Patents and Immigration: Would Trump’s Plan Decrease Inventions?

A prominent study by two labor economists, published in 2010, suggests that the answer is yes. Prof. William Kerr (Harvard) and Prof. William Lincoln (Michigan) studied U.S. patents from 1990 through 2008. They picked these years because the “science and engineering” visa—technically called H-1B—was created in 1990.

They found clear ethnic and nationality patterns in successful patent applications. Anglo-Saxons received 63%-76% of patents in this period; Europeans received 13%-16%.

Kerr and Lincoln asked this question: How much do H-1B visa holders add—if anything—to U.S. patents?

The answer: About 10%-20%, give or take. From 2000-2008, Chinese led the way with about 8% per year of all patents, followed by about 6% by Indians, 4% by Hispanics, 3% by Russians, and 2-3% by other Asians. See the chart.

The Trump administration is already taking steps to reduce the number of H-1B visas by reducing their numbers and slowing down an already very slow process. His proposed legislation would further reduce this group of valuable contributors.

The article of this publication is “The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and Ethnic Invention,” published in Journal of Labor Economics (2010).

Will You Work Past 70? Labor Force Participation by Age and Sex

My post on this topic has generated a lot of interest—and a request for a breakdown by age and sex.

What a good question. This table gives us insight as to whether we as individuals might be working past “retirement age” (there is no such thing, by law, except for pilots and such).

So, look it over [CLICK ON IT] and feel free to comment on FB or privately.

My take?

First, notice the gray vertical bars. They stand for periods of recession. I would have thought recessions would affect the labor force participation rate. If you’re unemployed in a soft labor market, you might drop out altogether in the labor force.

But the trends all seem to shrug off this factor.

Older people are in the dotted lines near the bottom (men are blue, women are red). Both groups have rising participation rates, going back for 20 years.

Is this due to declining pensions and pension security? Maybe. Is it due to seeking a social connection via work? Maybe. Is it due to seeking health insurance? Maybe. Are there other factors? Maybe.

Another trend that catches my eye: The rate for men (all ages) has been dropping, down from 95% in the 1950s to 85% today. That might suggest why Donald Trump resonates among this group. Fifteen percent of about 160 million American men (ages 16-64) who have dropped out of working is a really big number.

Dig in… think about it... and share.

Thanks to Jim for asking!

Trump, Obama: On Taking Credit for Labor Markets

All presidents claim credit for good labor markets. The unemployment rate is the one measure that the public keeps in mind. But there is more.

A more significant measure is “labor force participate rate.” Boiling it down, it’s the percentage of able-bodied people 16 years of age and older who are employed 15 or more hours or are looking for a job.

Two keys group are the “long term unemployed” and the person who has quit looking for work (so-called discouraged worker). That’s usually a bad place to be for that person, and it has strongly negative implications for society.

In December 2017, our nation’s "labor force participation rate" was 62.7 percent. 
Compare that to 62.9% in January 2017-- Obama's last figure.

It’s hard for presidents to affect this rate, and that’s really true in the short run.

Whomever is president, it’s important that their policies encourage people to rejoin the labor force.

The chart shows that the LFPR peaked right around 9/11, at about 67%.

Interesting to note, it rose steadily from the early 1970s through 2001, likely because women were more inclined to look for employment.

It has trended down since that time.

President Obama’s eight-year term lowered unemployment, but did nothing measureable to halt the slide in the LFPR—until about 2015, when the rate stabilized at about 63%. In other words, people who were actively looking for work were more successful as the Obama recovery slowly took hold. But overall, almost 40% of the population stayed on the sidelines.

That's horrible.

That rate is similar to the 1970s, a period of deep economic doldrums.

These $1,000 pay bonuses are a good thing. Will they bring people off the sidelines? Probably not. What is needed is job training, access to community colleges, and similar programs that help link employers and long-term unemployed people.

What’s the Meaning of Trump’s “Buy American and Hire American” Executive Order?

A little noticed executive order is starting to shake up employers who legally hire highly trained workers, such as computer analysts. On April 18, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13788, “Buy American and Hire American.” Sounds like a stump speech. It’s much more than that.

“Hire American” means this: “In order to create higher wages and employment rates for workers in the United States, and to protect their economic interests, it shall be the policy of the executive branch to rigorously enforce and administer the laws governing entry into the United States of workers from abroad, including section 212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

The focus is on H-1B visas. Currently, U.S. law allows approximately 60,000 foreign-nationals with advanced degrees and high skills to work for three years in America. Often, these terms are extended three more years.

No H-1B visa can be issued unless and until an employer advertises for the job, and after finding no qualified candidates, submits a request for “labor certification” to a state labor department. The state determines the market rate for these jobs—a clear protection against undercutting U.S. wages.

I’ve had numerous H-1B students in my professional MBA class (these students are also full-time employees going to night school). 
Some are employed by Caterpillar—a company that hires many University of Illinois engineering undergraduates (Americans), but also hires Indian (and other nationality) engineers. 
One student was a full-time engineer working on the largest excavator made in the U.S. 
I had another H-1B student from Brazil. He was hired by ADM (a global food company) to help the company with its financial and hedging strategies in world grain markets.

Okay, so what does it mean that the regulation says to hire “United States workers”? That term is already defined by our immigration law as someone born in the U.S., or a naturalized citizen, or “Lawful Permanent Resident” (green card holder).

What’s the big deal here? The bottom line is that the Trump administration is gearing up this spring to bring ICE to places such as Microsoft, Apple, Caterpillar, ADM, large banks and so on, and start a rigorous process of seeing how many employees are on H-1B visas, is their paperwork in order, identify these workers to make sure that no more extensions are granted, and also see what American workers have been shut out of a job.

There is great irony here. Trump is a deregulator—but here, he is telling American employers to stop using a legal method for hiring people. It’s like the old days when unions told employers to hire their members or face dire consequences.

So, if you are an HR executive who uses H-1B, be prepared for a visit from ICE. Be prepared to open your files on the spot. And be prepared for frightened and intimidated employees.

Are Immigrants “Indigestible Blocs”?

In the coming days, we will hear the Trump administration explain why legal immigration should be cut in half.

Expect to hear some version of assimilation. Talking to Fox’s Tucker Carlson on January 8, Stephen Miller—the apparent architect of Trump’s immigration policy-- said: “We can have an immigration system that 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now produces more assimilation, higher wages, more economic opportunity and better prospects for immigrants and U.S.-born alike.”

What this means is that Miller wants an updated version of our 1952 immigration law, called the McCarran-Walter Act. Under the law, family unification was discarded as a criterion. Asians and Africans were not excluded, but their quota was set to reflect a tiny percentage of people from their nations who were already here. So, for example, if the U.S. census had shown 20,000 immigrants from China, new Chinese immigrants would receive a tiny fraction— just several hundred— slots each year.

Now listen to Sen. Pat McCarran, sponsor of the bill that bears his name in 1953. For some, this statement is true; for others, it violates core American values. However you think about, we are back to reconsidering the following ideas from Sen. McCarran:

However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. ... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.

The photo above? It’s my Dad, an illegal immigrant, in 1949 or 1950. The Jewish quota kept him out of the U.S. He came here on false papers. In the picture above, he was a low-skilled baker’s assistant. He spoke no English—exactly the kind of “indigestible” person that we are considering blocking for admission to the U.S.

The second photo below? It’s a picture of the 78 acre farm in the northwest suburbs in Chicago that my father bought and developed with my Mom, his American wife. They ran a successful construction company that employed hundreds of Americans over 40-plus years. That’s assimilation.

My Dad was not unique. He came from Hungary in 1949. He died in 2005 as an American. 

What America Will Lose: President Trump Proposes to End President Johnson's Global Immigration Law

President Trump’s take-it-or-leave-it approach for a DACA bill (now a leading news story) is a direct contradiction of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Two main pillars of the 1965 INA are family unification and opening the world to America’s opportunities (lottery system).

Here is President Johnson’s speech upon signing the 1965 immigration law (it is short), given at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.

If President Trump’s bill becomes law, where will he deliver that speech? 

I suggest Norway.

(If you are pressed for time, see the red highlights.)

***

President Lyndon B. Johnson's Remarks at the Signing of the Immigration Bill

Liberty Island, New York

October 3, 1965

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ambassador Goldberg, distinguished Members of the leadership of the Congress, distinguished Governors and mayors, my fellow countrymen:

We have called the Congress here this afternoon not only to mark a very historic occasion, but to settle a very old issue that is in dispute. That issue is, to what congressional district does Liberty Island really belong— Congressman Farbstein or Congressman Gallagher? It will be settled by whoever of the two can walk first to the top of the Statue of Liberty.

This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.

Yet it is still one of the most important acts of this Congress and of this administration.

For it does repair a very deep and painful flaw in the fabric of American justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation.

Speaker McCormack and Congressman Celler almost 40 years ago first pointed that out in their maiden speeches in the Congress. And this measure that we will sign today will really make us truer to ourselves both as a country and as a people. It will strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways.

I have come here to thank personally each Member of the Congress who labored so long and so valiantly to make this occasion come true today, and to make this bill a reality. I cannot mention all their names, for it would take much too long, but my gratitude--and that of this Nation--belongs to the 89th Congress.

We are indebted, too, to the vision of the late beloved President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and to the support given to this measure by the then Attorney General and now Senator, Robert F. Kennedy.

In the final days of consideration, this bill had no more able champion than the present Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, who, with New York's own "Manny" Celler, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Congressman Feighan of Ohio, and Senator Mansfield and Senator Dirksen constituting the leadership of the Senate, and Senator Javits, helped to guide this bill to passage, along with the help of the Members sitting in front of me today.

This bill says simply that from this day forth those wishing to immigrate to America shall be admitted on the basis of their skills and their close relationship to those already here.

This is a simple test, and it is a fair test. Those who can contribute most to this country--to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit--will be the first that are admitted to this land.

The fairness of this standard is so self-evident that we may well wonder that it has not always been applied. Yet the fact is that for over four decades the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system.

Under that system the ability of new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country of their birth. Only 3 countries were allowed to supply 70 percent of all the immigrants.

Families were kept apart because a husband or a wife or a child had been born in the wrong place.

Men of needed skill and talent were denied entrance because they came from southern or eastern Europe or from one of the developing continents.

This system violated the basic principle of American democracy--the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man.

It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country.

Today, with my signature, this system is abolished.

We can now believe that it will never again shadow the gate to the American Nation with the twin barriers of prejudice and privilege.

Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide.

The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources--because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples.

And from this experience, almost unique in the history of nations, has come America's attitude toward the rest of the world. We, because of what we are, feel safer and stronger in a world as varied as the people who make it up--a world where no country rules another and all countries can deal with the basic problems of human dignity and deal with those problems in their own way.

Now, under the monument which has welcomed so many to our shores, the American Nation returns to the finest of its traditions today.

The days of unlimited immigration are past.

But those who do come will come because of what they are, and not because of the land from which they sprung [one more red highlight, below].

When the earliest settlers poured into a wild continent there was no one to ask them where they came from. The only question was: Were they sturdy enough to make the journey, were they strong enough to clear the land, were they enduring enough to make a home for freedom, and were they brave enough to die for liberty if it became necessary to do so?

And so it has been through all the great and testing moments of American history. Our history this year we see in Viet-Nam. Men there are dying--men named Fernandez and Zajac and Zelinko and Mariano and McCormick.

Neither the enemy who killed them nor the people whose independence they have fought to save ever asked them where they or their parents came from. They were all Americans. It was for free men and for America that they gave their all, they gave their lives and selves.

By eliminating that same question as a test for immigration the Congress proves ourselves worthy of those men and worthy of our own traditions as a Nation.

ASYLUM FOR CUBAN REFUGEES

So it is in that spirit that I declare this afternoon to the people of Cuba that those who seek refuge here in America will find it. The dedication of America to our traditions as an asylum for the oppressed is going to be upheld.

I have directed the Departments of State and Justice and Health, Education, and Welfare to immediately make all the necessary arrangements to permit those in Cuba who seek freedom to make an orderly entry into the United States of America.

Our first concern will be with those Cubans who have been separated from their children and their parents and their husbands and their wives and that are now in this country. Our next concern is with those who are imprisoned for political reasons.

And I will send to the Congress tomorrow a request for supplementary funds of $12,600,000 to carry forth the commitment that I am making today.

I am asking the Department of State to seek through the Swiss Government immediately the agreement of the Cuban Government in a request to the President of the International Red Cross Committee. The request is for the assistance of the Committee in processing the movement of refugees from Cuba to Miami. Miami will serve as a port of entry and a temporary stopping place for refugees as they settle in other parts of this country.

And to all the voluntary agencies in the United States, I appeal for their continuation and expansion of their magnificent work. Their help is needed in the reception and the settlement of those who choose to leave Cuba. The Federal Government will work closely with these agencies in their tasks of charity and brotherhood.

I want all the people of this great land of ours to know of the really enormous contribution which the compassionate citizens of Florida have made to humanity and to decency. And all States in this Union can join with Florida now in extending the hand of helpfulness and humanity to our Cuban brothers.

The lesson of our times is sharp and clear in this movement of people from one land to another. Once again, it stamps the mark of failure on a regime when many of its citizens voluntarily choose to leave the land of their birth for a more hopeful home in America. The future holds little hope for any government where the present holds no hope for the people.

And so we Americans will welcome these Cuban people. For the tides of history run strong, and in another day they can return to their homeland to find it cleansed of terror and free from fear.

Over my shoulders here you can see Ellis Island, whose vacant corridors echo today the joyous sound of long ago voices.

And today we can all believe that the lamp of this grand old lady is brighter today-- and the golden door that she guards gleams more brilliantly in the light of an increased liberty for the people from all the countries of the globe.

Thank you very much.

Surprising Trump, Obama DACA Statistics: Terminations for Criminal and Gang Activity Similar

President Trump often emphasizes that President Obama did little or nothing to reign-in DACA by pursuing gang members.

In 2013, that statement would be true. The Obama administration terminated protected status for only 30 DACA recipients. In fairness, the DACA program was in its first year; and no one could be terminated unless they registered.

The figures steadily rose from 30 (2103) to 130 (2014), 330 (2015), and 790 (2016) in Obama’s last year in office.

So, how many DACA recipients had their status terminated due to gang activity in 2017, President Trump’s first year in office? 
850 people.

Check out this easy-to-read, one page chart from the U.S. government: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/DACA_Terminations_Related_to_Criminal_and_Gang_Activity_by_Fiscal_Year.pdf

President Eisenhower’s Remarkable Immigration Message to Congress

In “33— Special Message to the Congress on Immigration Matters,” Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower urged Congress to abolish the 1921-24 immigration law (and its 1952 amending law). Contrast his message with today’s assault on lawful immigration by extremist Republicans (e.g., Stephen Miller) on our current system. I pass along four brief highlights (quoting now):

February 8, 1956

The immigration laws presently require aliens to specify race and ethnic classification in visa applications. These provisions are unnecessary and should be repealed.

….

A large group of refugees in this country obtained visas by the use of false identities in order to escape forcible repatriation behind the Iron Curtain; the number may run into the thousands. Under existing law such falsification is a mandatory ground for deportation. The law should be amended to give relief to these unfortunate people.

….

The inequitable provisions relating to Asian spouses and adopted children should be repealed.

….

Just as the Nation’s interests call for a larger degree of flexibility in the laws for regulating the flow of other peoples to our shores, there is at the same time a significant need to strengthen the laws established for the wholesome purpose of ridding the country of the relatively few aliens who have demonstrated their unfitness to remain in our midst. Some of these persons have been found to be criminals of the lowest character, trafficking in murder, narcotics, and subversion. Constitutional due process wisely confers upon any alien, whatever the charge, the right to challenge in the courts the Government's finding of deportability. However, no alien who has once had his day in court, with full rights of appeal to the higher courts, should be permitted to block his removal and cause unnecessary expense to the Government by further judicial appeals the only purpose of which is delay.

Is There a First Amendment Right to Take a Video in a Public Restroom?

In time, this question might be raised by the arrest of a University of Illinois professor yesterday for allegedly recording a video of a portrayer of Chief Illiniwek urinating in the bathroom. The professor has made documentaries critical of Native American imagery at UIUC, and presumably was filming last night for political, not prurient, reasons.

To date, there is a paucity of bathroom filming rights cases. 

No surprise there; however, there are a growing number of cases involving privacy rights in a public bathroom. The cases generally revolve around transgender issues and involve people from all sides of that issue—those people transitioning to a different gender, and those opposing their presence in their bathroom.

The point is that these cases may flesh out the degree to which core constitutional rights pertain to the privacy of a public bathroom.

Back to the UIUC matter, the closest case I can find—and it differs markedly— is Requa v. Kentland School District.

Greg Requa was a high school student. He posted secret videos made of a high school teacher in a classroom (he disingenuously denied making the video).

The court summarized the videos in these terms:

“The completed product includes commentary on the teacher's hygiene and organization habits, and also features footage of a student standing behind the teacher making faces, putting two fingers up at the back of her head and making pelvic thrusts in her general direction. Additionally, in a section preceded by a graphic announcing “Caution Booty Ahead,” there are several shots of Ms. M's buttocks as she walks away from the videographer and as she bends over; the music accompanying this segment is a song titled ‘Ms. New Booty.’”

The school district—after investigating and tracing the video to his MySpace site-- suspended Requa for 40 days. He challenged the suspension on First Amendment grounds.

The court refused his request for an injunction, meaning he likely served out his 40 day suspension.

Granted, the facts in Requa and in the bathroom filming case are very different; but the analysis would be similar. 

The court would ask if the speech is political in nature. 

The professor would answer “yes.” 

Next the court would weigh this against the state’s interest in prohibiting recordings in public bathrooms. In sum, the state would likely argue that privacy is essential to the normal functioning of a bathroom (this gets back to the transgender cases in some ways).

As is typical in these First Amendment cases, the Requa court weighed the political value of filming a teacher’s butt. The court said—politely—it has no First Amendment value. The professor here would do better than that extremely low comparator; but likely not much better. Whatever his, your, or my view on the Chief, filming someone in the bathroom while urinating does nothing to advance one’s argument.

Whom Shall We Welcome: Truman’s Six Immigration Principles

President Harry Truman ordered a commission to recommend a new immigration system for America in 1952. A year later, his commission issued a report, titled Whom Shall We Welcome. It’s available as “open source” material from the University of Michigan, here https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015076202954;view=1up;seq=53.

The Commission’s Six Guiding Principles are stated briefly and idealistically:

“1. America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, that differences of race, color, religion, or national origin should not be used to deny equal treatment or equal opportunity. 2. America has historically been the haven for the oppressed of other lands. 3. American national unity has been achieved without national uniformity. 4. Americans have believed in fair treatment for all. 5. America’s philosophy has always been one of faith in our future and belief in progress. 6. American foreign policy seeks peace and freedom, mutual understanding, and a high standard of living for ourselves and our world neighbors.” Id. at xii-xiii.

The Commission’s report was heavily criticized.

Consider Sen. Patrick McCarran’s stunning rejection of the report’s principles:

However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. ... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.

McCarran won. His legislation abolished overt racial exclusion of immigrants from Asia—but it also set incredibly low quotas for admission of Asians, Jews and other "undesirable" people.

President Truman vetoed the law, stating that the bill was "un-American" and discriminatory. He said, in his veto message: “Today, we are ‘protecting’ ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants….  We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand,…. These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.” President Truman’s veto was overridden.

In 1965, his vision of immigration became the law. Today, this law is targeted for abolishment by President Trump.

Trump’s Approach to Opposition Recalls Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives

Whatever your political opinions, painting the party you disagree with as “complicit in all murders committed by illegal immigrants” is dangerous. The quotes come from an online ad run under a banner of Trump. The ad shouts: “DEMOCRATS “COMPLICIT” IN ALL MURDERS BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.” If you care about American democracy, spend 30 second here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/democrats-complicit-in-all-murders-by-illegal-immigrants

In the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler’s thuggish supporters carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate Adolf Hitler's absolute hold on power in Germany.

That’s not about to happen here. But Hitler had more than 1,000 political opponents arrested for the good of the Nazi nation. 

Trump's repeated calls to turn the Justice Department on his political foes and media critics is a parallel.

When a U.S. president blames the minority party for “all murders committed by illegal immigrants,” we are entering uncharted territory for our nation. Political disagreement cannot be criminalized without destroying our democracy. 

Trump Administration Cuts-Off Legal, Temporary Workers from Haiti

John Locke, a leading political philosopher whose thoughts helped frame the U.S. Constitution, offered this sage insight: “I have always thought the actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts.”

On January 18^th— two days ago— the Trump administration posted a legal notice that is plans to prohibit people from Haiti — which the president allegedly insulted in a meeting last week — from applying for temporary visas for seasonal and farm workers.

Click here, please (it’s worth a quick read): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/18/2018-00812/identification-of-foreign-countries-whose-nationals-are-eligible-to-participate-in-the-h-2a-and-h-2b. 

The notice also announces plans to prohibit people from Belize and Samoa from applying for H-2A and H-2B visas, which are temporary.

This is in addition to ending Temporary Protected Status of Haitians who came to the U.S. after devastating earthquakes.

These visas allow businesses to bring in workers from other countries. The H-2A visa is for agriculture and the H-2B is for non-agricultural seasonal work in places such as hotels and nursing homes.

Haitians (and others) on these visas do menial, backbreaking, and difficult work... also, have developed a reputation for kindness in caring for people in hospice. 

I’ll give you examples you might not have considered: raking and baling pine needles in southern forests (to be sold as landscape ground-cover); picking potatoes by hand and packing in bushel baskets in Alabama (a bushel of potatoes is much heavier than a similar container of tomatoes); and cutting sugar cane in Florida.

Racism is a harsh word—but it aptly applies to a president and administration who refer to Haitians as natives of an AIDS-infested, shithole (or shithouse) nation. Put another way, what American workers are being deprived employment by these temporary visas? 

Are “Dreamers” Next for “Voyage of the Damned”?

The public discourse on DACA and the 800,000 “Dreamers” assumes that nations such as Mexico will readily accept those young people, if the U.S. deports them.

But nothing says these nations have to grant entry to them.

When the U.S. deports people, they often put them in handcuffs and board them on a charter jet for the recipient nation. See the photo.

But what if Mexico denied entry to an ICE-deportation jet with Dreamers on board, either by intercepting the jet and turning it back, or blocking runways for a landing spot, or surrounding the landed jet with troops? 

Who knows … the point of the post is that nations do not have to allow entry to people coming from outside their borders (if you disagree, think about re-entering the U.S. without your American passport ).
The circumstances are different today, but in 1939 the M.S. St. Louis left Hamburg, Germany (the port where my father embarked for the U.S.) with 900 Jewish children aboard. See photo. They were “dreamers,” too. Their first stop was Cuba. All but 29 children were denied entry. Their second stop was the United States. They were all denied entry. Their third stop was Canada. They were all denied entry. Both countries opposed what they called “Jewish immigration.”

The M.S. St. Louis turned back. The UK took 288 children; the remaining 619 passengers were allowed to disembark at Antwerp. Those children were dispersed, away from their parents, to France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. In those nations, many of the children were rounded up and taken to their deaths in concentration camps.

The U.S. had a heart of stone in 1939. We will soon learn if the U.S. continues to have a heart of stone. 

Welcoming My New International Students to “Hole”-istic Education

In my law class this morning, I had the pleasure and privilege of welcoming students from Ghana, Uganda, India, Brazil, Italy, China, and the U.S. (three students from Florida, others from Utah, South Carolina, Michigan, and Illinois students from Barrington, LaGrange, Bethlato, Belleville, Murphysboro, Chicago and more).

And now a word for President Trump: Holistic. No, Mr. President, it doesn’t mean a poor, shithole country.

Holistic: ho·lis·tic

Adjective: characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.

That “whole” is called the human race, also known as humanity. Whether my students come from my former home town of Barrington, Illinois or poor African nations, we learned today that we have common professional goals. We also speak in accents. As a consequence, we will all improve our listening skills. 

Imagine Segregation

It’s easy to lose sight of how Martin Luther King Jr. changed America.

Simply from a labor perspective, here is a sample of union bylaws and practices from 1910-1970— imagine that long span!—

From a black scholar and activist in the early 1900s, W.E.B. DuBois, The Negro American Artisan 87-95 (1912), citing many examples from a national survey of labor unions:

Gardeners’ Protective Union (no Negro members; and officer responded, “I have never heard of a good Negro gardener”)

Machinists’ Helpers and Laborers Union, Washington, Indiana (contracts with employers had language not to hire “any Negroes or foreign men for twenty years”)

Order of Railway Conductors of America (membership limited to “any white man”)

Die and Cutter Makers (“Nothing doing on the Negro”)

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineermen (bylaws and constitution deny membership to Negroes);

International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America (“There is a future for the race but it must not be forced on the white race”)

American Wire Weavers’ Association (admits only white males)

The Paving Cutters’ Union of the United States and Canada (“the white man will not, especially in the South, … tolerate the Negro to be on the same level as himself”)

Waycross, Georgia Trade and Labor Assembly (secretary believes that “Negro workers ‘are treacherous and unreliable’”)

The list goes on.

Remarkably, these practices continued after King was assassinated. It took lawsuits to tear down segregation. Examples follow:

Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. (5^th Cir. 1974) (prior to 1961, company had exclusively black jobs and exclusively white jobs)

Long v. Georgia Kraft Co., 455 F.2d 331 (5^th Cir. 1972) (local union segregated 190 members in an all-white local, and 80 members in an all-black local);

Local 53 of Int’l Ass’n of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047 (5^th Cir. 1969) (mechanics union’s refused to consider minorities for membership)

Local Union No. 12, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 368 F.12, 19 (5^th Cir. 1966) (union opposed racial desegregation of shower and toilet facilities)

The list goes on.

Will America follow the path of integration or return to segregation? The next few years will be critical.

White Cotton Balls: A Senator Lies on TV

Sen. Tom Cotton is a smooth talking race-baiting senator from Arkansas—and an accomplished liar. Here is what I am talking about— a quote from a transcript on Face the Nation (Transcript: Sen. Tom Cotton on "Face the Nation," Jan. 14, 2018, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-sen-tom-cotton-on-face-the-nation-jan-14-2018/).

If you change our immigration system to a skills-based system that respects and treats people for who they are as individuals as opposed to residents of a certain country or relatives of certain people in the United States, it's a system that is more in keeping with American values.

How is this a lie? Start with Melania Trump, who came to the U.S. on a fashion model visa, called O-1. 

Fashion models can also qualify for “specialty occupation” visa, called an H-1B3.

Country of origin is immaterial—it is a very high standards skills based visa. 

Melania, by the way, comes from a poor eastern European country, Romania.

The U.S. immigration system has a large number of work visas that are keyed to skills.

Here are two, among more than a dozen:

EB-1: Extraordinary Ability. You must be able to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim. Your achievements must be recognized in your field through extensive documentation. No offer of employment is required.

H-1B Temporary Worker in a Specialty Occupation: Individuals in the U.S. to perform professional services for a sponsoring employer in a specific position for a fixed period of time.

Sen. Cotton knows this. He is a Harvard educated lawyer who is playing to his Arkansas base of immigrant fearing, mostly older white constituents.

Tell the truth, Sen. Cotton. We have a skills based system. Yes, it needs reform. It is expensive and out of touch with various labor markets. It encourages people to sneak into the U.S. because it is so cumbersome. But your quote in red text? That took some white Cotton balls.

“Shithole” Inventor from Uganda Designs Smart Jacket to Diagnose Pneumonia

President Trump, who rejected a bipartisan deal this afternoon because it admits Africans from “shithole” countries, doesn’t need to worry about Brian Turyabagye immigrating to the U.S.  After studying in his native Uganda, Turyabagye went to Great Britain to advance his studies and career in biomedical engineering. 

Turyabagye was deeply motivated by a misdiagnosis in Africa of a friend’s grandmother’s illness. Doctors treated the seriously ill woman for malaria. Later, they realized she was dying from pneumonia. Too late. The woman died.

He and his team of researchers have developed a biomedical kit for early diagnosis and continuous monitoring of pneumonia patients.

The jacket distinguishes pneumonia’s peculiar symptoms for temperature, breathing rate and sound of the lungs – and eliminates most human error, diagnosing pneumonia at a rate three to four times faster than a doctor.

He named it “Mamaope”, or “mother’s hope” – a reference to the 27,000 children who die of pneumonia in Uganda every year.

Read more in the Guardian, here: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/01/medical-smart-jacket-tackles-misdiagnosis-of-pneumonia

Old Fossil Fuels Trump's D.C. Swamp

This memo is a wish list obtained by the New York Times, and written to Vice President Mike Pence.

The author is Robert E. Murray, a coal baron who has spent sixty years in the industry largely fighting the United Mine Workers, environmental regulations, “debunking” climate change … and now, paying President Trump’s inaugural committee $300,000 to gain special access to federal regulators.

The NYT reports that 14 major “wishes” have already been granted—for example, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, curtailing carbon gas sequestration programs, and installing Big Coal’s chief lawyer in the No. 2 slot at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ironically, Mr. Murray needed an oxygen tank at his side when he testified before a West Virginia regulatory panel on clean air.  

How Immigration Proposal Would Hurt Pro Sports

The Republican sponsored RAISE Act, “Reforming American Immigration for Strong Economy,” would cut lawful immigration by about half. 

The proposal would create a “merit” score. The three largest scoring factors would be (1) age [younger applicants get a higher score], (2) English fluency, and (3) education (college degree would get higher scores).

If enacted, this law would screen out hundreds of pro athletes. Why? Because many athletes are not fluent in English; and many do not have a college degree.

(See picture of Albert Pujols— from Dominican Republic— from his rookie year in 2001.)

Let’s break this down by sports. The figures are for 2017 rosters.

Major League Baseball: Only 71% of players were American-born. Players from the Dominican Republic comprise 11% of MLB rosters. Combined, foreign nationals make up 29% of the all major league teams.

NBA: Only 80% of NBA players were born in the U.S. About 12% were born in a European nation. The other 8% come from South American, African, and Asian nations.

NHL: Only 27% of NHL players were born in the U.S.; 46% were born in Canada; and 26% were born in Europe. Put another way: 73% of the league is comprised of foreign nationals. 
NFL: 97% of players were born in the U.S.

Bottom line: Three leagues—baseball, basketball and hockey— would be hurt by the RAISE Act. Perhaps the bill would be amended to create special treatment for these leagues. That would set off a line of industries who would want special treatment— places such as the Mayo Clinic, research universities, but also agricultural employers such as Dole and Cargill, and others, all of whom rely on the legal immigration system for their business operations.

(Source: Gregor Aisch, Kevin Quely, and Rory Smith, Where Athletes in the Premier League, the N.B.A. and Other Sports Leagues Come From, in 15 Charts, N.Y. Times (Dec. 29, 2017) (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/29/upshot/internationalization-of-pro-sports-leagues-premier-league.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0#MLB).

Immigration Overhaul: What You Should Know about the Gang of Eight

For the time since 2013, there is a small glimmer of hope that Congress and the president will agree to comprehensive immigration reforms.

The “Gang of Eight” was a bi-partisan group of eight United States senators—four Democrats and four Republicans—who wrote the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill (modeled after a failed bill in 2007, shown above).

Officially, their bill was called the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (commonly known as "the immigration bill").

The Senate passed the bill in June 2013 with broad support— 68–32 (14 Republicans joined all Democrats). The bill never even made it to a committee hearing in the House. 

Speaker John Boehner spiked the bill—in hindsight, emboldening the extreme Tea Party forces that ran him out of the House a short time later, and uncorked our angry politics over immigration.

Who comprised the Gang of Eight? Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL; Sen. Jeff Flake, R-AZ; Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC; Sen. John McCain, R-AZ; Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ; Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL; and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY. They are all in office today.

The main points of the compromise bill:

… A path to citizenship for unlawfully present aliens.

… Bolstered border security and visa tracking.

… Permanent residence for unlawful present aliens, only after legal [non-immigrant aliens] waiting for a current priority date receive their permanent residence status (e.g., the 220,000 Salvadorans on TPS status).

… A different citizenship path for agricultural workers through an agricultural worker program.

… Business immigration system reforms, focusing on reducing current visa backlogs and fast tracking permanent residence for U.S. university [student visa] immigrant graduates with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or math also known as the STEM fields.

… An expanded and improved employment verification system for all employers to confirm employee work authorization.

… Improved work visa options for low-skilled workers including an agricultural worker program.

At an extraordinary noon luncheon at the White House attended by leaders from both parties, Pres. Trump signaled a willingness to do a comprehensive reform bill. Whether he understands what this means or simply wants positive approval ratings is not important. If this bill gets done along the 2013 (and 2007) lines and is signed, it will help to keep America great. (The legislation would fundamentally alter the president's relationship with his base; hence, little reason to be hopeful for its passage.)

More "Winning" for American Workers

A lockout is a strike in reverse: An employer bars union-represented workers from coming to work. In this case, Honeywell bargained with a union over changes to employee health insurance. The union did not agree to the company’s proposal—but the union did not strike.

In May 2016, the company  locked out workers in Indiana and New Jersey who manufacture brakes for aircraft.

The lockout last 10 months.

During this time, the company hired replacement workers. Production was maintained, and pressure was applied to union-workers who were out on the street without a job because their union did not agree to terms.

After 10 months, the company withdrew its health insurance offer and maintained the status quo policy.

The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Honeywell for locking out workers without continuing to bargain.

Today, President Trump’s General Counsel— the chief prosecutor for NLRB complaints against employers and unions—withdrew the union’s complaint without explanation or comment.

If he were telling it from his boss’s point of view, he might have tweeted, “This is more winning for the American worker— just like the workers at the Indianapolis Carrier plant who are being laid off this month.”

Phasing Out Compassion for Natural Disaster Victims

Tomorrow, the Trump administration will announce whether it will renew visas for nearly 200,000 Salvadorans who have been living in the United States under temporary legal immigration status for nearly two decades. Likely, they will end TPS status for these immigrants.

In 1990, Sen. Ted Kennedy and President George H.W. Bush agreed on an important change to American immigration laws. They believed that there should be a legal process for people to come to the U.S. when foreign nations are rocked by earthquakes (example: Haiti, 2010), hurricanes (Hurricane Mitch, 1998) and civil wars (Serbians and Bosnians, 1990s). This program is known as TPS— Temporary Protected Status. Sen. Kennedy sponsored the 1990 law; President Bush signed it.

Critics say that “temporary” really means permanent, and they are right.

But critics leave out a lot more about TPS. For one, Congress has tried unsuccessfully to allow TPS immigrants to qualify for green cards (creating permanent residency). But more importantly, TPS immigrants have a great track record of being productive members of American society.

An interview in the Miami Herald summarizes the past 20 years of a Nicaraguan man who came to the U.S. under TPS. He started out by cleaning homes. Twenty years later, he owns a cleaning business and employs six people. By 2019, he will face deportation if he doesn’t return to Nicaragua. The story is here (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article184264498.html).

Since 1990, Republican and Democratic administrations have admitted 437,000 people from 10 countries who were caught in the middle of civil wars or were homeless after severe earthquakes and hurricanes.

A spokesman for the National TPS Alliance says, “Congress should consider the humanity, the dignity, of these families and give them some kind of a solution. There are children who have been born in this country. These are families who have given their best to this country.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the Trump administration’s plan to phase out TPS. They noted, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey and Irma that large numbers of TPS recipients work in the construction industries in portions of Texas and Florida hit hard by hurricanes in 2017.

Trump Tax Buster: Meet Professor David Kamin

A key part of the new tax bill punishes states with high state and local taxes by limiting deductions to $10,000 per year. Prof. David Kamin (NYU Law School, pictured) has developed a strategy for states such as Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California to offset this part of the law.

A tax law authority, Prof. Kamin begins with a favorite policy of conservatives. Some states use the tax code to shower benefits on religious schools without crossing the First Amendment boundary that requires separation of church and state.

Here’s how states do this. Say you want to send your child to fill-in-the-blank Religious High School. Instead of paying tuition, if you pay the school a donation the state tax law rewards you—not once but twice. 

First, it gives you a credit on your state tax bill; and second, this allows you to use the federal tax code to made a deduction against your federal income taxes.

Let’s use some numbers to illustrate. 

Okay, your tuition was going to be $10,000; but instead you “donated” $10,000 to the school. Now, the state takes a $1,000 off your final state income tax bill—that’s the credit part. Pause…. What just happened here was a backdoor method of state funding of a religious school. 

But that’s not all. Now, as you turn to your federal taxes, you can count the $10,000 “donation” as a deduction against your federal tax bill. That might reduce your federal tax bill by about $2,500.

Bottom line: This disguised religious-school subsidy takes your $10,000 tuition bill, and—voila!— makes it a $3,500 tax saving if you will simply make a donation in lieu of a tuition payment.

Now here’s Prof. Kamin’s pitch to states with high local taxes (that often support public services, including forms of care and education for developmentally disabled children, to cite one example; or more broadly, Medicaid to an expanded group of low income citizens): After taxpayers exhaust their $10,000 limit of federal income tax deductions, allow taxpayers to make a donation to the state—just like the religious-school parent does above-- and get a tax credit for doing so (this would incentivize these "donations"). 

So, if your total state and local tax bills are, say, $20,000, you can donate $10,000 to the state and local (e.g., county) taxing authorities [the difference between your $10,000 federal amount that can be deducted and the $20,000 you owe in total state and local taxes].

What does that do for you? 

It allows you to deduct your first $10,000 of taxes per the Trump tax bill. Then, just like the conservative state treats the disguised tuition payment as a “donation,” it allows the taxpayer in the liberal state to treat her disguised tax payment as a “donation.” 

The net result: The taxpayer avoids the Trump tax penalty that was intended to punish people in liberal states by limiting deductions to $10,000. These taxpayers get the same bang-for-the-buck in taking a deduction as the religious school “donor” (in other words, the Kamin plan simply substitutes the state for the religious school).

Would You Be Okay with Unlicensed Health Care Professionals?

The Koch brothers believe that government excessively regulates labor laws. Yes, they despise unions.

But now that the Kochs have killed labor laws in states such as Wisconsin and Iowa, they want more: They want to deregulate professions that require skills-testing, educational requirements, and state-enforced standards.

In 2017, the Koch’s proxy group—with the Orwellian name, Americans for Prosperity— introduced a bill in the Iowa state house.

As reported by the Des Moines Register: “The bill would have substituted undefined registration for formal licensure for dietitians, athletic trainers, funeral directors, mental health counselors, marital therapists, social workers, speech pathologists and audiologists. It would have ended all licensure requirements for respiratory therapists, massage therapists, hearing-aid specialists, barbers and interior designers… Professionals told legislators Monday that the licensure requirements ensure proper training and oversight. The licenses also are required by many public and private insurance plans that pay for health-care services, they said.

…

“It’s a safeguard for the public,’ said Kenneth Cameron, a mental health counselor for Aspire Counseling Center in Des Moines. Without licenses, he said, counselors would be laughed at if they tried to submit bills to insurance companies. ‘Are you kidding me? It would never happen.”’ 

Every Democrat opposed the bill. Republicans were split. Thankfully, a sensible Republican tore up the bill in a public hearing. He said he received over 3,500 phone calls and emails—every single one opposing the Koch-sponsored bill.

White Nationalism 2018 Echoes KKK 100 Years Ago

As we enter 2018, it is helpful to recall that the second wave of the KKK surged in popularity from 1915 to 1920—and eventually faded, after a murderous wave of lynchings and voter suppression.

Here is what John Moffatt Mecklin wrote in his seminal study of the KKK— published in 1924— titled The Ku Klux Klan: A Case Study of the American Mind:

“Through its stand for law and order, the Klan gained the support of many of the best citizens made uneasy by the lawlessness of post-war days.”

Specifically, Mecklin referred to agitations by a newly formed civil rights group, the NAACP, that protested for equal treatment of black soldiers returning from battle in WWI. 

Now compare this train of thought to President Trump, who infamously called upon police to treat black suspects rougher. In a speech before a national police organization last summer, Trump delivered a combative law-and-order speech in a New York suburb, calling gang members “animals” and praising law enforcement for being "rough."

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon. You see them thrown in rough. I said, ‘Please don't be too nice,’” referring to police officers shielding prisoners’ heads with their hands.

Interesting to note, all the police behind President Trump during this speech are white.