Year: 2020

Why Trump must beat up on sanctuary cities

He must attack sanctuary cities because the number of deporations is low — below Obama levels. He has been trying to remove more people from the interior of the country and the sanctuary city movement appears to be thwarting that.

ICE removals in the two full years Trump administration (FY2018-2019) have average 262,000, compared with 370,000 in the seven full years of the Obama administration. The number of removals in FY 2019, 267,000, was lower than every but one full year under Obama.

Under Obama, removals became increasingly focused on persons with criminal records, rising from about two-thirds to over 90%, which appears to have continued. ICE boasted that is FY 2019 there was a 110% increase in removal of “family unit members.”

There are about 11 million unauthorized persons in the U.S.

What has changed if anything?  The Migration Policy Institute in early 2018 did a deep study and concluded that there has been a “sea change in interior [ie not border[ enforcement, though the total numbers have not changed.

It said that “sanctuary policies are curbing ICE enforcement. ICE relies heavily on state and local law-enforcement agencies to help identify and arrest noncitizens from removal. During the first 135 days of the Trump administration, according to MIP’s analysis. 69% of ICE arrests nationwide were based on transfers from the criminal justice system, mostly state prisons or local jails. This is a decline from the FY 2008-2011, during the peak of ICE activity, when state and local prisons and jails were the origin for more than 85% of ice arrest. The decline is attributable to reduced cooperation with ICE.”

MIP shows that arrests have declinced in California, where the sanctuary city movement is big, and risen in Texas, where it is non-existent.

 

Survey: Why do Central Americans want to migrate?

In 2019, Interviewers in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras conducted 2,400 individual in-person surveys to gather data on intentions to migrate, family, the economic situation of the household and exposure to crime, among other points. Based on these surveys and extensive data analysis, interviewers were able to distinguish the different triggers of migration in each municipality, as well as paint a general portrait of potential migrants

Where are potential migrants living? A small number of municipalities, largely urban, account for the bulk of all irregular out-migration from the Northern Triangle. While trends emerge at the national level, the factors that influence one’s decision to migrate vary dramatically by municipality.

Economic reasons are uppermost: Economic factors are the most salient in influencing migration and are cited far more often as the primary motivator for migration than victimization factors.

Youth are most likely to migrate: People from the ages of 18 to 29 report distinct levels of exposure to economic and victimization factors and react to these factors differently than adults in their decisions to migrate.

Victimization exposure: Extortion, robbery and other crimes are, in most cases, an even stronger motivator for migration than exposure to homicide.

Relatives living in U.S.: Nearly two-thirds of all survey respondents have a relative living abroad, 75 percent of those relatives have lived in the U.S. for 10 years or more, and about 25 percent for over 20 yeas. However, only 3 percent of survey respondents citing reuniting with relatives as their primary reason for migration.

Report, Saliendo Adelante, is here.

The new public charge rule part 2

By effectively denying benefits to low income immigrants – benefits which are widely used by low income citizens – the new public charge rule is one of the most anti-poor measures of the federal government in recent history.

One in seven adult immigrants avoided using certain public benefits in 2018 out of fear of their use would derail their presence in the U.S.

It has been estimated that between 1 and 3.2 million fewer members of immigrant families would forego Medicaid.

The effect on publicly assisted housing, due to immigrants not seeking these benefits – thetre is also a rule proposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would keep “mixed status” families from living together in public housing by barring non-citizen members.

More than 60 public health and policy scholars chairs and faculty, as well as the American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Nursing joined an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, concluding that the public charge rule threatens public health on a national scale.

Why was Nigeria added?

Why did the Trump Administration add Nigeria to the travel ban?

The press reported that “Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said during a call with reporters that the six countries failed to meet U.S. security and information-sharing standards, which necessitated the new restrictions. The problems Wolf cited ranged from sub-par passport technology to a failure to sufficiently exchange information on terrorism suspects and criminals.

It is one of the few countries with an estimated temporary visa overstay rate of 10%. But that was not one of the reasons cited by DHS.

The Nigerian Foreign Minister was “blindsided” by the ban.

NY Times columnist Jamelle Douie thinks that Trump is trying to bring back the Immigration Act of 1924, which essentially barred Asians and African from migrating to the U.S. “Which is to say that it does not matter that Nigeria isn’t much of a national security threat or that Nigerians are among the most successful immigrants to the United States, surpassing native-born Americans in income and educational attainment. What matters is that they’re black and African and, for Trump, at the bottom of a racial hierarchy.”

Impact of new “Public Charge” rule – part 1

In October 2018, the Trump administration issued its plan to toughen the public charge rule, which is one guide to reviewing applications for Green Cards. With the federal court decision that approved the new rule, it is to go into effect on February 24.

The rule was revised to prevent immigration be people who would be a drag on the economy.

Opponents described how many American citizens could not pass the new rule.

About half of all U.S.-born citizens would likely be deemed a public charge — and by extension and implication, considered a drag on the United States — if this definition were applied to them.

*In just a single year, 1 in 4 U.S.-born citizens receive a benefit included in the final rule’s public charge definition.

*If one considers benefit receipt of the U.S.-born citizens over the 1997-2017 period, some 41 to 48 percent received one of the benefits included in the final rule’s public charge definition.

*If data covered U.S.-born citizens over the course of their full lifetimes, receipt of benefits included in the new rule would be about half of the population.

*A significant share of individuals working in the United States — 15 percent — receive one of the benefits included in the new rule in just a single year. These are workers upon whom our economy relies.

” having family income below 125 percent of the poverty line — about $31,375 for a family of four, which is more than twice what full-time work at the federal minimum wage pays in the United States — would count against an individual in the public charge determination.

The expired definition of public charge is, by contrast, far narrower. In a single year, just 5 percent of U.S.-born citizens and 1 percent of individuals working in the United States meet the current benefit-related criteria in the public charge determination.

How the new rule expands the definition of public charge:

First, it broadens the list of public benefit programs considered in a public charge determination to include health coverage through Medicaid (with limited exceptions), food assistance through SNAP (food stamps), and housing assistance (Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Rental Assistance, and other subsidized housing programs).

Second, instead of looking at whether more than half of a person’s income comes (or would likely come in the future) from cash assistance tied to need, as they do now, immigration authorities will determine, using several enumerated factors, whether an individual is “more likely than not at any time in the future to receive one or more public benefits” for a certain time period (to be codified in 8 C.F.R. § 212.22(a))—even if the benefits reflect only a small share of an immigrant’s total income.

From a deposition by Danilo Trisi, submitted as part of a suit to block the new rule.

Also go here for another analysis.

Go here for the DHS’ press release on January 30.

EB-5 reforms, update

Selling green cards to foreigners in exchange of their investing in building projects in areas needing investment has been dominated by real estate developers who use tortured rationales to build in affluent areas, and sometimes mis-appropriate the funds. This is a good case of an obscure government program captured by vested interests, including the President’s relatives. Reforms that have been sought are years are likely to be killed this winter.

The EB-5 program, first introduced in the early 1990s, provides green cards to foreigners who invest in the U.S. The program has incurred big scandals in the past few years. They include a $84 million dollar fraud in Vermont due to negligent state oversight (Jay Peak), a $40 million scandal in Miami (Palm House), and the Kushner family abuse of EB-F in some New Jersey projects for affluent condo buyers.

A team of researchers at NYU’s Stern School of Business closely tracks this program. Dem Senator Leahy and Rep Senator Grassley have been pushing for reforms, and in 2019 the two introduced a reform bill in June. Republican senators Graham, Cronyn, and Rounds are attempting to avoid he reforms through their own bill.

Reformers (such at the NYU team) focus on three issues: increasing the threshold of investment, strengthening incentives for investments to be in targeted areas (rural, urban distressed neighborhoods), and greater transparency to prevent diversion of funds by better management of regional EB-5 Centers.

A summary comparison of the proposed reforms and the counter-attack is here.

This 2015 Forbes article shows how threat of reforms spur demand by foreign investors.

 

 

 

 

U.S. population growth

Population growth is at its lowest since the founding of the United States. The Census Bureau projects that after 2030, immigration will account for more than half of the nation’s population growth.

Brooking’s population expert William Frey writes that “The nation’s population growth from 2018 to 2019 grew by a mere 0.48% This is the lowest annual growth rate since 1918, and caps off a decade that should show the slowest 10-year population growth since the first census was taken in 1790.”

In 2018-2019 natural increase below one million (for a population of over 327 million) and immigration added about 500,000, down from the million-plus levels of past years.

Persons entering the workforce: in 2008, there were 27.2 million persons between 19 and 25. In 2018, there were 28 million of that age, an annual growth rate of 0.25%.

Coronavirus and Chinese travel to U.S.

The Coronavirus puts at risk travel from China to the U.S. In 2018, leaving out Canada and Mexico, China was the third largest source of visitors after the U.K. and Japan.  In “travel exports” including education, China was the largest purchaser at $34.6B, or 14% of total travel exports. (That’s above Canada and Mexico,) A sharp reduction in Chinese travel to the U.S. could have a big negative impact on the American tourist industry, not to say American colleges as well. (Source here.)

Chinese tourist traffic to the U.S. between 2005 and 2018 grew at an annual rate of over 70%. (Source: Statistica.)

What Hispanics think of Trump

The Hispanic community is mixed in its opinion about Trump, shown in a September 2019 poll by Univision. Let’s look at “approve”: of Trump. South Americans were the most favorable, 39%, followed by Cubans (33%), Porto Ricans (21%, Mexicans (18%), Central America (14%) and Dominicans (11%). Approval rose with level of education – college grads 25% approved.

This progression parallels how they think if there is a problem of racism against Latinos and immigrants (Cubans at 49% “yes” and rising thereafter).

For a balanced sample of all Hispanics, 22% approved of Trump. Of Hispanics who voted Republican, only 38% approved. According to 538, 42% of Americans approved of Trump in September 2019.

Chinese immigration to the U.S.

China in 2018 replaced Mexico as the top sending country. After immigrants from Mexico and India, the Chinese represented the third largest group in the U.S. foreign-born population of nearly 45 million in 2018, with 2.5 million persons.

Chinese immigration in the United States has a long and fraught history. In response to negative public sentiments and organized labor lobbying, Congress in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first legislation aimed at excluding certain foreigners based on their origin.

The 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act removed barriers for non-European immigration to the United States and created temporary worker programs for skilled workers. Chinese authorities relaxed emigration controls in 1978, and U.S.-China relations were normalized in 1979, beginning a second wave of Chinese migration to the United States.

China is the main source of foreign students enrolled in U.S. higher education In the 2018-19 school year, close to 377,000 students, or one third of all international students.

Chinese nationals received the second-largest number of employer-sponsored H-1B temporary visas in fiscal year 2018, after Indians. Chinese nationals received nearly half of EB-5 investor green cards in 2018.

The United States is the top destination for Chinese immigrants, accounting for almost 27 percent of the more than 12 million Chinese living outside of China. Other popular destinations include Canada (920,000).

Roughly half of Chinese immigrants reside in just two states: California (32 percent) and New York (19 percent).

From The Migration Policy Institute.