Donald Trump's win in Indiana has practically clinched the Republican nomination. Since July 2015, Trump has led in most polls of GOP candidates. Immigration restrictionism is his most popular policy position. That position and the way he’s talked about it have defined his candidacy and set him apart from the get go. Trump is the nativist dream candidate – virtually whatever happens now can be blamed on his anti-immigration position.
Here’s a list of Trump's anti-immigration credentials:
- Build a wall, despite the 43-year low numbers of apprehensions by Border Patrol along the border.
- Making Mexico pay for the wall, despite the fact that Americans will actually pay for it.
- Mandatory and universal E-Verify, despite its economic cost, privacy concerns, and ineffectiveness.
- Eliminating or drastically cutting legal immigration, despite the serious economic harm to Americans.
- Creating a "deportation force" to round up all 11-12 million unauthorized immigrants and deport them, despite the fact that that would decrease GDP growth by $2.6 trillion over the next decade and directly cost taxpayers between $200 billion and $619 billion.
- Mandatory detention for all apprehended unauthorized immigrants, despite the likely result that 100,000 American citizens will be held in detention by accident – more than were interned in U.S. concentration camps during World War II.
- The completion of an unworkable and likely ineffective internal visa tracking system, despite a similar level of overstays here as in countries with such a system.
- Ann Coulter’s error-filled book¡Adios America!, which blames the castration of John Bobbit on “[t]he incessant rape in Hispanic societies” (page 183), is the source of his nativism.
- Ending birthright citizenship, despite the fact that it’s a centuries-old legal tradition in Common Law countries codified by the 14th amendment to the Constitution that likely helps assimilation.
- Staunch opposition to all Syrian refugees and refugees in general, despite the very low threat of terrorism on U.S. soil committed by refugees.
- Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and diseased criminals, despite their generally lower crime rates and Hispanics being disproportionately healthy.
- Calling for a ban on Muslim immigrants.
- Endorsements from anti-immigration luminaries Senator Jeff Sessions, Representative Lou Barletta, former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, despite Trump's lack of conservative credentials.
- Endorsement by the National Border Patrol Council.
- Trump’s de facto endorsement by prominent anti-immigration website like Breitbart, despite Andrew Breitbart's actual pro-immigration position.
You can read more about Trump’s immigration policies in his plan – which Ann Coulter called “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta.”
Trump is the real anti-immigration candidate that nativists have been praying for. He owns the anti-immigration label no matter what he does or says to distance himself from it in the general election. He spouts their ideas and appeals to their biases on a national stage. He is the perfect spokesman in tone and style for such a policy position. The political failure of immigration restrictionists in the past was always blamed on their moderation. Now they have a real anti-immigration radical to test their theory – so we should give them appropriate credit for Trump’s failure in November.
Donald Trump has offered his foreign policy vision. It was a bit of a mishmash, but he is no Neoconservative and broke with pro-war Republican orthodoxy in important ways.
The speech, delivered last week in downtown Washington, was standard campaign fare, intended to demonstrate that the candidate was serious, and included some of the usual bland generalities.
Still, there was considerable good in the talk.
After the Cold War, he noted, “Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another.” Hard to argue with that. Moreover, said Trump, it was a mistake to believe that the U.S. could impose Western-style democracy on countries “that had no experience or interests” in the process.
Indeed, he noted that “the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess.” It actually is the Bush-Obama-Clinton interventions, but point taken. “Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS,” Trump added.
Added Trump: “unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” Those are words not often spoken by Republicans. He also criticized the Iraq debacle, whose “biggest beneficiary has been Iran.”
Further, complained Trump, “our allies are not paying their fair share.” He promised to get out “of the nation-building business.” He argued that Washington should cooperate with Russia.
But there was the bad in the talk as well.
Watching the Presidential primary debates, there are numerous instances where I -- and no doubt many others here at Cato and elsewhere -- think, "I should really correct that inaccuracy in a blog post tomorrow." But sometimes you wake up and find someone else has already done the job for you. Here are Washington Post fact checkers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee skillfully taking down one of Donald Trump's ridiculous statements on trade:
"I don’t mind trade wars when we’re losing $58 billion a year [to Mexico], you want to know the truth. We’re losing so much. We’re losing so much with Mexico and China — with China, we’re losing $500 billion a year." --Trump
Trump has the numbers right on the trade deficit with Mexico and overstates them with China — but he gets the economics very wrong in both cases. A trade deficit means that people in one country are buying more goods from another country than people in the second country are buying from the first country.
So in Mexico’s case, Americans in 2015 purchased $294 billion in goods from Mexico, while Mexico purchased $236 billion in goods from the United States. That results in a trade deficit of $58 billion. In the case of China, Americans in 2015 bought $482 billion in goods from China, while Chinese purchased $116 billion from the U.S., for a trade deficit of $366 billion.
But that money is not “lost.” Americans wanted to buy those products. If Trump sparked a trade war and tariffs were increased on those Chinese goods, then it would raise the cost of those goods to Americans. Perhaps that would reduce the purchases of those goods, and thus reduce the trade deficit — but that would not mean the United States would “gain” money that had been lost.
Trump frequently suggests, as he did in the debate, that Mexico could pay for the wall out of the $58 billion trade deficit. But that is nonsensical. The trade deficit does not go to the government; it just indicates that Americans are buying more goods from Mexico than the other way around.
Presidential candidate Ben Carson released a three-page tax plan yesterday. Based on the limited information the plan includes, it looks like the best GOP plan so far.
Individuals and businesses would be subject to a simple 14.9 percent flat tax. The tax base appears to be of the Hall-Rabushka (HR) design, which is the gold standard of simple and pro-growth tax structures. I say “appears to be” because the Carson three-pager gives some hints, but not full details.
The defining feature of HR is that income is taxed once and only once. The current double taxation of savings and investment would be ended. Capital income would be taxed at the business level under HR, while labor income would be taxed at the individual level. Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka proposed the HR tax structure back in 1981, as I discuss here. Rabushka, by the way, is a Cato adjunct scholar.
Ben Carson seems to have avoided the dangerous business VAT structure of the Ted Cruz and Rand Paul tax plans. He appears to be critiquing Cruz and Paul in this passage:
Unlike proposals advanced by other candidates, my tax plan does not compromise with special interests on deductions or waffle on tax shelters and loopholes.Read the rest of this post »
Nor does it falsely claim to be a flat tax while still deriving the bulk of its revenues through higher business flat taxes that amount to a European-style value-added tax (VAT).
Adding a VAT on top of the income tax would not only impose an immense tax increase on the American people, but also become a burdensome drag on the U.S. economy.
There has been a recent surge of allegations that the underlying motive for outrages such as the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino is that radical Islamists hate Western values. Senator Marco Rubio is perhaps the most blatant in pushing that thesis. One of his campaign commercials asserts flatly that such violent extremists target us because we let women drive and girls attend school.
That argument is simply an updated version of the meme that President George W. Bush highlighted in the period following the 9-11 attacks. According to Bush and his supporters, Islamists hated us “because of our freedoms.” Just nine days after the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush addressed Congress and emphasized that theme. “They hate our freedoms,” he said, “our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” Such an argument was simplistic and misleading then, and it is simplistic and misleading now.
That is not to say that it is impossible to find a jihadist somewhere who is so unhinged that he would want to slaughter Americans simply because of a virulent hatred of Western culture. But even the bipartisan commission that investigated the 9-11 attacks conceded that the primary driving force for Islamist terrorism was anger at U.S.-led foreign policy in the Middle East. And there were no pacifists, “blame America first” types, or “isolationists” on that commission. The members made the grudging admission that Western actions in the Middle East were root cause of Islamic terrorist blowback because there was overwhelming evidence that it was true.
The Marco Rubios of the world act as though Western policy and the wreckage it has caused in the Muslim world is an irrelevant factor with respect to terrorism. But the United States and its allies have been meddling extensively throughout the region for decades. Indeed, beginning with the military intervention in Lebanon in 1982, they have been almost continuously imposing punishing economic sanctions on, bombing, or invading Muslim countries. Such conduct, and the acute suffering it has caused, might have a little something to do with the rage that is now directed at the West.
Indeed, there are more than a few hints of that motive from the statements of radical Islamic operatives. Osama Bin Laden responded directly to Bush’s facile argument that al-Qaeda attacked the United States because of a hatred of Western values. Bin Laden noted that his group had not attacked countries such as Sweden. That was true even though Scandinavian culture (especially its liberal sexual mores) was far more offensive than American culture to conservative practitioners of Islam. The reason for the restraint, Bin Laden emphasized, was that Sweden had not attacked Muslim countries. Indeed, he stated categorically that “any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.”
It is also pertinent to remember the words of the terrorist gunmen at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris. They did not shout out: “This is because you let women drive!” Instead, they shouted: “This is for Syria!” France (along with the United States and other Western allies) had been bombing areas controlled by ISIS in Syria for more than a year. The Paris attacks were bloody payback.
Lest the usual flock of neoconservative hawks try to distort this analysis as a “justification” for terrorism, let’s make it perfectly clear: deliberately attacking innocent civilians is never justified, no matter what the underlying grievance. But stressing that point is far different from pretending that there is no underlying grievance, which is what Rubio and his ideological cohorts are attempting to do.
Ending the U.S.-led policy of militarized meddling in the Middle East might not mean the end of radical Islamic terrorism directed against the West—at least not immediately. But the old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, your first action should be to stop digging, applies here. As a first step, we need to stop pursuing the policies that have produced such catastrophic blowback.
After claiming a special expertise in foreign policy, GOP presidential wannabe Marco Rubio finds himself under fire because of his neoconservative tendencies. He’s responded in the usual way for someone whose policies would keep America perpetually at war: accuse his critics of being “isolationists.”
Trying to defend his record of supporting such disastrous misadventures as Iraq and Libya, he denounced unnamed foes who sought “to derail the postwar consensus about America’s role in the world.” This outrageous yet anonymous “they,” he added, “will never call themselves isolationists, but that is exactly what they are.”
Against Ted Cruz, the likely intended target, the claim obviously is nonsense. After all, Cruz recently proposed carpet-bombing the Islamic State.
What Rubio unintentionally illustrated was the fact that “isolationist” today has been stripped of almost all meaning to become an all-purpose epithet. Indeed, if “isolationist” means anything today, it simply is “you don’t want to intervene where I want to intervene.”
John Kasich seems most interested in winning the contest for Most Sanctimonious. He isn’t even likely to win the Ohio primary, let alone capture the GOP presidential nomination.
There was a time when Kasich looked like a serious contender. But he has gone out of his way to offend everyone, especially those who believe in shrinking government.
Perhaps Kasich’s strangest electoral ploy has been to present himself as God’s candidate. Two years ago he decided to expand Medicaid eligibility in his state. How to best provide health care for those with lesser incomes is a tough issue.
But Kasich didn’t stop at trying to make a practical case for his proposal. Instead, he trashed opponents as “hard-hearted or cold-hearted.”Read the rest of this post »