A study of German immigration reform provides evidence for the debate over immigrant assimilation. 

The study looked at the 

Act to Reform Nationality Law … [under which] children born in Germany on or after January 1, 2000, automatically acquired citizenship if at least one parent had legally resided in Germany for at least eight years at the time of birth. 

Researchers found 

Read the rest of this post →

Since March, a Jones Act waiver for energy and fertilizer shipments has acted as a real-time experiment in what the country might look like without the law’s shipping restrictions. The results are noteworthy, including historically significant volumes of crude oil and petroleum products being moved to the West Coast from domestic sources, a surging appetite by Puerto Rico for American fuel, and the opening of new trade routes. It’s compelling evidence for the long-standing critique that the Jones Act functions as a barrier to domestic commerce. 

But beyond its economic insights, the waiver is also producing additional evidence on the role of special interests in preserving the protectionist law. As I pointed out last year, the law’s concentrated benefits have produced an ecosystem that exerts near-constant pressure to maintain the Jones Act and thwart reform efforts, while those who bear its burden remain rationally ignorant and politically inactive. This is now playing out before us, with the waiver showing the machinery of Jones Act advocacy at work.

Read the rest of this post →

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) published a new policy program and platform this summer called Workers Deserve More. A committee elected under the group’s 2025 convention rules drafted it, its National Political Committee approved it, and it now stands as the clearest statement of what America’s largest socialist organization wants. Below are the DSA program’s main arguments for socialism, my short responses to them, and links to some of the most relevant evidence.

1. “Under socialism, ‘You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right.’”

There are prices on housing, medicine, food, and energy because these goods are scarce and have alternative uses. “Scarce” means that there are not enough of them to satisfy all demand at a price of zero. Those goods must be produced by people who must be fed, trained, equipped, and persuaded to show up to work. In a free-market economy, workers produce those goods because they are paid to do so, the owners of firms organize production efficiently because their profits depend on it, and the owners of capital sell it to the most profitable firms. All that activity is guided by the incentives and information provided by prices.

Read the rest of this post →

Automated pricing tools are becoming increasingly ubiquitous in the modern economy as many businesses automate their pricing strategies to ensure their prices reflect market realities. Media attention, regulatory proposals, and a timely congressional hearing have largely focused on “surveillance pricing” and what we discussed as individualized dynamic pricing (IDP) in a previous blog. Despite fears of price gouging, these pricing methods have real efficiency benefits and are particularly effective at reducing waste.

However, there are other forms of automated tools in our day-to-day lives that do not necessarily rely on individuals’ data, as IDP does. This piece will focus on algorithmic pricing, understood as the general practice of automating the price-setting process, and the allegations that it might enable collusion amongst competitors. In the context of general algorithm-powered pricing, this alleged “collusion” typically refers to the use of automated tools to analyze market data to coordinate competitors’ prices. With a few notable exceptions, this is typical competitive behavior. For firms to compete on price, they must be able to track their competitors. Algorithmic pricing reduces the costs associated with monitoring and responding to market conditions. Taken alone, it is just using new technology to make an old process more efficient.

Read the rest of this post →

Senators John Curtis (R‑UT) and Mark Kelly (D‑AZ) have introduced the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act (S. 5197). The legislation, which would allow states to sponsor foreign workers, was originally introduced in a slightly modified form in 2017 by Senators Ron Johnson (R‑WI) and John McCain (R‑AZ). Sen. Curtis had previously introduced a version during his time in the House. 

Why State-Sponsored Visas Make Sense

A state-sponsored visa is a fantastic idea. If the State-Sponsored Visa Pilot Program Act had existed, there would have been very little illegal immigration since 1986, the last major guest worker reform. American employers would have had a legal way to hire foreign workers, and foreign workers would have had a legal way to come and work. A legal workforce also benefits American workers by creating more opportunities for them in complementary roles as managers and supervisors. 

Read the rest of this post →

A few days ago, the invaluable Liz Oyer noted a change in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) rules. That agency runs our federal prisons, directing the lives of over 150,000 federal prisoners. It is a change in the rules that seems innocuous until you start thinking about it. Briefly, the old rule was that the BOP decides which prison each inmate goes to; the new rule is that the nation’s attorney general can override the BOP’s decision.

Here is the way things used to be: The BOP conducts a detailed, bureaucratized, quantitative assessment of each inmate’s “security designation and custody classification.” Each inmate is assigned a score based on factors such as offense severity, criminal history, sentence length, and age. That score is used to determine where the inmate serves time. 

Read the rest of this post →

Last Tuesday (July 28), the Senate confirmed Jay Clayton to be the new director of national intelligence (DNI). Yet Clayton was not sworn in until today, with William Pulte continuing to purportedly serve as the acting director of national intelligence for all of last week. Bizarrely, both men attended the cabinet meeting on Friday at Camp David. But while the administration was within its rights to delay Clayton’s swearing in as long as it wished, it could not extend Pulte’s acting service. Under the plain language of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Pulte’s time limit as acting DNI expired the moment the Senate confirmed Clayton. Everything Pulte has done as acting DNI since that moment has been legally illegitimate and is vulnerable to a court challenge.

Read the rest of this post →