Immigration

No Short-Term Bad Effects on Native Employment or Most Crime Rates from German Migrant Influx, Study Finds

|

Given the volatility of the political debate over migrants coming into Western democracies, a pair of economists in a study for the Centre for European Economic Research decided to see what they could learn from the countable effects, so far, of the 2014-15 migrant wave in Germany on "labor markets, crime, and voting behavior."

Rasanda Tyskar/Foter

The study, by Markus Gehrsitz (University of Strathclyde) and Martin Ungerer (Centre for European Economic Research), states that its "main goal…is to use this sharp and unexpected rise in the number of migrants coming to Germany in 2014/2015 as a natural experiment in order to evaluate its effect on unemployment, crime, and voting behavior."

What effects did they find?

We find little evidence for displacement of native workers by refugees. However, our findings suggest difficulties in integrating refugees into the German labor markets….

Our study also suggests that—with the obvious exception of violations to right-of-residence and asylum laws—there is no association between the number of refugees and the number of street crimes in Germany. However, we do find a statistically significant relationship between bigger reception centers and drug crimes and fare-dodging, as well as the number of non-German suspects in relation with theses crimes. This might partly be driven by higher alertness of police in these counties. In general, crime only increased marginally more in counties which received larger refugee inflows.

Finally, there is no indication that (micro-)exposure to refugees either increases or decreases propensities to vote for anti-immigrant parties or affects voter turnout.

As above, they did not find refugee flows seeming to affect native employment. But this doesn't mean there isn't some sign of labor market difficulties associated with the migrant inflow:

larger inflows of migrants are associated with increases in the unemployment rate for workers who are not German citizens…a one standard deviation increase in migrant inflows is associated with a 1.2 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate for foreigners. Given the 2013 average unemployment rate for this group, this estimate translates into about a 7.6 percent increase.

There are two plausible explanations for this striking increase in non-German unemployment. For one, refugees may have displaced some non-German workers and pushed them into unemployment. This may very well have happened through the shadow economy as refugees can only legally enter the workforce once their asylum claim has been approved.

A second explanation is that recently arrived refugees themselves start to show up in the unemployment statistics. This would indicate difficulties of the German labor market to immediately absorb this influx of additional job seekers. There is some evidence supporting this causal chain…

…the marked increase in non-native unemployment which parallels the increase in the number of immigrants who were granted asylum (and thus became eligible to work) indicates substantial difficulties of the German labor market to absorb this labor supply shock, at least in the short-run. Not surprisingly these difficulties tend to be more pronounced in counties that received larger refugee in flows.

For more granular information on whether refugees seemed, in the short term, to increase support for anti-migrant parties in Germany, they find some effect on the national level of the migrant influx, but that "these gains were no more pronounced in counties that actually received larger inflows than in those with smaller inflows of migrants….We also find no indication that more voters took to the ballots in counties with larger refugee inflows. In fact, turnout is by and large uncorrelated with refugee inflows."

Higher migrant inflows did seem correlated with loss of support for incumbent parties in general, though: "a one standard deviation increase in refugee inflows is associated with a loss of 4.5 percentage points in the share of votes cast for the incumbent party."

The authors also examined the same trends prior to the migrant influx which gave them additional confidence that:

The identifying assumption under which these results are most credible is that trends in employment, crime, and voting behavior would have been the same in high migration counties as in low migration counties in the absence of refugee inflows. We have provided evidence that suggests that this is a fair assumption to make.

The data they have, as early as it is, shows no signs of quick and clear deleterious effects in Germany post "migrant crisis" involving, as the authors conclude, "more than a million" migrants entering Germany in 2014-15 on native employment, crime, or anti-immigrant politics specifically linked to the presence of migrants on the county level.

NEXT: Trump Makes Government Leaks Great Again!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They can’t displace the native workers, a large majority of the migrants are unskilled and not even literate in their own language, and can’t speak german. There isn’t much they can compete for in the German economy. So instead they put a drag on the german state, which does negatively impact the German workers, just not by making them immediately unemployed.

    1. They can’t displace the native workers, a large majority of the migrants are unskilled and not even literate in their own language, and can’t speak german.

      Thank you, UCS. One would think that a paid professional journalist would have thought of this before writing his article and left out this nonsense.

      But this is Reason writing on immigration, after alll

    2. I was thinking along these lines as well as I read it.

      This line is key to me:

      “However, our findings suggest difficulties in integrating refugees into the German labor markets…”

      Duh.

      See France and increasingly Italy.

      1. yeah the good news is the refugees don’t cause an increase in native unemployment. The bad news is they are all unemployed.

        1. The study actually notes that very explicitly.

          Unemployment data are provided by the Federal Labor Office on a quarterly basis
          from 1/2005 to 1/2016. Figure 4 plots the unemployment rates separately for the general
          population and for non-German workers. Three things stand out. First, unemployment
          rates for non-Germans are substantially higher than for the native” population. The
          non-German unemployment rate also warrants a closer look as newly arrived job seekers
          might be better substitutes for existing foreign workers, thus exacerbating an existing
          lack of integration into the labor market for this particular group. And indeed, there
          is a notable increase in foreign unemployment in the rst quarter of 2016.

          1. I wonder if they examined if these new arrivals have any intention of ever assimilating.

            1. Speaking of, how is Canada coping with the influx of refugees fleeing Trumpaggedon?

              1. All of three of them?

                They were shipped to Northern Saskatchewan.

          2. Native unemployment rates for migrant care workers and migrant study researchers ticked down however.

    3. Not even literate in their own language? And your evidence for this, or reason for thinking it, is what? Not that being literate in Arabic would be of much use in Germany if they can’t speak German, but still, this seems like a rather odd assumption.

      1. It’s not an assumption, that’s the data collected with regards to the migrant population. It’s been a while since I saw the data source, so I don’t have a link on hand.

        1. thanks thats an interesting read. Read only about half of it but never knew a lot of that.

        2. Interesting indeed. Shouldn’t be all that surprising, though. Just look at written Arabic! If everything in written English looked like a florid wedding invitation, I’d hate to read too.

        3. The begged question- do we see similar literacy issues in Israel since Hebrew is also consonantal? He mentions this, then avoids testing his hypothesis.

      2. My understanding is that most of illiterate immigrants are Afghans, not Arabs. Rural Afghanistan is still in the 18th century, integrating those people into the 21st will be quite a challenge.

    4. Open Borders Uber Alles, therefore #fakenews
      Sad

      There was a lot of reporting on this. Yes, they don’t get jobs. Basically unemployable. Illiterate in their own languages, let alone German.

      1.2 MILLION migrants arrived in Germany in two years: just 34,000 or 2.8% have found a job

      Author trolls the readers (bold mine):

      One bright side is that the crisis has created an estimated 60,000 jobs for Germans in social work, teaching and in security for the numerous asylum centres around the country.

  2. How are they measuring street crime, victim reports or arrests, or what?

    1. My first instinct is “the English Method” ie “Convictions”.

    2. Not exactly what you were asking for, but…

      For our analysis, we combine several data sources, the most important of which are administrative records by the 16 German states on the allocation of refugees to the 402 subordinate German counties. These records are usually maintained by the states’ internal affairs ministries, or in some instances by a state-run agency that supervises the allocation of refugees to the counties.

      Haven’t there been stories about how reluctant the refugee-allocation administrators are to say anything bad about refugees?

  3. Yah, part of the reason that the migrant hordes descending on Germany may have no effect on native employment is that they can’t work in Germany because they can’t speak German, have no intent to learn, and also have no intent to work. Most are drawn there because of what they’ve heard about Germany’s generous handouts for immigrants. This is not going to turn out well.

    1. Well, it’s not really realistic to expect Pakistan or Syria to liquidate its own underclass, is it? Besides, even if they could, Ricardo would argue that they should still leave it to the Germans.

    2. Most are drawn there because of what they’ve heard about Germany’s generous handouts for immigrants.

      1/5 Homeless people in San Francisco cites the availability of Homeless Services as the primary reason they came to San Francisco. It’s almost as if people respond to incentives.

    3. The amount of fucking straight up bigotry in this thread is staggering. You personally met all these refugees and analyzed their desires and came to the conclusion that they are all lazy and just want to leech off of others? You are an embarrassment to the libertarian cause and individualism.

      1. haven’t we for years been saying free hand outs always lead to this? I don;t know how its bigotry to say that people like free shit? It is human nature and not race base….get off the fucking high horse?

      2. The power of accurate observation is called racism by those who have not got it.

      3. These people don’t fight for their home country either on the side of the rebels or the government. They have numerous babies and flee when the going gets tough. Women in many Islamic cultures are treated as second class citizens. What is not to love about them?

    1. Wow. He drives by hundreds and hundreds of young, able bodied men. Where are these women and children that Obama kept insisting were the bulk of the refugees? I didn’t see a single female or child.

      1. Who knew that the demographic glut of jobless youth throughout the Arab World might have consequences?

    2. thanks for posting never saw that and forwarded it to several people!

    3. Where in fuck’s sake are the families? Exactly100% of them were fighting aged males.

  4. Where are the hefting jobs? I was told there would be hefting jobs.

  5. Well you don’t have to let them in. But goddamit stop bombing them.

    1. You forgot to tell your cankled hero that, shreek.

      1. Oh, she knows. In fact, her pick of dovish Kaine was pretty much the only reason I supported her, other than the fact she wasn’t Trump. (Though I voted for Johnson, as you well know. And Rand Paul 20/20!)

        1. Kaine’s a fucking commie. STFU, shreek.

          1. True but Trump’s a fucking Nazi. STFU yourself, hype.

            1. Ah, yeah, makes sense, a Nazi. And you wonder why no one has ever taken you seriously.

            2. “a fucking Nazi”

              “Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian”
              https://www.mises.org/library

              Reading is HARD!

              1. For the love of god stop feeding it. Let it die alone and sad.

              2. Even better citations about Nazis being socialists, from the Nazis.
                German socialism

  6. Goalseeked stats from academia? Say it isn’t so!

    We find little evidence for displacement of native workers by refugees.

    But this is not what Germans are complaining about. They are complaining about Austrians, Polish literate in German, etc. taking jobs. Refugees are only a tiny subset of immigrants.

    1. “English – Meaning and Culture”
      On chapter 2 – needs close reading.
      FYI (and not mentioned so far), the “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Conference” held in Tokyo (’43, I think) was conducted in English.

  7. What effects did they find?

    here’s the problem

    whether these studies are factually accurate…. or whether they’re carefully massaged by government-friendly economists …. ultimately doesn’t matter.

    because Europe lost control of the “mass immigration” story long ago.

    Even if the crime rates aren’t significantly affected, the various EU government’s responses to the “very few VERY high profile” crimes (and egregious crimes – like paris mass-shootings, the german new years eve mass-groping, or ‘trucks-as-mass-murder-weapon’, or train stabbings, or near-miss suicide bombings, etc.)… was completely tone deaf to the public perception that these things were happening directly because of their own Government’s open-door policies.

    people were basically told to shut up and hug their new Afghan brothers. But don’t let their daughters dress too-sexy, lest they titillate the newcomers, who have different cultural ideas about the propriety of ‘rape’.

    Didnt one PM say, “get used to it”, re: the occasional jihadi? Once you’ve made blunders like that, no set of statistics is going to change anyone’s mind.

    I’m not saying this sort of analysis isn’t useful or important in the long run – just that in the nearer-term, it won’t be given a lot of credibility, because the political narrative has been established.

    1. funny, leftists don’t complain about ‘she was asking for it’ when raped by a muslim ‘refugee’, instead they lie to the press about who their attacker was

      Just google: Left-Wing German Politician Lied To Police About Being Raped To Save Migrants From Racism

    2. “Critics accused head teacher Martin Thalhammer of imposing Islamic standards of behavior on his students after he sent a letter to parents informing them about the refugees that were to be housed in the school gym.

      “”Because our school is in the immediate vicinity, restrained clothing should be worn to avoid confrontations” with the mostly young, male, Muslim asylum-seekers, he wrote.”

      Yeah, just when I’m about to be open minded toward accepting the reassuring statistics, someone like this Thalhammer guy says that not wearing “restrained clothing” could lead to “confrontations.”

      Of course, I don’t know what specific German terms he used, but it doesn’t sound like Thalhammer is a right-wing Nazi genocidaire, it sounds like he regards himself as trying to be multicultural and sensitive. And he seems to think asylum-seekers will cause some kind of trouble if they see German girls dressed too provocatively.

      And maybe there’s an entirely different type of refugee situation in Sweden, but Swedish cops have been known to hand out don’t-grope-me bracelets.

      1. And, migrants or not, whose brilliant idea was it to have a bunch of probably-horny guys living in a high school gym?

        1. I wasn’t trying to make a big deal about that one particular instance (many right-media websites did make much hay out of it) but rather just note it as an example of the tone-deafness of the govt / administrations regarding how they handled public concerns about refugees/immigrants.

          Its like they are insisting on one hand that this idea that immigrants present any threat is entirely hogwash! and in the next moment telling women to dress more-modestly because, well, these 3rd world people naturally assume you’re chattel. Which is YOUR problem, not theirs.

          that sort of “official” reaction was not an isolated incident either. While (as noted) lots of righty media amped up every minor instance of “refugee horror stories” they could find… even the MSM noticed that german officials were characteristically ‘tactless‘ in dealing with public concerns. It generally amounted to people saying it was incumbent on the native population to adapt to these newcomers, rather than the other way around.

          my larger point was that whether immigration is perceived as a “problem” or not is far more complex than what statistics can capture. It has become precieved as a problem in Europe mainly through a snowballing of perceptions, not through gradual accumulation of statistics.

  8. Call me crazy but I find studies done on politically charged topics suspect no matter what they find. Data analysis and interpretation of results can be manipulated in all sorts of biased ways to obtain a desired result. Is this a valid study? Sure, unless it isn’t.

    1. You craxy!

  9. How come Trump needs evidence when Obama didn’t? I’m confused.

  10. Damn. So myself sucking at tower games was just a thing?

    1. My self sucking is not a game.

    2. Mage for armored, spam archer and barrack, and artillery is best for groups.

  11. That they’re not influencing the German labor market is considered a big part of the problem…

  12. Up goes the John signal.

  13. Finally, there is no indication that (micro-)exposure to refugees either increases or decreases propensities to vote for anti-immigrant parties or affects voter turnout.

    How does one get exposed to a millionth of a refuge? High-explosives excluded, of course.

    1. I think they’re talking about rapefugee sperm, maybe?

  14. Sad to see Doherty drawing fake news duty.

    1. It’s what Reason (and to be fair the rest of the media too) does-if a study fits the narrative, accept it unquestioningly. If it contradicts the narrative, pick it apart. Then again, those other outlets don’t call themselves Reason.

      1. Glug glug glug glug glug glug…

        Also, isn’t there supposed to be some sort of drinking game? Oh, yes, there is!

        Glug glug glug glug glug glug…

      2. Then again, those other outlets don’t call themselves Reason.

        “The Increasingly Ironically Named Reason Magazine”

  15. You don’t have to live like a refugee.

    1. Tied up taken away and held for ransom in Chi-ca-go.

    2. Welcome to my world. It’s my one desire. Tell me you’ll never, ever leave me.

    3. Well he was a Syrian guy… raised in madrasas… ooooooh

      1. A Syrian man named Kalassis,
        Was raised from his youth in madrasas.
        He moved to Berlin….

        1. Saw a town full of sin,
          So he raped some young Krauts in their asses.

          1. I know I’m going to culture-ist hell, but I lolled.

            1. Allah Akbar-a-a-a-a-a-a-a…

  16. Here we go. Obama warns against EO abuse and what does Cap’n Hat do? Ignores Potsie and signs a bunch of them including banning Syrians:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk

    1. This isn’t the Muslim ban he initially promised, but it fulfills his fallback promise to suspend immigration from certain world hotspots (which happen to be be Muslim countries) until we figure out what’s going on.

      1. We used to have a law by which if you *advocated* polygamy (even without practicing it) you’d be excluded – now the law is limited to practicing polygamists, but certainly that old law would have been a nice anti-Muslim screening device.

        1. …if you were into that sort of thing.

          1. The problem is that “advocating polygamy” is essentially a thought-crime by an individual.

            Restricting immigration from a region known to want to blow up people is more… I dunno? Pragmatism? Rationality?

            1. Yeah, I wouldn’t put that ban back in place for mere theoretical advocates.

              It’s noteworthy, though, that various prog saints – I’m thinking FDR – supported immigration restrictions much worse than what Trump is calling for…of course FDR Felt Bad about it, his hands were simply tied /sarc

              1. When someone flips out over Trump, I like saying that Trump is less xenophobic than FDR.

                1. And less conservative on social issues than Obama when he took office, and less provably warhawkish than Hillary would have been, and less of a philanderer than Bill demonstrated himself to be, and in fact less beholden to foreign governments than the Clintons are.

                2. …and even the version of Pres. Trump that lives in their lefty-minds is less racist that Woodrow Wilson or LBJ.

                3. Yup. FDR actually interned Americans of Japanese descent.

                  And for the socialists who hang out here- interned is like being kept in a concentration camp because you were not convicted of a crime.

    2. That assumes ‘the papers’ are accurate; cross the border and score some Turkish ID.
      The point is those who are dangerous aren’t so easily identified.

      1. At least we can look forward to media coverage of a future terrorist attack focusing on the immigrant background of the attacker in order to show that Trump’s exclusion policy didn’t work.

        1. I’m a bit more concerned with treating innocent people as criminals with no evidence.
          Pretty easy to ‘stop crime’ by throwing everyone in jail, but I think we have a Constitution which does not grant rights; it limits government action.

          1. Wouldn’t it be great if you had actual market forces determining immigration flows? But Top Men are just as effective at understanding how society should be organized, Amirite?

            1. actual market forces determining immigration flows

              Whoa…that’s crazy talk.

            2. If I import a foreign car that explodes and kills a bunch of people, my ass is getting sued off. Are these markets going to be pricing terrorist immigrant liability in as well?

          2. Sure, but if you mean limiting immigration, the burden is different from the criminal context – the would-be immigrant has to show (s)he’s a suitable addition to the U.S. population – and since the laws link immigration and naturalization, that means at least potentially a good citizen.

            Of course, if it weren’t for the welfare state, then we could go back to Ben Franklin’s policy

            “…it is imagined…that the Governments too, to encourage Emigrations from Europe, not only pay the Expence of personal Transportation, but give Lands gratis to Strangers, with Negroes to work for them, Utensils of Husbandry, and Stocks of Cattle. These are all wild Imaginations; and those who go to America with Expectations founded upon them will surely find themselves disappointed….

            “…Of civil Offices, or Employments, there are few; no superfluous Ones, as in Europe; and it is a Rule establish’d in some of the States, that no Office should be so profitable as to make it desirable….

            “…as to military Offices, they are at an End with the War, the Armies being disbanded….

            1. “…[in] America…people do not inquire concerning a Stranger, What is he? but, What can he do? If he has any useful Art, he is welcome; and if he exercises it, and behaves well, he will be respected by all that know him…

              “With regard to Encouragements for Strangers from Government, they are really only what are derived from good Laws and Liberty….[I]f [an immigrant] does not bring a Fortune with him, he must work and be industrious to live….

              “In short, America is the Land of Labour, and by no means what the English call Lubberland, and the French Pays de Cocagne, where the streets are said to be pav’d with half-peck Loaves, the Houses til’d with Pancakes, and where the Fowls fly about ready roasted, crying, Come eat me!”

              1. Since the entire debate is occurring in a state of coercion, I don’t think the question of morality is even relevant. You have a gun to someone’s and they are no longer responsible. It’s just strategy at this point. How to get from A to B. And phone is dead.

          3. But we don’t let any non-criminal in, regardless of terrorism. Certainly not on a long-term basis. So he isn’t treating them like criminals, he’s treating them like people that don’t get let in.

            1. “But we don’t let any non-criminal in, regardless of terrorism. Certainly not on a long-term basis. So he isn’t treating them like criminals, he’s treating them like people that don’t get let in.”

              Sophistry; how does that work?

              1. How the shit is that sophistry? If immigration is a discretionary privilege, and not a right (as has always legally been the case in recent memory), then your analogy of treating innocent people as guilty doesn’t really make much sense. He could just as easily ban them because he thought their hats were stupid or their president insulted him on Twitter.

                1. ant1sthenes|1.24.17 @ 11:33PM|#
                  “How the shit is that sophistry?”

                  Well, let’s just change the definitions and everything will be just ducky!
                  Stupid or dishonest; you tell me.

                  1. Immigrants have no rights in the host country. Fuck off, Tulpa.

                  2. Changing the definitions from poor analogies to the appropriate ones is neither, it’s more the opposite.

    1. Saw that earlier.

      Didn’t the guy see this coming? If so, wouldn’t he have mentioned to his lawyer “hey man, please don’t let me out of here”?

      1. But he wasn’t “out” according to the story, he was in some kind of halfway house.

        1. A lot easier to job someone in a halfway house than the joint.

    2. A man whose drug-related prison sentence was commuted in November by President Barack Obama has been fatally shot at a federal halfway house in Michigan after two men with assault-style rifles sought him out, police said.

      Assault rifles. Ergo, probably Trump-supporting gun nuts.

      1. Assault style rifles. Like, they sort of looked scary, superficially.

      2. Trump received a lot of votes from that demographic- The gang member, semi-automatic rifle carrying, lobbying group, that executes snitches, currently known as the Saginaw’s Sunny Side Gang.

  17. Black Pigeon Speaks and Razorfist have interesting takes on immigration from the Middle East and Mexico respectively. Both on YouTube if you’re inclined.

  18. All the dead Germans created many job openings.

    1. It did. It negatively effect “most crime rates”. Reason is well and truly pathetic on this issue.

      1. I noticed the “most crime rates” too. I’m not going to read the study all the way through. (40 fucking pages really?!) But “most” crimes are extremely minor property crimes. There are very few in the rape/murder category. And those, even with an increase, are so rare that a ‘significant’ increase may be hard to show.

        Also notice that the study seems to focus on what happens to the general populace after injecting the general populace with migrants for two years, without actually comparing migrant populations to the non-migrant population.

  19. I am the 1%.

    *scrambles to find shop to charge phone*

    1. From the student’s Twitter feed:

      “If this WAS what I thought I saw, why in the world would I endanger my safety just to get closer??

      1. Were hilarious, right?

    2. Bowling Green is also the home of Rand Paul.

  20. Here’s the other shoe.

    If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

    1. Oh, great.

      I suppose this *could* mean prosecuting gang members for interfering with interstate commerce by robbing goods which previously moved in interstate commerce, etc.

      1. Or gun-interdiction efforts, anti-gang task forces, etc.

        1. Or siccing the FBI on the Chicago politicians who are in bed with the gangs.

      2. Don’t the feds already deal with organized crime in general? Can’t see why that wouldn’t apply to gangs, especially multi-state (or multi-nation) gangs. Not saying he should do it, but he’d probably be on solid legal footing, assuming he means the FBI and DEA, and not the National Guard.

    2. He’s so racist.

      Speaking of racist Presidents, isn’t that rabid racist eugenicist Wilson a fave among progs?

    3. Didn’t one of Obama’s NDAAs effectively repeal Posse Comitatus?

      1. From what I gather, Obama repealed a Bush-era change permitting federal intervention in select cases “to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition… the President determines that… domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order”, according to Wikipedia.

        1. Wait, aren’t progressives always saying that gun violence is a public health issue?

    4. And… do what? Send in a bunch of FBI agents? Attempt to repeal Posse Comitatus? Declare street gangs insurrectionists? Or scold them on Twitter?

      1. It probably won’t be fire the Chicago PD en masse and repeal the myriad onerous social engineering laws that broke down law, order, markets and functional society. I don’t believe the Trump administration is that woke.

        Theoretically, there’s all sorts of things that are flatly not the president’s purview. We were likely to get a test of these theoretical limitations this presidency, no matter who was elected.

        Fucking politicians.

        1. I guess I’m just not as impressed as the media continues to be by Trump spinning his wheels. We’re now at the stage where rubber meets road, and it’s no longer fanciful or theoretical. If he’s going to do something, he’ll have to have one of his staffers write up a white paper explaining what that thing is and how they’ll go about it. Until and unless we see that, the tweets are nothing but tweets.

        2. Given the decrease in murder and other violent crime when New Jersey disbanded the Camden and Newark police departments ? putting the county police in charge with backup from state police units ? having the Chicago PD shut down and replaced with other law enforcement for a few years might be a good idea.

    5. I think this is a pretty good case study in how Trump is actually smarter than his messaging might appear.

      what’s the point of saying this? would he actually send in “Feds”? what kind? why? what would they do?

      I don’t think he has the slightest interest in actually doing anything. what he knows, however, is that everyone knows Chicago is a shitshow. And that Obama not only did nothing about it during his 8 years, but he hardly ever even talked about it.

      What he’s doing is showing “I talk about this stuff”. “im not that guy”. and every lefty media twit who over-reacts to this tweet = “TRUMP SUGGESTS MARTIAL LAW IN CHITOWN” will just be amplifying and spreading exactly the appearance he wants to make. There’s a New Sheriff in Town.

      and it does actually put the people who run Chicago on the defensive. While he probably has no intention of sending in the Marines, I can imagine he might have people send signals to the city that federal funding support in various areas might cease unless they do the dance and say, “Yes sir president Trump we’re going to Law and Order the shit out of this town now”. And if they don’t? they look like dicks.

      I think his M.O. is very simple = make people react. he doesn’t really ever have to do very much, the reactions just produce all sorts of biproducts which he can use to his advantage. And people simply can’t NOT react to his dumbass comments.

      1. I’m hoping that he’s this self-aware. There was a quote, maybe by Harding or maybe by Coolidge, about sometimes having to deal with people who walk into your office and ask you for things they ought not ask for, and you stare them in the eye and say nothing until they leave. I hope that’s going to be Trump’s MO, premeditated inaction.

      2. Yeah, I think he’s effective in general. The thing about the media is that, yes, they’re biased, yes, they’re deceivers, but they are at their most effective when they lie by omission, either of necessary context, or just through a coordinated industry-wide memory holing of an entire subject. It’s not so much that there’s no pravda in Izvestia, as that there is no izvestia in Pravda.

        But Trump can draw them out into these unfavorable battlegrounds with a single tweet, and then it doesn’t matter whether Trump has facts, or alternative facts, because now it is a subject of discussion and other people can bring the facts.

        I mean, do the progressives really win if we all agree Trump is crazy for saying that 3 million illegals voted, and instead start trying to calculate exactly how many illegals voted (1 million? 100k?), and why it’s so hard to tell and so easy to cheat at democracy, and so on? No. They know as well as Republicans do that their team is the primary beneficiary of shenanigans.

        They want to convince everyone that voter ID is about racism, because there is no voter fraud. How do you know there is no voter fraud? There are no news stories about voter fraud. Once the subject is actively frothing, once it’s a discussion and not a monologue, it gets a lot more difficult to control the narrative.

        1. Do the progressives really win if we all agree Trump is crazy for saying that 3 million illegals voted, and instead start trying to calculate exactly how many illegals voted (1 million? 100k?), and why it’s so hard to tell and so easy to cheat at democracy, and so on?

          Exactly.

          Its about provoking a reaction, and making that bullshit claim makes people need to marshall data to prove it wrong. and then all of a sudden the burden is on them to defend their claim, and the discussion becomes focused on whether or not there is ANY illegal voting at all, not just “3m”.

          Part of his thing is what i would call “first mover advantage”. He’s always changing the subject and forcing people to react to his latest outrage. He never really dwells long enough on anything to expose himself to repeated challenge. its all a serve-game. (as in tennis). He doesn’t want to volley, he just wants to hit balls at people and make them dive.

      3. I wonder if it’s related to that DoJ report on Chicago that Lynch threw to the floor on Obama’s way out? That report finished very conveniently. I know I’m suspicious that it was released as a sort of “look, we’re done, nothing more to see here, move along” and if I were the administration I’d wonder why.

    1. This is the second story I’ve read about avoiding LH turns, and I certainly do.
      A right, right, and right is often as quick and certainly safer.

    2. there was a mythbusters episode about that

    3. 90% of the time. The other 10% are left turns.

    4. UPS drivers also park on the edge of the roads and on curves in roads to easily get to driveways, so you be the judge on how safe UPS drivers are.

  21. BTW, moonbeam promises to whine!

    “State of State speech: Jerry Brown takes on Trump administration”
    […]
    “Brown said he read through previous speeches and was struck by what the state has accomplished over the years, including increasing money for schools and universities, raising the minimum wage, and creating a rainy-day fund. But, Brown said he was unable to keep his thoughts on just the state’s agenda and would not be using this year’s speech for new proposals.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..880342.php

    Yeah, ’cause his older ones (Bay Bridge, Choo-Choo) are so wunnderful!

  22. No association between ME immigrants and street crime.

    I see.

  23. We’re looking at this the wrong way. Metrics aren’t what matter. It’s a problem of mere decor. And brown is out.

    1. If they were white, how would you distinguish them from neonazis?

  24. “No Short-Term Bad Effects on Native Employment or Most Crime Rates from German Migrant Influx, Study Finds”

    Has anyone done a study on the short term effects of politicians ignoring the will of the people on immigration and asylum seekers?

    The French are holding an election for president in three months, and early polling suggests that the center-left has been so thoroughly discredited on immigration and asylum seekers, they won’t even qualify for the run off election.

    In American parlance, it’s as if the Democrats were so discredited, they couldn’t even qualify for the ballot–so the choice was between either the Republicans or former neo-Nazis.

  25. There is no impact on native employment because Germany basically just puts their refugees into camps, and because the German labor market has high barriers to entry (you need German diplomas, certificates, etc.).

    The “deleterious effects” of migrants on Germany is that you have a million young people with no future, no social life, and no opportunity to integrate into society, and what that will lead to in the future, nobody knows.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.