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.