Does not matter one bit. Law enforcement may not break down doors without a warrant except in limited cases. This was not one of them. They violated the constitution and our way of life.
> Legal ones...
I'm guessing you didn't read the cite. It clearly shows that undocumented immigrants commit significantly less crime. Once you read it I'd be interested to know if it changes your opinion at all.
The majority of illegal immigrants did commit a crime by virtue of being illegals, violating 8 U.S.C. 1325, so the crime-rate for illegals is certainly higher than non-immigrants right out of the gate.
For the less-than-half who have “only” committed civil immigration violations, the point still remains that they are here illegally and are subject to civil immigration proceedings.
I’m unfamiliar with the details of the door knocking case, but I’ll defer to the courts on it. More broadly, plenty of citizens have had their fourth amendment rights violated, petitioned the court for redress, and received it - that doesn’t mean we stop enforcing traffic laws, drug laws, or disband the local police.
Naturalization: not mentioned in my thread that I can see, but just like parole, TPS, and other immigration proceedings, it’s only permanent when it’s permanent.
“if we wanted to reduce crime, we'd go after citizens first”: Yes, I agree! Let’s fund the police and prosecutors, reinstate requirements to post bail for crimes, and enforce our existing laws, even for things like shoplifting, drug possession, and panhandling.
Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York is the baseline: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/
“If you’re not an illegal alien you’re fine” isn’t how real enforcement works. Mistaken identity and broad neighborhood sweeps predictably hit citizens/legal residents, especially when decisions are made off appearance/location.
The “crime-rate is higher out of the gate” line is definitional sleight-of-hand. Not all undocumented people violated 8 U.S.C. §1325 (improper entry). Many are overstays, and unlawful presence itself is generally a civil violation, not a criminal conviction category comparable to assault/theft. §1325 text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
You can support immigration enforcement and still insist it be done with judicial warrants/consent and without turning civil status issues into “crime stats” rhetoric.
Just because it's happened before we don't have to put up with it. The door to door searches must stop. It is clearly a constitutional violation.
Since you like to defer to the courts, I assume you believe it wrong that the government shipped people like Kilmar Garcia to an El Salvador prison without any court being involved?
> Naturalization:
Sorry, I got threads mixed up. In Boston, ICE canceled a ceremony minutes before immigrants were to be sworn in as US citizens. You don't have a problem with this?
That study is yet another that fails to account for the fact that immigration status is not known immediately upon arrest.
> Studies purporting to show low illegal immigrant crime rates in Texas fail to account for the fact that illegal immigrants are not always identified immediately upon arrest. In many cases, illegal immigrants are identified only after they are imprisoned. Given sufficient time for data collection, it appears that illegal immigrants have above average conviction rates for homicide and sexual assault, while they have lower rates for robbery and drugs. [1]
There is also the question of how many illegal aliens actually exist in the US, which severely complicates calculation of rates for their population.
“Simply incorrect” overstates what your CIS link shows.
Yes, status isn’t always known at arrest, and time-lag/unknown-status classification is a real measurement issue. But that’s not a demonstration that the cited studies are false; it's a methodological dispute about how Texas data should be interpreted.
Even CIS effectively concedes the key limitation: “any crime” conviction rates aren’t meaningful under their own description because identification is biased toward longer prison terms/serious offenses. That means their approach can’t legitimately be used as a general claim that “undocumented commit more crime.”
The Cato author rebutted that article, and he and CIS traded rebuttals until this post, where the Cato author backs his point up with copious FOIA data. There seems to have been no further follow-up, so this could be the last word on that particular exchange:
Does not matter one bit. Law enforcement may not break down doors without a warrant except in limited cases. This was not one of them. They violated the constitution and our way of life.
> Legal ones...
I'm guessing you didn't read the cite. It clearly shows that undocumented immigrants commit significantly less crime. Once you read it I'd be interested to know if it changes your opinion at all.