Why the US should be competing to attract immigrants

We just returned from a mixed business and pleasure trip to Canada.  If you have a chance to hop across the border from Buffalo to Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, I recommend it highly.  Located in wine country, there are lots of great restaurants and plenty of activities in which to indulge one’s appetite for the arts or the outdoors.  Plus, it’s a hop and a skip from Niagara Falls.    

Like the US, Canada is a full employment economy enjoying an economic mini-boom.  Unlike the US, Canada understands the importance of immigration to sustain its growth. Its immigration policies target an increase of annual immigration by 30% to 340,000 by 2021.  In fact, the government website offers a step-by-step guide to help employers and would-be immigrants apply for entry into the country.

In the US, a key component of the legal immigration system is the issuance of Green Cards, a legal permission slip for foreign nationals to live, study and work in this country. Historically, the government has issued approximately one million Green Cards per year.  Meanwhile, about four million stand in line metaphorically speaking to receive one.  A Trump policy announced in May, if approved by Congress, would press the reset button, changing the criteria for receiving a Green Card and requiring those currently waiting to reapply.  The new criteria would emphasize educational background and skills at the expense of family considerations.

There’s virtually no chance that Congress will approve these proposed changes. But it will no doubt come up often during the Presidential campaign that starts… when? …  has it started?  Oh, right… It never ended.  So, the issue will periodically take all the oxygen out of the room whenever Trump decides to grandstand on the topic.  

So, what should serious-minded voters like you and I think about when considering our options?

Let’s start with some basics.  The size of the economy, commonly measured by GDP, is largely a function of the number of people working.  And, by extension, economic growth is largely a function of the growth in the number of people working.  And, immigrants come here to work!  A study by the Brookings Institution put some numbers to it.  Foreign born men are 3.4% more likely to work than native born men. Foreign born women are less likely but that’s because they’re home having babies.  In fact, the Brookings study asserts that ALL net population growth comes from the immigrant population.

Got it?  The economy grows when the population grows, and the population grows because of immigration.  

Another significant factor in driving growth of the working population is entrepreneurial activity. In other words, new business starts. After all, small businesses create more jobs collectively than big businesses.  A recent study by the Harvard Business Review delineates the factors that make immigrants more likely to start them and reports that 27.5% of entrepreneurial businesses are immigrant owned despite only 13% of the population being foreign born.  

I’ve seen what legal immigration looks like in S. Florida.  Despite initial animosity between newcomers with different customs and behaviors and legacy residents, everything has turned out okay.  First and second-generation Americans of Cuban descent have become the economic engine of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metroplex.  It’s an economically thriving, culturally vibrant, exciting region that succeeds on its merits.  

The net of all this is that, like abortion, immigration ought to be available, safe and legal. Do you think any Republicans — reputedly the party of business — will catch on?

WHO WILL LEAD?

Competing for immigrants... My original sin... An MLK slip of the tongue

Competing for immigrants

I recently wrote to the senior senator from New York, minority leader Chuck Schumer. My message was simple: “Fight for what matters; let go of what doesn’t.  Fight for DACA; give him his damn wall.”  But, that ain’t gonna happen.  

Before I go on, here’s a two-sentence economics lesson.  (Two sentences, I promise.)

Growth in GDP is the sum of changes in productivity plus the change in population.  That’s not a theory; it’s a definition.  Two sentences! 

To keep the economy growing, we need economic policies that promote innovation (free market capitalism) and immigration policies that admit more immigrants.  There are other ways to grow the population than immigration of course. But, birth rates in the industrialized world are declining.  

Politicians, especially the president, stir up our worst fears about immigration – they take your jobs, kill your neighbors, and sell drugs. But those fears are unfounded. I lived in South Florida for 18 years among legal immigrants from Cuba.  I can assure you that Cuban-Americans are just like every other group of those descended from immigrants: aspirational.  Florida’s economy thrives not only because of low taxes and good weather but also because it provides a welcome environment for anyone who moves there whether they’re from Chicago or Bogotá. 

We have nothing to fear from legal immigration and everything to gain.  Our Canadian neighbors understand this and plan to welcome 1 million immigrants over the next few years.  We should emulate them. 

In short, if we expect our economy to continue to grow, we need to start competing for immigrants. 

My original sin

I’m a classic swing voter. I haven’t voted for a winning candidate in a presidential election since 1996.  Most everyone I know says they are conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on social issues.  It’s a suburban mantra.  So, why does neither party ever give us a candidate who fits the profile?  A friend who worked on political campaigns in New York, says, “there aren’t enough of you” to gain the attention of the major political parties.

Philosophically, I am more aligned with libertarians than with Republicans and find myself most in agreement with Republicans on economics and defense.  On social issues, not so much. Yet, I can’t vote Democrat because of economic policies designed to undermine the free enterprise system. What’s worse is the religious right and the politically correct left both wish to impose their values on the half of the population that disagrees with them.   

As both the Democrat and Republican parties drift (some would say gallop) to the extremes, I have become politically homeless.  I am not alone on this.  An academic study done by More in Common suggests I am part of the “exhausted majority.”

I refuse to be part of a political party that embraces hypocritical economic policies (tariffs, deficits), isolationist foreign policies and abhorrent social policies (anti-women, anti-gay).  Alternatively, I refuse to embrace politically correct culture.  Use the wrong phrase or express the wrong view and you’ll be hounded off college campuses or reviled in mainstream media.  For a white male to be accepted in this subculture, one must be “woke.” Why would I want to be a member of a political party that treats being a white male as an original sin?

The MLK slip of the tongue

A local controversy has gone viral.  Weatherman Jeremy Kappell has been fired for describing a local park as “Martin Luther Coon King, Jr. Park” during a live broadcast.  It was a slip of the tongue that went by so fast you may not have noticed it had it not been caught by Rochester’s African-American mayor, Lovely Warren. The mayor called for his dismissal and got her way. 

You have to wonder how a professional on-air broadcaster could make such an error.  I don’t!  I suspect (I have no evidence) that he hung out with bro’s sometime in his youth – high school, college or young adulthood – who used the phrase consistently without the self-correcting addition of “King” following the gaffe.  

It’s interesting that Bernice King (MLK’s daughter) has advocated he shouldn’t have been fired.  Suggesting that “we’re just moving people around the board” when we “just fire them,” she advocates rehabilitation. I confess I don’t know what that means in this case.

In making this assertion, Ms. King is channeling her father’s best instincts.  MLK gained national attention and empathy for his cause, in no small part, because he showed us how our behavior was misaligned with our stated values.  Today, media, both mainstream and social, would rather divide us than remind us to find the better angels of our nature. 

WHO WILL LEAD?

We Trust the Government We Don’t Trust

American’s trust in government has been in decline since the Kennedy/Johnson administration according to Pew Research.  Yet we seem to ask more and more of it.

Trust is more likely to occur in local communities because we tend to trust information we take from direct experience.  We relax a bit when dealing with people we know or with people whose reciprocal expectations match our own.  In countries with small, relatively homogeneous populations, government can successfully play a larger role in daily life.  The Scandinavian countries, so often cited as a model by liberals, are good examples.  Each has a population smaller than New York State that is over 90% native born.

The US, on the other hand, has a population that includes over 40 million immigrants, closing in on 15% of the total.  If we add first generation Americans, we have about a quarter of the population whose reciprocal expectations are not aligned with more established citizens.  The last time we found ourselves in a similar demographic mix was shortly after my grandparents immigrated here in the 1910’s and 20’s (from what was then a s***hole country).  What followed was a backlash and, in 1924, Congressional legislation to limit immigration, the remnants of which form the basis of policy today.

The social mechanisms that have enabled us to assimilate have been left behind as technology – from ATM’s, smart gas pumps, and self-checkout at Wegmans to video games and social media – replaces person-to-person social interaction.  People from different walks of life simply don’t talk with one another as we once did. 

In parallel, we have observed a breakdown of trust in institutions.  We stopped trusting our government when government stopped being trustworthy -- during the Vietnam War and Watergate.  We stopped respecting social institutions -- political parties, organized religion, national media -- when they stopped meeting our needs.  And, we stopped trusting people with different political beliefs when their politics became more extreme. 

So, at a time when we need to learn to engage our neighbors, become more welcoming to immigrants and litigate our differences locally, the social fabric necessary to our success has been torn.  At a time when more of our resources should be directed within our communities, Washington is in a pitched battle over how our money should be distributed.

And, let’s not overlook how money affects this paradigm.  The lion’s share of our taxes is not collected by our local communities or state government but rather by Washington.  It takes money to administer laws and enforce them.  So, the rules made in Washington affect us more than those made locally.  We can see the impact in our schools and our transportation infrastructure.  State and local governments can’t do much without federal support. 

So, the cycle reinforces itself.  More money goes to Washington; more of the laws that affect our local communities are made there; and, we ask more of Washington than of local governments that could be more responsive to our needs.  By paying taxes and demanding programs of our Congressional representatives, by asking them to legislate right and wrong, we express our trust in the federal government implicitly.

Isn’t it ironic?

WHO WILL LEAD?

Bartender, apologies for everyone

When people ask me about this blog, I tell them it's intended to piss off two kinds of people-- Republicans and Democrats.  Lately, I've been thinking that's too narrow. It's really intended to piss off two kinds of people -- men and women.

Last week's attempt to piss off women may have backfired (How to insult women). All of the comments and messages I received were from women and all were positive. Allowing for the possibility that I didn't hear from those were offended (a non-respondent bias in statistical terms), I would like to apologize for implying that women should differentiate between a few joking references to their gender and the rape culture that seems to permeate college campuses. (I was pleased that 30% of readers clicked to watch the included video.)

While I'm in an apologetic mood, I would also like to apologize to gun rights advocates for suggesting that we amend the Constitution following the Sandy Hook shooting (The US Constitution was designed to be amended) and for providing a legal brief to undermine the claim that individual gun rights are supported by the Second Amendment (The Right to Bear Arms: anAmerican Evolution).

Sorry to all of you who are “Feelin’ the Bern” for my assertion that, were Sen. Sanders proposals adopted, the US economy would be flushed down the toilet and for further suggesting that those who don't know that are either “ignorant or stupid”. (Let’s Understand Just What Socialism Means to Us) By the way, if you're disappointed Bernie won't be in the White House next year, you could always move to Venezuela. I suggest you pack a lunch.

To those who think we should build a wall along the Mexican border, I apologize for suggesting the opposite (Open the Border! Wait, It's Already Open!)

To all you Pro-lifers, I am sorry for exposing the unconstitutional and unaccountable practices of lawmakers and police who deprive women not only of their reproductive rights but also their freedom (Orphan Black, Margaret Atwood and a Woman’s Right to Choose).  And, while I am on the subject, I should also apologize for calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy of advocating that government stay out of our lives while supporting the agenda of the Religious Right (Strange Bedfellows: Conservatives and the Religious Right).

So long as I am talking to you, I should also apologize for suggesting that the subject of gay marriage is not about your religion.  It's about love.  (It's Not Religion... It's Not Politics... It's Personal)

To all you liberal New Yorkers, I would like to say I'm sorry for dissing our governor whose policies that purport to promote business are actually driving businesses to leave the state (The Hunger Games: not everyone is a winner). His ban on fracking doesn't help (Fracking, New YorkTaxes and Twitter).

 

To you climate change deniers, I offer my apology for saying that you haven't a leg to stand on (Kurt Vonnegut, Enrico Fermi and Climate Change).

To Europeans, who are whistling in the dark when it comes to dealing with Russian aggression, I apologize for comparing you to Chamberlain, the great appeaser (What’s Russia Really Up To?).

To those of you who think America is in decline, I apologize for espousing the view that America should be celebrated for its freedoms, including its model of economic freedom (The American Dream is Alive and Well).  What has failed us is the Blue State model of high taxes and overregulation.  Oops!  Sorry again!

While I am on the subject, I suppose I should apologize for the sacrilege of my claim that raising the minimum wage and expanding 60’s era anti-poverty programs are a waste of effort (Obama, SNAP and Conservative Americans).  Sacrilegious though it may be, I still struggle to understand how the programs that have led to more poverty in the 20^th Century will do any better in the 21^st.   Sorry.

 

And I am sorry for pointing out to labor union liberals that your model hasn't worked since the 1950's and it won’t work now (The Disunion of ‘dis Union).  Ditto to those married to our outlandishly expensive and closed-minded university system (When Will the University Bubble Burst?).

If you're among those who think that capitalism is evil, I am sorry for asserting that the only economic system that can generate the money needed to address society’s ills is free market capitalism (Time Travel and Our Social Welfare). Further, I should apologize for suggesting you have the luxury of complaining about our system because the system has improved your lives (otherwise you’d be too busy working to have the time to complain).

Now, if you detect a note of sarcasm in all these words of contrition, you're right on.

However, there is one group to which I offer my most sincere apology -- the 73,138 of you who have taken the time to visit my website, read, click and comment. 

Why am I apologizing to you?

Because...        I...         Am...    Done!

WHO WILL LEAD?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or, do they?

The Federal Register

Now that Thanksgiving is past and the furor in Ferguson has calmed down a bit, Americans can get back to what we do best:  argue about politics.

When last we heard, the big deal in Washington was the President’s executive actions on immigration policy.  Republicans cried fowl!  Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said it most concisely.  “The president is endangering our entire constitutional order,” he avers.

Democrats respond by pointing out that Republican presidents have done the same thing. 

It sounds a lot like playground logic…

…. Mom, Barack broke the rules!

….  Yeah, Mom, but so did Ronnie and George.

I know what my Mom (or yours) would say:  “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

One of the adults in Congress expressed a more balanced view.  Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), referring to the House of Representatives controlled by his own party, said on CNN: "Shame on us as Republicans for having a body that cannot generate a solution to an issue" involving national security as well as cultural and economic considerations.

But, were the President’s actions legal?

I would guess that what he has outlined is legal.  The President didn’t wake up the day after Election Day and decide to do this.  I would bet his legal staff burned the midnight oil for months identifying what they thought he could and couldn’t get away with.  Moreover, his apologists are right about Presidents and executive orders.  The website fivethirtyeight.com published a chart of executive orders going back to George Washington.  It’s an interesting graphic showing a peak in the number of executive orders during the FDR administration.

I think there’s actually a larger question: How did it get this way?  How can a President, in effect, create laws through executive action?  Isn’t that the role of Congress?  Isn’t that the Constitutional order (as Senator Sessions put it)?

First, a bit of history.  Two separate events provide the basis for an expansion of executive powers.  In 1935, the Supreme Court decided Humphrey’s executor v. United States in favor of the plaintiff.  The decision rendered a President powerless to fire a duly appointed commissioner (in this case, a commissioner of the FTC).  Unlike cabinet departments, Congress appoints commissioners to administrative bodies that are an extension of their legislative power.  The FCC and the FTC are examples. 

The addition of so many commissions, agencies and cabinet departments during the Roosevelt administration led to the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act of1946.  This law allows government bureaucrats to write procedures that turn the vague laws passed by Congress into rules and regulations.

These legal events – which most people have never heard of – have led to administrative mission creep, extraordinary complexity and lack of accountability in the federal bureaucracy. 

“So what?” you might say.  We all know how unresponsive and incompetent government bureaucracies are.  How does that relate to the current hoo-haw over immigration?

The sheer size of the federal government leads to what economists call “rational ignorance”.  The only people who read the Federal Record to see what new rules are being written are industry lobbyists and special interest groups seeking to influence the outcomes in their favor.  In these cases, they are likely to get their way since if no one else knows, no one will object.

Who knows what rules have been written to enforce immigration laws?  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports through the Department of Homeland Security to the President.  If DHS bureaucrats have written the rules, they can re-write the rules.

Is it any surprise that anti-government Republicans have found a following? 

WHO WILL LEAD?