Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Opinion Progressive Racism Reprints from others. Un documented.

The Myth of Low Immigrant Crime.

Views: 11

The Myth of Low Immigrant Crime. Ann Coulter gives us the rundown on the future members of the Democrat party.

With the Biden administration hauling in millions of “newcomers” (the latest euphemism for illegal aliens) from booming economies like Venezuela, Senegal and Haiti, we seem to be getting a Kate Steinle every day.

Among the recent atrocities committed by Our Greatest Strength is the savage murder of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley by Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan illegal alien released into our country by the Biden administration. The “newcomer” beat Riley so badly that he disfigured her skull.

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.

Thus, in its story on the murder of Riley, The New York Times cited “studies” showing “no causal connection” between immigrants and crime. Indeed, the Times said, studies “have concluded” that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

The article links to 1) Nowrasteh’s sham study and 2) a 2017 Times story that cites Nowrasteh’s sham study.

That same day, the Times’ Angelo Fichera ran a “fact check” on Donald Trump’s claim that “the United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime. It’s a new form of vicious violation to our country.” Fichera’s ruling: “This lacks evidence.”

 

His proof:

“One recently updated analysis by Alex Nowrasteh, the vice president for economic and social policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, found that the homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants in Texas in 2015 was slightly lower than the rate among U.S. citizens.”

(If they’re so law-abiding, why are they fleeing the crime in countries full of people just like them?)

The Nowrasteh “study,” and others that perform the exact same error-ridden analysis, is the heart and soul of the immigrants-commit-less-crime scam. If it’s wrong, liberals have nothing, and you can go back to believing your lying eyes.

Needless to say, his study is not merely off by a homicidal illegal or two. He — and others like him — aren’t even comparing illegal aliens to citizens. They’re comparing illegal aliens to a group that includes both illegal aliens and citizens.

As I pointed out in “Adios, America!” (and apparently will have to keep pointing out for the rest of my life): Texas’ crime data only counts illegal aliens who have already been caught and fingerprinted by the Department of Homeland Security.

That leaves out a lot of illegals. Is the DHS even fingerprinting migrants at the border anymore? If not, then by Nowrasteh’s calculations, illegals’ crime rate in Texas is zero.

How about we only count the murder convictions of citizens who’ve previously been fingerprinted by the Denver police? Why would we do that?

Obviously, a lot of the inmates originally classified as “other/unknown” will later turn out to be illegals. But all these Nowrasteh counts as “citizens.” He had his headline, so why bother updating the data?

According to the more accurate count of illegals in Texas prisons, they commit 30% more murders than U.S. citizens — not to be confused with a “slightly lower” rate than citizens.

Not only that, but the longer inmates are in prison, the more of them will be found to be illegals, whereas the reverse is not true. Consequently, the number of illegal alien murderers continues to grow, while the “other/unknown” — all of whom Nowrasteh calls “citizens” — continues to shrink.

Apart from Nowrasteh’s “study,” the main argument for the peacefulness of illegal aliens relies on “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” reasoning:

The national crime rate declined since 1980, even as illegals poured in. Therefore, illegals cause crime rates to drop.

Cities with lots of illegals have low crime rates. Therefore, illegals are law-abiding.

This is how primitives think. Heard of Rudy Giuliani? Ed Meese? COMPSTAT, California’s three strikes law, the boom in prison construction or the sentencing commission? The cause-and-effect argument about immigration and crime employs the logic of a witch doctor, which may be where this country is headed.

One September day, New York City was 65 degrees, the skies crystal clear, and 3,000 people were murdered. Therefore, cool, clear days cause mass murder.

The media seem to think the criminality of immigrants is a critically important fact, judging by how often they wheel out these nonsense studies. But they don’t have the necessary information. There are no such “studies.”

Why doesn’t the government tell us? The fact that it won’t — and that the media aren’t asking for concrete numbers — tells us more than a million phony studies.

 

Loading

107
Categories
Commentary Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Uncategorized WOKE

Who are the real Fascists? Socialism at it’s finest.

Views: 64

 

Historically-based policies of fascism included: socialized medicine, extremely high and complicated taxation (including “inflation tax”), centralization (anti-state rights), nationalization of education, massive welfare programs, mandatory labor union (German Labor Front), socialist economics, anti-gun rights, one-party rule, “social justice,” high government borrowing, censorship and suppression of the opposition, racism, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, anti-religion, price/wage/and rent controls, belligerent nationalism, anti-classical “liberalism.” And finally, they ruled by decree not legislative laws, disempowering local police in favor of a nationalized police force to oppose political opponents.

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., argued on talk radio that Democrats are the real fascists.

“If you look at what fascism is,” Brooks said, “it’s more government dictatorial control. That’s Democrats’ policies and positions hand in glove. It’s Democrats who are the ones to tend to be more fascist because fascism is the opposite of liberty and freedom, and the Democrats don’t trust us to make our own decisions. They believe the government should be doing it.”

 Fascists believe the opposition must be suppressed and that individual interests must give way for the perceived good of the nation and race.

Loading

236
Categories
Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Where Have All The Liberals Gone? Opening comments to the general public to ask a question, in sincerity: what changed the minds of society’s former First Amendment advocates?

Views: 19

Where Have All The Liberals Gone?

MATT TAIBBI

Opening comments to the general public to ask a question, in sincerity: what changed the minds of society’s former First Amendment advocates?

Wednesday a House Committee — Republican-led, but still — released a series of documents showing without a doubt that the FBI has been forwarding thousands of content moderation “requests” to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube on behalf of the SBU, Ukraine’s Security Agency.

The documents not only contain incontrovertible evidence that our own FBI pressures tech companies to censor material, but that the Bureau is outsourcing such work to a foreign government, in this case Ukraine. This passage below for instance reads “The SBU requested for your review and if appropriate deletion/suspension of these accounts.”

There can’t possibly be controversy at this point as to whether or not this censorship program is going on. Whether it’s the FBI forwarding the SBU asking for the removal of Aaron Maté, or the Global Engagement Center recommending action on the Canadian site GlobalResearch.Ca, or the White House demanding the takedown of figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the same types of behavior have now been captured over and over.

In light of this, I have to ask: where are the rest of the “card-carrying” liberals from the seventies, eighties, and nineties — people like me, who always reflexively opposed restrictions on speech?

Is your argument that private companies can do what they want? Then why did you think otherwise in 1985, when Tipper Gore’s Parents Music Resource Center suggested record companies “voluntarily” label as dirty songs like “Darling Nikki,” and call them McCarthyites when they compiled a list of the “Filthy Fifteen” albums? Does that not sound suspiciously like the “Disinformation Dozen”? Why were you on Frank Zappa’s side then, but with blacklisters now?

Do you now think it’s not really censorship if the FBI merely makes its opinion known about content, and doesn’t order takedowns? Did you think the same when the FBI sent a letter to Priority Records complaining about NWA’s “Fuck the Police”? Did you agree then with the ACLU, whose Southern California chairman responded to the FBI’s letter by saying, “It is completely inappropriate for any government agency to try to influence what artists do. It is completely against the American traditions of free speech”?

Is your belief that new forms of speech constitute “harm” and “offense” to such a degree that censorship is warranted? If so, why did you once support Andres Serrano and his work Piss Christ, which Catholics insisted was an intolerable offense, and call it censorship when opponents like Al D’Amato and Jesse Helms tried to pull funding for Serrano from the National Endowment of the Arts? Wasn’t the Hustler magazine spread suggesting Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse offensive? Didn’t you go to The People Versus Larry Flynt anyway?

If you’re okay with the FBI collaborating on censorship with the SBU now, why oppose the original PATRIOT Act, suggesting you didn’t even want the government looking at library records in search of Islamic terrorists? Why did you support the Dixie Chicks when they were blackballed for antiwar views after the Iraq invasion? Did you cheer them when you watched Shut Up and Sing?

 

Weren’t those national security issues, too? That wasn’t even that long ago. Is Vladimir Putin that much more of a menace than Al-Qaeda to justify the change in heart?

The change in thinking of traditional American liberals is the only part of this censorship picture that still doesn’t quite compute for me. I’d like to hear from anyone who has an explanation, a personal testimonial, anything. Comments are open to everyone here.

Loading

97
Verified by MonsterInsights