Making News: National Radio Podcast Now On-Line on Fingering the World’s Real Protectionists…& More!

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, economics, Following Up, global economy, Global Imbalances, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, Immigration, Jeremy Beck, labor shortages, NumbersUSA, protectionism, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show is now on-line.

Click here for a timely discussion – with co-host Gordon G. Chang – on the crucial issue of whether recent U.S. moves bythe Trump and Biden administrations represent a worrisome new lurch toward destructive trade protectionism, or efforts to defend and promote legitimate American – and sometimes global – interests.

In addition, on January 10, in his blog for the immigration realist organization NumbersUSA, Jeremy Beck quoted from my December 29 post debunking the numerous recent claims blaming the labor shortages that have popped up in many U.S. industries on policies that have enabled too few foreigners to join the American labor force. 

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

Advertisement

Im-Politic: The New York Times’ DeSantis Hatchet Job Flunks Even the Competence Test

Tags

demographics, Florida, Im-Politic, Immigration, journalism, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, Mainstream Media, MSM, Regime Media, Ron DeSantis, The New York Times

Memo to New York Times podcaster Lulu Garcia-Navarro, her editors at the paper’s opinion section, and indeed all journalists: If you’re going to do a takedown piece on a major politician, or anyone, try to display at least minimal competence.

Had Garcia-Navarro and her editors followed this advice, they’d have never published a recent hatchet job on Ron DeSantis, the Florida Republican governor and possible 2024 presidential candidate, that’s a monument to factual cherry- picking and outright misinformation trafficking, and a disgrace even to the increasingly debased practice of opinion writing.

Garcia-Navarro concentrates on debunking the claims of DeSantis and his supporters that the governor “has overseen a growing economy” and that. “Florida now has the fastest-growing population in the country.” (I reported on the latter and related developments here.)

Actually, the author claims,

“Florida is not a model for the nation, unless the nation wants to become unaffordable for everyone except rich snowbirds.

“While my home state’s popularity might indeed seem like good news for a governor with presidential ambitions, a closer look shows that Florida is underwater demographically. Most of those flocking there are aging boomers with deep pockets, adding to the demographic imbalance for what is already one of the grayest populations in the nation. This means that Florida won’t have the younger workers needed to care for all those seniors. And while other places understand that immigrants, who often work in the service sector and agriculture, two of Florida’s main industries, are vital to replenishing aging populations, Mr. DeSantis and the state G.O.P. are not exactly immigrant-friendly, enacting legislation to limit the ability of people with uncertain legal status to work in the state.”

One obvious reason for doubting Garcia-Navarro’s arguments is the lack of documentation. That’s likely because had the author decided to present the principal facts, or had her editors insisted upon this, they ‘d have watched this indictment melt away.

A balanced picture of Florida’s demographics would have begun by noting that DeSantis has only occupied the state house in Tallahassee since the beginning of 2019. Anyone familiar with the Sunshine States knows that it’s been a popular retirement destination for decades.

It’s possible that DeSantis has had such a powerful impact on Florida’s demographics that these patterns have changed dramatically in the last four years? Well, yes. But the statistics surely have been distorted – like virtually all U.S. data – by the CCP Virus.

In any event, Florida’s own state government shows that the state’s (higher-than-the-U.S. Average) median age rose 0.71 percent between 2019-2021 (the latest figures available) while that of the nation as a whole increased by 0.52 percent. For comparison’s sake, during the two years before 2019, Florida’s median age advanced by 0.48 percent versus the 1.05 percent for the entire United States.

So these limited samples do show that Florida has been aging at a relatively fast pace under DeSantis, both versus its own pre-DeSantis pace and that of all of America. But the none of gaps or the changes between them is the least bit dramatic.

Between 2017 and 2019, Florida’s median age dipped from 110 percent of its total U.S. counterpart to 109.375 percent. By 2021, it bounced all the way back to …109.585 percent. In other words, big whoop.

As for Garcia-Navarro’s charge that DeSantis’ governorship has benefited only “rich snowbirds” economically, that’s hard to square with what the exit polls told us about his 2022 reelection results. Specifically, fully 41 percent of Floridians who voted last year lived in households that earned $50,000 annually or less. Thirty-eight percent of these voters’ households earned between $50,000 and $99,000 per year. And 21 percent earned more than $100,000 each year. So clearly, lots of DeSantis voters weren’t one percenters or five percenters or ten percenters or even close.

It’s true that DeSantis clobbered his Democratic opponent among voters aged 45 or older – by 63 percent to 36 percent. But that group includes lots of non-geezers. And among the 18-44-year olds, DeSantis trailed by just 50-48 percent. So clearly lots of DeSanti voters weren’t wealthy seniors, either. Either all these non-super-rich and young and midde aged Floridians are too stupid to vote in thei own economic self-interest, or they know something that Garcia-Navarro and her editors don’t.

And has DeSantis really shut off the flow of desperately needed immigrants into Florida? Despite his efforts to “limit the ability of people with uncertain legal status to work in the state” (love that latest euphemism for illegal aliens!), U.S. Census data show that the answer is emphatically “No.”

For example, from July, 2021 to July, 2022 (the latest official data available), slightly fewer immigrants moved into Florida on a net basis (125,629) than into California (125,715). And that’s even though California’s estimated population last year (39.03 million) was much larger than Florida’s (22.24 million), and even though California is a self-proclaimed sanctuary state. (See the the fourth xls table downloadable from this Census link.) 

These data don’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, but for the purposes of this post, who cares? Indeed, do the (not rocket science) math, and even if you believe that more immigrants (includin those with “uncertain legal status) are essential for adequate senior care, it turns out that Florida is in much better shape because it’s receiving nearly as many of the foreign born as California even though its population includes many fewer (4.69 million) seniors in absolute terms than California (5.93 million).

Moreover, these numbers are little changed in a relative sense from those of the last pre-DeSantis year.  In fact, the data in the fifth xls table available at this Census link show that from July, 2018 to July, 2019, more immigrants came to Florida (88,678) than to California (74,028) even though more seniors (just over six million) lived in the latter than in the former (4.54 million).  (Note:  this last data describes the situation as of April, 2020. These were the closest Census figures that seem to be available.)   

I was able to find all these highly relevant figures without undue difficulty. Why couldn’t Garcia-Navarro? Or her editors? No doubt because their intent was not to englighten but to smear. As a result, I feel better than ever about changing my nomenclature for such established news organizations from “Mainstream Media” to “Regime Media.”  

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: A Wall Street Kingpin Lays a Grand Strategy Egg

Tags

America First, China, climate change, ESG, fossil fuels, globalism, globalization, Immigration, industrial policy, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, productivity, supply chains, The Wall Street Journal, Ukraine War, Wall Street, woke capitalism

In several senses, it’s not entirely surprising that The Wall Street Journal recently allowed Jamie Dimon to share his thoughts on the domestic and especially global grand strategies the United States should pursue in the post-Ukraine War world.

After all, Dimon heads JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s biggest and most important bank. As a result, he clearly needs to know a lot about the U.S. economy. And as Wall Street’s biggest poohbah, he surely must know a lot about the state of the world overall – in particular since he’s had extensive contacts with the heads of state, senior officials, and business leaders of many countries.

What is somewhat surprising, then, is how little of Dimon’s analysis and advice is new or even interesting, and how much of it could well put America ever further behind the eight-ball.

Dimon’s article wasn’t completely devoid of merit. Since he’s dabbled in some (symbolic) woke-ism himself, it was good to see him seemingly take a shot at what’s become mainstream liberal as well as radical lefty dogma by urging the education of “all Americans about the sacrifice of those who came before us for democracy at home and abroad.”

Given the strong support by the Biden administration and by some finance bigwigs for influential for encouraging and even requiring lenders to take climate change risks into account when extending credit, it was encouraging to read his pragmatic position that “Secure and reliable oil and gas production is compatible with reducing CO2 over the long run, and is far better than burning more coal.”

Dimon showed that, unlike many on Wall Street, he supports some forms of industrial policy to make sure that “we don’t rely on potential adversaries for critical goods and services.”

And he endorsed the larger point that the neoliberal globalization-based triumphalism that undergirded the policies of globalist pre-Trump Presidents needs to be buried for good:

“America and the West can no longer maintain a false sense of security based on the illusion that dictatorships and oppressive nations won’t use their economic and military powers to advance their aims—particularly against what they perceive as weak, incompetent and disorganized Western democracies. In a troubled world, we are reminded that national security is and always will be paramount, even if it seems to recede in tranquil times.”

But on most of the biggest issues and just about all specifics, Dimon either punted or retreated into the same globalist territory that proved as profitable for Big Finance as it was too often dangerously naive for the nation as a whole.

For example, he wants Washington to “fix the immigration policies that are tearing us apart, dramatically reducing illegal immigration and dramatically increasing legal immigration.” Completely ignored is the depressing impact the latter would have on wages that have already been falling recently in inflation-adjusted terms, and on desperately needed productivity growth – as a bigger supply of cheap labor is bound to kill many incentives for businesses to improve their efficiency by innovating technology-wise or devising better management approaches.

And on China, Dimon’s clearly determined to talk his company’s book, insisting that “We should acknowledge that we have common interests in combating nuclear proliferation, climate change and terrorism.” and blithely predicting that “Tough but thoughtful negotiations over strategic, military and economic concerns—including unfair competition—should yield a better situation for all.”

But most important, Dimon fully endorses the foundations of the very globalist strategy that for decades perversely ignored the distinctive and paramount advantages the United States brings to world affairs and has thereby created many of the dangers and vulnerabilities with which the nation has been struggling.

The way Dimon seems to see it, there’s no reason to pay any attention to the extraordinary degree of security the America enjoys merely by virtue of its geographic isolation and powerful military; or to its extraordinary degree of economic self-sufficiency thanks to its immense and diverse natural resource base, its technological prowess, and its dynamic free market-dominated economic system. And evidently, it’s just as pointless to concentrate foreign and economic policy on the nation’s equally formidable potential to build on these advantages.

Instead, like other globalists, Dimon flatly rejects the idea that “America can stand alone,” or should seek to maximize its ability to do so. Instead, it should keep defining nothing less than “global peace and order” as “a vital American interest” – the standard globalist recipe for yoking the country’s fate to an agenda of more open-ended military interventions, more hastily approved and usually wasteful foreign aid, and more nation-building in areas lacking any ingredients of nation-hood.

Asa result, it would anchor America’s safety and prosperity on efforts to shape foreign conditions (over which is has relatively little control), rather than on efforts to shape domestic conditions (over which is has much more control). (For a much fuller description of this America First strategy and its differences with globalism, see this 2018 article.) 

In fact, and revealingly, Dimon’s piece was titled “The West Needs America’s Leadership.” If only he and other globalists would start thinking seriously about what America really needs. 

(Full disclosure:  I own several JPMorgan bond and preferred stock issues.)    

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: No, Immigration Curbs Haven’t Caused U.S. Labor Shortages

Tags

CCP Virus, Center for Immigation Studies, coronavirus, COVID 19, immigrants, Immigration, Karen Ziegler, Labor Force Participation Rate, labor shortages, LFPR, prime-age population, productivity, Steven A. Camarota, Trump administration, wages, workers, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Thanks to the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), one of the biggest and most harmful recent claims about the American economy has been exposed as a sham: that the current shortages of labor about which employers keep whining are due to a shortage of immigrant workers spurred by the Trump administration’s restrictive policies and worsened by the CCP Virus pandemic.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the very idea of a chronic labor shortage – as opposed to the kinds of temporary supply and demand mismatches that occur regularly in every market-based economy – is un-serious mainly because the solution typically is so simple: raise wages enough to attract new employees. And standard labor shortage claims tend to be harmful because they’re usually covers for business demands for more mass immigration – which enables them to keep wages down rather than respond by investing in labor-saving equipment and improving efficiency in ways that boost productivity and therefore benefit the entire economy, especially long term.

But leaving such broader considerations aside, CIS, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, has demonstrated that blaming immigration restrictions for all the Help Wanted signs that do indeed seem to be appearing all over the country is simply wrong on its face. According to a December 22 CIS study by Steven A. Camarota and Karen Ziegler, the biggest culprit by far is a continuing decline in the number of U.S.-born residents of the country looking for work.

The authors use Census data to show that although the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) working in America did fall from 27.8 million in November, 2018 (the Trump-era peak) and 27.7 million the following November (just before the pandemic arrived in the United States), by last month (the latest available) data, it was back up to 29.6 million. So there the immigrant worker population has not only recovered all of its pre-pandemic losses. It’s 1.9 million greater than its pre-CCP Virus level.

More important statisically speaking, that November, 2022 immigrant worker number is above the level it would have reached had this population’s growth trend going back to 2000 simply continued uninterrupted.

Meanwhile, the number of U.S.-born U.S. residents in the workforce has continued its long-term decline despite a modest rebound from pre-pandemic lows. The standard measure is the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR), which shows the share of working-age Americans are either on the job or looking for one.

The LFPR for all U.S.-born residents of the country fell from 77.3 percent in November, 2000 to 74.1 percent in 2019, dropped further in pandemic-y 2020, and has only bounced back modestly as of November, 2022 to 73.5 percent. And the post-2019 fall-offs for the most closely followed groups – “prime age” men and women, defined as the 25-54- year olds – have generally been steeper. As a result, the number of U.S.-born Americans at work now is 2.1 million smaller than in November, 2019.

In fact, Camarota and Ziegler calculate that if the total U.S. LFPR today was the same as in 2000, 6.5 million more U.S.-born residents would be either working or looking for work today. That’s 3.42 times more than the number of foreign-born residents who have been added to the working population during the pandemic era.

So whatever labor shortages have been experienced lately have been home-grown – and unrelated to immigration restrictions. And if the business community and others favoring more immigration were really interested in easing them meaningfully, they’d be spending more of their time figuring out how to attract more U.S.-born residents to the workplace. That wouldn’t boost national productivity or wages. But the social benefits of ending idleness and welfare dependency in the working-age population should hardly be ignored.

Unfortunately, as Camarota and Ziegler write, the push to fill the gap with immigrants both threatens to keep the native-born on the occupational sidelines and increase their vulnerability to crime, addiction, mental health issues, and obesity, as well as to “reduce political pressure from employers and society in general to address” the domestic LFPR decline.

Im-Politic: It’s Not Just the Twitter files.

Tags

ABC News, Alejandro Mayorkas, asylum seekers, Biden administration, Biden border crisis, border security, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Gregg Abbott, Im-Politic, Immigration, Karin Jean-Pierre, Mainstream Media, Martha Raddatz, migrants, Regime Media, This Week, Title 42

Although understandably overshadowed by all the Twitter Files releases, another likely example has appeared lately of how thoroughly the nation’s most important news organizations have collectively turned into a “Regime Media” in service of mainstream Democrats (as represented nowadays mainly by the Biden administration) and their Republican partners in globalism.

I say “likely” because I don’t have a smoking gun. But the following sure would be a startling coincidence.

In late October, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who’s been under fire throughout the Biden years for insisting in the face of overwhelming evidence that the United States’ border with Mexico is secure, tried to turn the tables on his assailants.

In an interview with the Dallas [Texas] Morning News, Mayrokas charged that “the political cry that the border is open is music to the smugglers’ ears, because they take that political rhetoric and they market it” to desperate migrants.

In other words, those calling attention to a problem – as opposed to the reality of the problem itself – deserve the blame for the problem’s continuation and even worsening.

What could be more transparently and self-servingly ludicrous? Well according to Martha Raddatz, ABC News correspondent and sometime anchor of the network’s Sunday morning talk show This Week, plenty. Because in the program’s latest edition, Raddatz chided Texas Republican Governor Gregg Abott, a leading critic of Biden border policy with this claim:

“You talk about the border wall, you talk about open borders, I don’t think I’ve ever heard President Biden say, we have an open border, come on over. But people I have heard say it are you, are former president Trump, Ron DeSantis, that message reverberates in Mexico and beyond. So they do get the message that it’s an open border and smugglers use all those kind of statements.”

Actually, candidate Biden said exactly this during his victorious presidential campaign: “All those people who are seeking asylum, they deserve to be heard. That’s who we are. We’re a nation who says, if you want to flee, and you’re freeing oppression, you should come.”

Indeed, candidate Biden also declared that

“We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million [migrants]. The idea that a country of 330 million cannot afford people, who are in desperate need and who are justifiably weak, and fleeing depression is absolutely bizarre….I would also move to increase the number of immigrants able to come but also to deal with all those migrants.”

And although he wasn’t President then, soon after he became President, his chief White House press spokesperson said that “he still believes that he wants our country to be a place that there is asylum processing at the border.” That’s not an invitation?

Indeed, she made this remark in order to explain what the President supposedly really meant when, a week earlier, he told asylum seekers “don’t come over” because he aimed to set up a system enabling them to apply in their home countries – and because the southern border was rapidly crowding, at least partly due to his welcoming campaign rhetoric.

But for the purposes of this post, more important than documenting Raddatz’ (willful?) ignorance is noting how her accusation resembled DHS chief Mayorkas’ nearly verbatim.

Further, almost on cue, the very next day, current White House press spokesperson Karin Jean-Pierre told reporters at the daily briefing that

“The fact is that the removal of Title 42 [the pandemic-period Trump administration directive permitting the United States to bar individuals from entering the United States to protect public health] does not mean the border is open. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply doing the work of these smugglers who, again, are spreading misinformation, and which are — which is very dangerous.”

In fact, she resorted to this tactic twice.

Later yesterday, moreover, one of her assistants said in another interview:

“To be clear: the lifting of the Title 42 public health order does not mean the border is open. Anyone who suggests otherwise is doing the work of smugglers spreading misinformation to make a quick buck off of vulnerable migrants,”

I don’t know if Biden administration officials have been whispering into Raddatz’ ear or vice versa. But these remarks would definitely have problems facing the “duck test.” They look like collusion an sound like collusion, and unless and until this mutual support system is dismantled and the Mainstream Media stops serving as the Regime Media, I for one will be hard-pressed to be optimistic about American democracy’s future.

Glad I Didn’t Say That: Nothing to See About Border Security and the Fentanyl Epidemic?

Tags

Associated Press, Biden border crisis, border security, drugs, fetanyl, Glad I Didn't Say That!, Immigration, Mainstream Media, Mexico, national security, opioids, public health

”Advocates warn that some of the alarms [about fentanyl] being sounded by politicians and officials are wrong and potentially dangerous. Among those ideas: that tightening control of the U.S.-Mexico border would stop the flow of the drugs….”

– Associated Press, October 28, 2022

 

“A report this year from a bipartisan federal commission found that fentanyl and similar drugs are being made mostly in labs in Mexico from chemicals shipped primarily from China.”

-Associated Press, October 28, 2022

 

(Sources: “As fentanyl drives overdose deaths, mistaken beliefs persist,” by Geoff Mulvihill, Associated Press, October 28, 2022, As fentanyl drives overdose deaths, mistaken beliefs persist | AP News)

Im-Politic: A New, Promising but Still Flawed Form of Conservatism

Tags

abortion, America First, China, Christianity, conservatism, crime, culture wars, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, education, family policy, foreign policy, identity politics, Im-Politic, Immigration, industrial policy, inflation, national conservatism, politics, religion, Roe vs. Wade, sovereignty, Supreme Court, Trade, wokeness

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like I’m not grateful to have been invited to last week’s third National Conservatism Conference. The interest displayed by this crowd in economic policy ideas that depart dramatically from the right-of-center’s longstanding free market dogmatism was especially gratifying, and there was no shortage of thought-provoking and compelling speakers.

It’s just that my four days at the session left me unconvinced that National Conservatism as it presently seems to be constituted can create or contribute to a winning American political coalition. The main problem: Most of those spearheading the drive to establish National Conservatism as a major national force haven’t recognized which culture wars they should be fighting, and which they shouldn’t — and how this failure to discriminate is endangering other objectives that the movement (and others) rightly deem crucial.  In fact, unhappiness expressed to me by more than a few conference attendees with the stances on social and cultural issues taken by those putative leaders make me skeptical that it’s a movement yet to begin with – or can be if their vision prevails.

The economic dimension of national conservatism, at least judging by the presentations and hallway conversations, is not only politically astute; it’s substantively sound. All the speakers who addressed these issues – including such nationally prominent figures like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and the state’s Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott (the event was held in Miami) supported smarter, more restrictive trade and other economic policies (especially toward China), reduced immigration inflows and genuine border security, and federal policies to promote strategically important industries and to ease economic pressures on the middle and working classes.

The same goes for National Conservatism’s critique of the overly, and often recklessly, adventurist foreign policies pursued by the mainstreams of both major political parties for decades.

But the conference organizers and another set of speakers seem wed to other goals and measures that are already backfiring among the American electorate and that, intriguingly, clash with other elements of their agenda. The most important by far were near-total opposition to abortion and a determination to tout the United States as a “Christian nation.”

The political folly of these priorities couldn’t be more obvious. As I’ve written, there’s long been a strong national consensus favoring the right to an abortion early-ish during a pregnancy and then favoring broad restrictions later on with significant exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother, health of the mother). Indeed, that’s why comparable majorities have supported maintaining the abortion policy framework established by the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling – which was entirely consistent with that common sensical compromise. P.S. Contrary to the claims of the extreme pro-lifers on an off the Court, Roe gave states plenty of latitude to enact all manner of abortion curbs. (The other major misconception or falsehood surrounding Roe comes from the pro-choice movement: It never established an unfettered right to an abortion.)

If you’re skeptical, consider that the day that a draft of the Supreme Court’s eventual decision striking down Roe was leaked to the press (May 3), Republicans held a 4.1 percentage point lead in the RealClearPolitics.com average of polls gauging the public’s preference for control of Congress in November’s midterm elections. The latest figures show Democrats with a 1.1 percentage point lead in the so-called Generic Ballot.

It’s true that abortion isn’t the only reason, that the actual votes determining control of Congress aren’t cast nationally but state-by-state, and that Republicans hold enough built-in advantages in the Congressional map to keep their hopes of prevailing very much alive. But the polls also show that the Court’s Dobbs decision, the enactment of and efforts to enact near-abortion bans in Republican-run states that the ruling has permitted, and GOP talk of more such moves (including on the national level) is increasing Democrats’ interest in voting and boosting the party’s prospects. (See, e.g., here.) And not so coincidentally, Republican candidates and leaders all over the country are backing away from hard-line anti-abortion positions.

Adamant opposition to abortion in practically all circumstances also seems to clash violently with other stated National Conservative positions. For example, many speakers at the conference emphasized their support for individual liberty. But what about the right of women uninterested in becoming mothers to lead the lives they wish? Even if the unborn must indeed be deemed human life very early in pregnancies, should the wishes of those women count for absolutely nothing the minute they conceive – and simply because they failed to take adequate precautions, or because precautions taken failed? According to many, and possibly most, at the conference, the answer is “Yes.”

The repeated references to America as a Christian nation are just as problematic. For reasons like those suggested above, if that’s a rationale for insisting that U.S. policies conform with scriptural teachings (and Section 4 of this “Statement of Principles” by the movement’s leading lights certainly suggests this “Where a Christian majority exists” – i.e. in most of the country), that simply won’t wash with big majorities of voters. But the historical arguments advanced for this view don’t impress, either.

Sure, the Founding Fathers were Christians, and for the most part, observant Christians at that. But so what? The England they came from was overwhelmingly Christian. What else realistically could they be? For similar reasons, the Founders were ovewhelmingly white, too. Does that mean that America should be seen as a Caucasian nation?

And does Christian dogma really deserve much credit for the ideals that make up the American creed of freedom of expression and conscience and other major liberties for the individual; representative, accountable government; equal justice under the law; and the like? Clearly, in most of Christendom at the time (e.g., Russia, Spain, Germany) these notions were unknown or actively rejected. Instead, the great American experiment in self-government is rooted in specifically English thought and practice. And ironically, the major contribution made by Christianity that hasn’t been present outside Europe has been the faith’s willingness to leave big swathes of human life to secular institutions and authorities (as in Jesus’ admonition to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)

Even worse, precisely because they’re so unpopular as well as intellectually feeble, National Conservatism’s focus on these particular culture wars is weakening the ability of the entire conservative movement (except the libertarians) to fight effectively the culture wars that must be fought – specifically, over woke school public curricula; the metastasis of left-wing authoritarianism in so many major, powerful American institutions; and the related spread of divisive identity politics.

I have nothing but respect for those National Conservatives I met – and other Americans – to declare that they’re less concerned with winning politically than with remaining true to their consciences. But their version of the perfect is shaping up as a powerful enemy of the good and formula for defeat – especially if they wish to contend, as they clearly do, in an arena that rightly values the art of the possible.

That’s why I was so encouraged to find out that many of those I met at the National Conservatism Conference agreed that hard-line anti-abortion stances and pro-Christian nation preaching need to be dropped if any of National Conservatism’s other worthy causes are to be advanced.

For me, nothing could be clearer than the following as a recipe for political victory and national well-being: focusing tightly in an America First-type way on  confining U.S. foreign policy to advancing and protecting U.S. sovereignty and core security (especially against foes like China), on taming inflation and building sustainable prosperity; on securing the border; on fighting crime; on removing propaganda from public schools; on preserving a strong voice for parents in their children’s education; and on resisting the intolerant woke and rigid identity politics ideologies being pushed by our most powerful institutions.

National Conservatism as it exists now is close to being on board. If it can go the extra mile, show better judgment politically, and accept a more inclusive, more historically accurate view of “Americanism,” I’ll be happy to join its ranks.

Im-Politic: The Real Extent of D.C. and NYC Hypocrisy About Migrant Busing

Tags

Arizona, Biden border crisis, District of Columbia, Doug Ducey, Greg Abbott, illegal aliens, Im-Politic, Immigration, migrants, New York City, Sanctuary Cities, Texas

If you’re in stitches (as you should be) because of the ongoing and outraged claims by sanctuary cities like New York and Washington that they’re just getting overwhelmed by busloads of foreign migrants being sent to them by Texas and Arizona, this is a post for you.

And if you believe that these metropolises are indeed being unfairly and hopelessly inundated by the newcomers, this is also a post for you.

Because it’s hard to grasp the true scale and shamelessness of the hypocrisy of these supposedly welcoming metropolises without understanding the yawning population and wealth gaps that separate them from the Texas and Arizona border towns that have been struggling to cope with the migrant flows that have burgeoned during the Biden years.

Let’s start by reviewing how many migrants have been sent by border states to those two sanctuary cities and how many have been arriving at border towns in Texas, whose Republican Governor Greg Abbott started the busing in question in April. Abbott’s office and that of his Arizona counterpart, Doug Ducey, say they’ve bused nearly 11,000 in total. Of these, 9,300 have come from Texas and the rest from Arizona. The District of Columbia has been the destination for more than 9,000, and New York City for the rest.

Now let’s focus on the inflows into Texas – since Abbott has been the bus-er-in-chief to date. According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, during the current fiscal year (so far, between last October and this past July), the state’s two designated border sectors with by far the most apprehended border crossers (Rio Grande Valley and Del Rio) have received 789,307 migrants overall who have needed to be absorbed and cared for at least temporarily.

That works out to some 1,377 migrants per day in the Rio Grande Valley sector and 1,254 migrants per day in the Del Rio sector. Which means that these Texas regions and their towns have had to deal with more migrants each week for a ten-month stretch as the grand total New York City and Washington, D.C. have had to deal during the four-month span between April and July.

But the Texas border towns are just miniscule in comparison. Here are the 2021 populations according to the U.S. Census Bureau of some of which have been especially burdened by the migrant tide:

McAllen:                       143,920

Del Rio:                           34,584

Roma:                              11,505

Hidalgo:                          14,239

Mission:                          86,223

Rio Grande City:            15,670

Eagle Pass:                      28,596

Their inhabitants all put together (334,737) total less than half the population of the District of Columbia (670,050) and less than four percent of New York City’s 8.468 million residents.

Further, these Texas towns are not only much smaller than either the District or New York. They’re much poorer, too. Here are their 2021 median incomes according to the Census Bureau:

McAllen:                        $49,259

Del Rio:                          $45,561

Roma:                             $23,138

Hidalgo:                          $38,273

Mission:                          $49,358

Rio Grande City:            $38,542

Eagle Pass:                     $46,005

The figures for the “swamped” District and New York?

District of Columbia:     $90,842

New York City:              $67,046

In other words, median incomes in the wealthiest Texas town (Mission) are just 54 percent as high as Washington, D.C.’s and just 74 percent of New York’s.

And a much higher share of the populations of these Texas towns lives in poverty than in either the District or New York, meaning that they have no shortage of their own people requiring public resources without thousands of impoverished migrants streaming in each day. Here are the poverty rate data:

McAllen:                        22.0 percent

Del Rio:                          20.3 percent

Roma:                             39.1 percent

Hidalgo:                          31.6 percent

Mission:                          19.5 percent

Rio Grande City:            29.6 percent

Eagle Pass:                     25.2 percent

All these percentages are higher than that of D.C. (15 percent) or New York City (17.3 percent) – and in some cases, they’re considerably higher.

If these sanctuary city leaders had a shred of integrity, they’d raise taxes to accommodate the migrants they’ve already received and will keep receiving, or join with their Texas and Arizona counterparts in pressing for sensible and effective national immigration control and border security policies.  Or both.  Instead, they’re focused on ensuring that those least able keep paying wildly outsized shares of the costs of their Open Borders-friendly pretensions.   

 

 

Im-Politic: Welcome Polling News for Immigration Realism

Tags

Biden border crisis, Center for Immigration Studies, Democrats, Gallup, Im-Politic, Immigration, independents, polls, public opinion, Republicans, YouGov

Two sets of poll results sure don’t make a trend. But they’re sure more convincing than one set of poll results. So recent surveys from Gallup and YouGov could signal an encouraging turning point in U.S. public opinion on immigration issues – and one brought about by the epic failure of the Biden administration’s Open Borders-friendly statements and actions.

Gallup’s findings were posted on August 8. The headline development? The share of American adults contacted between July 5 and 26 believing that immigration levels should be decreased stood at 38 percent. That’s the highest level since June, 2016 and up from 31 percent last June. Moreover, the annual percentage- point increase was the biggest since 2008 and 2009 – when the economy was mired in the Great Recession that followed the global financial crisis.

The share of respondents who wanted immigration levels to be decreased or remain the same (69 percent) was also the highest since June, 2016 (72 percent) and up from 66 percent last year.

By an overwhelming 70 percent to 24 percent, Gallup found that Americans agree that “on the whole” immigration is a “good thing” rather than a “bad thing.” But even though this question seems to focus on immigration views in the abstract, with no relation to current conditions, the “good thing” share of responses fell from 75 percent last year, and the “bad thing” responses rose from 21 percent.

In addition, the “good thing” responses represented the lowest percentage of the total since 2014 (63 percent) and the “bad thing” responses the highest since 2016. And the 46 percentage-point margin enjoyed by the “good thing” responses is a drop from last year’s 54 percentage points and the smallest since 2014’s 30 percentage points.

Also striking in the Gallup results: It’s no surprise that the 69 percent of respondents identifying as Republican wanting less immigration is by far the highest total since Gallup began asking these questions (surpassing 2009’s 61 percent). It’s also no great surprise that independent identifiers agreeing with this stance has rebounded lately a bit to 33 percent (though still far below its high of 51 percent in 2002.

But it’s really surprising, especially given their loathing of immigration restrictionist Donald Trump and the growing influence of progessives in the party, that the share of Democratic identifiers supporting less immigration is up from 12 percent last year to 17 percent this year.

The YouGov survey was conducted in late July, and reported that by a 35 percent to 31 percent margin, Americans believed that immigration “makes the country” “worse off” instead of “better off.” According to Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies, that’s a huge turnabout from what the same outfit found in September, 2019. Then, “better off” won by 43 percent to 19 percent.

At the same time, this latest YouGov survey found that 31 percent of Americans support increasing legal immigration versus 22 percent who want it reduced. Gallup didn’t draw the (critical) legal/illegal distinction. I don’t know how these results have changed over time. But the sheer size of the discrepancy indicates that even if American opinions are moving their way, it’s still far from certain that restrictionists (who I of course consider to be the adults in the room) have won the day.

Im-Politic: A Study of Immigration Economics that Ignores the Economy

Tags

Breitbart.com, Im-Politic, immigrants, Immigration, income, inequality, Leah Boustan, middle class, Neil Munro, Raj Chetty, Ran Abramiztsky, social mobility, The New York Times, Washington Post, welfare

Well, there goes one of the main arguments against more permissive U.S. immigration policies right down the tubes, according to both the Washington Post and New York Times. This month, both have run major articles spotlighting new scholarly findings claiming to show that today’s immigrants rise up the national income ladder just as fast as the tides of newcomers to American shores in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

So far from saddling the country with huge numbers of extra residents overwhelmingly likely to stay as poor, and burdensome to society on net as when they first arrive, encouraging more immigration will greatly enlarge America’s pool of success stories and greatly enrich the nation.

Or will they? The trouble is, the more you think about the new data and the conclusions flowing so freely from it, the more unanswered crucial questions appear. I’ll base this analysis mainly on the Post piece, which provides more statistics comparing the economic records of those two great immigration cohorts.

The economists making the case that recent immigrants are no likelier to become a permanent underclass than their forebears are Ran Abramitzky of Stanford University and Leah Boustan of Princeton University. Their conclusion is based on statistics they claim show that men born into poor immigrant families in specific years of the “Ellis Island era” (1880 and 1910) caught up to the rest of the country income-wise at just about the same pace as the men (and women) born into poor immigrant families in 1997.

For both the Ellis Island immigrants and their latter-day counterparts, the measure of economic success is the earnings of these second generation immigrant men between the ages of 30 and 50, and how they’ve supposedly risen.

But these scholars appear to completely overlook numerous sea changes in the U.S. economy between 1880 and 2015 that obviously have had decisive effects on the income growth performance of immigrant cohorts that have arrived at different points during this 135-year stretch.

For example, more recent immigrants have clearly benefited from various state and national welfare programs that either were completely unavailable to previous such groups, or existed only in the most rudimentary forms. Since cash benefits are counted by the Census Bureau as income, and given the evidence that immigrants are heavy welfare users compared with the rest of the population, the discrepancy surely distorts the Abramitzky-Boustan comparisons in favor of those more recent immigrants.

Nor do the two scholars seem to take into account the dramatic slowing of income mobility between the late-19^th and early 21^st centuries. And much evidence shows that it”s been considerable. For example, this widely cited study concludes that “The United States had more relative occupational mobility [which generated upward income mobility] generations through the 1900–1920…than the United States in the second half of the twentieth century.”

And these conclusions have been reenforced for the late 20th century and extended into the 21st by a team of economists headed by Harvard University’s As summarized in the first graph in this different New York Times article, the percentage of all U.S. children (including those from immigant families) born into the average American household with a chance of earning more than their parents fell by about half between 1940 and 1980.

Additionally, the Chetty team – whose work is viewed by many as the latest gold standard in the field – discovered that lower-income Americans (also including immigrant families) have by no means escaped this pattern.

In other words, the move by the children of low-income immigrant cohorts to the 65th U.S. income percentile – the Abramitzky-Boustan measure of income ladder-climbing – isn’t nearly what it used to be. (For some perspective, the 50th percentile is something of a proxy for “middle-class incomes.”)  

And further reenforcing the idea that individuals’ ladder-climbing nowadays doesn’t yield nearly the economic stability and security affects as in the past are two other widely noted trends marking the U.S. economy and workforce in recent decades: a major widening of income inequality, and the growing inability of single-earner households to live middle-class lives.

In other words, two economists from leading universities have evidently conducted research about a major U.S. economic issue that ignores much of what’s been happening to the U.S. economy during the period they examine. And at least two leading newspapers have uncritically swallowed their findings. It’s clear that climbing into the middle class isn’t the only feature of American life that isn’t nearly what it used to be. 

P.S. For work raising different, generally broader questions about these and other immigration-related findings by Boustan in particular, see this piece by Breitbart.com‘s Neil Munro.