“There is a “small number of non-detained migrants” who have been convicted of homicide but can’t be sent back to their home countries after serving their time, mostly because the U.S. doesn’t have repatriation agreements with those countries, Nowrasteh says. A 2001 Supreme Court decision bars ICE from indefinitely keeping someone in immigration detention, but “non-detained” people are often still subject to ICE check-ins or electronic monitoring.
Trump is also wrong to claim that these individuals all came to the U.S. under the Biden administration. The list “includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more,” explained the Department of Homeland Security in a Saturday statement, “the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this Administration.””
…
“The number of convicted criminals on ICE’s nondetained docket hasn’t grown significantly under President Joe Biden, reported The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler. In August 2016, five months before Trump took office, there were 368,574 on the docket; in June 2021, five months into Biden’s presidency, there were 405,786; and in December 2022, nearly two years into Biden’s presidency, there were 407,983.
As he campaigns ahead of the presidential election next month, Trump has routinely said outrageous, misleading, and false things about immigrants and crime. He often talks about a “migrant crime” wave and claims that it “is taking over America.” Much like his migrant murderers claim, the true picture looks very different. Crime decreased in the cities that received the most migrants through Texas’ Operation Lone Star busing activities, per NBC News. “The most recent significant crime spike in recent years occurred in 2020,” Cato Institute Associate Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier told Reason in March, “when illegal immigration was historically low until the end of the year.”
Trump paints a terrifying picture of migrants and migration, but the reality is far more nuanced and far less dangerous than he would suggest.”
“The new numbers indicate that the violent crime victimization rate fell slightly in 2023, although the change was not statistically significant. “Findings show that there was an overall decline in the rate of violent victimization over the last three decades, from
1993 to 2023,” BJS Acting Director Kevin M. Scott reports. “While the 2023 rate was higher than those in 2020 and 2021, it was not statistically different from the rate 5 years ago, in 2019.”
That observation is inconvenient for Trump, who wants to blame Harris for rising crime during the Biden administration. Leaving aside the plausibility of assuming that a president, let alone a vice president, has much influence on crime rates, Trump’s thesis relies on the assumption that violent crime is more common now than it was during his administration. But even according to the data source he prefers, the 2023 rate was statistically indistinguishable from the rate in 2019, his second-to-last year in office.”
“I can’t speak to whether the allegations against Combs are true. But reading the indictment, a few things jump out that I can comment on. The first is how—once again—the Mann Act rears its ugly head, making criminal what really should not be a crime. The second is how federal prosecutors are (once again) stretching the application of sex trafficking laws to conduct that goes beyond the sort of actions they were originally pushed to target. And the third is how the racketeering conspiracy charge opens up the government to seizing way more assets than they would otherwise be allowed to seize.”
…
“Merely transporting someone across state lines to engage in sexual activity should not be a crime. If there’s abduction or coercion involved, that is the criminal activity. We don’t also need a law criminalizing the mere transportation element. It’s like making opening the door to a bank during the commission of a bank robbery its own separate crime.
But the Mann Act lets federal prosecutors charge people whom they don’t otherwise have cause to arrest or, in situations like Combs’ case, to ratchet up the charges, perhaps in service of producing a plea deal.
Combs is charged with violating the Mann Act for allegedly making “arrangements for women and commercial sex workers to fly to [his] location.” The alleged sex workers involved were all men.
The indictment contains no allegation that he forced or coerced these sex workers into anything. But if he arranged for their travel, across state lines and internationally, the feds have him on a Mann Act violation.”
…
“So what about the other charges? Combs allegedly induced women to participate in sex parties he called “Freak Offs,” which the indictment describes as “elaborate and produced sex performances that COMBS arranged, directed, masturbated during, and often electronically recorded.” For these parties, Combs would allegedly hire male sex workers for women to hook up with.
So far, so what? The only potential crime in all that is hiring the male sex workers. But soliciting prostitution is not a federal crime (though it is a state or local crime almost everywhere in the country). And it’s possible no one involved thought of this as prostitution. According to the indictment, Combs would frequently film the sex acts at these “Freak Offs.” Making porn is not illegal if all parties are consenting.
The indictment goes into some detail about these alleged sex parties. But while it’s heavy on lurid description, its light on actual criminal acts.”
…
“it doesn’t say that he forced anyone to do drugs or gave anyone drugs surreptitiously.
Even many of Combs’ alleged means of coercing women to participate in these parties are likely legal. They include activities that might well be controlling in certain contexts but not necessarily criminal—things like making “promises of career opportunities,” giving them financial support (or threatening to withhold it), “dictating [their] appearance,” and “monitoring their medical records.”
However, that’s not all that Combs is accused of doing. The indictment also says he used “the sensitive, embarrassing, and incriminating recordings that he made during Freak Offs as collateral to ensure the continued obedience and silence of the victims.”
And it accuses him of having assaulted some of the women, “striking, punching, dragging, throwing objects at, and kicking them.”
Several women have previously accused Combs of sexual assault. And at least one video was made public last fall of Combs punching and kicking Casandra Ventura, an R&B singer who goes by Cassie. (Ventura sued him in civil court, saying Combs had raped her, physically assaulted her, and forced her to have sex with other men while he filmed. The suit was settled a day after Ventura filed it.)”
…
“We’ve got one charge for something that should not be a crime (transportation of willing adults). Even if Combs did this, it should not matter, morally or legally.
Then we’ve got allegations of the sort of violence and abuse that definitely should be illegal—albeit not the purview of the federal government. If Combs did these things, they are both morally abhorrent and should be prosecutable under state criminal laws.
Then we’ve got this third, murkier business—the sex parties—that it’s hard to know what to make of.
And this murky third element is the thing that the federal government really needs to justify this case. It’s the area where the indictment has devoted the most attention, and also where the lines between legal adult activity and criminal sex trafficking are blurry.”
…
” According to the indictment, Combs used his “power and prestige,” along with “the pretense of a romantic relationship,” to “lure” women to him. So…he was a rich and famous dude who women were drawn to and he maybe used that to his sexual advantage? That may be cad-like behavior, but it is not (nor should it be) illegal.”
…
“the alleged trafficker—Combs—is accused of paying money to consenting sex workers and using force or coercion to find sex partners for them. It’s not the sex workers who are allegedly being trafficked but the people whom the sex workers are paid to have sex with.”
…
“Is that really sex trafficking? It seems like prosecutors are once again stretching the definition.
Sex trafficking statutes were enacted with a promise of stopping forced prostitution. But prosecutors and people bringing civil lawsuits have found all sorts of creative ways to use them, hurling sex trafficking allegations at social media websites, software companies, and sex workers themselves, as well as people engaged in a wide array of odd or bad behavior adjacent to sex”
…
“Combs may well have engaged in some nasty, abusive, and criminal behavior. But things can be nasty, abusive, and even criminal without necessarily being sex trafficking.”
“In a dissenting opinion, Lumpkin argued that Aguilar’s marijuana use should have been illegal because “only [she] has a permit to use it, not her baby.” Thus, “the baby’s exposure to [Aguilar’s] use and possession of marijuana, a Schedule I drug, is illegal.”
Judge David B. Lewis takes up a similar theme in his dissent, writing that “a medical marijuana license is certainly not a legal authorization to share, transfer, or distribute marijuana to others who have no license, especially those for whom its use or possession is unauthorized by law.” And “who could really doubt that a licensed marijuana consumer would face legal consequences for willfully sharing, distributing, or permitting the unlicensed ingestion of marijuana by children for whose welfare they are responsible?””
…
“Fetal personhood is most often invoked as a justification for banning abortion. But it also can be used to justify all sorts of restrictions on pregnant women or criminal penalties for those who do anything that the state says isn’t in a fetus’ best interests. It’s grounds for everything from charges against women who do drugs while pregnant (something Rowland generally endorses, writing that “an expectant mother who exposes her unborn child to illegal methamphetamine could be convicted of child neglect”) to punishing a pregnant woman for getting shot because she put herself in harms’ way.”
“”Homicides Are Skyrocketing in American Cities Under Kamala Harris,” Donald Trump’s campaign avers in a statement issued on Monday. Like Trump’s assertion that “our crime rate is going up,” this claim is completely at odds with reality.
According to FBI data, the homicide rate jumped by more than 27 percent in 2020, when Trump was president; rose slightly in 2021, the first year of the Biden administration; and fell by 7 percent in 2022. Preliminary FBI numbers show bigger drops in 2023 (about 13 percent) and this year (26 percent for the first quarter). So far this year, according to data from 277 cities, homicides are down by about 17 percent.”
“officials said that U.S. Secret Service agents opened fire after spotting the suspect near the golf course’s perimeter. It remains unclear if the individual fired any shots before fleeing in an SUV. The suspect was taken into custody in a neighboring county.
The incident happened around 1:30 p.m. ET, authorities said. Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw stated that the suspect, armed with an AK-style rifle, was positioned roughly 300 to 500 yards away from Trump, concealed in shrubbery that lines the course just a few holes ahead of where Trump was.”
…
“The suspect fled in a vehicle but was quickly apprehended on I-95 in Martin County, north of Palm Beach.
Martin County Sheriff William Snyder said the suspect was unarmed at the time of the arrest. Bradshaw said that a witness saw a man fleeing the golf course bushes. The witness took a photo of the suspect’s black Nissan, and a license plate reader spotted the vehicle.”
“Violent crime levels have dropped significantly in the first half of the year, according to a new report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
Overall, violent crime dropped by 6 percent and homicides fell by 17 percent in 69 cities compared to the same period last year. Columbus, Ohio, saw the biggest drop in violent crime at 41 percent, according to an Axios data analysis. But cities including Miami, Washington, DC, and Austin, Texas, also saw large declines. Notably, New York City was not included in the data, though other reports have indicated that violent crime is falling there, too.
It’s hard to say exactly what’s causing the decline, which comes after a major Covid-19 crime wave. It may be partially due to policies aimed at tackling crime at the federal, state, and local levels. But it may also just be a symptom of the fact that normal life in America has resumed post-pandemic — or a combination of those and other factors.
Republicans have long tried to use concerns about crime as a political cudgel against President Joe Biden’s administration. While former President Donald Trump doesn’t appear to be giving up on that attack strategy just yet, Democrats can now use the new data as a defense. Whether that will be effective, however, is far from certain.”
“The theme of the Republican National Convention’s second night was “Make America Safe Again,” and the roster of speakers repeatedly criticized Biden’s record on crime and immigration: Randy Sutton, a retired police officer, said there was a “war on cops.” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said that Biden treats “police like criminals, and criminals like victims.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz declared that “your family is less safe, your children are less safe, the country is less safe,” as a result of Biden’s presidency.
But the Republican speakers’ rhetoric on crime spiraling out of control was out of touch with reality.
While there was indeed a rise in crime during the pandemic, recent data has shown that crime is declining nationwide. According to the FBI, murder is down 26 percent and robberies have declined by 18 percent in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same time last year. That didn’t stop Republican speakers throughout the night from singling out incidents of heinous crimes and drug overdoses to conjure up an image of lawlessness and disorder.
So why are Republicans plowing ahead with their “Make America Safe Again” messaging despite data that shows America is already getting safer? The answer is simple: Most Americans believe that crime is getting worse, so it’s not a particularly tough message to sell.”