Category: Immigration

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.  

Domestic Policy, Government, Immigration, Uncategorized

A Blow for Immigration and Governmental Reform

Bob Claude |

This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it reasonably good place for all of us to live in.

Theodore Roosevelt

A federal district court in Houston has struck down the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and its companion for parents of those children. Specifically, it held that the program was an administrative rule making required to follow the notice and comment process of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  The failure of the Obama Administration to follow this process rendered the program illegal. CNN helpfully included a copy of the Order and Opinion of the court here. The decision is not only a step towards effective immigration reform, but also strikes a blow against the power of the administrative state. 

The court essentially took up the issues ignored in the US Supreme Court’s Regents of the University of California opinion that I previously discussed here.  This decision struck down the attempted rescission of the DACA program by the Trump Administration as itself violating the APA while glossing over the illegalities in the original rulemaking. This new federal court opinion turns the tables and focuses on those infirmities, noting that the Supreme Court itself held that DACA was not simply a passive non-enforcement policy. Instead, it conferred affirmative immigration relief such as the right to receive a work permit and the right to travel abroad without permission.  It did so despite admitting in the original memorandum that only the Congress could confer affirmative immigration relief. The district court’s opinion built on Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the Regents opinion by highlighting the real reason for the program – the inability of successive Presidents to unite the Congress and country around an immigration bill that included effective limits and enforcement as well as the necessary relief for longtime residents. 

The district court was mindful of the hardships an immediate cessation of the program would cause to current participants and simply prohibited further expansion of the program for the time being. The Biden Administration has announced that it will appeal the order and urged Congress to pass a bill fixing the problem. The administration’s latter position is correct. Both political parties need to look beyond the twin corruptions of identity politics and corporate contributions to pass a comprehensive immigration reform legalizing the status of the “Dreamers” and creating real enforceable limits on future immigration as I advocated in this post. A truly comprehensive answer to the immigration crisis would be a new beginning for insuring the American Dream for both lifetime citizens and immigrants alike.