On February 15, 2019, in Washington, DC, US President Trump spoke at the White House Rose Garden, re-emphasizing the construction of the US-Mexico boundary wall to defend the security of the southern border region of the United States. After giving the speech, he went into the office and signed a statement announcing the state's state of emergency, thus bypassing the Congress to obtain more funds for repairing the wall. Visual China Figure
US President Trump was accused, again?
A few days ago, 16 states in the United States, headed by California, filed a joint lawsuit, accusing President Trump of declaring a national state of emergency violation of the Constitution. They also asked the court to issue an interim injunction. The incident stems from Trump's announcement of a state of emergency on February 15th to address the national security crisis and humanitarian crisis on the southern border. The urgency and crisis referred to here are nothing more than illegal immigrants and the long-standing wall-building problem between the two parties. It can be described as a disaster.
Emergency How urgent is it?
The announcement of a state of emergency in the United States has made the world a daze.
But there is no need to be so nervous. The US president's announcement of a state of emergency is not new.
In 1976, the US National Emergency Law passed. In 1979, when the US President Carter first used the written law, he aimed to freeze all Iranian assets in the United States to solve the hostage crisis at that time.
For more than 40 years, the United States has announced 58 national emergencies. Among them, Trump has three times. More interestingly, many emergencies are prolonged. In fact, more than half of the states of emergency continue to be effective.
Of course, the discussion and use of the state of emergency and the emergency privilege of the president existed before 1976. At the time of the creation of the US Constitution, Hamilton believed that the necessary power for joint defense... should be unrestricted, because it is impossible to predict or stipulate the scope and changes of the state of emergency; during the Civil War, President Lincoln did not have a resolution. Authorized for military arrests and interrogations of suspected infidelity and rebellion, defending the expansion of presidential power in a state of emergency; after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1942, President Roosevelt authorized the Ministry of the Army on the grounds that the country was in danger. To impose any necessary restrictions on those living in the theater of war, for this reason, a number of military jurisdictions in the United States imposed a curfew on Japanese residents and set up a settlement center for the Nazi concentration camp by the then Federal Supreme Court Justice Murphybi. During the various Vietnam Wars, the Korean War and the Iraq War, the President also sought more urgent privileges.
However, overall, their state of emergency is a basic consensus. Needless to say, most of the state of emergency in peacetime is a gunshot. For example, in 1996, Clinton declared a state of emergency, prohibiting any ships and aircraft from entering the territorial airspace of Cuba without the authorization of the federal government. Some are purely local crises, such as the 2009 H1N1 swine flu outbreak.
And now, illegal immigrants? Can this be considered a state of emergency? The president, the reporters, and the United States all have a slap in the face.
Promise 10 million, repair the wall 1
In recent years, the importance of illegal immigration issues in American politics has become increasingly prominent. Trump has always resolutely fulfilled his promise as his motto. Among them, opposing illegal immigration is a top priority, and repairing the wall is now the first and foremost matter.
When Trump took office, he signed two administrative orders to build walls at the US-Mexico border and increase enforcement of illegal immigrants. In his first year in office, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States increased by 30%. He also promoted comprehensive reform of the immigration system from the revision of the law. The US government also expressed its views internationally and announced its withdrawal from the New York Immigration and Refugee Declaration adopted by the United Nations in September 2016. At the time, the US ambassador to the United Nations, He Li, said: The contents of the declaration damage the sovereignty of the United States. We will decide how to be better. Control the border and decide who can enter our country.
The matter of repairing the wall is very tight, but it is full of twists and turns, and the climax is more and more dramatic.
First, Trump intends to abolish Obama's childhood immigration deferred repatriation plan and implement his own immigration policy reform. So the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi, was voted for obstructing the bill. She made an eight-hour, seven-minute speech and successfully used up the time so that the parliament did not have time to vote, resulting in the failure of the second year's budget bill. By the end, the government can only close down.
Next, the two sides disputed that the budget bill contained no wall fees. When the budget plan with the wall repair fee was released, it was rejected in the Senate. The lengthy debate rules of the Senate are more relaxed, and there are more ways to block the bill. In this way, the same story will be replayed with a little change. On December 21, 2018, the Senate debated endlessly, and in the early hours of the 22nd, the previous federal budget funds would be exhausted. Trump waited, waited, from the sun to the sunset, had to announce again, closing the door.
After the midterm elections, the Democratic Party took up the majority. Now that Pelosi is the speaker, it is even more pointed. After several rounds of confrontation, Trump seemed to compromise for a while, the government opened, and the budget was reduced by one-third.
But, he immediately announced that he was in a state of emergency! In this way, Trump can take a little bit of defense funds to repair his wall.
Whether the wall is repaired, who is the tears? Is it illegal immigrant?
So, how about repairing the wall, is it good?
To say that Trump's harsh attitude towards illegal immigration is not entirely unreasonable. Illegal immigrants have caused insecurity at the border, increased police input, competition for social resources, and participation in criminal organizations. Some of the allegations are also true. Moreover, there are many people who support such accusations.
But it's interesting to note that the two parties have made a lot of money for the $5.7 billion wall-building cost, and undocumented immigrants contribute more than $11.6 billion in state and local taxes each year. If 11 million undocumented immigrants can turn positive, then these taxes may increase by nearly $2 billion.
And, despite the support of the wall builders, the number of illegal immigrants has not increased since 2007. For the southern frontier that triggered the national emergency, the situation has greatly improved in recent years. In 2000, US border management intercepted 1.6 million Mexican illegal immigrants, compared with 188,000 in 2015. In addition to border security work, the number of border inspections has increased five-fold between 1992 and 2010. Mexico itself is also changing, and its birth rate has declined since the 1970s. The US border is already becoming safer.
Moreover, the impact of local labor is positive and negative. When they are an alternative to illegal immigrant workers in Mexico, illegal immigrants have a negative impact on their income. But the extremely low wages of illegal immigrants will also benefit others. A survey of the social impact of illegal immigrants found that for every 1% increase in the number of illegal immigrant workers, the income level of employees increased by about 0.1%. This may be because when illegal workers earn less and the company profits are higher, others benefit, and it can be said that companies benefit from a richer workforce skill set.
According to private analysis by rating agency Moody's, in 2007, Arizona suppressed illegal immigrants, causing the local economy to shrink by 2%.
It is foreseeable that even if the wall is successful, the wall can be fulfilled, but its so-called positive economic effects may be difficult to achieve. The expulsion of all illegal immigrants may result in a decline in the income of most workers.
Whether the wall is repaired, who is the tears? Is it an immigrant?
Moreover, the wall repair seems to be aimed only at illegal immigrants, but its background is the US resistance and rejection of immigrants. In fact, immigration policy reforms also include restrictions on legal immigration, and Trump also said that it will limit the work visa for skilled immigrants. Exclusion is actually all-round. The reason is that it can protect Americans from being taken away by immigrants, or to protect US security, not being stolen by immigrants, and so on.
However, the contribution of immigrants to the US economy is actually very large, and even the role of job creation is great.
From a low-skilled field, foreign-born workers account for about 17% of the US workforce, but 52% in the US nanny market, 47% in rooftop workers, and 40% in construction, laundry, and cleaners. %. Moreover, this may not be an alternative effect that everyone imagines, but is being supplemented. Many American-born people refuse low-paying and manual work. In 2011, nearly 500,000 people were unemployed in North Carolina. The state harvested 6,500 agricultural workers during the farm harvest season, but only 268 US-born people applied, 245 were employed, and 163 workers were employed on the first day, insisting that the harvest was completed. Only 7 people.
From the perspective of high-skilled fields, immigrants have established 40% of Forbes 500 companies in the first or second generation, and immigrants have an important position and role in innovative companies. For example, the father of Apple founder Steve Jobs was a Syrian refugee, and Google founder Sergey Brin was born in Moscow. Of the 87 unicorn companies in the United States that are valued at $1 billion, 44 are founders of immigrants. For example, Space X founder Elon Musk and Uber founder Garrett Camp. Among these companies, 70% of executives and product teams have immigrants.
Immigration stimulates technological innovation and productivity in the United States. In general, it may be creating more jobs and raising everyone's pay, not the other way around.
Therefore, the repair of the wall, I am afraid it is not as simple as a physical wall, but a psychological wall, a conservative and exclusive wall.
Many studies have shown that immigrants are helping to promote every sector and industry in the economy by pushing American-born workers to the labor market rather than launching markets. If there is a wall that will block immigrants from the wall, economic growth and job opportunities may suffer.
Whether the wall is repaired, who is the tears? Is it an opposition party?
Of course, the success of repairing walls has long exceeded economic issues, and even surpassed social issues, and became a political issue, and staged a brilliant game on the administrative mechanism.
In just a few months, many record events were born. Including the lengthy speeches made by Ms. Pelosi to obstruct the vote of the bill, breaking the time record; together with the President, she created the record of the government's closure three times a year for the first time in 40 years; of course, the announcement of a state of emergency is not new, but it used to be I am afraid that those emergency situations do not involve the US President's spending on funds that have not been specifically disbursed by Congress.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks, George W. Bush declared a state of emergency. The Patriot Act turned the administrative power in a state of emergency into an operational reality, clearing the legal barriers to monitoring and monitoring for the federal government. The excessive expansion of government power has begun to be questioned more. Today, people are more strongly questioning the rationality of emergency privileges.
The current lawsuit against the emergency order was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, which has repeatedly ruled against Trump's policy. But the final ruling may be made by the Supreme Court.
There was a precedent in the history of the only judicial intervention in the state of emergency. In 1952, then President Truman tried to use an administrative order during the Korean War to force the reception of most steel mills in the United States to prevent the US Steelworks Workers' Union from organizing strikes. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the president did not have the power granted by law to forcibly possess private property, and became a very rare case in the history of the state of emergency in the state of war.
Maybe, when the law gives the president the privilege of transcending the law in a state of emergency, law is needed to regulate this extra-privilege.
However, in any case, the challenge of the overall administrative mechanism is the biggest problem in the United States today, whether it is the frequent closure of the government caused by partisanship, the unconventional use of the emergency bill, and the use of national defense funds. The wall is just an appearance. The key is whether the administrative mechanism has been used reasonably, whether it gives some people too much power, and whether their procedural checks and balances have been used properly. Because the administrative mechanism must effectively ensure the efficient and rational use of funds and resources, otherwise, the victims will be the economy and society.
When the checks and balances mechanism may gradually fail, when the frictional cost brought by the game mechanism is too high, the administrative mechanism becomes a battlefield for political wrestling. For politics, politics may have the upper hand to become the subject, and the social and economic goals are instead. Become blurred.
This may not only be external, but also a wall that surrounds you and needs to be broken.
Repairing the wall, but $5.7 billion, compared with the US fiscal expenditure and debt ceiling, the district is only a small number. What worries the market more may not be the repair of the wall itself, but the deep-seated problems hidden behind it. Whether it is to treat conservatism on the issue of immigration or liberalism, or to deal with the checks and balances on the issue of party struggle or political confrontation, it is a structural issue.
Repairing the wall Success is a small problem, and the structural wall is in the heart. Under a contradictory state, does the United States want to come out of the wall or want to run into the wall? The world will wait and see.
(Author Wan Wei is an economist, news special commentator)