Where is the assumption From your post "The report does not provide information about the types of crimes that noncitizen prisoners committed. But senior administration officials who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission indicates that non-citizens make up a disproportionate share of prisoners held on certain offenses, such as immigration violations" HOW can you compare immigration violations as a criteria to compare that to residents? Do I have to explain this? Seriously? And you heard it on radio? What? You can't be serious.
you dnc troll you left out part of the sentence... plus, you have absolutely zero idea that any significant percentage of the inmates are there in federal prison soley because of their immigration status. here is the full quote.... Sentencing Commission indicates that non-citizens make up a disproportionate share of prisoners held on certain offenses, such as immigration violations, drug trafficking and drug possession.
It's not out of context you moron - the moment you add immigration violation to the control group, the study becomes useless because residents CANNOT be compared from that point onwards. Do you understand statistics at all, the samples are farcical since one group is by definition criminal according to the sample while the others cannot possibly break that particular law. I am done explaining this simple bit, continue your idiocy for everyone to see.
you are just making shit up. you have no idea if they counted people who were simply here illegally and not in prison for additional crimes. hence you were arguing bullshit assumptions as if they were true... again. in courtroom movie terms... you are arguing facts not in evidence. in real court in California ... the objection would be foundation. you have no foundation. if you were to provide solid foundation... we could withdraw the objection of bullshit assumptions.
YOUR OWN LINK says that, that's what gave me the idea. Seriously, THINK before posting. Then read "The Elements of Statistical Learning". Stop wasting my time with your horrendous argument.
i just explained your sentence does not say anything about criminals being only in federal prison for simply being here illegaly. you misrepresented or misunderstood what it said. so unless you have some proof... you were making bullshit assumptions... as I told you.
There are no assumptions - if you include immigration violations as part of the 'study' then it becomes irrelevant. This is like comparing abortion rates among men and women - one group can't possibly get abortions so you can slant the study anyway you like - it doesn't matter if you include other forms of birth control in that criteria list, the sample is already skewed.
your if... is the point.. its highly unlikely your "if" is a significant percentage of the illegals in federal prison. It seems very unlikely your assumption is legit. If anything first and second time illegal aliens who are picked up are deported not put in prison. if illegals end up in prison for immigration offenses its typically smuggling or violating a previous court order to stay out of the country. Which is criminal behavior. If you can prove your assumption... then you would not be making bullshit assumptions. til then you argued bullshit assumptions.
Jem, get a grip man. That data doesn't show illegals are more likely to commit crimes other than the crime of being here illegally. Jesus Christ! When you write "Illegals are more likely to be criminals than citizens" duh. That's like righting someone in a car is more likely to be in a car than someone that isn't. This is perhaps the most absurd statement ever to appear on ET.
first of all if you ever knew someone in law enforcement or worked in it or even watched live cop shows on t.v. or had enough sense to contemplate the matter before acting like a smart ass lefty... you would know that not all criminals have identification or give you a real name. hence stating suspected non citizens is accurate... for the the criminals who have not been fully identified because some might be citizens with records or warrants in other jurisdictions. educate before pontificate... 2. none of the studies are very reliable. the ones I read admitted that good data is hard to get get. For instance you think sanctuary cities are giving out good data to the FEDs? We had a thread about this in the past. All the studies had seriously flaws or lack of good data that we read. educate before you pontificate 3. lifezette was the first source I found to confirm what on heard on the radio. The study was released to the public. again... educate (yourself) before you pontificate.