Watching the debate between Heather Mac Donald and Edward Stringham was a fascinating experience for a number of reasons, foremost among them being that it presented two deeply contrasting visions of right wing thought. The former shaped by a deep reverence for social cohesion and ordered liberty, while the latter is influenced by a deeply-held anti-authoritarianism and faith in an unencumbered free market. The point of dispute was criminal justice reform, which was framed by the debate resolution, “There’s a war on cops, and it’s making us less safe.” Mac Donald, naturally, responded in the affirmative, asserting that the most horrific outbursts of violence directed against law enforcement, e.g. last year’s sniper attacks against Dallas police officers, as well as the 2014 ambush of NYPD officers, were a direct result of a deliberate campaign to demonize law enforcement by public officials and political activists. Stringham rejected that claim, asserting that civilians are at much more risk of being killed by police officers than vice versa.

Both perspectives were bolstered by statistics, although Mac Donald also emphasized the human cost of what she perceives to be a lack of faith in the police, including some horrific anecdotes from Chiraq. Stringham decried her “appeal to emotion,” and expressed his belief that his debate opponent doesn’t understand basic statistics, repeatedly hammering home the fact that we are experiencing historically low rates of violent crime and gun crime. He described how data fluctuates, which means you can’t ‘make inferences based on 2 data points,’ i.e. the national and local spikes in violent crime we witnessed in 2015. He asked Mac Donald why it took so long for homicides to increase in New York City, despite a 5 year-long decrease in the number of stops under its stop-and-frisk program-reaching a low of 22,929 in 2015-and why crime in almost every other measurable category continued to decline.

Mac Donald was asked whether her role was to serve as an advocate for the criminal justice system, to which she responded, “no, it’s to combat false narratives.” One of those misleading narratives-and it was this ground upon which I think she was on her firmest footing-is the Black Lives Matter campaign to convince ordinary people that black people are subjected to uniquely unfair treatment at the hands of systemically racist law enforcement. As she pointed out, whites are shot disproportionately during violent encounters with police-she didn’t mention Native Americans, who are killed at a per capita rate exceeding every other ethnic group in this country-when you consider the paltry rate at which they commit violent crime in comparison to other races. Even so, the public knows virtually none of their names, even those who are killed at point blank range, like the late David Kassick. By contrast, black civilians who are killed unjustly at the hands of police are the subject of critically acclaimed films, not to mention being the inspiration for conflagrations which engulf entire cities.

Although Stringham maintained that the racial component of this debate was irrelevant, while asserting that police should not be taxing citizens under the color of law-as many claim was the case in Ferguson, Missouri-his opponent insisted upon pointing out the inherent racial disparities of an purportedly underpoliced society, e.g. blacks dying at a rate 6 times that of whites, as well as the 4,300 people shot in the city of Chicago last year. For what it’s worth, I wish he had acknowledged this aspect of the debate, i.e. that many Americans, whether they’re residents of the Ingersoll or Marlboro Houses, or Camden, New Jersey, live in a very violent and insecure world, even as Americans are generally safer than they have been in generations. A belief that there is a divide along racial lines is perfectly consonant with an opposition to needlessly intrusive, aggressive policing. In fact, the solution to this problem might have been alluded to by an audience member, who asked whether more shall-issue laws might be responsible for a decrease in violent crime.

Stringham also pointed out the efficacy of private police forces, which-unlike law enforcement under our current system-are directly accountable to the public. Unlike cops in the public sector, who often view themselves as fee collectors/enforcers for the state-police within a consensual system actually have incentives to serve their customers, i.e. the public, and not to abuse their authority. Although Mac Donald expressed qualified skepticism about this arrangement, it’s worth noting that there were once entire societies which operated largely within the parameters of private law. Whether or not this is an applicable model in the case of the United States is an open question, although it’s a question which deserves to be asked. After all, if the exorbitant black crime rate is entwined with the familial and social breakdown in black communities, then who is to say that increasingly aggressive policing is the long term solution to this problem?

The man you see (indistinctly) in the photo above is Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who spoke before a packed crowd at the Women’s National Republican Club last night on a variety of subjects. Although the invitation I responded to billed the evening as a discussion of sanctuary cities, Vance did not address the topic until prompted by an audience member during the question and answer session, approximately 40 minutes or so after he began speaking.

I can’t say I was surprised by his reluctance to address the subject, despite its topicality. The New York County District Attorney’s office is charged with the prosecution of those who violate the laws of New York State. Those who violate federal law are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York-a point Mr. Vance emphasized when I pressed him on a recent decision to release a violent, self-declared member of MS-13 who was in this country illegally from prison.

That said, his office does occasionally come into contact with illegal immigrants through their encounters with the New York Police Department, which he implicitly acknowledged when he spoke of protecting the status of those who had been victims of crimes while residing in this country illegally. Putting aside the circular logic of this argument, i.e. aren’t predatory criminal aliens, such as the illegal day laborer who murdered acclaimed actress and director Adrienne Shelly, protected under the same umbrella sheltering domestic abuse victims, there is another objection to be raised. Namely, there is already a federal program, known as the U Visa, which ostensibly protects these individuals.

The idea that New York City needs to codify policy which directly conflicts with federal law in order to protect the safety of those in this country illegally is the height of absurdity. To the contrary, these directives actually imperil the lives and safety of those they ostensibly seek to protect-as well as the lives of American citizens-as those criminal aliens who abuse and terrorize their partners and children are given blanket immunity for crimes which would otherwise place them in the deportation pipeline and out of the reach of those whose lives they have destroyed. In fact, after Mr. Vance’s talk had concluded, a (legal) immigrant shared a personal anecdote with me about a hairdresser whose husband had attempted to suffocate her to death, but was allowed to remain in this country-illegally, naturally-even after being brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.

It should be said in Mr. Vance’s defense that he stated categorically that illegal aliens who had committed violent crimes should be deported, which is a far cry from Mayor De Blasio’s stance. However, it’s worth noting that the Manhattan DA is a political post, which is dependent upon the will of the voters, which in this case happened to be a group of New York Republicans. Just as his avowal of support for stop and frisk might have been downplayed before more progressive venues, it’s possible that he might have temporized even more on this subject if speaking to a group like the National Council of La Raza, or the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus.

Overall, the audience was surprisingly receptive to DA Vance’s message, which in retrospect probably shouldn’t have been that surprising. The Republican Party of New York City, but particularly the desiccated husk of a party which still exists in Manhattan, is run primarily by the Rockefeller and Lindsay Republicans who once exercised real power in this city and state. Adele Malpass, who delivered some introductory remarks before Cyrus Vance stepped up to the podium, praised the District Attorney’s efforts to kill a bill which would have prevented the arrest of innocent New Yorkers carrying gravity knives. I’m sure the GOP mainstay who asked him later in the evening what he was doing to crack down on gun dealers appreciated this bold stance against individual rights, but I was left rather unimpressed.

For what it’s worth, I thought the event was worthwhile, despite my many disagreements with Mr. Vance, including his apparent belief that compulsory voting, along the lines of Australia, could serve as a civic inducement. Having a public official willing to submit himself to cross-examination, however circumscribed, by the public is increasingly rare and worthy of praise. Hopefully, the officials responsible for some of the problems we encounter in this city on a daily basis will embrace this willingness to engage the public, but I won’t be holding my breath.

There are a number of lessons to be gleaned from the rapidly imploding criminal case against the former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Beyond the usual, insincere breast-beating and lamentation over the media’s predictable rush to judgement, as well as questions of whether the traditional perp walk is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights, there is a much broader discussion that has yet to be broached. And that discussion entails the morass of fraud that lies at the heart of our country’s immigration system, especially the application process for potential asylum-seekers. 

The New York Post had an extensive analysis of why the credibility of DSK’s accuser has been called into question in yesterday’s edition. Although there are numerous accusations being leveled against the Guinean maid, including charges of tax evasion and lying about the aftermath of the alleged sexual assault by Khan, the allegations that I’d like to explore involve the deception she employed in order to get into this country in the first place.

One of ugly truths that the rah-rah, open borders at any cost crowd refuses to admit-but which is acknowledged by almost anyone else with a shred of integrity-is that political asylees and foreigners applying for refugee status in Western countries, including the United States, lie. They lie in order to gain access to the bounty that is Western Europe, or Australia, or North America-Mexico excluded-and they lie in order to protect their status within these very special places once they have arrived there. So the fact that this woman created an elaborate patchwork of lies, starting with a fictitious gang-rape that allegedly took place within her home country of Guinea, in order to gain political asylum  is not surprising in the least. In fact, those of you with good memories might recall the case of Adelaide Abankwah, a phony Nigerian “princess” whose story of  a potential clitoridectomy gained her the favor of our own esteemed, open borders pinheads, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Senator Chuck Schumer. Interestingly enough, Mr. Strauss-Khan’s accuser also maintains that she was the victim of genital mutilation-and that her daughter in Guinea is under threat of FGM-a claim that might or might not withstand increased media scrutiny in the coming days. The similarities between these two examples of West African immigration scams might strike some as uncanny, until, that is, you remember that this sort of deception is par for the course.

Misrepresenting your circumstances in order to remain in a wealthy, industrialized nation is such a common occurrence that women’s rights activist and Islamic apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali devotes an entire chapter to her own asylum case in her engrossing memoir, Nomad. She readily admits that she lied during the application process in order to avoid an arranged marriage and remain in The Netherlands, and that most asylum-seekers also fudge the facts in their cases, for better or worse. The mendacity of asylum-seekers is so widespread-it can be said to be almost universal-that it was satirized in a Steven Spielberg-directed film called The Terminal, a tedious comedy starring Tom Hanks as a wholesome immigrant who is forced to live inside of an airport because of overly officious Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureaucrats.

And if you think immigration fraud is limited to the United States, then you obviously haven’t been an avid reader of UK tabloids and broadsheets, or a follower of the BBC, which recount cases of fraudulent asylum-seekers gaming the system on a daily basis. The only surprising part of this case, in my opinion, is the shockingly long time it took the mainstream media to investigate the claims lodged by the accuser in this case. Unfortunately, I doubt this will lead the same journalists to question the wisdom of our government’s endorsement of unfettered immigration. To the contrary, the revelation that many of her initial claims were falsehoods was accompanied-at least in the New York Times-by a series of soft focus stories lamenting the potential negative repercussions these new developments will have on Guinean immigrants living in New York City. Leave it to the drive-by media to miss the point yet again. That is why this website exists, my friends.