Non-Americans commit over five times more serious crimes per capita than Americans.

[Spectral]

You seem all upset. Truth must have hit home. Fact remains, the US was founded due to annihilating and abusing the Native American people in order to form what is the current country.

Pointing out that you're completely full of shit on the matter isn't being "upset", it's being direct. The idea that someone's long ago ancestors did something unpleasant, so the modern folk have no right to set borders or optimal policy verges on moral nihilism. Applying this principle consistently is essentially advocacy of anarchy.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless these numbers are adjusted for income they're meaningless.

Poor people commit way more crimes than other people. Immigrants are often extremely poor. Is it surprising that they commit crimes?

This is not "meaningless"; it implies that accepting poor immigrants might not be a great idea.

[Deleted]

But guns... /thread

[Gorgodeus]

Pointing out that you're completely full of shit on the matter isn't being "upset", it's being direct. The idea that someone's long ago ancestors did something unpleasant, so the modern folk have no right to set borders or optimal policy verges on moral nihilism. Applying this principle consistently is essentially advocacy of anarchy.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy. Everything I stated is the truth, and you have yet to be able to come up with anything to invalidate my statements, and only resort to stupid comments such as "you're completely full of shit". lmao

- - - Updated - - -

This is not "meaningless"; it implies that accepting poor immigrants might not be a great idea.

Or that the data is skewed. Of course, you are intentionally blind to that fact.

[Nachturnal]

You seem all upset. Truth must have hit home. Fact remains, the US was founded due to annihilating and abusing the Native American people in order to form what is the current country.

But you're being blatantly dishonest. You're comparing two very different time periods. The immigrants of today are not the same as immigrants 200+ years ago. Yes we came, we saw, we conquered, but that was the deplorable nature of humans for ages. Conquering land and expanding for the sake of the empire. Now it's entering an established country's border without permission. It's two very different concepts from very different time periods.

You're basically stating that what illegal immigrants today are no different than the people who founded our nation so it's a free pass, and it's just blatantly wrong. The morals of today are completely different than that time period.

[Aori]

I thought black people were responsible for all our crimes -.- Everything I know has been a lie!

[Gorgodeus]

This is presentism, applying the morals of today to a time in the past where they didn't apply. The world was pretty nasty then, and it's just a fact that the strong people abused the weak. At this point those actions have to be water under the bridge.

I'm Irish - should I still be mad at the English for the potato famine? Nah man, it's over.

Oh, you mean like what is happening now? Big uproar over a people that they don't want around. Sounds a lot like what happened with the Native Americans. Of course they were savages, and committed the most crimes too huh?

[Spectral]

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy. Everything I stated is the truth, and you have yet to be able to come up with anything to invalidate my statements, and only resort to stupid comments such as "you're completely full of shit". lmao

Nonsense. I refuted your illegal immigration claim and you didn't reply meaningfully:

The concept of an "illegal immigrant" in a context where there were no immigration laws is fucking stupid. Further, the United States wasn't founded by the initial immigrants, but by a group who had colonized the area generations earlier.

I addressed the "hypocrisy" point here:

The Germans would be real hypocrites if they ever got upset about a neighbor annexing their country - after all, their ancestors did it, so why would it bother them?

Or that the data is skewed. Of course, you are intentionally blind to that fact.

This seems like you're just going to buzzwords that you don't really understand. There's nothing "skewed" about noticing that poor immigrants behave worse than the native population. One can justify it and say they should be allowed in anyway, but if you're going to claim that the data's "skewed", you're going to have to do some actual statistical work.

[Xar226]

1.) Acquiring power by any means necessary (i.e. massive illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, felons voting, etc)

"The left" recognizes that illegal immigration is more complicated than "ROAR SEND THEM ALL BACK." So do most of the leadership of the Republican Party, for that matter. They're simply held hostage by right-wing extremists.

Power by any means necessary... let's see here. The Florida Supreme Court just ordered that the congressional map for their state be redrawn because the previous Republican administrations unconstitutionally drew the boundaries to favor their party. That seems kind of bad, don't you think? And it's not even close to the only accusation of gerrymandering, just the most recent. How about all of these "voter fraud" laws to stop the estimated 31 out of 1 billion ballots that were fraudulent? The independent Government Accountability Office--quoted in your own piece, so it's clear you support them--found that the requirements curtails voter turnout and disproportionately curtails the voting of the young and of blacks, and could find no evidence of an effect on voter fraud. Pure coincidence, I'm sure, that young people and black people are pretty reliable Democratic voting demographics.

2.) Feel good policies, doesn't matter if they work or not as long as they feel good in the end. (minimum wage, public schools, welfare, political judicial appointments, using FBI, IRS to punish enemies)

Frankly, the first three things are necessary. I know I won't convince you of it, so I won't bother. Let's look at the rest.

All judicial appointments are political. If you don't believe that, you're a fool. Do you think it was just coincidence that Mr. Roberts, at age 40 with exactly two years of experience being a judge, was nominated to be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court? Or do you think it's more likely that President Bush wanted who he believed to be a reliable conservative in a position where he could very probably serve for 30 years? Is "I want the guy who believes as I believe to influence the Court for the next 30 years" not political? If not, I have absolutely no idea what the hell your definition of political is.

Punishing political rivals... do we forgot the 2007 firings of federal prosecutors who were looking into illegal conduct of Republicans? Do you remember what happened when the Democrats wanted to investigate that? Oh yeah -- turns out the emails were lost because they were using a private email server for government business. That doesn't sound familiar at all, right? Perhaps we have forgotten about an IRS investigation of a church in California, after their pastor made a comment that Jesus wouldn't support preemptive war? Or the 2004 investigation of the NAACP after they criticized Bush for not speaking to their chapter and said he wasn't fit to be president?

Maybe that Bush fella was a bad apple. Let's see if we can possibly find any other Republicans who did the same. How about the 1971 recording of President Nixon ordering that political rivals be audited? Too easy? Calvin Coolidge? Do I need to go on?

3.) Shaming anyone who doesn't kowtow the line (calling people racist, bigots, homophobes, etc)

Socialist, communist, RINOs, persecutors, would be the Republican calling cards of recent history.

4.) Killing their own children and calling it health care

True, the left does care about abortion. Then again if you want a parallel, the Republicans are perfectly happy to kill children and call it good government, they just prefer to wait until they're born before they stop giving a crap about them. I don't see this as any particular mercy, but at least they assuage their consciences.

5.) Telling other people whats best for them.

Oh give me a break. Hell, right this very second TV is inundated with Ron Paul advertisements telling me the world is about to collapse and if I just give him $50 he'll tell me how to come out the other side richer. Every single political candidate is trying to convince me that they know best. That you even think this is a criticism at all shows how very much you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

6.) Punishing others for their success and blaming them for other peoples failures (you didn't build that and companies don't create jobs, etc.)

If you choose to see taxes as punishment then I guess you're right that we want to "punish" people for success. If you can't see the point of "you didn't build that," what, four years later, then I really can't help you because you clearly don't want to be helped.

I'm not defending any politician who does any of this crap. There are plenty of examples of Democrats who have done the same things; in fact, "let's find Republicans doing the same things democrats" was the entire basis of the post. Vote for who you want, I really don't care. There's plenty of room to disagree sensibly on a lot of issues. I just can't stand this "MY blind allegiance to my party is better than YOUR blind allegiance to your party!" bullcrap. Both parties suck. Both parties will do anything to get into and keep power. Lists like this only go to prove how incredibly blind the person making them is to the smell of their own side's shit. Any post that begins with "the left," "liberals" (or the even better "libtards"), or their conservative equivalents should be immediately dismissed as the nonsense they invariably are.

[Gorgodeus]

This seems like you're just going to buzzwords that you don't really understand. There's nothing "skewed" about noticing that poor immigrants behave worse than the native population. One can justify it and say they should be allowed in anyway, but if you're going to claim that the data's "skewed", you're going to have to do some actual statistical work.

Here, I am going to help you out since you don't seem to be very intelligent. Take a wild guess as to what authority is tasked with handling the vast majority of criminal cases involving illegal immigrants. It is not local or state gov'ts. It is the federal gov't. Hence why the data is skewed very badly.

[Spectral]

Here, I am going to help you out since you don't seem to be very intelligent. Take a wild guess as to what authority is tasked with handling the vast majority of criminal cases involving illegal immigrants. It is not local or state gov'ts. It is the federal gov't. Hence why the data is skewed very badly.

Lotta Dunning-Kruger going on here and not much in the way of data.

[Gorgodeus]

Lotta Dunning-Kruger going on here and not much in the way of data.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Incapable of a proper rebuttal. When local authorities apprehend a suspect that is an illegal immigrant, the typical course of action is to call INS. By doing this, the burden and expense of handling the case is shifted to the federal gov't. It also gets the offender into a federal prison and away from the local community. This is why it is being done this way, and why the data will naturally be skewed.

[slime]

Boy I don't see how anyone can argue against just putting a bullet in the head of each of these criminals. I don't think a single one of them even deserves the justice system. And when the fuck did San Francisco become a place to harbor these illegal immigrant murderers?

[Venant]

But those 3% are bad, so we should just get rid all of them in order to prevent that 3% from doing bad things.
/sarcasm
/badlogic

If Mexico was a Muslim country, we would probably have bombed it back to the stone age, and we would be shooting anyone who approaches the border.

[Zoldor]

Those who go looking for things they want to be real find them every time. Best part is you are using federal crimes in these cases. Interesting fact, most people don't commit federal crimes. Guess who always is committing a federal crime? Illegal Immigrants and their cases are treated as such. Making Immigration the second highest percentage of Federal Crimes under drugs. This article is pretending that violent crime is all non-citizen because its federal crime or using federal crime statistics and then linking things that would be held in State court; like most violent crime. Citizen's still commit the most violent crime, the most fraud, drug crime, and firearms violations.

Here is a fun fact when people talk about federal court. To get to federal court you have basically two roads: Federal Question and Diversity.

So lets start with Federal Question, this is a case arising in a violation of federal law (constitutional rights etc). These are commonly Patent, Anti-Trust, Civil Rights, Discrimination issues, Trafficking, Child Porn, organized crime etc. Rarely are violent crimes tried at the federal level, they are normally state level crimes and handled in state courts. Congress needs to have legislated the law being broken for it to reach federal court.

The next is diversity jurisdiction. This is pretty simple the crime arises and involves multiple state actors in some fashion and has a dollar value of over $75k. Also needs to be complete. This really doesn't apply to the current discussion as much but I wanted to point it out.

Anyways why bother to post that? The post starts with prison population numbers and never specifics the crime as being Federal or State. Then when the percentages start about a paragraph down they use the 27% of FEDERAL prisons. This would mean federal crimes. As I noted earlier Immigration is a federal crime and is the number 2 behind drugs of offenders in federal prison in fact 31%. So that is odd right? But makes sense if immigration offense is number 2 then 30% of federal prisoners are non-citizen illegal immigrants. But your article doesn't want to point that out instead they go on to list tons and tons of violent crime...guess what that violent crime is more than likely all State Offenses handled by the state. So the Statistics listed don't match the images the article wants to leave you with. This is known as lying with statistics or using statistics to prove a point they don't relate too (confirmation bias).

My information comes from:
http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/fi...inal_Cases.pdf
Being a Lawyer and using the books I own...like the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure Sections on Subject Matter Jurisdiction. But you can google it pretty easily and get a reputable source since its just printed in books everywhere.
18 U.S. Code § 3231
28 U.S.C. § 1331
28 U.S.C. § 1332

But by all means your site seems credible and not bias or trying to prove a point and pray on the ignorance of its audience.

[Paranoid Android]

Illegal immigrants actually commit less crime than American citizens. Make up less prison population and crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nts-and-crime/

[Darsithis]

Linking to a website with articles saying that committing genocide is a good thing is definitely not a good thing to post here.

Closing.