Ann Coulter is just 20 ferrets in a trench coat pretending to be human. Change my mind.
I thought she was secretariat’s alter ego
Thank you for your well thought out response.
MEDIA ALERT: Time to roll out the fake studies on low immigrant crime!
The one-man factory producing these studies is Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute. (Take our country, just don’t raise taxes.) He fudges the data, slaps a false title on his report, and journalists copy his work like they’re Claudine Gay writing a thesis.
It is absolutely hilarious that the Cato institute is getting called out for ‘shitting out bad studies’ by fellow conservatives.
Setting aside that, this article portrays all of the studies are coming from one person. But that’s not the case.
Literally just pulling off the top results from google scholar:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
https://www.ojp.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3<457::AID-PAM4>3.0.CO;2-F
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022427818799125
These are authored by different people, and they all come to more or less the same conclusion, that immigrants have lower crime rates than the existing population.
I take issue with your article’s interpretation of the studies by Nowrasteh, but in the end I don’t care enough to go over that when there are plenty of other studies confirming the same result.
Do the “plenty of other studies” have the same flaw? Are they looking at illegal immigrant crime or just immigrant crime?
The PNAS study you cited has the same flaw, it’s using Texas data for illegal immigrant status.
The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice was a study about immigration and crime not illegal immigration
The criminal justice essay was about immigrant crime not illegal immigrant crime.
The Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime was not a study about illegal immigration and it used data from the 1980s.
Institutional Completeness and Crime Rates in Immigrant Neighborhoods was a study on immigration not illegal immigration.
Some people say PNAS is huge and has given them a lot of pleasure.
The PNAS study you cited has the same flaw, it’s using Texas data for illegal immigrant status.
How is that a flaw? Texas is very much involved in this issue.
… study about immigration and crime not illegal immigration
Prove to me that there any significant difference in crime rates between documented immigrants and undocumented immigrants (beyond the occasional misdemeanor of illegal entry that half the time isn’t even always a part of this).
How is that a flaw? Texas is very much involved in this issue.
Texas’ crime data only counts illegal aliens who have already been caught and fingerprinted by the Department of Homeland Security.
Prove to me that there any significant difference in crime rates between documented immigrants an
You couldn’t provide sources to back up your claim now you make new claims and instead of backing them up you ask that I do. The socio-economic difference in those two groups alone is going to show a difference. illegals commit murders at a 30% higher rate then the rest of the population. 4 of your 5 studies showed legal immigrants had lower crime rates than the rest of the population.
https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality
Texas’ crime data only counts illegal aliens who have already been caught and fingerprinted by the Department of Homeland Security.
So what?
You couldn’t provide sources to back up your claim now you make new claims and instead of backing them up you ask that I do.
No, you made an implicit claim that there is a difference in crime rates between immigrants and undocumented immigrants. Support it.
illegals commit murders at a 30% higher rate then the rest of the population. 4 of your 5 studies showed legal immigrants had lower crime rates than the rest of the population.
https://cis.org/Report/Misuse-Texas-Data-Understates-Illegal-Immigrant-Criminality
Crazy, it’s almost like adding prisoners to the count increases the rates. Go with something peer reviewed next time.
No, you made an implicit claim that there is a difference in crime rates between immigrants and undocumented immigrants. Support it.
You tried to pass of studies on immigrant crime rates as illegal immigrant crime studies and got caught.
Crazy, it’s almost like adding prisoners to the count increases the rates. Go with something peer reviewed next time.
Adding prisoners to the rate that were not added initially. They’re correcting the rate.
See the problem with the only source you could find on illegal immigration crime is that Texas does not count illegals in their rate unless they’ve all ready been identified as illegals. Your study is comparing identified illegals to unidentified illegals and legals.
You tried to pass of studies on immigrant crime rates as illegal immigrant crime studies and got caught.
Are you going to catch me breathing next? Like I already said, this point is irrelevant, as you have yet to prove a difference in rates between immigrants and undocumented immigrants.
Adding prisoners to the rate that were not added initially. They’re correcting the rate.
No, they’re adding prisoners to the rate only for one group. They’re fucking up the numbers.
You tried to pass off studies of legal immigrats as illegal immigrants, got caught and now demand that I prove that they are different because you know you can’t find any studies to support that claim.
No, they’re adding prisoners to the rate only for one group. They’re fucking up the numbers.
They are moving misidentified prisoners from one group to another. Illegals in prison for a crime in 2012 that were not identified as illegals but were later identified move from the legal group to the illegal group. Are you claiming legals were misidentified as illegals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies?wprov=sfla1 Literally the second paragraph talks about the unreliability of this organizations studies
In the article 11 studies are listed under the Controversial reports section the one I provided is not one of them.
In this visual aid you are Charlie Brown and the CIS is Lucy you trusted their methods and acumen after they yanked the football 11 times.
It’s right to be suspicious but with out any proof that this study if flawed you falling into an ad hominem logical fallacy.
How much longer are these shitty sources gonna be allowed around here?
“Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”
Nowhere in the article is your quote present.
Correct. It is a quote from the site owner, Ann Coulter.
Stop, you’re confusing them. If Ctrl+f can’t find it, it doesn’t exist.
Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion about the article.
This comment chain wasn’t intended to discuss the article. It is to discuss the pervasive shittyness of the sources around here. My other comment in this thread was for the article itself.
Can the same logic be applied to you. You’ve said shitty things so should everything you say be dismissed?
Please show me where I said we should be racially profiling people at airports, invading foreign countries, forcibly converting people to christianity, and killing civilians.
What does making a specific statement have to do with whether you’ve said shitty things?
The CIS analysis she cites does point out potential flaws in the data showing that illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens. However the CIS analysis is even more flawed and potentially misleading.
It criticizes the CATO institute analysis that it undercounts convictions of illegal immigrants that are later identified after conviction. And then it states takes the clear outlier that is the 2012-2014 data and states that (logically) because of time that these statistics are wildly undercounted.
From 2015 on though, the undercount is consistently between .4 and .6 per 100k. The data supports there is an undercount but doesn’t support that we “just haven’t counted them yet” despite the logic behind the idea. And despite this undercount, in 2016 the analysis that immigrants are convicted of less homicide is actually correct even.
Of course Ann is dishonest. She leads with an unfortunate tragedy to get an emotional response, takes an outlier in the data to make the outrageous claim that illegal immigrants commit 30% more homicides than citizens (leaving out the per 100k qualifier as well). It’s seems she isn’t interested in fixing the problem, she just wants people mad as hell about it. She also has inherit bias against the CATO study because it directly names her outrageous and unprovable claim that there exists “immigrant privilege” in the prison system that leads to child rape.
I don’t know why I waste my time doing research for people, hopefully it inspires people to form their own opinions. I do think that we have a refugee crisis at the border and in American cities right now. Crime committed by illegal immigrants is definitely a part of it. Cheap political mud isn’t a part of the complex solutions needed to address the crisis though.
I don’t know why I waste my time doing research for people
Because it makes the internet better.
Why would using or not using the per 100k change the 30% value?
Because words have meaning and omitting words to mislead shows bad faith on Ann’s part. While illegal immigrants having a 30% higher crime rate per 100k is bad, saying “illegal immigrants commit 30% more murders” is misleading. It implies that of the total number of murders, illegal immigrants commit 30% more than citizens.
Btw good breakdown. This is the type of comments and discussion I like.