>Broadly, immigration has no effect on crime-rates.
This just isn't true. There are a lot of studies that purport this. There are also a lot of studies that purport the opposite. A quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime shows a bit of the field here.
The details get really important when talking about this. Details like:
- immigrant crime rates are often compared to non-immigrant rates, as if the native-born are a single bloc, rather than distinct segments
- "immigrants" treated as a single bloc
- immigrant crime getting controlled for by age, gender, income, and education --- which is cold comfort if the bulk of your immigration is poor uneducated young men
- first-gen immigrants, if immigrating to work, often have lower crime rates. This effect disappears with second-generation. But when they do crime, it is counted as native crime, rather than immigrant crime. That...doesn't quite cleave reality at the joints.
- labor law violations, tax evasion, etc., often not counted as "crime."
But if the justification for immigration is prior immigration, is there a stopping point here? Like, after you import a bunch of doctors, is it going to turn out that now you need a bunch of fast food workers, back and forth?
A Federal intervention is generally not called for unless a State pointedly does not get with some Federal mandate or another. See desegregation in the South for another notable historic example.
Of the Little Rock 9 in Arkansas:
>When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive order 10730,[18] which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and 1,000 soldiers from the US Army and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students. The Arkansas National Guard would escort these nine black children inside the school as it became the students' daily routine that year.
Ideally though, this type of intervention should be exceedingly rare or reserved for the most egregious cases. Unfortunately, the present administration sees only the mechanism, and is motivated more by pettiness than any real commitment to Statecraft.
Yep. J has a small userbase, but it isn't fragmented into dialects like K or even APL, J uses ASCII characters instead of requiring a custom font/keyboard layout, J is FOSS, J has extensive learning materials, and J is reasonably batteries-included and suitable for making practical nontrivial programs.
I like K better than J aesthetically, but it's harder to recommend to beginners due to the fragmentation of the ecosystem.
I don't think shareholders really demand anything, most of the time. So much of the market is just passive 401k buckets.
This feels like a pathology of board/C-suite culture, something that they feel like they "have to" do, rather than actual angry letters from Joe Shareholder in Des Moines demanding more user data farming.
At least in the case of United, we did see shareholders write angry letters when they temporarily became slightly less aggressive denying customers coverage. If that's the level of care for matters of life and death, why wouldn't it generalize to surveillance?
A good faith person who was also informed would be aware that this is basically a criticism of Romney-era neocon policies, and that agenda is no longer the animating force of the GOP (and was soundly defeated despite the wishes of the great and the good of the party establishment). In the far-right circles I frequent, the sentiment is, basically, "Triple, quadruple, quintuple the national debt, and crash the economy, if that's what it takes to halt immigration and have a country again, rather than an economic zone."
It was not free-market sentiment that propelled Trump to the WH.
Great point. I don't know that I'd say people want a crash, but that they are ambivalent to a crash as long as legal and illegal immigration are stopped and rolled back.
This just isn't true. There are a lot of studies that purport this. There are also a lot of studies that purport the opposite. A quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime shows a bit of the field here.
The details get really important when talking about this. Details like:
- immigrant crime rates are often compared to non-immigrant rates, as if the native-born are a single bloc, rather than distinct segments
- "immigrants" treated as a single bloc
- immigrant crime getting controlled for by age, gender, income, and education --- which is cold comfort if the bulk of your immigration is poor uneducated young men
- first-gen immigrants, if immigrating to work, often have lower crime rates. This effect disappears with second-generation. But when they do crime, it is counted as native crime, rather than immigrant crime. That...doesn't quite cleave reality at the joints.
- labor law violations, tax evasion, etc., often not counted as "crime."
reply