LibertyVoter.Org

By Alex Nowrasteh

Alex Nowrasteh

Volumes of research and centuries of experience do not bear out claims that immigrants “take our jobs,” don’t learn English, and fail to assimilate. But the idea that immigrants could vote to upend our relatively free economy has an air of credibility. It is arguably the best argument against liberalizing immigration.

Although immigrants are a boon to our economy and their children do reliably assimilate, immigrants could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by undermining our free market institutions. In other words, will they come here, become citizens, and vote socialist, populist, or worse?

Fortunately, there is little evidence that immigrants make countries less free.

The United States has the 12th freest economy in the world, but most immigrants are from societies that are markedly less free than ours: the top three immigrant—sending countries in 2013 were China, India, and Mexico, ranked 115th, 110th, and 91st, respectively. If immigrants bring the impoverishing institutions of their homelands with them, the long—run economic impact of immigration could turn negative.

“Testing the most plausible argument for closed borders.”

In a recent academic paper, my coauthors and I compared economic freedom scores with immigrant populations across 100 countries over 21 years. Some countries were majority immigrant while some had virtually none. We found that the larger a country’s immigrant population was in 1990, the more economic freedom increased in the same country by 2011. The immigrant’s country of origin, and whether they came from a poor nation or a rich one, didn’t affect the outcome.

These results held for the United States federal government but not for state governments. States with greater immigrant populations in 1990 had less economic freedom in 2011 than those with fewer immigrants, but the difference was small. The national increase in economic freedom more than outweighed the small decrease in economic freedom in states with more immigrants.

A related worry is that immigrants and their descendants would vote to expand welfare benefits for themselves. State governments can set the benefit and spending levels for welfare programs in their own states, and they also have varying levels of immigration and ethnic diversity. This provided a perfect opportunity for economist Zac Gochenour of Western Carolina University and me to test how immigrants affect welfare.

A state’s population of immigrants, illegal immigrants, Hispanics, Asians, ethnic or racial diversity caused by immigration, or any combination of the above did not affect the size …read more

Source: OP-EDS

Thomas Piketty’s book, first published in French in 2013, was released in English last year to wide acclaim and a top position on the New York Times bestseller list.  But in the new issue of Cato Policy Report, Deirdre N. McCloskey says that, in focusing solely on the distribution of income, Piketty overlooks the most surprising secular event in history: the Great Enrichment of the average individual on the planet by a factor of 10 and in rich countries by a factor of 30 or more.  Also in this issue, Cato executive vice president David Boaz explains how two recent issues – gay marriage and trade agreements – illustrate how politically realistic reform plans (or second-best solutions) still push public debate and public policy in a direction consistent with liberty and limited government.

• July/August 2015 Issue of Cato Policy Report

…read more

Source: CATO HEADLINES

By Michael F. Cannon

Michael F. Cannon

In King v. Burwell, Chief Justice John Roberts did the Obama administration a bigger favor than he realized. Writing for a himself and five colleagues, Roberts blessed the administration’s expansion of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, employer mandate, and premium subsidies in the 34 states that refused to establish exchanges — even though the majority, to say nothing of the three dissenters, recognized that expansion was in direct conflict with “the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

In fact, as enacted by Congress, the ACA denies the government authority to implement those taxes and subsidies in any state. By disregarding the plain meaning of the operative statutory language, the Roberts court not only unwittingly headed off a second wave of similar lawsuits in the 16 states that did choose to establish exchanges. It effectively ratified a nationwide system of taxes and entitlements that no Congress ever authorized.

The ACA directs states to establish health-insurance “exchanges” and directs the secretary of Health and Human Services to establish exchanges in states that fail to do so. For those who buy coverage, it authorizes premium subsidies, but only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The mere availability of those premium subsidies triggers — indeed, is currently triggering — penalties against individuals and employers who fail to purchase the mandated coverage.

“100 million Americans are living under taxes no Congress ever authorized, that no Congress had the votes to authorize, and that Congress allowed only if their states met certain requirements.”

All nine justices agreed that “the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase” is that the subsidies and resulting taxes are not authorized in states with federal exchanges. By extending those measures to the 34 states that refused to establish exchanges themselves, the government is imposing never-legislated taxes on 70 million Americans.

Yet another feature of the ACA, one never raised before any court, is that, in effect, Congress also required the federal government to establish exchanges in all 50 states. Just as the ACA directs the secretary of HHS to establish exchanges in states that fail to establish their own, it also directs her to establish exchanges in states that fail to establish a reinsurance program. Or a risk-adjustment program. Or that fail to implement the ACA’s numerous health-insurance regulations.

Indeed, if a state “fail[s]” to “elect” to implement any of these …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Ryan McMaken

Blog

Mises Weekends: Bob Murphy on Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action

July 29, 2015

Mises Institute

Read more

…read more

Source: MISES INSTITUTE