immigrants commit less crime than US-born citizens

Post Reply New Topic

http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens

Wow. When will this anti-immigrant mythology die already?

Mythology? Please elaborate

Here's your mythology: "We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. There could be an MS-13 member I know about. If they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." -- President Donald J. Trump, May 16, 2018.

Welcome back!

"I'm not anti-immigrant. I welcome Swedish blondes with open arms."

- Donald Trump

Laughable.

So, we shouldn't legalize them, because then they're are more likely to become criminals.

I posted a source. Do you have one?

You can't say that my source has a "liberal bias" because the Cato Institute came to the same conclusion. The Cato Institute leans right most of the time.

A big problem many people seem to have with "open borders" is the concern for funding immigrants who, like everyone else have their basic needs such as housing, food, clothing, etc.

I see no reason whatsoever that a government sanctioned sponsorship program couldn't be allowable. Here is what I mean and I'm being serious here:

Many U.S. Citizens are pro-"open borders". Why couldn't people who are pro-"open borders" offer to sponsor an immigrant that would otherwise take years if ever to gain legal access to the U.S.? Legally agree to take full responsibility for an immigrant or immigrant family including financially. Take an immigrant into their home to live with them. Pay for the immigrant's needs out of their own pocket with no assistance from the government. The U.S. Citizen sponsor could claim the person/family as a dependent on their taxes to get some break. Perhaps the program would be designed where the U.S. Citizen would legally agree to this for a period of five years? If the immigrant was not able to find work and support themselves then maybe extend the period of time the U.S. Citizen personally provides for the immigrant in all aspects for another five years. If after that the immigrant can't find work then they could receive government assistance? If this concept would be considered too unrealistically burdensome for a "one on one" financial sponsorship. Why couldn't a fund be set up where anyone who wanted to contribute their own earned "after tax" dollars to the fund to help the host families who would house the immigrants? If the fund was large enough and self-sustaining, privately funded affordable housing could be built perhaps.

With such a program, the "tax payer" would have no reason to gripe in my opinion since I would think most people would assimilate and be able to support themselves within five years or less.

If some sort of program like the above were implemented, then I see everyone being happy or "getting what they want". The "taxpayer" who opposes immigration, the pro-immigration U.S. Citizen and the immigrant! I see that as a win-win-win.

I feel the same for college admission in the U.S. many decry so called "white privilege" in relation to having admission preference in certain colleges from my understanding. Why couldn't there be a program where if a white admission candidate is accepted into any university and that candidate believes they are contributing to a "white privilege" problem relating to college admission, that candidate personally gives up his/her position at the school so a person deemed "disadvantaged" can take their place for four years. Then, that white student could perhaps be guaranteed a spot four years later back at the school. I see that as another "win-win".

To me, everybody ultimately gets what they want in both of those scenarios. No?

Last edited by Magna on 11 Jul 2018, 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Your source states: "Immigrants commit crimes and are incarcerated at a much lower rate than U.S. citizens".

So, logically, we are better of NOT making them US citizens.

Or, you could lower your crime rates and boost your economy (if those people aren't criminals it means they are going to be buying goods and services like good citizens) by letting in more and more immigrants. Which is smarter?

And taking US citizenship away from the people who have it.

Under exactly what conditions can U.S. citizenship be revoked?

Quick google search, I found this -

https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML ... pter2.html

The most infamous case, or at least that I know of due to how it was handled, was Charlie Chaplin.

I'm all for this actually - anyone who pledges allegiance to the Confederate flag or holds to Nazism should be kicked out.

Sure, not all of them become terrorists - but, the odds there aren't in their favor.

(I'm being partly sarcastic above, rather than serious)

The below article includes a government report that shows right-wingers commit the most domestic terrorist attacks:

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/31/the ... to-us-all/

I value statistics over subjectives.

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally... This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution. Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation.Charlie Chaplin was never an American citizen. His fourth wife did, however, renounce her own American citizenship to remain with him in England. It was J. Edgar Hoover (noted FBI leader and commie-hater) who ruined Chaplin's reputation in America with ceaseless attacks on Chaplin's political ideology and moral sensibilities.