TheAgitator.com
El Paso’s Little Miracle
Monday, July 6th, 2009I mentioned it on Twitter, but I forgot to post it here: I’m now writing a weekly criminal justice column for the Reason website.
The inaugural column is up now. It’s on what I think is a fascinating little story: The city of El Paso has a huge population of illegal immigrants, lax gun control laws, high poverty levels, and is right across the border from one of the most violent cities in the world.
Yet last year, there were just 18 murders in El Paso, an incredibly small number for a city its size. Over the last decade, El Paso has had the second or third lowest violent crime rate of any large city in America. The kicker: Immigration may actually be the reason the city is so safe.
Very interesting, Radley. Good job for a first column. Best of luck keeping the quality as high for those future columns!
Interesting. One sort of disingenuous bit, though: you wrote
“You don’t see “Latinos Need Not Apply” or “No Mexicans” signs posted on public buildings the way you did with the Italians and the Irish, two groups who actually were disproportionately likely to turn to crime.”
That would be because of the Civil Rights Act and attendant court rulings, i.e. because doing so would not be legal in this day and age; it doesn’t tell us anything about public perceptions…
Thanks for telling your readers what us locals have known for years–El Paso is a very safe place. My experience is that the further one gets from the actual border, the less rational debate one hears regarding immigration (legal or otherwise). People living hundreds of miles from Mexico are all too quick to decry the (claimed) negative impact of those Scary Brown People, but it’s just not the reality here.
The vast majority of Mexican immigrants–like all immigrants–come here to work and make a better life for their families, not do crimes or live “on the dole”. They’re also VERY family-oriented, generally much more so than us gringos. EP’s a great place to live and thanks, Radley, for shining light
This is going to be interesting. I imagine this is the sort of column that’s going to upset a bunch of your regular readers.
Up to now, I’ve imagined that the average libertarian reader here is basically a conservative Republican with enough sense to be too embarrassed to self-identify as a Republican in the Bush-Palin era.
So here’s a great opportunity for me to shed some earlier misconceptions, if in fact they turn out to be misconceptions. If this thread doesn’t get buried in angry anti-immigrant hogwash, I will very happily revise my earlier impressions.
I thought Libertarians (big L) were for open borders? Why would this article upset them?
What that can’t be right! By definition those icky brown people are criminals…they broke the law coming here….
Aww crap, I just can’t keep that nonsense up past two sentences.
Carne asada anyone?
From the article:
“El Paso also has some of the laxer gun control policies of any non-Texan big city in the country”
Isn’t El Paso in TX? Or did I wake up in a different reality today. After all the beer I drank yesterday, it could be possible. :)
“I’ve imagined that the average libertarian reader here is basically a conservative Republican with enough sense to be too embarrassed to self-identify as a Republican in the Bush-Palin era”
You have quite the active imagination! I voted Democrat until about 1996.
There’d be even less murders if it wasn’t for Roses Cantina. ;)
Radley, you forgot to mention that El Pasoans are blessed to have Lithium in our water!
Laertes, conservative Republicans (like a lot of loyal Democrats) tend to think the government’s job is mold society into a reflection of their own personal morality. You will find a few folks here who reflexively defend Republicans, but most are actually quite liberal.
Milton Friedman described himself as a liberal and I find that most libertarians are more liberal than most Democrats. I think people often confuse “liberal” with “leftist.”
The canard about “No Irish Need Apply” signs is a little tired. See http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm
@Laertes: Your lack of imagination betrays you. Libertarians are (almost) uniformly in favor of open borders (with regard to people and things). These effects in El Paso are irrelevant to the justification, in any event (people should be free to travel and live where they choose; those who are criminals will be apprehended and punished in any event).
@qwints: They are; it won’t. He’s being uncharitable and is wrong.
I went to high school in a town in west Texas. There were no black people. Just a mix of about 50/50 between “Mexicans” and “whites”. (both groups used those terms at that time, probably still do)
Seems like the whites got into more trouble than the Mexicans did. Possibly because they could afford to as compared to the Mexicans.
El Paso is pretty poor, maybe they are too busy trying to make a living to get into trouble.
Of course libertarians (large or small L) are for open borders. The basic libertarian philosophy is minimal government interference in all aspects of life. It’s called freedom, people. Embrace it.
As for the statement that Repubs just want to mold society into their own perception of their own personal philosophy, I can’t imagine where that came from. Besides the libertarians, what political party does that statement not apply to? Wait, include the libertarians as well! What does that even mean?
qwintz: “I thought Libertarians (big L) were for open borders? Why would this article upset them?”
It wouldn’t upset real Libertarians. That’s why it makes such a worthwhile (to me) test case. I think a lot of the alleged Libertarians here are just wingnuts in Libertarian drag. This column will sort the former from the latter pretty cleanly, and I pleasantly surprised so far by the results. Based on the first dozen or so people to show up, it looks like I have been underestimating this crowd.
I remember from geology class that the Franklin Mountains contain some kind of natural lithium containing rock. Rain water runs down the mountains, picks up some lithium, and ends up in El Paso’s water supply. I would speculate that El Paso’s rate of mental illness is also very low. Juarez must get their water elsewhere.
Out of curiosity, I compared the crime stats of several Texas border towns against my hometown of Corpus Christi, TX at bestplaces.net.
The results were pretty interesting.
Corpus Christi has a violent crime rating of 6 and a property crime rating of 7; of the border towns I checked (Brownsville, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, El Paso, Harlingen, Laredo, McAllen), only Brownsville and El Paso matched the violent crime rate – all others were lower. Only McAllen matched Corpus Christi’s property crime rate – all other towns were lower.
As far as the other cities in Texas (Austin, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio), their crimes rates are either equal to or higher than Corpus Christi’s.
Oh, and Ben #9: As a Marty Robbins fan, that got a +1 from me.
There was another Balko column some months back, one that would divide wingnuts-in-libertarian-drag from Real Libertarians, and I remember the crowd largely coming down on the wingnut side, and giving Balko a real beating in comments.
That’s when I formed my impression that this was a pretty conventionally Republican crowd. I’m trying now to remember which column that might’ve been.
As for the statement that Repubs just want to mold society into their own perception of their own personal philosophy, I can’t imagine where that came from. Besides the libertarians, what political party does that statement not apply to? Wait, include the libertarians as well! What does that even mean?
Actually, I said they (Republicans and Democrats) want to “mold society into a reflection of their own personal morality.” It means that because they don’t use cocaine, they think it should be illegal to do so. Most of them aren’t homosexual, so they think homosexuals shouldn’t have all the rights of heterosexuals. The morality they subscribe to is the morality they think everyone should subscribe to, and they often think the government should enforce that morality.
That’s what it means.
That’s nice to know. Now explain Los Angeles.
“Now explain Los Angeles.”
It’s in California. Nuff said. :)
So this is for violent crimes?
Not my experience at all living on El Paso’s west side. In 3 years my house was burgularized twice and my car stolen in the Cielo Vista Mall’s parking lot.
Don’t buy or try to have anything nice because it will be vandalized or stolen; at least you’ll be alive to tell the story I guess.
Just to play devil’s advocate here…
Isn’t it possible that instead of spreading crime, Juarez attracts it?
Why would you run the risks of criminal activity in El Paso when there’s a lawless, Wild Wild West type city right across the border?
Oh yeah, lithium! I read that _Time_ blurb for a sociology class ( here it is). It does make me wonder just how long El Paso’s crime rate has been anomalously low, and if this immigration theory applies over the past three decades.
I would point out that Portland, Oregon is similarly sized and has only a slightly higher homicide rate. But I’m pretty sure there are very few immigrants in Portland (I don’t know that… just an assumption.)
The data may not be indicative of the immigrant populations in the cities.
It may have to do with how the drug war is applied. What is the correlation between population, homicide, and arrests for small amounts of drugs? I would expect to see that in a jurisdiction that hunts it’s citizens for mickey mouse drug arrests, you’ll see a corresponding spike in homicides.
Cases in point:
St. Louis, Missouri. population 348,197. 40 homicides / 100,000
Seattle, Washington. population 585,118. 4 homicides / 100,000
What’s Seattle doing right?
Considerably more research needs to be done.
@Bob: What Seattle is doing right is it doesn’t have two things that St. Louis does: (a) a large black community; and (b) a white-dominated police force that doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot to protect the members of (a) from criminals. I’d guess the same sort of dynamic explains Los Angeles.
Once you’ve decided that crime is not a social problem but a military one (”war on crime” anyone?) and then you have a police force largely made up of a single ethnic group (and a group in police that rallies around even its bad apples), then you’re going to get a siege mentality where they “protect their own” to the detriment of civil society as a whole.
Interesting column–not sure about the conclusions. As a centrist of sorts with what I consider libertarian leanings, I’ve never been clear on the Libertarian position regarding immigration and borders–would you allow total freedom in terms of immigration? Everyone is welcome? If so, wouldn’t you expect the U.S. to necessarily or at least probably become more like Mexico–there by adopting more of Mexico’s problems? I don’t see how it couldn’t. I can see how it’s an honorable, consistent position to take, but wouldn’t it be to the detriment of our country?
I’ll one up ya one Radley, not only is El Paso safe, but they discipline their police when they screw up as opposed to making excuses for bad behavior. The police officer who arrested a reporter was demoted for a use of force incident NOT related to the arrest, so his life can still get more interesting.
http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=10313722
EL PASO, Texas — A police sergeant who was involved in a confrontation with an ABC-7 news crew has been demoted. The demotion of Raul Ramirez is for use of force in a matter that has nothing to do with the incident on I-10 two weeks ago in which reporter Darren Hunt and photographer Ric Dupont were arrested.
It seems “lax gun laws” are usually an indicator of less crime, not more. Look at LA, DC and Chicago where firearms are banned but firearm crime is common. I don’t understand listing firearm accessibility as a cause of crime or violence in the column.
I do want to object to your wording. I feel like saying gun laws are lax implies that they are insufficient. Otherwise, good point.
I think the El Paso Swat team have done a great job keeping the city safe.
It’s only just they be rewarded with a few decommissioned nuclear weapons to help keep the peace.
chasing down these loose ends is going to keep me from having a productive day…
If so, wouldn’t you expect the U.S. to necessarily or at least probably become more like Mexico–there by adopting more of Mexico’s problems? I don’t see how it couldn’t. I can see how it’s an honorable, consistent position to take, but wouldn’t it be to the detriment of our country?
This assumption (which is demonstrably false) has been in action for over 200 years. Ben Franklin (one of my favorite Founding Fathers) said it about the Germans. Then it was the Irish and the Italians a hundred years later. No one thinks it was a mistake to let those folks in, because it wasn’t. And there’s no evidence that Mexicans are going to be any different.