Tag: immigration

  • Hispanics leave Arizona ahead of immigration law

    So says USA Today.

    The governor said, “If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment.” The good news is that at least one of the criminals–I mean business owner–plans to move to New York City.

    It would be nice if the aftermath of this law could to be analyzed rationally and people actually listened to the facts. But I doubt it.

    If crime goes down (rate, not numbers) and the economy improved, I would certainly admit I was wrong about that. So let’s see. But to me this isn’t primarily about crime (though I think the crime rate will go up). It is about humanity and the economy (and in NYC, terrorism).

    Let me gaze into my crystal ball… I look at Arizona and see crime going up and anti-immigrant people calling for even more stringent anti-immigrant laws. I see the local economy going down while those on the right change the subject, blame Obama, call for more prisons, and talk about the importance of sending a messages to these immigrant criminals.

    This would not be the first time that the idea of “sending a message” outweighs common sense and good policy.

  • More Immigrants, Less Crime

    I’ve said it before, but now there’s yet more academic support, this study by Tim Wadsworth. You can’t easily access the study and it’s not light reading if you can. But Christopher Dickey wrote a very readable article about the study. Dickey is the author of a very good book: Securing the City.

    Wadsworth’s research and the recent FBI data reinforce the judgment that the vast majority of immigrants make our cities safer, especially when police know how to work with them, not against them. To blame all immigrants for the crimes committed by a few, and give the cops the job of chasing them for immigration offenses instead of focusing resources on catching the real bad guys, is simply nuts.

  • Immigrants Save Cities

    Not about police, but this article by Richard Herman does summarize my position on immigration very well.

  • Eyes on the Street Help Defuse Times Square Car Bomb

    Kudos to the NYPD and the bomb squad for doing their job well. That work is no joke.

    In her wonderful The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs wrote, “It does not take many incidents of violence to make people fear the streets. And as they fear them, they use them less, which makes the streets still more unsafe.” Jacobs talked about “eyes on the street,” the idea that strangers are not the problem but an essential public-safety asset. In the city, it’s the deserted street that is dangerous. But in our overly fearful society, this idea is often forgotten.

    Of course Jacobs was talking about “normal” crime and not terrorism, but the lesson is the same:

    First, we must understand that the public peace—the sidewalk and street peace—of cities is not kept primarily by the police, necessary though they are. It is kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves.

    Think of it, in this modern hi-tech age of gadgets and gizmos, what we saw was a scene (minus the SUV) straight out of 1875: a street vendor telling an officer on a horse about a crudely made bomb. There is a lesson in this; there’s no substitute for eyes on the street and good old-fashioned policing.

    And yet…

    New York City, at least until yesterday, has been trying to push street vendors off the streets under the guise that vendors are a public safety hazard.

    Just the other day, the Daily News complained in an editorial that:

    Second-rate peddlers wrapping themselves in the First Amendment do not have unfettered license to set up shop in busy pedestrian thoroughfares…. These folks are freeloaders who assert the right to sell what they want, where they want, on the grounds that they’re expressing themselves.

    In a few key park spots where New Yorkers and tourists tend to gather, a suffocating stream of vendors has descended like flies on a horse.

    In this case that fly helped stop an explosion and that horse had a police office riding on it. Of course the vendor couldhave been a tourist and the tourist couldhave tried to flag down a passing police car. But he wasn’t and he didn’t.

    Too many cities say that horses are too expensive when we need that law enforcement money to, you know, fight terrorism.

    And this vendor may be a military veteran (vendors always claimto be veterans because being a veteran grants them privileged vendor status). But what if he weren’t? What if he were illegal? Most street vendors here are illegal. I’d bet my house that the churrosvendor on the N/R/W subway platform at 59th and Lexington is three times illegal: vendor, food seller, andillegal immigrant. But by standing alertly on that platform, she sees more than any passenger (and the churrosain’t bad). But would she go to police if shesaw something? I hope so. But I wouldn’t place even money on that bet.

    “The police are the public and that the public are the police,” wrote Robert Peel back in 1829 when he invented the very concept of modern police, “The police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen.” The more we get away from that ideal, the more dangerous our world becomes.

    Police are not supposed to be government agents of fear and repression. In the fight against terrorism, local police can’t be jack-booted thugs. The more things we criminalize, the more groups we push underground, the more people fear interaction with the police… the more likely the next bomb will blow.

  • Deaths in Mexico Drug War Pass 22,000

    Not the government wants you to know.

    Immediately after Calderon came to office in late 2006, he deployed up to 50,000 troops in a frontal battle with narcotics cartels, a move that drew widespread praise for its courage. More than three years later, the pace of killings is soaring and public security worries are beginning to affect the tourism industry, which employs nearly one out of eight Mexicans.

    Calderon has earned high praise in Washington.

    Read the whole article by Tim Johnson.

    Ending the drug war in Mexico is one way to curtail illegal immigration in the U.S. I’m just sayin’.

  • Immigrants make up four-fifths of those arrested!

    This just in.

    Only one-fifth of those arrested are natives of the United States. Four-fifth are foreign-born immigrants. According to the New York Times:

    Emigration has thrown upon our shores many vicious characters, and a still larger number of needy and ignorant persons, who, under the influence of over ten thousand [drug dealers] become recruits to the army of law-breakers.become recruits to the army of law-breakers.

    The vast majority of immigrants are charged with and guilty of drug crimes. So says New York City’s quarterly police report.

    From 1859.

    By 1875, immigrants were 68 percent of those arrested. (Of course by then many of the “native-born” Americans were children of immigrants.)

    Seventy-one percent of the immigrants arrested (and 41 percent of the total) were Irish. Germans–at 15 percent of immigrants and 8 percent of the total–were a distant second. African-Americans? 1.5 percent.

    source: New York Times. November 19, 1859. “The Metropolitan Police: Quarterly Report of Superintendent Pillsbury.” pg. 1. And August 6, 1875. “Three Months’ Police Work: Quarterly Report of the Commissioners.” p. 10. “Drug dealers” replaced “grog-shops.” And the “drug crime” was the use of “spirituous liquors,” responsible for 84 percent of arrests, according to the 1859 report.]

  • Shhhhhhhhh…. (II)

    I thought I’d just let all you anti-American city-living immigrant-loving pro-crime socialist fascists communists know what Real Americans are thinking.

    This is an email being forwarded around conservative circles. (For some reason I can’t figure out, and you can’t see it here, conservative-leaning email tends to use a VERY large font and is often in color, is this case blue.)

    Dear President Obama:

    I’m planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.

    We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements.

    We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.

    I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I’m on my way over?

    Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

    1. Free medical care for my entire family.

    2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

    3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.

    4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.

    5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

    6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.

    7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.

    8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.

    9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.

    10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.

    11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

    12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.

    13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.

    14. I want to receive free food stamps.

    15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.

    16. I’ll need Income tax credits so although I don’t pay Mexican Taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.

    17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov’t pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.

    18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement.

    I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. From Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

    Thank you so much for your kind help. You’re the man!!!

    Of course half that stuff isn’t true. But I in no way will defend Mexico’s treatment of immigrants. It’s shameful (just ask a Central American making the way through Mexico) and hypocritical (for a country that advocates for their emigrants in the U.S.).

    But we Americans hold ourselves to a higher standard. Right?

  • Arizona Immigration (III)

    “If immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase.” From “How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire” by Steve Chapman in Reason.com

    That’s not to say Arizonans don’t have a right to be upset when Mexicans trespass across private land on a regular basis. But you could solve that problem by making it easier for them to immigrate legally.

    It’s also worth remembering that this used to be a rare phenomenon. What made it common was not a new avalanche of people coming to the United States without permission. It was a federal offensive to intercept them in major border cities where they used to arrive.

    “Closing the old entry points diverted them into places which didn’t have many undocumented immigrants before,” Princeton University sociologist Douglas Massey told me. Instead of sneaking into San Diego or El Paso, they are prone to entering somewhere else—often in the Arizona desert, where the chance of being caught is lower.

  • Immigrants in Arizona (II)

    Nothing about this law is good. It is even worse that I first thought. When I wrote the previous post, I didn’t realize that individual police officers are being required to enforce that law. That certainly makes no friends in police circles. It is stupid to limit police discretion.

    Police are supposed to demand proof of legal residency from any person they lawfully contact and have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an unlawful alien. Then it states that all illegal immigrants are criminals (being present makes them trespassers [see correction below]).

    How is this different that Nazis criminalizing the Jews and them rounding them up for their crime of being present? If the best you can answer is, “well, we’re not going to send Mexicans to the gas chambers,” then you really need to raise your bar of morality.

    How the hell can so-called anti-government conservatives and tea-party people (and John “I used to stand by my principles until I lost an election” McCain) support such a totalitarian big-government law? Oh, because they’re not anti-government. They’re just anti this government. The democratically elected government. I mean, if you’re really just anti-government, there are libertarians out there you can rally around and vote for.

    Warning to Republicans: if you haven’t already, you’re slipping off the deep end. On the plus side, if this is considered conservative, it makes liberals (or “libs” as you like to say) look good.

    I don’t think there’s any chance this law will pass constitutional muster. But God save us if it does. And regardless, that test is years away. Reasonable suspicion? Oh, it’s come such a long and scary way from Terry v. Ohio.

    In 1968, Terry made frisking a person for weapons based on “reasonable suspicion” constitutional. This decision introduced the “reasonable suspicion” concept and said it is what is needed for a stop or frisk (the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” is needed for a search or arrest). Terry was an eight-to-one decision.

    Justice Douglas was the one. It is too bad that his dissent has become more and more prescient:

    To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched.

    There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.

    Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.

    [Linda Greenhouse has an excellent op-ed in today’s New York Times.]

    [I based my info on the New York Times, which was wrong: “An earlier version of this Op-Ed essay referred incorrectly to the provisions of the new Arizona immigration statute. The version of the bill signed by the governor no longer includes a section under which undocumented immigrants would be guilty of trespassing for being on Arizona soil.”]

  • Immigrants in Arizona

    I try and face most issues objectively. But not this one. I am pro-immigrant. My mom is an immigrant (from Germany) and my father’s parents were immigrants (Greeks from the Ottoman Empire on an Italian passport from what is now Albania).

    New York was founded on illegal immigrants (hell, America was founded on illegal immigrants). Nativist bastards hated your immigrant ancestors, too. Especially if you are Irish. Don’t forget that. And no, the immigrants of today are not so different from your parents, grandparents, or great grandparents. They were good people, most of them. And you turned out OK. And the difference between legal and illegal is just a matter of law. I’m for amnesty. Does that mean open borders? No. But we could be more open.

    I do think native-born manual workers have a legitimate gripe. Nothing is clear cut. And I think there is a legitimate argument about immigrants in border states being a burden on local schools and hospitals. But no, I don’t think we have an immigrant “problem.” We need more immigration, not less.

    If an immigrant, legal or illegal, commits a serious crime, I’m all for deportation. That’s a luxury we have. But perhaps what bothers me most about anti-immigrant sentiment is the idea that immigrants are a crime threat. Immigrants commit lesscrime than native-born Americans. Many people don’t know that. Some people are just so filled with racism and hate that they refuse to believe it. Shame on you.

    About 10 percent of my students have two American-born parents (I ask). I assume some if not many are illegal (I don’t ask). I live in a city where 40 percent of people are foreign born. 40 percent!And that’s not even counting their children. That’s what makes New York great. That’s why I live in Queens, which is majority immigrant.

    Maybe I’m biased growing up in Chicago and now living in New York. And neighborhoods with immigrants (legal and illegal) can be a bit seedy and poor, but they’re generally interesting, safe, and have great food.

    Messed-up cities and states, usually without too many immigrants, tend to be the most anti-immigrant. But for messed-up areas (and yes Baltimore, I’m thinking of you) immigrants are the solution, not the problem. Part of the reason they’re messed up is because there are no immigrants!

    And living in New York, a pro-immigrant policy is a security issue. Crime gets solved and terrorism gets prevented because people talk to police (and rat out the criminals). If police enforce immigration laws, immigrants get pushed underground. Nobody snitches. Crime goes up. New York gets bombed.

    I hate to say it, but I imagine your average Arizona cop loves this new law. If you’re filled with hate for immigrants, it’s a gift. But even if you’ve got nothing against illegals per se, it’s a tool.

    For now I’m happy to just say, “f*ck Arizona.” If Arizona doesn’t want illegal Mexicans? Let Arizona stagnate. I hope all the Mexicans there pack up and move to my neighborhood. But if the anti-immigrant spirit spreads, I’ll get more passionate. Rounding up people for not having their papers in orders in most definitely not American.