The El Paso Miracle

Full Disclosure what follows is an edited version. Search The  El Paso Miracle for the FULL ARTICLE

One of the safest big cities in America?

RADLEY BALKO Reason Magazine| 7.6.2009 12:15 PM

202

By conventional wisdom, El Paso, Texas should be one of the scariest cities in America. In 2007, the city's poverty rate was a shade over 27 percent, more than twice the national average. Median household income was $35,600, well below the national average of $48,000. El Paso is three-quarters Hispanic, … it's safe to say that a significant percentage [are] living here illegally. And famously, El Paso sits just over the Rio Grande from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, home to a staggering 2,500 homicides in the last 18 months alone. El Paso a city of illegal immigrants with easy access to guns, just across the river from a metropolis ripped apart by brutal drug war violence. Should be a bloodbath, right?

Here's the surprise: There were just 18 murders in El Paso last year, in a city of 736,000 people. To compare, Baltimore, with 637,000 residents, had 234 killings.

El Paso is among the safest big cities in America. For the better part of the last decade.(It slipped to third last year.)  Men's Health magazine recently ranked El Paso the second "happiest" city in America, right after Laredo, Texas—another border town, where the Hispanic population is approaching 95 percent.

So how has this city of poor immigrants become such an anomaly? Actually, it may not be an anomaly at all. Many criminologists say El Paso isn't safe despite its high proportion of immigrants, it's safe because of them.

"If you want to find a safe city, first determine the size of the immigrant population," says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Massachusetts. "If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you're likely in one of the country's safer cities. San Diego, Laredo, El Paso—these cities are teeming with immigrants, and they're some of the safest places in the country."

If you get your crime news from talk radio anti-immigration pundits, all of this may come as a surprise. But it's not that way to many of those who study crime for a living. Numerous studies by independent researchers and government commissions over the past 100 years repeatedly and consistently have found that, in fact, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or to be behind bars than are the native-born. This is true for the nation as a whole, as well as for cities with large immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Miami, and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border such as San Diego, Laredo, and El Paso.

One of the signatories [See full article]was Rubén G. Rumbaut, a sociologist who studies immigration at the University of California, Irvine. Rumbaut recently presented a paper on immigration and crime to a Washington, D.C. conference sponsored by the Police Foundation. Rumbaut writes via email, "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the same conclusion: Rates of crime and conviction for undocumented immigrants are far below those for the native born, and that is especially the case for violent crimes, including murder."

Opponents of illegal immigration cite anecdotes to link illegal immigration to violent crime. When they do try to use statistics, they come up short. The Bureau of Justice Statistics puts the number of non-citizens (including legal immigrants) in state, local, and federal prisons and jails at about 6.4 percent (pdf). Of course, even that doesn't mean that non-citizens account for 6.4 percent of murders and DWI fatalities, only 6.4 percent of the overall inmate population.

What's happening with Latinos [according to] [e]conomists Kristin Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl argue that the very process of migration tends to select for people with a low potential for criminality.

El Paso may be a concentrated affirmation of that theory. In 2007 the Washington Post  reported on city leaders' wariness of anti-immigration policies coming out of Washington. The city went to court (and lost) in an effort to prevent the construction of the border fence within its boundaries, and local officials have resisted federal efforts to enlist local police for immigration enforcement, arguing that it would make illegals less likely to cooperate with the police. "Most people in Washington really don't understand life on the border," El Paso Mayor John Cook told the Post."They don't understand our philosophy here that the border joins us together, it doesn't separate us."

El Paso's embrace of its immigrants might be a big reason why the low-income border town has remained one of the safest places in the country.

Radley Balko is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

The Truth About Immigration.

Being more confident in your position on immigration 

By Chuck McGlawn chuckest@aol.com 05/22/2019

To get to the Truth about who legally controls immigration policy in the US we will have to dip our toes into a little more history than you may think necessary. But if you are like me you need something solid to anchor your foot to do any pushing back against the DC Government encroachment then you will need this history. There is nothing like history to validate a position.

Most people today incorrectly think that powers over immigration are in the hands of the Executive Branch of the DC Government, namely President Trump. Even Small Government Conservatives believe the DC Government Legislators hold power over immigration. And given the “laws passed” the headlines generated, and the news stories written over the past 137years it is no surprise why the confusion prevails. However, I would like to make the case that the powers over immigration morphed from control by each State to the DC Government through steps that were completely unlawful.

Let us demonstrate this position with a thought experiment:  Fred knows that Sid is going on a very extended vacation to the Bahamas. When Sid departs Fred moves into Sid’s house telling the immediate neighbors that he is house-sitting. The other neighbors just think someone new has moved into the neighborhood. People see Fred coming and going from the house for two years and no one suspects that Fred is doing anything wrong.

For two years Fred exercises powers of ownership that he does not legally hold. No one complains, no one stakes a claim on the powers that Fred has usurped. When Sid returns from his two-year vacation and finds Fred living in his house, does Sid have to go to court to evict Fred? No. Sid merely reports a trespass violation to the proper authorities and Fred is taken out and perhaps jailed. That is maybe what should happen the DC Government violators.

If the anti-immigration folks will pause for a time from their calls for more immigration control, and absorb a short lesson we will clear any confusion as to who has the real power over immigration policies. On October 19, 1781, The British surrender to the Continental Army at Yorktown. [Yes, we have to go back that far.] On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris is signed ending the War of Independence That Treaty converted the thirteen British colonies into thirteen independent self-governing States. [read "States" here as independent Countries.]

Even before the surrender these thirteen British Colonies combined in an effort to knit themselves into a Confederation drafted and approved the "Articles of Confederation". This first attempt at a Confederation was not completely functional. 

After the Treaty of Paris was signed a Constitutional Convention was scheduled to fix the Articles of Confederation. The Convention was attended mainly by two groups. There were Government Limiters hereafter called GL. They favored a limited Federation, and they were real Federalists. However, the Government Growers hereafter called GG favored a controlling strong Central Government but they called themselves "Federalist". The State Delegates debated many issues. Most of what the GG (calling themselves Federalist)  proposed was soundly rejected by the State Delegates, and therefore, the GL prevailed, and the thirteen States ratified a federal Constitution as we can read it today. 

In the Constitution, no powers over immigration were delegated to the Executive Branch. Additionally, no powers over immigration were delegated to the Supreme Court. [Now stay with me here.] This may be new to you. The powers over immigration were not even delegated to the DC Government Legislature. In other words, in 1787 the only governing powers were held by the States, and the States were not willing to delegate any powers over immigration to the DC Government.

In the Constitution there are just seven words in Article 1 Section 8 clause 4 where the States delegated the only power over people coming to the United States to the DC Government. The power they delegated to the DC Government Legislators was, "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization," [That is all that is said in the Constitution about people migrating to the US.] And let me remind you here about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution (part of the bill of rights) clearly says, [read this slowly and thoughtfully.] "The powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

At this point, I am sure some will say, “Between 1789 and today there must have been some laws passed, or some Supreme Court case decided that conferred the powers over immigration to the DC Government.” That, gentle reader, is not the case. What has just been described is the period of time that Fred was living in Sid’s house without authority. 

The DC Government has been exercising powers over immigration without authority. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, in 1882 the DC Government Legislators passed the first unconstitutional immigration law. And there was no Sid to say get out of my house. Please note that was almost one Century, almost 100 years with States the only holders of power over immigration.

Sid was not around to remind the States of their powers. You see, the States being very jealous of their powers had included in the Constitution a guarantee that the DC Government would not usurp State powers. That protection can be found in Article VI of the Constitution. It states that laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are null and void and have no power if they were not passed in "pursuance to the Constitution". This means that laws passed by the DC government legislators and signed by the President HAVE NO POWER if the law had not been a power delegated by the States to the DC Government during ratification. Read it for yourself in Article VI of the Constitution.

Now dear reader there is a way around that limitation. If the people of the US really want powers over immigration to shift from the States to the DC Government the Constitution included in Article V the steps necessary to AMEND  the Constitution. No such amendment has been submitted or ratified by the States.

I am sure the anti-immigration folks will continue to rant about the horrors of "illegal immigration. But I am hoping that they will recognize that it is they who are advocating lawlessness; because none of the three branches of the DC Government have any powers over immigration.

In conclusion, the ONLY legal powers over immigration are State powers, PERIOD.

It is time for Sid to come home and discover Fred exercising ownership powers where none exist. It is time that powers over immigration are returned to the States. Think about it, if the power over immigration is spread over the Legislators and Governors of 50 States competition between the States will generate the “Best Solution” to the immigration question, much better than a monopoly power carried out by the DC Government.

Let me leave you with this; anti-immigration folks are advocating for a government that has the power to give them what they want. However, that same powerful government will also have the power to take from them all that they have.

Recapturing the Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum

The Roadmap Toward Liberty

by Chuck McGkawn chuckest@aol.com

I am trying to reestablish and I do mean reestablish that “right”, “rightist”, and "right-wing" is the advocacy of less government. I am going to open with a quotation from Murray Rothbard. It will be repeated and sourced later. “The modern American Right began, in the 1930s and 1940s, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention… “

Among the things I want to touch on here and cover in the full article are:

1.     How the left and right got their names and meanings. The confusion starts here.

2.     How realities created a NEED for a Single Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum.

3.     What is the Left Right Political Spectrum is Supposed to Measure? Confusion here can send you in every direction.

4.     How earlier thinkers staked their claim on the name.

5.     How confusion took root, to muddy the waters.

6.     How clarification works for us in our efforts to promote liberty on every front.

7.     And lastly, To show how you, yes you can begin clearing up the confusion and begin to recapture the single plane left/right political spectrum as the Roadmap to Liberty.

For the full article email chuckest@aol.com 

The following is not an opinion. Karl Marx chose “LEFT” as the designation for his movement, Lenin and Trotsky continued to refer to Communism as a movement of the left. Now, stay with me here, if advocating more government (as Communism did) is “Left” and 100% government is the “extreme left”, then the advocacy of less government would have to be “Right” and 0% government would be the “extreme Right”, on a Single Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum.

Conveniently the English Language has words that substantiate this assertion. Please note, that 100% government is Totalitarianism, where the government makes all major decisions for individuals & businesses. (Note the word “total in totalitarian.), and Anarchy is derived from the Greek meaning “no rule” or no government where individuals and businesses are free to make all of their own decisions

An advocate of more government is not necessarily a communist or fascist or Nazi but is calling for a move toward 100% government on the left. An advocate of less government is not necessarily an advocate of anarchy but is calling for a move toward 0% government on the right.

Confirmation of this hypothesis can be found in two articles by Murray Rothbard. (and many others that preceded and followed him) In The Transformation of the American Right First published in Continuum, in summer 1964, pp. 220–231. Murray Rothbard correctly observed,

The modern American Right began, in the 1930s and 1940s, as a reaction against the New Deal and the Roosevelt Revolution, and specifically as an opposition to the critical increase of statism and state intervention…

A reinforcement of this concept is found in “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969, Rothbard further observed: “…we adopted the standard view, let me repeat that “…we adopted the standard view, of the political spectrum: “left,” meant socialism, or total power of the state; the further ‘right’ one went the less government one favored. Hence, we called ourselves “extreme rightists." Rothbard’s standard view of the left right political Spectrum would be a horizontal line with 100% government on the left and 0% on the right

100% government ß------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L---I --B--E--R---T--A--R--I --A-- Nà 0% government.

^{Left  (Totalitarian Communist Socialism Fascist Nazi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anarchy . Right}

Note: Because of different Libertarians believing in different amounts of government, we have spread Libertarian over the right end of the chart.

Additional confirmation is found farther along in that same article where Rothbard said, “Originally, our historical heroes were such men as [Thomas] Jefferson, [Thomas] Paine, [John] Cobden and [Richard] Bright and [Herbert] Spencer. As our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker.”

Shockingly the “extreme rightist” Murray Rothbard authored the first Political Platform for the Libertarian Party. This should make those who say that Communism is authoritarianism of the left and Fascism is authoritarianism of the right squirm in their seats a bit.

In conclusion, what we have here is a “Think About It” moment: If the total variation of Earth’s temperature was just three degrees. From summer to winter from The North Pole to the equator, from night to day no one would have ever invented a thermometer. Additionally, if Communism is authoritarianism of the left and Fascism is authoritarianism of the right no one would have ever invented the single plane left/right political spectrum to gauge political thought. And David Nolan would have had nothing on which to improve upon.

Liberty vs. Freedom

 by Chuck McGlawn

You may be asking yourself where is he going with this. Well, let me tell you. I see Liberty and Freedom as very different. Let me list some of the subtle distinctions

Freedom is created. It is likened to an invention like the telephone. Liberty is discovered. I liken it to a discovery like the discovery of the law of gravity. Freedom must be constructed, as with the written Constitution, or years of tradition. Liberty is described, like with the Declaration of Independence.

Freedom is subjective. That is why the freedom movement is always splintered by disagreement and constant infighting over the boundaries, and what. Liberty is objective. Everyone knows what it is, and if not, a one-sentence description and on goes the light.

In my view, freedom is a positive thing. It must be constructed and once it is constructed it has boundaries. Liberty is a negative thing. It is just there, and it has always been there waiting to be discovered. It does not require construction and has no boundaries. The boundaries of Freedoms have been constructed by very smart people to be sure. And its goal and boundaries are worthy. Freedom is deemed worthy and valuable by additional smart people. The distinction that sets freedom apart from liberty is that freedom has subjective rules, and liberty has an unchangeable objective law.

Freedom has goals it wants to progress and improvement. Its advocates think and want more for next year and even more for the year after. And it wants to broaden its base, by instilling the quest for Freedom into more people, then more people. Liberty is passive, but it allows limitless growth and improvement, for a limitless number of people, and it does this by just being there.

When I got to this point in my writing, I had more to say, however, I thought I should Google the subject. Of the many hits I got, three articles at least touched on the concepts that I was expanding.

Paul V. Hartman in "Freedom" and "Liberty" Are Not the Same Thing” confirms what I am saying when he wrote, “Freedoms end when they encounter a contrary freedom of another person. You are free to smoke until you encounter my freedom not to inhale your smoke. Liberty lacks that distinction: my liberty never contradicts or limits yours. In other words, freedoms have boundaries, because they are active or positive. Liberty does not because they are passive and negative.

Geoffrey Nunberg put a historical spin on the subject, and in the process, he suggests that Liberty is of a higher order than Freedom. In the Nation article Freedom vs. Liberty; More Than Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose Published: March 23, 2003, wrote, “For the founders of the nation, liberty was the fundamental American value.” Nunberg added, Echoing John Locke, the Declaration of Independence speaks of ''life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' The text doesn't mention freedom at all. It was liberty that Patrick Henry declared himself willing to die for, and liberty that the ringing bell in Philadelphia proclaimed on July 8, 1776.

Liberty remained the dominant patriotic theme for the following 150 years, even if freedom played an important role, particularly in the debates over slavery. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address began by invoking a nation ''conceived in liberty,'' but went on to resolve that it should have a ''new birth of freedom.''

Never the less, in the early 1870s, just five years or so after the (so-called) Civil War France began the construction of the Statue of Liberty.

That makes me ask did Lincoln have some insights into the differences before anyone began writing about it. Additionally, Nunberg observed, “But ''freedom'' didn't really come into its own until the New Deal period when the defining American values were augmented to include the economic and social justice that permitted people free development as human beings. Of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms -- of speech, of religion, from want and from fear -- only the first two might have been expressed using ''liberty.'
The civil rights movement made ''freedom now'' its rallying cry. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used ''freedom'' 19 times in his ''I Have a Dream'' speech and liberty only twice. Feminists extended freedom to cover reproductive rights, while Timothy Leary spoke of the ''fifth freedom . . . the freedom to expand your own consciousness.''

More recently in The Calling of Cultural Liberty · Thursday, November 06, 2008 by Crosbie Fitch

We may express a desire to have the freedom to park our car on our neighbor’s drive, but the mere citing of an aspiration of ‘freedom’ cannot invoke a right, as if that invocation could then trump our neighbour’s natural right to privacy.

Then in three profound statements, he rendered almost useless the need for me to continue. What he said was,

Freedom is a lack of constraint. It is neither intrinsically noble nor inherently ethical.

Ethical freedom is a lack of unethical constraint and is more succinctly termed ‘liberty’.

We do not have a right to freedom. We have a right to liberty – freedom constrained only by the equal rights of others.

Paraphrasing Fitch We have a right to liberty, and liberty is freedom constrained only by the equal rights of others” reminds me of the oft-times admonition that we can have liberty only if we are willing to share it with everyone. And correct me if I am wrong, but is that not just another way of saying, no one has the right to initiate force on another.

Cause & Effect Lessons for Alabama

by Chuck McGlawn 12/19/2011

The Cause & Effect lessons and REAL LIFE experience has shifted Alabama’s stance on its extremist immigration law from defiance to damage control.[Did he say DAMAGE CONTROL? That would mean the law is doing DAMAGE.] Gov. Robert Bentley admitted this month that the law needed fixing…   

We now learn that “When Mr. Bentley signed the law in June, he ignored warnings from legal experts and civil-rights advocates that it would curtail rights for all Alabamians, criminalize routine business transactions and acts of charity, encourage racial profiling, and cast an unconstitutional chill on school enrollment.”

Warnings came from other sources as well. It turns out that, “The governor and legislators were also warned that the law would attract multiple lawsuits and pummel the economy, particularly farming when immigrant workers fled.” It raises a question what percentage of Alabama’s population would have to be among the 74% of …Americans [who] Think (Wrongly) That Illegal Immigrants Hurt the Economy, for the Governor to ignore all the informed warnings.

Any Governor, worth his salt knows what to do when “The warnings have all come true” according to a New York Times Editorial, Alabama’s Second Thoughts Published: December 17, 2011

The law, as written and passed enables utility providers, “In just one example, some utilities are threatening to shut off customers without the right papers.”

From the NY Times editorial, “Mr. Strange [has] spent six months trying to defend the law in court and in public. At one point he even challenged the federal government’s authority to investigate civil-rights abuses committed under the law. A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked parts of the law; most recently, a judge issued a restraining order preventing Alabama from denying trailer-home licenses to people it decides are here illegally.”

Attorney general, Luther Strange has seen the light, as he, “is urging lawmakers to drop some major provisions, including:

“The requirement that schools collect immigration data on children and parents, which he said would cost too much for the benefit it would provide.

“The part making it a crime for immigrants not to carry their papers, which is illegal under federal law.

“The part barring people from college if they do not have documents, because some people, like certain refugees, can be here legally without documents.

“The sections that allow Alabama residents to sue officials they believe are not adequately enforcing the law, because of conflicts with the state Constitution.

Even if lawmakers accept Mr. Strange’s proposals, it still will not undo the harm — to the undocumented, to all Alabamians, to the state’s image and economy. This law is indefensible. The only solution is repeal.
Unfortunately, too many of Alabama’s politicians still don’t get it. Mike Hubbard, the House speaker, vowed on Facebook, “we’re not going to repeal or weaken the law, acquiescing to liberal elites’ and the news media’s efforts to intimidate and shame Alabama.” And 12 senators have written to the governor, urging him not to retreat. news media’s efforts to intimidate and shame Alabama.” And 12 senators have written to the governor, urging him not to retreat.

Workfare, Not Welfare, Immigration Solution

by Chuck McGlawn 12/18/2011

Let me make it clear I believe Arizona and Alabama can pass and enforce almost any anti-immigration law that their citizens want. And I said so in Nine States & The Liberty ViewsLetter Backs Arizona on Immigration I think Arizona’s SB 1070 law could have provided Arizona and most other States an important lesson in Cause and Effect, leading to more workable Immigration Laws as I stated in Immigration Cause & Effect May be Rearing its Head. That lesson was short-circuited by the State Supreme Court that nullified its most egregious sections. However, no State law should empower authorities to abuse violators of that law. And it should not create a culture of corruption, that turns its head when citizens of a certain color or language are swept up in zeal to rid the State of illegals.

States Have a Right to be Wrong But, Not Criminal

In a recent article entitled, U.S. Finds Pervasive Bias against Latinos by Arizona Sheriff, lovingly called Sheriff Joe, the poster boy of anti-immigration get a deserving slap on the wrist. In a strongly worded critique of the country’s best-known sheriff, the Justice Department on Thursday accused Sheriff Joe Arpaio of engaging in “unconstitutional policing” by unfairly targeting Latinos for detention and arrest and retaliating against those who complain. That is how bigotry works. You use your power and authority to arrest and detain the TARGET, then you harass anyone who complains.

After an investigation that lasted more than three years, the civil rights division of the Justice Department said in a 22-page report that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, which Mr. Arpaio leads, had “a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos” that “reaches the highest levels of the agency.” The department interfered with the inquiry, the government said, prompting a lawsuit that eventually led Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies to cooperate.

 [M]ore than 400 inmates, deputies and others had been interviewed as part of the review, including Sheriff Arpaio and his command staff. Mr. Perez said the inquiry, which included jail visits and reviews of thousands of pages of internal documents, raised the question of whether Latinos were receiving “second-class policing services” in Maricopa County. A separate federal grand jury investigation of Sheriff Arpaio’s office is continuing, focusing on accusations of abuse of power by the department’s public corruption squad.

Sheriff Arpaio was singled out for criticism in the report, which said that he had used racially charged letters he had received to justify raids and that he helped nurture the department’s “culture of bias.”Asked at a news conference about Sheriff Arpaio’s role in the department’s problems, Mr. Perez said, “We have to do cultural change and culture change starts with people at the top.”

Predictions of abuse of Arizona’s SB-1079 materialized as, “The inquiry’s findings paint a picture of a department staffed by poorly trained deputies who target Latino drivers on the roadways and detain innocent Latinos in the community in their searches for illegal immigrants. The mistreatment, the government said, extends to the jails the department oversees, where Latino inmates who do not speak English are mistreated.”

I personally favor a States right to limit immigration in any manor the people of the State choose. However, “The absence of clear policies and procedures to ensure effective and constitutional policing, along with the deviations from widely accepted policing and correctional practices, and the failure to implement meaningful oversight and accountability structures, have contributed to a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations.” Civil libertarians that warned of violations of Civil Rights were right, as “…Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped… than non-Latino drivers, …called the most egregious racial profiling seen in this country,

The report also suggested that Sheriff Arpaio’s well-publicized raids aimed at arresting illegal immigrants were sometimes prompted by complaints that described no criminal activity but referred to people with “dark skin” or to Spanish speakers congregating in an area. “The use of these types of bias-infected indicators as a basis for conducting enforcement activity contributes to the high number of stops and detentions lacking in legal justification,” the report said.

It is no secret that I favor immigration, and, I favor liberty. And I look forward to the day when the second of those two statements is a redundancy. I believe immigration will always produce a gain to the area that the immigrants decide to settle. That is, unless WE THE PEOPLE through coercive laws offer up a smorgasbord of services to immigrants that they find it unnecessary to apply their full efforts to providing for their family and providing for their future.

Workfare Not Welfare

It is the Welfare State that attracts the undesirable immigrants. When you place huge billboards on the border that say, “FREE EDUCATION”, “FREE MEDICAL CARE” “FREE HOUSING”, and “FREE FOOD” What would you expect from immigrants who are willing to pay a coyote three or four thousand dollars for passage into the land of plenty?  Our current Immigration and Welfare Laws are a formula for the anti-immigration sentiment that empowers the Sheriff Joes of the US. Incidently, those signs are painted on both sides. And they have played a major roll in turning hard working Americans into the handout seekers that leave gapping holes in our unskilled labor force that invites in the illegals

The Workfare State (if we only had one) would attract only immigrants who want a chance to offer their marketable services in a competitive environment. I made this clear in A philosophical Libertarian on Immigration where we posed the question, “What harm does Juan do when he comes to the US and takes a job?” Additionally we asked, “What is it that makes a rat-trap anything other than just a piece of wood and some wire?” The answer is the cheese. If we take away the cheese, we stop attracting RATS. As for Mexicans who have marketable skills, like the ability to repair refrigerators, or transmissions, or can build fences, lay brick, or even mow and make our yards look better, and can save us money in the process, money that we go out and spend on other things that create other jobs, then I say welcome neighbor.

In a Workfare State, everyone benefits. Americans that leave jobs that they want done, undone because they value the money it would cost if the jobs were done by domestic labor. However, immigrants want the money the Americans are willing to pay to get those jobs done, more than they want the time it takes to do the jobs.

The seeds of a workable immigration policy are found in these observations. We just need more lookers. Invite others to look

Cause and Effect From Someone Who KNOWS By Chuck McGlawn

Sunday, December 4, 2011

We have read and abbreviated (below) The New Alabama Immigration Law: A Preliminary Macroeconomic Assessment written October 2011 by Samuel Addy, Ph.D. Director of the Center for Business and Economic Research Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration

The University of Alabama

Dr. Sam Addy joined the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) in 1998 and assumed the position of Director in 2007. He holds an M.S. in Mineral Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in Mineral Economics from The Pennsylvania State University.

In this role as Director, he regularly speaks to groups and organizations on topics including the Alabama economy, economic policy, economic development, and workforce development. Dr. Addy works with CBER’s economic research program and has directed and conducted economic impact studies for numerous public and private clients across the state. Other areas of emphasis include assessment and analysis of Alabama’s workforce; fiscal policy; socioeconomic analysis for transportation and other development projects; and environmental and climate change issues. Sam has published in academic journals and is often quoted in local, regional, national, and international media.

In his recent article, he points out that, “Economies are demand-driven so any policy, regulation, law, or action that reduces demand is misguided and will not contribute to economic development…” He goes on to say, “Instead of boosting state economic growth, the law HB56  is certain to be a drag on economic development…”

Dr. Abby doesn’t blame the well-intentioned lawmakers, or the citizen supporters of HB56, however misguided, “those that tend to favor the law focus on its intent but often not on its actual effects.” Dr. Abby says, “[T]he law is likely to drive a portion of … illegal immigrants out of state or underground. [D]emand in the Alabama economy is reduced since the income generated by these people and their spending will decline. That results in a shrinking of the state economy and will be seen in lower economic output, personal income, and fewer jobs  (Emphasis added) than would otherwise have been.

Dealing with some of the misconceptions, he says. “What about the argument that illegal immigrants are a drain on resources because they don’t pay taxes? Yes, illegal immigrants use some public services but they do pay taxes and the economy enjoys some benefits as a result of the demand created by their presence.” He goes on to say, “[T]he levels of income they receive many illegal workers will not have to pay federal income tax because of the standard deduction and personal exemption allowed. Indeed, they could receive earned income tax credit, which many do not file for because they wish to remain below the radar and because their status makes it practically impossible. In addition, they make payroll taxes with little chance of ever benefiting from those social safety net programs unless somehow they become legal.” [Where have we heard that before?]  However, [illegals do] “pay sales and property taxes directly and indirectly through their income spending and consumption activities.”

Near the end of his paper, Dr. Abby joined the throng by adding, "Although there’s an ongoing debate about the costs and benefits of illegal immigrants, it is generally accepted that immigration, as a whole, has a net positive effect on the national economy."

Dr. Abby concludes with, “Bottom-line, the law will be costly to the state economy even without consideration of [increased] enforcement costs. Is it possible to amend the new immigration law so that it keeps the admirable intent but also increases demand in the economy, brings more of the informal economy into the light, boosts economic development, and facilitates the continuation of the economic strides that the state has been making? In short, what we need are laws and policies that will keep Alabama on a ROLL.

My own conclusion is that anyone that favors keeping HB 56 and enforcing it, has some other agenda than economic benefits to the National economy, benefits to the Alabama economy and a better life for not only those immigrants that will be affected but the people of Alabama.