Tag Archives: immigration

Fools and Statistics

Posted on by
Reply

You’ve already heard about Pseudo-Republican Donald Trump’s remarks about Mexican illegal immigrants and the murderous, drug-hazed rampage in the US he says they’re on. Although he assumes there are some good people among them, too. Real white of ol’ Trump to toss that in.

Now we get Ann Coulter:

I will bet you by the end of the weekend, more Americans will have been killed by Mexicans than by ISIS or by sharks[.]

Coulter is very carefully abusing statistics in the same way that her BFF Trump is doing. What’s the immigration rate—illegal or otherwise—of Daesh or sharks? Compared with the Mexican immigration rate? What per centage of those Daesh or shark immigrants, after entry, become fine, upstanding members of the local community?

What’s the Daesh or sharks per, umm, capita kill rate of Americans compared to that of Mexicans?

An Argument for Positive Immigration Flows

Posted on by
Reply

James Pethokoukis, writing in a different context, presented evidence in his AEIdeas piece for us doing better with our immigration policies. First, see the graph below, with particular attention to the “Increases in the workforce (labor inputs)” part of the bars.LaborProductivityAndImmigration_BetterVersion

Pethokoukis’ argument centered on Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s promise to work toward a 4% GDP growth annual rate if he’s elected; Pethokoukis argued that would be hard to achieve because of shortfalls in the availability of actual laborers.

[A]bout half of US growth in the postwar era has come from higher productivity, and half from a growing labor force. But American society is getting older and working less. Given much slower labor force growth, much higher productivity is needed to make up the difference. If productivity growth just stays at its postwar average—and it’s been much slower lately—the economy’s growth potential is much lower than in the past. As economics blogger Bill McBride writes, “Right now, due to demographics, 2 percent GDP growth is the new 4 percent.”

That’s the evidence and the argument. Pethokoukis and McBride based their argument regarding demographics on birth rates. The fact is, though, birth rates aren’t the only source of new labor. Immigration not only would fill the gap; immigrants would do so promptly: they’re already wanting in (and 11 million of them are already here awaiting some mechanism to let them come out of the shadows and be fully productive—for the US).

We need to quit messing around, and find a way to strictly secure our borders while making it far easier than it is now for immigrants to enter our nation legally (which, incidentally, would put a very serious hole in coyotes’ and other human traffickers’ business), and we need to find a way to help the illegals here already (actually, the majority of them whose only crime is their illegal entry and who have otherwise been solid, productive members of their communities) gain legal status.

And get 4% GDP growth. The idea that “2 percent GDP growth is the new 4 percent” is just the contemptibly defeatist attitude of a quitter.

Another Argument for the UK to Leave the EU

Posted on by
Reply

Under EU law, governments have some leeway in limiting access to welfare, but in most circumstances can’t discriminate between their own nationals and those of another EU country.

But those rude Brits disagree. They want to make scarce resources preferentially available to British citizens. How terrible is that? The British government, for instance, requires those who apply for child welfare payments actually to live in the UK and to do so legally.

And this effrontery:

The British government justifies this condition “to prevent a burden on the welfare system.”

Never mind that the Brits have no requirement to justify to foreign jurisdictions how they spend their resources. But it doesn’t matter:

…Mr [Michael, the European Commission’s lawyer in this matter] Wilderspin retorted that “an increase in the financial burden cannot justify a failure to comply with EU law.”

Pay up, Sucker. It doesn’t matter if you haven’t the money, or have other uses for what you do have. Your [dare I say it?] Betters Know Better.

Time to leave guys. The EU has gotten arrogantly dysfunctional.

Europe’s Immigration Problem

Posted on by
Reply

A European Union proposal to resettle tens of thousands of refugees from Syria and Eritrea across Europe met with strong resistance from some governments, raising doubt about its prospects.

At the same time, another EU plan for dealing with its refugee crisis—a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea to destroy the vessels that smuggling gangs use to transport migrants—came in for criticism from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Never mind that both of these approaches are counterproductive, although not in the way that “some government” or Ban seem to think.

Rewarding these refugees for fleeing, desperate though their plight might be, does exactly nothing to solve their problem—or the problem of their fellows and future refugees in northern Africa. Instead, it only allows the problem to grow worse, and it makes the growing flood an even greater humanitarian problem and an even greater problem for the nations of Europe.

Ban made manifest the general misunderstanding of national responsibilities in this regard.

I encourage EU member states to show compassion as they consider this important proposal to share their resettlement responsibilities. This can enable the European Union to address the dramatically increasing flows of people while setting an example for other regions of the world facing similar challenges[.]

No nation, including no European nation, has a “resettlement” responsibility here. No nation is obligated to allow people—or peoples—who are not citizens to cross its border and enter without permission. And no nation has any obligation to grant that permission—such an obligation would destroy the very concept of borders. Which in turn would destroy the very concept of private property and of ownership, whether private or national.

The effort, money, energy, and other resources committed to “resettlement” (reservations? The US has some experience with the failure of that sort of thing) or to sinking boats (which won’t stem the flow in the slightest; boats like the ones refugees or their African coyotes are using are easy to cobble together) would be better spent, would be more morally spent, working the problems in the refugees’ home countries so there would be far fewer refugees in the first place.

Of course political solutions are preferable, but even with its high up front cost (while potentially being far cheaper in the long run), an included option for working the problems at the source is military intervention. Just War Theory allows for humanitarian military intervention; all that’s necessary is for the intervening country(s) to do it like they mean it.

Besides that, there’s a utilitarian reason to intervene rather than merely to absorb refugees. The refugees are not looking for a place in which to better their lives; they’re looking for a place in which to stay alive. The countries from which the refugees are flooding will only become the more violent as time passes and peaceable people leave. And those countries will become increasing threats to the peace and safety of the European nations just across the Med.

The 5th Circuit and “Immigration”

Posted on by
Reply

Recall President Barack Obama’s DAPA program—Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents—which he created by Executive…action…and which allows illegal aliens to register for work, get that work, obtain driver’s licenses, and otherwise avoid the consequences of their illegal entry into the US. Last February a Federal District Judge issued an injunction blocking implementation of DAPA and the creation of government bodies whose purpose would have been that implementation. The injunction was to last until the underlying suit, brought by 26 States, was itself adjudicated.

The 5th Circuit upheld that injunction, ruling in part,

The states have shown that “issuance of the stay will substantially injure” them. A stay would enable DAPA beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses and other benefits, and it would be difficult for the states to retract those benefits or recoup their costs even if they won on the merits. That is particularly true in light of the district court’s findings regarding the large number of potential beneficiaries, including at least 500,000 in Texas alone.

But that was the purpose of Obama’s action: to bring these folks in, with actual amnesty (not even the light punishment that too many on the right bleat about being amnesty), permanently.

And

The government identifies several important interests: it claims a stay would improve public safety and national security, provide humanitarian relief to the family members of citizens and lawful permanent residents, and increase tax revenue for state and local governments. To the contrary, however, and only by way of example, on March 16, 2015, the Attorney General, in opposing a motion to stay removal in an unrelated action, argued to this very panel that “granting a stay of removal…would impede the government’s interest in expeditiously…controlling immigration into the United States.” Presumably, by referring to “the government’s interest,” the United States is referring to “the public interest.”

Presumably, no sarcasm was intended by that last….

Never mind that DoJ has been caught—again—talking out of both sides of its collective mouth.

On the matter of Obama’s infamous “prosecutorial discretion,” the court offered this:

DAPA’s version of deferred action, however, is more than nonenforcement: it is the affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. … “[A]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.'” Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification.

The court’s ruling can be seen here.