Tag Archives: immigration policy

The Great Wall of Distraction or Why The President is a Lousy Dealmaker

From the December 2017 report from the Department of Homeland Security:

Arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico plunged to the lowest level since 1971, as fewer people attempted the trek, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday.

Meanwhile, immigration arrests in the interior of the country increased by 25 percent, the data show. [NPR]

What we know is that (1) the President didn’t get ‘wall money’ in the recent Omnibus Bill; (2) four immigration bills failed as of February 2018 in the US Senate; (3) the Special Counsel has interviewed at least two Russian oligarchs [CNN]; (4) his selection for National Security Adviser is up to his ears in an investigation of Cambridge Analytica [NYT] and (5) the President is a ‘subject’ of the Mueller investigation, although not a target at this time; [WaPo] (6) if the administration isn’t careful there’s a trade war in the offing with China.  It must be time for The Wall.

So, why are broadcasters focusing on the Administration’s version of the Ming Dynasty wall renovation and construction efforts (1368-1644), and why now?

At one level there’s the obvious diversion of the conversation away from the actual news of the day, see list above.  I’ve not seen it done to date, but surely someone out there is measuring the time differential between negative news concerning the president and the launching of a new assault on immigrants.

Another onion layer may well be the utility of the immigration issue with the Trumpian base voter — the issue as currently framed is almost blatantly racist, note there is no “national security” issue with those coming across the northern border, and little attention to immigrants who have overstayed visas from European countries.  For those who believe that make America great again actually means make America white controlled again, the diversion is a nice interlude for self congratulation and confirmation.

The utility of immigration as an attention grabber may also be related to what is becoming evident — the President is a lousy deal maker.

The prime rule in negotiations is Get Organized. Here’s a thought: Have A Plan.  Better still have a detailed plan.  Know what is wanted, what is essential, what can be bargained away, what is the ‘walk off point,’ what are the priorities.  Business and labor negotiators know that preparation is essential, and that it’s necessary to view the bargaining positions from both perspectives, and to prepare accordingly.

Few issues better illustrate the administration’s failure to plan than immigration.  There were four bills in the Senate last February [Vox] and all of them failed because the administration kept moving the goal posts. The president moved from a ‘send me a bipartisan bill,’ to send me a bill with money for a wall, to send me a bill with funding for the wall and an end to family reunification programs and a limit to legal immigration and a system of merit based immigration….  The fact that the presidential position kept changing during the negotiation process with the Senate is a sure sign the White House wasn’t clear what it wanted in the first place and kept trying to insert issues into the package without having an initial position which was clear to others at the bargaining table. If nothing more, the administration should have prepared a listing of priorities, in ranked order.  A similar failure to plan out a cogent and consistent position was also visible in the propositions for gun law reformation.   A failure to get organized in the first place often leads to problems all too common when one side isn’t actually listening to the other.

Rule Two — Know the Opposition.  This requires good old fashioned preparation and equally essential listening.  When Senators were debating the immigration proposals last February both sides understood a solution for DACA recipients was desirable, but that funding for wall building on the southern border was problematic, and limitations on legal immigration complicated an already frustrating situation.  The Collins-Schumer Plan had the best chance of success in the Senate but failed 54-46 when the goal posts moved.   A failure to plan out a detailed proposal combined with a failure to pick up the signals from seasoned Congressional negotiators about what would add votes from ‘the other side of the aisle’ doomed the legislative process.

Rule Three — Hard bargaining looks good but it very rarely works.  There’s a huge difference between extending proposals and posturing.  The White House signaled ‘hard bargaining’ when in the wake of what appeared a promising start on immigration issues rapidly devolved into chaos when the White House later responded with a laundry list of extreme positions which removed the focus from a solvable issue (DACA) to a more intractable one — general immigration policy reform. When the White House moved into another ‘hard bargaining’ stance (Take It Or Leave It)  the  Senate failed to defuse the situation by ignoring the hard line offer, and having a counter-offer at hand to resolve a more mutually desirable resolution to a solvable problem, in this instance DACA.

Rule Four — Never bargain against yourself. Side A makes an offer. Side B responds with a request for a concession from Side A before making a counter offer. Wrong. Again, the administration’s sliding positions on what would be acceptable immigration policy legislation had both the White House and the Senators inviting unreciprocated offers.  At some point the Senators would have been well advised to tell the White House they awaited a definite, written, and specific counter offer to the Collins-Schumer Bill and then sat tight.

Rule Five — Sharing works in bargaining.  While it isn’t necessary to put all one’s cards on the table, especially previously prepared  counter offers, it is helpful for both sides to share information which informs general positions.  It might be financial information, or anecdotal points of reference, or even personal. However, if reciprocity is what is wanted then sharing is just as important at the bargaining table as it was in kindergarten.

Rule Six — Know how to get to Yes. If Side A and Side B are truly bargaining, and not merely posturing, and if they come to the table prepared with ranked priorities and specific proposals and counter offers, then at some point they will get to the YES part.  The Yes Zone is the point at which Side A has conceded all it can without reordering its priorities and Side B has gained all it can without facing a rebellion in the mass meeting or board room. There must be an understanding from the outset that neither side will get everything it wants.  That’s not bargaining or deal making — that’s just bluster and posturing.

Unfortunately, the White House violated all six of these rules of the bargaining road, which leaves a person with the impression that for all the vaunted “Art of the Deal” the president doesn’t move much further than making an offer, badgering someone into submission, and then litigating when the inevitable impasse is reached.  In short, not only doesn’t the Oval Office know how to bargain effectively it doesn’t even give the appearance of knowing what its initial positions should be and how those should be developed, organized, and presented.

Without a basic knowledge of what constitutes effective bargaining (and Lord knows there is a plethora of articles on the subject from all manner of perspectives) the White House will be forced to revert to the posturing which puts a premium on distraction and publicity and discounts constructive solutions.

1 Comment

Filed under Immigration, Politics

Hopes, Fears, and History: Immigration Policy Redux

Saturday. January 27, 2018. Holocaust Memorial Day.  Please hold this in mind as we look at the administration’s proposed immigration legislation.  Now, please notice the immigration restrictions in the latest White House immigration proposal:

“In addition to the citizenship path that would take up to 12 years, the White House framework includes a $25 billion “trust fund” for a border wall and additional security upgrades on the southwestern and northern U.S. borders. And the president is proposing terminating the ability of U.S. citizens to petition for permanent legal residency “green cards” for parents and siblings, limiting the family visas to spouses and minor children.”[WaPo]

The petitions mentioned in the proposals are meant to reunify families, or in the pejorative “chain immigration.”  Family visas are to be limited to spouses and minor children.

A Trip Down A Dark Memory Alley 

Flashback: We are in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the pogrom in November 1938 in Nazi Germany.  Nazi policy is now obvious, if it wasn’t before.  Unfortunately, so was US immigration policy:

“Anti-Semitism fueled by the Depression and by demagogues like the radio priest Charles Coughlin influenced immigration policy. In 1939 pollsters found that 53 percent of those interviewed agreed with the statement “Jews are different and should be restricted.” Between 1933 and 1945 the United States took in only 132,000 Jewish refugees, only ten percent of the quota allowed by law.

Reflecting a nasty strain of anti-Semitism, Congress in 1939 refused to raise immigration quotas to admit 20,000 Jewish children fleeing Nazi oppression. As the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration remarked at a cocktail party, “20,000 children would all too soon grow up to be 20,000 ugly adults.”  [GL.org]

The 1939 refugee children’s immigration bill was bi-partisan, sponsored by Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) and on the House side by Rep. Edith Norse Rogers (R-MA), and it garnered significant support from national leaders.  However, then as now it didn’t have the support of the America First crowd.

“…the opposition struck back with calls to, yes, put America first.

“Protect the youth of America from this foreign invasion,” thundered John Trevor, the head of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, a restrictionist organization with a reach of about 2.5 million members. Trevor had built a career for himself by railing against rising immigration and its pernicious effect on America’s national character. He helped shape the 1924 Immigration Act, which established the restrictive quota system that was explicitly designed to curtail Italians and Jews, excluded the Japanese altogether, and stood as U.S. policy for 40 years.” [Slate] (emphasis added)

The bill did manage to get a hearing, but the opposition was active and loud and ultimately successful:

“In April 1939, a joint Senate-House committee held four days of hearings on Wagner-Rogers. Sympathetic witnesses offered moving humanitarian pleas. They also stressed that children would not compete with American citizens for jobs. Nativist opponents presented standard anti-immigration claims as well as innovative assertions such as the claim that the wording of the bill could enable 20,000 Nazi children to come to the U.S. Therefore, they claimed, the effect of the bill would be to tear German families apart. The Senate and House subcommittees both voted unanimously in favor of Wagner-Rogers.” [JVL]

The committee votes weren’t sufficient. By July 1, 1939 the bill was dead, pigeonholed in committee.  The shadow of the 1924 Immigration Act remained a feature of American policy, first expressed in 1790 when the government declared immigration was only acceptable if the applicants for citizenship were “free white persons of good character.” [NYT]  The re-establishment of the KKK, the disillusionment after World War I, the virulent anti-Semitism of Father Coughlin, and the association in the public mind of Jews and the Communist Party (or other efforts for labor organizing) all combined to keep the ugly shadow firmly over American horizons.  The 1930’s were particularly vulgar:

“In the 1930s, even as Americans regularly read news about Jews being attacked on the streets in Nazi Germany, there was no national appetite for increasing immigration. As the waiting lists for U.S. immigration visas swelled, so did anti-Semitism in the United States.  In 1939, Sen. Robert Reynolds of North Carolina (who ran his own anti-Semitic newspaper, the American Vindicator), proposed bills to end all immigration for five years, declaring in a June 1939 speech that the time had come to “save America for Americans.” [The Hill]

Decision Time 

Sound familiar?   Substitute Jewish, Italian, and Eastern European for Mexican and Muslim, and the similarities are obvious. “They” were anarchists (the terrorists of the day), agitators (the labor organizers, protesters, of the day) and worse still some of them were active in Civil Rights organizing (read: improving the status of women and  African Americans).

So, consider for a moment on this Holocaust Memorial Day how the Temple B’nai Israel in Victoria, Texas handed over the keys to its building to the congregation of the Victoria Islamic Center in the wake of an arson attack on the Center, February 2017. [CNN] Or how in that same month a Muslim organization launched a fund raising campaign to help pay for the damage done by anti-Semitic vandals to a Jewish cemetery. [NYDN]

At this point it’s appropriate to ask:  Which voices are we heeding?  The voices of Muslims and Jews in Victoria. Texas? Or the virulent rantings of the hateful vestiges of the short-lived Vindicator?

Are we to exclude family members from dangerous territories because they aren’t “family?” Because they are adult siblings of US residents and citizens? Because we don’t want to allow US residents/citizens to rescue their parents or their grandparents? Because we might be “flooded by the ‘ugly adults'” if we allow the rescue of little nieces and nephews?   Are we hardened against allowing a US citizen from sponsoring a family member who wants to come to this City on a Hill to work hard and follow the American Dream?

We have some choices to make in 2018, not the least of which is whether we are to be that City on the Hill or the stockade of anti-Semitism of years past transformed into an over-sized gated community of anti-immigrant sentiment opposed to allowing anyone not “free white of good character” to share in the creation of the country in the 21st century?

Comments Off on Hopes, Fears, and History: Immigration Policy Redux

Filed under Immigration, Politics, racism

I’m Watching a Basketball Game (Instead of the DACA drama)

Yes, in the midst of the Soap Opera that is the Federal Government of these United States this political junkie is watching a basketball game I recorded yesterday. Why? Because I received just about all the news I need for the next couple of days in perhaps less than 15 minutes this morning.   The rest will be noise.

Every pundit ever hired by every cable broadcast network will expend altogether too much energy “explaining” what the machinations of the past week “mean.”  Since I’ve come to believe they aren’t significantly better at prognostication than your average ground hog, octopus, or other member of the animal kingdom, I’ll stick to my own interpretation.

The Republicans are eventually going to own the mess they’ve made.  The DACA program was working in September 2017 when the Big Dealer in Chief stuck his foot in it.  Why? I’m going to go with the explanation that it was in support of the rather egregious House version of a Bridge Act introduced on January 12, 2017.  (HR 496 for those keeping score) There is no path to citizenship in the House version, and the bill essentially treats Dreamers as cheap labor, to be exploited by both employers and the federal government in terms of an endless assessment of fees.  It would also cover precious few Dreamers.

In today’s dispatches from delusion-ville, the White House wants an immigration bill that is “good for America.”  I think we can safely assume this means no path to citizenship for young people who’ve known no other country but this one, a “merit-based” immigration plan (which really isn’t similar to Canada’s any more than it’s similar to the Canadian health care system the Republicans were quick to malign), and it eliminates family reconciliation.   A miserable, un-American plan though it may be, I am of the opinion the House “Bridge Act” [text] is what Stephen Miller and the other racists in the West Wing have in mind.  The timing looks a bit suspicious to me, Trump signed the executive order eliminating the DACA program on September 5th, the same day there was a discharge petition in the House — which promptly went nowhere.

And now we do have a major mess.   The Big Dealer in Chief doesn’t have a position on much of anything, much less immigration.  However, that state of affairs doesn’t mean he won’t attach himself to whatever buzzwords and banners will help keep his radical base in line.  Thus we can assume he will order another Diet Coke while twittering on about “immigrants and crime” (a truly faulty proposition) or “immigrants versus citizens” (without bothering to notice the connection between immigrants and their contributions to the American economy — the economy benefiting citizens; and, giving us all to understand that the Norwegians (82.3% white) are preferable to those from those **hole places which send us an in-ordinary number of people with advanced degrees.

So, the herd on Capitol Hill has until February 8, 2018 to clean up.  Senate Majority Leader McConnell is now without one of his more important hostages — CHIP beneficiaries, and Senator McCaskill knocked the legs out from under his Military hostages when she offered an measure to pay members of the Armed Forces and Sen. McConnell objected.  What McConnell did secure was the capacity to put House Speaker Ryan into a soup largely of his own concoction.

Speaker Ryan, has a problem — he has to come up with a DACA fix acceptable to the Senate, a solution not currently available in legislative language on his side of the building.  If the House does move toward a compromise bill his Freedom (for us but not anyone else) Caucus will scream to the heavens.  If the House stays put with its current version, the Senate Democrats can shut down the government funding for round two, and this time on more solid ground.  A compromise bill will likely not please either side of the divide, however the House alternative will cement the reputation of Republicans as the Party of Racists.

Thus, the Party which has promulgated the notion that allowing anyone at any time to march down the road to full citizenship is “amnesty,”  is now fettered with a label they’ve sought to avoid since the sainted Ronald Reagan gave his “state’s rights” speech at the Neshoba County Fair on August 3, 1980 giving voice and heft to the Southern Strategy.

Popcorn anyone?

Comments Off on I’m Watching a Basketball Game (Instead of the DACA drama)

Filed under anti-immigration, Immigration, Politics, racism

Discussing Immigration With A Republican, or The Art of the Yeah But

Take a segment of the radical right Republican pronouncements from television, a few more from their written commentary, add Republican spokespersons drawling on about the subject, put these together and it’s not hard to imagine a dialog Q and A on the subject of immigration policy.  To wit:

Q – Do you support a DREAM Act for DACA recipients?

A – Yes, but…

Q – But what?

A – But we have to address Chain Migration.

Q – Why?

A – Because, we might be allowing in rapists, killers, and drug dealers!

Q – What percentage of immigrants indulge in these criminal behaviors?

A – Lots of them you see it in the news every day.

Q – Do news reports indicate the citizenship status of arrestees and those convicted?

A- No, but you know that They are more likely to commit crimes.

Q –  We don’t know that with any certainty.  Actually, the better research reports that immigrants have lower crime rates than natural born citizens. [CBS]

A – Yeah but, we have to get rid of that diversity lottery system, it’s terrible. We need skilled workers not unskilled people who will end up on welfare and food stamps.

Q – You know that those who are not citizens aren’t eligible for food assistance and public welfare programs? You know that there are some jobs which immigrants are willing and capable of doing which are not being filled at the moment?

A – Yeah, but an influx of immigrants causes wages for American workers to decline.

Q – Uh, that isn’t true either, levels of immigration don’t force down American wages [Time]

A – Yeah, but it’s a matter of law and order! Either we enforce our laws or we don’t, and we can’t become a lawless country, and those DACA recipients are illegal aliens.

Q – We don’t hold children, especially those under the age of seven, liable for the crimes of their parents.  Besides which, DACA recipients must be working or in school, and must not be arrested for any crime, no matter how minor.  They pay for DACA registration, and agree to extensive background checks. So, what’s the problem?

A – Yeah but, we have to have a Wall!  We have to impede the flow of immigrants and drugs.

Q – Are you aware that most contraband “hard” drugs don’t come over remote parts of  “the border,” but come in via ports of entry?  [Tucson.Com]

A – Yeah but, we can’t have so many people coming in without skills, education, and so forth. We need skilled workers who speak English fluently, and don’t come from broken nations.  We need merit based immigration.

Q – You do understand that Nigerian immigrants and those from subsaharan Africa have more advanced degrees than the average American citizen? [LAT] So, are you saying we need more immigrants from Nigeria? From Kenya? From Botswana?

A – Yeah but we need people who can assimilate and share American values.

Q – Do you mean something like willing to engage in the free market and become entrepreneurs?  As in approximately 25% of immigrants to this country are entrepreneurs? [Forbes]

A – Yeah but, they should speak English before they get here, because English is our national language; and, they shouldn’t take advantage of our schools and social safety net programs!

Q – You do remember, from a few lines above, that they aren’t eligible for social assistance programs?  And, you do know that according to most studies done on the subject most recent immigrants do what previous immigrants have done, i.e. lose the native language almost completely in three generations?  [Economist]

A- Yeah but, they don’t assimilate into our society like previous waves of immigrants.

Q – Like German, Irish, Jewish and Eastern Europeans?  Like Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Indian immigrants today?

A – Yeah. Like those people.

Q – What’s different about Mexican and Central American immigrants from Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Indian immigrants?

A – Yeah but… They can bring in their relatives… they can bring in relatives who are from terrorist countries.

Q – You are aware, aren’t you, that the vast majority of immigrants are not terrorists, and that in fact those “3 out of 4” persons convicted of “international terrorism” were foreign born, and the statistics cited by the President* didn’t clarify which were extradited to this country for trial?

A – Yeah but.  We should be safe from terrorists!

Q – Yes, however most of the mass shootings in this country are the work of native born white males, you do know this don’t you?

A – Yeah but, it’s the government’s job to keep us safe.

Q – So, if it’s the government’s job to keep us safe, then we should be concentrating on what ‘radicalizes’ native born white males and how we can prevent them from obtaining lethal weapons which can be turned on innocent people?

A – Yeah but, are you saying you want to take our 2nd Amendment Rights away?

Q – No, but I am suggesting that if we are to focus on the issue of keeping our citizens safe from terrorists and bombers we should apply the same level of scrutiny to white male native born Americans. So, why should we limit immigration in order to keep us safe?Why not limit the license of native born white males who are statistically much more likely to commit mass shootings?

A – Yeah but… we can’t let people into this country to soak up our tax dollars and take up space and resources in our schools, and commit crimes and bring in drugs!

Q – Could it be that the objection is based on the ethnic or racial characteristics of the immigrants rather than on their capacity for assimilation and their observance of American traditions and values?

A – I AM NOT A RACIST.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Discussing Immigration With A Republican, or The Art of the Yeah But

Filed under anti-immigration, Immigration, Politics

Representative Government?

Not that popular polling is always the best way to govern, but the current capacity of the Republican controlled federal government to ignore public opinion is amazing.  For example, the Republican tax plan has a 26% approval rating [PR] 91% of Democrats, and perhaps more importantly, 61% of independent voters disapprove of the plan.  66% of Republicans approve of the plan, but we have to remember 37% of the American public identifies with the GOP. [HP]

While we’re remembering the horror at the Sandy Hook Elementary School five years ago (and not forgetting the massacre at the Las Vegas music concert) we know that 32% of Republicans, 83% of Democrats, and 62% of independents support stronger guns laws in this country. Overall support for stricter control of firearms stands at 60%. [PR]

The FCC decision to eliminate the net neutrality rules, some of which go back to the less than golden age of dial up, isn’t popular either.  Polling found that 83% of registered voters disliked the idea, 75% of whom were Republican and 89% of Democrats.  86% of registered voters who were independent didn’t like the idea either.   However, the FCC marched on with a 17% approval rating for its new “light touch” policy.

It seems that whenever the President* starts feeling the heat from Congressional, popular, or media sources he retreats to his anti-immigration rhetoric.  The Wall seems either literally or metaphorically important to him, but it isn’t all that much in the eyes of the nation he’s supposed to be leading.  36% of registered voters support The Wall, while 62% oppose it. [PR]   Voters were given three choices about Dreamers, stay and apply for citizenship, stay but not as citizens, or leave the country.  The December Marist poll found 58% supporting the stay/citizenship option, 23% supported stay but not as citizens, and only 15% supported deportation.   As of the week of December 6th the Quinnipiac Poll found 77% supporting the stay/citizenship application option, 7% supported the stay with no citizenship option, and only 12% supporting the deportation option.

It’s been a while since we’ve seen polling about Vladimir Putin, the other half of the Trump-Putin bromance.  There was some polling done last Summer which might be instructive.  Last July only 15% of Americans had a positive feeling about Putin, and as of late June 2017 approximately 50% of Americans felt the President* was too friendly with the Russian leader. [PR]

A person might think that a leader who isn’t stone deaf to public sentiment or stonewalling to protect his self image might want to consider how best to reach toward a broader audience, and to cultivate something more than a 32% approval rating.  Apparently that consideration isn’t getting much traction in the current White House.

Nor does it seem like the first session of the 115th Congress is paying much attention either.  In fact, it looks like the GOP is doing the drafting of the Democratic Platform for 2018 — Net Neutrality, DACA, common sense gun regulation, immigration reform, and real tax reform for working Americans.  The 32% President and his 37% party are perhaps doing the best they can to elevate the Democratic Party in the mid term elections?

1 Comment

Filed under Gun Issues, Immigration, Net Neutrality, Politics, Taxation

Immigration Myths and Legends and NV gubernatorial candidates

Nevada Republicans apparently have managed to recruit not one but two profoundly flawed candidates for Governor — Dubious Dan Schwartz, author of an alternative budget so far out in right field it found itself in the parking lot, and Adam Laxalt, The Adelson candidate du jour.  AG Laxalt joins the bevy of Republican officials who find no reason to challenge the Trumpian decision on DACA.  Better still, he’s an associate of notorious ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio:

“To date, Laxalt has shown zero interest in protecting Nevada’s DREAMers. In 2015, Laxalt added the State of Nevada to a lawsuit opposing President Obama’s immigration executive action with the goal of deporting DREAMers and tearing immigrant families apart. Laxalt is currently scheduled to appear this month at an event with disgraced former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a criminal and notorious bigot who racially profiled Latinos in Arizona.”

Laxalt and Schwartz do illustrate the topics Republicans want to talk about — immigrants, tax cuts, and the wedgies (guns and gays.)   Let’s focus on immigration for the moment.  Nevadans have been treated to a surfeit of salacious “alternative facts” on DACA, and some of the myths appear to have taken hold.  DACA encouraged child migration! — No, it didn’t.  DACA beneficiaries have taken jobs away from Americans — only if one buys into the Lump of Labor Fallacy.  Nor do DACA beneficiaries cost the American taxpayers much of anything — they aren’t eligible for federal means tested welfare, Medicaid, health care tax credits, or anything else.   Republicans sputter that ending DACA will keep us safer — however DACA requires a background check, no felonies, no serious misdemeanors, and only 2,139 of the 800,000 beneficiaries have lost permits because of criminal activity. The handy plastic brains show this amounts to 0.267%. [WaPo]

Looming on the dark horizon of GOP visions is the ever present phantasmagorical presence of More Immigrants.  Interesting isn’t it, that the danger always comes from (1) Mexico or Central America, or (2) Muslims.  However, as of 2015 about 15% of green card recipients were from Mexico, 7% came from China, 6.1% from India, 5.4% from the Philippines, and 5.2% from Cuba. [CNN] [see also DHS]  Little notice is given to the 4,765,000 immigrants of European origin. [MPO]

Enter the other conversation Republicans don’t want to have — racism in all its systemic, institutional, and individual forms.  The ultimate exercise in otiosity is to attempt to get a Republican candidate to admit that beneath their rhetoric about immigration is a deep layer of good old fashioned prejudice and racism.  European immigrants are ‘productive,’ Central American immigrants are ‘gang members.’  European immigrants ‘take opportunities,’ while Central American immigrants ‘take jobs.’  European and Asian immigrants are hard working, but Central American ones are potential criminals — as if Russian and Chinese organized crime operations are minimized by excluding discussion of their activities.

Who were the gangsters associated with the following?

“The suspects (+30) also face charges of extortion, gambling, narcotics trafficking, wire fraud, credit card fraud, and identity theft, according to law enforcement sources. Some of the charges carry a maximum penalty of decades in prison.”

No, not from Mexico, Central America, not MS 13 — they’re members of Russian organized crime in NYC.   There was some mention about the Chinese immigrants attempting to enter the US without documentation last August 27th. [ChicagoABC] Not much, nor is much said about Chinese organized crime moving into south eastern Asia.  For coverage of Australian-Chinese cooperation interdicting drug trafficking in the area one has to head to Australian or Chinese news sources.  Lets guess that the latest 13 tons of drugs captured weren’t all destined for Sydney and Melbourne?

However, broadening the focus on criminal activity to include a more global perspective doesn’t serve the purposes of the anti-immigration far right in the US, which voraciously consumes any and all news of Mexican and Central American criminal activity while minimizing the capacity of Asian and Russian gangs and cartels to wreak havoc.

Thus far candidate Schwartz has demonstrated his capacity to parrot talking points from the Trickle Down Hoax book of imaginary economics, while Laxalt has aligned himself with the Arpaio clan (a word carefully chosen) of racists and bigots.  Both are flawed, and both leave room for a centrist Democrat to make an effective run for Governor.

Comments Off on Immigration Myths and Legends and NV gubernatorial candidates

Filed under Immigration, Nevada politics, Politics

Imaginary Numbers for Imaginary Growth

I’m sorry but it’s time to type out, yet once more, how we calculate the annual growth rate for the real GDP, and no, there’s no imaginary quarterly or annualized growth rate for the real GDP.  Now that we’ve reviewed, the financial inanity of the current administration is highlighted by policies which are in direct variance with the stated goal of increased economic growth of 3%.

There are two numbers we absolutely need in order to have economic growth: Labor force increases; and, Labor Productivity increases.  The labor force is obvious, how many people of working age are in the workforce. Productivity pertains to how much can be produced by those workers.  For more information see this article from the St. Louis FED.  Suffice it to say that if the labor force growth is 0.5% and the productivity growth rate is o.5% then the economic growth rate will be 1%.

There are a couple of bits of Reality we need to introduce at this point in time: (1) The baby boom is over. (2) We are poised to severely limit our immigration.

As of 2015, the number of baby boomers ranges from 74.9 million to 82.3 million, depending on whether the generation begins with the birth year 1943 or 1946.” [CNN] No matter which year one assumes for the beginning, it was over by 1964-65.  Growth in the labor force has not, and may rationally not, increase at levels seen when the Boomers hit the job market. And, now they are exiting.  Those born in 1965 are now 52, with about 13 years left before retirement; those born during or before 1952 are presumably retired already. So, what is happening now?

“The US fertility rate has been in a steady decline since the post-World War II baby boom. Back at its height in 1957, the fertility rate was 122.9 births per 1,000 women. The latest quarterly CDC data also indicate the larger pattern of women having babies later in life. As birth rates increased among women in their 30s and 40s, the rate among teenagers and women in their 20s dropped.” [CNN]
The current rate is 59.8. There are factors associated with lower birth rates; for example, in developed nations urbanization is a factor — children aren’t a major need for their work in agricultural pursuits.  Another factor is the cost of raising the children, it’s more expensive to raise children in a developed country where those children don’t enter the labor force until they are in their late teens or twenties.  Further, the urbanization trend continues apace in the US. [Census] [Slate] More urbanization, more education, and we can’t reasonable expect a repetition of the Boom in the foreseeable future.
So, if we aren’t increasing our labor force via the old birth-rate route, then the other way is immigration, and this warning from the Los Angeles Times:

“Trump in his first weeks in office has launched the most dramatic effort in decades to reduce the country’s foreign-born population and set in motion what could become a generational shift in the ethnic makeup of the U.S. Trump and top aides have become increasingly public about their underlying pursuit, pointing to Europe as an example of what they believe is a dangerous path that Western nations have taken. Trump believes European governments have foolishly allowed Muslims with extreme views to settle in their countries, sowing seeds for unrest and recruitment by terrorist groups.”

This seems a polite way to say that the Trump administration would like very much to limit immigration to white Western Europeans. If we don’t allow immigration from Mexico and Central American nations, and we severely limit immigration from predominantly Muslim nations, then what’s left?

And, in terms of increasing the labor force, here’s where the policy and the reality clash. If we want an increase in the birth rate in order to increase our labor force, then the women having those babies are more likely to be foreign born immigrants to the US. [Pew]  We don’t get to have it both ways — limiting immigration both limits the number of people available for immediate employment, and the number of little people who will grow up to be a portion of our labor force. Once more with feeling, if we limit immigration we necessarily limit our economic growth.

One of the amazing things about conservative/trumpism ideology is the notion that elements diametrically opposed to one another may somehow be massaged by empty rhetoric into actuality.  Somehow, we are supposed to believe that we can have 3% economic growth while limiting our immigration unrealistically, and while continuing the urbanization of the country. Only in the fever swamp of right wing ethnocentric white supremacist thinking is this going to “happen.” And, the happen part is in quotation marks because this is Neverland.

So, no — we don’t get the deficit reduced by cutting taxes on corporations, millionaires, and billionaires. No, we don’t get a balanced budget by cutting non-defense discretionary spending, and NO we don’t get 3% economic growth by unrealistically impeding immigration.  2 + 2 does not equal 7.

Comments Off on Imaginary Numbers for Imaginary Growth

Filed under Economy, Immigration, Politics, Republicans