Saturday Forum

VDARE.COM Reader Linda Chavez Is Very Unhappy With Edwin S. Rubenstein’s “Snit Fit” About her; etc.

From: Linda Chavez [e-mail her]

Re: Edwin S. Rubenstein’s Column: Facts and Factoids On Immigrant Crime

I've just read Rubenstein’s little snit fit.

Let's be clear—Rubenstein has no facts to suggest that Mexican-born men commit a disproportionate share of violent crime in the U.S., much less murder.

At least, Rubenstein offered none here. Examination of violent crime rates in Metropolitan Statistical Areas with large immigrant populations don't support the inference of higher crime rates among the foreign born.

In many cities, violent crime has gone down as the proportion of immigrants increased. I don't claim that there is any relationship between the two phenomena, but it certainly defies reason to assume that a decrease in serious crime is proof that illegal aliens or immigrants in general are more prone to crime.

Nor does direct examination of incarceration rates show greater propensity to criminality among immigrants as Rubenstein suggests but University of California Professor Ruben Rumbaut denies.

Puerto Ricans, as Rubenstein must know, are US citizens, regardless of where they are born. I've written at length about Puerto Ricans, who more closely track blacks in out-of-wedlock births, crime, welfare dependency, and other areas. Dominicans follow a similar pattern.

And incarcerated Cubans no doubt include many criminals who were among the 100,000 who came to the U.S. in the Mariel Boatlift in 1980.

Also included in the statistics of the jail population are alien drug smugglers apprehended while entering the country illegally.

Professor Rumbaut's work on the second-generation immigrants is fascinating.

There is considerable bifurcation, with most second-generation Mexicans doing better than either their parents or third generation Mexican Americans on all social and economic measures.

Overall, the second generation Mexicans outperform the first and subsequent generations, despite a group among them for whom assimilation means more illegitimacy, crime and welfare dependency,

I've followed Rumbaut's work for years and have cited him in my books.

Please tell Rubenstein to please drop his snide suggestion that I didn't finish reading Rumbaut’s study.

Ed Rubenstein replies: I think my analysis really got under Chavez’s skin. Typical of immigration enthusiasts, she never expected a serious rebuttal.

The fundamental point here is that the government, disgracefully, does not collect data on immigrant criminality. No doubt Chavez will join me in calling for this data to be collected. Then we can see whether it is Heather McDonald's or Ruben Rumbaut's "factoid" that more accurately accurately reflects the underlying criminality of the immigrant population.

For reasons outlined in my article, I don't think Rumbaut's work supports his optimistic conclusions about immigrant crime. For example, Rumbaut makes no attempt to adjust for differences in location (urban/rural) of the various immigrant groups, or the average length of time they've been in the country.

Chavez says she read the San Diego part of the Rumbaut study. But if so, she should have offered some explanation for its dramatic undercutting of her (and Rambaut's) case. Rumbaut, at least, is honest enough to say that this is "fraught with implications for the future."

The San Diego data shows second-generation Mexicans far more likely to be incarcerated than other immigrant groups in that city, Specifically, second-generation Mexicans are about twice as likely to be incarcerated as the second-generation of the next highest ethnicity, the Vietnamese. Both appear to be far more criminal than native-born American whites.

Perhaps Chavez would argue that America corrupts immigrants. But it is inconceivable that they have been corrupted to this extent. The San Diego data strongly implies that foreign-born Mexicans must also have a relatively high propensity for crime, and that this would be picked up—if the American policy community could bring itself to look.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

A California Reader Won’t Waste Any Tears On Muslims Searched At Airports

From: Marcellus Armiger [e-mail him]

Re: Brenda Walker’s Blog: MSM Concern on 9/11---anti-Muslim “Intolerance”

So, Muslims in America are upset that they are the targets of security profiling, huh?

Boo-hoo.

To get your blood really boiling, read this account from Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran Steven Alvarez who reports that service personnel in full uniform and with proper identification en route to and from Iraq are routinely subjected to extensive searches in our airports.[ Soldiers Deserve TSA’s Respect in Screenings at Airports Steven Alvarez, Soldiers for the Truth, September 5, 2006]

It isn't sufficiently insulting that 86-year-old war heroes like

World War II fighter ace and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient General Joe Foss are pulled out of line---three times!!!--- for a security check? (“ Decorated WWII Veteran Detained, Searched at Airport”, CNN February 27, 2002)

Apparently not. Now we have to compel those who fight on our behalf to endure humiliating body searches.

This is how some of our best and bravest spend their last minutes on American soil…bowing to multicultural sensitivity and in deference to whining ethnic lobbies.

Armiger is on the staff of a Southern California college. Read his previous letters here.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]

A California Reader Answers The Question Re Bush, Foolish Or Evil, And Adds A Twist

From: Alex Zarkadas [e-mail]

Re: Joe Guzzardi’s Column: Border Patrol Two, 9/11 Commission---Whose Side Is Bush On?

Is Bush, Guzzardi wonders, venal, foolish and dangerous? Or is Bush evil?

My answer: Bush is evil---an evil Alfred E. Newman.

Zarkadas is a legal secretary and former Republican who voted for Bush once but not twice.

[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]