attributed to william randolph hearst, the pioneer of "yellow journalism" (actually, it was because of the hue of the paper used for printing), is always current.

the average "joe sixpack" isn't inclined towards pointy headed "studies". rather, he gets his "news" from the likes of rush limbaugh.

the elitists are here!

if you're too stupid or lazy to make your life's decisions for yourself, that's really your own problem to deal with.

it's funny, a guy born to incredible wealth, educated at the most expensive private schools in the north east, then to harvard and yale, based on his father's accomplishments, not his own, is hailed as some kind of "good old boy" because he managed to squander that valuable education, and sounds like a dufus in public.

anyone who uses words with more than one syllable is accused of being "elitest". seems to me you really should look the word up, before you bandy it about, clearly, you've not a clue.

As a Mexican immigrant I feel the blame hurled at my community every time a Republican politician wants to get votes or money.

I am aware that whenever anything like crime happens with an immigrant it is blamed on Mexicans (whether they are Mexican or not) but when a Mexican person does something good, he or she is always called a Latino on the media. It is my purpose in life to help change that, and it is heart warming to see others care enough to find the facts and then post them on a forum like this.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding, I am a US Citizen and I contribute to this country with my creativity and my share of taxes, and yes I do vote.

  However, making policy decisions based upon knowledge that 1st generation  immigrants are less likely than 3rd generation immigrants does not eliminater all the other very sound reasons to reject the "open borders" policy endorsed here.

  This is a very important and complex issue with deep ramifications domestically, and in the emigre nations.

Having lived two out of the last four years in the Chicago suburbs and California, I'm always surprised by these studies and wonder what are the criteria for them?  The first time we moved to the Chicago area (a small university town) the landlord told us straight out, this town now has a Hispanic neighborhood on the east side and don't go there.  We later learned that the Chicago police had learned how to combat gang crime in the city very well and Latino gangs moved out to this little town where the police force was not equipped to deal with them.

When we moved to the East Bay area of California we received a letter with our apartment lease that stated there was a high crime rate in the area and even places that had always been considered safe no longer were.  My husband taught at a law school in San Francisco.  The city has been declared a sanctuary city for illegals.  It's become like a police state, so much security everywhere. Students and professors were provided with armed guards to walk them to the train stations.  We had spent significant time in S. F. in the past and the crime situation seemed to have deteriorated.  The local papers complained constantly about the elevated homicide rate and ran statistics frequently.

We are doing a temp in a college town in GA next year.  We've already seen the statistics on gang activity in this small university town.  The Mexican Mafia and the MS 13 both have carved out territories in that little town and the university issues a crime-prevention bulletin to incoming students and faculty.  Again, faculty are advised not to walk on campus alone at night and are provided with armed guards to walk them to their cars after dark.

I know liberals aren't supposed to raise these questions, but I always wonder how the reality on the street contrasts so sharply with studies.  Perhaps the people conducting the studies don't talk to criminals or because their presence is illegal, their activities aren't reported.  Idont know.

The city and the state, in opposing the FOIA request, submitted various newspaper articles quoting the intimidating and racist statements of the group's members.  The group tried to exclude these statements on the grounds that they have a First Amendment right to hate speech (unfortunately, true, at least in most cases) and that it would be unfair if the exercise of right to hate speech were held against them in the FOIA proceeding!

  Would not that same argument not apply to the argument government should not be required to disclose the involvement of certain people in any given governmental process, if the government officials claimed the involved people might be subject to intimidation or harassment if identified?

   Would you take the same position if an environmental coalition sought records concerning who acted on behalf developers if some members of the coalition had made statements supporting the actions of ALF or the like?

  If we want to start justifying secrecy in government based on the argument that a "public safety problem" can be imagined why have open records law at all if we endorse exceptions that swallow the rule?

The illegal aspect of the immigration and open borders aspects are certainly worth debating. Personally I'd be fine with the borders being pretty open just on the theory that not that many people really would come over. And you know, don't fence me in man. But of course if this country looks a lot better than everywhere else, hello to the new 6 billion members of the US. So some limits seem reasonable.

Lou Dobbs is really just a ratings whore. Come on. I'm not sure he really cares one way or the other. So I don't get heated up about him or others on the right. But he does seem to yell a lot about the criminal aspect of the problem, so maybe this will calm him down. Yea, right.

They certainly know that they are here illegally, and do everything they can to avoid unnecessary detection by law enforcement.

However, although many often avoid the violent crimes that would bring such unwanted attention, the large majority eagerly embrace such less obvious crimes like document forgery, using stolen or false SS#'s, not filing nor paying taxes (all the under-the-table workers), etc.

Also there is a good number of the undocumented who ARE in the US here criminally because despite already being apprehended and deported or ordered to leave, they've stayed or come back.

Lastly, despite the relatively low rate of violent crime found in the study, how much is acceptable?

iow, if, say, those here illegally kill 100 people each year, if they weren't here - and they shouldn't be here - those 100 people would still be alive.

How many violent crimes like murder, rapes, robbery, etc., by those here illegally is acceptable?

No, the average immigrant who's here illegally is not some rabid animal looking to kill, rape and steal, etc., in fact, mostly they're very friendly and hardworking people (just like you and I when we're looking for a job), and I absolutely support a guest worker program, but to in order to have reasonable and productive dialogue on the subject I think you must acknowledge that there are factual and significant negatives associated with illegal immigration.