rwestmore7

I hate when people claim that an election was stolen. I’ve had to hear this for 6 years straight now.

I hope the next pres tells atf the same thing when he sends them for your guns. Or is that diffe(R)ent

quote:

---

Then he reached for it.

---

Are you more blind than Ray Charles

Show me someone who believes propaganda over video evidence lmao

I mean I was 5 and 6 when the first 2 happened. lol

You are pro gun.
Guns have killed children.
Therefore, you support school shootings.

That’s your logic.

It’s obviously false, and so is your claim about me. You're so dishonest mostly with yourself

quote:

---

gloss over them sexually assaulting children

---

That’s a false and reckless accusation. I have never glossed over sexual assault of children, by anyone. I know a politician currently not releasing files that has to do with child sexual assault. Are you calling them out? Didn't think so.

Pointing out that crime data is being misused is not defending crime, and it’s not excusing abuse.

I'll ignore the jab that has nothing to do with me or the arguments I'm making. Trump did a terrible job with Covid. I agree.

You’re arguing past the point, not through it.

Calling people who violate laws “criminals” isn’t the strawman. The strawman is pretending anyone argued otherwise. The point is about what conclusions different categories of crime can support. Immigration offenses answer whether immigration law was violated. They do not, by themselves, answer who poses a higher violent or property crime risk to the public. That’s not wordplay, it’s how policy analysis actually works.

Saying “the law is the law” doesn’t collapse all laws into one meaningful category. The legal system itself doesn’t treat them that way. That’s why homicide, tax fraud, trespass, and immigration violations carry different penalties, are enforced by different agencies, and trigger different policy responses. Recognizing that reality isn’t assigning “humanity” to some laws and not others, it’s acknowledging how the law already functions.

You keep framing prioritization as favoritism. It isn’t. Every enforcement system prioritizes based on risk, harm, and jurisdiction. That’s why police don’t allocate the same resources to parking violations as they do to armed robbery. That doesn’t mean one group is “allowed” to break the law. It means enforcement decisions are made based on impact and capacity.

As for relaxed enforcement, that’s a policy choice made by elected officials within the bounds of the law. Disagree with it all you want, but policy discretion is not the same thing as legal exemption. Citizens and non-citizens are subject to different legal regimes by statute. That’s jurisdiction, not privilege, even if you don’t like the outcome.

And yes, your last paragraph makes the underlying position clear. This isn’t really about comparative crime rates. It’s about the belief that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be here at all, regardless of behavior. That’s a legitimate political position. But once you take it, crime statistics stop being evidence and become window dressing. You can’t invoke “no one is above the law” rhetorically while ignoring how the law actually distinguishes between offenses, enforcement authority, and policy goals.

If you want to argue immigration policy on the merits, do that. If you want to argue public safety, then the relevant data is per-capita violent and property crime, not incarceration shares shaped by enforcement choices. Mixing those two arguments doesn’t strengthen either one.

No one said violations of criminal statutes aren’t crimes. That’s a strawman. The point, which you keep sidestepping, is that different crimes answer different policy questions. Immigration offenses answer the question “who violated immigration law.” They do not answer the question “who poses a higher violent or property crime risk to the public.” Conflating those two is the category error.

On your second point, you’ve now broadened “crime” to include fraud, licensing, public benefits, and generalized resentment about public policy. That’s fine, but again, that’s a different argument. Those are questions about regulatory enforcement, eligibility rules, and social spending, not violent criminality.

Breaking laws is indeed criminal behavior. But not all criminal behavior is interchangeable for purposes of risk, harm, or enforcement priority. That’s why we don’t allocate police resources the same way for jaywalking, tax fraud, and homicide.

And yes, many white-collar crimes are property crimes. They’re still prosecuted, measured, and prevented through very different mechanisms than street-level violence, which is why lumping everything together obscures rather than clarifies public-safety analysis.

On favoritism, this is where you’ve fully left the data argument. Different legal regimes for citizens and non-citizens aren’t favoritism, they’re jurisdiction. Immigration law exists precisely because citizenship status matters legally. You may not like that framework, but its existence doesn’t prove unequal moral treatment or excuse bad statistical reasoning.

As for narrowing to violent and property crime, that isn’t dishonesty, it’s relevance. Those categories are what drive local policing, incarceration, and immediate harm. White-collar crimes matter, but they don’t change the fact that incarceration shares still aren’t per-capita crime rates.

Finally, you say the quiet part out loud at the end. This isn’t actually about crime rates. It’s about the belief that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be here at all, regardless of behavior. That’s a political position, not an empirical one. Own it if that’s your view. But stop using selective statistics as cover for it.

quote:

---

targeting violent and property crimes is consistent with targeting illegals, so we're all good

---

K
Live in your alternate reality.

You’re still conflating incarceration share with crime rates. Arizona being a border state with a large undocumented population and aggressive enforcement doesn’t change that basic math problem. Saying “20% of inmates are undocumented” is not the same thing as showing higher per-capita violent crime. Without knowing the size and demographics of the at-risk population and how charging and cooperation policies operate, that statistic tells you who ends up in prison, not who commits more violent crime.

As for your ETA, it matters because we’re talking about policy and resource allocation, not moral outrage. The question isn’t “is any crime unacceptable” because of course it is. The question is where limited enforcement resources reduce the most harm. If one group offends at a lower rate, pouring disproportionate resources into that group produces fewer prevented crimes than focusing on higher-rate offenders. That’s efficiency, not ideology.

Local PD and state prisons are already overwhelmed dealing with violent and property crime. Diverting resources to chase lower-rate offenders increases overall victimization, it doesn’t reduce it. You don’t fix crime by ignoring math because it feels unsatisfying.

If your argument is simply “they shouldn’t be here at all,” say that. But don’t pretend incarceration percentages answer the public-safety question when they don’t.

That’s not how the data works at all, and this is a classic misuse of statistics. Federal prison population is not a proxy for overall crime rates. The federal system disproportionately incarcerates non-citizens because some immigration offenses themselves are federal crimes. Illegal entry, illegal reentry, and related offenses are prosecuted federally and, by definition, cannot be committed by citizens.

That’s also an important distinction you’re blurring. Being undocumented is a civil status issue. Illegal entry or reentry is a specific criminal offense. Counting people incarcerated for those crimes and then claiming it proves higher general criminality is conflating status with behavior. Local PD handles the vast majority of violent and property crime, and those crimes are overwhelmingly prosecuted at the state and local level, not federal. When you look at state and local arrest and conviction data, undocumented immigrants consistently offend at lower rates than native-born citizens.

So yes, 14 percent of the federal prison population tells us the federal government aggressively prosecutes immigration crimes (which I have been told for years is not the case). It does not tell us undocumented immigrants commit more violent or property crime. Math doesn’t lie, but bad assumptions absolutely do. If you want to argue higher crime rates, show state or local per-capita data for violent offenses, not immigration prosecutions baked into federal statistics.