Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

Study finds immigrants commit less California crime  

Immigrants are far less likely than the average U.S.-born citizen to commit crime in California, the most populous state in the United States, according to a report issued late on Monday.

People born outside the United States make up about 35 percent of California's adult population but account for about 17 percent of the adult prison population, the report by the Public Policy Institute of California showed.

According to the report's authors the findings suggest that long-standing fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are unjustified. The report also noted that U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate more than 2 1/2 times greater than that of foreign-born men.

"Our research indicates that limiting immigration, requiring higher educational levels to obtain visas, or spending more money to increase penalties against criminal immigrants will have little impact on public safety," said Kristin Butcher, co-author of the report and associate professor of economics at Wellesley College.

The study did not differentiate between documented immigrants and illegal immigrants.

The question of what to do about the millions of undocumented workers living in the United States has been one of the major issues in the U.S. presidential election. Mexico, which accounts for a high proportion of illegal immigrants in California, was deeply disappointed at the U.S. Congress' failure to pass President George W. Bush's overhaul of immigration laws last year.

When Butcher and her co-author, Anne Morrison Piehl, associate professor of economics at Rutgers University, considered all those committed to institutions including prison, jails, halfway houses and the like, they found an even greater disparity.

Among men 18 to 40, the population most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity, the report found that in California, U.S.-born men were institutionalized 10 times more often than foreign-born men (4.2 percent vs. 0.42 percent).

Among other findings in the report, non-citizen men from Mexico 18 to 40 -- a group disproportionately likely to have entered the United States illegally -- are more than eight times less likely than U.S.-born men in the same age group to be in a correctional institution (0.48 percent vs. 4.2 percent).

"From a public safety standpoint, there would be little reason to further limit immigration, to favor entry by high-skilled immigrants, or to increase penalties against criminal immigrants," the report said.

(Reporting by Duncan Martell; Editing by Adam Tanner and Bill Trott)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080226/us_nm/usa_immigration_crime_dc

[dhruvdeepak]

surprising findings. hmm where's lou dobbs?

[LosingNow]

surprising findings. hmm where's lou dobbs?

[broadbat]

I think this would be true across all countries, no? I don't know in which country the local populace is terrorised by immigrants and hence filling up the jails.

[cricinfo]

is this stat about legal or illegal immigrants    ?  Lou DubDub these days mostly tries to focus in illegal immigrants after his rant on legal ones didnt create enough furore

[kban1]

is this stat about legal or illegal immigrants    ?  Lou DubDub these days mostly tries to focus in illegal immigrants after his rant on legal ones didnt create enough furore

Check the two sets of highlighted statements -- Lou dobbs and his DG buddy may need a lassi or two. On second thoughts, ice tea for Dobbs.

[dhruvdeepak]

anyway the illegal immigrants are too busy stealing american jobs and whatnot, to be committing crimes

[cricinfo]

anyway the illegal immigrants are too busy stealing american jobs and whatnot, to be committing crimes

huh! from when did Americans started showing interest in lawn-mowing on someone else's yard?

[kban1]

Someone send CI a TL 101 course application please 

In case you missed it, DD was being sarcastic --he was doing the groundwork for Dobbs and his buddies by providing the next line of defense. 

[dhruvdeepak]

anyway the illegal immigrants are too busy stealing american jobs and whatnot, to be committing crimes

huh! from when did Americans started showing interest in lawn-mowing on someone else's yard?

heheheh

TL ALERT

 

[dextrous]

is this stat about legal or illegal immigrants    ?  Lou DubDub these days mostly tries to focus in illegal immigrants after his rant on legal ones didnt create enough furore

Check the two sets of highlighted statements -- Lou dobbs and his DG buddy may need a lassi or two. On second thoughts, ice tea for Dobbs.

American-made ice only please! Foreign product are dangerous and injurious to Lou's health.

[Cover Point]

RJo please come and stand up for Republicans.

I will help and am thinking of ways of proving Illegal Immigrants are all Gangulians ... but the connection is not complete yet

[ruchir]

This study, or at least the article quoting the study, should be trashed ASAP.

Among men 18 to 40, the population most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity, the report found that in California, U.S.-born men were institutionalized 10 times more often than foreign-born men (4.2 percent vs. 0.42 percent).

Among other findings in the report, non-citizen men from Mexico 18 to 40 -- a group disproportionately likely to have entered the United States illegally -- are more than eight times less likely than U.S.-born men in the same age group to be in a correctional institution (0.48 percent vs. 4.2 percent).

What is this? It is simply making a statement, that XYZ are less likely to commit crime. Says who? Based on what? Has anybody thought of these questions? Who funded this study? Is it a group supporting illegal immigration?

Just because an article comes out and says that illegals are less likely to commit crimes, doesn't mean you have to believe in it blindly. You have to question it's authenticity. You have to first understand how the study was done.

Just an FYI. Illegals *account for about 6% of US population (300 million population and 20 million illegals). It has been reported widely that 26% of prison population (state and federal) consists of illegal immigrants. That should tell us something, give us some indicators as to how likely illegals are to commit crime.

---

CP bhaiya, I don't stand for any political party. Not Dems, not Repubs. 

---

Cricinfo, how do you know americans are not lining up for lawn-mowing jobs? Have you tried to hire someone? The thing is that illegals charge $3, $4 an hours to do the same job. How do they survive in that money? They pile up 20 people in one bedroom. That's how they survive. Do you want american citizens to work for $4 an hours and survive by piling 20 in a bedroom? Why should any american be forced to live the kind of life these illegals live, while they steal american jobs? In Ellicott City, where I live, I have seen americans replace mexican workers in most fast food restaurants. I said this sometime ago too. How do you think americans replaced mexicans if they didn't want to do the lowly jobs?

Why the hell do you think Arizona wants to enforce the law where any business found hiring illegals will be punished?


Edit:  *account

[Cover Point]

CP bhaiya, I don't stand for any political party. Not Dems, not Repubs. 

I actually agree with (some) of your views against Illegals. Just cant articulate my views as well since I am not as well informed of the issues.

I personally think it is critical to punish (severely) any business caught employing any illegal.

[kban1]

What is this? It is simply making a statement, that XYZ are less likely to commit crime. Says who? Based on what? Has anybody thought of these questions? Who funded this study? Is it a group supporting illegal immigration?

Just because an article comes out and says that illegals are less likely to commit crimes, doesn't mean you have to believe in it blindly. You have to question it's authenticity. You have to first understand how the study was done.

Just an FYI. Illegals for about 6% of US population (300 million population and 20 million illegals). It has been reported widely that 26% of prison population (state and federal) consists of illegal immigrants. That should tell us something, give us some indicators as to how likely illegals are to commit crime.

Predictable response.

So 6% of illegals account for 26% of the prison population as per you.

and the study finds that immigrants are 8 to 10 times less likely than citizens to commit a crime and be incarcerated ?

Assuming your data is correct (the other data comes from an university research --FYI, usually they are not funded by pro or anti groups, of course exceptions exist)

Not sure how you found them to be contradictory. One talks about the % of population, the other talks about probability of occurence, 2 different issues altogether. if you are trying to say that predictive likelihood should equate actual data, then the discrepency is not as much as you make it out to be. It would actually be quite easily explainable.

if you are trying to show that the % of population indicates higher proportion of illegal immigrants are in jail, then that is flawed

A cursory look at the data you presented would suggest that since 6% of the total population make up 26% of the prison population, and the remaining 94% of the population (citizens presumably) account for only the other 74%  of the prison population, it stands to reason that illegals commit more crime, proportionately speaking.

What this simplistic and highly misleading data does not tell one is that the prison population by itself is highly skewed  -- the vast majority, 80-90% of the prison population is made of low income to poor people. Which means that the majority of the legal prison population (74%) comes not from the remaining 94% (100% - 6% illegal immigrants = 94%) of the population but from a significantly smaller portion of the population. Which is why, if you actually break down the population then its not 6% of pop accounting for 26% of prison pop and 94% of pop accounting for 74% of prison pop -- the actual numbers are far more likely to be close to the predictive range (likelihood range) that the research data points out.

[Cover Point]

I think the question (of Ruchir) that Mai baap did not answer is what does the 'probability of committing a crime' mean? How do they measure that? Is it based on prosecuted crimes?

For example, per Ruchir, 100% of illegals have committed a crime (illegal tresspassing and border crossing). They have also committed additional crimes like working without proper documentation and not paying taxes (since they dont have a SSN).

[dextrous]

I think the question (of Ruchir) that Mai baap did not answer is what does the 'probability of committing a crime' mean? How do they measure that? Is it based on prosecuted crimes?

For example, per Ruchir, 100% of illegals have committed a crime (illegal tresspassing and border crossing). They have also committed additional crimes like working without proper documentation and not paying taxes (since they dont have a SSN).

We need to find everyone who came on Mayflower and send them back packing (if they're dead, tehn find the descendants). Then we need to leave ASAP so Indians can have the land back.

[cricinfo]

RJo please come and stand up for Republicans.

I will help and am thinking of ways of proving Illegal Immigrants are all Gangulians ... but the connection is not complete yet

Was it not Jose who did your backyard last month? Did you check his GC ? 

[ruchir]

Pitamah --

When you talk about 'illegal immigrants', you are by default talking about poor people. I am yet to see a rich illegal immigrant (unless he is dealing in drugs). Have you seen a rich illegal alien?

All illegal aliens are poor. Therefore, when we talk about prison population, we are of course talking about primarily poor people. It is my contention that 100% of illegal immigrants are poor. If you want to challenge that, do so.

So, my point is that illegal immigrants (6% of total population) account for 26% of total prison population. I am not talking about some probability or possibility or chances of something happening. I am talking about real facts, things that have already happened. I am not making these figures up. I watch many programs on TV, on channels like CNN, MSNBC, FNC etc. This figure of 26% prison population being illegal immigrants has been reported in every channel. So I am assuming that this figure is correct.

What this report is talking about is a 'probability' of something happening. How do they calculate this probability? Of course it is calculated based on some real figures, some reals stuff that has already happened. In the article, they don't say how they reached the conclusion that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime. How did they reach this conclusion? Based on what?

If it was based on facts, then the facts I have put forward show that illegals are actually, in real life, in reality, committing more crimes than anyone else. So, where does this lead to? That article is talking about probability of something happening without telling clearly how they reached that conclusion. I am talking about a reality and quoting figures that have been splashed on all major TV channels and have not been contested.

[kban1]

When you talk about 'illegal immigrants', you are by default talking about poor people. I am yet to see a rich illegal immigrant (unless he is dealing in drugs). Have you seen a rich illegal alien?

All illegal aliens are poor. Therefore, when we talk about prison population, we are of course talking about primarily poor people. It is my contention that 100% of illegal immigrants are poor. If you want to challenge that, do so

No disagreements.

I said nothing about illegals.

I said the the legal prison population (74%) does not come equally from the remaining 94% of the US population (the legal part -- 100 - 6). This 74% is predominantly made of the lower income group of the US population, which means that a much much smaller percentage of the US population (all legals) account for 74% of the prison population.

My contention is that if these figures are compared, they will be closer to the probabilities stated in the research.

Again, I am not disputing your figures, I am focusing on what these simple numbers do not tell us.

WRT article, its a synopsis of an university research. its reporting the findings of a published study. Without having poured through the actual study myself, I cant answer the specifics. However, knowing the level of acedemic rigor and scholarship any such research has to go through before even a journal will think of publishing them, I can venture a guess that the conclusions are likely to be robust enough to stand up to scrutiny --thats based on my experience with such research.

[dextrous]

by the way, talking about right wing politics, the grand daddy of them all, William Buckley died today at the age of 82.

[Cover Point]

RJo please come and stand up for Republicans.

I will help and am thinking of ways of proving Illegal Immigrants are all Gangulians ... but the connection is not complete yet

Was it not Jose who did your backyard last month? Did you check his GC ? 

No it was a black man. Spoke good American English and thus no need to check GC (he did not have one .,... being a citizen)

[Cover Point]

I think the question (of Ruchir) that Mai baap did not answer is what does the 'probability of committing a crime' mean? How do they measure that? Is it based on prosecuted crimes?

For example, per Ruchir, 100% of illegals have committed a crime (illegal tresspassing and border crossing). They have also committed additional crimes like working without proper documentation and not paying taxes (since they dont have a SSN).

We need to find everyone who came on Mayflower and send them back packing (if they're dead, tehn find the descendants). Then we need to leave ASAP so Indians can have the land back.

I dont know about descendants ... rarely do descendants (born in this country) get affected by parents crimes ... and when the mayflower came there was no law against illegals. It wasnt a crime then.

About Indians ... I had a suspicion that you snuck into the country .... because I came here legally.

[ruchir]

I think the question (of Ruchir) that Mai baap did not answer is what does the 'probability of committing a crime' mean? How do they measure that? Is it based on prosecuted crimes?

For example, per Ruchir, 100% of illegals have committed a crime (illegal tresspassing and border crossing). They have also committed additional crimes like working without proper documentation and not paying taxes (since they dont have a SSN).

We need to find everyone who came on Mayflower and send them back packing (if they're dead, tehn find the descendants). Then we need to leave ASAP so Indians can have the land back.

I dont know about descendants ... rarely do descendants (born in this country) get affected by parents crimes ... and when the mayflower came there was no law against illegals. It wasnt a crime then.

About Indians ... I had a suspicion that you snuck into the country .... because I came here legally.

CP, I don't think people understand the history of immigration in USA.

In 1800s, US was inviting people from Europe to come and live in USA. Why? Because they wanted to build up population here. To achieve this, they did not create any real laws about people coming in without any documentation. Still, everyone who came to NY or NJ was first documented after alighting from the boats and then let inside the country. They had big holding camps where people would be put up for a day or two till they could be documented. Now, why were mainly Europeans invited? It's the wish of the Govt. of the country, who they want to invite and who they don't want to invite. They wanted a particular kind of country and they worked toward building it.

So, when some people question how are the illegal immigrants of today different from the immigrants of 1800s, there is a big difference.

1) Immigrants of 1800s were invited. There was open invitation for people to come to USA. Today there is no such invitation today. In fact US govt discourages people coming to US, specially after 9/11.
2) Immigrants of 1800 stayed in camps at the port of entry, so that they could be documented. Today the illegal immigrants deliberately try to escape such documentation.

People should not confuse immigration of 1800s with the illegal immigration of today. They are completely different issues.

[dextrous]

I think the question (of Ruchir) that Mai baap did not answer is what does the 'probability of committing a crime' mean? How do they measure that? Is it based on prosecuted crimes?

For example, per Ruchir, 100% of illegals have committed a crime (illegal tresspassing and border crossing). They have also committed additional crimes like working without proper documentation and not paying taxes (since they dont have a SSN).

We need to find everyone who came on Mayflower and send them back packing (if they're dead, tehn find the descendants). Then we need to leave ASAP so Indians can have the land back.

I dont know about descendants ... rarely do descendants (born in this country) get affected by parents crimes ... and when the mayflower came there was no law against illegals. It wasnt a crime then.

LMAO. Wow. Yes, Natives said, please come take our land and kill us.

[Cover Point]

I think the question (of Ruchir) that Mai baap did not answer is what does the 'probability of committing a crime' mean? How do they measure that? Is it based on prosecuted crimes?

For example, per Ruchir, 100% of illegals have committed a crime (illegal tresspassing and border crossing). They have also committed additional crimes like working without proper documentation and not paying taxes (since they dont have a SSN).

We need to find everyone who came on Mayflower and send them back packing (if they're dead, tehn find the descendants). Then we need to leave ASAP so Indians can have the land back.

I dont know about descendants ... rarely do descendants (born in this country) get affected by parents crimes ... and when the mayflower came there was no law against illegals. It wasnt a crime then.

LMAO. Wow. Yes, Natives said, please come take our land and kill us.

U are making this argument silly. We are talking about Crime ... which is breaking the law. The natives were wiped out but did they have a law against the immigrants. Answer is no.

We can talk through the wazoo about the moral issue of killing the natives or taking their land BUT thats not the issue. The issue is of breaking existing AND ACCEPTED law. Just because you snuck into the country illegaly doesnt make it right.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

POSTS FROM HEAR HAYDEN MOCKING INDIAN ACCENT THREAD APPENDED TO THIS THREAD

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

[ruchir]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

how would they pay?

[ruchir]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

how would they pay?

Does it matter? Look at the facts. They don't pay, but don't hesitate in using free amenities and welfare. BTW, they would definitely be able to pay if they legalized their status. Why do they hesitate to do that? Ans - They would have to pay for the services they currently use for free.

[Aloo Kashmiri Ul Haq]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

how would they pay?

Does it matter? Look at the facts. They don't pay, but don't hesitate in using free amenities and welfare. BTW, they would definitely be able to pay if they legalized their status. Why do they hesitate to do that? Ans - They would have to pay for the services they currently use for free.

We are digressing but anyway, I do not think that illegal immigrants would hesitate to become legal residents

[ruchir]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

how would they pay?

Does it matter? Look at the facts. They don't pay, but don't hesitate in using free amenities and welfare. BTW, they would definitely be able to pay if they legalized their status. Why do they hesitate to do that? Ans - They would have to pay for the services they currently use for free.

We are digressing but anyway, I do not think that illegal immigrants would hesitate to become legal residents

Then why don't they?

[kban1]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

How many times ?

your dearly held beliefs about immigration issues have been shown to be shaky or insubstantial at best --one by one.

[ruchir]

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

How many times ?

your dearly held beliefs about immigration issues have been shown to be shaky or insubstantial at best --one by one.

Who showed them shaky and insubstantial? Some study done by some college, who don't even publish how they reached to their conclusions?

[kban1]

They publish, unpublished studies usually dont get quoted. Your unwillingness to look into it matters little here. Most proper research is done in academic settings and they undergo rigorous review before they are published / released.

As for me, I choose anyday to believe what I have seen and experienced in the US and what is published as a result of research than what popular or otherwise talking heads blabber baout on network or cable TV. I prefer not to get my data and analysis from MSNBC or FOX.

[ruchir]

They publish, unpublished studies usually dont get quoted. Your unwillingness to look into it matters little here. Most proper research is done in academic settings and they undergo rigorous review before they are published / released.

As for me, I choose anyday to believe what I have seen and experienced in the US and what is published as a result of research than what popular or otherwise talking heads blabber baout on network or cable TV. I prefer not to get my data and analysis from MSNBC or FOX.

We will discuss this elsewhere, but when you read research done by educational institutes, you have to be careful. These institute researches are usually funded by someone or some business. They don't always publish who is sponsoring the research. Who are the people doing these researchs? Are they students or professors? I know for sure that many times such research are done by students to complete their doctorate or things like that. They find some sponsor to fund it. The concerned professor reviews it and accepts or rejects it. University then goes ahead and publishes it (if they want to) under their name.

When a word is said on TV, it is usually heard and seen by more people than a published report. So, if that word is wrong, partially or whole, then there are a lot of other TV personalities on rival channels who come out and attack whatever wrong was said. The figures that I have put forward are unchallenged by anyone, and have been used by all major channels. When a TV program or TV personality does some research, it is done by professionals who have big infrastructure and access supporting them in their research. So, I am not quoting balbber heads talking on TV. I am quoting serious debates and analysis that has taken place on TV.

[kban1]

We will discuss this elsewhere, but when you read research done by educational institutes, you have to be careful. These institute researches are usually funded by someone or some business. They don't always publish who is sponsoring the research. Who are the people doing these researchs? Are they students or professors? I know for sure that many times such research are done by students to complete their doctorate or things like that. They find some sponsor to fund it. The concerned professor reviews it and accepts or rejects it. University then goes ahead and publishes it (if they want to) under their name.

Largely untrue and incorrect.

When a word is said on TV, it is usually heard and seen by more people than a published report. So, if that word is wrong, partially or whole, then there are a lot of other TV personalities on rival channels who come out and attack whatever wrong was said. The figures that I have put forward are unchallenged by anyone, and have been used by all major channels. When a TV program or TV personality does some research, it is done by professionals who have big infrastructure and access supporting them in their research. So, I am not quoting balbber heads talking on TV. I am quoting serious debates and analysis that has taken place on TV

When these debates happen, according to you, (they usually dont because of the limitations of the tv format and the fact that most such statements are made as monologue with no one to offer a counterpoint), where do you think the information for such assertions and counter assertions come from ? Most of the time, they come from raw numbers with media persons / hosts /talking heads putting their interpretation on such raw numbers, which then leaves the conclusion open to whatever twist or bend you (read the person quoting them) wish to give them.

Informed debates on the other hand tend to be based on a proper research and analysis of the data, conducted by people who are reasonably adept in the field. I know enough about television to know that this is not employed by a majority of shows, no matter what your perceptions about use of infrastructure and resources by the tv companies are.

And if someone has told you that better research is conducted by tv companies and their support staff than the academia, boy, have they led you to climb the wrong tree --in fact I am  a little dumbstruck at your assertions regarding research given that almost everything that we can think of (yes everyday usage too) was thought up / reserached /nurtured in an acedemic environment, and not by the support staff of TV shows, no matter how big their structure

[ruchir]

We will discuss this elsewhere, but when you read research done by educational institutes, you have to be careful. These institute researches are usually funded by someone or some business. They don't always publish who is sponsoring the research. Who are the people doing these researchs? Are they students or professors? I know for sure that many times such research are done by students to complete their doctorate or things like that. They find some sponsor to fund it. The concerned professor reviews it and accepts or rejects it. University then goes ahead and publishes it (if they want to) under their name.

Largely untrue and incorrect.

Because you said so? 

When a word is said on TV, it is usually heard and seen by more people than a published report. So, if that word is wrong, partially or whole, then there are a lot of other TV personalities on rival channels who come out and attack whatever wrong was said. The figures that I have put forward are unchallenged by anyone, and have been used by all major channels. When a TV program or TV personality does some research, it is done by professionals who have big infrastructure and access supporting them in their research. So, I am not quoting balbber heads talking on TV. I am quoting serious debates and analysis that has taken place on TV

When these debates happen, according to you, (they usually dont because of the limitations of the tv format and the fact that most such statements are made as monologue with no one to offer a counterpoint), where do you think the information for such assertions and counter assertions come from ? Most of the time, they come from raw numbers with media persons / hosts /talking heads putting their interpretation on such raw numbers, which then leaves the conclusion open to whatever twist or bend you (read the person quoting them) wish to give them.

Not sure if you have seen programs where a couple or more professional researchers (not affiliated to some university) appear on a TV program and give their point of views, supporting them by analysis they have done. It is not some host giving raw numbers, but professionals of their field discussing a topic.

Informed debates on the other hand tend to be based on a proper research and analysis of the data, conducted by people who are reasonably adept in the field. I know enough about television to know that this is not employed by a majority of shows, no matter what your perceptions about use of infrastructure and resources by the tv companies are.

I know this will go back to illegal immigration less likely to commit crime thread.

I agree, proper research and analysis needs to be done on a topic under research. Hence my question, are universities geared to do that kind of a research? May be they are, when someone funds the research. Question - who funded the immigration research? Universities can do a good research if professionals are involved in it. Question - who actually carried out the immigration research? Students? College professors? Question - Do we even know what data was used to arrive at the conclusion that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime? The article surely didn't say what was used to arrive at the conclusion.

That's the thing. Random articles will quote something from some research to prove their point. Nothing will be said about how the conclusions were arrived at. We just have to blindly believe what the article and the researcher is saying. On the other hand, on a TV program at least their is give and take on every fact and figure that is put across. At least viewer can make a better informed decision after hearing both sides.

And if someone has told you that better research is conducted by tv companies and their support staff than the academia, boy, have they led you to climb the wrong tree --in fact I am  a little dumbstruck at your assertions regarding research given that almost everything that we can think of (yes everyday usage too) was thought up / reserached /nurtured in an acedemic environment, and not by the support staff of TV shows, no matter how big their structure

I say this again, do universities have the capability of doing a professional research on their own? I know that nearly all university researches are funded by someone from outside and are not carried out by professionals of this field. Who funds them and who carries out the research plays a big role in the conclusions such researches reach to.


Edit: I am not saying that Universities don't do good researches. I am saying that at least in this immigration article that was posted, there was nothing to know how certain conclusions were arrived at. I can't believe an article blindly because it says something. Also, IMO universities are not professionally geared to conduct researches in the best way. Their researches are regularly influenced by the funders and competence of people carrying out the research.

[kban1]

Because you said so?   

I didnt want to prolong the debate on this thread but essentially because I have done academic research /thesis as have many of my friends in grad school and my spouse. I am quite well aware of what happens in academia and how research is funded and what it takes to first get the research approved and then what other steps one needs to take before that research is published (they are 2 different animals --approval of research vs getting it published --getting it published requires a much higher threshold to be crossed in terms of scrutiny). so no, your argument has little resonance with me or with academic reserach for that matter. Sorry to say, it sounds terribly uninformed and based on misinformation and stereotypes.

Not sure if you have seen programs where a couple or more professional researchers (not affiliated to some university) appear on a TV program and give their point of views, supporting them by analysis they have done. It is not some host giving raw numbers, but professionals of their field discussing a topic.

I have --my post alluded to the fact that such programs are few and far in between, especially on network television.

I know this will go back to illegal immigration less likely to commit crime thread.

I agree, proper research and analysis needs to be done on a topic under research. Hence my question, are universities geared to do that kind of a research? May be they are, when someone funds the research. Question - who funded the immigration research? Universities can do a good research if professionals are involved in it. Question - who actually carried out the immigration research? Students? College professors? Question - Do we even know what data was used to arrive at the conclusion that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime? The article surely didn't say what was used to arrive at the conclusion.

Again, your questions indicate a basic misconception about research as it is conducted. Universities, bar none, are the best place for such research simply because research when conducted by outside academia research organizations are the ones that are likely to be, and sometimes are, affected by the funding source conflict --because several such institutions do have ideological biases either based on funding source or based on mission. Universities on the other hand are by and large immune to that because university research is funded from university funds. yes there are instances of corporate funded research in universities but that is not the norm --whats more, not only does such research have to declare the funding source, its still less likely to affect reserach conclusions because universities retain full academic independence on the research topic, irrespective of funding source.

As far as questioning the article --you obviously didnt read it --it was conducted by university professors. And as far as details, it was reported in yahoo --did you expect yahoo to present you the 100+ page document ? No, if you are that interested in disproving the data or the statistical analysis, get a copy of the original reserach and do so. As I noted before, a published study that has gone through the review process is more believable to me because I understand what the process entails.

That's the thing. Random articles will quote something from some research to prove their point. Nothing will be said about how the conclusions were arrived at. We just have to blindly believe what the article and the researcher is saying. On the other hand, on a TV program at least their is give and take on every fact and figure that is put across. At least viewer can make a better informed decision after hearing both sides.

This is not true --the random article is based on published research. You are free to delve into it.

And please, I am not  a spring chicken when it comes to US television -- please do not tell me that either the format of debate or the mode or the moderation allows for both sides to be heard fairly on TV shows --they dont, at least on 98% of them, such that people can draw their own conclusions. 

I say this again, do universities have the capability of doing a professional research on their own? I know that nearly all university researches are funded by someone from outside and are not carried out by professionals of this field. Who funds them and who carries out the research plays a big role in the conclusions such researches reach to.

Already explained

Edit: I am not saying that Universities don't do good researches. I am saying that at least in this immigration article that was posted, there was nothing to know how certain conclusions were arrived at. I can't believe an article blindly because it says something. Also, IMO universities are not professionally geared to conduct researches in the best way. Their researches are regularly influenced by the funders and competence of people carrying out the research.

yet you find it so easy to believe researchers on TV (who appear on 2% of the programs anyway) and talk show hosts or opinion heads when they quote either raw data or present their opinion about what research shows -- did you ever ask them what the basis for their data / conclusions is / are --what sort of statistical methods they subjected the data to ?

As I said, in the absence of rigorous examination of the source --its possible, but time is at a premium, I would believe a published research conducted in an academic environ than a reseracher quoting stuff on TV. For one, I dont know who that researcher is affiliated to, what his /her  beliefs are . For two -- why do you think they got invited to the show anyway by the host ?

Academic reserach by virtue of the rigorous and diverse vetting process is at least assured of not being tainted by the ideological or political motivations of the researcher because for it to be published, it has to be peer reviewed.

[WicketView]

They publish, unpublished studies usually dont get quoted. Your unwillingness to look into it matters little here. Most proper research is done in academic settings and they undergo rigorous review before they are published / released.

As for me, I choose anyday to believe what I have seen and experienced in the US and what is published as a result of research than what popular or otherwise talking heads blabber baout on network or cable TV. I prefer not to get my data and analysis from MSNBC or FOX.

We will discuss this elsewhere, but when you read research done by educational institutes, you have to be careful. These institute researches are usually funded by someone or some business.

Depends on the kind of research. Mostly, industries fund research along the lines of their business. There is a lot of research, particularly the kind that are not exactly going to help industries, that are funded by National agencies.

They don't always publish who is sponsoring the research.

That would be poor writing ... and I don't think that is common. One is supposed to acknowledge the funding agency.

Who are the people doing these researchs? Are they students or professors? I know for sure that many times such research are done by students to complete their doctorate or things like that. They find some sponsor to fund it. The concerned professor reviews it and accepts or rejects it. University then goes ahead and publishes it (if they want to) under their name.

And so?

When a word is said on TV, it is usually heard and seen by more people than a published report. So, if that word is wrong, partially or whole, then there are a lot of other TV personalities on rival channels who come out and attack whatever wrong was said. The figures that I have put forward are unchallenged by anyone, and have been used by all major channels. When a TV program or TV personality does some research, it is done by professionals who have big infrastructure and access supporting them in their research. So, I am not quoting balbber heads talking on TV. I am quoting serious debates and analysis that has taken place on TV.