"Illegal Immigrants and Crime – Assessing the Evidence"

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Cato scholars have since published numerous Immigration Research and Policy Briefs to shed light on this topic. Michelangelo Landgrave, a doctoral student in political science at the University of California, Riverside, and I released a paper today that estimates that illegal immigrant incarceration rates are about half those of native-born Americans in 2017. In the same year, legal immigrant incarceration rates are then again half those of illegal immigrants. Those results are similar to what Landgrave and I published for the years 2014 and 2016. We estimated illegal immigrant incarceration rates by using the same residual method that demographers use to estimate the number of illegal immigrants in the United States, only we also applied that method to the prison population. We used the same method to also find that the incarceration rate for young illegal immigrants brought here as children and theoretically eligible for deferred action is slightly below those of native-born Americans.

The second strand of research from Cato looks at criminal conviction rates by immigration status in the state of Texas. Unlike every other state, Texas keeps track of the immigration statuses of convicted criminals and the crimes that they committed. Texas is a wonderful state to study because it borders Mexico, has a large illegal immigrant population, is a politically conservative state governed by Republicans, had no jurisdictions that limited its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in 2015, and it has a law and order reputation for strictly enforcing criminal laws. If anything, Texas is more serious about enforcing laws against illegal immigrant criminals than other states. But even here, illegal immigrant conviction rates are about half those of native-born Americans – without any controls for age, education, ethnicity, or any other characteristic. The illegal immigrant conviction rates for homicide, larceny, and sex crimes are also below those of native-born Americans. The criminal conviction rates for legal immigrants are the lowest of all.

https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-crime-assessing-evidence

TurdBuffer said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

LowIQCirrhosisDawg said:

Once again, just like with sanctuary laws, a US district court slapped down trump on the census question finding it unconstitutional. Unlike with sanctuary laws, however, trump plans on appealing so there will be more to come. For the time being, however, there will not be a citizenship question in the census.

The Trial Court, in other words. BFD.

With the 9th Circuit C of Apps being the most frequently reversed of all U.S. circuit courts, it's legal malpractice to rely on any decision from a California trial court withstanding the scrutiny of actual judges whom understand the law.

California courts are the laughing stock of modern jurisprudence.

Herein fail not at your peril.

California trial court? Jfc, once again, you are an imbecile. The “US” in US district court should have been your first clue that this is not a California court. This was a federal court. I look forward to hearing your keen legal insights turd. Your innacuracy and general buffoonery is always amusing.

Thanks for enlightening us to the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is, and I'll quote you directly, "not a California Court."

Not sure how you got there, but not the least bit surprised.

Stay in T-ball, tadpole. You ain't ready for coach-pitch yet.

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

LowIQCirrhosisDawg said:

Once again, just like with sanctuary laws, a US district court slapped down trump on the census question finding it unconstitutional. Unlike with sanctuary laws, however, trump plans on appealing so there will be more to come. For the time being, however, there will not be a citizenship question in the census.

The Trial Court, in other words. BFD.

With the 9th Circuit C of Apps being the most frequently reversed of all U.S. circuit courts, it's legal malpractice to rely on any decision from a California trial court withstanding the scrutiny of actual judges whom understand the law.

California courts are the laughing stock of modern jurisprudence.

Herein fail not at your peril.

California trial court? Jfc, once again, you are an imbecile. The “US” in US district court should have been your first clue that this is not a California court. This was a federal court. I look forward to hearing your keen legal insights turd. Your innacuracy and general buffoonery is always amusing.

Thanks for enlightening us to the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is, and I'll quote you directly, "not a California Court."

Not sure how you got there, but not the least bit surprised.

Stay in T-ball, tadpole. You ain't ready for coach-pitch yet.

So you’re saying the US federal district court jurisdiction covers Northern California? Brilliant observation. A Q for you TurdbufferFS— how did the court get there and who put them in place? Did you also know that in addition to being the most overturned in absolute numbers, the ninth circuit is also the most affirmed? How can that be TurdbufferFS? This is fun!

USMChawk said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

LowIQCirrhosisDawg said:

Once again, just like with sanctuary laws, a US district court slapped down trump on the census question finding it unconstitutional. Unlike with sanctuary laws, however, trump plans on appealing so there will be more to come. For the time being, however, there will not be a citizenship question in the census.

The Trial Court, in other words. BFD.

With the 9th Circuit C of Apps being the most frequently reversed of all U.S. circuit courts, it's legal malpractice to rely on any decision from a California trial court withstanding the scrutiny of actual judges whom understand the law.

California courts are the laughing stock of modern jurisprudence.

Herein fail not at your peril.

California trial court? Jfc, once again, you are an imbecile. The “US” in US district court should have been your first clue that this is not a California court. This was a federal court. I look forward to hearing your keen legal insights turd. Your innacuracy and general buffoonery is always amusing.

Thanks for enlightening us to the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is, and I'll quote you directly, "not a California Court."

Not sure how you got there, but not the least bit surprised.

Stay in T-ball, tadpole. You ain't ready for coach-pitch yet.

So you’re saying the US federal district court jurisdiction covers Northern California? Brilliant observation. A Q for you TurdbufferFS— how did the court get there and who put them in place? Did you also know that in addition to being the most overturned in absolute numbers, the ninth circuit is also the most affirmed? How can that be TurdbufferFS? This is fun!

Link?

I suspect you’re conflating volume of confirmed cases with percentage of confirmed cases. If the 9th circuit rules on 100,000 cases/year, but only has a 20% confirmation rate, then they have 20,000 confirmed cases a year. If the 5th circuit rules on 30,000 cases/year, but has a 50% confirmed rate, then they would have 15,000 confirmed cases a year. You’re saying that 20,000 > 15,000, and proves the effectiveness of the 9th circuit. I’m saying 20% < 50% and proves the ineffectiveness of the 9th circuit. I’ll take quality over quantity.

Note, I made up all of the above numbers except the 20% confirmation rate (or an 80% overturn rate); that’s abysmal.

Sledog said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

USMChawk said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

TurdBuffer said:

LowIQCirrhosisDawg said:

Once again, just like with sanctuary laws, a US district court slapped down trump on the census question finding it unconstitutional. Unlike with sanctuary laws, however, trump plans on appealing so there will be more to come. For the time being, however, there will not be a citizenship question in the census.

The Trial Court, in other words. BFD.

With the 9th Circuit C of Apps being the most frequently reversed of all U.S. circuit courts, it's legal malpractice to rely on any decision from a California trial court withstanding the scrutiny of actual judges whom understand the law.

California courts are the laughing stock of modern jurisprudence.

Herein fail not at your peril.

California trial court? Jfc, once again, you are an imbecile. The “US” in US district court should have been your first clue that this is not a California court. This was a federal court. I look forward to hearing your keen legal insights turd. Your innacuracy and general buffoonery is always amusing.

Thanks for enlightening us to the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is, and I'll quote you directly, "not a California Court."

Not sure how you got there, but not the least bit surprised.

Stay in T-ball, tadpole. You ain't ready for coach-pitch yet.

So you’re saying the US federal district court jurisdiction covers Northern California? Brilliant observation. A Q for you TurdbufferFS— how did the court get there and who put them in place? Did you also know that in addition to being the most overturned in absolute numbers, the ninth circuit is also the most affirmed? How can that be TurdbufferFS? This is fun!

Link?

I suspect you’re conflating volume of confirmed cases with percentage of confirmed cases. If the 9th circuit rules on 100,000 cases/year, but only has a 20% confirmation rate, then they have 20,000 confirmed cases a year. If the 5th circuit rules on 30,000 cases/year, but has a 50% confirmed rate, then they would have 15,000 confirmed cases a year. You’re saying that 20,000 > 15,000, and proves the effectiveness of the 9th circuit. I’m saying 20% < 50% and proves the ineffectiveness of the 9th circuit. I’ll take quality over quantity.

Note, I made up all of the above numbers except the 20% confirmation rate (or an 80% overturn rate); that’s abysmal.

Typing it in on my phone. I know it’s not live but you can follow the trail.

Washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/21/does-the-ninth-circuit/overturn-80-percent-or-0-1-percent-of-it’s-cases

The ninth circuit processes by far the largest volume of appeals, given the size of its jurisdiction. Only a small fraction of appealed decisions are accepted by the Supreme Court for review. Even then, its reversal rate is neither the highest nor an outlier year to year.

That's why it's referred to as the 9th Circus by most Kalifornians.