Mexican president says the 'flow of migrants will continue' unless the US meets his demands

Looking to a grieving family to dictate policy is not at all logical, and doing so would be an example of how politics is dysfunctional in improving policy. Yes, it's anecdotal. If the policy goal is to improve safety, one must look to statistics, not anecdotes. Proper statistical methods are very important, but anecdotes simply can't tell you the average effect of a policy or issue.

I'd want support for your claims. But one must stop and think logically rather than emotionally. When you introduce a person into a country, they are both a potential criminal as well as a potential victim. So what determines their effect on the safety of society? If persons of the type introduced are less likely to victimize others than persons who already live in the country, this results in a fall in the crime rate. This makes others safer as they contribute less to more crimes than they do to being a target of crimes. Legal immigrants have much lower crime rates than native citizens. Illegal citizens still have slightly lower crime rates than native citizens. Therefore, immigration does not increase crime rates.

Prices go up because people are willing to pay more in the face of scarcity. Post-covid supply issues caused this. People making less than minimum wage may increase how often goods are bought, but certainly not the price that people are willing to pay. And if people working less than minimum wage were not available to help produce goods, the cost of producing those goods would increase.

Definitely not, though it depends some on how much we are willing to allow them to access services. States can set their own policies on whether they are eligible for food stamps, e.g.

I don't think they cause much trouble. They provide labor that the rest of us cannot easily compensate for. Without them, prices of goods and services go up, but not by a lot.

Economists Say Increasing Immigration Will Reduce Inflation (forbes.com)

 

What I forgot to mention they interviewed just one cartel group, the Sinaloa cartel, who pays tens of millions in bribes. There are plenty more cartels in Mexico.

 

Mexico's border

 

No see it's impossible to get an actual statistical sampling of violent crime by illegals because when they commit a violent crime serious enough to send them to prison they just leave. So essentially ALL of the statistics you can cite to benefit your argument deal with ARREST rates. That means those are the ones who stayed after they committed their crime and were arrested NOT an accurate statistical calculation of how many of them actually COMMIT violent crime.

But not even all of those studies agree:

"John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, looked at data on prisoners in Arizona state prison between the beginning of 1985 and June 2017 and concluded that “undocumented immigrants are at least 146% more likely to be convicted of crime than other Arizonans.” They also tend to commit more serious crimes, and have significantly higher rates for such crimes as murder, manslaughter, sexual assault and armed robbery, Lott concluded, and are more likely to be gang members. Conversely, Lott found that legal immigrants “were extremely law-abiding,” committing crimes at a lower rate than native-born residents."

 

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have support for it?

The Lott study is a good example of garbage in, garbage out. Here's an article that discusses it: The Fatal Flaw in John R. Lott Jr.’s Study on Illegal Immigrant Crime in Arizona | Cato at Liberty Blog

"Even if we assume that 100 percent of the prisoner overcount in the June 2017 ADC database were U.S. citizens, subtract them from the denominator, and leave the numerator that assumes that all prisoners with an ICE detainer were illegal immigrants, those illegal immigrants would still be a maximum of only 4.3 percent of all prisoners. In 2014, the last year for which Pew published its estimates of the illegal immigrant population by state, there were about 325,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona who comprised 4.9 percent of the state’s population. Since the population of illegal immigrants has held steady since then, the illegal immigrant incarceration rate was likely lower than their percent of the Arizona state population in 2017 (Figure 1). It is important to repeat that those with ICE detainers are not all illegal immigrants so the percentages in Figure 1 are the maximum possible shares of illegal immigrants in Arizona prisons in June 2017, depending on the two different estimates of the total size of the incarcerated population."

I wouldn't take his numbers literally, either, though. ICE detainers is also an imperfect measurement of illegal immigrants, as it misses some and inappropriately includes others, just like the original variable used. This paper was a major outlier in the literature, and the reason is because the data it is based upon is not sufficiently precise to draw any conclusions at all.

 

It looks like the Mexican government is trying to compete with the cartels on extortion.

 

Neither are any of the studies you use to back up your conclusion. They're not precise and do not address how much ACTUAL violent crime they commit. They only address how many of them actually get arrested.

What we DO know is that the numbers we have are for the ones who did NOT leave the country after they committed a violent crime.

Now you said that was an "interesting hypothesis". Let's assume you're an illegal and you came over here and committed a violent crime. Would you just stick around waiting for them to arrest you or would you go back to where you came from?

Now if we assume that at LEAST one of them has done so, then that means all of the numbers that are reported by your studies and statistical analysis are BY DEFINITION under-reported, are they not?

 

You ever got into a wreck with a drunk illegal? I have. If they don't just leave the scene, the cops told me there's no use in even going after them because the vast majority of the time they never show up in court and you never hear from them again. Why? Because they leave the country and go back home.

They wouldn't even ****ing ticket him because it wasn't worth their time to fill out the paperwork for him to just disappear.

 

Andrew Jackson would not have put up with tin pot, third world third leader blackmailing him. He would have kicked butt, and it take much to get him to act.

 

Andrew Jackson would have shot that **** for trying to extort us

 

Not "at least one," but enough to make a meaningful difference. For most people packing up and leaving is not a simple and easy thing. For anything short of murder, it may be reasonable to assume the heat will die down if you can lay low, especially if you weren't initially identified, and it may go unreported. I could speculate on what I would do, but I wouldn't assume you or I think exactly like them, and we don't know what it's like to be them. So finding a way to at least approximate the extent of this phenomenon is required. Do border states get a lot more unsolved murders or assaults where it was some mexican guy who was never identified?

We can probably agree that murder is the crime that would create the largest motivation to flee, so let's start there. This isn't going to be a study, but let's see what the big picture says. Do states with a lower murder clearance rates tend to have more illegal immigrants?

States Where the Most Murders Go Unsolved - 24/7 Wall St. (247wallst.com)

So which states have the highest illegal population: Arizona 5%, New Jersy 6%, Texas 6-7%, Nevada 7%, California 7-8%.

Where do these rank on the unsolved murder rate list: Arizona 36th, New Jersy 11th, Texas 26th, Nevada 41st, California 23rd.

So we have a mixture of one bad, two average and two good clearance rates. Overall, this suggest that murder clearance rate is not strongly influenced by the proportion of illegal immigrants in the state. Teasing out small effects would require detailed analysis with multiple regression.

 

Spreading FAKE Memes?
Totally LMAO!
Photo shows Israel-Egypt border, not Mexico-Guatemala border fence
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N35Z1ZG/

 

I think people from Venezuela have a legitimate asylum claim. They should just go to the embassy.

 

That's not a statistically relevant analysis and you know it because you clearly have at least some backgrounds in statistics.

That could be because NJ has a **** police force, it could be Texas is great at catching illegals or it could be that they don't commit crime at a higher rate or it could be some states overfunded their police force like Texas and some underfunded theirs like NJ or any number of causes.

The actual conclusion here is that nobody can say with any degree of certainty whether or not illegals commit more violent crime than Americans.

But I would argue that it doesn't matter. We don't need them, they offer few if any benefits and some of them rape murder assault and rob Americans. So why take the risk for ANY of them committing those things especially if you're wrong and they actually commit more?

 

Evidence suggests they commit less crime. The vast majority of studies show this, and the main exception I was aware of that you mentioned was flawed. This is one reason we look at all studies as a whole, not just one or a few. We do benefit from them, economically, as I cited earlier.

The purpose of my birds eye view was mostly to show that the thing you mentioned is not likely to be a huge factor. If we wanted to know if it was a small factor hidden by other more significant factors (like a **** police force), we would need a true statistical analysis. In the context of many actual studies showing they commit less crime, the burdern of proof would be on you to support your hypothesis of them running back to Mexico after committing crimes and this making it seem like they commit less crime when they actually commit more.

 

No sir. Evidence suggests they are less likely to be ARRESTED for a crime.

I allow people who don't know statistics to make the kind of statement you just made without calling them out. However for those who know statistics I'm not going to allow you to manipulate the data to say something it doesn't say without getting called out for it.

 

Where is this evidence? Your anecdote about lazy cops is not sufficient.

Again, my mention of how there's no correlation between murder clearance rates and numbers of illegal immigrants was only meant to cast doubt on your hypothesis that them running away without getting arrested is a major thing. When there is a huge and impactful thing going on, one can often easily see it in ecological level data like that. So I'm saying there's nothing obvious here, while acknowledging it doesn't rule out a small effect. If you want to refute the huge body of evidence that shows they commit less crime, you're going to have to come up with an actual study that shows this, because the raw ecological data gives no hint as to what you're suggesting as far as I have seen or you have presented.

 

Let's take a look at that first sentence. In an area with a lot of illegals, such as NYC or LA, if a car is robbed and they don't catch the thief, then how do they know if that thief is a citizen or illegal?

Second, there are areas in CA, maybe even all of CA, where the police don't ask a person's immigration status when they're arrested.

Third, it's been said dozens of times that illegals who are crime victims don't report those crimes.

With the above in mind, I don't know how any studies can be considered reliable.

 

No need to do that. Just slam the door on the border- no asylum unless you apply before you violate the law... and deportation for any here illegally, period.
That solves problem one. Then, look to the tariffs, the remittances, and the various ways we might stop sending money out of the country that's not coming back.

 

Source your studies that claim that illegals commit less violent crimes and I'll show you in your study how it only looks at ARREST rates.

 

This isn't blackmail. This is the same as when Trump said there would be a bloodbath if he isn't elected president. Its a warning, consisting of "if X happens, Y will be the result.' Like, don't jump off that cliff or you will die. That isn't a threat or blackmail, its just a warning.

Now, I won't pretend like we have an obligation to send SA countries $20B/year or accept all their poor into our country. We CAN (AND SHOULD) stop them from coming in, if we can agree to do that.

But this is not a threat or blackmail from Mexico, this is them telling us what they think is going to happen.

And they prolly are in a good position to know. We need to secure our borders, stop people from getting in, and then they'll all be Mexico's problem. And Mexico will not treat them with our kid gloves. Mexico will make sure they stop coming to Mexico, probably by means we don't really want to know about.

 

Again that doesn't make sense. He wants ALL of them met or else they keep coming.

One of those included making tens of millions of illegals who are already here legal. How does that not incentivize them to keep coming?

See y'all are asserting that he wasn't threatening us, he was saying "oh well if yall will just address these problems with these solutions then the migrants will stop coming on their own.

But making illegals into legals does not alleviate ANY problem in South America. It actually INCENTIVIZES them to keep coming. Therefore to assert this was just him extending some helpful advice to us is patently absurd.

 

Where did he say this is what he 'wants'?

He said this is what will happen.

There's a difference.

Also he's wrong, because we have the option of just not letting them in to our country anymore.

 

The error in this post is it assumes that Mexico is indifferent to the influx of migrants into North America, when in actuality, recent data reveals that Mexico actually houses more of these refugees than the US and Canada combined, which is an incredible thing considering how much more economically developed the US and Canada are.

The overall fact of the matter is the US and Mexico share a common interest on this issue, and whatever exhaustions the US has been dealing with in this issue, things have been far worse for Mexico. The North American countries should be working together on this issue, but in doing so, the US and Canada need to understand that if they want Mexico to do even more than what they are already doing (which again is already more than the US and Canada) then Mexico, along with the Latin countries which these migrants are coming from are going to need some assistance from the more developed countries of North America to mitigate this issue

Again, Mexico isn’t indifferent to this issue, we complain about the number of migrants that we see, but Mexico has it worse than we do. We shouldn’t expect to demand more from Mexico without them demanding something from us, the same way any other country shouldn’t expect to demand more from us without us demanding something from them. This isn’t so much a moral principle so much as it is having your global politics be grounded to reality.

World politics revolves around incentives

 

"Lopez Obrador has discussed the ideas with President Biden for a while, noting in December 2023 that he "proposed to President (Joe) Biden that a U.S.-Cuba bilateral dialogue be opened,” according to The Associated Press.

He also mentioned the $20 billion in aid for Latin American countries during discussions in January 2024, as reported at the time by the U.K. Daily Mail.

The Mexican president has frequently championed his ideas before the domestic news media as well, as the AP reported.

When Alfonsi asked what Lopez Obrado what will happen if the ideas aren't implemented -- if the demands aren't met -- he stated flatly, "The flow of migrants will continue."

Even Alfonsi couldn't help but bring up the fact that the "proposal" read like blackmail.

"Your critics have said what you're doing — what you're asking for, to help secure the border, is diplomatic blackmail," she said.

"I am speaking frankly," Obrador responded, without denying the charge. "We have to say things as they are and I always say what I feel. I always say what I think.""

And we have ALWAYS had that ability but the democrats won't ****ing let us will they?