, they found the following:

Key Findings in Brief

FAIR found that in all SCAAP-reporting states along the Southern Border, and in SCAAP-reporting interior states that are preferred destinations for unlawful migrants, illegal aliens are incarcerated at a much higher rate than citizens and lawfully-present aliens.[7]

SCAAP data indicate that illegal aliens are typically at least three times as likely to be incarcerated than citizens and lawfully-present aliens.

Since the SCAAP program only includes those illegal aliens who have, at some point, been convicted of a crime, the only reasonable conclusion is that illegal aliens must commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens or lawfully-present aliens in order to be incarcerated at such high rates.

These findings stand in stark contrast to the narrative pushed by the open-borders lobby that illegal aliens are less likely to commit crimes compared to citizens or lawfully-present aliens.

Immigration Illegal Crime FAIR.jpg

SCAAP Data Suggest Illegal Aliens Commit Crime at a Much Higher Rate Than Citizens and Lawful Immigrants | Federation for American Immigration Reform

Cont...
 
Last edited:
Cont.

Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona by John R. Lott :: SSRN

John R. Lott
Crime Prevention Research Center
Date Written: February 10, 2018
Abstract

Using newly released detailed data on all prisoners who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Unlike other studies, these data do not rely on self-reporting of criminal backgrounds. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens. Yet, there are several reasons that these numbers are likely to underestimate the share of crime committed by undocumented immigrants. There are dramatic differences between in the criminal histories of convicts who are U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants.

Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over two percent of the Arizona population, they make up about eight percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.

Keywords: undocumented immigrants, crime, recidivism, illegal aliens, documented immigrants, legal aliens
JEL Classification: J68, K42
Suggested Citation

More coming...
 
And another evaluation, this time quoting federal data:


Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16 | Center for Immigration Studies

But the federal government does track the citizenship of those it convicts. New data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that of those convicted of federal crimes between 2011 and 2016, 44.2 percent were not U.S. citizens — 21.4 percent, if immigration crimes are excluded. In comparison, non-citizens are 8.4 percent of the adult population. Of this 8.4 percent, about 4 percent are illegal immigrants and about 4 percent are legal immigrants.

Among the findings of the new data:

Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:

42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions;
31.5 percent of drug convictions;
22.9 percent of money laundering convictions;
13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt);
17.8 percent of economic crimes (e.g. larceny, embezzlement, and fraud);
13 percent of other convictions (e.g. bribery, civil rights, environmental, and prison offenses); and
12.8 percent of auto thefts.
Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions roughly equal to their share of the adult population include:
9.6 percent of assaults;
8.9 percent of homicides; and
7.5 percent of firearm crimes.

Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions lower than their share of the adult population include:
4.1 percent of sex crimes;
3.3 percent of robberies;
4.5 percent of arsons; and
0 percent of burglaries.

Data. These tables showing convictions were compiled by the Government Accountability Office at the request of the Senate Judicatory Committee based on data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission "Interactive Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics". Convictions are in the federal courts for felonies and class A misdemeanors. Death penalty cases and petty offenses are not included. The non-citizen share of the overall adult population comes from the public-use data file of the 2011-2016 American Community Survey collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.
 
SCAAP Data Suggest Illegal Aliens Commit Crime at a Much Higher Rate Than Citizens and Lawful Immigrants

FAIR found that in all SCAAP-reporting states along the Southern Border, and in SCAAP-reporting interior states that are preferred destinations for unlawful migrants, illegal aliens are incarcerated at a much higher rate than citizens and lawfully-present aliens.[7]

SCAAP data indicate that illegal aliens are typically at least three times as likely to be incarcerated than citizens and lawfully-present aliens.

Since the SCAAP program only includes those illegal aliens who have, at some point, been convicted of a crime, the only reasonable conclusion is that illegal aliens must commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens or lawfully-present aliens in order to be incarcerated at such high rates.

These findings stand in stark contrast to the narrative pushed by the open-borders lobby that illegal aliens are less likely to commit crimes compared to citizens or lawfully-present aliens.


If the best they can do after all that sorting is "suggest" you start looking more seriously at the holes in their methodology. Using SCAAP data to make their point is slipshod at best. Then crossing it with other data from other sources not intended for anything like the same purposes as SCAAP data is less than slipshod. It reduces the data to statistically unmanageable. Add to that, the "years" axis does not represent numbers of incarcerated with a beginning point and an end point for that year but the year the data was analyzed. In other words they took what they could get from Column A from one data set and crossed it with what they wanted to use from column B of a completely different data set. Both the numerator and the denominator are questionable and crossing them to gain a number is simply bad statistical analysis.

I would suggest that the only study you presented in all of that mishmash that has any merit is the Center for Immigration Studies material for Federal Crimes. At least they are using one set of data points with the data points specific to an actual year of data, not a year of analysis. Even that assumes that non-citizen crime is primarily committed by illegal non-citizens. That is probably at least a fair assumption though there is nothing provided as a means to rate it to the data.

I have to look more carefully at the Arizona material in order to judge its merits though I am not much impressed with the Author of the Abstract taking Arizona data and trying to make his case by spreading it over the entire country. That much which I can see just from the abstract is not encouraging as to relevance!
 
...

If the best they can do after all that sorting is "suggest" you start looking more seriously at the holes in their methodology. Using SCAAP data to make their point is slipshod at best. Then crossing it with other data from other sources not intended for anything like the same purposes as SCAAP data is less than slipshod. It reduces the data to statistically unmanageable. Add to that, the "years" axis does not represent numbers of incarcerated with a beginning point and an end point for that year but the year the data was analyzed. In other words they took what they could get from Column A from one data set and crossed it with what they wanted to use from column B of a completely different data set. Both the numerator and the denominator are questionable and crossing them to gain a number is simply bad statistical analysis.

The only element of "slipshod" I see is from posters who attempt to persuade others with a cascade of scornful adjectives and random disparagements, without producing even a thimble of actual support for their characterizations. I suppose the reader, knee deep in your denunciations about "holes" and "slipshod", isn't supposed to ask the obvious: why should we believe pretentious bad mouthing adjectives without a shred of evidence, example, or even an unambiguous explanation of precisely your gripes? ('Me hate SCAAP data' is not a persuasive point.)

So if you wish to be taken seriously, I suggest you use quotations and citations rather than channeling the late Prof. Erwin Corey. You might even read the actual paper.

I would suggest that the only study you presented in all of that mishmash that has any merit is the Center for Immigration Studies material for Federal Crimes. At least they are using one set of data points with the data points specific to an actual year of data, not a year of analysis. Even that assumes that non-citizen crime is primarily committed by illegal non-citizens. That is probably at least a fair assumption though there is nothing provided as a means to rate it to the data.
I suggest you read the paper and quote specifics demonstrating your assertions before making criticisms that require the reader to speculate on what particular data treatment you are referring to.

I have to look more carefully at the Arizona material in order to judge its merits though I am not much impressed with the Author of the Abstract taking Arizona data and trying to make his case by spreading it over the entire country. That much which I can see just from the abstract is not encouraging as to relevance!

What you "can see" is mostly known only to you and God. But what I can see is that you are unaware of the literature, and are unaware of history and challenges of such studies.

First, most studies use WORSE sources for data. The most common use is that of the Census Bureau which gathers information based on those asked volunteering their information, and doing so honestly. The census taker asks if a person is a citizen or here legally or not. IF an illegal answers that honestly (highly problematical that anyone would want to answer that who was unlawful) they then ask if he has been convicted of a crime while in the US. Again, highly problematical that a criminal would answer honestly.

Second, many studies don't separate illegals from legal immigrants, thus hiding the subset of illegals under the much better lawful conduct of legal immigrants.

SCAAP data isn't perfect, BUT it is not based on an illegal criminal telling a surveyor whatever story he/she chooses. Its based on real convictions and vetted status by the jurisdictions studied.

In other words, its a heck of a lot more reliable than the pro-illegal studies that preceded it.
 
Back
Top Bottom