08 July 2015

Donald Trump is Right: Low Quality Immigrants and the New England Patriots

Stephen Kershnar
Donald Trump, New England Patriots, and Immigration
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
July 5, 2015

Instead of the U.S. choosing the best and the brightest immigrants, we allow immigrants themselves to choose who gets to live here. This is in part because of an immigration system that favors family connections over skill, education, and money. It is also in part because of aliens who sneak into the country in the dark of night.  

Ann Coulter points out that the New England Patriots carefully select who gets to be on their team. The team spends a large amount of money vetting players in order to get the best players and fulfill their needs. The team’s owners, players, and fans would be outraged if college players got to decide who was on the team by sneaking into the locker room or by being related to a current player. They would be even more furious when they discovered that other teams weren’t so handicapped. The U.S. should draft immigrants similar to how the Patriots draft players.

These issues matter because the U.S. is being flooded with low end immigrants, especially from Mexico. The U.S. has been taking in roughly 1 million legal immigrants a year for over thirty years and has another 11-30 million illegal immigrants, depending on the estimate. Roughly 1 out of 8 members of the U.S. population are immigrants, the highest number since the 1920’s. 1 out of 8. A large number of immigrants are poor, unskilled, and on welfare. A 2011 study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that 48% of immigrants and their U.S. born children (and roughly 68% of Mexican immigrants) are in poverty or near poverty. In fact, Coulter points out, we now have roughly one-fourth of Mexicans in the U.S. (specifically, people of Mexican origin).

Enter Donald Trump. The Republican presidential candidate and real estate mogul, during his presidential announcement speech, said, “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."

Corporate America immediately attacked him. NBC and Univision will not air the Trump-owned Miss Universe Pageant, Macy’s dropped his signature clothing line. New York Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered a review of Trump's city contracts. NASCAR is moving an annual banquet from the Trump National Doral resort in Miami. 

Shame on Trump for winging such an important point. Here’s what he should have said. “There are many wonderful immigrants, particularly Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. They are our family members, friends, and lovers. However, when it comes to immigrants in general, we can do better. Compared to natives or other immigrants we could have gotten, our current Mexican immigrants are poorer, less well educated, less intelligent, less skilled, and fatter. They have worse family values and three quarters of their households are on welfare. No one seriously suggests that we are better off with millions of Mexican immigrants than we would be with immigrants from England, Ireland, Germany, and Japan. Just as the New England Patriots get the best players they can, we should do the same. Let’s choose who gets to join our nation rather than let others decide by sneaking in or citing family relations.”

Consider Trump’s sloppy argument. Mexico doesn’t send its people, but let’s ignore that claim. He didn’t say that they have a disproportionate number of rapists, drug dealers, and people with problems, but let us pretend he did in order to evaluate the corporate assault.   

First, consider drug dealing. The Pew Hispanic Center study found that in 2007 Hispanic illegal aliens were 5% of the population, but 25% of federal drug offenders. In general, Hispanics, and Mexicans in particular, are more likely involved in crime than whites but not blacks. According to a study by Jason Richwine using 2006-2008 data, compared to whites, Hispanics (immigrant and U.S. born) are 80% -150% (depending on the data source) more likely to be imprisoned than non-Hispanic whites. I should mention Ron Unz’s interesting, but I think unsuccessful, challenge to Richwine’s analysis is worth considering.   

Hispanic criminality is relevant to the immigration discussion. According to a 2007 study by the Sentencing Project, 20% of state and federal prisoners are Hispanic and 1 in 6 Hispanic males can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. Trump’s courage in discussing this is in sharp contrast to cowards such as Clinton and Bush.

Data on the ethnicity of rapists is hard to come by because the Bureau of Justice Statistics does not keep data on what percentage of rapists are Hispanic. The Center for Control and Prevention report that in the U.S., Hispanic women are less likely than white women to be raped, although Hispanic men are more likely than white men to be raped. Mexico’s reported rate of rape is less than that of the U.S., although it is unclear whether this is because Mexican women are less likely to report it. On rape, then, Trump might well be wrong.

It is worth noting that Bill Clinton waived criminal background checks on hundreds of thousands of immigrants as a way of getting a large number of new voters right before his second election. Clinton’s sleazy move undoubtedly brought about many unnecessary rapes and murders in America.

Barack Obama implemented one blatantly illegal amnesty and recently tried to implement a much larger one. His administration cut back on deportations of illegal aliens (despite lies to the contrary) and recently sharply cut back on monitoring worksites for hiring them. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush backed driver licenses and in-state college tuition for illegal aliens as well as promising not to immediately reverse Obama’s executive amnesties. Candidate Hillary Clinton can be counted on to do the same.

Predictably, NBC, Univision, Macy’s, de Blasio, and NASCAR say nothing about any of this, it’s a serious discussion of immigration that puts their panties in a twist.

25 June 2015

Police, Drugs, and Shame

Stephen Kershnar
The Police Should Feel Ashamed When They Arrest People for Drugs
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
June 23, 2015

Recently, there was a significant drug bust in Dunkirk. Earlier, there were the usual stream of SUNY-Fredonia students being ticketed or arrested for marijuana. At issue is whether the police, prosecutors, and related officials should feel ashamed at what they’re doing.   

Two weeks ago, The Observer reports that six Dunkirk homes were raided in an attempt to prevent people from distributing and using cocaine and heroin. A smorgasbord of agencies were involved in planning or carrying out the raid the houses including the Drug Enforcement Administration, Southern Tier Drug Task Force, Chautauqua County Sheriff’s Office, Dunkirk Police Department, Fredonia Police Department, and county SWAT team. Six Dunkirk and four Buffalo residents were arrested. Money was obviously dumped into this effort.

SUNY-Fredonia’s paper, The Leader, reported that in one weekend at Fredonia State, eight students were arrested or ticketed for marijuana. Such tickets and arrests are a staple of college life at Fredonia.

Drug laws trample liberty. A free country leaves people alone. More specifically, a free country leaves people alone when they are not engaging in force, fraud, or theft. The idea that people should be left alone explains familiar rights, such as the rights of free speech, religion, association, property, gun ownership, and so on.

Philosophers differ as to why the state should leave people alone. John Stuart Mill argued that the state should leave us alone because it almost always makes our lives go worse when it interferes with them. John Locke argued that people should be left alone because such interference fails to respect the fact that they, and not their government, own their bodies and labor. Robert Nozick argued that such interference is wrong because people have a basic moral right to shape their lives according to their own vision, even if the government has a different vision.   

The right to be left alone doesn’t depend on whether someone is doing something that is good for him or his neighbors. It protects those who want to have an open marriage, drink copious amounts of alcohol, eat so much they become obese, get garish tattoos, or join the Westboro Baptist Church regardless of whether these choices are wise or whether they create the sort of community favored by mothers of young children. 

Part of being left alone is the right to put what you want in your body, whether it be tattoos, penises, or gallons of soda. This applies to drugs. No one seriously believes that the occasional use of some drugs (for example, marijuana) is very bad for you, but even if it were, the right to be left alone protects it anyway. Alcohol prohibition and drug laws don’t leave people alone. Instead, they treat adults as undeserving of control over what goes in their body and thus like children.   

There might be an exception to the right to be left alone for certain types of public goods. These are things that benefit nearly everyone and for which it is impractical to make people pay for their individual use of it. Examples include clean air, national security, and roads. This clearly doesn’t apply to drug and alcohol prohibition as it doesn’t benefit everyone. Also, people can have a drug-or-alcohol free life regardless of what others do and, hence, can individually pay for the benefit.  

Enter the police. In our system, the legislative and executive branches get to decide what acts are illegal and when they should be pursued. The police’s job is to do what higher ranking officials tell them to do. They don’t make the law, they just enforce it. Still, they should feel ashamed when their job requires them to trample on people’s liberty. My guess is that plenty do.  

By analogy, consider the police who had the unenviable task of enforcing alcohol prohibition knowing full well that in most cases alcohol consumption was harmless fun and, in any case, part of American freedom. They must have felt disgusted about what they were doing. If they didn’t, they should have. The same is true of those who got assigned to crack down on gay bars in New York City (see, for example, the Stonewall riots). Similar feelings should have been present in police who got stuck with the job of arresting people for buying or selling raw milk in the last decade, interracial sex and marriage in the 1960’s, or speaking out against World War I.   

The police’s feeling ashamed at what they do is not unique. Airmen who conducted Bill Clinton’s illegal war in Serbia might not have wanted to throw their career away, but knew or should have known that they were engaging in an illegal war (no declaration of war and no Congressional approval or funding). The same is true today for immigration and naturalization officials stuck with implementing Barack Obama’s blatantly illegal amnesty for illegal aliens. The assignment of morally distasteful tasks is true for many jobs, but it’s just more obvious when the distasteful task involves trampling on liberty.  

The drug prohibition crowd might try to defend what the police are doing by arguing that drugs are not something that free people should be allowed to use unless they get permission from a doctor, nurse-practitioner, or pharmacist. They might argue this because drugs are addictive, flow to children, or make people vicious. The same is true for alcohol and no adult thinker wants the U.S. to prohibit it again. More importantly, this defense involves a misunderstanding of liberty. There are less restrictive ways to prevent addicts from committing crimes or people selling drugs to children than a blanket ban on drugs and liberty always favors these less restrictive ways. By analogy, drunk driving can be prevented without criminalizing alcohol.

The drug prohibition crowd might argue that it is the police’s job to stop people from using drugs and, in the past, alcohol. I agree. I’m merely arguing that they should feel discomfort, if not shame, when doing so.  

10 June 2015

Spousal Hiring in Academia: Hiring in part on whom you're sleeping with

Stephen Kershnar
Spousal Hires in Academia: Sparse Resources Given to Bedfellows
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
June 8, 2015

There is an interesting issue as to whether universities should hire couples hire the partners of other faculty and do so without judging them better than other job candidates.   

In academia, only about a quarter of instructional faculty get plum tenure-track positions. Professors who are romantically partnered often want to find tenure-track jobs at the same university or, at least, within reasonable commuting distance. Without such positions, they have to choose between one person’s having to leave academia or a commuter marriage. This is hard on a marriage and not great for children.  

Stanford historian Londa Schiebinger et al. found this issue is central to many professors’ lives as more than a third of them have an academic partner (for example, a professor or research scientist). In some areas, the percentage is even higher. For example, 83% of women scientists are partnered with another scientist.

In response, universities increasingly hire couples. Schiebinger et al. found that while the proportion of academics who are coupled with another academic has remained constant, the hiring of couples has shot up over the last four decades, going from 3% in the 1970’s to 13% in the 2000s. One in every ten faculty is now brought in as part of a couple hire. Women in particular are focused on having their partner hired as the most common reason they give for turning down a job is the lack of a job for their partner. On a side note, SUNY-Fredonia and Buffalo have made spousal hires, the latter does so regularly.

Critics of spousal hiring argue that it brings problems. First, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Joseph Kay (an English professor writing under a pseudonym) notes that academic couples often vote as a bloc. This is a problem in that if a colleague offends one, he risks losing two votes on important issues like tenure and promotion. Second, Kay points out, there are problems with conflicts of interest. A spouse has to recuse herself in any matter specifically addressing her spouse. The concern is that information on a campus leaks like a sieve and that the ensconced spouse will too often hold a grudge or retaliate against those who voted against her spouse.  Third, Kay notes, there are landmines in spousal hiring. If a couple were to split up, an embittered former couple does not make for a happy department.

Fourth, Kay notes, affirmative action guidelines requiring people not be favored based on their personal life go out the window. As Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis points out, universities increasingly hire and give perks to people, based on whom they’re sleeping with. There is also the moral and legal issue of whether preference should be given to unmarried couples as well as married ones. There are federal and state laws against discriminating on the basis of marital status. These also go out the window. 

On the other hand, Stanford’s Schiebinger and Princeton history professor David Bell points out spousal hires are an important tool to recruit and retain the best faculty. This is likely the best argument for it, although it justifies hiring the spouses of star professors and not your standard issue professor.

Bell further argues that spousal hiring is a way to get faculty involved in the university as professors who have commuter marriages often avoid serving on committees, skip out of office hours, and regularly take unpaid leaves in order to spend more time with their spouse and children, all of which results in their having little presence on campus.

Both Schiebinger and Bell claim that spousal hiring adds to the quality of life of the professorate who get the jobs. This claim is odd in that the benefit to married professors comes at the expense of other professors not partnered up to a winner, so it is hard to see why this does anything other than make some professors’ lives go better at the expense of others. The extremely tight market for tenure-track spots makes this tradeoff unavoidable.

The real concern over spousal hiring is that it leads to professors being hired who would not have gotten the job were they not married to a winner. This is a problem given that faculty often spend 30 or more years at a university and a mediocre or worse hire results in decades of subpar teaching and inferior research. A university might judge this worthwhile if the primary spouse is a star, but often this is not the case.

I should note that Schiebinger et al. did not find a difference in productivity once one controlled for rank and gender. Bell reports a similar anecdotal finding. I find this to be implausible and in conflict with my observations, but, if correct, this merit-based objection fails. It is implausible because merit-based hiring processes tries to focus on best predictors of academic success and it is hard to see why, on average, people with less promise are as successful as those with more. By analogy, it is unsurprising that in the NFL, first round draft picks are, on average, better than those drafted later.  

In other areas that we care about (for example, Presidential cabinet and Fortune 500 executive boards), we would be wary of someone hired in part based on whom he married to. It is unclear why academia shouldn’t be wary for the same reason.  

There is also the issue of resource allocation. Departments or areas within a department are often given to spouses who research and teach in areas that are needed less than other areas. There is only a small chance that a secondary spouse is an expert in exactly the area or department a university most needs. Thus, each such hire is likely to result in a misallocation of university resources. This is a severe problem in those universities that do not have large faculties.   

In the end, spousal hiring should probably be used as tool to recruit and retain star faculty. It is a way to pay them more. Resource allocation and, perhaps, merit argue against it being a regular part of hiring.