Peace Candidate Donald Trump Threatens Massive Retaliation Against Iran in Response to Rumored Assassination Plot

reason-trump7

President Donald Trump threatened massive retaliation against Iran for an attack that country’s government is allegedly planning as retaliation for the United States’ drone-strike slaying of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January.

“According to press reports, Iran may be planning an assassination, or other attack, against the United States in retaliation for the killing of terrorist leader Soleimani,” Trump said in a late-night tweet on Monday. “Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!”

The press reports cited by the president appear to be a reference to a Sunday Politico article which reported Iran was weighing the assassination of a U.S. diplomat in South Africa. That article in turn cited two unnamed intelligence officials who said Lana Marks, America’s ambassador to that country, could be the target.

The president repeated his warning to Iran during an interview on Fox and Friends Tuesday morning, saying “We’re all set…They’ll be hit a thousand times harder.”

Intelligence officials claim they’ve been aware of the alleged Iranian plot to kill Marks since Spring, but have recently discovered more specific information about it, reports Politico.

The Trump administration’s decision to kill Soleimani in January prompted the Iranian government to respond with a missile strike against bases in Iraq that injured several U.S. service members.

“We hope that they do not make a new strategic mistake,” said an Iranian government spokesperson on Tuesday in response to Trump’s tweet, reports Al Jazeera, adding that any such mistake “will witness Iran’s decisive response.”

Trump’s threats against Iran continue the president’s oscillation, in word and deed, between a peacemaker who says he wants to wrap up America’s endless wars and a bellicose leader willing to ratchet up international tensions.

Last week, U.S. Gen. Frank McKenzie confirmed prior reports that the U.S. plans to cut its troop presence in Iraq from 5,000 to 3,200. The Wall Street Journal reports that would reduce our military footprint in the country to where it was in 2015. The Trump administration also plans to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to 4,500 by late October, about half the number that was in the country when Trump took office.

Also last week, the president renewed the national emergency first issued by President George W. Bush in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. That move received a sharp rebuke from Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.).

Trump has also fended off efforts to limit his power in other Middle Eastern engagements, including vetoing a resolution that would have cut off U.S. support to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen last year. His administration has also ramped up America’s drone war in Somalia, conducting 40 strikes there compared to Obama and Bush’s combined 41, according to Airwars.

On Tuesday, news also broke that Trump had wanted to assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but had been talked out of it by his military advisors. The president has twice before attacked Syrian government facilities in response to that country’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people.

The disjointed nature of Trump’s first term—bringing troops home from some conflicts, continuing or even increasing our involvement in others, all while playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with Iran—allows the president and his defenders to sell whatever narrative they want about his foreign policy.

At the Republican National Convention (RNC) earlier this month Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) celebrated Trump for being willing to kill terrorists abroad and tear up the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. In contrast, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) used his convention speech to praise Trump for knowing “we are strongest when we fight hardest, not in distant deserts, but for our fellow Americans.”

Trump’s own RNC remarks embody that same dissonance. In the space of three sentences, the president bragged about killing Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, keeping America out of new wars, and increasing military spending.

The president’s constant molting—from dove to hawk and back again—still ultimately leaves him less inclined toward intervention than his immediate predecessors. His mixed record on war, and willingness to tweet out serious threats against Iran, disqualify him from being anything close to a peace candidate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kpmt75
via IFTTT

Cuties and Its Critics Both Decry the Sexualization of Children

Cuties-still-Netflix

The last time I commented on Cuties, the controversial French film on Netflix that portrays 11-year-old girls who practice and perform raunchy routines for a dance competition, I was condemned as a “pedo,” a “perv,” a “sick individual,” a “demon,” and “an enemy of the people.” And that was just for pointing out that Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) was misinterpreting the federal ban on child pornography by suggesting that it applied to the film. At the risk of inviting further abuse from people who have not actually watched the movie, I think it’s worth noting that some complaints about it, even from less rabid critics, are seriously misplaced.

Cuties not only does not fit the legal definition of child pornography; it is not the least bit salacious. To the contrary (spoiler alert), its clear message is that the protagonist and her friends are confused and engaging in age-inappropriate behavior. The audience at the dance competition is visibly and audibly appalled by their twerking, and the central character, Amy, tearfully realizes in the midst of the performance that she is trying to grow up too fast and has been too quick to reject the culture and values of her family, Muslim immigrants from Senegal. She runs home, hugs her mother, and changes out of her skimpy outfit. The last image in the film is Amy joyfully jumping rope with kids in her neighborhood, an unmistakable clue that she has decided to remain a child rather than aping the risqué behavior of the adult performers she sees on social media.

In short, Cuties does not promote dirty dancing by 11-year-olds or present it as liberating for Amy once the initial thrill of defying her family’s authority is gone. Her involvement with the dance troupe causes serious problems and anguish, which ultimately lead her to change course. All of this is consistent with director Maïmouna Doucouré’s avowed intent and with Netflix’s description of Cuties as “a social commentary against the sexualization of young children.” After watching the movie, my wife, a rabbi, said she could see using it with parents and older teenagers as part of a lesson in the challenges of growing up in a hypersexualized society without clear and consistent adult guidance.

As the father of three daughters, I have long been disturbed by the cultural tendencies that both Cuties and its critics decry, which extend to creepy beauty pageants featuring prepubescent children as well as the more explicitly sexual dance moves portrayed in the film. I don’t want my kids to dance that way, and I would not let them watch a movie like this until they were mature enough to understand the issues it deals with. At the same time, it is hard to imagine a serious cinematic treatment of the subject that does not at some point show what that sort of behavior entails.

I understand and sympathize with the concerns of people who think it is always wrong to have children perform dance routines like these, even in the context of a film that portrays such behavior as deeply troubling. I am less impressed by the argument that people who are sexually attracted to children will like the film, a sort of pedophile’s veto that would put the kibosh to many worthwhile movies. Whatever your take on Cuties, the idea that no one should be allowed to see it, which is the implication of Cruz’s argument, is plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment, which requires tolerating all manner of controversial speech, no matter how much vituperation it provokes on Twitter.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32A7v8y
via IFTTT

Peace Candidate Donald Trump Threatens Massive Retaliation Against Iran in Response to Rumored Assassination Plot

reason-trump7

President Donald Trump threatened massive retaliation against Iran for an attack that country’s government is allegedly planning as retaliation for the United States’ drone-strike slaying of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January.

“According to press reports, Iran may be planning an assassination, or other attack, against the United States in retaliation for the killing of terrorist leader Soleimani,” Trump said in a late-night tweet on Monday. “Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!”

The press reports cited by the president appear to be a reference to a Sunday Politico article which reported Iran was weighing the assassination of a U.S. diplomat in South Africa. That article in turn cited two unnamed intelligence officials who said Lana Marks, America’s ambassador to that country, could be the target.

The president repeated his warning to Iran during an interview on Fox and Friends Tuesday morning, saying “We’re all set…They’ll be hit a thousand times harder.”

Intelligence officials claim they’ve been aware of the alleged Iranian plot to kill Marks since Spring, but have recently discovered more specific information about it, reports Politico.

The Trump administration’s decision to kill Soleimani in January prompted the Iranian government to respond with a missile strike against bases in Iraq that injured several U.S. service members.

“We hope that they do not make a new strategic mistake,” said an Iranian government spokesperson on Tuesday in response to Trump’s tweet, reports Al Jazeera, adding that any such mistake “will witness Iran’s decisive response.”

Trump’s threats against Iran continue the president’s oscillation, in word and deed, between a peacemaker who says he wants to wrap up America’s endless wars and a bellicose leader willing to ratchet up international tensions.

Last week, U.S. Gen. Frank McKenzie confirmed prior reports that the U.S. plans to cut its troop presence in Iraq from 5,000 to 3,200. The Wall Street Journal reports that would reduce our military footprint in the country to where it was in 2015. The Trump administration also plans to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to 4,500 by late October, about half the number that was in the country when Trump took office.

Also last week, the president renewed the national emergency first issued by President George W. Bush in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. That move received a sharp rebuke from Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.).

Trump has also fended off efforts to limit his power in other Middle Eastern engagements, including vetoing a resolution that would have cut off U.S. support to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen last year. His administration has also ramped up America’s drone war in Somalia, conducting 40 strikes there compared to Obama and Bush’s combined 41, according to Airwars.

On Tuesday, news also broke that Trump had wanted to assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but had been talked out of it by his military advisors. The president has twice before attacked Syrian government facilities in response to that country’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people.

The disjointed nature of Trump’s first term—bringing troops home from some conflicts, continuing or even increasing our involvement in others, all while playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with Iran—allows the president and his defenders to sell whatever narrative they want about his foreign policy.

At the Republican National Convention (RNC) earlier this month Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) celebrated Trump for being willing to kill terrorists abroad and tear up the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. In contrast, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) used his convention speech to praise Trump for knowing “we are strongest when we fight hardest, not in distant deserts, but for our fellow Americans.”

Trump’s own RNC remarks embody that same dissonance. In the space of three sentences, the president bragged about killing Soleimani and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, keeping America out of new wars, and increasing military spending.

The president’s constant molting—from dove to hawk and back again—still ultimately leaves him less inclined toward intervention than his immediate predecessors. His mixed record on war, and willingness to tweet out serious threats against Iran, disqualify him from being anything close to a peace candidate.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kpmt75
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania Reminds Parents That Leaning Pods Must Have an Evacuation Plan

dreamstime_xxl_111483092

Pennsylvania parents thinking of starting a learning pod for their children should prepare to jump through quite a few bureaucratic hoops.

The state Department of Human Services’ Office of Child Development and Early Learning announced on August 26—the day school was set to begin—that families with kids attending public school cannot form a learning pod of six or more unrelated students unless the parents do all of the following:

1. Develop a COVID-19 health and safety plan that aligns with with state and CDC guidelines.

2. Develop an evacuation plan in the event of an emergency.

3. Check with local zoning zoning ordinances in case residential childcare is prohibited.

4. Ensure that every space where the pod gathers has a functional fire detection system.

5. Ensure compliance with child protective services, and make sure anyone working with or supervising children undergoes a background check.

6. Make clear to all adults in the pod who supervise children that they are mandatory child abuse reporters and must alert the authorities if they suspect anything is amiss.

7.  Fill out the department’s online forms, which state that in the event of an investigation, parents must “provide access to DHS personnel who arrive at the service location and present a Commonwealth-issued ID badge.”

Surely it’s a snap for you to develop a health and safety plan aligned with CDC guidelines? Here they are. Note, for instance, on page 10, that if one of the kids tests positive for COVID-19, your job would then be to “determine if, when, and for how long part or all of a school should be closed.” K-12 administrators can also refer to CDC’s Interim Considerations for K-12 for School Administrators for SARS-CoV-2 Testing, which provides additional information about viral diagnostic testing. See? A snap!

Intriguingly, these newly sprouted regulations apply only to learning pods. As Theresa O’Brien, mom of an eighth grader in Bethlehem Township, tells Reason, “My daughter can have five friends over for a sleepover without my being fingerprinted and federally background-checked. I also don’t have to provide her friends’ parents with an evacuation plan or notify the state government that non-relatives are in my house overnight.” Nor would O’Brien be compelled to open her home to a government official who arrived without a warrant—but with his work ID—if she was just hosting Thanksgiving dinner.

The pod rules don’t apply to homeschoolers, either. But in reality, it’s the parents who had hoped to send the kids to school this year who need pods the most, and they’re the ones getting walloped by these regulations. For instance, in O’Brien’s district, the schools had announced they would be opening this fall, full time, five days a week, for kindergarten through fifth grade. But then, sometime in mid-summer, the plans changed and now the schools are offering students a two-day-a-week plan, or an all-virtual option.

When you’ve suddenly got your kids home for three or five days a week, you scramble to make something work. But while “well-off families may have the resources and time to comply with the regulations, or limit the pod,” says Corey DeAngelis, director of school choice for the Reason Foundation, those less flush may need six or more parents to share the cost of a tutor.

Speaking of cost, the required background checks are $52, says O’Brien. After calling around, she discovered that most of the places that perform these checks are closed—for COVID-19.

My guess is that the majority of pod people will claim to be party people who are just inviting six to 12 kids over for fun and snacks. If they happen to learn some algebra along the way, so be it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3klMDaS
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania Reminds Parents That Leaning Pods Must Have an Evacuation Plan

dreamstime_xxl_111483092

Pennsylvania parents thinking of starting a learning pod for their children should prepare to jump through quite a few bureaucratic hoops.

The state Department of Human Services’ Office of Child Development and Early Learning announced on August 26—the day school was set to begin—that families with kids attending public school cannot form a learning pod of six or more unrelated students unless the parents do all of the following:

1. Develop a COVID-19 health and safety plan that aligns with with state and CDC guidelines.

2. Develop an evacuation plan in the event of an emergency.

3. Check with local zoning zoning ordinances in case residential childcare is prohibited.

4. Ensure that every space where the pod gathers has a functional fire detection system.

5. Ensure compliance with child protective services, and make sure anyone working with or supervising children undergoes a background check.

6. Make clear to all adults in the pod who supervise children that they are mandatory child abuse reporters and must alert the authorities if they suspect anything is amiss.

7.  Fill out the department’s online forms, which state that in the event of an investigation, parents must “provide access to DHS personnel who arrive at the service location and present a Commonwealth-issued ID badge.”

Surely it’s a snap for you to develop a health and safety plan aligned with CDC guidelines? Here they are. Note, for instance, on page 10, that if one of the kids tests positive for COVID-19, your job would then be to “determine if, when, and for how long part or all of a school should be closed.” K-12 administrators can also refer to CDC’s Interim Considerations for K-12 for School Administrators for SARS-CoV-2 Testing, which provides additional information about viral diagnostic testing. See? A snap!

Intriguingly, these newly sprouted regulations apply only to learning pods. As Theresa O’Brien, mom of an eighth grader in Bethlehem Township, tells Reason, “My daughter can have five friends over for a sleepover without my being fingerprinted and federally background-checked. I also don’t have to provide her friends’ parents with an evacuation plan or notify the state government that non-relatives are in my house overnight.” Nor would O’Brien be compelled to open her home to a government official who arrived without a warrant—but with his work ID—if she was just hosting Thanksgiving dinner.

The pod rules don’t apply to homeschoolers, either. But in reality, it’s the parents who had hoped to send the kids to school this year who need pods the most, and they’re the ones getting walloped by these regulations. For instance, in O’Brien’s district, the schools had announced they would be opening this fall, full time, five days a week, for kindergarten through fifth grade. But then, sometime in mid-summer, the plans changed and now the schools are offering students a two-day-a-week plan, or an all-virtual option.

When you’ve suddenly got your kids home for three or five days a week, you scramble to make something work. But while “well-off families may have the resources and time to comply with the regulations, or limit the pod,” says Corey DeAngelis, director of school choice for the Reason Foundation, those less flush may need six or more parents to share the cost of a tutor.

Speaking of cost, the required background checks are $52, says O’Brien. After calling around, she discovered that most of the places that perform these checks are closed—for COVID-19.

My guess is that the majority of pod people will claim to be party people who are just inviting six to 12 kids over for fun and snacks. If they happen to learn some algebra along the way, so be it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3klMDaS
via IFTTT

Should Congress Establish an Electoral Commission to Handle Disputes over the 2020 Presidential Election?

Votingbooth

It’s no secret that, if the presidential election turns out to be close, there might be serious disputes over who actually win. President Trump has repeatedly suggested he might not accept an election result that goes against him, claiming that any such defeat would be the result of fraud. Many Democrats might at the very least be deeply suspicious of any close win for Trump. Add in the reality that increased mail-in voting might mean that the results will remain unclear for a long time after election day, and there is the potential for a serious crisis over disputed election results. In an insightful recent LA Times op ed, Yale Law School Prof. Bruce Ackerman and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, describe the potential dangers, and propose a possible solution:

President Trump’s claim that only “a rigged election” will yield a Democratic victory poses the risk of a constitutional crisis far beyond anything Americans witnessed in Bush vs. Gore, when the Supreme Court precipitously intervened to award the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Two decades later, the best way to confront the looming crisis is to enlist the Supreme Court in a very different fashion — by creating a special commission, headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to oversee the disposition of any disputed state election results….

After a presidential election, when Congress reconvenes early in January, the nation’s 435 representatives and 100 senators are required to meet in the House chamber in a special joint session. The Constitution designates the sitting vice president to preside over the proceedings — in 2021, Mike Pence will be in the chair….

Precedents established by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 would permit Pence to invalidate a particular state’s electoral returns on the grounds that the underlying vote-count was generated in an illegitimate fashion — that it was rigged.

Pence could refuse to allow the House or Senate to consider a state certificate that he found fraudulent and eliminate its electoral votes from the overall tally. That would reduce the number of electoral college votes required for a majority. If Pence used his prerogative in a partisan manner — for example, invalidating close results that favor Biden, but accepting those that favor Trump — he could mathematically upend the overall election.

If that seemed likely to happen, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could play some legal and political hardball of her own. She could refuse to hand over the gavel to the vice president when Pence arrived in the House chamber to call the special January joint session into existence. That would make it impossible for Biden or Trump to claim the authority to be sworn in as president, and according to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947… it is the speaker who is third in line if neither the president nor the vice president can serve. Pelosi could forestall a handoff of the presidency to Trump by becoming “acting” president herself.

Either of these courses of action — Pence interfering with the election results, Pelosi refusing to allow Pence to call the joint session — would provoke political chaos, street demonstrations and even violence as the nation approached “noon on the 20th day of January” — the moment when the Constitution explicitly states that term of the “current President and Vice-President shall end…”

Congress would be wise to act now to prevent the passions of January from spinning out of control.

The disputed presidential election of 1876 serves as a crucial precedent. It pitted Democrat Samuel Tilden against Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and involved contested election returns from several southern states. Rather than relying on the usual joint session, Congress delegated the job of resolving the controversies to a special commission — five Supreme Court justices, five senators and five House members….

For the 2020 election. Congress should immediately create a commission similar to the Tilden-Hayes panel. In this case, the right makeup would be five Supreme Court justices — two liberals and two conservatives, with Roberts as chairman. If the commission began monitoring the electoral process now, it could make fact-sensitive judgments on the accuracy of state vote counts come January. Pelosi and Pence should make clear their intention to abide by the decisions reached by the commission.

I am not sure Pence and Pelosi could really get away with taking the sorts of actions Ackerman and Khanna describe. But the risk of this and other kinds of skullduggery is real, as is the danger of crisis and civil unrest.

There is considerable merit to Ackerman and Khanna’s proposal for mitigating the danger. In particular, there is value to committing to an impartial dispute-resolution mechanism before the details of any election controversy become known. If there is broad, advance bipartisan agreement in Congress to abide by the decisions of the electoral commission, that would make it much more difficult for Trump—or anyone else—to refuse to accept the results. Thus, the risks of a dangerous constitutional crisis might be averted.

While the general idea here strikes me as sound, there may be some devils lurking in the details. Here are some that occur to me:

Appointing Chief Justice Roberts as chair may not be wise, given that many conservatives think he has “betrayed” them in various ways, a sentiment deepened by several votes he cast in ideologically charged cases this past term. Many on both right and left also regard him as politically shifty, and therefore might view any decision where he cast the pivotal vote with suspicion.

If the Electoral Commission must have a Supreme Court justice as chair, I tentatively propose that it be co-chaired by justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. Both have strong support from their respective sides of the political spectrum, but also at least some substantial credibility on the “other” side.

I am also wary of a Commission where all the members are Supreme Court justices. If the justices on the Commission reach a decision that is seen as wrong or illegitimate by a large part of the country, that could further politicize the Court and make it vulnerable to attacks on judicial independence. The Court’s growing popularity has given it some protection against court-packing and other possible schemes to weaken judicial review. But that popularity might erode if a commission composed exclusively of SCOTUS justices decides a disputed presidential election in the present atmosphere of severe polarization (which, as Ackerman and Khanna note, is far worse than that which existed at the time the Court decided Bush v. Gore in 2000). That said, the Court’s public image has bounced back from many previous controversies that critics claimed would erode its legitimacy (including Bush v. Gore itself), and perhaps the same thing would happen here.

Nonetheless, other things equal, I would prefer a commission that included at least some non-SCOTUS members. As Ackerman and Khanna note, the 1876 Commission include ten members of Congress alongside five Supreme Court justices. I am not sure including members of Congress would be a good idea this time around (the vast majority of them are highly partisan figures). But perhaps it might be possible to find other non-SCOTUS members with greater credibility across the political spectrum.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the 1876 election far from an entirely positive precedent. The Commission ended up splitting along partisan lines, with the eight Republicans all voting to award the 20 disputed electoral votes to GOP candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, while the seven Democrats all concluded they should go to Democratic nominee James Tilden. As a result, many Democrats never really accepted the idea that Hayes’ victory was legitimate, and they continued to denounce him as “Rutherfraud” B. Hayes.

The conventional wisdom about 1876 holds that such acceptance as Hayes did achieve was in large part bought at the price of the “Compromise of 1877,” in which Republicans agreed to ease up on pressuring the southern states to protect the civil and voting rights of African-Americans, in exchange for Democratic acquiescence to Hayes’ win. Ackerman has questioned the standard account of 1877 in  his academic work, and perhaps he is right. Still, using 1876 as a model is not without risk.

At the same time, it may be that a commission created in advance will have more credibility than one established on an ad hoc basis after a crisis has already begun. In addition, an 1876-style split along partisan lines might be avoided by requiring the commission to reach decisions based on a supermajority. For example, if there are five members, perhaps 4 of 5 will need to agree to make any binding decision.

Despite these possible reservations, I think the commission idea is a promising one, and at the very least deserves serious consideration.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35FkPu0
via IFTTT

The Myth of Europe’s Migrant Crisis

dpaphotosfour685866

This month marks the five-year anniversary of Alan Kurdi’s death in 2015. At the time, the iconic image of his beached 3-year-old body on the coasts of the Mediterranean captured (and broke) the hearts of international observers.

The dangers of refugee migration highlighted by little Alan’s corpse were in conflict with the prevailing narrative about refugees in Europe, which insisted that a then-recent mass entry of migrants, ostensibly fleeing war, terror, and extreme poverty, had unleashed crime and terror, and that the proper European reaction is not sympathy, but even stronger barriers against refugees.

To this day, leaders across Europe express fear over migrant entrants. President Donald Trump used what he called Europe’s “total mess” to justify his own immigration restrictions in the name of crisis and emergency. U.S. policy on migration, like Europe’s, caused its fair share of migrant deaths, including its own tragic versions of Alan Kurdi, by incentivizing migration via more dangerous routes and methods.

But the narrative of a migrant “crisis” in Europe that inspired those tragedies was never true. While a severe migrant uptick did occur circa 2015, the influx rapidly declined to earlier levels. As economist Bryan Caplan has noted, “total arrivals from 2014 to 2018 came to less than 1 percent of the population of the European Union (E.U.). Many European countries—most notably West Germany during the Cold War—have swiftly absorbed much larger inflows in the past.” By early 2019, the European Commission officially declared an end to the “migration crisis.”

Sifting Truth From Rumors

Europe during the migrant influx had seen its share of crimes perpetrated by migrants, such as attacks in Cologne and other German cities at the close of 2015. All at once, Europe’s New Year’s celebrations morphed into a nightmare of hundreds of mostly foreign men grabbing women and stealing from them during chaotic public gatherings. In Cologne alone, over 1,000 crimes were reported, including almost 500 sexual assaults against women. Most of the suspects were North African, including recent asylum seekers. Police were unprepared. And the police and media did not report it until public outrage forced their hand.

Other crimes and acts of terrorism around Europe in recent years have implicated immigrants, including those from the recent wave, complete with police cover-ups seeking to protect refugee suspects. The narrative that the “establishment” was trying to protect refugees’ reputations was not entirely without merit. Still, the bulk of migrant horror stories are probably untrue.

For a sense of the scope of the fake scare, visit HOAXmap, an internet project constructed in 2016 to track rumors about refugees in Germany. The map currently features 496 rumors in the country and in nearby German-speaking nations.

In early 2018, the German paper Der Spiegel ran its own study of 445 alleged refugee rapes in 10 German states, as reported on Rapefugees.net. One-third of the incidents were filtered out because they were duplicates, broken links, or law enforcement was unaware of the purported crime.

Of the remaining 291 cases, 24 claims were false, others were “less dramatic” than rape (i.e., groping) and 29 percent of cases could not be confirmed or denied. One-third (95) involved refugee suspects. Of 57 actual rape cases, 26 involved refugee suspects, with 18 cases resulting in convictions. Each incident is serious and to be condemned. But the facts don’t support fears of epidemic levels of social breakdown caused by migrants.

Unfortunately, it is easy for people to believe rumors when the rumors match already-held fears, such as the West’s historical mistrust of foreign migrants. Real horrific events like those in Cologne make it even easier to suspend skepticism about similar—but fake—cases. But the apparent chasm between truth and rumor means we need to abandon salacious anecdotes, and instead focus on hard data before presuming there is a crisis that demands a response.

There Was Never Any Migrant Crime Wave

Most studies (and alarmism) have focused on the two European nations most generous toward migrants: Germany, which welcomed the highest total number of asylum seekers, and Sweden, which took in the most migrants per capita.

Sweden

Let’s begin with Sweden. A Pew survey from mid-2016 showed 46 percent of Swedes believed “refugees in our country are more to blame for crime than other groups.”

But crime trends there remained steady or declined both before and after the migration explosion, which in Sweden actually began in 2012. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (or “Brå”) reported in 2017 that in 2015, the first year of Europe’s influx, the number of “offenses against the person” (assault, threats, sexual offenses, robbery, fraud, or harassment) was “approximately the same level as in 2005.” Brå also reports around 15,000 “reported offenses” (a more general category) per 100,000 persons from 2008 to 2019. It is hard to see any migrant-caused Swedish crime wave in these figures.

The same flat or declining trend has held for almost all specific types of crime. One exception is sex offenses, which is so complex that it deserves its own discussion. The other exceptions are fraud and drug crimes. However, these are hardly the categories of crime that concerns most migration skeptics, and, in any case, the increasing trends in both categories long predated the migrant influx.

Then there is the mysterious issue of victimization. Brå shows striking increases in the percent of people who experienced almost all “offences against an individual” from 2014 to 2018, the latest year for which data exists. This means that, although there are not significantly more crimes being reported per capita, the number of people claiming to have been victims of crimes has increased. “Threats” and “harassments” show the largest increase in percent of people claiming to be victims, far more than robbery or assault. Does this mean migrants are responsible? Probably not. With more victims for a steady number of crimes (except for sexual crimes, discussed later), it seems as if crimes are for whatever reason distributed more evenly among the population. If so, then the problem is probably not recent migrants, who tend not to live among the broader population.

Germany

The migrant wave’s effect on Germany’s crime rates had also been negligible, as revealed in a series of analyses of local police data from early 2016. For example, a “large majority” of refugees who are registered never show up in police records. Those from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are rarely in criminal statistics. In Cologne, for example, only five of 1,100 (under 0.5 percent) registered Syrians were in trouble with the police between October 2014 and November 2015.

The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) concluded in 2015 that, “on average, refugees commit as many or as few crimes as the local population.” From 2014 to 2015, the refugee population increased 440 percent, while the number of refugee crimes committed rose only 79 percent, according to the BKA. Here, there wasn’t even a correlation: While offenses increased significantly in early 2015, offenses stagnated in late 2015, precisely when “most refugees arrived in Germany.” The BKA concluded that the “vast majority of asylum-seekers [commit] no offenses.”

By 2018, although 44 percent of Germans felt less secure than they did in recent years, their government announced that crime was at a quarter-century low, while Germany’s migrant population was at a record high. As of 2019, the total number of crimes kept falling while the migrant population kept rising.

This does not mean migrants never contribute to Germany’s criminal issues. Indeed, certain immigrant areas reported significant gang problems. Moreover, North African nationals registered high criminal activity relative to the rest of the population. No doubt German law enforcement needs to take notice of these issues. But it would be a mistake to conclude from these specifics that the broader Middle Eastern migrant wave is the problem, when crime rates from certain Eastern European nationals who aren’t normally considered part of this wave are also relatively crime-prone, while nationals from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are relatively crime-free. Rather, the overall picture is clear: Migrants were not a special criminal problem in Germany.

“No-Go Zones”

No discussion of crimes and migrants in the E.U. is complete without considering the alleged “no-go zones” that anti-immigrant sources decry. These are areas where it is alleged that police are unable to enter, where sharia law displaces secular law, and where crime is rampant.

This claim has been adequately debunked with respect to Sweden, Britain, France, and the United States. Daniel Pipes, a noted critic of Islam, after the “first-hand experience” of visiting some of these areas, expressed “regret” at using the phrase, because “one can indeed ‘go’ in them.” While they can be violent, “they are unthreatening, routine places” in “normal times,” he said.

The mundane reality is that high crime areas exist in all societies, where socioeconomic development is stunted, where police and rescue personnel require special protocol, and where the reach of a nation’s legal system is limited. But focusing on national origin only serves to divert political action from real solutions. The problem of crime-riddled slums, which is really what is at issue, is not unique to migrant neighborhoods.

There Was Never Any Migrant Sex Crime Wave

“Malmo in Sweden is the rape capital of Europe due to EU migrant policies,” according to U.K. politician Nigel Farage in 2017, echoing a Fox News segment cited by Trump.

Sweden does indeed have an inflated rate of sexual assaults of all kinds. But that is a creature of statistics. According to Brå, “when a single case is reported that turns out to involve hundreds or even thousands of instances of offences committed against an individual over the course of many years, every single incident is recorded as an offence in the year it was reported.”

In other words, as sociologist Klara Selin of the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm explains, if an intimate partner is accused of rape “almost every day during the last year,” that is 300 reported offenses, not one. For this reason, “it is very difficult to say anything about the real level using reported cases,” Stockholm University criminology professor Felipe Estrada cautioned.

Brå also explains that “the number of reported rape offences has increased by 34 per cent over the last ten years (2009-2018)” because the definition of rape was legally expanded. In 2013, just before the latest European migrant wave, the definition was “expanded to include cases where the victim reacts passively.” An earlier legislative change in 2005 meant that “certain acts which were previously classified as sexual exploitation are now classified as rape.” These include sex with persons who are asleep or intoxicated.

The changing definition of rape maps much better to the data than do refugee numbers, as sociologist Philip N. Cohen of the University of Maryland notes. Indeed, Brå has more recently accounted for this by counting “serious sexual offences (such as rape)” separately. According to their most recent statistics from 2016 and 2017, serious sexual offenses remained mostly stable from 2006 to 2012, before the recent migrant wave began.

After the definitional change in 2013, no correlation can be seen between reported sex offenses and migration patterns. According to Brå, the figures zigzagged up and down from 2013 to 2016 (about 18,000 to 20,000 to 18,000 to 20,000). Meanwhile, Sweden’s migrant population steadily increased each of those years. In 2017 and 2018, the population of migrants fell, and yet total sex crime figures climbed.

For better or worse, Sweden does not collect statistical data on the ethnic or national background of criminals. However, in response to amplified calls for such collection, Brå conducted a study in 2019 of the data already available from 2005 to 2017. It concluded there was no link between refugees and sex crime. For one thing, crunching the numbers of total migrants and total sex crimes reveals that asylum seekers would have to be 83 times more likely to commit sex crimes than others. The report reasoned with enviable understatement, “such a high over-risk does not seem likely.”

Further, the report noted that there was no rise in outdoor attacks by strangers, but rather a rise in nonviolent sex crimes by perpetrators known to the victim—the opposite of what one would expect if the problem was “immigrant men wantonly attacking Swedish women.” Finally, the report could not link high-migrant municipalities with high-sex offense statistics.

One short-term study during the migrant wave is on point, however. Between November 2015 and January 2016, Swedish police tracked asylum seekers involved in police interactions. Only 1 percent of the police reports involved asylum seekers, even though they made up about 1.8 percent of the Swedish population. While acknowledging certain limitations of the data, Christopher Fariss of the University of Michigan and Kristine Eck of Uppsala University concluded, “we consider a rate of four reports of rape over 76 days for a [sic] asylum-seeking population of 180,000 as not convincing evidence of an ‘epidemic’ perpetrated by its members.”

In Germany as well, despite the nation’s crime rate being at a 26-year low in early 2018, sex crime statistics are complicated. Some figures in Germany in 2016 and ones more specifically focused on the regionof Bavaria in early 2017 showed reports of sex crimes rising significantly, with refugees’ and non-Germans’ share of the suspects increasing. On the other hand, though the BKA reported a 2 percentage point increase throughout Germany in migrant suspects as a proportion of sex crimes perpetrators from 2016 to 2017, this was followed by a stabilizing in 2018, and then a 6 percent decrease in early 2019. All this, while the immigrant population steadily increased.

In light of this sometimes-positive, sometimes-negative relationship between migrants and sex crimes in Germany, it would appear the spike in migrant sex crimes at the height of the migrant wave was a mere coincidence.

Perverse Effects of Migrant Rape Fears

The myth of the migrant rapist perversely endangers native European women, because it diverts attention and resources from the universal nature of sex crimes. For example, Sweden had a great opportunity to address sex crimes when a Swedish police report in May 2016 blamed “Nordic alcohol culture,” and toxic “masculinity.”

Even though the report was about sexual assault generally, the immigration restrictionist Breitbart London mischaracterized it as “excus[ing] migrant rape.” To be sure, the report admits (quotes via Google Translate, with minor edits), “In cases where the crimes were committed by perpetrators in larger groups in public places…the perpetrators were mostly young people seeking or having been granted asylum in Sweden.” But “offenses committed in public places…are relatively few and represent only a small percentage of the total number of crimes. The vast majority of offenders act alone.” Indeed, “the school is the public environment in which most physical sexual assaults take place, mainly between pupils.”

Unfortunately, the anti-migrant narrative prevailed in June 2016, when Swedish police wrongly attributed more than 50 cases of sexual assault at two music festivals to “foreign young men.” The statement said, “There is no doubt…about who takes these liberties.”

But a few hours later, the police admitted they misrepresented a majority of the suspects. They promptly retracted the “unfortunate” statement. Yet by then, papers across Europe were already parroting “reports of rapes by ‘migrants.'” And so, while Sweden myopically focused its energies against migrants, sexual assaults remained tragically elevated the next year at the nation’s largest music festival. Its organizers would cancel the festival the following year.

The migrant rapist scare and other anti-foreign myths, thanks to the anti-migrant policies they spawn, ironically increased the risk of sexual violence against another class of women: those trying to migrate to Europe.

The first wave of migrants to Europe in 2015 included mostly young males. Young males were at elevated risk of violence or being forced to join armed conflict. They were also more likely to survive the dangerous travel to Europe.

Meanwhile, the high price of human smugglers disincentivized women and children migrants. Instead, many of them gambled on Europe’s family reunification channels to arrive safely and cheaply the following year. So women and children came over in a second wave. In early 2016, Doctors Without Borders reported that “the demographic has completely flipped.”

But the damage was already done by the fears of migrant young men. Europe tightened its borders and family reunification pathways in response to the first wave. This kept some foreign women and children from fleeing war, crime, and sexual violence. European restrictions forced women who did leave to use less-than-ideal routes or refugee camps, exposing them to sexual violence from smugglers, border guards, police, fellow refugees, and even intimate partners.

When migrant women finally arrived at their destination country, many would be relegated to refugee shelters, where sexual violence is more prominent. Even where shelters are segregated by gender, inadequate accommodations would force vulnerable women outside the security of their homes.

Migrant Crime Is About Socioeconomics, Not Nationality

Regardless of whether recent migrant trends created alarming new levels of crime, it is true that Europe’s migrants as a whole (as opposed to those in America and Canada) tend to commit more crimes than do European natives. This issue long predated the most recent wave of migrants. The reasons, though, are familiar and do not involve culture or anything peculiar to migrants since 2015.

A 2013 Swedish study followed over 63,000 resident children from the early 1990s and found that parental and neighborhood resources account for much of the gap in criminality between native Swedes and immigrant Swedes (both first- and second-generation). Among males, socioeconomics and not country of origin per se account for much of the gaps in suspected offenses (75–78 percent), convictions (69–72 percent), violent crime (65–72 percent), and incarceration (49–57 percent). Among females, the gap is entirely or almost entirely eliminated.

A similar story exists in Germany. According to Harald Pickert, Bavaria’s deputy police commissioner and head of an expert panel on sex crimes in Bavaria’s Interior Ministry, “compared to the German population, immigrants are more frequently young and male and are more likely to live in a large city, lack education, be unemployed and have no income.” Christian Pfeiffer, a criminologist at the Crime Research Institute of Lower Saxony, emphasizes that males under 40, a group highly represented among refugees, “are the most dangerous in every country.” A 2018 study by German criminologists found the crime rate of Germans between the ages of 16 and 30 to be “absolutely in the range that is calculated…when observing refugees only.”

One takeaway is that poorer Europeans’ criminality is comparable with that of poor migrants. A possible solution is to open economic, education, and integration opportunities to migrants. Further, to the extent which the criminal discrepancy is related to the fact that migrants are predominantly male, looser family reunification rules can flatten the numbers.

The Migrant Terrorism Crisis Is Overstated

European fears over terrorism have increased substantially in recent years. Since 2015, Europe has witnessed a noticeable increase in terrorist activity, which did coincide with the migrant wave. But migrants don’t seem to be the main source of terror.

When contemplating fears of migrants and terror, it’s worth first realizing the chances of death from terror attacks in Europe are “minuscule,” according to a 2017 analysis of five nations that either suffered the largest terror attacks during the recent migrant wave or took in the most migrants.

Even in these nations, terror fatalities among the deadliest years in recent history (380 in 1988; 354 in 1976; 252 in 1975) significantly eclipse those at the height of the migrant influx (172 in 2015; 133 in 2016), and dwarf terror fatalities since (62 in 2017; 16 in 2018; 10 in 2019). Perhaps this is why E.U. nations with direct experience of recent terror attacks have been comparatively less nervous about them.

“A real and imminent danger” regarding migrants and terror is ideological, said Europol, the E.U.-wide police agency, in 2017. Islamist organizations like ISIS may seek to exploit the migratory crisis to recruit refugees. This is contrary to Europol’s earlier claim in late 2016 that violent jihadis may have infiltrated the migrants. Upon further reflection, Europol had since found “no concrete evidence that terrorist travellers systematically use those flows of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed.”

This stands to reason; Denmark’s Security and Intelligence Service noted in 2015 that “the majority [of refugees] are actually fleeing from militant Islamic movements and therefore unlikely to have sympathy for Isis or similar groups.”

Part of ISIS’s strategy at its height was to “provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities.” This—not infiltration of or recruitment among refugees—has been extremists’ bread and butter in Europe. The European University Institute concurred in a 2017 working paper: “At present and using the best available evidence, the main terrorist threat to Western countries does not come from recently arrived refugees, but from home-grown extremists.”

According to Europol, in 2018, “EU and non-EU citizens were almost equally represented among jihadist arrestees and attack perpetrators.” In 2019, 72 percent of jihadist arrestees were E.U. citizens. Neither of these reports includes ethnonationalist, separatist, left-wing, anarchist, or right-wing terrorism.

When it comes to terrorism, neither migrants nor migration are the dominant part of the problem. They could, however, be part of the solution to extremist threats, especially threats from the Middle East. If the American experience is at all transferable to Europe, welcomed and assimilated Muslims could be an asset that would strengthen Europe’s security and reduce radicalism.

Taking the myth of Europe’s migrant “crisis” seriously has unleashed and continues to risk a parade of negative consequences. It has both spurred the rise of far-right politics across Europe, and ever more restrictive borders, which make mankind poorer, less humane, more hateful, and more dangerous, not to mention needlessly afraid. For the sake of all future Alan Kurdis, it’s time to abandon such damaging myths.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mrt82L
via IFTTT

Should Congress Establish an Electoral Commission to Handle Disputes over the 2020 Presidential Election?

Votingbooth

It’s no secret that, if the presidential election turns out to be close, there might be serious disputes over who actually win. President Trump has repeatedly suggested he might not accept an election result that goes against him, claiming that any such defeat would be the result of fraud. Many Democrats might at the very least be deeply suspicious of any close win for Trump. Add in the reality that increased mail-in voting might mean that the results will remain unclear for a long time after election day, and there is the potential for a serious crisis over disputed election results. In an insightful recent LA Times op ed, Yale Law School Prof. Bruce Ackerman and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, describe the potential dangers, and propose a possible solution:

President Trump’s claim that only “a rigged election” will yield a Democratic victory poses the risk of a constitutional crisis far beyond anything Americans witnessed in Bush vs. Gore, when the Supreme Court precipitously intervened to award the 2000 election to George W. Bush. Two decades later, the best way to confront the looming crisis is to enlist the Supreme Court in a very different fashion — by creating a special commission, headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to oversee the disposition of any disputed state election results….

After a presidential election, when Congress reconvenes early in January, the nation’s 435 representatives and 100 senators are required to meet in the House chamber in a special joint session. The Constitution designates the sitting vice president to preside over the proceedings — in 2021, Mike Pence will be in the chair….

Precedents established by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 would permit Pence to invalidate a particular state’s electoral returns on the grounds that the underlying vote-count was generated in an illegitimate fashion — that it was rigged.

Pence could refuse to allow the House or Senate to consider a state certificate that he found fraudulent and eliminate its electoral votes from the overall tally. That would reduce the number of electoral college votes required for a majority. If Pence used his prerogative in a partisan manner — for example, invalidating close results that favor Biden, but accepting those that favor Trump — he could mathematically upend the overall election.

If that seemed likely to happen, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could play some legal and political hardball of her own. She could refuse to hand over the gavel to the vice president when Pence arrived in the House chamber to call the special January joint session into existence. That would make it impossible for Biden or Trump to claim the authority to be sworn in as president, and according to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947… it is the speaker who is third in line if neither the president nor the vice president can serve. Pelosi could forestall a handoff of the presidency to Trump by becoming “acting” president herself.

Either of these courses of action — Pence interfering with the election results, Pelosi refusing to allow Pence to call the joint session — would provoke political chaos, street demonstrations and even violence as the nation approached “noon on the 20th day of January” — the moment when the Constitution explicitly states that term of the “current President and Vice-President shall end…”

Congress would be wise to act now to prevent the passions of January from spinning out of control.

The disputed presidential election of 1876 serves as a crucial precedent. It pitted Democrat Samuel Tilden against Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and involved contested election returns from several southern states. Rather than relying on the usual joint session, Congress delegated the job of resolving the controversies to a special commission — five Supreme Court justices, five senators and five House members….

For the 2020 election. Congress should immediately create a commission similar to the Tilden-Hayes panel. In this case, the right makeup would be five Supreme Court justices — two liberals and two conservatives, with Roberts as chairman. If the commission began monitoring the electoral process now, it could make fact-sensitive judgments on the accuracy of state vote counts come January. Pelosi and Pence should make clear their intention to abide by the decisions reached by the commission.

I am not sure Pence and Pelosi could really get away with taking the sorts of actions Ackerman and Khanna describe. But the risk of this and other kinds of skullduggery is real, as is the danger of crisis and civil unrest.

There is considerable merit to Ackerman and Khanna’s proposal for mitigating the danger. In particular, there is value to committing to an impartial dispute-resolution mechanism before the details of any election controversy become known. If there is broad, advance bipartisan agreement in Congress to abide by the decisions of the electoral commission, that would make it much more difficult for Trump—or anyone else—to refuse to accept the results. Thus, the risks of a dangerous constitutional crisis might be averted.

While the general idea here strikes me as sound, there may be some devils lurking in the details. Here are some that occur to me:

Appointing Chief Justice Roberts as chair may not be wise, given that many conservatives think he has “betrayed” them in various ways, a sentiment deepened by several votes he cast in ideologically charged cases this past term. Many on both right and left also regard him as politically shifty, and therefore might view any decision where he cast the pivotal vote with suspicion.

If the Electoral Commission must have a Supreme Court justice as chair, I tentatively propose that it be co-chaired by justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. Both have strong support from their respective sides of the political spectrum, but also at least some substantial credibility on the “other” side.

I am also wary of a Commission where all the members are Supreme Court justices. If the justices on the Commission reach a decision that is seen as wrong or illegitimate by a large part of the country, that could further politicize the Court and make it vulnerable to attacks on judicial independence. The Court’s growing popularity has given it some protection against court-packing and other possible schemes to weaken judicial review. But that popularity might erode if a commission composed exclusively of SCOTUS justices decides a disputed presidential election in the present atmosphere of severe polarization (which, as Ackerman and Khanna note, is far worse than that which existed at the time the Court decided Bush v. Gore in 2000). That said, the Court’s public image has bounced back from many previous controversies that critics claimed would erode its legitimacy (including Bush v. Gore itself), and perhaps the same thing would happen here.

Nonetheless, other things equal, I would prefer a commission that included at least some non-SCOTUS members. As Ackerman and Khanna note, the 1876 Commission include ten members of Congress alongside five Supreme Court justices. I am not sure including members of Congress would be a good idea this time around (the vast majority of them are highly partisan figures). But perhaps it might be possible to find other non-SCOTUS members with greater credibility across the political spectrum.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the 1876 election far from an entirely positive precedent. The Commission ended up splitting along partisan lines, with the eight Republicans all voting to award the 20 disputed electoral votes to GOP candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, while the seven Democrats all concluded they should go to Democratic nominee James Tilden. As a result, many Democrats never really accepted the idea that Hayes’ victory was legitimate, and they continued to denounce him as “Rutherfraud” B. Hayes.

The conventional wisdom about 1876 holds that such acceptance as Hayes did achieve was in large part bought at the price of the “Compromise of 1877,” in which Republicans agreed to ease up on pressuring the southern states to protect the civil and voting rights of African-Americans, in exchange for Democratic acquiescence to Hayes’ win. Ackerman has questioned the standard account of 1877 in  his academic work, and perhaps he is right. Still, using 1876 as a model is not without risk.

At the same time, it may be that a commission created in advance will have more credibility than one established on an ad hoc basis after a crisis has already begun. In addition, an 1876-style split along partisan lines might be avoided by requiring the commission to reach decisions based on a supermajority. For example, if there are five members, perhaps 4 of 5 will need to agree to make any binding decision.

Despite these possible reservations, I think the commission idea is a promising one, and at the very least deserves serious consideration.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35FkPu0
via IFTTT

The Myth of Europe’s Migrant Crisis

dpaphotosfour685866

This month marks the five-year anniversary of Alan Kurdi’s death in 2015. At the time, the iconic image of his beached 3-year-old body on the coasts of the Mediterranean captured (and broke) the hearts of international observers.

The dangers of refugee migration highlighted by little Alan’s corpse were in conflict with the prevailing narrative about refugees in Europe, which insisted that a then-recent mass entry of migrants, ostensibly fleeing war, terror, and extreme poverty, had unleashed crime and terror, and that the proper European reaction is not sympathy, but even stronger barriers against refugees.

To this day, leaders across Europe express fear over migrant entrants. President Donald Trump used what he called Europe’s “total mess” to justify his own immigration restrictions in the name of crisis and emergency. U.S. policy on migration, like Europe’s, caused its fair share of migrant deaths, including its own tragic versions of Alan Kurdi, by incentivizing migration via more dangerous routes and methods.

But the narrative of a migrant “crisis” in Europe that inspired those tragedies was never true. While a severe migrant uptick did occur circa 2015, the influx rapidly declined to earlier levels. As economist Bryan Caplan has noted, “total arrivals from 2014 to 2018 came to less than 1 percent of the population of the European Union (E.U.). Many European countries—most notably West Germany during the Cold War—have swiftly absorbed much larger inflows in the past.” By early 2019, the European Commission officially declared an end to the “migration crisis.”

Sifting Truth From Rumors

Europe during the migrant influx had seen its share of crimes perpetrated by migrants, such as attacks in Cologne and other German cities at the close of 2015. All at once, Europe’s New Year’s celebrations morphed into a nightmare of hundreds of mostly foreign men grabbing women and stealing from them during chaotic public gatherings. In Cologne alone, over 1,000 crimes were reported, including almost 500 sexual assaults against women. Most of the suspects were North African, including recent asylum seekers. Police were unprepared. And the police and media did not report it until public outrage forced their hand.

Other crimes and acts of terrorism around Europe in recent years have implicated immigrants, including those from the recent wave, complete with police cover-ups seeking to protect refugee suspects. The narrative that the “establishment” was trying to protect refugees’ reputations was not entirely without merit. Still, the bulk of migrant horror stories are probably untrue.

For a sense of the scope of the fake scare, visit HOAXmap, an internet project constructed in 2016 to track rumors about refugees in Germany. The map currently features 496 rumors in the country and in nearby German-speaking nations.

In early 2018, the German paper Der Spiegel ran its own study of 445 alleged refugee rapes in 10 German states, as reported on Rapefugees.net. One-third of the incidents were filtered out because they were duplicates, broken links, or law enforcement was unaware of the purported crime.

Of the remaining 291 cases, 24 claims were false, others were “less dramatic” than rape (i.e., groping) and 29 percent of cases could not be confirmed or denied. One-third (95) involved refugee suspects. Of 57 actual rape cases, 26 involved refugee suspects, with 18 cases resulting in convictions. Each incident is serious and to be condemned. But the facts don’t support fears of epidemic levels of social breakdown caused by migrants.

Unfortunately, it is easy for people to believe rumors when the rumors match already-held fears, such as the West’s historical mistrust of foreign migrants. Real horrific events like those in Cologne make it even easier to suspend skepticism about similar—but fake—cases. But the apparent chasm between truth and rumor means we need to abandon salacious anecdotes, and instead focus on hard data before presuming there is a crisis that demands a response.

There Was Never Any Migrant Crime Wave

Most studies (and alarmism) have focused on the two European nations most generous toward migrants: Germany, which welcomed the highest total number of asylum seekers, and Sweden, which took in the most migrants per capita.

Sweden

Let’s begin with Sweden. A Pew survey from mid-2016 showed 46 percent of Swedes believed “refugees in our country are more to blame for crime than other groups.”

But crime trends there remained steady or declined both before and after the migration explosion, which in Sweden actually began in 2012. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (or “Brå”) reported in 2017 that in 2015, the first year of Europe’s influx, the number of “offenses against the person” (assault, threats, sexual offenses, robbery, fraud, or harassment) was “approximately the same level as in 2005.” Brå also reports around 15,000 “reported offenses” (a more general category) per 100,000 persons from 2008 to 2019. It is hard to see any migrant-caused Swedish crime wave in these figures.

The same flat or declining trend has held for almost all specific types of crime. One exception is sex offenses, which is so complex that it deserves its own discussion. The other exceptions are fraud and drug crimes. However, these are hardly the categories of crime that concerns most migration skeptics, and, in any case, the increasing trends in both categories long predated the migrant influx.

Then there is the mysterious issue of victimization. Brå shows striking increases in the percent of people who experienced almost all “offences against an individual” from 2014 to 2018, the latest year for which data exists. This means that, although there are not significantly more crimes being reported per capita, the number of people claiming to have been victims of crimes has increased. “Threats” and “harassments” show the largest increase in percent of people claiming to be victims, far more than robbery or assault. Does this mean migrants are responsible? Probably not. With more victims for a steady number of crimes (except for sexual crimes, discussed later), it seems as if crimes are for whatever reason distributed more evenly among the population. If so, then the problem is probably not recent migrants, who tend not to live among the broader population.

Germany

The migrant wave’s effect on Germany’s crime rates had also been negligible, as revealed in a series of analyses of local police data from early 2016. For example, a “large majority” of refugees who are registered never show up in police records. Those from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are rarely in criminal statistics. In Cologne, for example, only five of 1,100 (under 0.5 percent) registered Syrians were in trouble with the police between October 2014 and November 2015.

The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) concluded in 2015 that, “on average, refugees commit as many or as few crimes as the local population.” From 2014 to 2015, the refugee population increased 440 percent, while the number of refugee crimes committed rose only 79 percent, according to the BKA. Here, there wasn’t even a correlation: While offenses increased significantly in early 2015, offenses stagnated in late 2015, precisely when “most refugees arrived in Germany.” The BKA concluded that the “vast majority of asylum-seekers [commit] no offenses.”

By 2018, although 44 percent of Germans felt less secure than they did in recent years, their government announced that crime was at a quarter-century low, while Germany’s migrant population was at a record high. As of 2019, the total number of crimes kept falling while the migrant population kept rising.

This does not mean migrants never contribute to Germany’s criminal issues. Indeed, certain immigrant areas reported significant gang problems. Moreover, North African nationals registered high criminal activity relative to the rest of the population. No doubt German law enforcement needs to take notice of these issues. But it would be a mistake to conclude from these specifics that the broader Middle Eastern migrant wave is the problem, when crime rates from certain Eastern European nationals who aren’t normally considered part of this wave are also relatively crime-prone, while nationals from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are relatively crime-free. Rather, the overall picture is clear: Migrants were not a special criminal problem in Germany.

“No-Go Zones”

No discussion of crimes and migrants in the E.U. is complete without considering the alleged “no-go zones” that anti-immigrant sources decry. These are areas where it is alleged that police are unable to enter, where sharia law displaces secular law, and where crime is rampant.

This claim has been adequately debunked with respect to Sweden, Britain, France, and the United States. Daniel Pipes, a noted critic of Islam, after the “first-hand experience” of visiting some of these areas, expressed “regret” at using the phrase, because “one can indeed ‘go’ in them.” While they can be violent, “they are unthreatening, routine places” in “normal times,” he said.

The mundane reality is that high crime areas exist in all societies, where socioeconomic development is stunted, where police and rescue personnel require special protocol, and where the reach of a nation’s legal system is limited. But focusing on national origin only serves to divert political action from real solutions. The problem of crime-riddled slums, which is really what is at issue, is not unique to migrant neighborhoods.

There Was Never Any Migrant Sex Crime Wave

“Malmo in Sweden is the rape capital of Europe due to EU migrant policies,” according to U.K. politician Nigel Farage in 2017, echoing a Fox News segment cited by Trump.

Sweden does indeed have an inflated rate of sexual assaults of all kinds. But that is a creature of statistics. According to Brå, “when a single case is reported that turns out to involve hundreds or even thousands of instances of offences committed against an individual over the course of many years, every single incident is recorded as an offence in the year it was reported.”

In other words, as sociologist Klara Selin of the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm explains, if an intimate partner is accused of rape “almost every day during the last year,” that is 300 reported offenses, not one. For this reason, “it is very difficult to say anything about the real level using reported cases,” Stockholm University criminology professor Felipe Estrada cautioned.

Brå also explains that “the number of reported rape offences has increased by 34 per cent over the last ten years (2009-2018)” because the definition of rape was legally expanded. In 2013, just before the latest European migrant wave, the definition was “expanded to include cases where the victim reacts passively.” An earlier legislative change in 2005 meant that “certain acts which were previously classified as sexual exploitation are now classified as rape.” These include sex with persons who are asleep or intoxicated.

The changing definition of rape maps much better to the data than do refugee numbers, as sociologist Philip N. Cohen of the University of Maryland notes. Indeed, Brå has more recently accounted for this by counting “serious sexual offences (such as rape)” separately. According to their most recent statistics from 2016 and 2017, serious sexual offenses remained mostly stable from 2006 to 2012, before the recent migrant wave began.

After the definitional change in 2013, no correlation can be seen between reported sex offenses and migration patterns. According to Brå, the figures zigzagged up and down from 2013 to 2016 (about 18,000 to 20,000 to 18,000 to 20,000). Meanwhile, Sweden’s migrant population steadily increased each of those years. In 2017 and 2018, the population of migrants fell, and yet total sex crime figures climbed.

For better or worse, Sweden does not collect statistical data on the ethnic or national background of criminals. However, in response to amplified calls for such collection, Brå conducted a study in 2019 of the data already available from 2005 to 2017. It concluded there was no link between refugees and sex crime. For one thing, crunching the numbers of total migrants and total sex crimes reveals that asylum seekers would have to be 83 times more likely to commit sex crimes than others. The report reasoned with enviable understatement, “such a high over-risk does not seem likely.”

Further, the report noted that there was no rise in outdoor attacks by strangers, but rather a rise in nonviolent sex crimes by perpetrators known to the victim—the opposite of what one would expect if the problem was “immigrant men wantonly attacking Swedish women.” Finally, the report could not link high-migrant municipalities with high-sex offense statistics.

One short-term study during the migrant wave is on point, however. Between November 2015 and January 2016, Swedish police tracked asylum seekers involved in police interactions. Only 1 percent of the police reports involved asylum seekers, even though they made up about 1.8 percent of the Swedish population. While acknowledging certain limitations of the data, Christopher Fariss of the University of Michigan and Kristine Eck of Uppsala University concluded, “we consider a rate of four reports of rape over 76 days for a [sic] asylum-seeking population of 180,000 as not convincing evidence of an ‘epidemic’ perpetrated by its members.”

In Germany as well, despite the nation’s crime rate being at a 26-year low in early 2018, sex crime statistics are complicated. Some figures in Germany in 2016 and ones more specifically focused on the regionof Bavaria in early 2017 showed reports of sex crimes rising significantly, with refugees’ and non-Germans’ share of the suspects increasing. On the other hand, though the BKA reported a 2 percentage point increase throughout Germany in migrant suspects as a proportion of sex crimes perpetrators from 2016 to 2017, this was followed by a stabilizing in 2018, and then a 6 percent decrease in early 2019. All this, while the immigrant population steadily increased.

In light of this sometimes-positive, sometimes-negative relationship between migrants and sex crimes in Germany, it would appear the spike in migrant sex crimes at the height of the migrant wave was a mere coincidence.

Perverse Effects of Migrant Rape Fears

The myth of the migrant rapist perversely endangers native European women, because it diverts attention and resources from the universal nature of sex crimes. For example, Sweden had a great opportunity to address sex crimes when a Swedish police report in May 2016 blamed “Nordic alcohol culture,” and toxic “masculinity.”

Even though the report was about sexual assault generally, the immigration restrictionist Breitbart London mischaracterized it as “excus[ing] migrant rape.” To be sure, the report admits (quotes via Google Translate, with minor edits), “In cases where the crimes were committed by perpetrators in larger groups in public places…the perpetrators were mostly young people seeking or having been granted asylum in Sweden.” But “offenses committed in public places…are relatively few and represent only a small percentage of the total number of crimes. The vast majority of offenders act alone.” Indeed, “the school is the public environment in which most physical sexual assaults take place, mainly between pupils.”

Unfortunately, the anti-migrant narrative prevailed in June 2016, when Swedish police wrongly attributed more than 50 cases of sexual assault at two music festivals to “foreign young men.” The statement said, “There is no doubt…about who takes these liberties.”

But a few hours later, the police admitted they misrepresented a majority of the suspects. They promptly retracted the “unfortunate” statement. Yet by then, papers across Europe were already parroting “reports of rapes by ‘migrants.'” And so, while Sweden myopically focused its energies against migrants, sexual assaults remained tragically elevated the next year at the nation’s largest music festival. Its organizers would cancel the festival the following year.

The migrant rapist scare and other anti-foreign myths, thanks to the anti-migrant policies they spawn, ironically increased the risk of sexual violence against another class of women: those trying to migrate to Europe.

The first wave of migrants to Europe in 2015 included mostly young males. Young males were at elevated risk of violence or being forced to join armed conflict. They were also more likely to survive the dangerous travel to Europe.

Meanwhile, the high price of human smugglers disincentivized women and children migrants. Instead, many of them gambled on Europe’s family reunification channels to arrive safely and cheaply the following year. So women and children came over in a second wave. In early 2016, Doctors Without Borders reported that “the demographic has completely flipped.”

But the damage was already done by the fears of migrant young men. Europe tightened its borders and family reunification pathways in response to the first wave. This kept some foreign women and children from fleeing war, crime, and sexual violence. European restrictions forced women who did leave to use less-than-ideal routes or refugee camps, exposing them to sexual violence from smugglers, border guards, police, fellow refugees, and even intimate partners.

When migrant women finally arrived at their destination country, many would be relegated to refugee shelters, where sexual violence is more prominent. Even where shelters are segregated by gender, inadequate accommodations would force vulnerable women outside the security of their homes.

Migrant Crime Is About Socioeconomics, Not Nationality

Regardless of whether recent migrant trends created alarming new levels of crime, it is true that Europe’s migrants as a whole (as opposed to those in America and Canada) tend to commit more crimes than do European natives. This issue long predated the most recent wave of migrants. The reasons, though, are familiar and do not involve culture or anything peculiar to migrants since 2015.

A 2013 Swedish study followed over 63,000 resident children from the early 1990s and found that parental and neighborhood resources account for much of the gap in criminality between native Swedes and immigrant Swedes (both first- and second-generation). Among males, socioeconomics and not country of origin per se account for much of the gaps in suspected offenses (75–78 percent), convictions (69–72 percent), violent crime (65–72 percent), and incarceration (49–57 percent). Among females, the gap is entirely or almost entirely eliminated.

A similar story exists in Germany. According to Harald Pickert, Bavaria’s deputy police commissioner and head of an expert panel on sex crimes in Bavaria’s Interior Ministry, “compared to the German population, immigrants are more frequently young and male and are more likely to live in a large city, lack education, be unemployed and have no income.” Christian Pfeiffer, a criminologist at the Crime Research Institute of Lower Saxony, emphasizes that males under 40, a group highly represented among refugees, “are the most dangerous in every country.” A 2018 study by German criminologists found the crime rate of Germans between the ages of 16 and 30 to be “absolutely in the range that is calculated…when observing refugees only.”

One takeaway is that poorer Europeans’ criminality is comparable with that of poor migrants. A possible solution is to open economic, education, and integration opportunities to migrants. Further, to the extent which the criminal discrepancy is related to the fact that migrants are predominantly male, looser family reunification rules can flatten the numbers.

The Migrant Terrorism Crisis Is Overstated

European fears over terrorism have increased substantially in recent years. Since 2015, Europe has witnessed a noticeable increase in terrorist activity, which did coincide with the migrant wave. But migrants don’t seem to be the main source of terror.

When contemplating fears of migrants and terror, it’s worth first realizing the chances of death from terror attacks in Europe are “minuscule,” according to a 2017 analysis of five nations that either suffered the largest terror attacks during the recent migrant wave or took in the most migrants.

Even in these nations, terror fatalities among the deadliest years in recent history (380 in 1988; 354 in 1976; 252 in 1975) significantly eclipse those at the height of the migrant influx (172 in 2015; 133 in 2016), and dwarf terror fatalities since (62 in 2017; 16 in 2018; 10 in 2019). Perhaps this is why E.U. nations with direct experience of recent terror attacks have been comparatively less nervous about them.

“A real and imminent danger” regarding migrants and terror is ideological, said Europol, the E.U.-wide police agency, in 2017. Islamist organizations like ISIS may seek to exploit the migratory crisis to recruit refugees. This is contrary to Europol’s earlier claim in late 2016 that violent jihadis may have infiltrated the migrants. Upon further reflection, Europol had since found “no concrete evidence that terrorist travellers systematically use those flows of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed.”

This stands to reason; Denmark’s Security and Intelligence Service noted in 2015 that “the majority [of refugees] are actually fleeing from militant Islamic movements and therefore unlikely to have sympathy for Isis or similar groups.”

Part of ISIS’s strategy at its height was to “provoke overreactions by European governments against innocent Muslims, thereby alienating and radicalizing Muslim communities.” This—not infiltration of or recruitment among refugees—has been extremists’ bread and butter in Europe. The European University Institute concurred in a 2017 working paper: “At present and using the best available evidence, the main terrorist threat to Western countries does not come from recently arrived refugees, but from home-grown extremists.”

According to Europol, in 2018, “EU and non-EU citizens were almost equally represented among jihadist arrestees and attack perpetrators.” In 2019, 72 percent of jihadist arrestees were E.U. citizens. Neither of these reports includes ethnonationalist, separatist, left-wing, anarchist, or right-wing terrorism.

When it comes to terrorism, neither migrants nor migration are the dominant part of the problem. They could, however, be part of the solution to extremist threats, especially threats from the Middle East. If the American experience is at all transferable to Europe, welcomed and assimilated Muslims could be an asset that would strengthen Europe’s security and reduce radicalism.

Taking the myth of Europe’s migrant “crisis” seriously has unleashed and continues to risk a parade of negative consequences. It has both spurred the rise of far-right politics across Europe, and ever more restrictive borders, which make mankind poorer, less humane, more hateful, and more dangerous, not to mention needlessly afraid. For the sake of all future Alan Kurdis, it’s time to abandon such damaging myths.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mrt82L
via IFTTT

Half of All False Convictions in the U.S. Involved Police or Prosecutor Misconduct, Finds New Report

freefromjail_1161x653

When innocent people are falsely convicted of crimes and later freed, in more than half of the cases, misconduct by police and prosecutors played a contributing role.

That’s the primary theme of a new report, “Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent,” released today by the National Registry of Exonerations, which has been tracking all known exonerations in the United States for the past 30 years. Every year they release a report documenting trends in exonerations, how often DNA evidence plays a role in determining an innocent person is behind bars, problems with eyewitness testimony, and of course, misconduct by officials.

This new report drills into all of the exonerations they’ve archived up until February 2019. That’s 2,400 cases. These are people who have been convicted of crimes, sentenced, then later cleared based on new evidence showing their innocence.

In 54 percent of these cases, misconduct by officials contributed to a false conviction. The more severe the crime, the more likely misconduct played a role when an innocent person was convicted.

Police and prosecutors, in general, engaged in misconduct at about equal rates, 35 percent for cops, 30 percent for prosecutors at the state level. In drug cases, though, cops were four times more likely to have engaged in misconduct than prosecutors. When it came to federal cases, prosecutors engaged in misconduct at rates more than twice as often as police. In white-collar cases, federal prosecutors engaged in misconduct seven times as much as police.

The most common type of misconduct involved concealing exculpatory evidence, which is evidence that suggests the defendant is not guilty. The National Registry of Exonerations found that evidence was deliberately concealed in 44 percent of the cases that ultimately resulted in exonerations. The 218-page report documents the many ways that police and prosecutors break the rules in order to get convictions, from fabricating evidence and manipulative conduct during interrogations to fraudulent forensics and flat-out lying in court.

But what happens when a person is ultimately exonerated and the truth of police and prosecutorial misconduct is revealed? Are the police officers or prosecutors disciplined for their behavior? Often the answer is no. The report analyzed what happened to cops and prosecutors who engaged in misconduct and found that some sort of discipline was imposed in only 17 percent of these cases. Prosecutors are hardly ever punished for misconduct, even though the report notes that they are equally culpable as cops. In only four percent of cases did they find prosecutors disciplined in any way for misconduct. Just two have been fired, three disbarred, and only two have ever themselves been criminally prosecuted and found guilty of misconduct.

Police officers, on the other hand, were disciplined in some fashion in 19 percent of all exoneration cases involving police misconduct. That’s still remarkably low, but police are far more likely than prosecutors to be criminally charged with misconduct in these cases. At least 30 officers have been convicted. That number may seem low, but the report notes that a single police officer may actually be responsible for several false convictions (most notably in Chicago, which has seen mass exonerations over police misconduct).

After examining a couple of specific cases where problems in police and prosecutor culture contributed to the convictions of innocent people, the report gets to the heart of the matter: Are there any specific, substantive policy changes that can reduce behaviors that lead to false convictions? The final quarter of the report is devoted to recommendations: record police interrogations; have forensic crime labs operate independently of police departments to reduce the pressure to fudge results; create special units in prosecutors’ offices to revisit old cases and look for errors; implement open-file discovery and better information-sharing practices with public defenders; and, obviously, institute actual consequences for officers and prosecutors who engage in misconduct that leads to the innocent being convicted.

“Official misconduct damages truth-seeking by our criminal justice system and undermines public confidence. It steals years—sometimes decades—from the lives of innocent people,” wrote Samuel Gross, University of Michigan law professor emeritus, lead author of the report and editor of the National Registry of Exonerations. “The great majority of wrongful convictions are never discovered, so the scope of the problem is much greater than these numbers show.”

On Monday, after 37 years in prison, Robert DuBoise was formally exonerated in Florida for a rape and murder from 1983 that DNA evidence now proves he did not commit. He was convicted partly due to testimony from unreliable jailhouse informants and controversial, discredited bite mark analysis. His case is a perfect example of how much our justice system is plagued by bad behavior.

The National Registry of Exonerations is a joint project by the Newkirk Center for Science and Society at the University of California, Irvine, the University of Michigan Law School, and the Michigan State University College of Law. The full report can be read here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kkwsKX
via IFTTT