January 13, 2014

Study: Arizona's law against illegal immigration worked

The rage of the New York Times, which is about 8% owned by its 2008 financial savior / telecom monopolist Carlos Slim (who profits exorbitantly from phone calls by illegal immigrants home to Mexico), against the state of Arizona turns out to be empirically based: Arizona citizens had been effectively organizing to resist illegal immigration through rule of law:
Review of Economics and Statistics

Did the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act Reduce the State's Unauthorized Immigrant Population? 
Sarah Bohn
Public Policy Institute of California 
Magnus Lofstrom
Public Policy Institute of California and IZA 
Steven Raphael
Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley and IZA

Abstract 
We test for an effect of Arizona's 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) on the proportion of the state population characterized as non-citizen Hispanic. We use the synthetic control method to select a group of states against which the population trends of Arizona can be compared. We document a notable and statistically significant reduction in the proportion of the Hispanic noncitizen population in Arizona. The decline observed matches the timing of LAWA's implementation, deviates from the time series for the synthetic control group, and stands out relative to the distribution of placebo estimates for other states in the nation.

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to meet the strong man of the political resistance in Arizona, state senate president Russell Pearce, before he was brought down by establishment GOP maneuvering in a 2011 recall election. At the time, the former sheriff who had been wounded a couple of times in the line of duty, reminded me of another white-haired Arizona politician. He was like John McCain, except on the side of Americans.

Today, though, I'm reminded of another white-haired security warrior turned politician: Ariel Sharon.

12 comments:

pat said...

As a follow up to your posting last week about website activity, I see that in the last week only two articles of yours have gotten more than a hundred comments. Most seem to average around sixty.

Yet in less than 12 hours Kevin D. Williamson's article today on home schooling got 1,400 comments. Williamson is good solid writer especially on economic subjects but he is not one of the NR 'stars'.

I don't have any advice for you on any substantive issue but it seems to me that you need some marketing help.

Now that you have evolved back nearer to the mainstream you might try to hook up again with National Review.

Albertosaurus

2Degrees said...

If memory serves, back in the 70's and 80's, the president and the police chief of Mexico were some of the richest dudes on the planet.

That was one of the reasons why the corruption in Mexico was so in-your-face.

Now, kleptocrats prefer to use telecommunications instead. You cannot set up that type of business unless you have the right political connections.

So it's a less brazen way to milk the system. But Mexico really has't changed.

Isn't Thaksin in Thailand a "self-made" telecom gazillionaire. Don't make me laugh.

Geoff Matthews said...

Like Steve, I'm a bit amazed that, given we have 10+ million illegal aliens in the US, and given that we have unemployment ~7% (official), and given that wages are stagnating, I cannot understand the notion that we need more immigrants in the country.
If you cared about US citizens.

agnostic said...

The Southwest shall rise again.

Whiskey said...

The careers of Pearce, Tancredo etc shows Americans do not care about America. It was abolished and no one cared. No one will reward immigration restriction.

Matthew said...

Of course it worked. That's why the elite shit their pants every time one of these laws comes close to passage - their whole argument is that enforcing our immigration laws is well-nigh impossible. Can't have any simple little measures enacted that prove them wrong, can we?

They pull out all the stops to keep these laws from ever being enforced. Hell, in Colorado a few years ago the state supreme court actually kept one such bill off the ballot, under the bullshit claim that it 'addressed more than one issue' (a no-no), because - get this - the initiative's proponents claimed that enforcing laws against illegal immigration (Issue #1) would save the state money (Issue #2).

J Ro said...

I thought Israel was evil and devious though? I'm confused.

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

The careers of Pearce, Tancredo etc shows Americans do not care about America. It was abolished and no one cared."

Well, you don't seem to care, but don't project that off on the rest of us.

Justin said...

Pearce, a Mormon, was in fact brought down by the local Mormon power structure. The Mormon establishment is powerfully pro-immigration.

Anonymous said...

The careers of Pearce, Tancredo etc shows Americans do not care about America. It was abolished and no one cared. No one will reward immigration restriction.

And it doesn't help that people of your persuasion do everything they can to destroy the Tancredos of this nation in the media. The news coverage of anyone advocating reducing immigration is so biased against them that your average American is disinclined to support them.

Media image plays a huge roll in a candidate's success, and most people want to go with a winner. Even the knowledgeable voters make mental calculations and often don't go with a candidate they might agree with if they think he is too long a shot to win. That's why every four years people will bitch about their two party choices, and then end up pulling the lever for the "D" or "R" even though a third party guy is a better fit.

If knowledgeable voters end up not supporting candidates, whose views mirror theirs, because they have no shot of winning, what chance does a Tancredo have with the general public when the media has placed him outside the mainstream?

fnn said...

The careers of Pearce, Tancredo etc shows Americans do not care about America. It was abolished and no one cared."

An illusion created by the archaic first-the-post voting system used in the US. Nationalists in Europe cause widespread panic in the media on both sides of the Atlantic when they get vote percentages in the single digits. Tancredo gets 37% running for Gov of Colorado running on the Constitution Party ticket and he's dismissed as a loser.

DW Budd said...

fnn said"

The careers of Pearce, Tancredo etc shows Americans do not care about America. It was abolished and no one cared."

An illusion created by the archaic first-the-post voting system used in the US. Nationalists in Europe cause widespread panic in the media on both sides of the Atlantic when they get vote percentages in the single digits. Tancredo gets 37% running for Gov of Colorado running on the Constitution Party ticket and he's dismissed as a loser.


Precisely.

I live in France, and here, the so-called minor parties have a real influence on the discussion. Currently, the country is mired in a very tepid economic "recovery" (the current president, who has become known as Le Naufrage (the shipwreck) in many papers) promised to change the courbe (curve) of unemployment by end 2013, which did not happen); the socialists are in real trouble, and the "conservative" UMP are not really offering anything much different.

So you see other groups - especially the FN (Front National) - being seen as a real threat.

The press, the politicians, the 'respectable' people, well; they cannot have this.

So there is an all-out noise campaign going on.