Here are some highlights of my reading for this week.
President Donald Trump’s Manhattan Convictions are Unconstitutional
by Steven Calabresi, Reason, June 1, 2024.
Excerpt:
President Donald Trump was convicted yesterday of allegedly altering business records to conceal his alleged payment of money to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. But, altering business records under New York State law is only a crime if it is done to conceal the violation of some other law. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged that the documents were allegedly falsely altered to conceal a contribution of money in violation of federal campaign finance laws or in pursuance of winning the 2016 election by defrauding the voters of information they had a right to know. Neither argument passes First Amendment scrutiny.
American Federalism Can Push Back Against Executive Overreach
by Ilya Somin, The UnPopulist, May 28, 2024.
Sanctuary laws are often analogized to “nullification”—the idea that states can render federal laws null and void within their territory. Nullification, of course, has a terrible reputation because of its association with southern states’ defense of slavery and (later) segregation. But there is an important distinction between sanctuary laws and nullification.
Nullificationists argue that the federal laws in question are completely void, and that states have the right to actively impede their enforcement on their territory. By contrast, sanctuary jurisdictions do not necessarily claim the laws in question are void. They merely deny them the assistance of state and local governments, particularly law enforcement agencies. For example, they refuse to help enforce the relevant laws themselves, or to provide information to federal law enforcement agencies engaged in enforcement efforts. But the feds remain free to try to enforce these laws using only their own resources and personnel.
Luxury Belief in Open Borders
by Bryan Caplan, Bet on It, May 27, 2024.
Excerpt:
Do I believe that the U.S. can absorb “all the world’s poor”? It depends on the time horizon. Poland’s population grew by 6% in a few weeks, and it was fine. U.S. population grew by 1339% from 1800-1900, and that, too, was fine. There is no reason why the modern U.S. population could not grow as fast or faster. Going from 330M today to 1B tomorrow would be disastrous, but going from 330M today to 1 B in 50 years is totally doable. And thanks to diaspora dynamics, it’s the latter scenario that’s empirically relevant.
Unless, I freely grant, immigrants and their descendants remain on welfare until the end of time. Fortunately, this is not what normally happens under the status quo. And the countries closest to open borders — the Gulf monarchies and Singapore — do virtually the opposite, for obvious reasons: Both geniuses and janitors are well worth welcoming, but only as long as they pull their own weight.
DRH comment:
Given Bryan’s statement in the last sentence of the first paragraph above, I don’t get why he advocates open borders. If the empirically relevant thing is a tripling over 50 years, why not advocate restricting immigration to 7 to 8 million per year? Why 7 to 8 million rather than what the straightforward would show, with is about 13 million? [670 million divided by 50 = 13 million.] Because immigrants have kids. And if I’m overoptimistic about the number of kids, that’s fine. We would get to, say, 800 million residents instead of 1 billion.
Let’s take my lower bound of 7 million. If the government priced that at $50K per immigrant, it would bring in $350 billion per year. If it doesn’t waste that money on other spending (admittedly a big “if”), then it would come close to bringing future deficits down enough that the federal debt as a percent of GDP would actually remain stable or fall slightly. Would there be 7 million takers at $50K each? Absolutely. If anyone wants to see it, I’ll do a special blog post on this issue.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jun 2 2024 at 12:26pm
Would that $50k mean you didnt have to wait for many years to get a green card or even to apply for citizenship? I think the current wave from Latin/central America is largely driven by people fleeing bad situations. If you are going to leave you may as well try to go to the best place possible. However, for others coming from say India where they are arent necessarily fleeing gangs but looking for better economic opportunities I dont see them being real keen on spending $50 just to wait for 10 years to get a green card.
Steve
David Henderson
Jun 2 2024 at 2:29pm
You ask:
I should have made that clear. I’m thinking automatic green card, assuming you’re not carrying a communicable disease and don’t have a record of committing serious crimes. (We can argue about what constitutes serious.) But I would have a 10-year wait after green card before you can become a citizen. That would address the fears of many Americans that they would become citizens quickly (it’s now 5 years) and vote away the system. I used to have that fear. The evidence I’ve looked at assuages that fear. But many people don’t look at evidence.
You write:
You mean $50k. I agree. I thought you might argue that they couldn’t come up with $50k, but bits of evidence I’ve seen tell me that a few million people a year could.
Craig
Jun 2 2024 at 11:48pm
Of course the 50k would tend to attract people less likely to become a public charge. Ultimately one problem the US has with respect to its system is that it acknowledges the varied equitable circumstances preventing deportation/removal particularly when the underlying cause isn’t really the fault of the person potentially subject to deporation. So while its easy to say that the US should deport those who have become public charges, its an altogether different circumstance to pull somebody off of dialysis and to send them back to some country where they might not get that treatment. One possible solution would be to allow anybody in who can post bond that they not become a public charge and if they do the bond will have to indemnify the government.
john hare
Jun 2 2024 at 3:26pm
My wife (from Mexico) and I would have financed $50k rather than the years and lawyer dollars we are spending already. Been going through the process for three years now. Two years of being able to work and it’s paid off even if she was working at near minimum and I wasn’t putting in anything. Her son in law is here on H2S farmworker contract and I would like to be able to hire the motivated young man. (in his 30s) Also less than two year payoff even with him sending some home and eating regular.
David Seltzer
Jun 2 2024 at 3:59pm
David: What about a market-based immigration fast-tracking. If immigration openings are scare, they would go to those who most value them. At 50k, I suspect the majority of immigration openings would be purchased by highly-skilled immigrants who would earn high incomes. Low-income earners could be allowed in paying an annual fee from money earned working in the U.S. It’s seems reasonable, at the margin, productivity and earnings would increase over some time horizon.
David Henderson
Jun 2 2024 at 7:31pm
You write:
You might be right about a majority but it wouldn’t be an overwhelming majority. Many poor people would pay $50k up front.
It appears to me that, even though it’s implicit, you would like me to back up my claim. Do you?
john hare
Jun 2 2024 at 8:37pm
I would replace the term highly with highly motivated. I seem to have become part of the immigrant community by marriage. You might be surprised what a motivated person can make in a year working 80 hour weeks.
Two of my former employees were making ~$70k a year before they started their own companies and started subcontracting from me. Mexican elementary school drop outs in their 40s with net worth’s of six figures. I suspect I could get a couple of dozen takers at $50k that don’t have high school diplomas with a month.
David Seltzer
Jun 3 2024 at 10:46am
John: “would replace the term highly with highly motivated.” Excellent point, great story. Thanks.
Mactoul
Jun 2 2024 at 10:10pm
Caplan must have a very peculiar and personal notion of open borders if he thinks Gulf countries and Singapore have open borders.
In the Gulf countries, you need a local company to sponsor you and you are tied to the company. You have no residence rights ever. Even after living 20 years, you are liable to be deported tomorrow.
And no question of any political right whatsoever.
Henri Hein
Jun 3 2024 at 3:17pm
Bryan has repeatedly stated he discounts political rights for immigrants. He would rather allow an immigrant than not, even if they cannot vote or get welfare.
Andrew_FL
Jun 3 2024 at 11:44am
I’m not following where this number comes from, are we to understand that the government will charge people to enter the country?
David Henderson
Jun 3 2024 at 4:46pm
Yes. That’s my proposal.
David O
Jun 5 2024 at 9:55am
“Given Bryan’s statement in the last sentence of the first paragraph above, I don’t get why he advocates open borders.”
Please ask Bryan why. :). I’d like to hear his answer, too.
Comments are closed.