Donald Trump on Immigration: Same Anti-Immigration Ideas, New Salesman

Donald Trump’s newly released position paper on immigration is the precise mix of fantasy and ignorance that one has come to expect from the recently self-described Republican.  Specifically, his position paper reads like an outline of this April op-ed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL).  Trump is still a candidate in the GOP primary supported mainly by older white men who are not particularly conservative.  Although the electorate has never been more supportive of expanding legal immigration, Trump has never been more opposed.

Trump’s position paper attempts to lay the foundation for his immigration policy as president. Below, I review how his ideas measure up. Quotes from his paper are in quotes, my responses follow.

Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

  1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
  2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
  3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

The first sentence is true by definition, but assumes that for a border to be real, it must have a wall around it. Whether a wall is warranted should depend on the circumstances at the border, which are vastly more safe than Trump claims. 

The last two principles are vague enough that they could support any immigration policy from a total ban on immigration to open borders. The rest of his position paper narrows their focus.

U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc. Indeed, the annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011.

This analysis factors in only fiscal costs, which will always lead to negative fiscal outcomes. It ignores the fiscal benefits that come from a larger economy.  The fact remains that poor immigrants use less welfare than poor Americans.  They contribute mightily to Social Security, Medicare, and other portions of the U.S budget.  Over time, immigration’s impact on the U.S. taxpayer is about a net-zero.  In other words, immigrants and their descendants pay for themselves. 

Immigration can turn fiscally positive by further restricting welfare access.  Right now illegal immigrants do not have access to means tested welfare programs, but their American born children do.  However, their benefit levels are adjusted downwards to account for the non-eligible members of their households.  Short of lowering welfare benefit levels for everybody, which would be a positive move, the government cannot deny citizens access based on who their parents are.  However, Congress can deny all non-citizens access to welfare.  Cato has published the only guide of how to do that. Removing the Earned Income Tax Credit for unauthorized or other categories of non-citizens would also be easy.

The position paper doesn’t factor in the estimated $400 to $600 billion government cost of removing all unauthorized immigrants as well as the lost tax revenue from the subsequently smaller economy.  Doing so reveals how fiscally damaging this immigration plan would be if it ever became law. 

The effects on jobseekers have also been disastrous …

The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage.

There is a lot of research on whether immigrants displace Americans in the job market – and the general finding is that immigrants displace very few American workers. 

Budgets on Fire

It’s fire season again, which means we are once again treated to stories about how the Forest Service is running out of money and about how it all must be due to climate change. Both of these claims overlook fundamental points about fire policy and firefighting.

As of August 16, the BLM had spent $2.2 million controlling the 88,000-acre Cornet Fire on the Vale District in Oregon. The Forest Service has spent two-and-one-half times that much on a fire that was just 515 acres in size. BLM photo.

The Forest Service frets that rapidly rising firefighting costs are hurting the budgets of other Forest Service programs. However, as I’ve pointed out before, Forest Service firefighting costs have risen rapidly mainly because they can: the agency has a virtual blank check to spend on fire. As a result, the agency spends far more fighting fires than Department of the Interior agencies, which have never had a blank check.

For example, as of yesterday, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had spent $1.6 million controlling the 55,000-acre County Line 2 fire on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon, while the Bureau of Land Management had spent $2.5 million controlling the 44,000-acre Bendire fire on its Vale District. Meanwhile, the Forest Service had spent $5.5 million on the 515-acre Baldy Fire on the Colville National Forest; $5.9 million on the 4,800-acre National Creek fire on the Rogue River National Forest; and $7.1 million on the 2,600-acre Phillips Creek fire on the Umatilla National Forest. These are selected examples, but on average, the Forest Service spends more than five times as much per acre than the Interior agencies.

CO2-induced Greening of the Earth: Benefiting the Biosphere While Lifting the Poor out of Poverty

In the “Agriculture” chapter of Cato’s 2012 Addendum to the federal government’s “Second National Assessment” of the effects of climate change on the United States, I wrote the following:

At a fundamental level, carbon dioxide is the basis of nearly all life on Earth, as it is the primary raw material or “food” that is utilized by plants to produce the organic matter out of which they construct their tissues…

Typically, a doubling of the air’s CO2 content above present-day concentrations raises the productivity of most herbaceous plants by about one-third; this positive response occurs in plants that utilize all three of the major biochemical pathways of photosynthesis.

There is no doubt elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 lead to enhanced plant photosynthesis and growth. This well-known fact has been confirmed over and over again in literally thousands of laboratory and field studies conducted by scientists over the past several decades. In recent years, however, the growth-enhancing benefits of atmospheric CO2 have been increasingly studied and observed in the real world of nature using Earth-orbiting satellites. Such instruments have the capability to remotely sense plant growth and vigor at altitudes miles above the Earth’s surface; and they have generated a spatial and temporal record of vegetative change that now spans more than three decades. And what has that record revealed?

RICO Suits Hit Colorado Pot Dealers (and Landlords and Bankers)

I’ve been warning for years of the dangers of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law and how it gives prosecutors and enterprising private lawyers leverage to target above-board businesses in search of punishment or profit. Since the law’s passage in 1970, RICO has seldom been used against violent organized crime. Instead, it has been aimed at a wide array of white-collar defendants, as William Anderson noted in Regulation six years ago, and especially at unpopular industries like gun and cigarette makers, as Cato’s Bob Levy noted in 2000. The latest fillip is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s proposal to aim racketeering charges against groups that promote wrongful thinking on climate change. The civil side of the statute (“civil RICO”), which can be used in private litigation, is especially susceptible to tactical use by private lawyers who know that the vagueness of the law, the high cost of response, the triple-damages provisions, and the racketeering stigma especially are useful in forcing adversaries to the bargaining table. The more those adversaries value respectability, the more powerful the leverage. 

Now comes word that a Washington, D.C.-based tough-on-crime group calling itself the Safe Streets Alliance has filed suit seeking, in its words, “to hold those involved with Colorado’s recreational marijuana industry liable under federal racketeering statute and to have Colorado marijuana business licenses held invalid.” Its press release is at least honest enough to acknowledge that the targets include “the citizens of Colorado” for what it believes was their faulty decision to enact Amendment 64 in 2012. In one case SSA, representing a local Holiday Inn franchisee that didn’t care to have a medical marijuana shop near its business, succeeded in forcing owner Jerry Olson (no relation) out of business. A key tactic in the suit – one quite familiar to those of us who follow hardball civil litigation in general – was to name as racketeering co-defendants a variety of risk-averse, often respectable businesses that had in some way done business with the main target. Thus AP reports

…just last week, a bonding company in Des Moines, Iowa, paid $50,000 to get out of the lawsuit.

“We are out of the business of bonding marijuana businesses in Colorado and elsewhere until this is settled politically,” said Therese Wielage, spokeswoman for Merchants Bonding Company Mutual.

Thus does the litigation accomplish its goal whether or not it ultimately prevails before a judge:

“This lawsuit is meant more to have a chilling effect on others than it is to benefit the plaintiffs,” said Adam Wolf, Olson’s lawyer.

SSA lawyer Brian Barnes of Cooper & Kirk doesn’t seem to contradict that: 

“We’re putting a bounty on the heads of anyone doing business with the marijuana industry,” Barnes said.

I’m occasionally asked why I bother to worry about the legal woes of unpopular industries whose goods I don’t even care to consume. A different way to look at the question is that almost anyone’s line of business – whether it be soft drinks or accounting or putting up visitors in one’s home or charitable non-profit work or electioneering or employing entry-level workers at minimum wage – is one public-vilification campaign, or one round of lawsuits, away from becoming an unpopular industry. 

Why China Is in Trouble

The course of an economy is determined by the course of that economy’s money supply (broadly determined). The relationship between money growth and nominal GDP growth is presented in the accompanying chart. It is persuasive. Indeed, money, not fiscal policy, dominates.

As I listen to all the ad hoc conjectures about the state of China’s economy and its near-term prospects, I am astounded to never hear anything said about the most important determinant of nominal economic growth: the money supply. The second chart tells the tale. The picture is not a pretty one. China’s money supply growth rate has been slowing down since early 2012. It now is growing at an annual rate of about 10%, which is well below the trend rate of money growth: 17.06%. China is in trouble. Slower money supply growth means that slower nominal GDP growth is already baked in the cake.

Should Prostitution Be Legalized?

Does three make a trend? I can’t recall hearing much discussion of legalizing prostitution in the recent past, and suddenly this week I’ve seen three significant reports in the media. Are they straws in the wind? Could the legalization of prostitution be the next social reform to come to the fore?

First, last Thursday the Telegraph reported on a new study from the venerable free-market think tank in London, the Institute for Economic Affairs:

The sex trade should be fully decriminalised because feminism has left modern men starved of sex, one of Baroness Thatcher’s favourirte think-tanks claims.

A controversial new paper published by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) calls for Britain’s prostitution laws to be scrapped, insisting it is “inevitable” that men will resort to paying for sex as women become more empowered through participation in the workplace.

As IEA notes, the paper got plenty of publicity in the British media.

Then on Tuesday Amnesty International voted, as the New York Times put it, “to support a policy that calls for decriminalization of the sex trade, including prostitution, payment for sex and brothel ownership.” The full policy, which still requires final approval from the board, can be found here. The new policy

is based on the human rights principle that consensual sexual conduct between adults—which excludes acts that involve coercion, deception, threats, or violence—is entitled to protection from state interference (bearing in mind that legitimate restrictions may be imposed on sex work, as noted below).

And then today I see this in the Washington Post:

The School Choice Myth That Just Won’t Die

The myth that there’s no evidence that school choice works has more lives than Dracula. Worse, it’s often repeated by people who should know better, like the education wonks at Third Way or the ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate education committee. In a particularly egregious recent example, a professor of educational leadership and the dean of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Education wrote an op-ed repeating the “no evidence” canard, among others:

The committee also expands the statewide voucher program. There is no evidence privatization [sic] results in better outcomes for kids. The result will be to pay the tuition for students who currently attend private school and who will continue to attend private school—their tuition will become the taxpayers’ bill rather than a private one. Additionally, the funds for the expansion would siphon an estimated $48 million away from public schools, decreasing the amount of money available for each and every school district in the state.

It is astounding that a professor and a dean at a school of education in Wisconsin would be unfamiliar with the research on the Milwaukee voucher program, never mind the numerous gold standard studies on school choice programs elsewhere. Fortunately, Professor James Shuls of the University of Missouri-St. Louis and Martin Lueken of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty set the record straight: