The Truth About Criminal Aliens

Liberals try again and again to soft-pedal the criminal activity of illegal aliens in America. The truth is, they have a devastating effect on the communities where they reside.

Dr. Ron Martinelli is a former police detective and criminologist who has documented the damage that uncontrolled immigration has had on our country's safety.

PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE DELIBERATELY KEPT AMERICANS IN THE DARK ABOUT ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMES

Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal aliens. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry.

[...] Research conducted by the federal government oversight organization Judicial Watch in 2014 documents that 50% of all federal crimes were committed near our border with Mexico. Of the 61,529 criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors; 40% or 24,746 were in court districts along the southern borders of California, Arizona and Texas. The Western District of Texas had the nation’s most significant crime rate with over 6,300 cases filed; followed by the Southern District of Texas with slightly over 6,000 cases. The Southern California District with nearly 4,900 cases; New Mexico with nearly 4,000 cases and Arizona with over 3,500 criminal cases ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th.

[...]According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal aliens committed 25,064 of these murders. To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5% residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the nation. This is astounding!

If the above hasn't made you sick, the following will. It makes me want to grab every liberal politician and stuff them in a prison cell with these murderers.

Vetted crime statistics from USDOJ, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) are both clear and demonstrative that illegal aliens who comprise only 3.5% of our nation’s population, are convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder at a rate of three times that of their American citizen and legal alien counterparts. In California alone, over 2,400 illegal aliens out of a total prison population of 130,000 are imprisoned in the state’s prison system for the crime of homicide.

I have already posted about these statistics, here is one of the sources.

The Costs of Porous Borders

The disastrous border policies of the Obama Administration are becoming more apparent as arrests of criminal aliens are making the news.

Thirteen DREAMers from El Salvador stand accused of seven murders, including beating to death two Long Island girls with a baseball bat.

In Houston, two more DREAMers from El Salvador face charges of kidnapping one girl and murdering another girl in a Satanic ritual in their apartment.

They are members of MS-13, a gang that runs drugs and mayhem in America thanks to decades of open borders policies by both Presidents Bush as well as Clinton and Obama.

While Congress never passed the DREAM Act, it is de facto law as the Washington Establishment has prevented the border patrol from going after minors or illegal aliens brought here as minors.

Indeed, President Obama adopted the law in an executive order, relabeling it DACA.

Story here.

As of January, 2017, the US Bureau of Prisons reports the following breakdown of federal inmates per nation of origin:
Country                          # of Inmates         % of Inmates
Colombia                             1,681                  0.9%
Cuba                                    1,242                   0.7%
Dominican Republic           1,661                   0.9%
Mexico                               26,852                 14.2%
Other/Unknown                    9,572                   5.1%
United States                   147,769                  78.3%

As of January, 2017, there were 154,000 inmates housed in federal prison facilities and another 35,100 housed in private and other facilities.

For more information see the March 2011 CRIMINAL ALIEN STATISTICS, Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, and Costs report by the US Government Accountability Office. It's dated but still interesting and shows that in 2010:

• About 25 percent of the federal prison population in 2010 was comprised of foreign nationals. They numbered 55,000. Their numbers are growing, although slightly more slowly than the overall federal prison population.
• State and local correctional systems that applied for payments under the federal SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) program in 2009 reported 296,000 illegal aliens who were jailed at least four days for a felony or two misdemeanors.
• The average incarcerated alien had seven arrests, and committed an average of 12 offenses.
• Twenty-five percent of the aliens had 16 or more offenses. Nine percent had just one arrest.

Under 42 U.S. Code § 13710 - Payments to eligible States for incarceration of criminal aliens - the federal government reimburses the states for costs associated with housing criminal aliens. However, this funding only accounts for approximately 8% or less of the estimated $2 billion spent annually by the states for this purpose ($1.87 billion in 2014).

As illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes than any other type of immigrant or citizen, these costs are increasing every year and may account for the release of thousands of criminal aliens in order to reduce state budget overruns.

How much more likely to commit crimes? That's a dicey question as the states and federal governments do not make the answer easy. The overwhelming majority of crimes are handled by the states, not the feds, so the answer must be extrapolated from various sources.

Let’s take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.

By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.

Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.

Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher. [emphasis mine ~ sig94]

Federal Criminal Is Overruled

Idiot federal judge who tossed the NYPD's stop and frisk program is actually not an idiot. She's a criminal. By her own words she knowingly violated federal regulations.

... District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 2 ('A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.')"

Specifically, the court said Judge Scheindlin had "compromised" the appearance of partiality by improperly inviting a stop-and-frisk suit. In a December 21, 2007 hearing on an earlier case, Judge Scheindlin stated: "[I]f you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related."

She also stated that, "[W]hat I am trying to say, I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it [emphasis mine~ sig94], for $65 you can bring that lawsuit." And she concluded by noting, "And as I said before, I would accept it as a related case, which the plaintiff has the power to designate."

That point about a "related" case is crucial because it allowed Judge Scheindlin to grab the stop-and-frisk case for herself, rather than follow the district court's established practice of assigning cases randomly to judges. As the Second Circuit noted on Thursday, two of the attorney groups working on that earlier case helped another defendant file the stop-and-frisk case that Judge Scheindlin accepted as "related" and which she used to find stop-and-frisk illegal.

This is all a remarkable abuse of court practice, and it suggests bias against the NYPD. The Second Circuit also rebuked Judge Scheindlin for "a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court." These also revealed her predisposition to rule against the police.

The bombshell means that the case is remanded to another district court judge, who will implement the stay until the appeals court rules on the merits next year. Given Judge Scheindlin's dubious ruling, we'd expect a reversal on the law. By the way, the Second Circuit panel includes Bill Clinton appointees Jose Cabranes and Barrington Parker, as well as John Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee. Judge Cabranes is one of the most widely respected on the appellate bench.

I'd say write your congressional representative to demand her impeachment but Congress is useless as hell also.

Story here

The following is the section of federal regulations violated by this criminal on the bench.

CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

But there may be a way to remove a federal judge other than impeachment.

Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges and that the Constitution's grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom. Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual.