Of course there are victims of crime from illegal aliens just like there are victims of crime from American citizens. The point Trump is trying to make is that the vast majority of illegals from Mexico are really bad criminals who have come here to rape and murder us, when in fact the crime rate from illegal Mexicans is lower than the overall crime rate.
Surprise Donald Trump is wrong about immigrants and crime. - The Washington Post
Now, does that mean I support more illegals coming into the US? Absolutely not, but for completely different reasons, and I don't have to call them rapists and murderers to support the idea that we should be limiting immigration to legal immigrants. What I hate so much about Trump and anyone who supports him or his ideas is that they are all based on hate, and on top of that, most of this hate filled contentiousness comes from so-called Christians. Somehow I just don't see Jesus standing there with his Bible in one hand, his gun in the other, and screaming that fags and Mexicans are the scourge of this country, yet that is the perception I have of great American conservatives.
(1) NO
auditor0007 of COURSE he is NOT talking about law abiding citizens.
He was complaining about criminals taking advantage of the amnesty and sanctuary environment
to get away with trafficking, rape and murder.
Even if he spoke too broadly to stir people up, who DOESN'T know what he means?
Even if he did apologize for how it was taken, he still has to reinforce what he means.
Just like in war -- Sometimes you have to go in with an absolute unwavering "shoot to kill attitude"
to DETER anyone from shooting in the first place. Some situations politically
call for being unapologetic, over the top, and willing to take the hit for collateral damage if needed to DETER criminals.
(2) As for crime, regardless if this rate here or there is higher or lower,
CRIME IS CRIME. And as long as the PERCEPTION is that American govt
is WEAK on the border crimes, this is an invitation to get away with whatever until forced to stop.
Nobody is enforcing that message that no crimes or violations will be tolerated,
but that is where criminals NEED to run into those walls and be told NO or they will take advantage.
If for each drunk driving incident, the entire city raised such a hub-bub about it,
that it became disruptive to drive drunk, then wouldn't it be discouraged or stopped
compared to a city where such drivers keep getting a "warning or probation," and only have to
comply with certain conditions for a fixed time, in order to "remove the violation off their record."
Where is the motivation to stop? Instead of doing the same thing over and over until FORCED to stop.
auditor0007 If you only see this from the perspective of educated law abiding citizens,
you may not quite get how this overreaching approach is necessary to send
an absolute message that crime will be guarded against, instead of just letting it slide.
You seem to underestimate what it takes to enforce a strong defense
so visible vocal and unwavering that crime is reduced deterred in advance.
The softer approach may work well for education and internal programs one-on-one for rehab and corrections after people are caught and detained, but is disastrous for external issues of defense, where I would trust the tougher approach would work for deterrence.
It's like how criminals will go for an easy target, and if you don't make it easy for them,
they will go elsewhere. The point is to make it where it is CLEARLY "inconvenient"
and not invite abuses by lax policies.