S4 E12 - Unveiling the Concealed Truth: Immigrant Crime is No Myth

In this episode of the 10th Man podcast, the host critiques a popular narrative that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than US-born citizens. The podcast discusses a debate involving Dean Withers, who claims that immigrants are less likely to commit violent crimes, a statement that is fact-checked and found to be inaccurate. The episode also critiques studies by Michael Light and others that use Texas data to suggest that immigrants commit fewer crimes. The host argues that using data from a single state like Texas is flawed and discusses potential biases and inconsistencies in these studies. The episode concludes by questioning the motivations of the Democrats and media, accusing them of using flawed data to support their political agenda and downplaying the crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

Commentary on trending issues brought to you with a moderate perspective.

Transcript

0:11

Famous researcher rejects popular studies supposedly showing immigrants don't break the law for the same reasons we do, but now he has a new study that proves it. The great immigrant crime coverup. Today on the 10th man, there's a male version of Greta Thunberg A who supports illegal immigrants, and he said this about immigrant crime.

Dean Withers: 0:39

Are you a US born citizen? A hundred percent. You are statistically speaking, four times more likely. To commit a violent crime than an undocumented migrant.

Hag: 0:47

Liar, liar, Liar.

0:53

the last part is what we should say about his statement. In the video recording of this debate, it's a rather lengthy one. Fact check bubbles pop up from time to time in order to prove what the kid is saying. He's a, he's an arrogant young democrat named Dean Withers. And this video, you can find it on YouTube. Can one Democrat teen, one liberal teen take on 20 Trump supporters and. They're oh for two because the fact check bubble says F four times less likely to commit property crime. But if you notice what Dean Withers says is this,

Dean Withers: 1:31

More likely. To commit a violent crime

1:34

So not violent crime, but property crime, depending on which statement is accurate, and the accurate one is the less alarming one, the property crime. But of course that statement is also incorrect. As we've been saying all these studies are flawed in the strongest conclusion any immigrant crime study can make it's not that immigrants commit very little crime. Rather it's, we really can't tell by the data we looked at. And so if Donald Trump says there's a crime wave, we didn't prove it. So all these news articles about immigrant crime trying to downplay if they have these two things in common, they'll have a headline. The headline will say, immigrant crime is a myth. Then there's an opening paragraph saying the right, or Donald Trump claims there's an immigrant crime wave. What is a crime wave? Does there have to be a crime wave? We have multiple people being murdered by immigrants. Isn't that enough? Anyway, there'll be that statement that Donald Trump says there's a crime wave and whether he has or not, followed by the listing of an inconclusive study. Inconclusive and or flawed. So that's really non-event reporting, saying we didn't find proof. The press likes to use the fake news, likes to use the non-event as news. They'll say about the Venezuelan immigrants ice failed to show any proof that these immigrants were criminals. Or they'll say, Trump did not rule out military force These are wrong. Not only because they're. Reporting a negative as an event, as a positive, but in any case, if you were going to use force in any kind of action, you wouldn't tip your hand. And of course, if you ever ruled it out, if you ruled it out in advance and then someday had to use it for some reason why, then they'd say you were a liar. that's what makes the fake news. And these non-events are reported as if they are events. But we on the other hand, will be very specific about the flaws in the other two study types. One we're gonna look at today and another one next time looking at the falsehoods from the pages of the New York Times. And we'll try to keep it moving because just listening to this, it could be dry, but I hope it won't be. Diving into it, a press release from the University of Wisconsin, and this is the famous study reads, undocumented immigrants, far less likely to commit crimes in US than citizens. And this is the study everyone's talking about. It's the one that gets everyone excited because it's by a man named Michael Light. Michael Light is a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin. It is disappointing that our experts don't serve us any better than they do because this man is considered an expert. If we could follow the money, we would probably find that he gets paid for weaving the tails that he tells. In the last episode, we told about Stanford University about their studies where they compare incarceration rates of people. Whom it guesses to be immigrants, and then supposedly proves that they do not commit crime. Michael Light has done the same kind of study. Remember, there's really only three types of studies. Can't prove a negative. Maybe there's more. I've only seen three. There's only three types of studies and different people perform the same ones, but. Michael Light himself now says, studying incarceration rates is ineffective. And you'll notice that hasn't stopped people from continuing to quote them and saying, study after study, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And he gives some of the reasons that we gave, such as records matching crimes to immigration status were not available. That's quoting his article. He does not, however, criticize those studies for not having any data for the Joe Biden immigrants, however and that's rather telling because his study does the same thing. This vaunted study of Michael Lights only covers the years from 2012 to 2018. Notice Biden became president in 2021. If we're talking about a crime wave, we're talking about after 2021. But even that's not the biggest problem. And this every time anything that the Democrats say, you do not have to dig very deep to find its false. In this case, the headline of the article says, quote, undocument immigrants far less lead to commit crime to commit crimes in the US than citizens. But all the data he looked at. We're for the state of Texas, Michael Light did it and now everybody's doing it. You see other people doing the same study. Oh. And that's not the only problem. Believe me, but just, let's just say this. Looking just at the state of Texas and then saying it applies to the entire us. That has to be a stretch. Now, the Democrats have always had a problem with confirmation bias. That's the technical term. That's what happens when you see what you want to see or you're easily convinced by something that presents a conclusion. A conclusion that you like. And it's, it can be difficult for all of us, but looking only at the data for one state. Does not prove very much about the entire us. That's just a given. But the left will take the evidence that something might be happening, which the Texas data do say they say something might be happening, but the left will take the evidence that something might be happening and say that it is happening because there's no doubt that light's, findings are plausible and they give reason to conduct further research. In other words, there is a hypothesis based on the Texas data. We should look elsewhere to see whether it's true that immigrants commit crime, less crime than American citizens. But his findings do not by any means prove his point. They don't prove the point stated in the headline nine. So what he should do is just go ahead and look at some other states now that he has the hypothesis and he's had well, four or five years to do that. So why doesn't he, why hasn't anybody, why hasn't anybody produced the same look at a single state, but a different state? Because Texas is the only state and there are 51 of, no, still only 50. There are 50 of them. There's only one state where immigration status is included in arrest records. So he was looking at arrest record, seeing who was arrested and then put in prison. And Texas is the only state that keeps track in most states. It's illegal to track it, and that tells you something right there that could be a causative factor of any bias that could be found. But that simple fact, that little detail doesn't stop Michael Light. Or the Cato Institute or many others from claiming that they have proof of something, which they do not. Now, do we know for a fact that using Texas data only is wrong out of hand? We certainly know that having data for all the states would be better, but is it wrong to use Texas? It probably is. You could probably pick a better state. Using any of the border states is going to give a distorted view. Just automatically they're on the periphery. Periphery, and people who are breaking into the country will probably try to get outta Dodge. They'll probably try to move on and get to Ohio or New York before they just start into breaking the law rather than attack the first policeman they see upon crossing the border into Texas. And a lot of the events, some of our biggest concerns, bear this out. Lake and Riley rest in peace was not murdered in Texas. She was murdered in Georgia. Molly Tibbits was murdered in Iowa. Kate Steinle was killed on San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf and the subway car where Debr Kawa was set on fire was in New York City. All these poor women killed butchered by illegal immigrants and high profile stories. None of'em. Were in Texas. We don't have any high profile Texas crimes by immigrants. Oh, we have crimes. Just not the high profile ones. It almost seems that if you want to find the worst crimes, you'd look anywhere but Texas, and there are reasons that criminals might break the law elsewhere. Texas has a lot of Mexicans, for example. So you might be tending to get a different group, people crossing over just from Mexico and visiting relatives or staying with relatives, getting the support of relatives in Texas. But you're not gonna dirty your own nest. And the Mexican community is probably not as welcoming to the Venezuelan and Chilean gangs as the liberal white women in New York City are. Big difference. There's some other differences. Not definitive, but certainly they're out there such as Texas is a red state where people have guns that could certainly influence the crime rate. Texas has capital punishment and uses it. Texas doesn't have sanctuary cities and it doesn't have any high rise immigrant shelters, and that affects, those two facts, affect both the crime. As well as, and this is important, the crime reporting, there are huge differences between all of the states. These are just some of the more obvious ones, and any of these differences could have an impact on the results of this study. But this is the one study, it's the main one that they're hanging their hat on today. Whenever they say illegal immigrants commit less crime than the native born. And that's before anyone analyzes the Texas data for flaws of which many have been in been found, such as the time of reporting, the time it takes to report crimes. But to me, the big thing is this, regardless of any of this, there are a half million foreigners living in Texas jails and prisons. It's just under a half million and most of them are illegal and they're living there at taxpayer expense. Now, when people worry about inflation, this is one of the factors that they could, they should consider. And these people, they shouldn't be in our country at all. If they're criminals, fine, but they should be criminals somewhere else. And if they're caught, they should be somewhere else in somebody else's jail. But beyond that. These evil immigrants committed 27,000 assaults. They committed 15,000 sexual violations, 15,000 kidnappings, 1,400. And how many murders do you think are attributed to them? Over 500. More than 500 Texans would still be alive today, if not for the immigrants. But do our Democrats say we have an immigrant murder every day? Do they say every life is precious? No. What the Democrats do say is this

Kamala Harris: 14:25

Aside, I'll tell you, having done the work I've done is our undocumented immigrants that are the least likely to come with crime. So let's get our notions together about what we're talking about.

14:43

so people are dying. And the Democrat response is a slogan that happens to be a lie. The Democrats in the fake news is as if they have a secret meeting where they go and they invent sayings, which then their paid researchers, the researchers they have on payroll then go and corroborate. They create data, they create studies. Because they're on the payroll. The biggest intentional killer of kids in the United States is suicide, but they've convinced us all that it's gun violence. Meanwhile, there are 7,000 illegals in Texas prisons on weapons convictions, and we have no idea how many more across the us, but those guns don't matter. To the terrorist organization that is the Democrat Party, because Democrats don't care about you or about immigrants. They only care about power. The immigrants, what are they? They are just human shields to them. Democrats don't care about the law. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about you or your safety. Only power. Don't go out and tell a friend about the 10th Man podcast. I mean it. And thank you for listening. I.