re: 210 illegals have committed murder since 2020. Spare us the crying over two people in MN

quote:

---

The reality is that many people are OK with the government killing Americans as long as the President's political party matches their respective voter registrations.

---

The reality also is that certain people crying about the fed gov "murdering" civilians and ignoring constitutional rights has been on the other side multiple times in not so distant history. From Ruby ridge, Waco, Obama using drone strikes on US citizen targets abroad, J6th, Covid enforcement and requirements, etc etc. "Just comply and they would be fine"

Sort of set a precedent if you will.

We just want to know when and why the precedent has been reversed. Is that too much to ask?? It would cause a lot of this confusion to end if there was a declaration on some date that "everything about this, this, this and this that was formerly believed is now reversed".

Ruby ridge was deemed fine by a large faction of people and the govt. same as Waco. Same as the Elian Gonzalez raid. Same as sending hellfire missles to kill US citizens abroad. Same as arresting people for assembly during Covid (to much applause). Same as firing people for not taking a shot. Same thing as it being okay to twist the FISA process for political gain.

There is one huge difference in what is above and the response now.... who was in the White House. Which actually verifies your quote. Doesn't it?

I don’t believe that 210 number at all.

Add at least two zeroes to the end and you would be in the ballpark of believability.

Statistics 101.

quote:

---

And you’re not?

---

I’ve been consistent about what data answers what question. You’re asserting conclusions based on incarceration shares and treating them as proof of offending rates. That’s the leap I’m pointing out.

Linking 1 study since you are lazy and won't do your own research. You can find plenty more out there with the google.
LINK

quote:

---

Really? So if illegals represent 20% of murderers in Arizona penitentiaries but only 10% of Arizona's population, that's not proof they're over-represented?

---

It’s proof they’re over-represented in that prison population, not proof they commit murder at higher rates. Those are not the same thing. Prison populations reflect arrest practices, charging decisions, plea bargaining, enforcement priorities, cooperation with federal agencies, and sentencing. Crime rates measure offending behavior in the population. Confusing those two is the very very basic statistical error here. You learn about things like this in Statistics 101

quote:

---

Do you know what per-capita means?

---

Yes. Per-capita means the number of offenses committed by a group divided by the size of that group in the relevant population. What you keep citing is the share of people incarcerated after multiple layers of discretion. That’s not a per-capita crime rate, it’s an outcome of the justice system.

quote:

---

Is it okay to make both arguments at the same time, or is that too hard for you to follow?

---

You can make both arguments, but you don’t get to use one to prove the other. “They shouldn’t be here at all” is a political or moral argument. “They commit more violent crime” is an empirical claim. If you’re going to make the empirical claim, you need data that actually measures offending rates, not prison headcounts. Mixing the two doesn’t strengthen either, it just muddies them.

This isn’t about being clever. It’s about using the right data for the claim you’re making. Prison math doesn’t do what you want it to do here.

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.

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.

quote:

---

Every enforcement system prioritizes based on risk, harm, and jurisdiction.

---

Jurisdiction…as in borders, boundaries, and hierarchy?

You want to turn ICE on the citizenry (most goose-steppers do like to impose their will on through force, so your take is unsurprising).

I say let them do their job (removing illegal aliens), and when that job is done, then their organizational structure can be re-tasked if you like.

Until then, the criminal invaders attacking innocent citizens need to be rounded up and expelled.

The end.

Cool...deport all illegals, stop killing American citizens while doing it.

The right is selectively outraged and so is the left....what else is new?

I’ll be honest about this. I didn’t know the full details of Waco, Ruby Ridge, or drone strikes on U.S. citizens at the time they happened. I’ve since learned more, watched the documentaries, and I’m firmly against what happened in those cases. They weren’t acceptable precedents, they were government failures. Learning that and changing your view isn’t hypocrisy, it’s growth.

What I do know is that I’ve watched a lot of people completely flip their positions on things like the Second Amendment depending on who’s in power and then pretend they haven’t. I can say when both sides are abusing power. I used to be very conservative, but at this point I don’t care which party is in the White House because the pattern is the same.

While everyone keeps fighting over left versus right, there’s only one group consistently reaping the benefits. This isn’t left versus right anymore. It’s top versus bottom. And until people are willing to see that, we’re going to keep arguing with each other while the same abuses keep happening.

quote:

---

This isn’t left versus right anymore.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

It’s top versus bottom.

---

Welcome to the party pal.

Well we know some blue cities stopped reporting certain crimes. Along with other departments, massaging the numbers. So yeah most likely the true number is higher.