For those of you who don’t follow Chicago news, last week Mayor Lightfoot made a distressed plea to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis to stop sending migrants from Colorado to Chicago. How does that differ from previous dispatches of migrants to “sanctuary cities”? Jared Polis is a Democrat. In a piece at the Washington Post Jim Geraghty takes note:

For what it’s worth, before his capitulation on Saturday, Polis insisted that what he was doing was completely different from what Republicans were doing. He said Colorado’s state government wasn’t forcing anyone to leave and extended invitations to everyone to stay, and that “the state is working with culturally competent navigators to ensure that each individual is voluntarily making their decision.”

Polis emphasized that about 70 percent of the migrants arriving in Denver didn’t see Colorado as their final destination, and the aim was to match them with family members, friends and services when they reached Chicago and New York.

But the Democratic mayors of those cities didn’t see a difference. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot denounced Polis’s move, declaring in a statement to Politico, “It is simply inhumane for any governor, whether Republican or Democrat, to address this challenge by giving these poor, traumatized migrants a one-way ticket out of town and washing their hands of the matter at our literal and figurative expense. For shame.”

New York Mayor Eric Adams concurred. “Her remarks, do I agree with them? You’re damn right. You’re damn right I do. For the governor of Colorado to say that I’m going to push the problem to the city and didn’t even notify us. Everyone knows what we’re going through.” He added, “At one time we had to deal with Republican governors sending migrants to New York. Now we’re dealing with Democratic governors sending migrants to New York.”

Not anymore. After a “very productive conversation” with both mayors — meaning he got an earful — Polis said he’d stop the busing program.

This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a problem for Congress (see my previous post).

Whether they’re economic migrants or asylum-seekers, the reality is that their very large number is causing a drain on resources in many places. It is well within Congress’s authority to deal with the situation.

One solution would be for Congress to appropriate a stipend for each migrant which would go to the jurisdictions hosting them. I suspect that would change the nature of the discussion considerably. Where the money would come from is important but it’s a different question. Congress has been reluctant to raise taxes to pay for what they want to spend; borrowing more money is at cross-purposes with the Fed’s attempt to curb inflation.

Another solution would be to appropriate enough money to enforce our laws at the border distinguishing between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants right then and there. I suspect it would take more than money—you might need to draft judges and/or lawyers to do the preliminary adjudication on an emergency basis.

What is blithely referred to as “comprehensive immigration reform” is presently at an impasse and looks like to remain so. What Democrats find acceptable Republicans reject out of hand as amnesty. What Republicans find acceptable Democrats reject as heartless and racist. At this point calling for comprehensive immigration reform is sophistry. Congress needs to choose another alternative.

I think the correct alternative is to enforce the law. If you don’t like the law, change it don’t ignore it.

The best thing about the incoming Republican House majority is that the news media, e.g. NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS will be complaining bitterly that all of our problems are due to the Congress much of which is correct.

The worst thing will be the glowing reports we will get about outlaw executive orders by the president and the statesmanlike Senate.

Maybe it’s just the Chicago yards within a couple of miles of where I live but right now in the Chicago mayoral campaign Willie Wilson is winning the yard sign poll. As far as I’m concerned they’re about three years behind the curve. Lori Lightfoot was elected due to her support on the Northwest Side of Chicago which is where I live. If the Northwest Side of Chicago is deserting her, I don’t see how she gets re-elected. The South and West sides didn’t vote for her in the mayoral primaries three years ago.

I devoted the 40 minutes necessary to listen to the conversation embedded above between Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen and Heritage CEO Kevin Roberts today and for the life of me I can’t recognize today’s Republican Party or, indeed, the United States more generally in the GOP and America they describe in their conversation. Consider it through the prism of the spectacle of picking a new Speaker that we have been held hostage to for the last five days. What did that tell us? I think it told us that there is a very small number of Republicans who will do pretty much anything to get their way and, fortunately or unfortunately, they don’t have a clear idea of what “their way” is.

I also don’t see “MAGA Republicans” or “MAGA adjacent” in quite the way they do, either. I think that there was a faction of the population, many of them generally negative about politics who liked Trump because he was petty and combative. Basically, they’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more. Am I wrong about that?

You might be interested in Buzz Hollander’s remarks about Damar Hamlin’s onfield collapse and talk of myocarditis. I want to underwrite this observation:

If someone wishes to make the case against using the mRNA vaccines in this population, at this point in the pandemic, there is absolutely no need to display the sort of indefensible thoughtlessness of using someone in the midst of a life threatening emergency to make the point. We have more than enough quality science to this effect: the myocarditis concern in this cohort is substantial (in this JAMA article out of Canada, a commonly-reported 1/3000 clip), it might be of greater incidence via subclinical cases (a 2% rate in this well-designed study from Thailand), and Pfizer is behind schedule in releasing its Study C4591031 data on subclinical myocarditis after a booster shot in young men.

As I have written many times before, giving young, healthy men the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines is likely a cost:benefit loser due to this risk of post-vaccination myocarditis, especially since the benefit of the current boosters in those with prior infection or at low risk of severe disease appears to be ephemeral and limited. Mandating them is inexcusable for this reason. The NFL has not mandated boosters, appropriately; those few educational institutions still insisting on required boosters for their students this past year have received appropriate heat.

The anecdotes gained from tragedies of athletes collapsing on the pitch are just that: tragic anecdotes. They need to be carefully curated to have any statistical value. To my eyes, that has not been accomplished.

Sixty-four cases, the number NCAA athletes who died of sudden cardiac arrest, is a pretty small domain. Even when you expand the domain past the NFL into all people playing football at any age, the domain is still tremendously small. I’m not sure that any conclusions can reasonably be drawn from such a small sample.

The other observation revolves around the old rule of thumb that when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebra. Wwhether you think horses or zebras depends on where you are. If you’re in a New York hospital, horses are probably the smart bet. If you’re in the middle of a veldt in Tanzania, zebras might be a smarter guess.

So, where are we? I don’t think we know. The COVID-19 pandemic is still technically in progress and will probably be studied for the next century at least. It may be the better part of a century before we’re able to tell the horses from the zebras.

I find it remarkable how little the opinion writers seem to have to write about. Are they just so accustomed to having Donald Trump to complain about that they can’t think of anything else?

Given how greatly the issue of crime and violence looms in the Chicago mayoral campaign, I was a bit interested in the mayor of Baltimore’s observations in a Washington Post op-ed about a pilot program in his city, long one of the homicide capitols of the United States. To read it you need a very high tolerance for platitudes but here’s the kernel of the piece:

In January 2022, my administration launched Baltimore’s Group Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) pilot in the Western Police District. This strategy, known nationally as focused deterrence, facilitates direct, sustained engagement with individuals who are the most likely to be either the victims or perpetrators of violence. Since the start of this pilot, we have seen homicides and nonfatal shootings in the Western District — historically the most violent of Baltimore’s police districts — drop by a combined 34 percent as of Dec. 31.

Through this strategy, my Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement (MONSE) manages the coordination of law enforcement, the justice system, the community and social service partners to offer individuals the resources to walk away from violence while creating swift, certain and legitimate accountability for those who continue to engage in violent activity. Last year, I made a historic $50 million investment to MONSE in American Rescue Plan Act dollars for violence prevention, which largely funds GVRS implementation.

An act of violence doesn’t start or end when someone pulls a trigger. There are countless points along the way where we can intervene. Building meaningful, impactful public safety requires the creation of pathways for behavioral health services, housing support, life coaching, case management and other resources to ensure that a situation never gets to the moment at which a person harms another human being.

For example, at a weekly review of shootings in the Western District, police intelligence indicates that the brother of a recent murder victim is planning retaliatory violence against the suspected shooters. MONSE then works with trusted community partners to locate the brother while engaging a group of credible messengers tailored to the person and situation, including loved ones, faith leaders, community leaders and law enforcement.

Once located, the brother is invited to a meeting with these credible messengers where he is asked how he is and what he needs, and is reassured that it is our priority to ensure that he remains safe, alive and free. He is also informed that law enforcement is aware that he is planning an act of retaliation and that this act would result in harm to his children, his mother and himself.

He is presented with a choice: (1) agree not to resort to violence and be connected with supports, including emergency relocation and mental health and other services, or (2) face swift and certain consequences that put his freedom, life and safety at risk. The brother agrees to step away from his plan of retaliation. He is immediately referred to Baltimore’s Youth Advocate Programs, through which he receives intensive case management and support.

I’m in broad agreement with that plan but I should admit that I am skeptical about the effectiveness of support services and convinced that “swift and certain consequences” are key to reducing crime and violence in the “most vulnerable communities”. IMO a key problem is that city hall, law enforcement, states attorneys offices, defenders, and judges all need to be pulling in the same direction. The objective should be “swift and certain” justice, whether that means conviction or acquittal.

A comparison with another similar district in which such a “pilot program” had not been introduced might have been illuminating. I guess you can’t have everything. In the past such comparative studies have supported the possibly counter-intuitive notion that additional police presence does not, in fact, have much impact on crime. Had a comparable district not experienced similar declines in violence it would be powerful evidence in support of the program.

Let’s play a little game. The biggest issue in the Chicago mayoral race is crime—no surprise with the sharp uptick in carjackings, daylight robberies, and homicides over the last three years. I’m going to give a list of candidates (in alphabetical order) and then a list of statements about dealing with crime (in a different sequence). Can you match the candidate with the statement?

Candidates

1. Chuy Garcia
2. Brandon Johnson
3. Sophia King
4. Paul Vallas
5. Willie Wilson

Statements

There is substantial agreement among the candidates that crime is a serious problem, that the police superintendent should be replaced, and that Mayor Lightfoot has done a lousy job. Here are some statements from the candidates unedited other than to remove the candidates’ names and formatting in no particular order.

Statement 1
We must work together with the appropriate agencies & personnel to address the consequences exasperated by the pandemic. The uptick in carjackings, murder on the rise, crime out of control & mental health going unchecked.

Statement 2
[The Candidate] will ensure that criminals are held accountable so that the city is safe again. Residents in ALL neighborhoods will feel safe again. Suburbanites and tourists will no longer fear traveling downtown.

Statement 3
We have a framework for how we will be dealing with public safety. We are beginning a series of listening sessions.

Leadership is critical. I, too, will replace Police Superintendent Brown. Improving the morale of the Chicago Police Department is a top priority. We need to modernize our department. We need to have a plan in place for leadership that learns from experiences.

Statement 4
The safest communities in America have the best schools, jobs, parks, hospitals and libraries. [The Candidate] believes we can make Chicago the safest big city in America if we make real investments in root cause solutions, such as creating an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, reopening the city’s mental health clinics and fully funding year-round youth employment and community-based violence intervention services.

Statement 5
[The Candidate] would fire Police Superintendent David Brown and hire a new police superintendent with Chicago roots who is committed to expanding community policing in every neighborhood of the city, cordinating with local officials and communities for more accountability and specificity, and actively coordinating with intervention teams. Immediately putting more officers into the community by creating the Chicago Reserve —made up of 1,000 retired CPD officers; filling 1,600 police vacancies over the next two years; and distributing officers more equitably. Introducing a more effective, equitable, and efficient policing strategy made possible by the creation of the Chicago Reserve unit, made up of retired CPD officers, to handle crucial but nondangerous duties and creating a new recruitment pipeline to fill 1,600 police vacancies in the next two years to enable CPD to allocate more sworn personnel to work after midnight and in places where murders and shootings are more prevalent, and adding officers to community policing beats in every neighborhood.

Can you match the candidate with the statement?

At the Wall Street Journal Ben Chapman and Andrea Fuller report that U. S. public schools have lost roughly a million students since 2020:

Public schools in the U.S. have lost more than a million students since the start of the pandemic, prompting some districts across the country to close buildings because they don’t have enough pupils or funding to keep them open.

The school board in Jefferson County, Colo., outside Denver, voted in November to close 16 schools. St. Paul, Minn., last summer closed five schools. The Oakland, Calif., school board last February voted to close seven schools after years of declining enrollment and financial strife.

Declining birthrates, a rise in home schooling and growing competition from private and charter schools are contributing to the decline in traditional public-school enrollment, according to school officials.

Districts in cities including Denver and Indianapolis have developed plans to shut down underused schools, and superintendents say more closures are inevitable unless enrollment drops are reversed.

“We are subsidizing and adding funds to those schools as much as we possibly can, but it’s just not sustainable,” said St. Paul Public Schools Superintendent Joe Gothard.

Nationwide, public-school enrollment fell by more than 1.4 million students to 49.4 million between fall 2019 and fall 2020—a decline of roughly 3%, according to data from the U.S. Education Department. The following school year, enrollment failed to return to prepandemic levels and remained roughly flat.

The authors seem to be making some pretty strong assumptions here. I’d like to see some harder statistics. So, for example, although Catholic schools have increased their enrollments this year they are still below their pre-pandemic enrollments. If that’s true in other private schools as well as in homeschooling, clearly something else must be going on.