Im-Politic: The Price of Unforced Trump Immigration Policy Errors

Tags

Africa, AP, Associated Press, border security, border wall, Center for Immigration Studies, Im-Politic, Immigration, Kirstjen Nielsen, Mark Stevenson, Middle East, migrants, terrorism, Trump

While piloting the fledgling New York Mets to an historically awful season in 1962, their colorful manager Casey Stengel at one point exasperatedly asked “Can’t anybody here play this game?” Or something like it.

An Associated Press (AP) report yesterday makes clear that the same question needs to keep being asked about the Trump administration’s intertwined immigration and border security policies. The article provided the latest batch of evidence supporting an administration claim about the threat of terrorists entering the United States across the southern border that the President and his aides have repeatedly undercut by incompetently presenting the facts.

The most recent controversy about the terrorism-immigration connection erupted in early January, when, according to press reports, former (and later fired) Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen met with Congressional leaders to lobby for Mr. Trump’s border wall proposal. Her pitch, according to the reports, used the claim that, during the past year, 3,000 terrorists were among those apprehended by border officials as they tried to cross into the nation from Mexico.

The claim was so easily debunked that even supporters of much more restrictive U.S. immigration policies were left shaking their heads. But as explained in this post from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a related terrorism-immigration threat does warrant major concern – including wall-building – even though the Trump administration rarely mentions it and even on those occasions often botches the matter. It’s the demonstrable presence in groups of would-be border crossers of migrants from countries and regions where terrorism is all too common, including the Middle East and North Africa and their large numbers of jihadists; and/or of migrants on federal terrorist watch lists.

The numbers of actual terrorists even in these often overlapping groups apparently aren’t large in absolute terms. But as observed by CIS’ Todd Bensman, a former Texas State counter-terrorism official, “in this threat realm, small numbers portend major consequences. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as she heads for the exit over just a relative few migrants who committed terror attacks in her country after entering among the million migrants she admitted.”

And this is where the new AP story comes in. According to correspondent Mark Stevenson,

“Thousands fleeing conflict or poverty in Nigeria, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Haiti and Cuba have traveled across oceans, through the jungles and mountains of South America, up through Central America, on a route that — so far — ends here: the steamy, crumbling Mexican city of Tapachula, near the Guatemala border.”

Why did they try to enter the United States this way? Stevenson quotes a migrant rights supporter as explaining that stating that their presence owes to the fact that

“word quickly spread through international smuggling networks that Mexico had become more permissive for migrants. Attention drawn to the large caravans meandering north to the U.S. last year, combined with Mexico’s fast-track for thousands of humanitarian visas in January, appeared like welcome mats on the global stage. At the same time, it became more difficult for migrants in Asia or Africa to reach Europe.”

The non-Western Hemisphere migrants interviewed by Stevenson all claimed to be fleeing poverty, violence, and persecution in their home countries, and no doubt many and even most are telling the truth. But how on earth can this be reliably determined? Assuming these individuals have national documentation, do Nigeria, Cameroon, and Bangladesh, for example, really have governments remotely capable of identifying their populations with any precision? Can a reporter verify their stories? Also disturbing: Stevenson’s interviewees were all single men.

On the one hand, the length of the journeys they say they have taken surely complicates the task of bringing along family members, and especially children. At the same time, it’s single men who commit the lion’s share of the terrorist acts and crimes against women that have generated such a backlash in Europe and – to a much lesser extent so far – in the United States.

As noted by Bensman, the former Texas counter-terrorism official, the Trump administration could easily clear up the confusion it has helped create by securing the release of the correct numbers as kept by the FBI and Homeland Security’s National Counterterrorism Center, and by reporting them accurately. But weirdly, the administration has not only declined to take these obvious steps. It’s resisting CIS efforts to force the release of these data through the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, ten days ago, CIS sued the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency to make the data public.

Let’s all hope this legal action succeeds, or that the Trump administration stops the obstruction. Keeping the nation safe from terrorism is too important an objective to tolerate big unforced official errors continuing.

Making News: On National Radio Early This Afternoon – & More!

Tags

Cato Institute, Center for Immigration Studies, China, ChinaUSFocus.com, DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Hong Kong, Immigration, John B. Judis, Making News, North Korea, Ted Galen Carpenter, The New Republic, think tanks, Thom Hartmann, ZeroHedge.com

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to appear today on Thom Hartmann’s nationally syndicated radio show today at 1:20 PM EST.  The subject:  the state of the U.S. and world economies — and specifically, is either one as healthy as the conventional wisdom seems to believe?  All the info you need to listen live is at this link.  As usual, I’ll post a podcast of the interview as soon as one’s available.

In addition, on September 26, the Hong Kong-based ChinaUSFocus.com posted a column by the Cato Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter quoting my views on President Trump’s North Korea policies.  Truth in advertising:  Ted is a long-time and very close friend.  He’s also one of the sharpest foreign policy analysts I know.  In addition, this website’s sponsor calls itself a non-profit organization, but given that Hong Kong is under China’s thumb in most important ways, this claim should be viewed extremely skeptically.  Moreover, this “non-profit” admits that it gets “support” from a prominent Shanghai-based think tank that (like other Chinese think tanks) is an arm of the Chinese government.

In this vein, however, it’s intriguing that the point made by me and by Ted (who agrees) is manifestly not one that toes the Beijing line on the crisis.

On September 10, a blog post from the Center for Immigration Studies spotlighted my findings on the economics of repeal of the former Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

And on September 9, my post on the subject was reprinted on the popular ZeroHedge.com economics and finance website.

Finally, as previously discussed, in a September 15 New Republic article, prominent journalist and author John B. Judis quoted my views on the worsening corruption of many already corrupt, corporate-funded American think tanks.  Unfortunately, as I also specified, I don’t believe that John’s treatment of this point met basic standards of fairness.

Keep checking in at RealityChek for news of media appearances and other developments!

Im-Politic: Fake Hate Group Facts from the Washington Post

Tags

Abha Bhattarai, ACT for America, Center for Immigration Studies, CIS, hate groups, Im-Politic, Islamic terrorism, Mainstream Media, Mark Krikorian, Muslims, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, terrorism, The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post

What on earth gives with journalists at the Washington Post? Both editors and reporters alike? I ask this because of the outrageous headline in today’s edition, accompanying an equally outrageous article, sliming an organization that’s concerned about the spread of Muslim extremism and terrorism into the United States as a “hate group.”

Not that there’s anything new about mainstream news media and their staffs being dismissive about these dangers. And not that there’s anything new about these newspapers, magazines, broadcast networks, and websites using as their guide to hate groups the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – even though this organization’s definition of an anti-Muslim extremist can be wildly offbase.

What’s new, and upsetting, about this incident is that the Post itself recently published an article – by the head of the restrictivist immigration organization, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) – that its appearance alone (let alone the evidence it marshaled) revealed that the paper itself took most seriously the case that SPLC hate group ratings are simply biased garbage.

As noted by its Executive Director Mark Krikorian in a Post article just last March, SPLC has labeled CIS a hate group since February.  But as Krikorian also pointed out:

“CIS has testified before Congress more than 100 times over the past 20 years. We’ve also testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and our work has been cited by the Supreme Court and the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. We’ve done contract work for the Census Bureau and the Justice Department. Our director of research was selected by the National Academies of Sciences as an outside reviewer for last year’s magisterial study of the fiscal and economic impacts of immigration. Our authors include scholars at Harvard,Cornell University, Colorado State University, the University of Maryland and elsewhere. We are one of the most frequently cited sources on immigration in the media (including in The Post).”

And he sensibly concluded:

“Equating a group that has such a track record of engagement in the public policy debate with, for instance, the Holy Nation of Odin has nothing to do with warning the public of ‘hate.’ The SPLC’s true purpose can only be to deprive the American people of points of view they need to hear to make informed and intelligent collective decisions.”

Yet this morning, just six months later, a Post headline declared that “Marriott says it will not cancel conference hosted by anti-Muslim hate group.” In other words, this development was portrayed as a fact. But in the third paragraph, reporter Abha Bhattarai (and clearly her editors) show that the paramount basis for this description was that same Southern Policy Law Center.

Now the group so labeled – ACT for America – is completely separate from Krikorian’s CIS. Here’s how it describes it purpose:

“ACT for America educates citizens and elected officials to impact public policy and protect America from terrorism. As a result, ACT’s grassroots network has driven the education process toward the successful passage of 84 bills in 32 states. ACT for America is continuing to expand its nationwide volunteer network that trains citizens to recognize and help prevent criminal activity and terrorism in the United States while preserving civil liberties protected by the United States Constitution.”

Bhattarai attempted to buttress the SPLC’s finding by reporting that ACT was

“behind anti-Muslim demonstrations across the country this summer that attracted white supremacist groups.

“‘I don’t believe in having Muslims in the United States,’ Francisco Rivera, of the white supremacist group Vanguard America, said at one of the demonstrations.

“‘Their culture is incompatible with ours.’”

Sounds like guilt by association to me. Moreover, there are reasons to view Bhattarai’s verbal brush as excessively broad in a more fundamental sense. Here’s how another big national news organization, The Los Angeles Times, depicted these activities. ACT, it stated, “has supported President Trump’s restrictions on refugees and travel from Muslim-majority countries. It organized protests throughout the country this summer against sharia law, which the group says is incompatible with Western culture.”

That appears to be much more precise — and less damning — phrasing. And I’m inclined to trust in it because the Times handled the headline for its version of this story properly, too:

“Marriott won’t cancel convention of what critics call anti-Muslim hate group.”

So the Times, unlike the Post, seems to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. But the Post‘s failure in this regard is even less excusable because it had recently run material casting major doubt on the SPLC’s bona fides. In other words, it seems that its own reporters and editors don’t read a lot of what the Post produces. Maybe the rest of us should take this as a hint?

Im-Politic: The Needless New Immigration Policy Mess

Tags

American Muslims, Center for Immigration Studies, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Egypt, Executive Orders, green card holders, Im-Politic, Immigration, Muslims, Norman Matloff, Obama, Pakistan, refugees, Saudi Arabia, September 11, Syria, terrorism, Trump

The last 48 hours’ flow of immigration policy-related news has been unprecedented – or certainly nearly so. To me, the big takeaway is clear: In the course of developing and announcing a fundamentally sound policy framework for handling immigration- and refugee-related national security issues, the Trump administration has allowed vague and/or confusing provisions to create an unnecessary political firestorm.

The needless confusion stemmed mainly from the apparent treatment of green card holders in the Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”  These individuals have been granted permanent resident legal status by the U.S. government, and have extensively vetted. Perhaps that’s why the Order makes no specific mention of them.    

Yet early yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seemed to confirm that the Orders’s 90-day ban on entry into the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries deemed (correctly) to be hotbeds of terrorism and/or Islamic extremism includes green card holders.  

Both moves seemed so mystifying that my first reaction was skepticism. Particularly fishy to me was the source of the DHS statement. It came from a department spokesperson identified by name. But she was described as “acting,”and given that we’re still in the new administration’s earliest days, it was legitimate to wonder where she got her information and whether it’s accurate. And indeed, shortly afterwards, “senior administration officials” (who oddly remained nameless) were saying that the green card measures would be administered on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, this sequence of events doesn’t speak well at all for the togetherness of the new administration’s act.

But there’s no reasonable doubt that much of the tumult that’s surrounded the rest of the Trump immigration moves is nothing more than another outburst of stealth chattering class support for Open Borders policies. This charge is justified for at least two reasons:

First, the notion that Trump’s refugee measures represent a wholesale trashing of America’s humanitarian heritage is juvenile at best and reckless and ignorant (or both) at worst. The Trump-haters who have claiming that the Statue of Liberty is weeping and the like seem to be ignoring how even Barack Obama severely limited refugee admissions from war-torn Syria – to 10,000 in 2016. The previous year, only 1,800 were resettled. And clearly reflecting security concerns, the screening process typically took between 18 and 24 months.

Why didn’t President Obama simply open America’s doors much wider and faster to the immiserated Syrian hordes? Because even he recognized that the nation’s most fundamental self-interest – the safety of its existing citizens and legal residents – can’t be brushed aside even in the face of the most terrible tragedies.

President Trump and many others doubted, however, that even this screening was adequate. And they could point to copious compelling evidence. Principally, mass Middle East refugee admissions have in Europe have included terrorists involved in deadly attacks. In the United States, children of recent Middle East refugees or other immigrants have been responsible for the shootings and bombings in Orlando, Florida; San Bernardino, California, Boston, and Fort Hood. And Muslim residents have been involved (including arrested) in terrorism attempts in numbers vastly higher than their share of the overall American population.

Combine this with the virtual impossibility of getting accurate, reliable records from virtually destroyed countries or thoroughly failed states, and the real question before Americans is not why President Trump has banned entry of any kind from these lands, but why broad restrictions have taken so long to impose.

Second, it’s been frequently argued (including by President Obama) that even if refugees can be tied to terrorist attacks, the numbers of Americans killed have been infinistesimal. In particular, they’re fond of noting that the odds are lower than getting killed in bathroom accidents or everyday activities like driving.

What they keep missing, of course, is the completely different role of government negligence – and therefore preventability or avoidability – involved. Fatal accidents at home, for example, can often be avoided by moving with greater care, or more properly maintaining fixtures or appliances, or keeping clutter off the floor, or in numerous other ways. It’s also entirely possible to increase your chances of surviving your daily auto commute to work – by driving more defensively, by caring for your vehicle, by staying off the road in bad weather, etc.

Will these precautions guarantee your protection 100 percent? Of course not. In particular, they can’t completely remove the related elements of randomness and chance from life – tripping over a hard-to-see uneven stretch of pavement, sharing a road with a drunk driver, or flying in an airplane disabled by a flock of birds, experiencing a natural disaster, etc. Speaking of that last item, I would include in this category a decision like moving to or staying an earthquake-prone location, especially if relocating is a relatively easy option – though the element of randomness there is more debatable.

But reasonable people seem to accept these kinds of inevitable bad breaks. They understand the irrationality of shutting themselves in at home, for example, to stay safe. As for injuries or fatalities resulting from violence perpetrated by individuals admitted to the United States by a policy decision that ignores or downplays well known risks – they’re dramatically and unacceptably different. For there is nothing random about them; indeed, every last one of them was completely preventable. They’re the products of elected leaders who believe that the loss of American lives – in situations well short of war – are acceptable risks to run in exchange for benefits that, to put it kindly, are intangible (e.g., winning good will abroad), speculative (e.g., impeding recruitment by terrorist groups), or subjective (conforming with American values), or some combination of the two.

It’s certainly arguable that the previous administration was well within its rights in making those judgments and decisions. President Obama, after all, was legitimately elected – twice. But it’s just as arguable that Donald Trump’s White House victory owed in part to the public’s rejection of these calculations.

Having said this, at least two more aspects of the new Trump refugee policies are disturbing. First, why were countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan excluded – especially given the role of Saudis and Egyptians in the September 11 attacks cited explicitly by the Executive Order, and the role of Pakistan’s state security forces in supporting a wide range of terrorist activities, including strikes on U.S. Forces and facilities in Afghanistan?

Second, the Executive Order, in my view, admirably seeks to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” But for precisely the same vetting-related reasons that it’s excruciatingly difficult to make sure that Syrians (and other Middle Easterners) aren’t terrorists or other dangerous types, it’s going to be equally difficult to figure out who’s a member of a persecuted religious minority and who isn’t.

I agree with President Trump that the previous U.S. refugee policy created too many unnecessary security risks, and also that temporary freezes and bans and the like in general are needed to enable his administration to develop a detailed alternative – including better vetting procedures . I also admire the vigor with which Mr. Trump has plunged into the presidency. But in the case of this Executive Order, it looks like too much haste might have needlessly created serious problems today, and the potential for more down the road.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: About Those “Jobs Americans Won’t Do”

Tags

agriculture, automation, Bryan Caplan, Center for Immigration Studies, farm workers, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, Immigration, Jobs, labor shortages, Mark Krikorian, Michael Dukakis, minimum wage, Open Borders, productivity, Ron Unz, technology, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As “everybody knows,” one of the main reasons that the U.S. economy desperately needs a huge population of low-paid immigrants (whether legal or soon-to-be legalized) is that these workers do crucial jobs that the native-born population snubs. And with the immigration policy debate continually intensifying in this presidential campaign cycle, expect this claim to be trotted out again and again by champions of Open Borders-style approaches to the issue. (Here’s a good post indicating just how often it’s been made by major political and chattering class figures.)

What a surprise, then, to keep discovering evidence showing that the “jobs American won’t do” contention to be completely bogus.

As should be clear to anyone familiar with standard economic thinking, the idea underlying all such claims – of chronic labor shortages that can only be eased with big new influxes of foreign workers – is nonsensical theoretically. The reasons have to do with time-honored concepts of supply and demand. When they’re out of balance – which in this imperfect world happens all the time – actors in free markets adjust in several ways, all involving the price mechanism. Employers facing such labor market mismatches will either raise wages, in order to attract the workers they need, or they introduce labor-saving machines or other efficiency-enhancing improvements if the former option isn’t appealing. Of course, in the real world, responses are often some combination of these alternatives.

But whatever business’ choices, the implications for the economy as a whole are the same. “Jobs that Americans won’t do” will before too long be filled by better paid workers or by the proverbial robots.

Both options, moreover, contain ample potential to strengthen the economy to everyone’s benefit. The pluses of higher wages (up to a point, of course!) are self-evident. But although the labor-saving technology strategy sounds like a formula for mass unemployment, centuries of history teach that automation ultimately creates many more, and better, jobs than it displaces. (Will this record continue in an unfolding age of more and more sophisticated robots and artificial intelligence? I sure as heck don’t know. But that’s a medium-term challenge, not an imminent one.) Moreover, more use of machines is typically a sign that the economy is becoming more productive. And that’s as good as it sounds – including for wages and broader living standards.

There is an important caveat: Not all companies, or even whole industries, are capable of making these adjustments (whether they want to or whether they’re confident that immigrants will keep flooding to their rescue). But that doesn’t mean that labor shortages need to or should be dealt with by new government measures like opening borders even wider. Instead, it mean that these companies and industries have lousy, and even completely non-viable business models. Why should they be bailed out with immigration policy at the expense both of native-born workers and greater efficiency?

It’s true that theories can be and often are wrong. But not this one. Exhibit One has to do with technology. Immigrants both legal and not comprise a big share of America’s agricultural workforce, and the farm sector has long insisted that the depressed wages that result from immigrant-fueled labor surpluses are crucial to keeping food affordable. Further, they and their supporters argue, few native-born Americans would want to toil in the fields even if pay was raised.

As it turns out, however, meager wages ultimately were making workers harder and harder to find throughout the ag sector. And rather than close up shop – and let entire crops go unplanted, immense harvests rot on the vine, and widespread hunger to emerge – guess what American farmers have started to do? Yep. They’re spreading mechanization beyond the grains and other commodity crops for which its use has been commonplace for decades!  (Thanks, by the way, to Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies for a recent tweet that first alerted me to this development.) 

In fact, thanks to ever more sophisticated robots and similar devices, they’re even mechanizing the picking of fruits and vegetables long considered to be too delicate to be handled by machines, like strawberries and blueberries. And it’s pretty reasonable to suppose that these machines will keep getting cheaper, better, and able to perform an ever wider range of tasks. .

Exhibit Two isn’t a real-world development yet. Instead, it’s a proposal that dramatically shows how higher wages could slash the nation’s supposed need for illegal immigrant labor. According to folks ranging from former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis to reform-minded California Republican multi-millionaire businessman Ron Unz, a healthy increase in the minimum wage would draw many legal U.S. residents back into the nation’s workforce and reduce the attractiveness of hiring illegals – many of whom are poorly educated and speak limited English. And of course, businesses that hired only legal residents would have no law enforcement worries. Even George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan, an unabashed supporter of completely Open Borders (seriously!) has acknowledged the “logic” of the proposal.

So the next time you hear the “jobs Americans won’t do” argument, you can be pretty sure that it’s coming from someone who just doesn’t know their basic economics, whose ideologically committed to completely unfettered immigration, or who has a big political or economic self-interest in importing poverty on a huge scale into the United States.

Im-Politic: Angry Voters May Not Know the Half of It on High Tech Immigration

Tags

Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Investigative Journalism, Donald Trump, federal contracting, H-1B visa, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jobs, John Miano, KeepAmericaatWork.org, labor shortages, Mainstream Media, Norman Matloff, Obama, skills gap, technology, Virgil Bierschwale, wages

It’s now become commonplace for establishment politicians and their Mainstream Media enablers to acknowledge that so-called “insurgent” presidential candidates – especially Republican Donald Trump – have “tapped into” public anger against their performance. Far less common are signs that the establishment is prepared to take even the most obvious steps to respond constructively to this anger, and Virgil Bierschwale’s excellent “Keep America at Work” blog has just turned up a great and oh-so-revealing example.

As Virgil and many others (including me) have noted, the H-1B program under which the U.S. government hands out temporary work visas to foreigners supposedly with special skills has long been abused by employers, especially in the technology sector. Claiming that they can’t find the talented workers they need in the American workforce, tech companies have frequently hired H-1Bs – and continually lobbied for more – simply in order to drive down wages and therefore boost their profits.

And in the first sentence of this paragraph, I used the word “noted,” very deliberately. For even though expanding the H-1B program enjoys strong bipartisan support among the many American political leaders who receive handsome campaign contributions from the technology industry, the U.S. government itself over the years has charged numerous tech firms with violations of the central H-1B requirement that they pay these workers prevailing wages.

So you’d think that this same federal government would at least refrain from rewarding these crooked companies by denying them federal contracts. As Virgil has just shown, however, you’d be wrong. His August 20 post reported on a study by the Center for Investigative Journalism that found:

“The federal government has awarded contracts and other benefits worth nearly half a billion dollars since 2000 to tech labor brokers cited for violating laws related to the temporary visa program known as H-1B.

“Since 2000, nearly 20 percent of the technology labor brokers and tech firms cited for violating the H-1B visa program have received federal contracts, payments and other government support.

“The Department of Homeland Security and Department of Labor are among the agencies that have looked past H-1B violations or failed to check the record.

“Even labor brokers facing the ultimate penalty for H-1B labor violations – debarment from the temporary visa program – found ways back in.”

And what about President Obama, the self-styled champion of the American worker? This summer, he signed an executive order requiring anyone seeking significant federal contracts to notify Washington if they’ve recently broken labor laws. “Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to companies that violate workplace laws. They shouldn’t go to companies that violate worker rights,” Mr. Obama said.

But H-1B violators have nothing to fear. They’ve been expressly exempted from the new order.

So although I usually shy away from predictions, I feel pretty confident in believing that, throughout this presidential campaign and beyond, establishment politicians in both parties and their media enablers will continue to bemoan the troubles of the American workforce and hail technology industries as a big part of the solution. Federal contracting practices like those described by Virgil will continue to be a big part of the problem (along with other job- and wage-killing measures like amnesty-friendly overall immigration policies and offshoring-friendly trade agreements). And establishment politicians – along with the Mainstream Media which missed this H-1B scandal and keeps ignoring it – will keep pretending that they get it on voter anger.  

FYI, for other terrific sources of information, analysis, and coverage re H-1B and many other immigration issues, check out Norman Matloff’s “Upon Closer Inspection” and the work of the Center for Immigration Studies, notably John Miano’s blog.