Category: Immigration

Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Immigration

Trump’s Two Front War

Bob Claude |

Military strategists have long warned about the risks of waging a two-front war. Nevertheless, President Trump intervened in Israel’s war on Iran while National Guard troops were deployed to quell resistance to immigration enforcement in California.  A prudent leader would resort to military force only after attempting to negotiate with an adversary possessing significant tools of resistance. Avoiding military force would be particularly advisable if the underlying policy enjoyed only tepid support at home. If negotiations still failed, threats of force would then be used, followed by the low-level exercises of force such as sanctions. Only when this failed would military force be used. 

The President arguably followed this path regarding Iran. Prior to Saturday’s attacks, the US and Iran were in active talks attempting to reach agreed-upon limits on Iran’s nuclear program. When this appeared to fail, the parties graduated to threats of force, which continued for several days. Sanctions had already been tried, and so the card of military force was played. The President appears to have successfully negotiated a ceasefire in the Iranian conflict. However, the uncertainty over the success of the bombing campaign means the temptation of “mission creep” and the risk of escalation to further military action remains.  

At the time, the President was already in a low-level military conflict here at home with Los Angeles and California about the enforcement of federal immigration law. Instead of following the traditional escalation protocol, Trump immediately turned to military force despite only tepid support for the intervention at home. There is another path he could have taken that might have avoided a military confrontation and achieved a lasting solution to the immigration issue.  

The administration should have first proposed a comprehensive immigration bill tightening enforcement and significantly reducing immigration levels. The legislation could have accomplished the goal of discouraging the employment of illegal immigrants and incentivizing self-deportation through  

  • A 10% employer tax on the salaries of an employer’s illegal immigrant employees. 
  • A requirement that those employers purchase insurance protecting third parties from injuries or damages by their immigrant employees. It would also reimburse government agencies for any welfare payments to those employees.  
  • A prohibition against refugees seeking permanent immigration status until they first return to their native countries.  

Employers would be forced to decide if these increased costs and risks would be worse than hiring American citizens. It would also finally force the real debate on our immigration policy that the nation has avoided for decades.  

What if globalists did not take this deal? Then, sanctions would be the next step, and Trump has a peaceful but big stick in his arsenal. He can announce that the US cannot host the 2028 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles because California’s resistance to federal authority may result in an internal military conflict and, as a result, we cannot guarantee the security of the games. This risk in such a threat would hopefully prompt globalist immigration enthusiasts to agree on reforms that reflect today’s world and establish an effective enforcement process.  If not, the President should make good on the threat.   

Partisans on both sides of the immigration debate will condemn this strategy. However, it recognizes that each side has economic and legal leverage. Admittedly divisive in tactics, it is potentially unifying in strategy by creating a road to a permanent resolution that gives American citizens hope and the peace of a better life. It is this objective, not regime change overseas, that should be the most crucial goal of the Trump Administration.  The risks are certainly worth the reward.

2024 Election, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Domestic Policy, General, Immigration, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – The Square Deal

Bob Claude |

Score

Harris +4 Trump +2

Theodore Roosevelt campaigned against privilege primarily because he saw its corrosive effects on the average American family. A devoted family man himself, TR worked to prevent child labor and improve working conditions so that workers could fully contribute to their families and to the nation as a whole. He was realistic about the changes necessary to give those families a “square deal”, saying that  

But when I say, I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.

Today’s American workers face similar obstacles to building strong families and contributing to society. Redistribution of wealth through taxation will not solve these problems. Only changing the laws and the rules of today’s game will build the strong families and strong America necessary to meet the challenges of the future.

Immigration

The sudden arrival of over 20,000 Haitian immigrants in the city of Springfield, Ohio, has become a microcosm of the nationwide impact on American citizens of the Biden-Harris open immigration policy. The issue was never about the damn cats.  It was about importing and dropping a huge community of foreign nationals on a city already struggling with unemployment and decline (see this post from X). A local plant then justified on the grounds that the Haitians were better employees. Meanwhile, rents continued to climb and the local school district had to try to integrate a large influx of students, many of which did not speak English.  

American workers were just beginning to catch up to living costs when this hurricane of immigrants hit them. Even the Federal Reserve Chairman recognizes that this wave of over 8 million immigrants has increased the unemployment rate. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration also allows the tech industry to use the H1B program to undercut wages of STEM workers despite the fact that the STEM unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

This mass importation of foreign immigrants represents a new slavery this administration celebrates rather than fights (see this past post). Vice President Harris has taken even more extreme positions in favor of it.  Her failures and those of President Biden rate a minus 2.5 score. Unfortunately, President Trump has moved more toward the corporate globalist approach. He calls for the unrealistic goal of “mass deportation”, closing the border and E-verify while also supporting automatic green cards for foreign students. He thus earns only a plus 1 score on the issue.

Antitrust and Consumer Protection

This is an issue where the Biden – Harris administration has really shined. They reinvigorated antitrust enforcement by fully utilizing the Clayton Act to object to mergers and bringing suit against tech companies like Google and Facebook for using their market power for monopolization. The Federal Trade Commission under its Chair Lina Khan has also led on antitrust and in expanding basic consumer protections.  In particular, the ban on the abuse of non-compete clauses will free many workers to fully utilize their skills where they can be better compensated (though I worry the ban exceeds the Commission’s jurisdiction).

Unfortunately, in the rush to raise campaign funds from Silicon Valley, Vice President Harris refuses to say whether she would reappoint Khan to the Commission. Nevertheless, she has expressed support for the antitrust campaign and earns a plus 2.5 as a result. While Trump initiated the Google case during his term, he has changed his position and parroted the corporate line against these efforts. It is possible that RFKJr will be able to turn him back to a more active antitrust role, but for now, he rates a minus 1.

Child Tax Credit

American families have historically struggled to raise their children with little help from federal and state governments. During the COVID pandemic, the Biden Administration’s COVID stimulus plan expanded the child tax credit to as much as $3,600 a year and included low income families who were previously ineligible for the credit because they were not paying taxes (see this past post). This halved the child poverty rate, which then rose when the program ended in 2022.

Both Harris and Trump support expanding the credit.  Harris proposes a $6,000 annual credit while Trump’s running mate Sen. J.D. Vance has filed legislation to expand it to $5,000 per year. As this article relates, the most likely difference between the two plans is that Harris may limit the credit to low-income families, which would reduce the impact on the federal deficit. Both campaigns deserve credit for supporting families by expanding the credit, with Harris earning a 2.5 score and Trump a score of 2.

Housing

Home is where the heart of a family resides, but more and more families are unable to realize that dream because of lack of affordable housing.  There are many causes – high building costs, local zoning regulations, private equity purchases of local housing for investment and high mortgage rates, among others.  It is a national crisis that needs a comprehensive response.

Vice President Harris has proposed a plan that would give first time home buyers a $25,000 tax credit, create incentives for home builders and control the purchases of single-family homes for investment. She also said she would challenge regulations that limit the construction of homes.  Here in the West, we are unfortunately familiar with the environmental restrictions on logging that have significantly reduced lumber supply. Color me skeptical that Harris will actually break with environmental groups on these restrictions. However, the plan is a good start and merits at least a 1.5 rating.

Trump’s plan is less comprehensive and relies on lowering corporate tax rates, cutting federal regulations and reducing demand by deporting immigrants.  It is not clear how much this would impact the problem and so it only rates a zero score.

Conclusion

While both candidates score positively on achieving a square deal for America’s families, the differences in method matter.  Vice President Harris appears to believe she can ameliorate the socioeconomic crisis of open immigration with federal regulations and dollars. Her proposals would help but would be more effective and cheaper if immigration was controlled. Trump understands that immigration is an underlying cause of many of American worker’s problems. However, except for the child tax credit, he opposes further federal help to solve them. A nationalist like TR would recognize we need progress on both fronts if we are to truly reduce wealth inequality and give American families the hope, stability and square deal they deserve.

2022 Election, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Domestic Policy, Immigration, Politics

2022 American Nationalist Voting Index – The Square Deal

Bob Claude |

Theodore Roosevelt famously promised a “square deal” for the average American to reduce the stark inequality of his times. His approach was both pragmatic and straight-forward, best described by this quotation from his New Nationalism speech

But when I say am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.

Today, his crusade against monopolies remains keenly relevant.  Meanwhile, while wage earners have more power to demand better wages and benefits in today’s economy, employers are still agitating for increased immigration to blunt their power.

Antitrust Law

Corporate market power drew criticism in Congress from both political parties, whether it was Big Tech’s influence on political discourse or high gas prices. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D. Minnesota) took an admirable lead on the issue by introducing two trailblazing bills. The Consolidation Prevention and Competition Promotion Act (Senate Bill 3267) would have strengthened the Clayton Act by prohibiting mergers that create an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition or may create monopsonies (monopolies of buyers, not just sellers). Her Platform Competition and Opportunity Act (Senate Bill 3197) would have cracked down on social media’s market power. Unfortunately, neither was reported out of committee, but they still represented a step in the right direction.

However, a seemingly innocuous but important antitrust measure entitled the Merger Fee Modernization Act (House Bill 3843) passed the House but died in the Senate. In addition to raising the fees companies must pay for the required pre-merger review, it requires the disclosure of foreign government subsidies of acquirers and gives state attorney generals the right to enforce antitrust laws in their own state courts. A good summary of the bill can be found at this link. If you are interested in how your congressmember voted, it can be found here:

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022460

Immigration

Once again, the President and Congress dodged their responsibility to pass a comprehensive fix for our broken immigration system and secure not only our borders, but also the economic security of American workers. As I have argued previously, our current de facto system of unrestricted immigration is a new slavery that benefits primarily high-tech and low wage employers. Sadly, the only substantive bills on the subject would worsen the situation.

I believe immigrants who have been in the country since 2012 (the so-called Dreamers) should be brought out of the shadows and legalized. However, I also have argued the Obama Administration’s original Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals rule (DACA) was unlawfully issued and the courts have finally so ruled (see this post). This prompted the Biden Administration to attempt to legalize it pursuant to a formal rulemaking under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, though whether this is outside of their authority under the immigration statutes remains to be seen.  Meanwhile, the House passed an even more radical legalization program called the American Dream and Promise Act that would extend the program to those who entered the country illegally before 2021.  The roll call vote on the bill can be found here (a “No” vote is a nationalist vote):

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202191

Sadly, Sen Klobuchar tarnished her nationalist credentials by sponsoring and passing legislation (Senate Bill 3167) mandating the government encourage the employment of high-skilled immigrants, thus feeding Big Tech’s greed for cheap technical workers at the expense of Americans with the same skills. The record vote on that bill can be found here (again, a “no” vote is a nationalist vote):

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022439

It passed the Senate by a regrettably unanimous voice vote.

Conclusion

Elites regularly lament the effects of the Great Resignation on American workers’ new-found bargaining power and opportunity to improve themselves. American nationalists should celebrate this power, but also be aware of how fleeting it is, especially as we face the prospect of a potential recession. More changes in the rules of the game are necessary to ensure these gains endure.