Don’t Learn the Wrong Lesson From Laken Riley’s Murder

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

151 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    A year later, Ibarra showed up in New York where he was arrested for “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation.” He was released before ICE could issue a detainer. A detainer would have kept Ibarra in jail until ICE could take custody, but it is not clear that this would have led to expedited deportation.

    Nothing could have been done, I guess.

    Can we get back to talking about gun control? If it were easier for Laken Riley to acquire a handgun, maybe she would have shot him.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Georgia being a “shall issue” state (but one that doesn’t require a permit to carry concealed), has repealed laws allowing colleges and universities to bar guns, and doesn’t seem to have a waiting period, I’d say she could have gotten and carried one easily enough.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        No, that’s the *PROBLEM*. What if she shot him?Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          If it were easier for Laken Riley to acquire a handgun, maybe she would have shot him.

          Georgia being a “shall issue” state (but one that doesn’t require a permit to carry concealed), has repealed laws allowing colleges and universities to bar guns, and doesn’t seem to have a waiting period, I’d say she could have gotten and carried one easily enough.

          Dude, reading comprehension. She could have had a gun if she wanted one, probably easier then you could have (though Colorado is pretty lax as well). And if she had gotten one she could have shot him, likely claimed self defense, and moved on.

          So unless you have a really clear point to make, you might want to do the same.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            The really clear point is that we should change the subject to how it shouldn’t be easy to get a gun to shoot the undocumented.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            “Mr. Ibarra, why did you shoot that woman?”

            “Well, she was carrying a gun and seemed threatening so I stood my ground and shot her.”

            “Ahh, very well. You’re free to go.”Report

            • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Illegal aliens are prohibited from owning firearms.

              Philip is right though, that assuming Riley wasn’t a prohibited person herself she probably could have had one without much difficulty (not familiar with GA law but I would predict they fall into the relaxed category). All states are now shall issue after Bruen.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Depending on how you rank it, Georgia is ranked as the 46th most restrictive state, meaning that 45 other states have more restrictive gun laws.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Which just goes to show how full of crap the pro-gun nuts are.

                If self defense is a natural right, endowed by the Creator, then why prevent otherwise law-abiding immigrants from that right?

                Because conservatives don’t believe in the idea of rights which are imbued in all persons. Their worldview is one of hierarchy and privilege, where some people are entitled and others are not.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There are a lot of ways to characterize Ibarra. I do not think law abiding is one of them, even prior to apparently murdering someone.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                But as you say, he wasn’t prohibited from owning a gun because he was a criminal, but because he was undocumented.

                If the situation were reversed, and Ibarra was a natural born citizen and Ms. Riley who was the immigrant, she would be legally prohibited from buying a gun.

                Does this make sense to any of the pro-gun people?

                Yes it does because the privilege of self-defense doesn’t extend to the Outgroup.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                See? Now we’re talking about gun control instead.

                Much better than talking about Laken Riley’s murder.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                See? Now we’re talking about gun control instead.

                Much better than talking about Laken Riley’s murder.

                And you are quite proud of yourself for redirecting the conversation aren’t you?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Phil, my operating theory is that Chip remains a Reagan voter at his very core.

                His mission is to make The Left look absurd.

                I come up with a handful of tests from time to time and none of them have falsified the proposition.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I shudder to think what your operating theory of me is.

                That aside, I don’t see how trying to cast this conversation toward gun control proves that Chip is still a Reagan voter – or why that even really matters. You do you I guess.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                For you it’s some variant of “this problem will be fixed by giving the government more power and more funding and by better expectations management on the part of taxpayers”.

                With, of course, a smidgeon of “I’d better not criticize the bad ideas of the people on ‘my’ side. Save my powder for the *REAL* enemy.”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Have you been reading my take’s on the actions of Democrats in the Open Thread weeklies? I take on my side all the time.

                I also think we have to STOP insisting government do things (like control immigration) without resources to do the thing, whether it’s taxes or revised statutes. Its not more power – though appropriations don’t confer power – its different use of power.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                You misunderstand but that’s okay.

                I also think we have to STOP insisting government do things … without resources to do the thing

                A week or so back, you asked me why I kept bringing up the Baltimore schools.

                It’s because of how, whenever we’re discussing education, your call is for “more funding”. The Baltimore schools are in the top quintile of school funding in the country… almost the top sextile.

                A few years back, there was an article pointing out that the school district was the 4th-highest funded in the country and the mayor had to have a press release explaining that this was only for big cities. If you took *ALL* of the school districts in the country into consideration, they were no longer the 4th-highest funded.

                Anyway.

                If you are devoted to doubling-down on what you’re already doing, you’re always, without exception, going to find that you’re going to need new funding.

                “I don’t have enough resources to meet this impossible target!”

                Additional resources ain’t gonna help you reach an impossible target.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Additional resources ain’t gonna help you reach an impossible target.

                So what is the proper amount of funding for Customs and Border Patrol, anyway?

                More than this year? Less than this year?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The issue is not “funding” but “objective”.

                Was the funding slashed between Trump’s numbers and Biden’s?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re right, the issue is objective.

                And, as you say, the level of funding is irrelevant if the objective is impossible.

                Is the objective impossible?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What’s the objective?

                Will your phrasing be a strawman of what others say the objective is?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Was the funding slashed between Trump’s numbers and Biden’s?

                No – https://www.statista.com/statistics/455587/enacted-border-patrol-program-budget-in-the-us/

                Has it ever been enough to deal with the issue effectively? Also apparently no.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Huh. So the funding stayed mostly static.

                How come the numbers changed?

                I submit: The objective changed. And with the objective changing, the numbers changed.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Nope. For starters that funding isn’t static, though the slope varies over time.

                The numbers – which I am interpreting to mean the people crossing the border in an undocumented fashion – changed because conditions are getting worse in the global south and because we need immigrants to fill our labor pools. Those two things have Zero to do with changes in administrations or policies.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Out of curiosity, do you believe that it is possible for crime to go up in response to what is called “the blue flu”?

                I ask because Biden’s funding is higher than Trump’s, if that chart is to be believed.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                it is higher. Staffing figures aren’t precise, but border patrol staffing under Trump was less then Obama (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2021-Aug/U.S.%20Border%20Patrol%20Fiscal%20Year%20Staffing%20Statistics%20%28FY%201992%20-%20FY%202020%29%20%28508%29.pdf)

                I can’t find 2021-2024 but I’m sure its out there somewhere. Note that funding under Biden has included additional drones and other observation technology in use at the border.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Out of curiosity, do you believe that it is possible for crime to go up in response to what is called “the blue flu”?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Out of curiosity, what does that have to do with this situation?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m going to draw an analogy with it.

                Specifically from the idea that crime can go up despite a fully-funded police force that merely fails to do its job and, from there, talk about how we’re not dealing with a border control force that has had its resources slashed.

                But, first, I would like you to mention that you have at least heard of “the blue flu” and crime going up as a result.

                You can say that you haven’t done exhaustive study into the numbers and so cannot say conclusively whether it’s something that actually exists, if you’d like.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I have heard of “blue flu” though I have not seen any good correlations to crime going up. Sure arrests go down, and sure that COULD lead to more actual crime being committed. But correlation is not causation.

                That aside, the current issue at the border is not a well funded Border Patrol failing to do its job. Intercept numbers are up, deportations are up. SO is parole due to lack of facilities. Which is a resource issue bot not any indication of a “green flu” – since BP uniforms are green.

                Nice try though.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Receipts:
                In New York, major crime complaints fell when cops took a break from ‘proactive policing’
                When New York police officers temporarily reduced their “proactive policing” efforts on low-level offenses, major-crime reports in the city actually fell, according to a study based on New York Police Department crime statistics.

                https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.htmlReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Wow, when cops stopped showing up, major-crime reports went *DOWN*?

                Astonishing!

                Have you seen the report that traffic violations in San Francisco have gone down 97%? It’s true!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No, you misread the article.
                Try again.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The Nature article was really interesting. It went against my intuitions and I dug into it and, holy cow, it may be accurate. Doing more research, I found that… well… maybe it doesn’t replicate elsewhere.

                I mean, seriously, I read that story and freaked out and then I dug a little deeper and saw this. The National Academies Press put out a paper called “Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities” and the results that they found were far more muddled.

                For example, the section on Crime and Disorder opens with:

                The available scientific evidence suggests that certain proactive policing strategies are successful in reducing crime and disorder. This important conclusion provides support for a growing interest among American police in innovating to develop effective crime prevention strategies. At the same time, there is substantial heterogeneity in the effectiveness of different proactive policing interventions in reducing crime and disorder. For some types of proactive policing, the evidence consistently points to effectiveness, but for others the evidence is inconclusive. Evidence in many cases is restricted to localized crime prevention impacts, such as specific places, or to specific individuals.

                Which makes a lot more sense to me.

                Additionally, NPR ran a segment talking about this and notes:

                And yet in other cities, the rollback of these methods has coincided with disturbing spikes in violent crime.

                While I would *LOVE* for the whole “fewer cops, less crime” thing to be true… I’m not sure that the numbers show that it is.

                “That doesn’t mean that more cops means less crime!”

                No. And I wouldn’t argue that it would necessarily mean that.

                My fundamental point is about stuff like “what works” and “what failure looks like”.

                And how it’s possible to have a fully funded force that isn’t doing it’s job (or even is doing it wrong!) and how a department that is doing its job properly will deter the stuff we don’t want.

                “But it won’t *PREVENT* it!” is one counter-argument, I suppose.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Is illegal immigration also up from numbers that we have seen in the past?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                The effectiveness on the border seems to be independent of how much funding the department is getting.

                What seems to have changed for the worse is not the funding, but the policy objectives.

                And in result to the policy objectives changing, the incentives changed. In result to the incentives changing, undocumented travelers have increased.

                Despite the funding number going up.

                I submit: Making the funding number go up even more will not result in significant changes… if the objectives don’t also change.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What policy objectives changed, and what evidence is there that the change caused immigration to increase?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What policy objectives changed between Trump and Biden with regards to border enforcement?

                Please confirm for me that this is what you’re asking.

                If so, these policies include, but are not limited to, ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Wikipedia has a section devoted to it.

                In February 2021, the administration of President Joe Biden ended the “Remain in Mexico” policy, resuming admission of new asylum seekers and the approximately 25,000 with pending cases to the United States, and asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal as moot.

                As for your use of the word “caused”, I’ll say right now that I will, instead, use the phrase “resulted in”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Policy objectives of immigration:
                1. Securing the border by preventing illegal entry and stuff like smuggling.

                2. Prevention of terrorism and transnational crime

                3. Maintaining a handle on immigration… both preventing immigration that we don’t want and facilitating immigration that we do want.

                4. Protection of refugees and that sort of thing

                Isn’t the Biden policy fully in conformance with these stated objectives?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, Chip… is it ever possible to be fully in conformance on anything?

                But even allowing for slippage here or there, I’d say that his philosophy on #3 is *COMPLETELY* different than Trump’s.

                And, among other things*, that has resulted in that Pew Research Chart I posted moments ago.

                *Other things include the topic of the original post.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not entirely sure that’s accurate. At minimum money could buy more detention centers and more judges. A significant driver of the current problem is big case backlogs and nowhere to put people making (mostly unmerited) asylum claims so they get paroled into the country to maybe but maybe not show up for their court date.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s a chart of migrant encounters at U.S.-Mexico border.

                Comparing 2016-2020 and 2021-2023 is interesting even taking May 2019 into account.

                Something happened in 2021.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not going to debate that there has been a perception shift as well as the end of remain in Mexico (I’m unclear of where that landed with the courts).

                People motivated to get in but who can’t or won’t follow the legal process are trying to get it while the getting is good.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                (I’m unclear of where that landed with the courts)

                That’s because Jaybird didn’t copy that section from his Wikipedia citation. To Wit:

                On August 14, 2021, a federal judge in Texas ordered a resumption of the Trump-era border policy that required migrants to remain in Mexico until their US immigration court date.[26][27] The court ruled the reversal may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which prevents arbitrary regulations, because it did not consider various facts.[26] A stay to block reenforcement of the “Remain in Mexico” policy was denied by both the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court,[28][29] compelling the administration to reinstitute the policy.[30] In December, the administration announced they had agreed to requirements by Mexico for the resumption of returns, including COVID-19 vaccination, completion of cases within 180 days, and inquiries into fears of return to Mexico.[31]

                After the completion of negotiations with the government of Mexico, the Biden administration announced the resumption of the practice on December 2, 2021, with some alterations.[31][32] On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Biden v. Texas that the Biden administration had the authority to end the policy.[33][34]

                Seems the courts ultimately arrived at the Administration having the ability to wind down another Administration’s program.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Seems the courts ultimately arrived at the Administration having the ability to wind down another Administration’s program.

                I’m not seeing how this undercuts my point.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I think it was an error by the administration and if they can lawfully reimpose something like it now would be the time.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Hey, I’m not even saying that it was an error.

                I’m saying that it resulted in, among other things, increased numbers of undocumented travelers.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You say “increased numbers of undocumented travelers” like it is a bad thing.

                Is it? Particularly if you read your stated objectives of immigration.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                For me, the topic wasn’t “is this a good thing or a bad thing?” but “would more funding result in less of this thing?”

                My point was that the objective changing will result in the numbers changing far more than funding changing will result in the numbers changing.

                For one thing, having an administration say “this level of undocumented travelers is too low!” and changing course seems to have resulted in the level of undocumented travelers going up.

                I posted a chart showing these numbers somewhere.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, and according to your own statements, this outcome may very well be a good thing.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                For one thing, having an administration say “this level of undocumented travelers is too low!” and changing course seems to have resulted in the level of undocumented travelers going up.

                Please provide citations where anyone from the Biden-Harris Administration has said or written this.

                Otherwise get new priors and move on.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I cannot copy or paste where they have put out that string.

                I can only point to policy changes. I could link to them in Wikipedia, if you’d like.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The problem with your approach is that you seem convinced that the policy changes fit a certain set of priors. Like that this is a competency problem not a resourcing problem.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s not *QUITE* it.

                It’s more that the policy changes were intended to result in the policy outcomes.

                And, as such, the resulting increase in undocumented travelers is a problem orthogonal to funding (which has, indeed, gone up since the time when the policy was different).Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                THe only policy changes I”m aware of was the decision not to physically overlaod a system that couldn’t handle what it was being presented with, while at the same time asking for the funds to make the system whole to demand – which Congress still hasn’t done.

                The problem is thus wholly dependent on funding because the immigration system can not physically process the number of people its confronting. Because migration will continue to increase as countries to our south breakdown (for a good many reasons, the climate crisis growing among them), they system has to be physically enlarged. That takes funds.

                That aside, what do you think the outcome of Trump’s proposed policy change to round up and deport every undocumented migrant would do to the US?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That aside, what do you think the outcome of Trump’s proposed policy change to round up and deport every undocumented migrant would do to the US?

                I imagine some employers would find themselves without employees and that would have a negative impact on the economy.

                I imagine some landlords would find themselves without renters and that would have a negative impact on the economy.

                I imagine that there would be a disincentive to cross the border without having done the proper paperwork first and so there might be fewer attempts to cross the border without doing the proper paperwork first.

                We don’t know if women jogging will be impacted.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Removing 11-13 million people abruptly from the economy will have more then the minor negative impacts you allude to. Even you might feel that impact.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                We might find ourselves with a handful of government services that don’t have anyone to serve.

                Then we can argue over whether they just need more funding.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Are you willing to accept that the Baltimore School District might be an edge case that is skewing you assumptions about resourcing?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Depends on whether you can link to a comment you gave about what the school should start doing instead.

                If you didn’t… well. I think I’ll be pleased to maintain my assumptions about resourcing.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “Are you willing to accept that the Baltimore School District might be an edge case that is skewing you assumptions about resourcing?”

                This sounds like the kind of statement that should have some numbers behind it!

                Does it?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I have personally mentioned the pattern of male violence against women, and also how immigration benefits us all, so why not also discuss gun ownership?

                Is there any other aspect of Laken Riley’s murder you would like to introduce?Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Laken Riley was beaten to death. Sounds like her skull was crushed.

                From the photos he looks a lot bigger than she does. I don’t think we can outlaw bricks or rocks or whatever he used.

                If we’re going to talk about gun ownership in this context, then short of her being armed I don’t see how this turns out differently.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree wholeheartedly.

                This case has nothing to do with guns.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Methinks only Mr. Bird wants to discuss guns.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Green card holders can own firearms. That makes perfect sense to me as to where to draw the line.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Well I agree that we can legitimately block certain classes of people from owning deadly weapons, but only because gun ownership is not a right endowed by the Creator, but is in fact a privilege granted upon reasonable grounds.

                But not everyone sees it that way, right?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I certainly don’t see it that way, even if I wouldn’t describe my own position as having a divine mandate. But probably no need to rehash given how many times we have delved into it.Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The case is being used by some to paint all immigrants as vicious thugs.

    I’m not sure who these “some” are, but I absolutely guarantee you that it turned out that he was a natural born citizen, the very same “some” would fall silent, tells us all we need to know.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t fall silent but start discussing stuff like “how many times was he arrested prior to this?” and discussions of the available evidence that the death penalty prevents recidivism.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Uh huh.

        The way they don’t when the other thousands of men murder thousands of women every single year?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          While it’s true that I have met just as many death penalty enthusiasts as people who shrug when women are killed, it’s rare for them to be on the same side of the aisle.

          Generally, the death penalty enthusiasts are on the right and the people demanding more context for the murder of women are on the left.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            New slogan from the Christian Party Of Life:

            Guns, Violence, Bloodshed: The cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Zarathustra saluted the saint and said “What should I have to give you! But let me go quickly that I take nothing from you!” And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing as two boys laugh.

              But when Zarathustra was alone, he spoke thus to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint has not heard in his forest that God is dead!”Report

  3. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m sure all that happened was he happened to pick up a gun that was somehow lost from a Federal agent’s locked car and somehow ended up under a park bench two days later and in that time deteriorated to the point that merely touching it would cause it to shoot a bullet. Nobody’s fault, right?Report

  4. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    We’ve already worked through the rural versus urban crime statistics on this site, and they show the opposite of what you’re saying.

    As for Ibarra, he shouldn’t have been free in this country. All immigrants are not alike, and that means we need ways to deal with the dangerous ones.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      As for Ibarra, he shouldn’t have been free in this country. All immigrants are not alike, and that means we need ways to deal with the dangerous ones.

      Which would require Congress to pass new immigration laws and appropriate more money. Neither of which they want to do.Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        This is a very good point. There was just an opportunity to do something about this kind of problem. Doubt it changes anything here since the guy was already in the country. But we all know who torpedoed what may have made similar incidents less likely in the future.Report

  5. LeeEsq
    Ignored
    says:

    People can and will learn the wrong lessons.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      Coupla headlines:
      WaPo:
      The economy is roaring. Immigration is a key reason.
      Immigration has propelled the U.S. job market further than just about anyone expected, helping cement the country’s economic rebound from the pandemic as the most robust in the world.

      That momentum picked up aggressively over the past year. About 50 percent of the labor market’s extraordinary recent growth came from foreign-born workers between January 2023 and January 2024, according to an Economic Policy Institute analysis of federal data.

      Gallup:
      Immigration Surges to Top of Most Important Problem List
      A separate question in the survey finds a record-high 55% of U.S. adults, up eight points from last year, saying that “large numbers of immigrants entering the United States illegally” is a critical threat to U.S. vital interests. The prior high was 50% in 2004.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        About 50 percent of the labor market’s extraordinary recent growth came from foreign-born workers between January 2023 and January 2024, according to an Economic Policy Institute analysis of federal data.

        “Instead of hiring more expensive native-born workers, we’re hiring less expensive foreign-born ones!”

        I suppose we could try to maintain the positive spin on that…Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Expensive native-born workers already have jobs.
          Unemployment in the USA is roughly 3.7%. That rounds to zero. It’s roughly my lifetime “between jobs” employment rate.

          Without labor a lot of stuff just doesn’t happen.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            I suppose expecting the other half of the 50% growth to actually round the 3.7% down to zero is too much to ask.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              “The other half”? We’re talking about the number of people employed in the US. We have run out of workers because the baby boomers are retiring, so we’re importing.

              That’s just big picture. It will vary according to field or personal experience, but this is a great big picture.

              “Cheap labor taking US jobs” is only a problem for the min-wage crowd and I don’t care about that.

              For expensive workers, counter intuitively, having more foreigners around helps me. There are projects that can’t be done without them. So if they’re not here then the entire project would have to be sent overseas or it would just not happen.

              Foreigners create more jobs in the US than they take. They create more demand for expensive workers.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Minimum wage workers: “We demand higher wages!”

                Corporations: “We will import something from Mexico which will do your job cheaper.”

                Conservatives: “You’re importing Mexicans!? OUTRAGEOUS!” Those poor workers!”

                Corporations: “No no, we’re importing kiosks made in Mexico.”

                Conservatives: “Oh. OK. Hur hur, stupid workers demanding more money.”Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                RE: Minimum wage workers: “We demand higher wages!”

                Liberals: Those have to be good jobs! You Corporations, make it happen.

                Corporations: No problem.

                Robots will now flip burgers. One human manager will manage a “crew” of non-humans.

                RE: Min Wage

                My High School daughter will be fine even without an increase in the min wage.

                She, and not immigrants, is the real competition.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I don’t read more words than I have to either.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Hillarious!Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                “Cheap labor taking US jobs” is only a problem for the min-wage crowd and I don’t care about that.

                at 3.7% unemployment there aren’t more Americans to take those jobs. It may be a factor in depressing wages some, but it’s not keeping any native born person from working.Report

    • CJColucci in reply to LeeEsq
      Ignored
      says:

      People can and will learn nothing.Report

  6. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Draw the right lesson: this is a jogging problem.

    AP: The killing of a nursing student out for a run highlights the fears of solo female athletes

    https://apnews.com/article/runner-dead-university-georgia-women-safety-4b277117e82ab00d7e6c79672219a65fReport

    • InMD in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      On the one hand LOL.

      On the other, we are a big country. While it’s inevitable that this will happen regardless I think we as citizens really should be careful about how enthusiastically we accept statistically improbable events as vindication of our priors. I think the OP does a really thorough job of missing the point about what exactly it is that gets people upset about this particular incident and why it has been identified as rage bait. But I also don’t think that means it is a good idea to take the rage bait, hook, line, and sinker.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        Instead of talking about immigration laws failing to be enforced, maybe we could talk about the need to normalize talking to men about how violence against women is bad?Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Hey yeah lets talk about “immigration laws failing to be enforced.”

          So, the immigration laws we currently have; Is enforcement of them a possible objective?

          Well, I guess first we have to ask, “What is the objective of our current immigration laws?”Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            Well, I’ll just go back and look at this part of the Original Post:

            A year later, Ibarra showed up in New York where he was arrested for “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation.” He was released before ICE could issue a detainer. A detainer would have kept Ibarra in jail until ICE could take custody, but it is not clear that this would have led to expedited deportation.

            What tradeoffs are you willing to make?

            What tradeoffs are you willing to have other people make?Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              So what is the objective of our current immigration laws?

              Are they possible or impossible?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                If I had to guess, I’d say that the objectives would be something like:

                1. Securing the border by preventing illegal entry and stuff like smuggling.

                2. Prevention of terrorism and transnational crime

                3. Maintaining a handle on immigration… both preventing immigration that we don’t want and facilitating immigration that we do want.

                4. Protection of refugees and that sort of thing

                I suppose that we could take the attitude that we shouldn’t have laws against undocumented visitors hitting women in the head with a brick because we can’t prevent undocumented visitors hitting women in the head with a brick…

                But I think we can say that it’s possible to *MINIMIZE* criminal acts while acknowledging that we will never eliminate crime.

                And if the numbers for Trump and the numbers for Biden are different (and the funding is not significantly different), we might want to explore whether something we’re saying is “impossible” is merely only being done very, very poorly.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                OK that sounds reasonable.

                With schools we have tests and scores of what is “acceptable” levels of literacy, and “unacceptable” levels.

                How many instances of an immigrant repeatedly escaping detention and then murdering a woman need to happen in order for you to say that we are at an “acceptable” level?

                If this sounds like a gotcha question, of course it is.

                Because that’s what this entire post is about, how even if this only happens once in a million instances, there will be people demanding MOAR FUNDING, the way people in Baltimore insist that underachieving pupils can be fixed with MOAR FUNDING.

                So here is my question-
                Are you open to the idea that a proper law enforcement system will say that yes, in fact there IS an “acceptable” level of criminals escaping detention and murdering a female jogger”?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                With schools we have tests and scores of what is “acceptable” levels of literacy, and “unacceptable” levels.

                Hear me out:

                What if we deliberately abandon reading and math proficiency requirements given that keeping them is harmful against minority students?

                So, too, we adopt similar strategies for the border?

                Would you like to run with “That’s a strawman! Nobody is advocating getting rid of reading and math requirements!”?

                Please run with “That’s a strawman! Nobody is advocating getting rid of reading and math requirements!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                How about you answer the question?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You say “With schools we have tests and scores of what is “acceptable” levels of literacy, and “unacceptable” levels.”

                I say “We have abandoned that in many places.”

                But not to say that your analogy is a bad one.

                To say that your analogy is a good one.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This just points to my previous comments about how conservatives can’t really explain why anyone should listen to them or grant them power.

                Even on subject they themselves bring up, once you get past the initial rage-bait, they fall silent.

                I think this augurs well for us. Because while there is a certain percentage of people who vote just to satisfy their grievance, there is I think a much larger group that really just wants to get stuff done, and the antics of Republicans demanding a border bill only to oppose it a moment later tells the larger group of voters that these people can’t be taken seriously.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Get stuff done… like get rid of algebra and reading requirements for graduation.

                I more suspect that there will be vigilantism. When the government fails to meet its obligations, a number of folks will search elsewhere to have them met.

                See, for example, Texas’s border protections.

                The competency crisis is going to be *BAD*. The best thing you can really hope for is an illiterate and innumerate population so you can lie to them a bit longer.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What’s happening at the border is not a federal law enforcement competency crisis. Its a legislative competency crisis at the national level that Greg Abbott could do something about. What with the size of Texas congressional delegation.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                If the goal is *MORE* undocumented travelers, the federal law enforcement is working as intended.

                (They could always use more funding, of course.)Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You do realize that the Border Patrol is not in the business of encouraging immigration right? Their inability to keep everyone out is not a competency issue – meaning they aren’t or can’t or won’t do their jobs. They don’t have enough places to put people, and they don’t have enough judges or staff working with them after they arrest people to deport them quickly. Again, not for a lack of willingness or ability – or competency.

                Congress – particularly the House – is the control on their success, and its a willingly incompetent Congress – failing to do its job to legislate – that is squarely responsible. The Border Patrol can’t get them to do a better job, and politicians like Greg Abbott (who could get his senators and congresspeople to make headway on this issue) are intentionally interfering because they think that’s a path to retaining and expanding their own power.

                Calling the Border Patrol incompetent because they are doing what they are trained to do, to the maximum extent they can, in a situation they do not control is both and insult and a lie. I used to think you were better then that.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Which makes it weird to say that we could improve things by increasing its funding even further than it has been increased already.

                It’s a bottomless hole.

                Unless the objective is different.

                There’s a pew chart around here somewhere…Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                More funding buys more places to hold people so they aren’t roaming the US while their cases are adjudicated. That’s a change I’d think you’d support since you seem to think paroled undocumented migrants are a bad thing.

                More money buys more immigration judges and clerks and administrators who can manage the growing case load expeditiously – which would likely result in more deportations, lowering the number of free roaming undocumented migrants. Which seems to be your desired result.

                None of this is about the competency of the Border Patrol or the immigration system. Its a volume problem, and that volume problem can only be fixed at this point by solving the Congressional competency problem.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                How did the objective of border control turn into “to keep everyone out “?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It sure as heck does not seem to be “come here through the portal after doing some light paperwork”.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                THE PORTAL CAN’T HANDLE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOWING UP. IT CAN’T PROCESS THE PAPERWORK IT IS PRESENTED WITH. IT ISN”T DESIGNED TO ADMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WE NEED.

                Is that clear enough now?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                IT ISN”T DESIGNED TO ADMIT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WE NEED.

                Please provide citations where anyone from the Biden-Harris Administration has said or written this.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                This has been known flaw with America’s immigration system for decades. NPR infamously did a story on it a few years ago pointing out that farmers who want to employ documented migrants need an average of 18 months to get a nominate migrant legal permission to enter the US. Tech bros need something like 6 months. As the vast majority of undocumented migrants are employed outside the tech space, my conclusion from reporting has been that the system is not sized to meet demand.

                Which is a resource and legal question that Congress continues to studiously avoid.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes according to your own words, “coming here outside of the portal” is very much one of the objectives of immigration.

                But now you reveal that you really don’t like that very much.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Nor is he willing to concede that means the portal is too small.

                But clearly we are making no headway with him, not unlike how democrats are making no headway with the GOP on this issue.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Because their real goals on immigration are the ones they are unwilling to admit, but sometimes it just slips out.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, let’s copy and paste what I said in response to your question of: So what is the objective of our current immigration laws?

                1. Securing the border by preventing illegal entry and stuff like smuggling.

                2. Prevention of terrorism and transnational crime

                3. Maintaining a handle on immigration… both preventing immigration that we don’t want and facilitating immigration that we do want.

                4. Protection of refugees and that sort of thing

                I imagine that “coming here outside of the portal” would be an objective of a “no matter what” kinda immigrant, but I don’t see how our immigration law has “eh, show up outside of the portal, we don’t care” as one of the objectives. Even if I squint and turn my head to the side.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t see how our immigration law has “eh, show up outside of the portal, we don’t care” as one of the objectives.

                Our immigration law DOESN”T have that as an objective. The whole reason we have the number of undocumented migrants we have is because the portal isn’t big enough. These people need to leave where they are; they choose to come hear because they believe its better. Our economy is built on employing a majority of them in jobs we don’t have enough people for.

                But the portal can’t process them all. Not even close. so they go around it. Not because they want to. But because we give them little choice. Because our policy is NOT to build a big enough portal and staff it appropriately.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                It seems like a lot fewer needed to come here when Trump was in charge of setting policy, though.

                Did the world really get that much worse when he stopped being President?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Did the world really get that much worse when he stopped being President?

                In the Southern Hemisphere – yes.

                And I am disappointed that you of all people have been takin in by the conspiracy theories about migrants.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, the institution of socialism in Venezuela was always going to end in this sort of thing.

                (Which conspiracy theories are those? I am a fan of conspiracy theories! I don’t know which ones I’ve been taken in by this time!)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Any claim that they merely want immigrants to “come through the portal” is risible nonsense.

                Congress could, with a simple majority, increase tenfold the width of the portal and undocumented immigration would fall to easily manageable levels.

                But eventually they will admit they really don’t want to do this, they prefer to keep the portal narrow then complain about those who evade it.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                But eventually they will admit they really don’t want to do this, they prefer to keep the portal narrow then complain about those who evade it.

                As Jay is now doing. Which I am calling him out for by repeatedly reminding him that portal is too narrow. I mean, he believes we could remove 1 million people form our economy tomorrow and it wouldn’t really hurt anyone.

                You and I agree.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree that it would hurt people!

                Employers who employ undocumented travelers!
                Landlords who house undocumented travelers!

                These people will be harmed by having their employees and tenants taken away!Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And people wanting to buy the goods and services provide by the employers of undocumented migrants too. Like people who was houses built. Or fresh fruits and vegetables picked. Or offices cleaned. Or food cooked in restaurants and on and on. The economic impacts will be wide ranging and deep. Much deeper then anything during the pandemic.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                People who need concrete done! People who need decks painted! People who need cheap child care! People who need their nails done!

                There are so many quality of life issues that require undocumented labor!

                Would you be willing to deport the ones who kill people between jobs? Or the ones who don’t work (or support the workers)?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I am always willing to jail killers regardless of country of origin. Best I can tell the only undocumented migrants ot normally working are the children – who spend a lot of time in American schools learning to be Americans.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, I dunno. Colorado just set up a company to administer unemployment funds for undocumented travelers.

                Seems strange that we’d require such a system.

                Maybe that’s merely what “MORE FUNDING!” ends up being in practice.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Recall that it’s Colorado, and not all of the TABOR restrictions (and other amendments) have been removed at the state level. Those provide incentives to structure things oddly. It was one of the “interesting” things about working for the legislative budget staff. One year we went through the statutes for regular unemployment “insurance” and changed every instance of the word tax with premium, then declared UI to be a pseudo-agency whose revenue and spending didn’t count against those limits.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Here, let me help.

                #4 Protection of refugees

                Refugees by their very nature often can’t come through normal channels- they are on the run from their government or criminal elements and lack the ability to wait and process paperwork in their country of origin.

                So our official policy is that they are allowed to get here by any means, then ask for asylum. Almost all the Cubans in Miami arrived like this, and the Venezuelans fleeing their repressive Communist government are following suit.

                Again, this is your own stated goal, shared by our government and legal system dating back over a century- This isn’t an argument or opinion, its the black letter law that you supposedly support.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, you’re assuming that their stated status matches their actual status.

                Yeah. I am not, in fact, doing that.

                But I understand the disconnect now.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I knew this before we started.
                We all did.

                But at least now we can dispense with the fig leaf.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Keep the fig leaf. You’ll need it for Jose Antonio Ibarra.

                He was from Venezuela. A country absolutely destroyed by Socialism.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Serious question. Should anyone ever be denied asylum for any reason? Because if the answer is no it would seem to me that we aren’t really talking about asylum.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Serious answer, yes, some people should absolutely be denied asylum.Report

      • Pinky in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        There is so much perceived bad faith and unconscious bad faith on this issue that I can’t even tell if I’m sincere. Both parties’ principles on immigration are nearly the same but the devil is in the details, and no one trusts each other even a bit (and shouldn’t).Report

  7. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    One thing’s for sure, Tom Suozzi ought to be extremely glad this didn’t happen eight days sooner.Report

  8. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Do we know who Jose Antonio Ibarra’s employer was?Report

  9. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t learn the wrong lesson from Laken Riley’s murder:

    Report

  10. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t learn the wrong lesson:

    “According to the ICE records, the Montgomery County Police Department arrested Trejo-Granados on March 21, 2023, and charged him with theft. While those charges remain pending, ICE lodged an Immigration Detainer on Trejo-Granados with the Montgomery County Detention Center on March 22, 2023; however, the agency says MCDC refused to honor the detainer and Trejo-Granados was released by MCDC on March 27, 2023.

    “MCPD arrested Trejo-Granados on September 26, 2023, and charged him with theft again, and attempt to obstruct and hindering.

    “ICE lodged an Immigration Detainer with the MCDC on Trejo-Granados, once more, on Sept. 27, 2023; however, MCDC released Trejo-Granados from custody on October 12, 2023.”

    https://www.fox5dc.com/news/fifth-suspect-arrested-in-tragic-murder-of-2-year-old-jeremy-poou-caceres

    The important lesson is that he’s an MS-13 member, and MS-13 was founded in the US, so this isn’t an immigration problem.Report

    • InMD in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      That whole story is getting more disgraceful by the day. It happened not far from the route I used to take my son to his little league practices last fall.

      I am waiting to hear the full story on the car chase/rampage two weeks ago with the illegal alien driving, which we happened to catch live as it was happening. I will be very surprised if it is his first encounter with law enforcement.Report

      • Pinky in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        One of the key things the original article missed: it doesn’t matter whether illegals have a higher or lower crime rate than legals do. It’s not about rates. If 50% of all US citizens went on a car chase every day, and only one illegal did, that’s one more crime within our borders than there would have been. It’s not unreasonable to want the law applied such that the total number of crimes declines.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          And yet we have a ton of statistics saying that crime nationally is in decline. Besides, if you only worry about the 50+1 crime occurrence, and not the original 50 occurrence, you aren’t worried about crime, since that original 50 offers much more fruitful ground (statistically) to lower crime then the +1.

          And while some crimes are indeed going up in MoCo, the most dangerous city per capita in Maryland is Ocean City . . . .Report

    • Philip H in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      MCDC is doing what its elected oversight tells it to do – namely make immigration issues a federal problem – since they are. Local jurisdictions being thusly free is a pillar of federalism, which conservatives used to support.Report

      • Damon in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        So not cooperating with the federal gov’t re immigrants and complying with the directives of local political leaders is good here, but a governor in Texas stringing barbed wire and not cooperating with federal gov’t requests to remove the wire is not?

        Please square that.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Damon
          Ignored
          says:

          sure – counties and cities have no legal jurisdiction over immigration or immigrants, and no resources to address the situation – especially in non-border states. So they take the approach that it’s not their job, toss the grenade back to the feds, and move on. Because they are keeping to themselves the jurisdiction that the Constitution gives them.

          What Gov. Abbot is doing is unconstitutional, and anti-federalist, in that he is usurping a clearly federal mandate from the constitution, and (IMHO) misdirecting state resources to do so. His actions are not a demonstration of federalism, in that the Constitution plainly says its not up to him because it gives Congress plenary power to address this (as is nicely explained here – https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00001255/ ).Report

      • InMD in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        I don’t buy that. If this reporting is accurate MCPD has blood on their hands.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *