MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Hey Donald Trump: Sanctuary Cities Are Safer Than Immigrant-Hunting Counterparts

Don't bother nativists with the facts. That only gets in the way of righteous indignation.

The murder of San Francisco resident Kate Steinle by illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has whipped up a frenzy not just against illegal immigrants but against so-called sanctuary cities. According to the nativist Center for Immigration Studies, around 275 jurisdictions—ranging from cities to counties to whole states such as North Dakota and Rhode Island—refuse to hand over ilegals in custody to immigration authorities. The primary argument in favor of sanctuary policies is that it encourages cooperation with police in solving crimes, which are mostly local issues.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has used the murder of Steinle to vault to the top of polls by promising to crack down on immigration, especially from Mexico, a country that is, he says, that is consciously exporting its worst people to the United States.

In his official announcement, he said

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Thank you. It’s true...When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

You've really got to love that last qualifier: "And some, I assume, are good people." Really going out on a limb there. Steinle's murder, says Trump, proves the need for an impenetrable border wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Following The Donald's logic, it stands to reason that sanctuary cities would be crime-ridden cesspools. But they are not. In fact, reports Mother Jones, sanctuary cities have lower crime rates than comparable areas:

Mother JonesMother Jones

Writes Josh Harkinson,

Crime rates alone aren't enough to prove that sanctuary laws make us safer, but other evidence suggests the effect on public safety is real. A 2013 study by the Department of Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois-Chicago surveyed Latinos in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. It found that the increased involvement of local police in immigration enforcement in those cities had eroded trust in the legal system among both legal and illegal immigrants. Of those surveyed, 38 percent said they felt like they were under more suspicion and 45 percent said they were less likely to report a crime as a result—70 percent of the undocumented immigrants said so. The erosion of trust was felt most acutely in Phoenix, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has put strict immigration enforcement at the center of his agenda. 

Read the whole piece.

And keep in mind that native-born American men (who commit most crime, violent and otherwise) are five times more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born men. And that even as the foreign-born percentage of the population has increased over the past 20 years, we've seen historic declines in all sorts of crimes. Immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are a convenient scapegoat for all sorts of real and imagined social maladies. What they are not, by and large, are criminals who commit violent and property crimes.

Georgetown Book ShopGeorgetown Book ShopKate Steinle's murder is a tragedy, but the idea of using it to whip up nativist sentiment against a group of people who are by and large law abiding and desperate for a better life for them and their families is despicable. And to the extent that sanctuary cities and other policies that make all of us safer come under fire due to the inane ramblings of a joke candidate, well, there's just no language to register how sick that all is. 

Back in 2006, when there was another spasm of anti-immigration fervor, Reason devoted an entire issue to "reality-based reform" of immigration policy. The short version: If you make it easier for people who want to come here to do so legally, everybody wins. The plain fact of the matter is that a country's—or a city's or state's—real problems surface when immigrants stop showing up. That's an iron-clad indicator that where you live is no longer attractive, growing, and vibrant.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Okay, I think I can see what's going on here. Let's all step back and remind ourselves that Donald Trump will never be president.

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    Too soon. They're making the rounds. Everyone is going to have to submit their Trump-stomping or else be suspected of harboring inner sympathies for nativism and thinning comb-overs
    (gently brushes hair, kicks a mexican)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I understand it's a springboard to discussing the topic of our immigration shit show. I just don't want us applying undue weight to Donald Trump. He's a novelty candidate.

  • Floyd R Turbo (American)||

    If Trump keeps on addressing the issue that concern the American people and doesn't routinely LIE about them - he will be the Republican nominee, and he will be the 45th President.
    .
    But you keep telling yourself that Jeb can win..

  • BambiB||

    No, but then neither will anyone at Reason. At least, not until we're overrun with criminal aliens and the Constitution is nothing more than old toilet paper. Trump is generally a moron. That doesn't mean he's wrong on the criminal invasion that's been going on for decades and has been accelerated by the Obozo administration.

    The fact that Reason keeps overlooking is that even one crime committed by a criminal alien is one too many. Why? Because, as Trump correctly says, "They shouldn't even be here."

    There's no denying that far more than "one" crime is committed by criminal aliens. Over 60,000 criminal aliens who had committed other serious crimes were recently released by the Obozo administration to go on and prey on American citizens. The San Francisco killer is just one of them.

    The criminal alien problem is easy to solve - but it does take getting serious about dealing with the flood of criminals crossing our borders. (cont.)

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    For $9B I could be a moron too.

  • Mark6||

    Well, if Trump is a moron and you're so friggin' smart, just how much is in your piggy bank?

  • vegasstevo||

    Great post BambiB. Reason and the study they cited as well as Mother Jones refuse to acknowledge that lots of crime is ignored because Sanctuary City police are told not to bother arresting illegals or the DA's simply drop the charge. The illegals also tend to disappear after committing a murder.

  • BambiB||

    We could end the influx in a week.

    Just put sniper teams on the border. Video a dozen kills - with all the gore - body parts flying through the air, bloody mist where a head used to be.

    Transmit the video to Mexico 24/7/365 with the message, "This is what invaders can expect."

    Then to get rid of the criminal aliens already here, give them six months to get out. Any caught after that forfeit all property and spend two years in a desert tent prison in Arizona run by sheriff Arpaio. Then they're deported with the warning that if they EVER return, they will be executed. And follow up on that. If they come back: Kill 'em.

    The final piece of the puzzle: Fine employers and landlords who employ or rent property to criminal aliens $1000 per day.

    With no jobs, no place to live, the possibility of being shot coming across the border and two years in prison after losing all their property, the flood of criminal aliens will stop - immediately.

    HELP SAVE AMERICAN LIVES
    http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp
    Criminal aliens kill thousands of Americans each year.

  • SQRLSY One||

    We (the USA) could just nuke ourselves till we all glow, and turn USA's landmass into smoking, radioactive wasteland... That would also stop all that them thar horrible law-breakers from immigrating here! NAZI Germany did NOT mess around, when Jewish people were being law-breakers by being Jewish... So we shouldn't mess around, either!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    A conversation from "Red Heat" applies:

    The lawyer's would never allow that.

    Kill them first!

  • Careless||

    Thousands?

  • ChrisS||

    Sounds like you came up with the final solution!

  • tardisisbiggerontheinside||

    Wow.

  • Tony||

    This issue only matters, in tangible terms, to immigrants and their families who are suffering from an awful immigration system. It matters emotionally to racist idiots, of course. But Republicans, and apparently a shit ton of libertarians too, are going to have to face the reality that pandering to the racist paranoia of half of white people is simply going to turn the other half of white people, and everyone else, away for at least a generation. I don't know what to do about the racist morons. They get a voice too. But they poison every other issue they touch. Normal, apolitical people are thinking "So Bubba the Mexican-hating asshole believes in low taxes and small government. Welp, he's a fucking moron, so I guess I'll try socialism on."

  • XM||

    Tony...... you really need to spend some time outside of America. Immigration is a settled issue in most parts of the world. Settled, because illegal aliens cannot exist 20 years in other advanced nations.

    I'm an immigrant, and no one in that grup......really cares about what Donald Trump said. We're either slightly amused of laughing at him.

    Why doesn't your party ever fix potholes and stop finding ways to block Asians immigrants from entering elite colleges?

  • Cytotoxic||

    illegal aliens cannot exist 20 years in other advanced nations.

    That's why those countries are less free.

  • XM||

    They were less free to begin with, and their racially homogeneous (and nationalist) population would never vote for amnesty.

    Tony and his friends cry out "racists" when they see confederate flag graffiti but they've never experienced a MOB of people shouting for foreigners to be removed for raped.

    America is generous to immigrants in ways that are unthinkable anywhere else. The fact that the left discern "racism" in people who criticizes lax immigration policies is an indication that they (1) were spoon fed talking points by their left wing playbook (2) they've never discussed immigration outside of the American context.

    If Tony lost his job to a skilled Mexican worker who came here legally on a work visa, I imagine he'll sing a different tune.

  • Tony||

    But you have to acknowledge that this is an entirely unlibertarian position. If supply and demand determine that the skilled immigrant is preferred to a native, who are you to deny that efficiency? This country is situated in such a way that immigration has largely been a contributor to its productivity and wealth, for the same reason that it's been largely free of foreign invasions (two big oceans on either side of it). This doesn't account for Mexico or Canada, so maybe we get less-skilled immigrants from those places, but still it's a matter of economic realities. Immigration slowed way down when the jobs disappeared in 2009. I'm not one to argue following the whims of the market at the expense of all other considerations, but nevertheless immigration from the south has provided businesses with the cheap labor they want and that coddled Americans don't want to do anyway, and has actually bolstered our safety nets since they tend to be younger than the general population.

    That being said, if anything I'm at risk of being replaced by an Indian outsourcer more than anything. The solution for both is what calm heads in this debate have been advocating for years: do what we can to make their economies better.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But Republicans, and apparently a shit ton of libertarians too, are going to have to face the reality that pandering to the racist paranoia of half of white people [...]


    The only people who talk about race are racists, Tony ─ that means YOU.

    "Race" is a convenient catch-all word.

    What are you going to make of individualists such as myself, who do not conveniently compartmentalize people into these vague and fuzzy groups? Why, call me a racist, of course!

  • Tony||

    I'm merely suggesting that right-wing paranoia over immigration has little to do with substantiated data about its harms and very much to do with the fact that they don't like brown people.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I'm merely suggesting that right-wing paranoia over immigration has little to do with substantiated data about its harms and very much to do with the fact that they don't like brown people.


    It's possible that there is a general distaste for non-White people among some of the xenophobes but your composition fallacy is obvious. I have been discussing these same things with crazy Breitbart commentators and most of their biases stem from the two things that also ail the Marxian left: an incredible lack of sophistication in economics, and simple envy, the "why them, not me?" justification for causing harm to others.

  • Tony||

    I think you mean hasty generalization. But I don't think I'm being illogical. Once you have eliminated the impossible--that these people are anti-immigrant because they have simply misread the data--whatever is left, however obviously fucking racist, is the truth.

  • Floyd R Turbo (American)||

    Another self-hating White person spewing their bile.
    .
    Why don't you ask "La Raza" why they are saying things like:
    .
    “In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” ("For the Race, everything, outside the Race, nothing").
    .
    So with regard to your question about what to do with the racist morons - the answer is: "DON'T LET THEM IN THE COUNTRY"..

  • Almanian - Wood Chipper-ish||

    Really, Nick?

    OK, you assholes only understand ONE thing (and I'm not sure about that) - I start reducing my annual contribution to REASON by....I'll think about the percentage....for every additional FUCKING ARTICLE ABOUT FUCKING DONALD FUCKING TRUMP THAT YOU FUCKHEADS POST.

    Till I hit zero. Then all my money goes to IJ that used to go to you.

    So stop fucking RIGHT NOW, or the meter starts running.

    Hope you're happy.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    TRUMPOCALYPSE

  • Rhywun||

    Trumpnado 3: You're Fired Yet Again

  • PM||

    In fact, reports Mother Jones, sanctuary cities have lower crime rates than comparable areas:

    Certainly immigration is the one isolated variable when comparing, say, Indianapolis, Jacksonville and San Francisco.

    Crime rates alone aren't enough to prove that sanctuary laws make us safer, but...

    ... we'll idly speculate that it does based on shitty data, because why not?

  • ||

    According to my causality-o-meter, my town is safer than San Francisco and we hardly have any immigrants (legal or otherwise) at all. Therefore... derp.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Mother Jones also had some reports about mass killings and guns, so should we take them seriously then? Or only when we agree with them?

  • PM||

    To be fair, we should judge them on their purely on their methodology, which in this case they themselves admit right upfront does not support the conclusion they are selling.

  • XM||

    This just feels like a lazy analysis by Reason writers, who are clearly blinded by immigration idealism.

    Why are we comparing total number of murders in these cities? We're talking about murders committed by illegal aliens. If this victim was shot by native criminal gangs in Dallas, then immigration enforcement isn't an issue.

    The CITY of San Francisco only has 830,000 people. I assume they're comparing the bay area to individual cities, which seems a bit off too.

    Reason won't emphasize the fact Francisco was deported FIVE times and that he purposely came back to SF knowing that it was a sanctuary city. How is this not a failure of government? If a cop was reprimanded five times and he accidentally spat at a jaywalker, Reason would be ALL over it.

    This tragedy isn't all that different from the Boston bombing. The government KNEW about certain threats and failed to act on it - for purely political reasons. Yes, terrorism and murders by illegals are rare. But the government still has to take basic measures to protect the citizens.

    Are we certain that "nail salon" level exploitation isn't uncommon in the bay area? And when next expose comes, we can pretend to be shocked?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "This just feels like a lazy analysis by Reason writers, who are clearly blinded by immigration idealism."

    They often go dishonest when it comes to immigration. Besides "borders are EVIL EVIL EVIL", they don't really have a decent argument for Americans who aren't for open borders.

    Instead of just admitting this, they try to make transparently dishonest consequentialist arguments.

  • Antilles||

    A few years ago when Los Angeles and San Francisco announced they were Sanctuary Cities the OC city of Costa Mesa announced they were NOT a Sanctuary City and would cooperate with federal agents. So, the geniuses in Sacramento decided to punish Costa Mesa by attempting to seize the Costa Mesa Fairgrounds (the location of the annual OC Fair) and give it to their developer buddies. Fortunately, they failed. But it's pretty fucked that cities who openly refuse to follow some laws (imagine if WE did that) are celebrated while those who follow the same laws get punished. If a law is bad it should be repealed--not ignored by those who have sworn to uphold it.

  • ||

    Well that totally depends on which laws you're choosing to ignore. If you were to decide to ignore the laws for murder, then you're a monster. If you ignore the Fugitive Slave Act, you're a hero. This analogy is air-tight.

    /liberal

  • Antilles||

    Well, I would have to agree that the Fugitive Slave Act was a bad law because it was predicated on the owning of human beings, something we now know (and should have known then) was clearly un-Constitutional. And I openly defy the drug laws because I don't recognize the government's authority to control what I put in my body. But the example I cited above is odd because the city that said they would follow Federal law was punished and those who bragged about not following it got a pass.

  • Happy Chandler||

    What laws are they not following? If there were legal requirements related to this, you better believe that the feds would enforce them!
    San Francisco's policy is that, unless someone commits a violent crime or there is a legal requirement or warrant to hand over someone to ICE, they won't do so. No laws are broken, but non-legal requests are not granted.

  • Antilles||

    I don't know how it works elsewhere, but cops in LA are not allowed to ask the legal status of those they arrest. Many illegals don't have ID, give fake names and disappear once they're released. It's de facto Diplomatic Immunity. Look, I'm not for stopping law-abiding people on the street and forcing them to show papers. But I don't see the problem with determining the residency status of those picked up for committing crimes.

  • R C Dean||

    That's because you are a racist, Antilles. A racist who wants cops to go "immigrant-hunting".

  • Antilles||

    Are you serious? I said the exact opposite on the statement above. Are you making a joke, or are you just stupid?

  • ||

    I read it as sarcasm.

  • Antilles||

    OK. But he should have used an emoticon. I'm used to getting called racist on the Proggie sites. But he's the second person to call me one here today.

  • ||

    Check your priviledge, hater!

    "Use an emoticon"?

    You are like almost the worst!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Worse than Hitler!

  • Issue Ninja||

    Check your dictionary, privilege speller.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Crimes". Because we all know the LAPD will only arrest those who commit real crimes.

  • Rhywun||

    I don't see the problem with determining the residency status of those picked up for committing crimes.

    You don't think cops will make shit up in order to do exactly this:

    stopping law-abiding people on the street and forcing them to show papers

    This is how they operate.

  • XM||

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/.....o-killing/

    Though U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested notification when Lopez-Sanchez was released, the deputies never called them because the agency did not provide a warrant or court order, as required by city law, the sheriff said.

    "Had ICE sought the requested legal order or warrant, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department naturally and always would have complied if that legal order or warrant would have been presented to us," Mirkarimi told reporters.

    ICE took issue with Mirkarimi's remarks, saying in a statement that "we strongly disagree with the sheriff's characterization of the facts in this case."

    "The sheriff's assertion that ICE is required to provide some form of 'judicial' order in order to receive the requested notification reflects a manifest misunderstanding of federal immigration law," a senior ICE official said. "There is no such document, nor is there any federal court with the authority to issue one. Neither is there a legal requirement that ICE provide a judicial warrant to law enforcement agencies in order to receive such notifications."

  • Cloudbuster||

    Correllation? Causation? Context? What do those words mean?

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    They sound racist to me.

  • R C Dean||

    Assuming that the chart is legit, it does have an additional interesting feature:

    It illustrates how hard it is to draw any conclusions from being a sanctuary city or not. Here's why I say that:

    Dallas shows a crime rate of 11.39 and Fort Worth, which is right next door, shows a crime rate of 6.08. Neither are sanctuary cities.

    It appears there are all kinds of confounding variables which outweigh, probably by a lot, whether a city is a sanctuary city.

    A better study might look at crime rates before and after a city adopts sanctuary status. Presumably, most of the other confounding variables wouldn't change just with that change in legal policy. I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't really see all that much there, for the most part.

    Another interesting study might be to compare crime by illegals in sanctuary v non-sanctuary cities, as in, within the population of illegals, what's the crime rate? But that study can't be done, because we don't keep the data necessary to do that study.

    I'm no fan of state and local cops doing the feds' heavy lifting for them. I do find it fascinating that this particular issue is the only one that cities have felt the need to make a very public stand on, and not any of the myriad other federal laws that they are happy to cooperate with the feds on. One suspects that they are willing to opt out of the immigration enforcement game because there's no revenue in it, unlike, for example, the drug enforcement game.

  • ||

    I'm curious why the feds haven't dropped that magical banhammer that resolves all supremacy arguments, highway funding, on any cities that don't comply. Is that something that they solely do at the state level?

  • R C Dean||

    They banhammered the fuck out of Arizona for daring to pass a law requiring the state cops to enforce immigration laws, forcing Arizona to back down.

    So, there's that.

  • John||

    Because Obama likes open borders. Understand that states risk their federal funds for things like (I am not kidding) not conducting "gender awareness" classes for public school kids. So if you don't give "you might be a tranny" classes to fifth graders, the magic ban hammer is coming down hard. If you refuse to turn over people previously convicted of violent felonies over for deportation, you are good to go.

    Yeah, our government is that fucking insane.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Because Obama likes open borders.

    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Rhywun||

    if you don't give "you might be a tranny" classes to fifth graders

    Are you telling me every public school in the country has this? I find that somewhat hard to believe. Because states do NOT refuse federal funds - period.

  • Zaytsev||

    Are you telling me every public school in the country has this?

    Yep.

    Thing is, the educrats do there damnest to hide it from parents. And the media is completely complicit in the cover up.

  • Lord at War||

    San Francisco- 6.1% black.

    Columbus- 28% black.

    Given that blacks commit 50% of murders nationwide, I can't figure out why Columbus has a higher murder rate than SanFran.

  • Lord at War||

    For comparison-

    Indianapolis- 27.5% black

    Dallas- 25% black

    Fort Worth- 18.9% black

    Correlation does not equal causation... :o)

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Did someone say...sanctuary?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOSPtyZAPA

  • Almanian - TRUMP THIS||

    excellent call

    + [greater-than-sign] 1

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Oh, yeah. That's a good one, Eddie.

  • Aloysious||

    Not that sanctuary, THIS sanctuary.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpZSEc77wgk

  • JPyrate||

  • JPyrate||

    I like this one Biggie. =)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfkauMv-aOY

  • Napoleon Bonoparte||

  • Marshal||

    Back in 2006, when there was another spasm of anti-immigration fervor, Reason devoted an entire issue to "reality-based reform" of immigration policy. The short version: If you make it easier for people who want to come here to do so legally, everybody wins

    This would be more believable if the issue addressed that millions of new voters would increase leverage and support for an even greater welfare state.

  • Ein Barde und ein Holzhacker||

    Yes, Reason might get a few more converts on this issue if they stopped presenting open immigration has an absolute good, with zero negative consequences, and maybe if they stopped calling anyone with any skepticism towards open immigration "nativists".

  • Marshal||

    maybe if they stopped calling anyone with any skepticism towards open immigration "nativists".

    Libertarian journalists seem to enjoy the name calling quite a bit more than any reasonable person should. It reminds me of being accused of desiring Somalia's government whenever we argue for less growth in spending.

  • ||

    So they can join the 99% of red-blooded true American voters who vote for an ever an increasing state? Why should I care about this group in particular.

    Plus you can have legal immigration without giving out citizenship.

  • Ein Barde und ein Holzhacker||

    "Plus you can have legal immigration without giving out citizenship."

    You think the left will stand for leaving a group of largely brown people without citizenship? I can hear the cries of racism already. "America treats Hispanics as second class citizens, it's a return of Jim Crow!"

  • R C Dean||

    And, in fact, Hillary has said exactly that.

  • Marshal||

    Why should I care about this group in particular.

    Because "more" breaks into "faster" and "slower", and this group disproportionately votes "faster".

    Plus you can have legal immigration without giving out citizenship.

    We can, but we won't.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is a lie. There is no correlation between more immigration and a bigger welfare state. None. It is not the government's job to enforce your political ideology at the border.

  • Marshal||

    There is no correlation between more immigration and a bigger welfare state.

    No one is claiming immigration inherently causes a greater welfare state. It is extremely likely to in our particular case due to the political makeup of those who have demonstrated the greatest desire and ability to immigrate. A statistical correlation has no bearing on a single case.

    This is a lie.

    Given that you don't even understand your contradicting fact is irrelevant this is pretty amusing.

    It is not the government's job to enforce your political ideology at the border.

    Maybe not, but that doesn't mean it's not in our best interest to oppose open immigration.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Plus you can have legal immigration without giving out citizenship.

    Fuck that. Western Europe tried the whole "oh they can come work, but no citizenship, and they'll totally retire home" thing and it failed everywhere they tried it. You can't enforce it, so better not to argue for it. Just say, "more people better" and be done with it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, Western Europe did not do that. Immigrants there are basically second-class people and the economy sucks too.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Yes, it's exactly what they did. Come work, but no citizenship is how Turks ended in Germany and Arabs in France. The economy didn't suck then. Then it started sucking, but Turks and Arabs didn't leave. Quite the contrary, they had families and settled. And in Germany, this created an underclass because you can't be citizen unless your parent's are citizens. Obviously that couldn't stand, so Germans changed the law in 1999 to make it easier for them to acquire citizenship.

  • Napoleon Bonoparte||

    Plus you can have legal immigration without giving out citizenship.

    Because having an ethnically distinct laboring class without political rights worked out so well for South Africa.

  • ChrisS||

    These "ethnically distinct" people were also generally native born South Africans. The issue wasn't really immigration.

  • Careless||

    Why should I care about this group in particular.

    Because you can stop this group from voting for it. You don't have a legal way to stop, say, Tony from doing so.

  • geo1113||

    Camden, NJ is a sanctuary city...must be a safe place!

  • Mike M.||

    It's absolutely true that San Francisco is a relatively safe city with low murder and violent crime rates.

    However, it's just as equally true that it's grimy neighbor across the bridge known as Oakland is a well-known dangerous, violent hellhole; one of the six or seven most dangerous places to live in the country.

    If one wanted to, one could have an interesting and serious discussion about how it could be that two big cities in such close proximity could have such disparate situations in terms of violent crime and quality of life. But doing that would risk touching upon some extremely sensitive and politically incorrect realities, so don't expected that to happen any time soon.

  • Tony||

    Only if you were engaging in such a discussion in order to attempt to prove that your racism is justified. Nonracists have no problem acknowledging data about such things, recognizing a correlation between race and crime, and figuring out the causes. Why some people reject the obvious economic explanations in favor of the more unseemly hypotheses is a great mystery.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    What are the "obvious economic explanations" for murdering folks?

  • ||

    taking their precious, precious bodily fluids?

    *nervously looks around*

  • Tony||

    The fact that, the world over, relative poverty and higher relative crime rates go hand-in-hand?

  • Rhywun||

    Then why do you support policies that keep poor people poor?

  • Tony||

    I want to give the poor more money...

  • JPyrate||

    No you want to give the poor others peoples money.

    You want to keep your own money for yourself.

    FTFY

  • Rhywun||

    Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day....

  • Tony||

    So you support government subsidies for increased education of the poor? Or are you for doing nothing and lecturing at them about bootstraps?

  • Rhywun||

    I would say No because "the poor" are already receiving way more than their fair share of education subsidy. It's not my concern if they choose not to take advantage of it.

    Try again.

  • Tony||

    So pure social Darwinism. Guess I don't understand why you care if my policies hurt the poor when yours are designed to.

  • JPyrate||

    Pure Social Darwinism. The Progressive Way. Your way Tony. Tony just wants to weed out the "Undesired" with government "Help" and hinder Charities, and the evil small businesses from lifting the poor out of poverty.

  • John Deere WC-12||

    And when, exactly, has that ever worked?

    We've been giving poor people trillions of dollars over the last fifty years or so, and yet crime and poverty persist... and they persist most in the places where the people who believe in redistribution most are in complete control. I'm afraid that if you couldn't get the job done by now, you aren't going to get it done ever.

    Oh wait, but you just need a little bit more, right? And also evil republicans something something racism something sabotage. If only you had total control over everything THEN we'd finally see utopia, right?

    Hey, guess what... if your socioeconomic plan requires absolute ideological conformity at every level of government, it's time to come up with a new plan.

  • Mike M.||

    Yeah, that explains why crime in America went up in 2008, 2009, and 2010, during the worst of the Great Recession.

    Oh wait, it didn't. The exact opposite happened and crime went down.

  • Careless||

    Two poorest states in the country. I'll tell you that one has a murder rate about half of the other, and you guess which. Mississippi or West Virginia.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    They can't help themselves, they're so poor! It's really stressful, you know.

  • JPyrate||

    Tony if you are calling the WOD racist, then that is the only thing you have ever posted on this site that I could agree with. Don't worry. I will not tell your party employer that you botched the job. Even trolls need to make a living. I would not want anyone to dock your pay.

    =D

  • PM||

    Nonracists have no problem acknowledging data about such things, recognizing a correlation between race and crime, and figuring out the causes.

    Whitey done it.

  • fnord||

    Tony, your standard social science model (SSSM) is showing.
    Up your research game. http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....961500077X

  • Antilles||

    San Francisco's declaration of being a Sanctuary City isn't particularly bold since very few illegal immigrants can afford to live there. Yeah, more likely they live across the bridge in Oakland. I was stationed in that area in the '80s, and even then we were warned about driving through there at night (Stockton too).

  • Rhywun||

    very few illegal immigrants can afford to live there

    If it's anything like NYC (and I know it is because I have lived in both cities) they just cram three or four to a room.

    One reason they don't live in the burbs is because they enforce against this sort of thing more strictly.

  • Mike M.||

    It makes sense. I've never lived there and don't really know the area, but if I had to guess, my guess is that what happens is that most of the illegals commute into San Francisco and Marin County early in the morning (as that's where all the money and jobs are), and then go back home into Oakland at night.

  • Rhywun||

    According to Wikipedia, "More than a third of city residents (35.6%) were born outside the United States." This may or may not include illegals but I suspect that the portion of illegals tracks closely with the portion of legals.

  • Lord at War||

    (From above)...

    San Francisco- 6.1% black.

    Oakland- 28% black.

    Not figuring it out yet...

  • John||

    So what? Maybe they would be even safer if they were not sanctuary cities? Reason seems to understand that correlation doesn't equal causation in other contexts. It would never buy the Prog claims that "blue states are richer than red states therefore Prog economic policies work". Yet Nick commits exactly the same sort of logical fallacy here.

    This article is so dishonest. Does Nick think immigrants convicted of serious crimes should be deported or not? If he doesn't, then say so and just admit that immigrants repeatedly committing serious crimes is a price he is willing to pay. If not, then admit sanctuary cities are an insane idea.

  • ||

    Sanctuary status doesn't prevent the arrest and deportation of criminals, but it does prevent the deportation of those would cooperate with the police against those criminals. The dude that caused this uproar was deported 5 times already. Seems to me that throwing him in our own jails would have been more effective that throwing him back across the border.

  • JPyrate||

    ^^^ This.

  • John||

    Sanctuary status doesn't prevent the arrest and deportation of criminals,

    Yes it does. Sanctuary means the local police will not turn over someone to the feds who is hear illegally, period. That prevents the deportation of criminals.

    The dude that caused this uproar was deported 5 times already.

    And would have been deported a sixth time had SF turned him over to the Feds like they should have.

    but it does prevent the deportation of those would cooperate with the police against those criminals.

    So what? No one is saying the SF police should start rounding people up. Just turn over illegals they arrest for crimes.

  • ||

    And would have been deported a sixth time had SF turned him over to the Feds like they should have.

    So he could just come back across the border a 6th time?

  • John||

    So because Obama refuses to do anything about the border, we should just give up and not even try to deport even the worst criminals?

  • ||

    As I said, it seems like it would have been more effective to let him rot in prison on our side of the border.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Deportation makes John and those like him hard. They just like it, therefore it is good.

    John also doesn't understand that the thrust of the article was to disprove Trump's stupid 'illegal immigrants cause crime' tripe, not to establish a different causality.

  • JPyrate||

    If our government is going to give him "Free Shit" he might as well be getting his "Free Shit" in a place where he would not be hurting anyone.

    =D

    I admit that is a good argument to use against closed borders advocates.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    So because Obama refuses to do anything about the border

    Did I miss something and Obama can legislate directly or must Congress still propose and pass laws for the President to sign?

  • John||

    There is a law. It is called the Immigration and naturalization Act. Obama refuses to enforce it. We have laws and spend billions of dollars to enforce them. Obama just refuses to do it.

  • Antilles||

    Too bad Obama doesn't refuse to enforce the drug laws as well. But I suppose the feds would lose too much revenue, huh?

  • Careless||

    Boy, ILWTDO really walked into that one. And John didn't even mention Obama's habit of Obama bypassing Congress.

  • Blowhard Woodchip||

    Did I miss something and Obama can legislate directly or must Congress still propose and pass laws for the President to sign?

    Obama abolished the legislative branch, bribed key members of the Supreme Court and declared himself emperor. Where the hell have you been?

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by journalists' innumeracy.

  • Ein Barde und ein Holzhacker||

    All of Reason's immigration articles are dishonest. Do they ever point out one negative, one possible bad side-effect? It's all cherry picked data, and name calling anyone that's skeptical.

    Reason's open immigration advocates remind of the global warming believers, where any amount of skepticism is treated as heresy.

  • John||

    There is that. There real downsides to open borders. It is perfectly reasonable to see the benefits as being worth the downside. What is not reasonable, however, is to do what Reason does and refuse to admit there are any downsides or that anyone would have any reason to object other than because they are racist or lazy welfare queens.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is hilarious. You can't lay a finger on open-borders, so it must be its advocates that are dishonest. Borderites are the ones talking about how illegals are going to destroy America, so it must be the open-borders crowd that is like the global warming believers.

  • Careless||

    A woman is dead, Cyto.

  • Tak Kak||

    "And keep in mind that native-born American men (who commit most crime, violent and otherwise) are five times more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born men. And that even as the foreign-born percentage of the population has increased over the past 20 years, we've seen historic declines in all sorts of crimes."

    This constant fallback is a good way of masking statistics.

    Native born American men are a mighty diverse group, it's probably worth breaking them down further. You'll notice second and third-generation immigrants (with the exception of Chinese and Filipino) jump much, much higher than first-gens (and, shockingly, higher than that of native Asiasn and Whites). Of course, then they're counted as native so we can continue pretending their isn't a crime problem with immigration.

    (So comparing and extremely White/Asian city to ones with any substantial black population might be a fool's errand)

  • Tak Kak||

    (Sorry about the typos and grammatical errors. In a bit of a hurry)

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    And I would add (see below), those stats are for LEGAL immigrants, not illegal. Nick apparently can't tell the difference or it's not convenient to do so. I suspect the latter.

  • Tak Kak||

    That's a good addition.

    Going by the GAO, illegal immigrants commit a very disproportional amount of violent crime, but it's so piecemeal that we're probably no better than climate scientists if we were to argue anything from certainty there.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Exactly, but notice how Nick conveniently overlooked these numbers? Consider murder: The GAO stats indicate that criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.

    Guess it didn't fit Nick's narrative.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You'll notice second and third-generation immigrants (with the exception of Chinese and Filipino) jump much, much higher than first-gens (and, shockingly, higher than that of native Asiasn and Whites). Of course, then they're counted as native so we can continue pretending their isn't a crime problem with immigration.

    As Nick said, as immigration has increased, crime has fallen. There is still no crime problem with immigration.

  • Tak Kak||

    "As Nick said, as immigration has increased, crime has fallen. There is still no crime problem with immigration."

    Not according to the study. Perhaps if we stopped, or slowed immigration rates it would have fallen faster. Unless we believe "they took our jobs" applies to murder too.

  • PapayaSF||

  • Homple||

    "Hey Donald Trump: Sanctuary Cities Are Safer Than Immigrant-Hunting Counterparts"

    Hey, Nick Gillespie, maybe the immigrants are more trouble in the counterparts than in the sanctuaries.

  • DJ1706||

    I want no truck with Trump.

    But . . . "according to Mother Jones"?

    Really?

  • Mike M.||

    I guess you haven't noticed who Gillespie writes for on the side these days.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Hitler?

    Wait, I'm doing it wrong...

  • MacDaddy81||

    Doesn't Reason regularly take Mother Jones to task for fudging facts and drawing erroneous conclusions?

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    To be fair, if they are right about something, then they should embrace it. Given MJ's track record, I would do my own research first and then let the chips fall where they may.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    3 fucking Trump-related articles in one day. I've passed on commenting on them for obvious reasons. The mess that passes for "thinking" in this one, though, pisses me off. Just one example:

    "And keep in mind that native-born American men (who commit most crime, violent and otherwise) are five times more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born men."

    This study is talking about foreign born LEGAL immigrants. What the fuck does this have to do with crime stats for illegals? Current record keeping bars us from knowing crime stats for illegals. Nick is taking an apples-to-apples debate and slyly changing it into an apples-to-oranges debate. I expect this type of disingenuous bullshit elsewhere, not in this small corner of relative sanity in which I regularly read and post.

  • John||

    That is an appalling piece of sophistry on Nick's part. He is smart enough to know better. That means he is just lying. And that is sad.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Yes, this is Salon-level dishonesty. For instance:
    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/0.....and_crime/

    Which in turn bubbled up in Anderson Cooper's non-show:
    http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/08/acd.01.html

    And echoed in places such as the Washington Post

    But, hey, I guess Nick will keep being invited to all the right cocktail parties, though, so there's that.

  • Issue Ninja||

    "I guess Nick will keep being invited to all the right cocktail parties, though," that and the gay marriages should keep him pretty busy

  • Homple||

    Not sad. Typical of True Believers of all stripes. It's not only snake handlers, holy rollers and proggies who keep facts away from their core beliefs.

  • Careless||

    I suspect there comes a point where you've ignored the "illegal" so long that you can't even think it. Nick actively works to make himself stupid on this subject, basically.

  • R C Dean||

    I've lived in two sanctuary cities: Madison, WI and Cambridge, MA.

    Both of them (at that time, anyway) virtually devoid of Latino residents. Which invites a couple of conclusions:

    (1) Being a sanctuary city apparently doesn't really draw illegals to town.

    (2) Not having many illegals in town makes it really easy to take a symbolic stand.

    Caveat: Small sample, etc.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Since the government's current record-keeping practice don't allow us to get stats on illegal crime, so all we have are small samples and personal experiences.

  • Tony||

    In other words no data from which to form the opinion you're going to form anyway?

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Go on, asshat. Show me where I did this.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "refuse to hand over ilegals"

    Hey, Nick.

    If you want to work on your pro illegal immigration SJW street cred, you need to drop the term "illegals", which is Racist Racist Racist per the latest Newspeak dictionary.

    Also, you might want to learn how to spell your Racist Racist Racist slurs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Immigrants Commit Less Crime than US Natives

    http://panampost.com/belen-mar.....s-natives/

  • Tak Kak||

    Illegal Immigrants Commit More Crime than US Natives

    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-187

  • Tony||

    Where does it say that?

    Even if it did say that, what's your point? Which other group's freedom do you think we should restrict on the basis that a higher percentage of the people in their demographic category commit crime?

  • Tak Kak||

    "Where does it say that?"

    Table 2

    "Even if it did say that, what's your point?"

    Large numbers are complicated beasts.

    "Which other group's freedom do you think we should restrict on the basis that a higher percentage of the people in their demographic category commit crime?"

    I already said, Asian Immigrants (minus Filipinos and Chinese) duh.

  • Tony||

    Table 2 does not say that.

  • Tak Kak||

    25,064 Homicides. Right there.

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Don't bother. Tony doesn't do the barest necessary to participate here. And by this, I mean read post, links, etc.

  • Tak Kak||

    Cytoxic got scared off, Woodchipper. messing with Tony seems to be all I have left. Whether it's from a Libertarian or Socialist, watching people squirm is a delight.

  • Tony||

    That table neither breaks down between legal and illegal immigrants nor does it compare to natives. It just lists the crimes of immigrants, the bulk of which are immigration infractions (civil or criminal--not distinguished), drugs, and traffic violations.

    Do you see why your logic could extend to strict gun control, by chance?

  • Tak Kak||

    That table neither breaks down between legal and illegal immigrants nor does it compare to natives. It just lists the crimes of immigrants, the bulk of which are immigration infractions (civil or criminal--not distinguished), drugs, and traffic violations.

    Good thing I specifically mentioned "homicide".

    Try again.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Could you please quote the part of this that supports your statement? Protip: illegal =/= 'criminal'. Only real crime please, not non-crime like dealing drugs or crossing an arbitrary line.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Only real crime please, not non-crime like dealing drugs or crossing an arbitrary line."

    Table 2.

    That's a lot of homicides coming from a small pool of people there.

  • Cytotoxic||

    These are *arrests* for a crime, and there's no comparison to the native population. Once again, you demonstrate your innumeracy.

  • Tak Kak||

    "These are *arrests* for a crime, and there's no comparison to the native population. Once again, you demonstrate your innumeracy."

    Haha, so they're just arrested for homicide at an incredibly high rate. Nothing more can possibly be drawn from that.

    Anyone with a calculator can compare to the native population. Wizards, up above, already has, give it a try!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Thanks for conceding that you don't have the data you need to back up your claim. Moving on.

  • Tak Kak||

    I reckon that's the best concession I'd get out of you. Keep spinning those wheels pal.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tak Kak,

    Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses.


    Sure. If you say that "immigration", "traffic violations" and "drug possession" are all crimes, you can then say immigrants commit a lot of "crimes" (by the way, there is no side-to-side comparison between immigrants and natives for some of those crimes.) Most "crimes" committed by immigrants have to do with being arrested with no papers. Wow, how dangerous!

  • Tak Kak||

    "Sure. If you say that "immigration", "traffic violations" and "drug possession" are all crimes, you can then say immigrants commit a lot of "crimes" "

    I didn't though, Glad that's out of the way.

    "(by the way, there is no side-to-side comparison between immigrants and natives for some of those crimes.)"

    Of course, that's why I'm using piecemeal stuff like the GAO report.

    "Most "crimes" committed by immigrants have to do with being arrested with no papers. Wow, how dangerous!"

    Yet it's the other crimes I'm concerned about.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And it's the other crimes you haven't addressed

  • Tak Kak||

    See my reply to... you. Oh golly.

    Are you for real Cytoxic?

  • John||

    Immigrants are not illegal immigrants you half wit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The report published on Wednesday, July 8, says this holds true for every immigrant group, regardless of home country, education level, or legal status.

    Next time, try reading the link.

  • John||

    We don't track the legal status of criminals. The report is a lie. Go away and let the adults talk for a while.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Citation needed.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    The argument between you two is about as subtle and nuanced as two apes throwing shit at each other.

  • Zaytsev||

    Knock it off. Comparing cytotoxic to a shit throwing monkey is an insult....

    to shit throwing monkeys.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    Dish out all the words you can to distance yourself from the man, but you can't argue that the's not exactly the kind of creature your system is wont to produce: rapacious, ugly, brutish, egotistical, and unfeeling. Just the kind of Randian hero the Republitarians here idolize. Then, we he finally shows up, like Dr. Frankenstein you're scared to behold the man you've created. Sorry, libertariots, he's your creature. It's funny socialism is responsible for every evil to you, but you can't be held accountable for anything housed within capitalism's zoo.

  • Cytotoxic||

    you can't argue that the's not exactly the kind of creature your system is wont to produce

    I can and will argue against that. He's a crony capitalism grande. Nothing to do with us.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    Ah, that old bromide: anything you don't like is not attributable to you and yours.

    Who, pray til, IS a capitalist? Under your libertopian logic, no one is a capitalist, given that they operate in a mixed economy. Therefore, you are free to dismiss anyone personally disagreeable to you as a "crony capitalist." I suppose Trump is supposed to operate outside the normal rules of the system? Is that what a Randian hero does? Sorry, he's your mess, your bed, so lie in it rather than lying about it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He's a capitalist but he's no libertarian/Randian. Like your fellow travellers, you're too stupid to distinguish the two.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    Correct. He is no fictional character, unlike your Randian heroes who prance around a fictional libertopia. In the real world, he's a capitalist. If you don't like it -- check your premises. :)

  • dchang0||

    Re: "real problems surface when immigrants stop showing up. That's an iron-clad indicator that where you live is no longer attractive, growing, and vibrant."

    Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but you left out a very crucial attractor of immigrants, legal or illegal: all the free shit our governments are giving away.

    The "iron-clad indicator" you describe is only true if there are no gov't-mandated wealth transfers of any kind. Otherwise, the free goodies can attract immigrants even if the locale is otherwise a place that people would flee.

  • Tony||

    Nothing is free. Everyone pays taxes. Immigrants, being younger than the general population on average, use fewer government services. So actually, the more immigrants, the more revenue.

    But it's pretty guaranteed that if we got rid of our safety net the US would turn into a pretty undesirable hellhole.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But it's pretty guaranteed that if we got rid of our safety net the US would turn into a pretty undesirable hellhole.


    You mean like The Road, perhaps?

    I see that the end of the safety net would mean more people would finally stand up and go find a job. Period. Just like it happened during the last term of president Clinton. I was in Mexico then and I don't remember American immigrants flooding OUR border.

  • Tak Kak||

    "But it's pretty guaranteed that if we got rid of our safety net the US would turn into a pretty undesirable hellhole."

    The border is nothing more than a safety net.

  • Tony||

    Yep and an increasingly expensive one, which small-government types have conveniently been able to dredge up excuses for.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Yep and an increasingly expensive one, which small-government types have conveniently been able to dredge up excuses for."

    Not my problem. Seems like a good reason to gut everything else to me.

  • JPyrate||

    Now we see Tony's core. He just hates Republicans. He also confuses Republicans for Libertarians.

  • JPyrate||

    I think your time here trolling Libertarians Tony has corrupted you. Don'y worry. I won't tell your progressive employer's about your turncoatism.

    =)

  • Tony||

    I hate Republicans but for substantive reasons, and libertarians are doing a fine job confusing themselves with Republicans, especially on threads like this.

  • JPyrate||

    OVERTIME !!!

    What are you going to spend your extra cash on Tony ?

    Grab yourself one of these. You deserve it. You worked Hard.

    http://www.brasserie-dupont.co.....upont.html

  • JohnGaltstone||

    There is no confusion. They are the same thing. It's just that libertarians either argue against it because they want to seem different, or they don't know it. After all, who under 30 would want to be associated with the geriatric Faux News crowd and the teabagger hats? So they wear a leather jacket, pretend to be rebellious, give themselves a fancy sounding name, make a little noise, and then go vote for the same people as their cranky old grandparents.

  • JPyrate||

    You should have a beer as well Tulpa. I bet you worked so hard on that post.

    =D

  • Careless||

    Immigrants, being younger than the general population on average, use fewer government services.

    Yeah, those illegals with high birth rates and incomes that qualify their kids for Medicaid, WIC, etc sure aren't going to be using a lot of government services. Moron.

  • OldMexican||

    "The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems."


    This is a very convenient platitude because you can find a few million who are more than willing to dehumanize people from other countries by thinking they must be the 'rejects', otherwise they would not migrate.

    The problem with such assertions is that people who make them ignore the fact that you need to have some money, some capital, in order to migrate. People who migrate are not attached to the land; they're more comfortable looking for greener pastures precisely because they're NOT happy with their situation. They are DRIVEN. They have to be hard workers in order to accumulate the necessary savings to uproot themselves. It takes courage to do that.

    The "scum of the earth" are not that driven nor have the propensity to save. Trump and people of his ilk are completely wrong on this one.

  • ||

    There are few things fundamentally wrong with the way statistics are being reported here.

    1. Donald Trump claims Fast food causes healthy issues but American who live on fast food tend be far more healthier than people in Bangladesh. Hence fast food is healthy and Trump is an asshole.

    A lot of cities like SF etc. are more safer than say Oakland or Stockton by default. The question is illegal immigrants make them more safer or more dangerous. Even if we imagine that 95% of illegal immigrants are not criminals those 5% are still criminals and are likely to travel more to Sanctuary Cities than any other place making them less safe than usual.

    It is pointless exercise to paint Donald Trump as racist. Even as an legal temporary worked in USA, I find it fascinating that Americans worry about far off ISIS more than the undefendable border with Mexico. It is like worrying about getting STD from a toilet seat in brothel while you are fucking a whore without protection.

    It is totally upto Americans to decide who can enter their country and live. Have 100% open borders with Mexico if you want but than that should come through a federal law and not by individual cities showing disrespect towards federal policies.

    Instead of waging needless wars in Iraq if USA puts its resources in building a great wall of America I think it will work well.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Akshar,

    but than that should come through a federal law and not by individual cities showing disrespect towards federal policies.


    Why can't cities show disrespect for federal policies especially if these policies are absurd, unfair or unworkable? Remember that one of the reasons the South seceded from the Union (besides the tariff) was that many states were nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act too many times, and that was a federal law. Turning your police force dedicated to fight real criminals into ICE agents is not conducive to good faith between the federal government and the city. Maybe the police have better things to do than go huntin' wabbits.

    Nullification, from the standpoint of this libertarian right here, is fine with me.

  • Tak Kak||

    From the standpoint of this non-libertarian, Sanctuary Cities seems fine by me as well. Likewise, I think states (or even border counties) should be able to buck the Feds and guard their borders as they please.

  • Cytotoxic||

    a great wall of America I think it will work well.

    Of course! What could go wrong with a reverse Berlin Wall on the border?

  • bacon-magic||

    I'm all for legal immigration. This country thrives on that. Illegal...not so much. Open borders? Sure as long as all the borders are open. Not just ours. Otherwise it's just utter stupidity.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: bacon-magic,

    I'm all for legal immigration. This country thrives on that. Illegal...not so much.


    What's your economic rationale for such differentiation? Don't pull a Tony and simply assume it is so.

  • Cytotoxic||

    His rational is AUTHORITUH.

  • John Deere WC-12||

    We can have open borders or we can have a welfare state. We cannot have both. And until we get rid of our welfare state, it is absolutely absurd to even talk about having an open border.

  • Sigivald||

    In fact, reports Mother Jones, sanctuary cities have lower crime rates than comparable areas:

    Comparable as in "the same size but no other similarities"?

    Come on.

    Show me pre/post sanctuary-policy comparisons for rates, at least. Ideally see if we can find sanctuary/non-sanctuary comparisons at least in the same state.

    That level of cherry picking is typical of Mother Jones, but I'd hope Reason would try a little harder before just reposting it.

    (I don't even really care that much about the issue or Trump; this is just bad science.)

  • Floyd R Turbo (American)||

    If that is actually true, and cities that refuse to pursue criminals are SAFER than cities that do - then why should we limit the "sanctuary" in "sanctuary cities" to illegal aliens?
    .
    Why shouldn't home-grown criminals benefit from the sanctuary policy? American citizens who are rapists, robbers and murderers certainly deserve to be protected from the police if illegal aliens are.
    .
    In this way we could wipe out all violent crime and save ourselves the expense of maintaining a police department.

  • Tony||

    I think the logic can be extended. The point is a lack of trust in law enforcement leads to less reporting and thus more crime. The go-to example would be the drug war. It's plausible that a lot of real crime goes unreported because there might be drugs around and the would-be caller doesn't want to get busted. I for one don't believe in calling the cops except for serious matters, because I know that the so-called criminal justice system will just cause more harm to society than the actual crime in many instances.

  • JPyrate||

    OVERTIME !!!! =D

  • JPyrate||

    I like the new Tony. =)

  • Suicidy||

    That was actually logical, and shows reasonable pragmatism. How refreshing.

  • plaasjaapie||

    What a load of nonsense.

  • cew006||

    There is a problem with the data regarding this case.

    What we do know is some of Trump's opponents deliberately lump in legal immigrants with illegal immigrants when consider per capita crime, that raises the pool by 300%! How convenient.

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas.....ime-rates/

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    One question: We believe that the crime statistics from the nuttiest city in the Peoples' Republic of California are comparable to the statistics of any city in Texas, why exactly?

  • John Deere WC-12||

    Because libertarians LOVE to play into the hands of progressives every chance they get. It makes them feel like they can be one of the cool kids sometimes.

  • DKCMOM1||

    Hate to be a "nativist" but having spent most of my life in a border state, numbers don't tell the whole story. I am sick of people telling us that they are nice people and just want to work. Try getting a retail job without speaking Spanish. Try being a tradesman who plays by the rules and can't bring in a job lower than an illegal. Check the DUI numbers for illegals, good luck because they don't announce status.
    You want to end this. Babies born here get zero US status until they claim it at 18. Just like every other country. Anchor babies are to blame for all of this.

  • YankeeLiberty||

    Immigration is good. Assimilation is good too. Non-assimilation leads to conflict IMHO. Reasons for non-assimilation: No documents (give them some), lack skills (give help), criminal behavior (lock them up here), housing (?), preference for own culture including honor killings (reject them - they are not immigrants but displaced persons). Welcome to America, hope to run into you at Home Depot.

  • Robert||

    The unfortunate (or maybe fortunate, depending how you look at it) truth is that within the USA, the demographic that correlates with perpetr'n of crimes of that type is blackness, not immigr'n status. Race is such a strong factor in so many things in the USA that it distorts one's view if you don't factor it out.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    Very revealing. Blackness = crime. Let me guess, another Trumpertarian?

  • fnord||

    The data below explain, of course, absolutely nothing about the patterns in the Mother Jones article.

    Indianapolis 27% Black or African American

    Dallas / Ft. Worth 17% Black or African American

    Columbus 19% Black or African American

    Jacksonville 25% Black or African American

    San Francisco 6% Black or African American
    http://factfinder.census.gov/b.....000US06075

  • Robert||

    Hey, I didn't make things that way, I'm just reporting them as they are.

  • JohnGaltstone||

    Very revealing. Blackness = crime. Let me guess, another Trumpertarian?

  • burserker||

    I agree with almost all libertarian principles, but not open borders. Hey Nick, come live in a border state with a sanctuary city, before you start calling me names. when all these Spanish speakers start voting for team blue, you'll wonder what the hell you were thinking...

  • Arthur45||

    The argument that sanctuary cities have less crime than others cities is a really braindead
    argument. There are realiable statistics that show illegal immigrants committing crimes at far far higher rates than the locals. Gillespie's ridiculous argument gets totally shredded.
    If Nick Gillespie can't think any better than this, I'd advise him to not try thinking at all.

  • JPyrate||

  • Reverend Draco||

    I wonder why it is that, when it comes to immigration, Reason reflexively goes full retard?
    Don't they know? You NEVER go full retard.

    Every one of these Criminal Trespassers - even the "assumed" good people, are - wait for it - CRIMINALS!

    Moral and intellectual consistency (and honesty) demands that, for every Criminal Trespasser granted amnesty, one random criminal of another kind be freed as well - 1 wetback, 1 pedophile.
    1 wetback, 1 rapist.
    1 wetback, 1 arsonist.

    Equal protection under the law, bitches!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    So, Nick, does this mean the Trump Campaign can mark you down as "Undecided"?

  • Careless||

    Yeah, and the guy comparing San Francisco's crime rate with those other cities is a paragon of honesty.

    Pathetic.

  • Suicidy||

    The basic premise of this article is deeply flawed.

  • 11bravo||

    Nobody cares if sanctuary cities are safer, and it was never the Donald's point. So, why is Nick throwing out the red herring.
    With 307 million Americans vs. 30 million illegal aliens you would think Americans would commit more crime - their are more whites on welfare too - so what!!
    Are we making points with the low info crowd Nick?
    American males ha! What color or race of American males Nick?

  • Damien||

    "....we've seen historic declines in all sorts of crimes...." since when, since, The Patriot Act?

  • markuzick||

    Why put the focus on Trump? I received a disgusting email from the Rand campaign that's meant to appeal to xenophobes (mainstream Conservatives and Republicans) which demonizes and scapegoats innocent immigrants who exercise their fundamental right as people to freely travel, work and live wherever they choose as long as it's based on voluntary human interaction. This proves that he's just another political power seeker, so I requested that they remove me from their email list. http://randpaul.com/f/end-sanc.....f071015pdw

    Fortunately, I live in NY, so I won't be faced with the odious dilemma of either boycotting the election process or choosing the lesser of evils, as votes in NY will likely have no effect on the outcome for Rand in the primary or the election.

    The scapegoating of immigrants to appeal to the base of the Republican party is something that his father's presidential campaign did too. I could hold my nose and tolerate his silence on the issue if speaking up would ruin his chances - there are plenty of other important issues to focus on, but to actively victimize innocent people who are only attempting to exercise their fundamental rights in the face of one of the great crimes of the state - to promote a crime against humanity as a just law in order to appeal to bigots is too hard to take.

  • carolcardona||

    my buddy's step-aunt makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $99350 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check my source
    www.jobnet10.com

  • carolcardona||

    my buddy's step-aunt makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $99350 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check my source
    www.jobnet10.com

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    Part 1


    Wow, this is really appalling. Does Reason.com operate at such a low intellectual level that no one knows that “correlation is not equal to causation”? The fact that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates proves what? Releasing criminals lowers crime? Really how does that work?


    It’s patently absurd. Let’s use some obvious analogies. Death penalty states generally have higher murder rates than abolition states. Does the death penalty raise murder rates? Or do states with higher murder rates respond by executing criminals? Once again, “correlation is not equal to causation”. The real question is whether enforcing the death penalty reduces murder rates in any given state. Does it? People debate this. Take a look at “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate”. Some evidence shows that each execution saves 18 innocent lives.


    The real point is that observing the correlation between executions and murder rates tells you nothing. Even the dim bulbs at Reason.com should be able to understand this.


    Let’s take another case. Does gun ownership increase or reduce crime rates? Simply looking for a direct correlation will tell you nothing. Say high gun ownership rates are strongly associated with high crime rates. What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because, people might well (actually do) buy guns because they live in a high crime area.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    Part 2,


    The real question is whether allowing people to purchase guns, raises or lower crimes rates in any given area. John Lott has studied this to death and shown that (holding other things equal), more guns equals less crime.


    Getting back to sanctuary cites, the analogy should be obvious. Do low(er) crime sanctuary cities have low(er) crime rates because of sanctuary policies or in spite of sanctuary policies. Vermont has lower crime rates than Texas. Vermont is liberal and Texas is conservative. Does liberalism reduce crime rates? Really? Or does Vermont have radically different demographics that result in both liberalism and low(er) crime rates.


    The actual question is whether sanctuary policies raise or lower crime in any given city. Do the authors even address this question? Of course not. We could ask the family of Kathryn Steinle for their opinion.


    To cut to the chase, this article is a demonstration of the strikingly low intellectual level of the Reason.com editors and authors.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    I really love this. Mother Jones is the new Libertarian bible. No wonder Libertarians are (generally) viewed as a joke.

  • Peter Schaeffer||

    Here is an easy way to understand the immigration issue.
    1. Our schools are doing too well. We need to import educational failure.
    2. We have too many jobs and too few unemployed. We need to import unemployment.
    3. We have far to few people living off handouts. Imports can solve this problem.
    4. Housing is far too affordable for working people. We need to fix this ASAP.
    5. We don't have enough crime. Let's import MS-13.
    6. We don't have enough traffic congestion. This can be fixed by mass immigration.
    7. Taxes are too low. Immigrants on welfare can solve this problem.
    8. Too many people have health insurance. Yet another problem that can be solved at the border.
    9. Wages are too high. American workers are spoiled. If we can't outsource their jobs, we can replace them with immigrants.
    10. We don't have enough people demanding (and needing) racial quotas. We can fix this with Amnesty.
    11. Too many Americans enjoy a common language (sometimes called "English"). With Open Borders we can build the Tower of Babel and tear down America.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • TxJack 112||

    The only question that needs to be answered is are we a nation of laws or not? If we are truly a nation of laws and the Constitution is the basis of those laws, then you cannot have sanctuary cities. The SCOTUS ruled that immigration is the sole responsibility of the Federal government when it overturned the immigration law in Arizona. For that reason, individual cities and counties cannot decide to ignore Federal law any more than Arizona who sought to enforce it. Anyone who supports ignoring the law has little respect for it.

  • TxJack 112||

    Talk about BS statistics. The reason the large cities in Texas have higher crime rates involving illegals is because we have 10 times the number of other states as a result of Obama basically declaring an open border. Texas was overwhelmed by the mass influx over the past three years. So claiming that sanctuary cities are safer is total garbage.

  • Arthur45||

    Gillespie's argument is stupid - stats clearly show the illegal immigrants as obscenely criminal. Probably worse than ghetto Blacks, if that's possible.

  • steve rosenqwuist||

    The rule of democracy should override. If you don't like a law and break it, be a man and pay. Fight like hell to change the law, but accept democracy.

  • lars626||

    After the civil war there was large immigration from Europe. It lasted well into the twentieth century. Most of the immigrants ended up in the north because the old south actively discouraged immigrants. The restrictions on freed slaves and the lack of immigrants resulted in what we have now; an under educated population and an aging white power structure entering it's death throes.

    Twenty years from now a 'conservative' politician will look back and ask herself "What were those idiots thinking".

  • ztnjpv||

    While I agree 100% with the Nick's view of Trump, I am surprised that Nick G would use Mother Jones' little false corollary graph to make some point that isn't there.

    I may be spiff-balling here but SF's low crime rate would seem to be clearly be demographic in terms of causation....both in terms of racial composition and high levels of wealth. Maybe I am wrong. But being a sanctuary city seems like a very weak factor in terms of explaining SFs low crime rate vis a vis other cities.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online