My point is not dumb: not every criminal is incarcerated. I can argue that illegal immigrants are less likely to get best legal representation and therefore their incarceration versus arrest rates are higher. Is this argument unreasonable? Of course, you need another study to answer this point, but hell, you found one that agrees with what you already believe, no need to look further. So every objection to your opinion is dumb.
Wikipedia cites 24 references related to immigration (both legal and illegal) and crime in the USA. One has to take every one of them apart in order to be able to voice an opinion on the subject.
That is dumb.
Your point now, which has changed, is that they may not receive adequate legal representation and thus be incarcerated at a higher rate. I don't think that's unreasonable, in fact I think it's likely. But, a few points about that: (i
) incarceration can occur both before and after a trial so legal representation is not necessarily a factor; (ii
) they are in the country illegally and therefor are already subject to incarceration, other crimes notwithstanding.
Am I qualified to voice medical opinion even if I haven't read every study? Are you trying to make me laugh or building a straw man?
Neither; I am illustrating to you the stupidity of your original comment. Which, judging from your reaction, you now acknowledge if only in a backhanded way.