Back On The Border

James Alan Fox, blogging at the Boston Globe, attempts to ride to the rescue of the NY Times in their dubious story about crime and illegal immigration in Arizona.  Ultimately his spreadsheets fail him and the baddies prevail, but don't let me get ahead of the story...

Just to set the stage - the Times had told us that "the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation", and later cited FBI statistics from 2000 and 2008 to make that point.

I pointed out that the numbers didn't match the story - FBI crime stats are broken down into what seems to be bigger cities, smaller cities, and rural areas; from 2000 to 2008, the city and state-wide aggregate rate declined in Arizona, but the rural and small city rate rose.  Troubling!   My table-thumping conclusion was that the Times needed to do more work:

...these numbers do not support the case that the rural and border areas of Arizona are getting safer.  Quite the contrary, actually.  Maybe the Times can turn a reporter loose on that.

The Times may be doing just that, but meanwhile Mr. Fox has made a start.  However, since every story needs a villain Mr. Fox has decided to cast me as the heavy.  Here we go:

Adding to the state of confusion in the state of Arizona, bold blogger Tom Maguire then attempted to demonstrate that the reported decline in violent crime in Arizona during recent years is misleading -- a "statistical cover-up" of sorts.

I am not sure why those quotes are there, since I did not use the phrase "statistical cover-up".

Maguire’s calculations are flawed -- much more so than the Times figures he challenges.

Well, Mr. Fox may question my conclusion, but my calculations are flawless.

First, in examining only two different time points (2000 and 2008), a sharp increase could reflect an aberration at either end of the time interval. If one considers all the years between 2000 and 2008, a very different picture emerges.

Well, no kidding - that would tie in nicely to my point that the Times ought to do their homework before declaring the case closed.

Stepping the rate calculations back one more year to 1999 reveals even more about Maguire's erroneous conclusion.

Since my only conclusion was that the Times work was incomplete, Mr. Fox hardly rebuts me by doing their work for them.

But wait, there's more. The larger error in Maguire’s analysis comes from not seriously questioning or examining the substantial population drops between 2000 and 2008: from 304, 632 to 202,505 in non-metropolitan cities and from 314,634 to 271,734 in non-metropolitan counties. Such population changes are quite unusual, especially in the Sun Belt.

Maybe I wasn't serious enough when I wrote this:

We also note that the non-MSA population has been declining while the state has been growing.  Maybe what were once exurbs are now suburbs incorporated into growing cities, which certainly muddies any comparisons across eight years.

Now for a bit of fun at Mr. Fox's expense:

Figure 3 displays the estimated population counts used by the FBI for these two geographic composites for each of the years between 2000 and 2008. There clearly seems to have occurred between 2004 and 2005 some artificial shift in method/source of population estimation or definition of geography. And this impacted Maguire’s calculated crime rates, likely much more than did illegal immigration.

Here are the FBI reports for 2004 (252 page .pdf), 2005 and 2006.  You can only imagine my schadenfreude when I tell you that the big drop in population occurs from 2005 to 2006 rather than 2004 to 2005.  Oops!  As to what other numbers Mr. Fox has gotten wrong, well, time will tell although I cannot.  But I'll bet that if he has transcribed the population figures incorrectly, some of his crime rate statistics (which are crimes/population) have also gone south.  (Hmm, I am starting to think I could be well-cast as a bad guy...).  And while I am staring at it, my original table shows a rural crime rate of 251 per 100,000 in 2000; Mr. Fox's graph shows a rate of 200, leading to a more visually dramatic rise thereafter.  Yet we seem to agree on the other two rates for 2000.  Puzzling. 

A bit more from Mr. Fox:

While I applaud Tom Maguire for attempting to decompose aggregate state figures in search for the hidden story, he just didn't use all the tools and all the data available for the task at hand.

I appreciate the kind words, and let me churlishly add - I may not have used all the tools, but I didn't hit my thumb with a hammer, either.

Well.  I would think that eventually, a proper analysis would want to relate border-state crime to economic activity (if the jobs magnet draws illegals, does it also draw violent criminals?), the level of border enforcement (which I would guess has varied over time) and confounding factors such as the crystal meth boom.

And I would love to see that analysis come from the NY Times, since they seem to have undertaken this assignment.

SINCE YOU ASKED:  Peering at the FBI reports for 2004, 2005 and 2006, I get these results for the violent crime rate per 100,000.

First, the big cities: 518 (2004); 529 (2005)  513 (2006).  From the Fox charts, I see a dip below 500 in 2005 - that could be trouble.

Next, the smallish cities over those three years: I get 439 (2004), 413, 452; from the Fox charts, I see a surge above 500 in 2005; flag that, too.

And for the rural areas, I get 352 (2004), 364, 301; Mr. Fox seems to have roughly 350, 360, and 225 in 2006, so someone is askew.

And I still question his number for rural areas in 2000.  Actually, feel free to infer that I question all his numbers.

PRESSING TO MY TECHNOLOGICAL BORDER: This would surely look better as a graph, but here are the figures I am gleaning from the FBI reports of 2004-2008 in table form.  I further note that Mr. Fox and I differ wildly on the 2007 figure for rural crime rate.  The FBI report is a bit odd there; only 75% of counties reported, so they gross up the raw figure from 991 to 1,315 (In 2006, they grossed up from 77%; in 2005, from 88%).  My *guess* is that Mr. Fox got his lower rate by using the lower figure.  Be that as it may, that 2007 rural figure is a real outlier on my table.  IF it is accurate, 2007 was the year that the border was the Wild West.  Before the housing collapse in 2008, BTW, although far be it from me to imply causation.

 

THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME:  Mr. Fox has presented revised charts, acknowledging "a transcription error".  The rural figure for 2000 has come up to about 250; the rural figure for 2007 has come up to about my figure; and the population break has been noted.  That was all one error?

Anyway, let's see the before and after pictures.  First, before, saved for posterity:

And the revised chart:

 

The rural crime rate for 2006 has moved up by about 75 and the 2007 rate has moved up by about 100 while the big city rate is relentlessly dropping, yet per Mr. Fox, "There was no change, however, in the overall conclusion".   OK...

Comments

[A little too close to home.]

Hey Fox, how about that Boston Fed study?
========

[Clarice]

This is like watching my cat play with a cricket..The cricket enters the room jumping high. The next time I see it Gaia has artfully removed one leg..then another, and yet another until all that's left is slightly twitching limbless creature.

[daddy]

"I appreciate the kind words, and let me churlishly add - I may not have used all the tools, but I didn't hit my thumb with a hammer, either."

Wonderful stuff TM:)

[Jeff]

If your state reports 27,281 violent crimes in 2000 and 29,059 violent crimes in 2008 does anyone in their right mind think they should claim that violent crime has decreased. The news channels would be reporting on 74.74 violent crimes a night in 2000 and 79.61 violent crimes a night in 2008. I can see why folks don't think violent crime has decreased.

[matt]

So how much blood on Obama's, Napolitano's, and Holder's hands is enough to change their minds?

[Danube of Thought]

This dispute seems kind of silly to me.

[Don Quixote]

Translation of your long rebuttal: "I picked a year (2000) that substantiated the conclusion I was looking for. I got busted so to save face I now have to divert the attention to the charting errors of the guy who busted me even though it doesn't change his point."

In short, you fed the AZ "Big Lie" propaganda machine ("violent crime by 'illegals' is rampant!), and made a name for yourself in the nativist xenophobe community. Congrats.

[David Walser]

Tom, even if the Times numbers were correct, they would be irrelevant. The most recent FBI statistics are from 2008. As a resident of Arizona, I can attest to the fact the dramatic increase in crime we are discussing is more recent than that. Even if crime fell from 2000 to 2008, crime's risen over the last couple of years. Not only have the numbers of crimes increased, the types of crimes have also changed. The coyotes smuggling people across the boarder have become more bold and more violent. The Times saying crime was down in 2008 is like their saying we had a cold January in response to a complaint about the heat in June. If it's 100 degrees outside, it doesn't matter that a few months ago it was cold.

[bunkerbuster]

Senor Walser: where are you getting your stats? I'd bet the FBI and Tom will be interested, as will I. Or are you just making it up?
DoT: Silly? Only if you really don't care about the facts. The anti-Mexican hysteria behind SB1070 is fueled in no small part by claims that crime is surging because of illegal immigration. If there has been no surge in crime, and the FBI figures are indisputable on that point, then it seems any person interested in the facts would be interested in the dispute about what the stats say. NYT's report also cites the Border Patrol saying ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION HAS ALSO DECLINED. Turns out, the only worsening problem in Arizona is the desperation of politicians to woo anti-Mexican voters...

[Stephanie]

Mr. Walser Ignore the troll droppings at 1:21 and welcome!

[bunkerbuster]

Senor Walser: and can you also "attest" to an increase in illegal immigration?...

[Jack is Back!]

Well, I can attest to a decrease in our collective IQ and an increase in stupid bulls**t comments ever since BB made his entrance.

OT: I have the following from an email. It is partial since it also requests that Veteran Orgs. start to get the word out. Once you read this you will understand.

" Military personnel who are “In Harms Way” daily feel trapped and restricted by the new ‘Rules of Engagement’ in Afghanistan that have been imposed upon them by the Obama Administration. The interrogation policy established by Attorney General Holder requiring that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within 24 hours or they must be released back on to the battlefield has prevented engaged military personnel from obtaining immediate information to defeat the enemy. The periodic press releases by the Obama Administration continues to remind Al Q’ida and the Taliban that the US military forces will start withdrawing military personnel by a date certain which undermines the General's strategy to prevail. The failure of the President to provide General McChrystal the 60,000 personnel he so desperately requested a year ago to prosecute the war has slowed down the military campaign. The micromanagement of the war by the US Ambassador in Afghanistan has created a conflict with the General’s staff. There is so much more that has contributed in large measure to the increasing monthly casualty rates. The serious errors that General McChrystal’s and his staff made in their collective interviews over a long period of time with Rolling Stone magazine may be mitigated somewhat by the way the staff has been forced to prosecute combat operations in the field, many restrictions are undermining their quest for success in Afghanistan
General McChrystal and his staff finally had enough, they let their frustration out in that extended interview with Rolling Stone; a magazine that never should have been allowed to gain access to the General. The General is now being sent home to be fired by the Commander-in Chief, a person who is not properly equipped to control such a complex and difficult military campaign. We should collectively compose a number of articles to distribute to the American people, in order to educate them with accurate reasons that led to the firing; it will not save the General, but it will provide the American people with the truth about the flawed policy military personnel are required to operate under in Afghanistan. In the future, when the Obama Administration says they gave it their best, and when they pull military forces out of Afghanistan, the American people will have been previously provided with accurate facts as to why the policy is failing, to refute the propaganda that will be promulgated by the left of center liberal media establishment saying why military personnel are being recalled."

Well, at least Obama has the comfort of knowing he has no military records to hide once the Vets start up their Swiftboat II campaign.

[bunkerbuster]

lol...that's why things went so well throughout the 7 years GW Bush was losing the war. Inasmuch as the military has been sent in to fight where fighting is futile, there is indeed a very large problem with the Obama administration's strategy. But his biggest mistake was not to pull out earlier. No amount of troops can solve the problems in Afghanistan, which have do do with tribalism and poverty at a level that prevents education, which perpetuates poverty. How many years will we spend bogged down in these kind of wars before learning the simple lesson that we simply can't control the entire earth. There will always be places where terrorists can take advantage of anarchy and gangster rule. We need to focus on the best way to establish deep, permanent intelligence gathering capabilities and, then, to make friends whenever and wherever possible, then use military force as sparingly as possible in cases of proven, immediate threat.

[Captain Hate]

Since the ignorant troll has hijacked this thread with a **root causes of poverty** rant (let's start a Great Society 2 in Afghanistan since it's worked so well here) complete with make friends whenever and wherever possible (somebody alert the State Dept that a diplomatic genius is commenting here) I don't feel so bad going OT with a LUN where Tammy Bruce lays the smackdown on Suckabee and his little catamites like Schmidt and the rest of the Repukes that the New Yorker is shilling for.

[Pofarmer]

Cements in my mind that Huckabee is an ass.

[boris]

Let's define the Arizona crime rate as the number of crimes divided by the number of legal US citizen residents of Arizona.

Clearly crimes committed by illegals are going to increase that rate above what it would be if illegals were not there.

Anyone too innumerate to get the point is too innumerate to be arguing statistics.

[Hey, go work in lower Manhattan.]

Shorter bb: 911s are inevitable. Lie back and grit your teeth.
==================

[Janet]

I personally don't care if the illegals are committing crimes or not....they have already committed one big one...they are here ILLEGALLY! They are citizens of other countries and should be sent back immediately. They can commit crimes or live kind, productive lives in their own country.

[Pofarmer]

Obviously, boris, you failed to get the message. All "undocumented Americans" in Arizona are peaceful descendants of 60's love children. Their presence there actually brings DOWN the crime rate in Arizona. I mean, just look, it's right there in the numbers. You just shift these tea leaves around in the cup, and BINGO. Man, we're so much better off with uncontrolled undocumented immigration. Why, it's silly that we even bother with things like social security cards, oh, and drivers licenses. There shouldn't be any requirements for that, either. Do you know how unfair it is to have to take a test to drive, or, failing that, to have to actually, like, ya know, SHOW your drivers license to someone to prove that you have it? I mean, it's DISCRIMINATION.

[narciso]

Well there was no doubt of that, but Tammy just puts it so well, now the disturbing thing was that Ras poll that says 51% think Obama is qualified to be President, and Hillary is the next up, well she has MacCrystal's vote, and look who ended up last

[Pofarmer]

But Janet.

Think of the CHILDREN!

I mean, there are no CHILDREN raised in those countries.

How can you be so unfair!?

[Captain Hate]

Why is this even being debated? 3500 acres of border territory have been declared off limits to American citizens because drug cartels are in control there and we're yammering with quislings from the NYT and witless trolls over bogus statistics?

[Pofarmer]

The U.S. is a HUGE country Capt, created by hegemonic demons bent on continental domination. We didn't need, or deserve, that real estate anyway. I'm sure the drug cartels will put it to much better use.

[Jane]

Hey! How bout I get Tom and Fox on my radio show to discuss the matter?

[Rob Crawford]

made a name for yourself in the nativist xenophobe community

Pot. Kettle.

[glasater]

it's silly that we even bother with things like social security cards, oh, and drivers licenses

Po-I used to know some serious extreme right wingers who felt exactly that way:)

[Rob Crawford]

Ya know, you can't argue with people who cannot understand that a large increase in the number of criminals in an area leads to an increase in the number of crimes.

And, yes, illegals are ALL criminals.

[bunkerbuster]

Boris: no one's suggesting undocumented workers NEVER commit crimes. Rather, the evidence being cited suggests that: A. Undocumented workers are not causing a crime wave.
Funnily enough, "immigrants" blaming foreigners for more crime than they commit is a worldwide phenomenon. Seems that a percentage of the population in country after country prefers to blame outsiders, whether or not facts bear them out.
Japanese newspapers ritually report crime statistics verbatim as analyzed by the police who provide them. Inevitably, the headline is "Crime by foreigners rising," or "Crime by foreigners high" or something along those lines. Often, the numbers show the opposite and ALWAYs they show that foreigners commit a tiny proportion of crimes (less than 5 percent) and, even, proportionally less crime than natives. The real stinker, though, is that they count visa overstays and other immigration violations as a crime. Surely these are crimes, but they are violations only foreigners can commit, so they cannot be included in meaningful analysis of the proportion or extent of crime committed by foreigners. Moreover, the difference between a visa overstay and a legal immigrant is literally a few microns of ink stamped in the passport. But for the newspapers, purposes, it's deemed fine to lump in the overstayers with thieves, rapists and all manner of real criminals.
Conservatives around the world cling viciously to the notion that foreigners pose a threat. That's because they know that without that kind of fear, their agenda doesn't wash...

[bunkerbuster]

Capt. Bigot: SB1070 has nothing to do with drug cartels. If you're worried about drug cartels, don't you think it makes sense to free as many police up as possible from the chore of arresting, booking and processing undocumented workers who only crime is failing to obtain bureaucratic approval? Doesn't it make sense to encourage undocumented workers to rat out drug dealers, rather than prevent them from doing so by threatening them with arrest should they have any contact whatsoever with law enforcement? There's a reason so many law enforcement professionals oppose it.

[Captain Hate]

Doesn't it make sense to encourage undocumented workers to rat out drug dealers, rather than prevent them from doing so by threatening them with arrest should they have any contact whatsoever with law enforcement?

That you think this makes sense just shows how completely clueless you are. Go stink up some other blog.

[Tom Maguire]

Translation of your long rebuttal: "I picked a year (2000) that substantiated the conclusion I was looking for. I got busted so to save face I now have to divert the attention to the charting errors of the guy who busted me even though it doesn't change his point."

Something got lost in translation. First, the Times picked 2000 as a start point, not I.

Second, picking 1999 doesn't change much now that Mr. Fox has corrected his rural figure for 2000 (there is a dip from roughly 300 in 1999 to 250 in 2000 back to 300 in 2001.)

Third, why 1999? What happens if we pick 1998, or 1997? Who knows!?!

Fourth, I kinda sorta liked 2000 because it was a recession year, like 2008. Had that not been the case, I would have derided the Times for comparing a boom year (like 1999) with a bust year like 2008.

As to whether Mr. Fox's point changes, he has presented re-drawn graphs. Personally, I think they tell quite a different story, but he will never say so.

[Tom Maguire]

FWIW, I did post the before and after of the Fox charts in an update; I hated to think that his initial effort would be lost down the memory hole.

[glasater]

On the subject of illegals--this is rich....

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns'

[Jane]

That is just sick Glasater.

[Rob Crawford]

I dunno who Captain Hate is quoting, but the idiocy of this is astounding:

Doesn't it make sense to encourage undocumented workers to rat out drug dealers, rather than prevent them from doing so by threatening them with arrest should they have any contact whatsoever with law enforcement?

Why would they rat out the fellows who got them into the US in the first place, and who will smuggle them right back in?

[glasater]

It is Jane. And the only thing I can think of is that Calderon is in terrible trouble politically in his country.

[Rob Crawford]

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns'

Anyone else tempted to go to Mexico and violate their immigration laws? Apparently they can eject you for engaging in "political activity" -- imagine a couple thousand Americans crossing into Mexico and staging a protest against Mexico's immigration laws, corruption, and support for criminals in the US.

(Yeah, I know -- that's what "haters" and "nativists" would do. Unlike when Mexicans in the US illegally march in protest of the laws they decided don't apply to them.)

[Jane]

You can see how important it is that Obama stack the court, and that we prevent that.

[Captain Hate]

Rob, you can lead a troll to logic but you can't make him think.

[Jane]

LOL Capn' - not bad.

[Get it? Borticulture? Haha, haha.]

You can lead a bore to culture, but you cannot make him grow.
================

[Captain Hate]

O/T I just heard that Laura Ingraham will be co-hosting The View on 7/14. I suspect there will be a severe scratching post shortage before and after that date.

[Captain Hate]

LUN for if you're ever in an airport and need some Syrup of Ipecac......

[BuddyPC]

FTR, James Alan Fox, Ph.D., Northeastern U, is the criminology expert who in 2002 was on air and print daily stating, certainly, undoubtedly, unequivocally, that based on his expertise the Beltway Sniper was young, white, a disaffected misfit loner probably living at home, and acting alone. Few in the greater Boston area have taken him seriously since.

Evidently eight years is time enough to get your tail and head out from between your legs.

[Pops]

When my wife and 12 year old daughter were raped and murdered by a gang of illegal aliens, the only real solice I had to turn to was a blogger who assured me violent crime in Arizona was going down. The loss of my wife and daughter seemed to be a 100% failure of the 'let them make our coffee and manicure our lawns policy' until it was pointed out that statistically their lives were but a small blip in overall statistics.

[bgates]

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona's Immigration Law, Citing 'Grave Concerns'

I don't get the law.

COURT: WHO DARES DISTURB THE GREAT AND POWERFUL JUSTICES?
Citizen: Hi. My name's Larry. I'm an American citizen, and I want to settle the matter of Barack Obama's qualifications for the Presidency.
COURT: WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR YOUR CASE?
Citizen: The Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section
COURT: STANDING DENIED! BEGONE!

COURT: Hi, Mexico. What can we do for you today?
Mexico: We want to sue Arizona over their immigration law.
COURT: And what's the basis for your case?
Mexico: We have grave concerns.
COURT: Terrific! C'mon in!

[East Bay Jay]

Can anyone confirm that Mr. Fox has nothing to do with FNC? Actually I'm laying 1 to 2 that the man has never watched FNC. Not even on a dare.

All you really need to know about Fox is the 'attack' at for Tom using the year 2000 as the starting point. It's almost like he thinks your post was 'out of the blue' instead of yet another expose of a NYT's article where 1+1, alas, doesn't equal 2. And, no, new math doesn't square the circle any more than bad charts and smashed by a hammer thumbs.

[bunkerbuster]

The data are in: crime is down in Arizona, proportional to population and only slightly higher on a gross basis. The only dispute is over whether the decline is exclusive to metropolitan areas. Tom does a great service, though, by demonstrating the imperviousness of his commenters to fact. The denial is really all over the map. Some dismiss the stats because they just don't believe in the statisticians. Others insist that the numbers can be spun to show an increase, denying that even if there is an increase on a gross basis, it's tiny and, more importantly, below that of non-border states far less affected by immigration. One way or another, the message is clear: our anti-Mexican ideology will not be diminished by fact, which should be no surprise, since it's not based on fact or reason in the first place...

[Ignatz]

--When my wife and 12 year old daughter were raped and murdered by a gang of illegal aliens--

Pops,
Is that an apocryphal comment to illustrate the absurdity of the left's sophistry on this issue or did it actually happen?

[bunkerbuster]

``apocryhal'' lol...Wife and daughter raped and murdered by baristas without papers!! That's at least good for a movie of the week Pops. Do not let go of the rights for less than six figures. Or was it the lawnmower brigade?? however fevered and neurotic your imagination is Pops, at least you could get paid for it...lol

[Pofarmer]

however fevered and neurotic your imagination is Pops, at least you could get paid for it...lol

Yeah, 'cause, I mean, stuff like that never happens.

http://www.voiac.org/

asshole.

[bunkerbuster]

Kind of sad, Po, that you're unwilling to distinguish between murdering rapists and baristas whose sole crime is inappropriate paperwork. That's classic bigotry: attributing the negative behavior of a small minority within a group to the entire group. Most bigots do this because they have such a low opinion of themselves, they're compelled to find someone to hold in even lower esteem. Sad…

[Pofarmer]

Save the Freud.

Over 2000 murders per year by Illegal aliens.

You want info on rapes and sexual assualts?

This study, done over a 12-month period, is the only in-depth study of its kind. It used a sample group of 1,500 cases out of a pool of roughly 12 million. The study revealed that 2 percent of all illegal immigrants apprehended in the United States are sex offenders. This 2 percent figure translates into 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders.
According to CBS News, The 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders pale in comparison to numbers released by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children who puts the number of registered sex offenders around 716,000.
This means there are 12 serial sexual offenders and 93 sex offenders entering the United States every day, Monday through Friday.
The 1,500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims, and each sex offender averages four victims. The report went on to say these numbers place the estimated number of victims for the duration of the 88-month study at 960,000.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293498

I wonder what the ratio of barista's to murderers and sex offenders is?

Asshole.

[Ain't you evah heerd nuthin bout reedin, ritin, and rheterick?]

'whose sole crime is inappropriate paperwork' is classicly sad rhetoric.
=====================

[Stephanie]

'whose sole crime is inappropriate paperwork'

Must be some sort of moonbat standard.

I guess my democratic congressman uncle and nominee for lt. gov. should never have gone to jail... twice. He had a penchant for paying hourly workers straight time for hours over 40 and submitting 'inappropriate paperwork' for his Davis Bacon Act reports...

No wonder Jimmy Carter pardoned him. It was just inappropriate paperwork!!!

Egads.

[bunkerbuster]

Po: the "study" you link to gets the numbers wrong. Here's how:
Schurman-Kauflin based her findings on a 2005 Government Accountability Office survey that showed 2 percent of illegals in federal, local or state prisons had committed a sex crime. She then applied that percentage to the illegal immigrant population at large. This is not fuzzy math, it's moronically ham-fisted statistical fraud. The 2 percent figure should not apply to the 12 million total illegal alien population, but to the 3 percent of the 12 million who have committed crimes. In other words, 2 percent of 360,000, or 7,200. And that's the total for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006 -- MORE THAN SIX YEARS!
The data show only 3 percent of the illegal immigrant population are convicted criminals. And among those, only a tiny handful have been involved in sex crimes.
To suggest, then, that illegal immigrants are significant contributors to this sort of crime is flat out wrong and, in the context of our discussion, obviously bigoted.

[Rob Crawford]

Blah, blah, blah.

Why am I still surprised at lefties who expect -- and support, and admire -- lawlessness from their favored groups?

[Ignatz]

The fact is we don't know the crime rate of illegal aliens because no one keeps the statistics.(Unless the Strawdummy can provide a credible citation for his 3% rate, which like most of his "facts" was no doubt pulled out of thin air.)
Many studies have confounded their conclusions, seemingly intentionally, by including legal immigrants who are screened for criminal records prior to their entry, with illegals who obviously are not.
The GAO study only looked at illegal aliens already incarcerated, not their crime rate among all illegals.
What we do know is the additional crimes committed by illegals are largely concentrated in CA, AZ, and TX where the large majority of illegals reside.
And there are data which indicate illegals are inarcerated at a higher rate than their population but that is clouded by estimates of their numbers and many of the infractions being immigration related.