Tag: migration

State-Sponsored Visas Are Constitutional

Last week, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) introduced the State Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act of 2017. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is an official co-sponsor. If enacted, this bill would create a flexible state-sponsored visa system for economic migrants whereby states would regulate the type of visas and the federal government would handle admissions and issue the actual visas. Representative Ken Buck (R-CO) plans to introduce a companion version in the House in the near future. 

This is an innovative bill but we have encountered one persistent question from conservatives, libertarians, and others who are sympathetic to the idea of immigration federalism: Is a state-sponsored visa constitutional? 

The state-sponsored visa is perfectly consistent with the current migration system. The Johnson-Buck bill does not actually end federal control of migration but it merely creates a visa category whereby the states select the migrants through whatever processes they establish. The federal government is in full control of visa issuance and admission at ports of entry. Thus, states would be acting as sponsors on behalf of migrants whom they represent in their states in the same way that they currently sponsor foreign-born students at state universities and other workers in their capacity as employers.

In 2014, Brandon Fuller and Sean Rust authored a policy analysis for Cato that explored how a state-sponsored visa program could operate in the United States. They wrote a section addressing the constitutionality of such a program:

Historically, the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress to have “plenary power” over immigration, generally giving deference to the political branches of the federal government as an extension of the Naturalization Clause under Article 1, section 8, clause 4, which gives Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”[1] Under current interpretations, this gives Congress the sole power to establish naturalization guidelines. However, Congress can also allow states to be involved in immigration policy in areas besides naturalization, such as managing a state-based visa within federal guidelines. Some immigration policies, with the exception of naturalization, can be partly devolved to the states within a range of powers permitted by the federal government.

The recent case of Arizona v. the United States, which decided the constitutionality of Arizona’s strict immigration laws, reiterates the point that states are allowed to participate in immigration policy and enforcement, but only within the scope permitted by the federal government.[2] In debating the case of Arizona v. United States, Peter Spiro, an immigration law scholar at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, wrote, “[I]n Arizona, the Supreme Court constricted the possibilities for unilateral state innovation on immigration, both good and bad. That does not stop the federal government from affirming state discretion.” A state-based visa program does just that—allowing states to participate in the selection of immigrants under guidelines permitted by the federal government which is consistent with current interpretations of the Supremacy Clause and the plenary power of the federal government in the matter of immigration.

It is also important to note that U.S. law defines a nonimmigrant visa holder as “an alien who seeks temporary entry to the United States for a specific purpose,” and the federal government may set conditions in accordance with this purpose. For example, in the current immigration system a foreign entrant may be required to be attached to a singular petitioning employer under a number of employer-based non-immigrant visas, such as the H-1B. Like holders of employment-based visas, state-based visa holders would be nonimmigrants with a temporary right to live and work in the United States and an option to pursue permanent residency. As such, the state-based system is simply a variation on the condition being attached to the foreign entrant.

Guide to Trump’s Executive Order to Limit Migration for “National Security” Reasons

President Trump is expected to sign an executive order shortly to temporarily ban all visas for people from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia among other actions.  An advanced copy of this order was available earlier this week.  The first sentence of his order states that it is to “protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.”  However, the countries that Trump chose to temporarily ban are not serious terrorism risks. 

I compiled a list of foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015.  Below is a table with the distribution of their countries of origin (Figure 1).  The first seven countries are those to be initially and, hopefully, temporarily denied visas.  During the time period analyzed here, 17 foreign-born folks from those nations were convicted of carrying out or attempting to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and they killed zero people.  Zero Libyans or Syrians intended to carry out an attack on U.S. soil during this time. 

Figure 1

Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975-2015

Country

Terrorists

Murders

Terrorists (percent)

Murders (percent)

Iran

6

0

3.9%

0.0%

Iraq

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

Libya

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

Somalia

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

Sudan

6

0

3.9%

0.0%

Syria

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

Yemen

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Afghanistan

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

Algeria

4

0

2.6%

0.0%

Armenia

6

1

3.9%

0.0%

Australia

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Bangladesh

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

Bosnia

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Croatia

9

1

5.8%

0.0%

Cuba

11

3

7.1%

0.1%

Dominican Republic

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Egypt

11

162

7.1%

5.4%

Ethiopia

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

France

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Ghana

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Guyana

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

Haiti

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

India

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

Japan

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Jordan

4

0

2.6%

0.0%

Kazakhstan

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Kosovo

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

Kuwait

2

6

1.3%

0.2%

Kyrgyzstan

2

3

1.3%

0.1%

Lebanon

4

158.5

2.6%

5.2%

Macedonia

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

Mexico

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Morocco

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

Nigeria

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Pakistan*

14

3

9.1%

0.1%

Palestine

5

2

3.2%

0.1%

Saudi Arabia*

19

2,369

12.3%

78.3%

Serbia

2

0

1.3%

0.0%

South Korea

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Taiwan

1

1

0.6%

0.0%

Trinidad and Tobago

2

0.5

1.3%

0.0%

Turkey

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

United Arab Emirates

2

314

1.3%

10.4%

United Kingdom

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

Uzbekistan

3

0

1.9%

0.0%

Vietnam

1

0

0.6%

0.0%

Total

154

3,024

100.0%

100.0%

Sources: John Mueller, ed., Terrorism Since 9/11: The American Cases; RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents; National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Global Terrorism Database; Center on National Security; Charles Kurzman, “Spreadsheet of Muslim-American Terrorism Cases from 9/11 through the End of 2015,” University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill; Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation; New America Foundation; Mother Jones; Senator Jeff Sessions; Various news sources; Court documents.

*San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik was born in Pakistan but mostly resided in Saudi Arabia from the time she was an infant. She physically met her U.S. born husband in Saudi Arabia.  I counted her as Saudi but one could reasonably count her as Pakistani because she was born in Pakistan and she held a Pakistani passport.  Doing so would transfer 14 terrorist murders from the Saudi Arabia’s row to Pakistan’s row.      

Attempting or committing a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is not the only terrorist offense.  Materially supporting foreign terrorist organizations, seeking to join a foreign terrorist group overseas, plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks in other countries, and others are also terrorism offenses.  I excluded foreign-born people convicted of those offenses because Trump is concerned with “making America safe again,” not with making other countries safe or with a global war on terrorism.  A terrorist attack in another country doesn’t kill Americans inside of the United States and these threats are not what concern American voters nearly as much as terrorism on U.S. soil.  You can call this an America First weighting of terrorism offenses.

Employers Ignore E-Verify

Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, and South Carolina have mandated E-Verify for all new hires in their state (see Table 1), which means that every time an employee is hired the employer must use the E-Verify system to check the worker’s ability to legally work.  In our recent Cato Institute policy analysis, Jim Harper and I document that employers are not using E-Verify despite the mandates in those states.  Washington Examiner reporter Sean Higgins wrote an excellent piece expanding on our findings.

Table 1 

E-Verify Mandate Dates

   

Alabama

Arizona

Mississippi

South Carolina

4/1/2012

1/1/2008

7/1/2011

7/1/2010

Repeating News Story: Eroding Shorelines and Imperiled Coastal Villages in Alaska

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell was in Alaska last week at the invite of the Alaska Federation of Natives to discuss climate change and other issues. During her visit, she made a side trip to the 400 or so person town of Kivalina, located on a low-lying barrier island along Alaska’s northwest coast. The settlement sprung up about a century ago when the Interior Department decided to erect a school there under a program to promote the “education of natives in Alaska.” The same program established schools in other coastal location such as Golovin, Shishmaref, and Barrow.

Now these locations are in the news (see this week’s Washington Post story for example) because they are being threatened by coastal erosion coming at the hands of global warming—and are discussing relocating and who should be responsible for the footing the bill (incidentally, the courts have ruled out the energy industry).

With or without human-caused climate change, bluffs and barrier islands along the coast of northwestern Alaska are inherently unstable and not particularly good places to establish permanent towns. This is probably one of the reasons the natives were largely nomadic.

“Were,” we say, because ironically, as pointed out by the Post’s Chris Mooney, research indicates that the abandonment of the nomadic ways was encouraged/hastened by the establishment of government schools!

Krugman’s ‘Gotcha’ Moment Leaves Something to Be Desired

I’ve had some fun over the years by pointing out that Paul Krugman has butchered numbers when writing about fiscal policy in nations such as FranceEstoniaGermany, and the United Kingdom.

So I shouldn’t be surprised that he wants to catch me making an error. But I’m not sure his “gotcha” moment is very persuasive. Here’s some of what he wrote for today’s New York Times.

Gov. Jerry Brown was able to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage. California also moved enthusiastically to implement Obamacare. …Needless to say, conservatives predicted doom. …Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute declared that by voting for Proposition 30, which authorized those tax increases, “the looters and moochers of the Golden State” (yes, they really do think they’re living in an Ayn Rand novel) were committing “economic suicide.”

Kudos to Krugman for having read Atlas Shrugged, or for at least knowing that Rand sometimes referred to “looters and moochers.” Though I have to subtract points because he thinks I’m a conservative rather than a libertarian.

But what about his characterization of my position? Well, he’s right, though I’m predicting slow-motion suicide. Voting for a tax hike isn’t akin to jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. Instead, by further penalizing success and expanding the burden of government, California is engaging in the economic equivalent of smoking four packs of cigarettes every day instead of three and one-half packs.

Post-World War II Migration and Lessons for Studying Liberalized Immigration

Introduction 

 

This post is about two issues that are closely related.  The first are some facts and history that help explain why internal migration in post-World War II America was an important component of that economic expansion and likely to be as important in future growth.  Some of this data has applications for future research into the role migration plays as a stimulus to and reaction of economic growth.  The second is how studying this period of American migration could inform the academic literature on the probable effects of removing all or most of America’s immigration restrictions – an admittedly radical policy but one that should be understood.

The facts and history surrounding the post-World War II boom are somewhat controversial.  Some critics of immigration argue that post World War II economic growth occurred with relatively little immigration so therefore immigration is unnecessary for economic growth today.  Those critics are mistaken for many reasons, but fundamentally they misunderstand the role that national migration played in feeding economic growth during the 1950s and 1960s.  Ironically, economic growth at the 1950s and 1960s rate would be exceedingly difficult or impossible to achieve without immigration.    

The economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s with relatively closed borders can likely not be repeated today because there are fewer underutilized Southerners, Puerto Ricans, and women who could enter the workforce as substitutes for immigrants.  Growth during that time was partly fueled by the great migrations (migration is internal movement, immigration is international movement) of Americans from much poorer parts of the country, namely the South and Puerto Rico, to wealthier locations.  After the government began to severely restrict low-skilled immigration in 1921, migrants from the South and Puerto Rico moved in larger numbers to fill the economic gap left by the curtailment of low-skilled immigration, some migrants moved from rural areas to urban ones, and women began to enter the workforce in greater numbers.  Without the great migrations that brought tens of millions of black southerners, white southerners, and smaller numbers of Puerto Ricans to Northern and Western cities, American economic growth during those boom years would probably have been much smaller. 

Furthermore, American internal migration during the 1950s and 1960s was a one-time event due to unique historical, demographic, and economic circumstances that would not repeat today if immigration were similarly restricted.  Migrants and immigrants together as a percentage of the U.S. population move similarly with the average annual hours worked per worker and, thus, the labor component of production.  Lawful immigration is essential to recapturing the labor force growth necessary for approaching the economic growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s.         

The Great Migration

The growth of the post-war American labor force was dramatic.  From 1948 to 1982, the size of the U.S. labor force grew from 60 million to 111 million.  Over the same time, the number of people employed in the U.S. labor market increased from 58 million to 99 million.  The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) increased from 58.6 percent to 64.1 percent and the total number of hours worked per worker decreased by 9.3 percent from 898 hours a year to 814 hours a year – likely because wealthier American workers opted to “purchase” more leisure time – meaning that they can afford not to work so many hours.  Here are the history and economics behind the post-World War II great migrations organized by group.

Even the Establishment Media Is Now Admitting the French Economic Model Is Fatally Flawed

Some things in life are very dependable. Every year, for instance, the swallows return to Capistrano.

And you can also count on Dan Mitchell to wax poetic about the looming collapse of French statism.

Geesh, looking at that list, I guess I’m guilty of - in the words of Paul Krugman - being part of the “plot against France” by trying to discredit that nation’s economy.

Or maybe I’m just ahead of my time because we’re now seeing articles that almost sound like they could have been written by me appearing in establishment outlets such as Newsweek. Check out some amazing excerpts from an article by Janine di Giovanni, who lives in France and serves as the magazine’s Middle East Editor.

…what is happening today in France is being compared to the revocation of 1685. …the king closed churches and persecuted the Huguenots. As a result, nearly 700,000 of them fled France, seeking asylum in England, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa and other countries. The Huguenots, nearly a million strong before 1685, were thought of as the worker bees of France. They left without money, but took with them their many and various skills. They left France with a noticeable brain drain.

It’s happening again, except this time the cause is fiscal persecution rather than religious persecution. French politicians have changed the national sport from soccer to taxation!

Since the arrival of Socialist President François Hollande in 2012, income tax and social security contributions in France have skyrocketed. The top tax rate is 75 percent, and a great many pay in excess of 70 percent. As a result, there has been a frantic bolt for the border by the very people who create economic growth – business leaders, innovators, creative thinkers, and top executives. They are all leaving France to develop their talents elsewhere.

It’s an exaggeration to say “they are all leaving,” but France is turning Atlas Shrugged from fiction to reality.