Why Defunding the Police is a Good Idea (& Other Collateral Issues)

I know defunding the police is a sensitive issue. I also believe that my criminal justice friends and acquaintances will think I have lost my ever-loving mind. I just hope they read past the title.

Defunding the police “seems” to be a national movement as a result of the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police. I use the word “seems” because when one watches the national news, it “seems” that this movement is a nationwide phenomenon. The Guardian reports that amid the Black Lives Matter movement, “a dozen local governments have moved to reduce their police budgets by more than $1.4 billion, marking a significant shift in American politics”. Multiple media outlets have referenced Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta and Washington D.C. as cities that are defunding their police. 

NPR reports the Chicago PD investigated 750 homicides in 2020, an increase of more that 50% over 2019. Los Angeles had a 30% increase in homicides and New York City had a nearly 40% increase. The National Police Support Fund reports Minneapolis had a 60% increase in homicides in 2020. Atlanta experienced 157 homicides, the highest number in 20 years. Now, is this increase related to Covid-19? Possibly. Is it coincidental that the homicide rates have increased in cities that have defunded the police? Maybe. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that nearly 50% of the federal prison population has been incarcerated for a drug related offense.  Statistics on state incarceration rates vary a little. The Prison Policy Initiative published data that suggests that 191,000 of the 1.3 million state prison inmates are there for drug convictions. The Initiative also suggests that 713,000 state prison inmates are there for violent crimes. What this data does not differentiate is how many of these violent crime convictions were the result of drug-related activity. 

I had the privilege of attending several presentations by Dr. Odel Owens when he was the medical examiner for Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Ohio. Dr. Owens investigated ALL deaths in Hamilton County. The conclusion Dr. Owens presented to the audience was that if a person was not involved in the drug trade they would not be murdered in Hamilton Count. This is a very telling statement.  

The FBI (2018) published data that reflects there were 3,315 White victims of murder perpetrated by 2,677 White offenders. In other words, 81% of these murders were White on White. This same report reflects there were 2,925 Black victims of murder perpetrated by 2,600 Black offenders. In other words, 89% of these murders were Black on Black. 

Scientific American (2018) and The Guardian (2017) published articles linking murders to socioeconomic status. Both articles concluded that when inequality, particularly income inequality, “is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status- like a good job and the ability to support a family- matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.” These findings seem to be confirmed every night on your local news. When the families of murder suspects are interviewed, a consistent theme is the lack of respect. 

Protection 1 (2015) concluded that, “violent metro areas share similar economic hardships. In addition to murder rates that are five to 13 times the national average, these cities have lower incomes, higher poverty rates, and higher unemployment rates than the rest of the country.” This also suggests that these areas have high school drop-out rates and very low employability rates. 

The knee jerk response from the policing community and others is that defunding the police will result in a surge in violent crimes. While the murder rates have increased very recently, other violent crimes and non-violent crimes have been decreasing. There is not a national movement to defund the police. This is a figment of the news media pundits’ collective imaginations. Cities, counties and states are still hiring officers. Major cities have had and are continuing to have a very difficult time attracting quality police recruits. It should be no surprise that the “defund the police” cities are not only having a difficult time retaining officers, but also a difficult time recruiting officers, a phenomenon which has increased exponentially since the “defund the police” movement began.

So, for my conspiracy theory readers, here is why we should actively support the “defund the police” movements in these cities. Murders in these cities are increasing. The people getting killed and those doing the killing are                     low-socioeconomic-status individuals– generally below the poverty line– are uneducated, and either actively or peripherally involved with drugs. They collect welfare, unemployment, food stamps, government housing subsidies, free medical care and are essentially a drain on the public coffers. When these cities continue to defund the police, the police presence in these areas will be minimized, resulting in a continued increase in murders. Stupid people will be killing stupid people, thus increasing our collective IQ’s. Poor people will be killing poor people, thus reducing the drain on the taxpayer-funded public coffers. Addicts will be killing addicts, thus reducing the number of drug traffickers and drug abuses.  OD’s will not be resuscitated by police officers not there. 

Charles Darwin defined natural selection as the “principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved.” By defunding the police, these cities are ensuring the non-preservation of this segment of society that is not useful. 

What Makes a Good President?

I can say with conviction that I am glad presidential politics are over for a while. Facebook has calmed down, Twitter is not so abuzz, and one can actually take a deep breath for a few days without feeling like a six-year old on the school playground. I supported Donald Trump in his first run for president, but I didn’t support him because I thought he would make a “good” president. I supported him because he was different. I thought that, as a country, we were at a time and place where different would be good. I thought that if Donald Trump did not do anything else, he may convince some “qualified” people that they, too, could win the presidency. I hoped that Donald Trump would get more people involved, get more people to the polls, maybe even get more people to take an active interest in this country’s national politics. I think my hopes were granted on some levels; however, be careful what you hope for.

After Donald Trump secured the nomination for the 2016 election, I completed a questionnaire online to volunteer in his election campaign in some way. I was contacted by a Republican organizer in Ohio, where I lived at the time, and we met to discuss what role I could play. This organizer was a mid to late 20’s female college graduate. During the course of our discussion, I asked her why she liked Donald Trump. She stated she was not sure she did, but she knew what the other side looked like, and she didn’t like what she saw. I think this comment fit a lot of us in 2016. 

One of the major social media themes at the time was that Donald Trump was not qualified to be president. This seemed to be based on the fact that he had no prior political experience. Clearly, he did not, but what does qualify someone to be president? Article II, Section I, of the United States Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years Resident with the United States.” From this one can deduce that any other “qualifications” reside exclusively in the mind of the individual voter. 

If you, as an individual, believe the president should have extensive political experience, then that is one of yourrequirements. If, in fact, you believe the president should have extensive political experience, then Senators Patrick Leahy and Mitch McConnell are eminently qualified to be president. But if you are of the mindset that there should be term limits, then these same long-standing senators are eminently unqualified. Is a requirement of yours that the president should have “some” political experience? Now there is a very definitive term. Barack Obama was in congress less than one term. Was that enough? Ronald Reagan was a two-term governor of California, and Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia for five years. Were either of those timeframes long enough? Is it a requirement of yours that the president be a veteran? If that’s the case, FDR was not qualified to be elected president four times; and neither were Donald Trump, Barack Obama nor Bill Clinton were qualified to be president. One of the Democratic talking points about Donald Trump was that he was divorced. Is one of your requirements that the president be of good moral character? If so, this clearly disqualifies John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. There is more than ample evidence to support both George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s cocaine use; should this activity be a disqualifying personal trait? Is one of your requirements that the president demonstrate sound fiscal practices? The U.S. government ran a deficit every year between 1970 and 1997, and from 1999 to 2020. This suggests that every president for the last 50 years, except Bill Clinton for one year, has not been qualified. By the way, the last time the federal budget balanced was when Bill Clinton was president even though the House and the Senate both were controlled by Republicans.  

Once you have decided what qualifications you think the president should possess, how do you determine what makes a good president? Are being “qualified” and being “good” the same thing? Academic historians and political scientists have identified Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington as the highest-rated presidents. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are often rated among the greatest in public opinion polls, but they do not make the top ten among presidential scholars and historians. The 2020 presidential election results indicate that there were in excess of 81 million voters who believed that Joe Biden would make a good President (or, maybe, that he would make a better president than Donald Trump), and there were in excess of 74 million voters who believed that Donald Trump would make a good president (again, or maybe it was that he would make a better president than Joe Biden). It just seems to me that many, if not most, voters are one-issue voters. Whether it is crime, gun control, taxes, the environment, LBGT, education or whatever, the candidate who supports their issue is qualified to be a “good” president. 

So gentle reader, the bottom line of what makes a president great is also what makes a president qualified. It is in the opinion of the beholder, and as we are all well aware, opinions are like rear ends: everybody has one, they are all different, and if it’s not yours . . . .


On September 30, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill- 3121 (AB-3121), Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans. This bill authorizes the establishment of a task force to study and make recommendations on reparations for slavery. The crux of this bill stipulates that more than 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States from 1619 through 1865; slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the United States from 1789 through 1865.  As a result of slavery, African Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships, a disproportionate representation in the federal and state prison systems, an unemployment rate nearly twice the current White unemployment rate, and an average of less than one-sixteenth the wealth of Whites.  

Reparations are understood to be compensation and other measures provided to victims of severe human rights violations by the parties responsible.  Reparations are measures taken by the state to redress gross and systematic violations of human rights law or humanitarian law through the administration of some form of compensation or restitution to the victims. Reparations are unique because they directly address the situation of the victims. Reparations, if well designed, acknowledge victims’ suffering, offer measures of redress, and provide some form of compensation for the violations suffered.  

The governments in these United States have paid reparations in the past in attempts to make victims whole. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, approximately 127,000 Japanese Americans (62% of whom were U.S. citizens) were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses and were relocated and incarcerated in concentration camps. The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned. Thirty-five states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have compensation statutes for those wrongly convicted and imprisoned. Payments range from $140.00 per day in California to $200,000 in the District of Columbia. In a majority of these states, payment is made either to the individual wrongly incarcerated or to their immediate family.  

The first indentured servants arrived in what is now the U.S. in 1617. The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. Generally, indentured servants included redemptioners, victims of religious or political persecution, persons kidnapped for the purpose, convicts, and paupers. Servants typically worked for no pay for a period of four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues.  While indentured servitude, per se, was not slavery, the life of the indentured was controlled by the individual with whom the indentured made the contract. These contracts could be sold, and if the indentured tried to escape the servitude, they could be forcibly returned.  The plight of the indentured servant forced them to move to the frontier when their period of servitude was over, as this was the only place they could obtain property and live free. 

In 1619 the first Black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants and given the same opportunities for freedom as White indentured servants. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 – removing any small freedoms that might have existed for Blacks.

History tells us that the indigenous population of North America at the time of the first White settlement, Jamestown, VA in 1607, was somewhere between 50 and 60 million. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the 2020 total population of Native Americans is 6.79 million, or about 2.9% of the total population of the U.S. European colonization of what is now the United States resulted in a precipitous decline in the Native American population through the introduction of disease, warfare, ethnic cleansing, and slavery. After its formation the United States, as part of its policy of settler colonialism, perpetrated a systematic ethnic cleansing of the Native American people, and those who survived were removed from their ancestral lands and were subjected to one-sided treaties and to discriminatory government policies.  

So, why would California pass a reparations bill? California was admitted to the Union is 1850 as a Free State.  While some slave owners who brought slaves (less than 4,000) to California refused to recognize the State emancipation of slaves, numerous court cases from 1849 to 1858 routinely found in favor of the slaves, including California’s refusal to recognize the Fugitive Slave Law. This law gave the slave owner the right to seize runaway slaves and return them to the State from which they fled.  

Why did California limit the reparations bill to the decedents of African slaves? The California gold rush spanned from 1845–1855.  This brought White immigrants to California. Native Americans became the major and immediate source of labor for mining. In those 10 years the Native American population in California decreased by two-thirds. In order to craft California’s own code of labor, An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians was passed in 1850 which “legally” curtailed the rights of Native  Americans. Native American children could be seized for indenture, while convicted Native Americans could be hired out of jails as forced labor and a Native American could not testify for or against a White. From 1845-1855, 24,000 to 27,000 California Native Americans were taken as forced laborers by settlers. This included the forced labor of between 4,000 to 7,000 children.  Between 1851 and 1852, three Native American commissioners negotiated treaties with the Native Americans which resulted in eighteen treaties being written, allocating 7.5% of the State as reservations. The United States Senate rejected these treaties and in 1853 the government designated its own five reservations. These reservations had very poor living conditions and displaced many of the Indians from their native lands. 

Why did California not include the descendants of other depressed populations?  The descendants of Appalachian coal miners are still living well below the poverty levels, are undereducated, and suffer with higher than average medical compromises. The coal miners in Appalachia lived in company towns and shopped at company stores. The miners pay was even given as chits to the company store. The amounts of the chits and the cost of the goods and housing kept the miners in debt to the mining companies, which prohibited them from leaving. These conditions were not unique to Appalachia. The same types of working conditions, housing conditions, and indebtedness were experienced by laborers in the industrialized North. There have been academic discussions that suggest the living conditions of the Appalachian miners and the laborers in the industrialized North were equal to and in some case less than the conditions experienced by Southern slaves. The Irish, Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanics all suffered severe human rights violations in this country, but California did not include these populations in their reparations bill. 

Why has California not addressed the modern-day slavery that exists in these United States? An article published in 2018 estimates the number of “. . .people living in conditions of modern slavery in the United States right now is 403,000.” Kevin Bales,  co-founder of Free the Slaves, defines a slave as someone who is, “forced to work without pay under threat of violence and unable to walk away.” In today’s language, we commonly use another term in place of slavery: human trafficking.

What is the motivation for California AB 3121 and why does it only target African slaves? Are the California Governor and legislature so short sighted and narrow minded that they just failed to fully examine the issues? Is the motivation truly to make third and fourth generation descendants of Black slave’s whole?  Could it be that the California legislature focused on African slave descendants because there are 2.3 million African Americans in California as opposed to 720,000 Native Americans and it all comes down to votes? 

Why has California not addressed any of the issues outlined in AB 3121 at the state level? California posted a near all-time high graduation rate of 83 percent for the Class of 2018, but the rate of student eligible to apply for state universities did not improve, according to data released by the California Department of Education. This might suggest that the high school educational standards in California are so low as to allow 83% to graduate but are too low to allow these graduates to enter college. Data indicates that the average income in Los Angeles County is approximately $300,000 for Whites and $4,500 for Blacks. There are in excess of 150,000 homeless persons living on the streets of California and Blacks are still overrepresented in the jails and prisons in California. 

So, what is the motivation? In the last several years, California has experienced a flattening of the State population and businesses are leaving the State. For the last several years, California’s unemployment rate, Covid 19 notwithstanding, has run about 4-4.5%. With a very high cost of living and a minimum wage of $12.00 an hour, and high school graduates not being prepared to enter college, and a State deficit in excess of $54 billion, maybe California is running out of money. Could it be that California limited their reparations bill to Black African slave descendants because race relations in this country are declining and adding other oppressed groups would dilute the outcome? Could it be that California hopes the Federal Government will pick up the mantle of reparations and ease California’s financial strife?

A number of years ago, I read an interesting article about Governor George Wallace, who was the Governor of Alabama during the Civil Rights movement. Because of Governor Wallace’s stance on integration, he was vilified as a racist. The crux of the article suggested that Governor Wallace was not a racist, but he used Alabama’s integration opposition so the Federal Government would seize control of the Alabama school systems. When the Federal Government took over the school systems, the Government assumed the financial responsibility for improving Alabama schools for which the State of Alabama did not have the recourses to make the requisite improvements.  Maybe California is trying to do the same thing. Just food for thought!! 

Legislative Term Limits

I have seen numerous postings on social media during this election season that call for term limits for the US Congress. This usually happens when a long-tenured, ranking member of Congress makes a statement or proclaims an opinion that supporters of the “other” party don’t like. Then there is a hue and cry for term limits. Clearly, these ranking members have outlived their usefulness, according to some, and their age and longevity have diminished their critical thought processes to the point where they should be retired. Thus, Congress needs term limits. 

Let’s look at some longevity dates. The longest tenured member of the 116th US Senate is Patrick Leahy (D Vermont). Senator Leahy’s seniority date is January 3, 1975. He has been a continuous member of the US Senate for almost 46 years, or nearly 8 terms. The next longest tenured Senator is Chuck Grassley (R Iowa). Senator Grassley’s seniority date is January 3. 1981. He has been a continuous member of the US Senate for almost 40 years, or nearly 7 terms. Senator Grassley is followed by Senator Mitch McConnell (R Kentucky). Senator McConnell’s longevity date is January 3, 1981. He has been a continuous member of the US Senate for almost 36 years, or nearly 6 terms. Senator Richard Shelby (R Alabama) has been a continuous member of the US Senate for 5 ½ terms, followed by Diane Feinstein (D California) with nearly 4 ½ terms.  Don Young (R Alaska) is the longest tenured Representative with a seniority date of March 6, 1973. He has been a continuous member of the House for nearly 47 years, or 23 terms. Jim Sensenbrenner (R Wisconsin) has a seniority date of January 3, 1979. He has been a continuous member of the House for nearly 42 years, or 21 terms. Hal Rogers (R Kentucky) and Chris Smith (R New Jersey) both took their House seats on January 3, 1981. They have been continuous members of the House for nearly 40 years, or 20 terms. Nancy Pelosi (D California) is the Speaker of the House. She took her seat in the House January 3, 1987. She has been a continuous member of the House for 34 years, or 17 terms. 

A review of the 116th Congress shows there are 100 Senators and 436 Representatives. The average age of the Representatives at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 57.6 years; of the Senators, 62.9 years.  The average age of the newly elected Representatives to the 116th Congress was 47.9 years; of the Senators, 58.1 years. The average length of service for a Senator at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 10.1 years (1.7 Senate terms); for a Representative, 8.6 years (4.3 House terms). 

Some additional investigation reveals that, of the 100 US Senators,  Bob Menendez (D New Jersey) is the 25thranking member by seniority. He has served continuously since January 17, 2006. This means that he has served 2 1/3 terms in the US Senate. This further demonstrates that there are 75 members of the US Senate with less than 14 years of continuous service, or, three-quarters of the US Senate has served less than 2 1/3 terms. By contrast, the 25th ranking member of the House of Representatives is Joe Courtney (D Connecticut). He has served continuously since January 3, 2007. This means he has served for 13 years in the House of Representatives, or 6 1/2 terms. This indicates that there are 327 House members who have served less than 13 years. What this tells us is that 402 members of Congress (75 Senators and 327 House members) have less than 14 years of continuous service. 

I have to admit, the first name I recognized on the seniority list of Representatives was Peter DeFazio (D Oregon) at number seven, followed by Nancy Pelosi (D California) at number ten, then Maxine Waters (D California) at number nineteen. The Senate is a different story. I recognized nearly half of the top twenty Senators on the seniority list. This could be because the Senate is much more vocal than the House, with the exception of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A further reason could be because a House term is two years and a Senate term is six, making for a higher turnover rate for the House.

With 75% of House and Senate members having seniority of less than 14 years, the questions become these: Is there a need for term limits, and what should be the length of said limits? Those who are very vocal in support of term limits generally do not have a clear vision of what they believe should be the length of these term limits. They just want them. They have even less of a clear vision on how to impose term limits. They just want them. I had a brief exchange with a friend on how he proposed to enact term limits. His response was to start with electing legislators who support term limits. Think about this, each state has two US Senators, each with a six-year term. How long would it take to elect the two-thirds majority needed in the Senate to have the required votes just to move forward with a term-limit Amendment? Now think about the House with 436 Representatives. There is a process for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution, but this requires two-thirds of the states (state legislatures) to support the initiative just to have the convention. Does anyone really think that a member of the US House of Representatives or the US Senate would actually vote themselves out of a job? 

My sense of things is that the people who call for term limits are doing so because they disagree with a position of a long-tenured Senator or Representative from another state. I doubt a majority of Californians have an issue with the longevity of Speaker Pelosi. If they did, she would have been voted out, as I doubt the majority of Kentuckians have an issue with Majority Leader McConnel’s longevity for the same reason. The fact of the matter is, we do have term limits in this country. They are called elections. People vote for who they believe will best represent their state at the national level. These term limits are demonstrated by the fact that the average longevity of a US Senator and a US Representative is less than 14 years. 

Why Do the Police Shoot so Many Times and Miss?

Police officers are required to qualify at least once a year with their service weapon. Generally speaking, an officer is considered qualified with a minimum score of 70%. In most states, officers who fail to qualify are suspended from duty until they pass. When the police are involved in a shooting, have you ever wondered why these qualified officers fire so many rounds yet they miss so often? Let’s examine this phenomenon. 

In the late 1980’s, police departments began a transition from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. This transition increased police firepower from 6 rounds with a revolver to about 16 rounds depending on the make and model of the semi-automatic pistol. Over time, this has brought into focus the fact that the police miss a lot. The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) published in 2017 reported that the initial police officer involved in a shooting fired 9.7 rounds and hit the suspect 3.9 times   for a 40% accuracy rate.  A 2018 Dallas Police Department report examined 149 officer involved shootings over a 15-year period. The results suggested that officers who fired at a single suspect missed 65% of the time. In other words, more than six out of ten rounds fired by the DPD missed the suspect. According to a study conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department from 2012-2016, officers involved in a shooting hit the suspect 33.4% of the time. The report concluded that more than six out of ten rounds fired by the LAPD missed the suspect. 

There are many factors involved in why the police shoot so many times and miss. Let us examine this using two interconnected factors: physiological responses and training. Research suggests the response time of the average adult is one-half to three-quarters of a second. What this means is that from the time the average adult perceives a threat (their brain recognizes a threat and begins to send stimulus to respond) until they begin to move in response to this stimulus (begin to turn to run, begin to reach for a weapon, etc.) one-half to three-quarters of a second passed. This same response time works in reverse. From the time the average adult recognizes a threat is over until their body begins to cease an action is also one-half to three-quarters of a second. Research further suggests that the average adult, not under the stress of a life and death situation, can fire four rounds a second from a semi-automatic pistol. This means that the time the average adult fires the first round until the fourth round is fired is approximately one second. When the requisite level of stress is added, the number of rounds per second increases. 

Let’s examine how police department training addresses these physiological responses. While these are just a very small sample, I did not find any states that had radically different qualification requirements. The State of Kansas requires officers to shoot three rounds in three seconds from three yards; three rounds in five seconds from five yards; and four rounds is ten seconds from seven yards. At twenty-five yards officers shoot five rounds in fifteen seconds. The State of Arizona requires officers to shoot three rounds from three yards in four seconds; three rounds (with a simulated malfunction clearing) in seven seconds; three rounds, magazine exchange and three rounds if fourteen seconds from fifteen yards; and three rounds in ten seconds from twenty-five yards.  The State of Alabama requires twelve rounds (six strong hand unsupported and six weak hand unsupported) in twenty-five seconds from five yards; two rounds in eight seconds and twelve rounds in twenty-five seconds from seven yards; four strings of three rounds in five seconds from fifteen yards; and twelve rounds (six standing barricade and six knelling barricade) in thirty-five seconds from twenty-five yards. The State of Ohio requires three rounds in five seconds from four feet; two rounds in the torso and one round in the head in six seconds from nine feet; four rounds (dominate hand only) in eight seconds from twelve feet; three rounds reload and three rounds from twenty feet in twelve seconds; three rounds from thirty feet in eight seconds; and two rounds from fifty feet in eight seconds. The State of Ohio also requires the qualification to be conducted during daylight hours. The State of Vermont requires three sets of two rounds fired from three yards, each two round set fired in three seconds; three sets of two rounds fired from five yards, each two round set fired in four seconds; six rounds (two strong hand and four support hand) in fifteen seconds from seven yards; six rounds in seven seconds, also from seven yards; four rounds magazine change and four more rounds in twenty-five seconds from twelve yards; four rounds in unlimited time from twenty-five yards. For full disclosure, some of these states require a flanking step, firing while retreating, the use of barricades, and other similar physical movements.  However, there seems to be a limit to the physical demands placed on the qualifying officer. 

How does all of this relate to the number of rounds fired in an officer-involved shooting and the number of misses? As the UCR published in 2017 indicated, the initial officer involved in a shooting fired 9.7 rounds. This may suggest that the initial officer involved actually fired for less than two seconds. One interpretation of this is that the officers involved used a “grip it and rip it” response to the threat.  Research supports this “grip it and rip it” theory, finding that officers rarely use the sights, looking across the top of the barrel at the suspect, and instead they pull the trigger as fast as they can. Decades of research suggest the physiological changes that occur to an officer involved in a shooting include tunnel vision, audio breakdown, reduced manual dexterity, hypervigilant (failing to recognize the threat has ceased) decision-making–and these are just the high points. This suggests that the theory behind police firearms training does not meet the reality of a shooting situation, since firearms instructors spend vast amounts of time instructing in the use of sights, grip, and trigger control. These are all needed and are required fundamentals of good pistol marksmanship. They are clearly most beneficial in a situation where the officer is behind cover and can take the time to line up a shot and take it. 

One skill generally not taught, and the one skill that is paramount in a “grip it and rip it” response, is recoil management. All of the qualification times described above give the shooter ample time to recover the recoil and fire the next round. It is very easy to do even when firing one round a second. Recoil management is not so easy, however, when firing four or five or even six rounds a second. The reality is that in close quarters officer involved shooting, this is exactly what happens.

Most of the police qualification courses and times I reviewed were nothing more than “plinking” at the target. These are skills that every Saturday afternoon shooter can successful accomplish plinking at the range. When they are finished, they can go home and feel really good about their pistol proficiency. Most of the indoor ranges I am familiar with will not allow rapid fire for safety reasons. One round a second is not considered “rapid fire.” 

Police officers don’t miss because they aren’t qualified. Police officers miss because they don’t train as if they were in a shooting situation. A flanking step or a retreating step does not provide the physiological response training to adequately perform in a shooting situation. Police officers don’t train in recoil management. There is enough time in the qualification courses to allow the officer to successfully recover from the recoil. Current police training is set up so the officer is successful. It is set up so there is minimal risk the officer won’t qualify. It is set up so the officer can continue to carry a firearm.  

So, the next time you wonder why police officers miss, go to the range, set up your target at 10 yards (30 feet) and “grip it and rip it.” See how many times you hit the X-ring. And remember, the only stress you are under is trying to hit a piece of paper that is not moving or shooting back. 

Maybe It IS Time for a Change!

Affecting change is difficult, particularly in the culture and environment of policing. Policing in America has gone through some major metamorphoses since the early 1900’s. The Political Era   (1840-1920) of policing was dominated by political corruption, graft, and bribery. Appointed by political leaders, police officers often were given the job description of carrying out the often dubious mandates of those in political office.

The Professional Model Era (1920-1970) was ushered in with the goal of centralizing police administration, improving the quality of police personnel, and removing policing from the political arena. The Wickersham Commission Report (1931) recommended that policing move away from the service-centered model and toward a law-enforcement model. Policing was to be based on well-trained, well-disciplined, and tightly organized police departments, embracing technology and incorporating a merit system for hiring and promotion.

The 1960’s and 1970’s proved to be a very challenging time for policing in America. Crime rates doubled, the Civil Rights movement began, and anti-war sentiment was prominent, as were urban riots. These events spawned the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice as well as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Police were seen as partially responsible for the continuing high crime rates and civil unrest. The number of complaints and civil actions brought against the police skyrocketed during these decades.

The Community Policing Era (1970-2000’s) changed the focus of policing from Sgt. Joe Friday approach (“Just the facts, ma’am!”) to recognizing that embracing the public and encouraging its cooperation, could improve the effectiveness of the police department in the areas of crime control and order maintenance. This era also saw the emergence of community relations programs, citizens police academies, fear reduction programs, and D.A.R.E.

Problem-oriented policing was a spinoff of community-oriented policing. Such an approach analyzed the connections between events that on the surface may have appeared to be unrelated. It allowed officers to work with citizens and representatives from various city and state agencies to find more permanent solutions to a variety of problems that have gradually migrated to becoming a policing responsibility.

Contemporary policing strategies have brought forth several notions, including “one size fits one” policing, reassurance policing, and intelligence-led policing. Today, police utilize crime mapping and other such technology-based methodologies that have a significant effect on the prevention and investigation of crime.

These shifts in policing philosophy were implemented with the purpose of making policing more efficient and more effective, precipitating fundamental changes in how policing has been operationalized in the last 120 years. These changes were driven from two distinct camps: the judiciary and politics.

The responsibility of the judiciary is to interpret whether or not the statutes have been enforced appropriately. As judiciary changes are top-down driven (i.e., from the United State Supreme Court down to local courts), police trainers have had to adjust to these judiciary fiats.  For example, when the Supreme Court ruled on Miranda, the typical response from the policing community was that the “Miranda Warnings” would greatly impede criminal investigations. This did not turn out to be the case; nevertheless, it is reflective of how the policing community tends to resist change.

The bulk of changes in policing over time have been politically driven. Something has happened that has caused the political entities to become involved in policing. The George Floyd incident is the most recent and possibly the most consequential happening in recent history.  And now, the political influences, particularly in metropolitan areas, have stepped forward attempts to “correct” the perceived problem.

The focus of this narrative is not on the historical changes in policing, but rather to ask the questions: Why don’t the police drive the change? Where are the forward thinkers? Why do we do the same things over and over, until there occurs an event that forces change upon us?

There has been a school of thought for decades that suggests the police psychological evaluation should shift from a “select out” process to a “select in” process. Instead of having an evaluative instrument that identifies candidates who “demonstrate an abnormal psychopathy” and, hence, would be deemed unfit, why not develop an evaluative instrument based on the characteristics the community and the police department consider desirable for the type of policing that meets the community’s standard? Not all community standards are the same, so why do we tend to hire police officers from the same mold?

The Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform reports that 36 states allow a police officer to begin working, for as long as a year, before attending the police academy. The website Trainingreform.org reports that on average, the time requirement for police basic training is 647 hours, with the range being from 408 hours (Georgia) to 1,321 hours (Connecticut). Mandatory police in-service hours average 21 per year, with a range of 6 (Alaska) to 40 being required in several states. For comparative purposes, to become a licensed barber requires 1,300 hours, which does not include varying lengths of apprenticeships and exams.

De-escalation is a hot topic for police. A training deficiency has been identified and nationally exposed by virtually every news outlet both in America and around the world. To address this issue, 13 states have initiated “de-escalation” in-service training. This preparation ranges from requiring the training with no minimum number of hours set, to one hour of training per year, to three hours of training every three years. Wouldn’t you think that learning how to de-escalate a situation like the one involving George Floyd would be of paramount importance? Yet, 37 states do not require in-service de-escalation training.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that police academies run by POST agencies and colleges/universities were more likely to use a “non-stress” training model, which is based on academic achievement, physical training, and a more relaxed and supportive instructor-trainee relationship, as opposed to a “stress” training model, based on intensive physical demands and psychological pressure. How do you teach police recruits critical thinking skills if you do not put them in situations where they have to think and respond immediately? How do you teach a police recruit to critically assess a situation and initiate a response when their training is sitting in a classroom and memorizing “Student Performance Objectives” to regurgitate on a written final exam?

In the early 1980’s, the Commonwealth of Kentucky required a Basic Academy instructor to have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree, five years’ of on-the-job experience, and the completion of a 120-hour Instructor Development Course.  As of this writing, the police academy instructor requirements are a minimum of a high school diploma or equivalent, a minimum of three years’ experience, and the completion of a 40-hour Instructor Development Course. So, over the past four decades, while society advances, the requirement for those charged with training the police in Kentucky has diminished. I am fairly certain that Kentucky is not the only state that such a digression has occurred.

Research has been neutral on whether or not college-educated police officers function more effectively than do officers with a high school diploma or GED, with one exception: the use of physical force. The research is clear that a police officer’s educational level is inversely related to the officer’s propensity to use physical force. What this means is that the higher the level of education a police officer has, the less likely the officer is to use physical force. One could make the argument that the critical-thinking skills learned in college makes de-escalating a potentially violent confrontation more manageable.

I used to work with a police officer who was not overly successful in high school. He graduated but not anywhere near the top of his class. I remember once when he and I responded to a domestic call. He was attempting to give some direction to the husband. When the husband did not respond as the officer wanted, the officer repeated the exact same instructions, but louder. When the husband still did not respond, the officer repeated the exact same instructions, but louder still. Apparently, the officer felt getting louder would make the husband understand the command better. After the husband again failed to respond, the officer hit him. This is clearly a lack of critical-thinking skills. While only one example, what if this happens during 1% of the police-public contacts? This would mean it’s happening approximately 3.5 million times a year.

I attended the 83rd session of the Administrative Officer’s Course at the Southern Police Institute (SPI). The education and training program was geared for police management personnel. This was at a time when Community-Oriented Policing (COP) was hitting its stride. Dr. Forrest Moss, then director of SPI, had finished a presentation outlining the benefits of COP: how will making the police more transparent to the community and how involving the community help the police be more effective and efficient, just to name a few. The basis for the presentation was how police departments could implement the COP program. At the conclusion of his presentation, I asked him if this COP program was new and for whom was it new? At this time I was the police chief in a small-town and we had been doing COP policing for years, but we did not know it. Generally, small departments look to larger departments for policing strategies. This is because it was and may still be believed that due to the sheer number of calls larger departments take, they are much better at responding to particular incidents, and smaller departments want that insight. It may be time to invert the formula, encouraging larger departments to look at how smaller departments respond. In the aftermath of George Floyd and the calls to defund the Minneapolis Police Department, one of the changes proposed was hiring social workers to take non-emergency calls. I refer you to Bulletin of Applied Criminal Justice (www.bacj.us Vol 1, No. 3) for an article written by J. Michael Ward, Police Chief in Alexandria, Kentucky. Several years ago Chief Ward initiated a program where social workers responded to non-emergency calls and the program works very well in Alexandria. This is an example of forward thinking.

It may be time for a change . . . a change in policing philosophy. It may be time for a change in how and whom we hire. It may be time for a change in how and what we train. It may be time for a change in identifying who the police should be.

Let’s encourage the forward thinkers to show themselves. Let’s get away from our comfort zone of “how we have always done” policing. Let’s finally take control of our industry before the politicians ultimately mandate what we will do and how we will do it.

While We Are Rewriting History . . .

I find it interesting that there is a need in this country to rewrite history. I understand that history is written by the victors (just ask the indigenous peoples of the United States). Their sense of history differs radically from the traditional, textbook version. That being said, the removal of Confederate monuments, the removal of Confederate battle flags, and the renaming of parks and highways in an attempt to address the issue of racism is an interesting phenomenon. A phenomenon I find very skewed.

George Washington, the once Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and first President of the United States, has a 555-foot monument erected on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. This obelisk commemorates his profound contributions to this country. History depicts President Washington as a hero. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War, he was a hero as the first President of the United States, and he was a hero in the founding of this country. But George Washington was no hero. George Washington should be depicted for what he really was: a white supremacist, a racist, a slave owner. He owned slaves prior to the Revolutionary War, and he owned slaves during and after his presidency. Some accounts suggest he owned as many as 317 slaves. The name “Washington” should elicit a white-supremacy-oriented, racist response. Clearly, the Washington Monument needs to be demolished and his name removed from our nation’s capital.

Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States. The Memorial erected in his honor is a national landmark listed in the U.S. National Registry of Historic Places. The National Park Service website describes Jefferson as a “Renaissance Man.” The statue of Jefferson inside the Memorial was intended to represent the Age of Enlightenment, reflecting Jefferson’s stature as a philosopher and statesman. The architect’s intention was to synthesize Jefferson’s contributions as a statesman, architect, President, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, adviser to the Constitution and founder of the University of Virginia. However, history depicts Jefferson through a skewed lens. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was a white supremacist and a racist. He owned more than 600 slaves, far more than any other president. DNA testing has confirmed that Jefferson also fathered numerous bi-racial children. While we are re-writing history, we surely need to demolish the Jefferson Memorial as it clearly exacerbates the racial divide in this country.

James Madison was the fourth President of the United States. He is memorialized as a hero and founding father of our country. There are numerous cities, counties, rivers and parks commemorating James Madison. Buildings were constructed in his honor. The James Madison Memorial Building is one of three United States Capitol Complex buildings that house the Library of Congress. Madison Square Garden in New York City is named in honor of James Madison. There is James Madison University, James Madison College, and the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation all bearing his name.  But let me ask you: has history depicted Madison in the proper light? Madison possessed in excess of 100 slaves. He owned slaves prior to, during, and after his Presidency.  He is the author of the “Three-Fifths Compromise,” which counted three out of every five slaves for purposes of taxation and legislative representation. This highly respected and highly regarded historical figure drafted legislation that did not count a slave as a whole person. This clearly was a demonstration of white supremacy and racism. Therefore, Madison’s name should be removed from all cities, buildings, parks, and universities because his name is an obvious manifestation of white supremacy and racism.

Arlington House, the 1,100-acre estate of Robert E. Lee, was seized by the Federal Government during the Civil War for failure to pay taxes. This occurred even though Lee’s wife, Mary Anne Custis Lee, attempted to pay the taxes on several occasions. This seizure ensured that Lee could never return to his estate. Statues of Lee have been removed in New Orleans, Richmond, and a stained-glass image of him was removed from a church in Idaho in an attempt to address suggestions of overt racism. If we follow this logic, then Arlington House and the estate are clear representations of slavery and, therefore, racism as Lee did own slaves and these slaves worked on this estate.

Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial, clearly needs to be eradicated as a U.S. National Memorial. It needs to be removed from the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. The 1,100 acres, which were separated from Arlington House by the Government, also clearly need to be plowed under as a National Monument. It needs to be completely repurposed so as not to reflect any connection to white supremacy or racism.

If you are going to re-write history, you cannot pick and choose what parts of history you want to re-write. You cannot remove a statue of a Confederate general in the name of white supremacy and racism and let stand the monuments to our forefathers who owned slaves and used slaves in the founding of this country. If you do, you are just as racist as those about whom the statues commemorate.

Oh, by the way, Robert E. Lee’s 1,100-acre estate is Arlington National Cemetery!


Black Lives Matter?

The recent killing of George Floyd by an officer of the Minneapolis police department has spawned another round of civil unrest. Make no mistake, what happened to George Floyd was unconscionable in any circumstance, but clearly a miscarriage of justice when consummated at the hands of a 19-year veteran of the police department.

This narrative, however, is not about what happened to George Floyd.

What happened to George Floyd has brought another round of focus on Black lives matter. My questions are the following: to whom do Black lives matter and when do Black lives matter?

I know going into the research that the initial response to this blog by certain groups will be negative. I also know that people who are emotionally tied to an issue have a very difficult time with facts. Mark Twain once said, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!” Maxwell Scott was quoted as saying, “. . . when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” People believe what they believe. Or, more precisely, people believe what they are told to believe, and facts don’t matter. Just read any newspaper or watch any national news program for examples of same.

For the last several years, approximately 1,100 individuals per year have died at the hands of police in this country. Statistics indicate that in 2017, 457 Whites and 223 Blacks died in this manner.  In 2018, 349 Whites and 209 Blacks died the same way. And in 2019, 370 Whites and 235 Blacks died at the hands of the police. What this projects is that approximately .000314% of the total population in the United States will be killed by police while approximately .000493% of the Black population will be killed by the police.

Statistics indicate that 59% of high school students in the 50 largest cities in the United States drop out of school. Statistics further indicate that 60% of Black high school dropouts spend time in prison. The Pew Research group reported that at the end of 2017 there were approximately 476,000 Black prison inmates and approximately 436,000 White prison inmates. Prisonpolicy.org reported in 2010 that 2,306 Blacks per 100,000 population are incarcerated. This is nearly twice as many as the next ethnic group. The “Sentencing Project” and numerous other criminological research projects have identified educational outcomes as one of the individual level factors in the disparity in the incarceration rates by race. This is nothing new. Where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations to improve the educational outcomes for Blacks? Where are the forward thinkers and their proposals to reverse this trend?

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that from 1999-2015 the largest percentage of cause of death for male Blacks aged 18-34 was homicide. The “Murder” category of the 2016 Uniform Crime Report published by the FBI indicates there were 2,870 single victim/single offender Blacks killed in the United States. Of the 2,870 Black victims, 2,570 were killed by other Blacks. This is an 89.5% Black-on-Black homicide rate. By comparison, in 2016, 3,499 Whites were killed in the United States. Of the 3,499 victims, 2,854 were killed by Whites. This is an 81.5 % White-on-White death rate.

Such a statistic is only reported when information about the offender is available. One might expect the same-race murder rate to be reflective of the general population. Whites comprise approximately 77% of the population of the United States so the White-on-White murder rate of 81.5% is not too far out of line. However, the Black-on-Black murder rate is 89.5% and Blacks comprise approximately 13% of the population of the United States. This is inordinately skewed. Where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations for resources to address this trend? Odell Owens was the medical examiner in Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio. Dr. Owens had stated on numerous occasions that the primary mitigating factor in homicides in Hamilton County was the drug trade. This is nothing specific to Hamilton County, Ohio. This is a trend in most urban areas of the United States. Where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations to reverse this trend?

Blacks are disproportionately represented in the jails and prison systems of the United States.  Approximately 60% of violent crime in the United States is perpetrated by 6% of the population–young Black males. Where is the outrage?

The Center for Disease Control published findings that suggest the following: “Blacks had a higher death rate and a higher prevalence of many chronic health conditions, and lower prevalence of some healthy behaviors. Blacks were less likely to participate in leisure-time physical activity and maintain a healthy weight. This report suggested that Blacks had significantly lower educational attainment and home ownership and almost twice the proportion of households living below the poverty level and unemployed than whites in all age groups.” Where is the outrage here? Where are the demonstrations for resources and education as they relate to a healthy lifestyle?

In 2018, Whites comprised 77.1% of police officers in the USA while Blacks comprised 13.3% of police officers. This is reflective of the demographic of Whites and Blacks nationwide. In 2018 police officers averaged $69,000 annually. This is approximately $15,000 above the national average salary. This is not a bad wage, particularly in urban areas, which have a tendency to pay more. If policing is systemically racist, why has there not been a movement by Black leadership to become active in the recruitment of Blacks to the police forces? If policing is systemically racists, why has there been no civil unrest when a Black police officer shoots a Black suspect, or a Hispanic officer shoots a Black suspect? If there is systemic racism in policing, then these shootings also should be considered racist and evoke calls to justice.

The “Sentencing Project” identified poverty, education outcomes, unemployment history, and criminal history as individual level factors for many of the disparities in incarceration rates.  Where is the outrage over the poor educational outcomes for Black Americans? Where are the attempts to interdict the lifestyles that land a disproportionate number of Blacks in the jails and prisons of this country? Where is the outrage when rioters carrying “Black Lives Matter” signs loot businesses that have Black proprietorships, where Blacks work and shop? Where is the outrage over the disproportionate number of Black-on-Black homicides?

All lives do matter. Unfortunately, it appears that Black lives matter only when the life of a Black individual is taken by a White police officer.





The word “hero” has been bandied about recently in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Webster defines “hero” as, “A man admired for his achievements and qualities.” Dictionary.com defines “hero” as, “A person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character; a person who, in the opinion of others, has special achievements, abilities, or personal qualities and is regarded as a role model or ideal.” Maybe, the definition of a “hero” could also be, “An ordinary person doing extraordinary things.” For example, Sgt. York in WWI, Audie Murphy in WWII, Jorge Otero Barreto in Vietnam, Pat Tillman and Chris Kyle in Iraq. These were ordinary individuals who found themselves in extraordinary circumstances.

You cannot watch television during these times and not see commercials thanking our “heroes,” those people on the front lines, for their service. Pictures of doctors, nurses, truck drivers, teachers, cashiers, firefighters, police officers and paramedics are flashed across the screen. You see a collage of actors and professional athletes thanking and praising people in occupations they often might hold in distain. Maybe these “stars” have had a change of heart and are truly thankful. Or maybe, because they are not working, they are making these videos so the shuffling masses who buy their products can still see them and, in this way, these “stars” can remain significant.

What were these front-line workers, these heroes, before the pandemic? Were the nurses really, as Washington State Senator Maureen Walsh described: “They probably play cards for a considerable amount of the day.” The backlash from nursing professionals that followed this statement was understandable. Washington State Department of Health published the following statistics as of 04/24/2020:  12,077 confirmed cases, 723 deaths, 160,324 total tests. During this pandemic, State Senator Walsh has been eerily quiet. Were police officers really as Black leadership described when a White police officer is forced to shoot a Black suspect? In the midst of this pandemic, where Black Americans are dying at a higher rate than White Americans and Hispanic Americans due to their increased risk factors, Black leadership has been eerily quiet. Were teachers really incapable of teaching, assessing student outcomes, and managing their classrooms to the point where politicians felt the need to step in and dictate how a classroom should be conducted? These are the same teachers who had to convert all of their classes to an online format in a very short period of time to keep educating their students because the schools were closed. On this point, politicians have been eerily quiet. Were truckers really the reckless, endangering, negligent drivers that liability attorneys depict in their commercials? Now, however, these same attorneys are praising said drivers for working during the pandemic. Were cashiers really the slow, incompetent, knuckleheads deserving the ire of shoppers which is readily apparent to anyone who has ever shopped at, say, Walmart? Now such front-line workers are considered heroes.

These police officers, correctional officers, doctors, nurses, paramedics, firefighters and others on the front lines are not heroes because they are working during this pandemic. They are heroes because they get up every day, grab their gear, and go to work. They work during hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, the heat of summer and the cold of winter. Maybe a hero is someone who goes unnoticed until the time and place are right for them to be noticed!

Undocumented Immigrants and the CARES Act

I read on Facebook the other day (I know, but CNN published a report that suggests 75% of adults in the U.S. get their news from email or social media) that congressional Democrats proposed a rider to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the “CARES Act” that would grant undocumented immigrants the same Coronavirus economic incentive benefits as U.S. citizens would receive. Of course, this created a firestorm on social media. A little closer examination may be beneficial.

The CARES Act is a $2 trillion Coronavirus pandemic response bill to aid in the U.S. economic recovery. The CARES Act allocates $603.7 billion to individuals, with $300 billion (15% of the $2 trillion package) being earmarked for direct allocations. Those earning less than $75,000 will receive a one-time cash payment of $1,200. Married couples will each receive a $1,200 payment plus $500.00 per child. For example, this bill establishes that a family of four will receive $3,400.

The Pew Report suggests that in 2017, the U.S. had approximately 10.5 million undocumented immigrants, of which, 7.8 million were part of the U.S. workforce. The breakdown of these undocumented immigrants indicates that 4.95 million are from Mexico, 1.9 million are from Central America, and 1.45 million are from Asia. The report further indicates that approximately 7 million of these undocumented immigrants have been in the U.S. longer than 10 years, and approximately 2 million have been in the U.S. less than five years. Tangentially, the Center for Migration Studies estimates that 44% of undocumented immigrants are here because they have overstayed their visas.

This would seem to suggest that 7 million undocumented immigrants have contributed to the national economy by working, raising children, and paying taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 50% – 75% of undocumented immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes per year. Several sources indicate that undocumented immigrants pay a total of approximately $25 billion per year in federal, state, and local taxes; which includes Social Security and Medicare. In 2016, according to the New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion to Social Security funds and $3 billion to Medicare. It is important to note that undocumented immigrants do not have Social Security numbers and are not eligible for any Social Security or Medicare benefits.

The Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy approximates that half of undocumented immigrants (approximately 5 million) file a Federal income tax return. These are 5 million undocumented immigrants who could each receive a $1,200 CARES Act allocation. This is because the Internal Revenue Service would have a valid address or a valid bank account for which to apply the funds. Hypothetically, should these 5 million undocumented immigrants each receive a $1,200 allocation, the total would be $6 billion, or 2% of the $300 billion allocated for individual payment and .3% of the $2 trillion package.

As stated earlier, undocumented immigrants pay approximately $25 billion in taxes each year. For the 10-year period the majority of undocumented immigrants have worked in the U.S., this totals approximately $250 billion. If the undocumented immigrants each receive $1,200, this calculates that they would receive 2.4% of what they have paid in taxes in the last 10 years.

A central theme of the responses I read regarding this Democratic proposal was that undocumented immigrants would be receiving a government benefit of which they were not deserving, and, therefore, this benefit would be borne solely on the backs of American taxpayers. Statistically, however, this is simply not the case.