The one objection that I have to this post at Global Macro Monitor is that I don’t believe we have a strategic shortage of murderous psychopaths. We have plenty of our very own, native-born murderous psychopaths, thank you.
But it does highlight a grave misconception about violent crime. It’s not a commodity like potatoes. It doesn’t rise and fall like the supply of raspberries. The crime rate among illegal immigrants is irrelevant. Every single violent crime perpetrated by an illegal immigrant would not have taken place if that illegal immigrant were not in the United States. At least it wouldn’t have taken place here.
The Gospel admonishes us to forgive those who harm us. It does not advise us to coddle them or encourage them. Controlling our borders is a right. Denying individuals with gang tattoos, for example, entry into the United States is completely within our rights. We are not morally obligated to admit every career criminal in the world into the United States but to control their entry we need to control the border and enforce our laws. And some innocents will be injured in the process.
Points I snarkily made (I hope the grammar police aren’t lurking) to Dr. Taylor the other day. I doubt he was amused, as he was attempting to make relativist statistical and other lofty arguments about the issue instead of acknowledging what you point out, and that its just a political food fight.
Wonder how many hmm, black metal Finns with runic tattoos some think some be admitted? Or Slavs with Putin tatoos
My point was that it’s completely within our discretion whether we want to keep those Russians with Bratva tattoos out.
Uh, the article actually says we should control the borders. It does not imply that we should take gang members into the country. (Did you read this piece?) It criticizes Huckabee for his tweet and picture of gang members.
” The crime rate among illegal immigrants is irrelevant. ”
It is very relevant. Some people are making policy decisions based upon the economics of having more immigrants here. However, some people believe that most of the immigrants coming here are criminals. They are acting or voting based upon fears that are not true. People should know the true numbers. I think it was Unz that did a big review on this a few years ago and found that Hispanic immigrants were actually less likely to commit violent crimes. So, what people should be told is that, yes, if we admit more immigrants we will have more violent crimes, just like if we have more births and have more people that way. However, if we are going to admit more immigrants because we think there is a good reason to do that, then you should know that these immigrants coming from south of the border are less likely than people already in the US to be violent. (Too lazy to look up Unz numbers, and maybe he didn’t have them all correct anyway, but I think the point still holds. I am pretty sure that whatever the percentage actually is, it will be much less that what is being portrayed, i.e. they aren’t all MS13.)
You do realize that no one is saying that we should just admit murderous psychopaths. Certainly not this guy whose brother was killed by one. The guy suggests we get rid of the extremes on both sides, the open border types and the right wing racists, and your response is to say we don’t need more psychopaths? I really don’t get this.
Steve
In total numbers, Whites commit more felonies and murders than non-whites. How dumb do you have to be to see that Whites are the problem, not innocent brown children and families?
Explain how you avoid admitting murderous psychopaths without controlling the border.
If you do not will the means, you cannot will the end. The end being discussed is preventing murderous psychopaths from coming into the country. The only means available to effect the end is controlling the border. In other words if you don’t believe in controlling the border, you are necessarily indifferent to whether murderous psychopaths come into the country. That’s not politics or psychology. It’s just the way logic works.
There is absolutely nothing in your comment that demonstrates a relevance. Let me try again.
No one really knows how many people enter the country illegally right now. Half a million seems like a pretty good guess. Let’s say that in that half million there are 500 career criminals. Pretty low number. Very low percentage. Let’s also say that those 500 career criminals commit 1,000 homicides and 10,000 burglaries. That would be about 4% of the annual homicides and .5% of the annual burglaries. Both pretty small numbers, right? But it’s 1,000 more homicides and 10,000 more burglaries than would have been committed had those career criminals not been admitted. Seems to me you’re pretty darned heartless about people being murdered.
That’s why the rates don’t matter. It’s the number that matters and that they only happened because of the criminals.
I already did explain this. I will quote it.
“However, if we are going to admit more immigrants because we think there is a good reason to do that, then you should know that these immigrants coming from south of the border are less likely than people already in the US to be violent.”
So, let’s run with your theory that it is heartless and horrible to have these murderers cross our border. How much do you want to spend to stop them? Lets run with your theory as you first stated it that they are murderous psychopaths. If we have 500,000 murderous psychopaths entering the country every year illegally, then shouldn’t we spend 100s of billions of dollars to stop them? Or what if your latter numbers are the correct ones? Do we still spend that much? The numbers are still irrelevant? Or suppose I am remembering Unz correctly, and the number of homicides we get with 500,000 illegals is 25. Do we still spend 100s of billions? That number is still irrelevant?
Or suppose we talk about what likely really happens. We are being pushed to a policy based upon the fear that a huge percentage of illegals are killers, because they have a lot of MS 13 (murderous psychopaths). So we have to spend billions to stop this. In reality, the drug cartels, like MS 13 are still going to get through. They have the
money and the resources. They will just bribe border agents, just like has always happened at borders everywhere throughout history. So all of the real killers are still coming through and what we will have left are people really coming here to work, or for asylum. That is what we are spending our money on to stop. Shouldn’t we at least know the numbers? Why are you so insistent that we should remain ignorant? Since when did you become an advocate for absolute security and its attendant costs? You now support what we did in Iraq?
How about until we have limitless resources, we spend our money on doing stuff that will focus on the murderous psychopaths? Once we have unlimited resources I will join you in demanding that we spend 100s of billions each year on border security so that not even one person can cross so we have zero risk.
Steve
It appears that our host is a Deplorable.
That is either a deliberately warped version of what I said (a strawman argument) or an ignorant and illiterate version of what I said. Take your pick.
Let’s try yet another way. Are you saying that it doesn’t matter if we admit criminals to the United States as long as the percentage of criminals we admit is lower than the native rate of criminality? If that isn’t what you’re saying, what in the heck are you saying?
Hmm how much would it cost ask a immigrant to remove their shirt, note tattoos, listen to the chest, as part of health screening for untreated infectious disease? One part of immigration control is control what diseases are introduced and (in the old days) turn back those liable to be a public charge.
Of course, allowing some in with a untreated infectious disease with no medical followup planned is much cheaper, efficient and a wise use of government resources.
I am saying, again, that knowing the real risk matters. The true killers are going to get into the country anyway, the drug cartel people, MS 13, M 18, etc. So, we should know the risks we are going to incur if we let others in. We don’t have infinite resources so we should adjust our response accordingly. If the risk is very high, we should spend lots more money. If the risk is low, then we should spend less. If we don’t have infinite resources, then we should focus our spending on preventing the psychopaths from crossing.
Or, maybe I am wrong. Tell me why a wall will stop a group as well funded as MS-13. Help me to understand how separating children from families seeking asylum will stop drug cartel people from crossing. Also, you now seem to be implying that it is possible to stop all illegals from crossing at some relatively affordable cost. True?
Steve
Or let me put it another way. The only way to keep immigrants, legal or illegal, from ever killing an American is to not let any immigrants in. If you want no more Americans killed, that is what you need to do. Even someone from Norway could could get mad and kill someone. If you are going to admit immigrants, what criteria do you plan to use? Would you like to know the risk?
Steve
There are two ways to stabilize the border that I am aware of:
We can follow the instincts of the Right and escalate harsh measures, the logical endpoint being a reverse Berlin Wall where those attempting to enter are shot on sight.
We can do the humane thing and dismantle our drug war while twisting Mexico’s arm until it establishes a living wage and a national employment program. The same for other Latin American countries sufferring social instability. This is actually the most effective and efficient of the two choices. It literally requires that we do and spend less.
“Controlling” the border without opening up a new national killing field is an impossibility.
I’m realistic enough to realize that perfection is impossible but we should be making a good faith effort at controlling the border. I do not believe that a half million illegal entries per year suggests a good faith effort.
Ben:
That might help but I think you’re underestimating the Mexican gangs. Without drugs they’ll just turn to something else. The real problem is that Mexico is trying, desperately, to hold on to its racist social structure. It is a problem common to former Spanish colonies.
Workplace enforcement will reduce the pull pressures favoring immigration. That should reduce the number of attempts to something more manageable and not requiring a “killing field”. Again, a good faith effort rather than metaphysical certitude.
steve, in this sentence:
you are using the word “risk” in an unconventional, possibly idiosyncratic manner. When the number of homicides increases, the risk increases. That’s just how the words are used in risk management. And that’s actually my point.
Violent men come and go. It’s just a fact of life. The simplest and most effective way to deal with crime in supply is cease pushing the supply into criminal hands. The cartels get their power from money, and the money comes from Americans stuffing powder up their noses.
Yes, some of them may survive in one form or another but it won’t resemble what we see now. We can’t plan for every potential outcome and what they turn into is a problem for after that transition has been made.
It should go without saying, but criminalizing crossing the border puts border crossing into the hands of criminals. It creates the very problem our leaders claim they want to avoid.
I think it’s clear they don’t want to avoid it. They like the status quo. It gives them an issue.
Crossing the border without having presented yourself to a duly constituted federal official has been a misdemeanor for a very long time. The present problems of mass migration and chaos at the border are relatively recent, dating back no farther than 40 years. Something else is going on.
Or human trafficking. Or running guns. Or illegal gambling. Or the protection or other rackets. Ending prohibition didn’t end organized crime. It just moved into other areas.
I don’t know enough about Mexican history or politics but I suspect we’re solving their indio problem for them.
That might help but I think you’re underestimating the Mexican gangs. Without drugs they’ll just turn to something else.
They already have: sex trafficking.
Steve ignores the fact that this is a syndicate of organized criminals, not randomly occurring violent individuals. Even if they represent a small fraction of the migrants, they are also importing some of their own victims and exploiting others by profiting from the transport of people.
Why do criminals traffic across the border? Because it’s illegal. That’s what criminals do.
Create a humane guest worker system.
I would agree with that Ben, but the current migrants are mostly women with children. I think along with expanding the guest worker program we’d have to address the multitudes seeking asylum. There’s clearly a bottleneck and the people crossing illegally take enormous risks and pay large sums of money to the coyotes because they get turned away at the legal ports of entry. Expediting that process would help take away the incentives for desperate migrants to pay off the criminals.