There Is Much More To The Immigration Issue Than Just The GDP Effect

/

  • A couple of years ago, in July 2023, I participated in a debate at the Soho Forum on the subject of immigration. The resolution for the debate was: “Resolved: The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease.” Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute took the affirmative. I took the negative.

  • Nowrasteh, a Senior Vice President for Policy at Cato, is known as a free immigration absolutist. And to his credit he had some good points to make. The most important one was that nothing increases world GDP so much and so fast as letting poor people immigrate into rich countries. Even working at the lowest-paid jobs in the U.S., their incomes immediately multiply by factors of five or ten or more. How could anyone be against that?

  • At the time of the debate in 2023, the Somali frauds in Minnesota had begun to come to light, but only to those paying close attention.

Read More

Birthright Citizenship: Interpreting The Phrase "Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof"

/

  • Birthright citizenship — the idea that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen, with full right to receive all benefits and vote when they come of age — has been a fixture of the administration of the laws in this country for my entire lifetime.

  • But does the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution make the birthright citizenship rule apply to all cases, even the most extreme?

  • Under the 14th Amendment, properly interpreted, do children born of illegal aliens subject to a deportation order really qualify for birthright citizenship? How about children born of an illegal entrant who has snuck across the border for a few hours just to have the baby and then immediately go home? How about children born of a Chinese billionaire who has hired surrogates in the U.S. to produce dozens of babies? Under the version of “birthright citizenship” implemented by the federal government for the last hundred years or so, all of these examples, and plenty more, qualify.

  • Advocates for the position that all of these extreme cases should qualify for birthright citizenship generally think that their position is exceedingly simple and obvious, so much so that anyone arguing the contrary, or for any exceptions or limits, must be either dishonest or crazy.

Read More

Birthright Citizenship? I Think It's An Open Question

/

  • On his first day in office in his second term, January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a collection of Executive Orders. One of those was number 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”‍ ‍EO 14160 seeks to do away with the long-standing practice of various U.S. agencies of recognizing U.S. citizenship of anyone born in the United States, even if that person’s parents were not legal residents or otherwise legally in the country at the time of the birth.

  • Following issuance of EO 14160, multiple lawsuits were brought in courts around the country seeking injunctions to compel the government to recognize the citizenship of various individuals born here to illegal aliens. Several courts promptly issued injunctions blocking Trump’s Order, all of them on a nationwide basis as far as I can determine.

  • In June, three of those cases, consolidated under the name Trump v. CASA, came before the Supreme Court on the question of whether a District Court could issue a nationwide injunction to block the Order everywhere. The Supreme Court invalidated the nationwide aspect of the injunctions. However, the Court did not consider the merits of whether President and executive agencies could refuse to recognize citizenship of children born here to illegal aliens.

  • But now there are petitions before the Supreme Court asking it to consider this question of so-called “birthright” citizenship on the merits. The Court is widely expected to take up the issue in its current term. So, what is the right answer?

Read More

Humphrey's Executor On The Ropes

/

  • Can Congress create federal agencies with power to enforce the laws and prosecute crimes, but which agencies are outside the control of the President? In a 1935 decision called Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that it could.

  • I first wrote about this subject in a post back in December 2016 titled “Can The Separation Of Powers Of The Federal Government Be Righted?” December 2016 was immediatey after Donald Trump had first been elected President, but before he had taken office. The backdrop of the post was the issue of the extent to which the newly-elected President Trump would be able to gain control over a hostile federal bureaucracy.

  • By 2016, some 80+ years after Humphrey’s Executor, there had come to be some 50 or more commissions and boards in the federal government where the President was restricted by statute from firing the commissioners or members, and thus had limited if any practical ability to direct what the agency would do. My conclusion in 2016 was that, largely because of Humphrey’s Executor, the situation of the constitutional separation of powers in the federal government was a hopeless mess, and that it would be a long time before it could be righted. Sure enough, Trump did not take on this issue during his first term.

  • But here in the first year of Trump’s second term, he has gone directly after this issue.

Read More

The Latest Political Scam -- "Affordability" -- Is Really Taking Off

/

  • If you want to run for office as a Democrat, there is a new catchword that you need to make as your main promise: “Affordability.”

  • As anybody paying attention knows, the cry of “affordability” was the central theme that carried the Democrats to victory in all the big races this year, most notably those of Zohran Mamdani for Mayor in New York City, Abigail Spanberger for Governor in Virginia, and Mikie Sherrill for Governor in New Jersey. The same theme also carried two Democrats to victory as Public Service Commissioners in Georgia — the first victories by Democrats in statewide elections for state office in Georgia since 2006.

  • But here is the question: Is the promise of “affordability” by these politicians something that has any prospect of being delivered through their proposed policies? Or are the proposed policies instead more likely to be useless, or even counterproductive, thus making the promise of “affordability” a scam from the outset?

Read More

Federal District Judges Running The Executive Branch: Even Justice Jackson Draws A Line

/

  • The first nine months of the President Trump’s second term have seen repeated instances of a Federal District Court judge temporarily enjoining some action of the administration, only to have the Supreme Court stay the injunction while the litigation proceeds. Examples of this pattern of events have occurred in cases involving such things as funding rescissions, staff lay-offs, and deportation procedures.

  • A recurring feature of this pattern has been dissents from the three liberal Supreme Court justices — Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson — who would have left the temporary injunctions in place during the pendency of the litigation.

  • Justice Jackson, in addition to joining other two liberal justices, has also issued several individual dissents strongly criticizing her conservative colleagues for vacating temporary injunctions from District Courts.

  • The question of whether the administration gets enjoined while litigation proceeds, versus an injunction getting issued only at the conclusion of full litigation, is very consequential.

Read More