Shortly before Christmas, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report detailing deportations (henceforth “removals”) conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during fiscal year 2015. Below I present the data on removals in historical context – combined with information from the Migration Policy Institute and Pew. See my previous writing on this topic here, here, and here.
ICE deported 69,473 unauthorized immigrants from the interior of the United States in 2015, down from a peak of 188,422 in 2011. Removals from the interior are distinct from removals of recent border crossers. Removals from the interior peaked during the Obama administration and have since fallen to a level similar to that of 2005 and 2006.
Source: MPI and DHS.
The number of interior removals during the last six years of the Bush administration (the first two years are unavailable so far) was 475,103. The Obama administration has removed unauthorized immigrants about 1,019,637 from the interior of the United States during the seven full years of his administration.
President Bush’s administration removed an average of about 276,000 unauthorized immigrants per year for the years available and an average of 79,000 of them annually were interior removals. President Obama’s administration has removed an average of 381,101 unauthorized immigrants a year, an average of 145,662 of them annually were interior removals. There were a large numbers of unknowns during the Bush administration that decreased as the years progressed.
I wrote yesterday that governments want to eliminate cash in order to make it easier to squeeze more money from taxpayers.
But that's not the only reason why politicians are interested in banning paper money and coins.
They also are worried that paper money inhibits the government's ability to "stimulate" the economy with artificially low interest rates.
Simply stated, they've already pushed interest rates close to zero and haven't gotten the desired effect of more growth, so the thinking in official circles is that if you could implement negative interest rates, people could be pushed to be good little Keynesians because any money they have in their accounts would be losing value.
I'm not joking.
Here's some of what Kenneth Rogoff, a professor at Harvard and a former economist at the International Monetary Fund, wrote for the U.K.-based Financial Times.
Getting rid of physical currency and replacing it with electronic money would...eliminate the zero bound on policy interest rates that has handcuffed central banks since the financial crisis. At present, if central banks try setting rates too far below zero, people will start bailing out into cash.
And here are some passages from an editorial that also was published in the FT.
...authorities would do well to consider the arguments for phasing out their use as another “barbarous relic”...even a little physical currency can cause a lot of distortion to the economic system. The existence of cash — a bearer instrument with a zero interest rate — limits central banks’ ability to stimulate a depressed economy.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the Willem Buiter of Citi (the same guy who endorsed military attacks on low-tax jurisdictions) supports the elimination of cash.
Citi's Willem Buiter looks at this problem, which is known as the effective lower bound (ELB) on nominal interest rates. ...the ELB only exists at all due to the existence of cash, which is a bearer instrument that pays zero nominal rates. Why have your money on deposit at a negative rate that reduces your wealth when you can have it in cash and suffer no reduction? Cash therefore gives people an easy and effective way of avoiding negative nominal rates. ...Buiter's solution to cash's ability to allow people to avoid negative deposit rates is to abolish cash altogether.
So are they right? Should cash be abolished so central bankers and governments have more power to manipulate the economy?
There's a lot of opposition from very sensible people, particularly in the United Kingdom where the idea of banning cash is viewed as a more serious threat.
The $1.83 billion arms sale package to Taiwan that the Obama administration announced to Congress in mid-December won’t change the military balance across the Taiwan Strait. Hawkish American commentators criticized the arms sale for not doing enough to provide for Taiwan’s security, but this misses the point. The most important aspect of the arms sale is not the kind of equipment being sold but the message sent by the transaction.
From a military perspective, the equipment in the arms sale is nothing to get excited about. The most prominent items are two refurbished Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and 36 AAV-7 amphibious assault vehicles. Guided missiles, Phalanx ship defense systems, and communications equipment make up the rest of the package. None of these capabilities will significantly change the balance of power between Taiwan and mainland China.
What does it accomplish?
First, the timing of the arms sale announcement is important. On January 16th, voters in Taiwan will go to the polls to select a new President and legislators. The period of rapprochement between Taiwan and mainland China championed by President Ma Ying-jeou since 2008 will likely come to an end. It is too early to tell how the election will impact cross-strait relations, but announcing an arms sale so close to the election demonstrates a continued U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense.
In a recent blog post, St. Louis Fed Vice President David Andolfatto suggests that central banks “consider offering digital money services (possibly even a cryptocurrency) at the retail and wholesale level.” His reasoning is straightforward. Bitcoin, he observes, offers a host of benefits, most of which relate to its role as a payment device. It enables individuals to transfer funds more cheaply than traditional payment mechanisms. But it also has shortcomings, the chief of which, Andolfatto claims, is its short-run price volatility.
As an alternative, Andolfatto points to “Fedcoin” — a central bank-issued cryptocurrency proposed earlier by J.P. Koning. In theory, Fedcoin would employ the same blockchain ledger technology as bitcoin to transfer funds between accounts. However, as Koning explains, “One user — the Fed — would get special authority to create and destroy ledger entries, or Fedcoin.” To what end? According to Koning, “The Fed would use its special powers of creation and destruction to provide two-way physical convertibility between both of its existing liability types — paper money and electronic reserves — and Fedcoin at a rate of 1:1.” Hence, Fedcoin would offer the payment system advantages of bitcoin — the ability to transfer funds cheaply — without its excessive purchasing power instability.
Politicians hate cash.
That may seem an odd assertion given that they love spending money (other people's money, of course, as illustrated by this cartoon).
But what I'm talking about is the fact that politicians get upset when there's not 100 percent compliance with tax laws.
They hate tax havens since the option of a fiscal refuge makes confiscatory taxation impractical.
They hate the underground economy because that means hard-to-tax economic activity.
And they hate cash because it gives consumers an anonymous payment mechanism.
Let's explore the animosity to cash.
Most would probably agree that this year’s race has already exceeded expectations in terms of sheer entertainment value, but as we head into January the presidential campaign season will really start to heat up. Foreign policy is poised to play an even bigger than expected role in this election, thanks to the many fires burning across the globe. In particular, of course, every candidate will have to explain how he or she intends to grapple with the mess in the Middle East. Unfortunately, as we heard during the most recent debates, most of the answers so far involve more American military intervention.
Philip Bump of the Washington Post, still in thrall to the labor theory of Congress’s value, declares, “The 112th Congress, you might remember, was the least productive in modern times.” That is to say, it passed fewer bills than other recent Congresses. But all is not lost!
After the first year of this 114th Congress, more bills have been enacted than in the 112th or 113th, according to data compiled by GovTrack.us. So far, the 114th is tracking more closely with the more‐productive 110th and 111th.
So good news for those of you have been worrying that you didn’t have enough new laws to discover, understand, and obey. Bump’s article is full of charts and data, all organized around the theme that a good, “productive” Congress is one that produces bills.
But as I’ve written before, journalists may well believe that passing laws is a good thing, and passing more laws is a better thing. But they would do well to mark that as an opinion. Many of us think that passing more laws – that is more mandates, bans, regulations, taxes, subsidies, boondoggles, transfer programs, and proclamations – is a bad thing. In fact, given that the American people pondered the “least productive Congress ever” twice, and twice kept the government divided between the two parties, it just might be that most Americans are fine with a Congress that passes fewer laws.
Is a judge “less productive” if he imprisons fewer people? Is a policeman less productive if he arrests fewer people? Government involves force, and I would argue that less force in human relationships is a good thing. Indeed I would argue that a society that uses less force is a more civilized society. So maybe we should call the 112th and 113th Congresses the most civilized Congresses since World War II (the period of time actually covered by the claim “least productive ever”), and the first session of the 114th Congress slightly less civilized.
As before, I wonder if congressional reporters would applaud the productivity of such Congresses as
The 31st Congress, which passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850
The 5th Congress, which passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798
The 21st Congress, which passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830
The 77th Congress, which passed Public Law 503, codifying President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 authorizing the internment of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans, in 1942
The 65th Congress, which passed the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition), the Espionage Act, and the Selective Service Act, and entered World War I, all in 1917
And hey, fans of legislation: If you’re really disconsolate over the passage of barely more than 100 new federal laws a year, take heart: According to my former colleague Ryan Young, now with the Competititive Enterprise Institute, federal regulators are on pace for the most pages in the Federal Register in a single year. They’ll need a strong final week, but Ryan thinks they can break the old record of 81,405 pages of new regulations. Will the Washington Post hail the regulators’ “productive” year? How about the Americans who have to comply with those regulations?