Justice Department: Arizona violent crime lowest since 1971, property crime 1966

[Dorian Gray]

Justice Department: Arizona violent crime lowest since 1971, property crime lowest since 1966

Bill Maher said this in one of his shows - unless it was a blog, because I read it as opposed to watching. I haven't been able to find anything on it in the 15 minutes I've been kind of looking, but if it's true, it destroys the illegal immigration law passed partially on the basis of crime.

[casebro]

Yes, but, it might be lowest now because of recent anti-illegal-im actions. The AII stuff in AZ has been building for several years. You need to find stats, or chart would be better, that might show when the decline(s) happened. So far all you have is BM's say so that it has even declined at all.

[cienaños]

Here's the viddy (http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/05/video-bill-mahers-new-rule-this-mothers-day-americans-must-extend-a-special-thanks-to-their-nannies/).

[Unabogie]

"You're mad at the wrong people".

That's the point I keep making.

[corplinx]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/03/imagine-how-tough-the-arizona

Imagine How Tough The Arizona Immigration Law Would Have Been if Immigrants Actually Committed Crimes!

Immigrant crime is the new summer of the shark. A machination of the media that bumps ratings but just isn't true.

[pipelineaudio]

I wish the auto insurance industry believed these numbers on property crime

[pipelineaudio]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/03/imagine-how-tough-the-arizona
Immigrant crime is the new summer of the shark. A machination of the media that bumps ratings but just isn't true.

Good thing noone is complaining about immigrant crime. Theyre complaining about illegals who by the very definition are criminals

Yet another dishonest use of "immigrant" in this situation

[KingMerv00]

I wish the auto insurance industry believed these numbers on property crime

Why do you trust auto insurance companies over the Justice Department?

[pipelineaudio]

Why do you trust auto insurance companies over the Justice Department?

I dont, but I know who decides what I pay based on zipcode

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good thing noone is complaining about immigrant crime. Theyre complaining about illegals who by the very definition are criminals

Yet another dishonest use of "immigrant" in this situation

Are you saying proponents of anti-immigrant legislation (like what Arizona recently passed) don't argue that this legislation is necessary to protect citizens from violent crime?

<derail>There is no word "noone" in the English language. Sorry, it's just one of my pet peeves.</derail>

[pipelineaudio]

Arizona didnt pass any anti-immigrant legislation

[sesshin]

Are you saying proponents of anti-immigrant legislation (like what Arizona recently passed)


Why do you feel the need to drop the word "illegal" out? Do you feel it helps your cause misrepresenting what the AZ law pertains to?

It says nothing about immigrants in general, it refers strictly to illegal immigrants, which only make up about 25% of the immigrant population.

[corplinx]

I speed every day. Sometimes by as much as 10 over. You shouldn't listen to me as I am a criminal and not a citizen. Those are mutually exclusive.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why do you feel the need to drop the word "illegal" out? Do you feel it helps your cause misrepresenting what the AZ law pertains to?
Because that simply begs the question. If you can magically know who is legal and who is illegal beforehand, then there would be no need at all for this law.

It says nothing about immigrants in general, it refers strictly to illegal immigrants, which only make up about 25% of the immigrant population.
IIRC*, it says something to the effect that police can detain for verification of immigration status anyone they think is an illegal immigrant, but (with the amendment passed) they can't base that suspicion on race. So. . . how do they decide who might be an illegal?

I call this "anti-immigrant legislation" on the basis of the argument that Maher seems to be refuting: that people blame the ills of the times on a certain category of people. In this sense, I'm lumping this legislation in with others--such as California's Prop. 187 of 1994.

*ETA: Here's the pertinent text of the law:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). 26

And also: A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

So again, if this "reasonable suspicion" isn't from racial/ethnic profiling (which is elsewhere specifically forbidden), then what exactly would give an officer that reasonable suspicion? (Remember, these aren't border patrol agents. These are state, county and municipal policemen working in their own jurisdictions.)

FWIW, I also don't think the law logically grants any new authority. If, for example, someone stopped for speeding tells the officer that he is an illegal alien (a confession would be reasonable suspicion), the officer already can hand the guy over to the INS, can't he? I think even regular citizens can do this--the legal basis for these citizen posses patrolling the borders.

[sesshin]

Because that simply begs the question. If you can magically know who is legal and who is illegal beforehand, then there would be no need at all for this law.


IIRC, it says something to the effect that police can detain for verification of immigration status anyone they think is an illegal immigrant, but (with the amendment passed) they can't base that suspicion on race. So. . . how do they decide who might be an illegal?


Legal immigrants are already required by federal law to carry documentation showing they are legally able to live and work in the United States. This is nothing new. The way you are able to tell who is a legal immigrant versus who is an illegal immigrant is that one has legitimate documentation and the other doesn't. It is really that simple.

That's not the problem many people have with this lawl however. It's the fact that US citizens might be mistaken for illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants.

So in that sense, dropping the "illegal" in reference to this law is being intellectually dishonest. It strictly refers to illegal immigrants, not legal, which are already required to carry paperwork.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So in that sense, dropping the "illegal" in reference to this law is being intellectually dishonest. It strictly refers to illegal immigrants, not legal, which are already required to carry paperwork.

Not really. Again, the law gives state and local police authority to arrest people suspected of being illegal immigrants. These could be legal immigrants, citizens or illegal immigrants. If the law only targeted illegal immigrants, there would be no reason for the law.

Again, remember, immigration law is a federal matter. This is a state law. It only refers to what police can do to help the feds enforce federal laws.

[sesshin]

The law, as written, is concerned with illegal immigrants, which only make up 25% of the immigrant population. You could argue that it could possibly affect non-illegal immigrants, but that's not part of the law as written. It's a possible unintended consequence. If you refer to this law as "anti-immigrant" it's a mischaracterization, and if you don't even have the intellectual honesty to recognize it as such, then there really is no need to discuss it further. You obviously wish to put a partisan agenda over regard for the facts.

[hgc]

Legal immigrants are already required by federal law to carry documentation showing they are legally able to live and work in the United States. This is nothing new. The way you are able to tell who is a legal immigrant versus who is an illegal immigrant is that one has legitimate documentation and the other doesn't. It is really that simple.


I know lots of legal immigrants, and not a single one of them carries this documentation around with them. So, how easy is it to tell the difference?

[sesshin]

I know lots of legal immigrants, and not a single one of them carries this documentation around with them. So, how easy is it to tell the difference?


The way you can tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant is that the legal immigrant has documentation to verify their status and the illegal immigrant does not. That's why they are referred to as "undocumented". This is federal law, not Arizona.

If you are hanging around with a bunch of legal immigrants who aren't able to verify their status you might want to let them know they are violating federal immigration law. They signed paperwork agreeing to follow it and yet they are not.

Again, the problem isn't with legal immigrants possibly being caught up as illegal immigrants in Arizona, it's with US citizens possibly being caught up. Legal immigrants are required by federal law to be able to verify their status, US citizens are not, and illegal immigrants can't.

[pipelineaudio]

I cant find anything to support any drastic decrease in crime. People have been hopeless here since the 90's. A lot of them turn to meth. Property crime here is almost unbelieveable. Mid level bands cant come to AZ in many cases because their insurance wont cover it. Car insurance is insane.

Scottsdale says their arson rate has gone down, but being that they already built most of the houses in areas that tend to get torched by activists, thats no surprise

[WildCat]

Justice Department: Arizona violent crime lowest since 1971, property crime 1966

So concealed carry works! I never thought Dorian Gray would be the one to start this pro-gun thread. :cool:

[The Painter]

but if it's true,

I've eliminated everything in the OP except the most important part. That's a big "if".

[boooeee]

Looks correct: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

[Dorian Gray]

I've eliminated everything in the OP except the most important part. That's a big "if". Do you regularly recreate your reality to make things bigger than they are?

[peptoabysmal]

Looks correct: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm
looks cherry picked

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know lots of legal immigrants, and not a single one of them carries this documentation around with them. So, how easy is it to tell the difference?

And again, if police could tell the difference, there would be no reason to pass a law that authorizes local police to verify immigration status.

Clearly the law would affect many more people that just illegal immigrants.

looks cherry picked

How do you figure?

The violent crime rate was lower in 2008 than it has been since 1971. So what Maher said was correct.

A lot of the popular support for this law is the (false) idea that illegal immigrants are responsible for higher violent crime rates.

[Nosi]

I cant find anything to support any drastic decrease in crime. People have been hopeless here since the 90's. A lot of them turn to meth. Property crime here is almost unbelieveable. Mid level bands cant come to AZ in many cases because their insurance wont cover it. Car insurance is insane.

Scottsdale says their arson rate has gone down, but being that they already built most of the houses in areas that tend to get torched by activists, thats no surprise

My family bugged out of Phoenix cuz of heat, high utility bills, cost of living, and crime.:(

[pipelineaudio]

My family bugged out of Phoenix cuz of heat, high utility bills, cost of living, and crime.:(

We left to Wickenburg after the final break in. If this is really true its kind of heart warming news. I really wish those with Maricopa County zip codes could get a break from the insurance companies with this new data

[The Painter]

Do you regularly recreate your reality to make things bigger than they are?

I live in reality. I do not use the phrase "but if it's true" and then base argument on it.

[Ausmerican]

WARNING! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE APPROACHING!!
Property crime, according to two different police officers I have spoken to, is a somewhat mythical beast. According to them, who were both LAPD before moving here, it is all in the numbers.

In Phoenix crossing a fenced empty lot is felony trespass if there is signage while in some parts of L.A., again according to them, unless you can document $40,000 worth of loss it is a matter between you and your insurance company.

[WildCat]

Contrary to popular belief, property crime actually tends to go down in times of high unemployment. Mainly because when people have no jobs and little money they stay home more, lessening their chances of being burglarized and increasing the number of eyes at home keeping watch during the day.

[casebro]

Let me mention also that, with the recession, many illegals went home. So there may be fewer here to cause probs. And I think somebody above mentioned CCW as a possible factor in Ariz.

But there is also the problem of blatant criminal activity. Like coming up here to kidnap for ransom. Or now carrying more arms while smuggling people and drugs. One deputy shot, one rancher murdered over drugs in the last month.

[corplinx]

But there is also the problem of blatant criminal activity. Like coming up here to kidnap for ransom.

In other words, a few sensational crimes are influencing public opinion versus the actual quantity of crime. Like I said, this is the same media sickness we saw during the "summer of the shark".

There is almost no chance for an unskilled laborer from Mexico to emigrate to America legally. Coyotes arm. They can't call the police if they are victimized.

As for drugs, its prohibition again. Marijuana enforcement in Mexico is a direct parallel of the violence we saw in prohibition era America. Massacres, corruption, etc, etc.

We have two destructive policies in place, and the unskilled latino laborer is the scapegoat. "Things were better before _those people_ showed up."

If you've bought a home built in the past 10 years, chances are, you are an accomplice.....

[Ladewig]

WARNING! ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE APPROACHING!!
Property crime, according to two different police officers I have spoken to, is a somewhat mythical beast. According to them, who were both LAPD before moving here, it is all in the numbers.

In Phoenix crossing a fenced empty lot is felony trespass if there is signage while in some parts of L.A., again according to them, unless you can document $40,000 worth of loss it is a matter between you and your insurance company.

That would be important if we were comparing California crime rates to Arizona crime rates, but we are not. Unless the definitions in Arizona have changed recently, then the comparison made in the OP stands.

[Dorian Gray]

looks cherry pickedYeah, it totally is. Instead of looking at the crime rate for the entire universe to get Arizona's crime rate, we went to the justice department of the United States and cherry picked "Arizona" from the list and kept the default year range.

:rolleyes:

[The Mutha]

Justice Department: Arizona violent crime lowest since 1971, property crime 1966

So concealed carry works! I never thought Dorian Gray would be the one to start this pro-gun thread. :cool:

I thought Arizona had an open carry law?

[dtugg]

I thought Arizona had an open carry law?

It has both. Anybody who can legally possess a handgun can open carry. As of right now, you need a permit to concealed carry and those are shall issue. But they recently changed the law so that people will no longer need the permit to concealed carry.

[hgc]

And again, if police could tell the difference, there would be no reason to pass a law that authorizes local police to verify immigration status.

Clearly the law would affect many more people that just illegal immigrants.

...


It affects absolutely everyone, in that any person can come under the supposed suspicion of the police for immigration status, and be arrested for lack of paperwork. That's illegal immigrants, H1B and L1 visitors, green-card holders, naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.

[EvilSmurf]

I really wish those with Maricopa County zip codes could get a break from the insurance companies with this new data

Maybe Maricopa's crime rates are so high because their sheriff is a psychopath? It reminds me of this Simpson's classic:
Kent: Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty
vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy
sack-beatings are up a shocking nine hundred percent?
Homer: Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent.
Forfty percent of all people know that.
Kent: I see. Well, what do you say to the accusation that your group
has been causing more crimes than it's been preventing?
Homer: [amused] Oh, Kent, I'd be lying if I said my men weren't
committing crimes.
Kent: [pause] Well, touche'.

[Darth Rotor]

The conventional wisdom goes like this. Many illegals don't report crimes that have been done on them ...

so if (and that's a big if) there are a higher percentage of illegals in AZ now, and criminals know what easy pickings they are (in terms of odds of being reported or caught) then aren't the stats missing critical data?

Don't know, just asking as the thought goes through my brain, as I read this article and pondered.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7194

The drug cartels also are responsible for many of the kidnappings in Phoenix and other Arizona cities. The usual victims of cartel kidnappings are those who owe the cartels money, either dealers for the cartel or drug users. They also kidnap members of rival cartels. However, cartel members also act as coyotes and can be involved in kidnapping illegal immigrants they have helped smuggled over the border.

[pipelineaudio]

Maybe Maricopa's crime rates are so high because their sheriff is a psychopath? It reminds me of this Simpson's classic:

Yeah, insurance companies set their rates based on who the sheriff is.

Joe has run into my car soooooooooooo many times now

[MikeMangum]

And again, if police could tell the difference, there would be no reason to pass a law that authorizes local police to verify immigration status.

Clearly the law would affect many more people that just illegal immigrants.

I have to say that is one of the most infantile arguments I've ever seen. By this measure, laws against rape don't just apply to rapists, laws against murder don't just apply to murderers, etc.

[GreNME]

Yeah, insurance companies set their rates based on who the sheriff is.

Joe has run into my car soooooooooooo many times now

Way to dodge what was actually said with a ridiculous diversionary statement.

Joe is a psycho nutball. Trying to turn it into a Geico commercial isn't going to change that.

[pipelineaudio]

Way to dodge what was actually said with a ridiculous diversionary statement.

Joe is a psycho nutball. Trying to turn it into a Geico commercial isn't going to change that.

So you are making the claim that insurance is high because of who the sherriff is?

Evidence?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have to say that is one of the most infantile arguments I've ever seen. By this measure, laws against rape don't just apply to rapists, laws against murder don't just apply to murderers, etc.

You're wrong.

The Arizona law is not a law making it illegal for undocumented aliens to be in the country. That's a federal matter, and there are already federal laws on that subject. The Arizona law is one that gives authority to local and state police to detain people they suspect are illegal while they ask the feds to verify their status.

My comments were in refutation of the claim that this law only affects illegal aliens simply because if it were the case that police could actually tell who was illegal and who was not, there would be no reason for this law.

It is not at all analogous to the claim that murder laws don't apply only to murderers.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe is a psycho nutball.
Hey now!

:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

The conventional wisdom goes like this. Many illegals don't report crimes that have been done on them ...

so if (and that's a big if) there are a higher percentage of illegals in AZ now, and criminals know what easy pickings they are (in terms of odds of being reported or caught) then aren't the stats missing critical data?

That may be so, but the stats still refute the argument that a crackdown on illegal immigration is important to stop violent crime perpetrated by illegals against citizens. I just don't see "Stop illegal-on-illegal crime!" as any kind of slogan for the new law.

And, the one thing the new law is guaranteed to do is to make illegals much less likely to want to have any contact at all with police. So if the concern is about unreported crime, this law will probably increase the number of crimes that go unreported.