Generally agree with the sentiment but it can put you in a very hard place.

I was accused of shoplifting by a gigantic dude who moved in to detain me as I was going into my car. Could have gotten Walmart badge or paraphernalia from anywhere (most walmarts aren't that aggressive but this one was). I could have told him to eat shit and it was clear he was willing to get violent. At that point I would have had to decide whether to draw a weapon, because he clearly would have overpowered me and put me in imminent fear of death. I handed him my receipt with one hand while preparing for the possibility to draw a weapon with the other, thankfully he seemed satisfied and turned out to be a real Walmart employee.

I decided I didn't want to ever face that decision again so I never went back

The job of a security guard is to observe and report. Let the multi-billion dollar companies like walmart and home depot pay for actual law enforcement to be on hand when a security guard observes a suspected shoplifter. The security guard isn't paid enough or trained enough to get physical with customers.

The point isn't that businesses are closing profitable stores, but the stores are unprofitable for reasons other than shrinkage. You're being fed a narrative about crime. Why? Who benefits?

> Finally, corporate claims are not holding up to scrutiny, and are being used to close stores that are essential assets for many communities. For instance, the CEO of Walgreens has acknowledged that perhaps retailers “cried too much last year” and overspent on security measures that failed to reflect real needs. And although the National Retail Federation said that “organized retail crime” drove nearly half of all inventory losses in 2021, the group later retracted its claim; it now no longer attaches a dollar amount to money that is lost due to retail theft. And in memorable cases, major retailers have chosen to maintain stores with much higher rates of crime, while closing others.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/retail-theft-in-us-cities...

That's as may be. But that's not what GP said.

It is not the case that "every illegal immigrant is already a criminal," which is what GP claimed.

If you had read the post you’re responding to, you would have seen that it asserts that the majority of undocumented people in the country actually were documented when they entered the country.

Also it’s poor form to copy/paste the same response over and over, even if you were reading the posts you replied to.

Repeating the same irrelevant statute doesn't make it relevant.

>Entering the United States without proper documentation, such as a passport or visa, is considered a federal crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1325. This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.

Yes. The link[0] I posted with my comment cites that specific law:

   To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is 
   likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an 
   alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:

       Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other 
       than designated by immigration officers;
       
       Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
       Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully 
       concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.

   The punishment under this federal law is no more than six months of 
   incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry. These
   acts of improper entry -- including the mythic "border jumping" -- are 
   criminal acts associated with illegally immigrating to the United States.
 
   Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be 
   proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

   Being present in the US without legal status is a civil infraction and not a 
   crime. Unlawful entry is a criminal act however.

   That said, the vast majority of undocumented folks entered the US Legally and 
   overstayed their visas. Which is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

[0] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illeg...

The visa is your entry document. The I-94 is your status document[0]. The visa outlines the conditions (including dates) you may enter the country. The I-94 is the record of entry/departure and dictate your required date of departure.

  >  This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry.

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/form-i-94-arrivaldepar...

That is manifestly not the same thing as overstaying a visa. Moreover, not only does it not apply if you’re already found to be in the country illegally you have to be caught in the act of entering - it was amended in 1996 to apply a civil penalty by the same act that created expedited removal (yes, it is not supposed to be in lieu of any statutory criminal penalty that _may_ be applied) and lower court judges have found against the re-entry provisions in 1326 [1]

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/163419/miranda-du-unconstitu...

> This statute criminalizes unauthorized entry, including entering at unauthorized times or places, evading inspection, or misrepresentation to gain entry

None of which has anything to do with the matter at hand.

It. Is. Not. A. Crime. To. Overstay. A. Visa.

40,000 people live within a few miles of me. That isn't a city, that's a suburb or a town.

Also the leaving guns in vehicles thing could also be affected by another number here. And that is miles driven per capita and vehicles owned per household averages. That is you could have the same total number of thieves that steal guns, especially among those with more poverty, but as you increase the number of cars groups that could no longer afford them have them. Also the number of miles driven means the potential thieves are covering way more territory.

Anecdotally I heard about things like this in the late 80s and early 90s. Farmers were complaining that groups out of Chicago were running off with all the stuff they'd leave around all over the farm.

In addition starting in the mid 70s was a long recessionary period (stagflation) after decades of a good economy in the 60s that shook the US to the core.

> actual changes that transpired and the reasons for why they did

Well go on then. Let's hear your theory out loud.

In a rural area, there’s only a handful of people who would notice the opportunity. Odds are pretty good that they won’t take it, because most people aren’t thieves. In the city, thousands of people will spot the opportunity and odds are good that a few of them are thieves.

The news intentionally pushes stories to make people afraid, but I think that's only part of the problem. There's a ton of well-earned distrust in the institutions which are supposed to protect us. Our "justice" system is corrupt from top to bottom. Agencies that should be working to protect the public are instead helping corporations exploit them. Even our representatives don't actually represent us or our interests and vast numbers of people already don't see any point to voting in a clearly rigged system while the rest are gerrymandered and disenfranchised by it.

For most of American's history each generation was better off than the previous one, but that's no longer the case. People's standard of living is in decline. They are forced to watch their children struggle in ways they never had to. The things that made people feel safe and stable and part of a community like homes and jobs with pension plans are out of reach for most people. More and more people are sliding into poverty.

All of this leads to a situation where people increasingly feel that they have to look out for themselves and that makes people fearful and distrustful.