A subscription-only editorial in the Wall Street Journal on Monday propagated a carefully-worded whopper, but at least made a small change to the paper's insufferable 23-year "There Shall Be Open Borders" mantra (bolds are mine):
A recent paper by the Immigration Policy Center, an advocacy group, notes that "Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native born." Today, immigrants on balance are five times less likely to be in prison than someone born here.
None of this is to argue that illegal immigration doesn't have costs, especially in border communities and states with large public benefits. In the post-9/11 environment, knowing who's in the country is more important than ever. That's an argument for better regulating cross-border labor flows, not ending them.
The Immigration Policy Center's use of 100 years averages things out quite a bit, doesn't it?
Looking at more recent data might be a little more helpful -- like the two May 2005 items that follow, documented here last year.
First, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report number GAO-05-337R ('Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails,' issued May 9, 2005) informed us that:
At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004--a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent."
If the current estimate of 12 million illegals in the US is accurate, that would mean that illegals are over nine times MORE likely to be in federal prison:
- 49,000 divided by 12 million is 0.41%.
- 133,000 citizen prisoners [the other 73%] divided by the US population of about 300 million is .044%.
- .41% divided by .044% is 9.21. That's more likely to be behind bars -- not less, as the Immigration Policy Center claims.
A second GAO report, number GAO-05-64R ('Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States,' also released on May 9, 2005), studied the criminal records of over 55,000 incarcerated illegal immigrants, and found the following (bold is mine):
..... they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud--including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.
Here's a question for the WSJ -- How much criminal activity does it take before you'll be convinced that there indeed is a culture of criminality and violence in the illegal-immigrant population, and that it permeates a disproportionate percentage of its population?
As to the "concession," I may have missed it previously, but it's the first time I've seen the Journal acknowledge that its July 3, 1984 "There Shall Be Open Borders" editorial (reproduced at link for fair use and discussion purposes) was even slightly imperfect. Now I guess it's "There Shall Be Regulated Labor-Flow Borders."
It's a start.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Looking at data from the
December 31, 2007 - 08:12 ET by sublight68Looking at data from the past 100 years, I found that cell phone usage per capita is in fact quite low. Based on that analysis, I'm not sure that they're going to catch on.
The criminal activity begins when you cross the border illegally. Therefore, 100% of illegal aliens are criminals.
That's right.
December 31, 2007 - 08:36 ET by ThisnThat"The criminal activity begins when you cross the border illegally". These people know that this is illegal. Yet, they do it anyway. And then they try to constantly hide their actions and status. What part of "criminal" do they not understand?
And, once they accept the fact that they are illegal, and that they can get away with it, then how easy is it to justify other illegal actions? "Hey, the U.S. is trying to prevent me from living comfortably. Why not steal?" Or, "Since I can't get things legally, and I'm desparate anyway, what have I got to lose?" Prove to me I'm wrong, WSJ, and I'll start listening to you.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
And once they're here, the
December 31, 2007 - 08:52 ET by sublight68And once they're here, the goodies just start rolling in. Free emergency room care, welfare checks, in-state college tuition, and so on. Paid for straight out of my paycheck and yours.
I don't dismiss the fact that many are just looking for work and a better life. Build the wall and better manage the processing of legal immigrants and those people will still get their opportunity. And they won't be criminals from day one.
Once you come into this country illegally and find that you're not punished, but in many corners actually applauded for your effort, why would you respect any of our other laws?
Why not get fake ID cards, apply for welfare and social security benefits, drive without license or insurance, cram 30 people into a single family dwelling, etc.?
If anyone tries to take action, just get your buddies in La Raza, the ACLU and/or the Democrat (and in too many cases, in the Republican) party to scream "racist" or "xenophobe" or "nativist".
}}---> No such luck
December 31, 2007 - 08:13 ET by Cool ArrowI'm about half tempted to vote for Obambi just to help this populace along in its quest for Soylent Green.
Scuttling the border fence in the dead of night (when thieves are most comfortable) is a deplorable act that ranks down there with the worst Murtha, Pelosi, Benedict Arnold, and Harriet Reid have ever devised.
It would be wrong for me to express my New Years wish for the craven pickpockets who sell our freedom to import Illegal Liberals.
I ♣ My Seal
Legal Immigrant versus Illegal Immigrant Behaviour
December 31, 2007 - 08:57 ET by AT2MontyI think the khe key phrase is "repeatedly and consistently have found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes." Notice that it did not state "Illegal Immigration." I am certain the 100 years of data do show that foreigners that LEGALLY enter our country probably do obey our laws better than our own native born..this shold not be confused with ILLEGAL Immigrants, who begin breaking our laws as soon as their foot hits our soil. IMO, the WSJ article intentionally tries to blur the distinction between Legal and Illegal Immigration.
cherry picking the data
December 31, 2007 - 12:43 ET by wizardjrAT2Monty, you're right. These limosine liberals love to cherry pick the data to confuse the semi-literate amongst us. _Legal_ immigrants _are_ less likely to commit crimes. They go through all the hoops to be here, so they cherish their being here. The piece here correctly uses the numbers and correctly shows that the invaders are about 9 times _more_ likely to commit crimes.
Sorry
January 1, 2008 - 00:35 ET by cleverpigThe WSJ article doesn't seem to have any confusion about legal versus illiegal immigration. That confusion seems to belong solely to Tom Blumer! The article essentially, at least based on the portions quoted here, seems to be saying "immigrants are good, illegal immigration is bad, therefore we should control immigration, not stop it."
The studies cited here do not in any way refute that statement. Nor have you caught the WSJ in some sneaky act of averaging. Although we can't see their data, they are not talking about one study which averages data collected over a hundred years. They say studies, plural, consistently and repeatedly find approximately the same thing. That is a perfectly valid analysis, provided they actually have those studies and are not misrepresenting them. Unless you have proof that they are lying about that, you're kind of just blowing smoke here.
Not so clever for a pig
January 1, 2008 - 09:48 ET by RJ"Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native born." Today, immigrants on balance are five times less likely to be in prison than someone born here."
What confuses you about that, Miss Piggy? The WSJ doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. However, you may have missed that the rest of the facts presented by Blumer are refutations, and not from the WSJ.
That was my whole point.
January 2, 2008 - 01:07 ET by cleverpigThat was my whole point. The studies the WSJ references don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. The studies Blumer cites refer only to illegal immigrants, and therefore can't be used to refute statements made about immigrants as a whole. He also strongly implies that the WSJ has somewhow muddied the issue by averaging data over the last 100 years, which is not true.
While, from the perspective of someone looking for an illegal-immigration bone to pick, they may have muddied the waters by including both legal and illegal immigrants in their analysis, examination of the bigger picture seems to be the exact point they are trying to make. Blumer obviously wishes they made a different point, but there is no deception to complain about here.
Hey there A Ziffle
January 2, 2008 - 01:15 ET byHappy New Year
and Blummers point is that the WSJ knows better than to not distinguish since their analysis will be used to support illegal aliens being normalized into society. They know it, Tom knows it, and you know it. The WSJ tends to be pro-business and they see lower wages as good for business
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"-Syrius
Exactly
January 2, 2008 - 07:20 ET by Tom BlumerExactly.
Miss Piggy
January 2, 2008 - 09:51 ET by RJ1) You are incorrect. Blumer's numbers ARE pertinent. By breaking out the illegal immigrant statistics, you can extrapolate the difference between that and the lumped-together WSJ figures.
2) First you deny the WSJ "muddied the water", then you admit it "may" have, but only if you're looking for a bone to pick. Isn't that what someone who disagrees with a point of view does?
3) You base part of your argument on the assumption that society hasn't changed in the past 100 years, which is silly. Further, the percentage of illegal immigrants has mushroomed, making impossible any meaningful comparison between the past few decades and the first few decades.
4) botg is correct about the knowing bias of the WSJ.
I have made zero
January 3, 2008 - 02:39 ET by cleverpigI have made zero assumptions about the state of society for the past 100 years.
The point that statements about immigrants as a group should be tempered with facts about criminality in the illegal immigrant population is perfectly valid. It's just not what Blumer said. He said that comparing studies done in a time series over the past 100 years and observing consistencies about a whole group isn't valid, and then "proved" his point using 2 studies that only included a small subset of that group. He used exactly the kind of misleading lumping of categories that NB is supposed to watchdog in the media.
You may think that the WSJ intended to mislead, but they did in fact draw a clear distinction between immigrants, who are less likely to be criminals, and illegal immigrants, who are costly to society. Blumer was not so clear.
Yeah! I have a comment.
December 31, 2007 - 09:02 ET by okiehawk44Why does this country want another 50-100 million people living here? We keep hearing that we are all immigrants or offspring of immigrants blah, blah, blah. Our guilt then kicks in and we all hang our collective heads and slink away. Can nothing be changed then? Is more of the same just our due? Do we open our borders and our culture to anyone who says "OPEN!"? This is childish behavior and benefits the few who feel the need to operate a global sales operation. I for one say this. No more immigrants into this country either legal or illegal and a national goal to reduce the population to a level that does not unduly stress the environment and our nation's resources. 300,000,000 down to 150,000,000 or even lower population levels. Folks, if we can't take care of our elders and others with less population, then we are going to perish anyway even with ever expanding population levels. I don't want to live in China or India thank-you very much.
Illegal Immigration
December 31, 2007 - 10:06 ET by WR JonasI think there must have been a time during our nations history when our government made policy nation to nation. We cannot make a change by dealing with individuals or with state policies or local fence building. It must be done between Washington and Mexico City.
However it is of such great importance to Mexico that they disregard any border security and use their geographical advantage that they gleefully disregard any measure to control immigration.
Our pathetic ,hopeless and spineless policy has led us to this. We are being overwhelmed by this invasion and soon it will be irreversable. Mexico is our 51st state . Illegal but a state neverthless.
Proof positive
December 31, 2007 - 10:08 ET by ScrapironOld, Retired and glad of it.
They were only out to prove that figures don't lie, but liars figure. All media outlets play the game hoping not to get caught. The internet has caught every media outlet in hundreds/thousands of outright lies yet nothing changes, they continue to lie but a decreasing number of people believe them and buy the rags. Who prints more truth, the NY/LASlimes or any super market tabloid?
Averages = lies
December 31, 2007 - 10:23 ET by Blogger Guy00001And if you average out the terrorist attacks committed by jihadis over the last 4,000 years, you'll see that they are really very peaceful people.....
When in doubt......
December 31, 2007 - 10:26 ET by SaltherringWhy would Mexican criminals prey on their own 50-cent-a-day neighbors when they can easily cross the border, hit those rich U.S. folks for a bundle, and send the proceeds back home. Get busted? Not to worry, when cops and judges turn them back on the street for the rest of us to deal with.
When in doubt....ship 'em out! ....with a warning that next time you'll float them home....face down!
That's an argument for
December 31, 2007 - 11:43 ET by motherbeltThat's an argument for better regulating cross-border labor flows, not ending them.
That's a hoot. They talk like the flow goes both ways. How many Americans do you think are dying to go work in Mexico?
Mexican President Calderon is fond of saying that the ideal situation is that any American who wants to go live in Mexico can do so.....and vice versa.
File under "D" for "Duh!"
Illegals using Americans Social Security Numbers
December 31, 2007 - 10:48 ET by well99I wonder if that is a felony?How many are in prison for that?How many Americans have their accounts screwed up because of it?
Illegals costs us taxpayers
December 31, 2007 - 14:12 ET by rbosqueIllegals costs us taxpayers $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, not to mention the cost of rapes and murders. I sincerily doubt we even come close to this amount to Mexico. Illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal
aliens. In particular, their
children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
Looking at the data objectively...
December 31, 2007 - 14:17 ET by c5thenAnd propperly seperating out legal immigrants from illegal ones, you will find that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are about 5-10 x MORE likely to commit other crimes and be arrested and incarcirated.
The Immigration Policy Center is so partisan that they are willing to lie and use obviously insane statistics to try and sway public opinion toward very dangerous national security suicide.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
One of the "hard working"
December 31, 2007 - 16:13 ET by DEVILDOCMOMillegal children here in our public school system was arrested for drug possession AND for being stoned in school, the police and then ICE were called and the family deported. YEAH!, but then all the little la raza/nea brainwashed students marched in support of the illegal, drug using criminal. Of course, the school system let them do this on school time. Does it ever end?
Oh, then the school system announced this would not happen again-ie letting ICE know....we have to protect the illegals, you know.
There has actually been
December 31, 2007 - 21:26 ET by nythatesusaThere has actually been progress at the Wall Street Journal. Members of their editorial board have not called those who don't want a "Capture-the-Flag" immigration policy(once you're over the border, you're home free) a racist in a while. Now they just print letters from people who argue that opponents of uncontrolled immigration hold views like those that led to "the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany."("Orwellian Implications of Arizona Illegals Law", p.A9, December 29, 2007)
The metaphorical border fence that seems to keep anyone of Latin American descent off the WSJ editorial board staff is far more restrictive than anything Congress has proposed.