ex-President Trump

MOAR RAPE AND MURDERS OK AS LONG AS ITS UNDER THE AVERAGE

Last time it was discussed, I think everyone agreed that illegal immigrants commit more crimes than the non-black population. So obviously, more crime than the median or legal immigrants.

It's also just kinda common sense. If you are wanted for rape in Mexico, the obvious move is to move to the US and start over. I have met a guy who told me he moved here to avoid criminal prosecution.

Most countries won't allow immigrants with records, and it can be hard to even visit. Do you think that's a foolish policy?

IMO it's foolish to be deceptive about these things. The other side is going to score points off obvious lies. Almost nobody actually believes totally unfiltered immigration has no cost.

The solution is some kind of reform where immigration is much easier, but people are filtered. Not just pretending it isn't an issue.

More is less apparently.

I'm unconcerned with what people agreed to. What I said is supported by evidence, not simply asserted or accepted by acclimation.

Actually, it is "OK" if it's all random, Because the immigrant population will be the victims of some of those crimes, both from immigrant criminals and American criminals. The chances of a non-immigrant being a victim goes down.

david, are you saying that it's ok if immigrants rape so long as they only rape other immigrants?

You're not dealing with the logic type, more the moron bigot.

Last time, it was based on stats iirc. If you treated undocumented immigrants as a race, they committed the second most crimes.

Can you link or repost your evidence to the contrary? I don’t see it.

Should other countries also stop trying to filter out criminal immigrants, since it presents no problem at all?

Another thing that occurs to me is UIs would be harder to catch when they commit crimes. Many are under false identities, they are in communities that are somewhat cut off from the rest of society and they can retreat to their home country under their real identity. Is this accounted for?

I understand neither party wants sensible reform. They want their cheap labor. But we don't have to go along with that.

So you are indeed saying you support a zero new birth policy, since allowing new citizens to be born would lead directly to even more murders and crime than undocumented immigrants would?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

If a country has a population of a million and 20,000 of them steal from the other 980,000 and then we add another 100,000 with 1,000 thieves, we get a population of 1,100,000 with 21,000 thieves. If those thieves victimize the population randomly all members of the population are now subject to a lower thievery rate than the country previously had.

Your question was a joke right? Because if it wasn't you know what has to happen.

Basically, if you're prioritizing the well-being of American citizens, as it relates to this, more illegal immigration is actually a good thing. Assuming the statistics are correct, Sklansky's right.

It drives the numbers down both per capita and in total (when it comes to Americans).

Thanks. I perused some of these links and they did contradict the previous numbers. One said Illegal immigrants commit less crime than legal.

That makes some common sense too, as an undocumented person might kinda be walking on egg shells.

Nonetheless, I still think it is pretty obvious that it is better to screen immigrants for criminal backgrounds or other issues than to not do it.

Off the cuff, you could fine employer hard enough that hiring undocumented is -ev. That would make things more manageable. Obviously, our piticians will never do that, but I guess they could say that they would.

Then some sort of easy guest worker pass and a path to citizenship, which people with clean backgrounds would be eager to do.

Say you have a population of 100 Americans and 50% of them steal. That would mean that the other 50% are victims of theft (oversimplifying). Now, if you add one hundred illegal immigrants to the population, and they steal at a rate of 60%, you just created a ratio of 110 thieves to 90 victims. If we're talking about American citizens (half of the population), the total number of victims just dropped from 50 to 45.

Correction: a ratio of 110 thieves and victims to 90 non-thieves and non-victims.

Your example doesn't work because you are assuming that 1 thief produces 1 victim, but then the incoming population having >50% thieves is impossible, and the resulting overall population having more thieves than victims is impossible.

We can fix your example by having the incoming population containing 60% thieves or potential thieves. In which case you just added 40 victims and 60 thieves to the pool, and the additional 20 thieves who had nothing to do before are going to victimise 20 of those who were already in the pool. But that only works if there were potential victims in the pool, which there can't be if the pool was already 50% thieves and 50% victims, so you'd have to tweak that number too.

Basically you can't both have one thief creating one victim and the conclusion you are trying to reach with any numbers, because the conclusion that if you add a group that is higher % thieves than the natives and yet the natives subsequently experience a lower victimisation rate is not possible with that assumption.

it was a joke indeed

but... your thesis is flawed

it works if we combine two general populations together

but that's not what we're actually doing

we're not lowering the risk of getting robbed from 2% to 1.9% because we don't care about the results of the non-criminal immigrants - the uplift and experience of the general population is immaterial to the introduction of more violent criminals who could attack ourselves

when you're experiencing a home invasion, nobody says "well thank god this means my neighbors house wasn't chosen instead"

That logic only works if the native criminals don't switch from victimising the natives to victimising the illegals, otherwise it's flawed.

Imagine you have 10 natives and 5 of them are criminals, who victimise the other 5. You introduce a group of 100 illegals and only 5 of those are criminals. All the criminals choose a non-criminal victim at random. You now have 10 total criminals choosing from 100 possible victims at random. A given native's probability of being a victim has gone from 100% to 10%.

But in any case, this is unclear: "we're not lowering the risk of getting robbed from 2% to 1.9% because we don't care about the results of the non-criminal immigrants" so I don't know exactly what point you're trying to make. Under my example you are very much lowering it.

there's no basis for believing that victims will be chosen at random

If you have 100 Americans and 50 of them steal, then the other 50 are getting stolen from. That would be half of the (American) population

If you add 100 illegal immigrants to the equation and 60 of them steal, you now have a total of 110 people getting stolen from. And the thing is, since the population is now half illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants account for half of the victims (55), which means only 45, er, 55, Americans are getting stolen from... I think you're right.

Gene Ho, who now runs George magazine (formally run by JFK Jr) and a personal friend of Trump (and official photographer) just stated publicly there are 600 Sealed indictments which will come out after the election. I wonder if any of these are against CBS, Facebook, etc., for interfering in elections.

Correct. Nobody is saying the toy example represents real life. But your reasoning within the constraints of the toy example was incorrect, since that assumption has always been present.

It's impossible to reach the conclusion you're trying to reach under the constraint that one thief or potential thief produces 1 new victim if the pool has potential victims.

You're getting a bit confused. 50 Americans were being stolen from before, 50 are getting stolen from after. There weren't 55 Americans to steal from, only 50. The potential pool of native victims is already exhausted by the native thieves when you have a 50-50 ratio, and you're introducing a new population with a >50% ratio, so you're not introducing any new potential victims. Your percentages add up to >100% and you're then applying them to people and creating people out of thin air.