Native-born Texans commit more crimes than undocumented immigrants


Liberals aren’t the only ones that make this issue black and white.

Some people make out all the people that are here illegally to be murdering gang members.

We know enough about statistics to know that narrative is completely false.

Yet, it’s out there and repeated often.


If the illegal immigrants were not here in the first place then the so called “anchor babys” wouldn’t exist, now would they. There would be as percentage of “Native born” individuals that wouldn’t be counted in the arrest numbers…

What that percentage is, we obviously don’t know. But in a state like Texas, with a very significant number people of Mexican descent, the number could be high. I am merely trying to point out that taking these numbers at face value is no doubt what the authors of the study want everyone to do. People forget that many times, “studies” are not a substitute for science or fact or even truth.

Again, this issue is more than just a matter of illegal vs legal.


And who doesn’t love a good sematics troll?



Agreed, but where does that come into play here? Dont try to deflect. I’m not trying to paint all illegals out as gang memembers. I know that the majorty are just regular people looking to improver there life situation. But I am trying paint a small bit of common sense reality here.

Anyone who has any knowledge of “studies” knows that most times, the outcome is manipulated to fall in favor of those who commissioned or “funded” the study and that there is a motivating factor involved.

If this sounds cynical, then so be it. But I have been around long enough to know with all certainly that everyone has an agenda, large or small, and many will do anything, no matter how amoral, unethical or misleading to promote it.


I’m not deflecting, just pointing out that it happens on both sides. In my opinion, the bs about gangbusters is more egregious because it is nothing more than fear mongering. It fuels discrimination.


I agree that this study is politically motivated and frankly rather moot.

For the purpose of this conversation I’m going to ignore illegal immigration as crime because its really not what this is about.

Crime and criminality is far more complex than where you were born. To pare it down to this level ignores far more significant driving social and economic factors and motivation itself. I can tell you the country where a person was born is not in itself a predictor of crime.

As long as focus is being put on irrelevant factors, we ignore the factors that do contribute to crime and fail to develop actual solutions like addressing poverty, addiction, mental health, and all the other things that actually drive crime.




I agree. And one of the relevant factors nobody discusses is the “war on drugs” which has always been about something other than actual drugs (but that’s a different topic.)

I don’t blame CATO for doing this study and for publicizing the results, because THE ENTIRE ISSUE of illegal immigrants being criminals has as long as I can remember been a bullshit neocon talking point and little more than agitprop. By taking it on in this way, CATO is saying, hey…ya got some real stats, let’s fukkin SEE them.


I don’t see doing studies that legitimize a stupid ass premise in the first place to be productive at all.

As many resources available should be focusing on ways to reduce crime rather than chucking around blame based on a person’s country of origin.

The biggest issue around immigration and crime is poverty. They should be studying that with a focus on employment, integration, and poverty markers.

I completely agree on your war on crime statement. It’s a complete failure and I hope we see a thread to discuss it in the near future (wink wink).


It should be noted that The CATO Intitute is a right wingy “Libertarian Think Tank” Not some libtarded Freak out club.


Actually CATO tends to piss off both libs and cons because of the libertarian slant it has.


Pretty much.


I find Libertarians to be nonsensical. Are there any good ones?


Not really, most people grow out of their “Libertarian” phase by their Junior year of College.


I find your argument unpersuasive, especially since you were just recently going on about how the US needs more than two political parties.


I must say that “Native Born Texans” is going to include the first and second generation descendants of the undocumented people on both criminal and non-criminal side of the aisle.

I would have to look at how the study was done to actually make an informed opinion on it.


I haven’t made an argument. I’ve asked for an example of a Libertarian who doesn’t come across as bat shit crazy (that’s an observation).

You need a VIABLE 3rd party and Libertarian isn’t it. Our third party was born out of the labour movement to represent working people. They’ve skewed now to take on environment too leaving the middle class working stiffs unrepresented.


And one would need a very basic understanding criminology to know how irrelevant it is.


What’s irrelevant?


Possibly you believe this. However, your words speak for themselves. You posted two sentences, the second of them a question. The first, however, was an argument by any rhetorical definition.