The View from Right Field

Dreamers – Again

The legal status of “Dreamers,” i.e., children who illegally entered the United States with their parent(s), generally before June, 2007 (though maybe that date would be pushed back by some), is in the news again.  A federal district court in Texas has held that Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, i.e., Dreamers, program is unlawful and has barred the Biden administration from adding new people to the program.  A good explanation of the decision, by Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, can be found here. 

Several comments¹:

1. Former President Obama tweeted on Saturday that “[i]t’s long past time for Congress to act and give them the protection and certainty they deserve”, which is true.  It is too bad that former President Obama didn’t propose a Dreamers-only law when he was president.  He only wanted to do a comprehensive immigration bill.  After the 2010 election, that was a non-starter, whether for good or ill.  It is possible, however, that a Dreamers-only bill might have gotten enough Republican support to pass.  I don’t know.  But former President Obama didn’t try.  It may have been that there were not enough Democrats willing to pass a Dreamers-only bill.  Maybe there were so many Democrats who wanted a comprehensive immigration bill and were unwilling to break it into parts and vote on the parts individually, that a Dreamers-only wouldn’t have gotten enough Democratic votes to pass, even if some Republicans would have voted for it.  We’ll never know because former President Obama didn’t try.²

2. Also, the Obama administration merely issued an executive order on Dreamers.  It did not pursue t he formal rule-making processes for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.  I don’t know if that would have made a difference, but they didn’t try, which is unfortunate.  Following the proper procedures and process is always better.

3. If a Dreamers bill passes, it’s got to be the last one.  Ronald Reagan did immigration reform back in the 1980s, which included an amnesty on the basis that we would step up efforts on controlling illegal immigration and that it was a one-time only thing.  If we are going to do it again, and I would happily support a Dreamers-only bill, this has to be the last time – and we have to mean it.

4. Plus, we have to get our immigration system, both legal and illegal, under control.  Things are a disaster now.  I would like to think there are enough people of reasonably good will in Washington to try to do it, but I’m not sure.  It may be that the bases on both sides are so strong, or at least loud, that it is more important to beat the other side than to do something good for the country that might look like a bit of a victory for the other side.
--------
¹ Prior comments on this subject can be found here and here.
² Donald Trump was pretty much incompetent at governing, there is not much to say about his efforts.

Hunter Biden’s Paintings Tell Us How to Handle Disclosure of Contribution

Joe and Hunter Biden may have solved the problem of how we handle disclosure of contributions to political causes.  For Hunter Biden’s paintings, the Bidens are considering a plan whereby the paintings will be sold by a third-party art gallery.  The art gallery won’t tell Hunter or President Biden – or the public – who buys the paintings or even who bids on them.  Therefore, there is no possibility of corruption or improper influence.

Which seems like the solution to contributions to political causes, too.  California wanted to know the names of contributors to charities, including ones that take political positions, so it could ensure nothing untoward happened.  But the U.S. Supreme Court said no because of concerns about confidentiality and retaliation.  The Bidens may have given us the solution.

“Root Causes” Are Easy. Solutions for Today Are Hard,

When Vice President Kamala Harris went to El Paso last week, she talked a lot about the need to address the “root causes” of illegal immigration

“My trip to Guatemala and Mexico was about addressing the root causes.  The stories that I heard and the interactions that we had today reinforce the nature of those root causes: a lack of economic opportunity; very often violence, corruption, and food insecurity; and basic needs not being met, including a fear of cartels and gang violence.”

Which sounds a lot like how Democrats talk about the increase in crime: We have to deal with the “root causes” of the problem.  And it may be that dealing with these root causes, whether of illegal immigration or crime, will address the problem – ten years from now.  But talking about root causes doesn’t tell you what we need to do to address the problem now.  

Why Are Our Taxes So Messed Up? My Guess Is Spelled C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S

My previous post was about the amount of taxes rich people pay.  Based on leaks of confidential tax info (so much for secrecy of tax returns), the ProPublica website disclosed the absolutely shocking information (shocking to people who don’t pay attention) that rich people don’t pay any more taxes than the law requires.  And if the law lets them take deductions, claim credits, etc., they do it and, thereby, pay less taxes.  ProPublica was shocked.  I’m not.  I think it says more about the tax code – and the people who pass it – than it does about the amount of taxes people pay.

Which brings me to an example of the simplicity and ease¹ of our tax code: the deductions and credits for families and child care.  Before 2021, there were two basic credits: (i) a refundable tax credit of $2,000 for each child, which began to phase out when modified adjusted gross income exceeded $400,000 for a married couple; and (ii) a refundable child care credit of $3,000 per child, up to a maximum of $6,000 for two or more children, with a phaseout beginning at $125,000 for a married couple.

Are You Surprised Rich People Try to Pay as Little Tax as Possible?

The media has reported the shocking news that: (i) if you’re not vaccinated, you’re more likely to get Covid-19 than if you are vaccinated: and (ii) rich people don’t pay more taxes that they have to under the law.  Let me address the second.¹

The ProPublica website has published information about how much taxes people like Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet,² etc., pay, information they got from IRS data that was leaked to them.  According to ProPublica, the information included more than fifteen years of tax data on thousands of people.  ProPublica says that it does not know where the information came from or who sent it to them, but they published it anyway.  Even though this information is supposed to be confidential and secret, not that many people seem upset about the disclosure.  The information is too much fun to care about confidentiality

“One Little, Two Little, Three Little Babies.” China Changes Its Policy Again.

Six years after abandoning its one-child policy for a two-child policy, China has now gone to a three-child policy.  The one-child policy, which began to be strictly enforced in 1980, was put in place to limit population growth in the world’s most populous country.  The problem was that it worked too well, and in 2015 China went to a two-child policy because its population was aging and its workforce was shrinking.

But the birth rate hasn’t rebounded.  Economic growth around the world has reduced the number of babies that women have, and China has been no exception.  As its middle class has grown, its birth rate has fallen.

Why Plessy v. Ferguson – and What Might Have Been

Earlier this month was the 125th anniversary of the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.  The New York Times had an op-ed by Peter Canellos on the only justice to dissent in Plessy: Justice John Marshall Harlan.¹

In his article, Mr. Canellos said this of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy:

“The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson … is duly remembered as one of the great abominations in legal history.  By endorsing the notorious separate-but-equal doctrine, it consigned most African Americans to a state of rank oppression.  In the space of no more than 5,000 words, it violated the plain language of the Constitution, engaged in expansive racist dissembling and defied the outcome of the Civil War.”

Offloading Obligations Onto Future Generations – In Germany and the United States

A recent decision of the constitutional court in Germany has a lesson for the United States.  In Germany, the constitution works differently.  The constitution, actually, it’s called the Basic Law, and it dates back to 1949 and the founding of West Germany, allows for the federal constitutional court to get involved on issues and in ways that are different from what happens in the United States.

In late April, the constitutional court issued an important decision on Germany’s climate change law.  The Financial Times reported:

Waiving IP for Vaccines – Or Actually Doing Good

The Biden administration has, perhaps not surprisingly, agreed to support a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights for Covid-19 vaccines.  It sounds good on the surface, but I can’t help but wonder if the better solution might be to just pay Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to make as many doses as they can as quickly as they can.  They know how to make these vaccines.  They have the best idea on how to ramp up production.  Instead of giving away IP to people and companies who may or may not know how to make these vaccines, why not just buy more doses from the people who do know how to make them. 

The United States could volunteer to pay the costs.¹  The total cost would probably disappear in the rounding with all of the programs the Biden administration is already proposing.  And giving away vaccines would be a great foreign policy move.  Russia can’t afford to do it, and China doesn’t have vaccines that work as well as these.  But we do can it.  We can help the world.  And that’s something you do when you can.

Spending Lots; Doing a Little Good

Nancy Pelosi famously¹ said of Obamacare that you had to pass it to see what was in it.  It appears that was true of Joe Biden’s first big Covid relief bill, too.  In January, I said this about President Biden’s proposed plan in a post entitled “Covid-19 Relief Ought to Be More Than Just Throwing Money Around Randomly”:

“A properly-targeted pandemic relief program wouldn’t waste money by giving it to people who don’t need help.  If we target the help where it is needed, there will be more money for the people who actually need help.  It’s not a matter of cutting costs; it’s a matter of having enough money to help those who really need it.”