A Bad Week For Legal Immigration

Republicans have long claimed to support legal immigration, even as they pursue a hardline against illegal immigrants. I’ve written before how that has not been necessarily true of the Trump Administration, which has introduced a number of policies aimed at curbing legal immigration. This week yielded more bad news for proponents of legal immigration.

The first bit of bad news was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Trump Administration’s rule blocking asylum-seekers from asking for asylum in the United States if they pass through a third country and don’t ask for asylum there first. The Court did not rule on the merits of the case but struck down an injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that prevented the government from enforcing the policy while the case was being heard.

From the perspective of proponents of legal immigration, the new policy is a bad one for several reasons. The law is aimed primarily at Central American refugees who pass through Mexico in order to ask for asylum in the US. Applying for asylum is legal under US law so the policy is clearly intended to discourage legal immigration by making it more difficult and requiring these refugees to seek asylum in Mexico.

For many reasons, Mexico is not an attractive place for asylum-seekers. Our neighbor to the South is itself a poverty-stricken nation that is plagued by drug violence. It is unlikely that Mexico can accommodate a large influx of refugees. The fact that Mexico itself is the source of many migrants to the US says a lot about the country’s ability to accept refugees.

On the other side, Republicans claim that immigrants are abusing the asylum law by asking for asylum because they are seeking economic opportunity rather than because they are part of a persecuted group. Data from the National Immigration Forum shows that in 2016, the most recent year for which complete data was available, immigration courts granted approval to asylum-seekers in 28 percent of cases. Interestingly, the largest source of asylum-seekers is China, a country that will not be affected by the new policy since most Chinese immigrants can fly directly to the US from their homeland.

The ultimate question before the Court should not be whether the Trump Administration’s policy is wise or humanitarian but whether the president has the legal authority to change US immigration law. Does the law passed by Congress grant the president the leeway to unilaterally make such a significant change? In barring the government from enforcing the rule, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar wrote that the policy “is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.” It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide that question, but, for now at least, the Trump Administration has another tool for turning back Central American refugees.

The second blow to legal immigration was President Trump’s decision to deny citizens of the Bahamas temporary protected status in the wake of the devastation to their country left by Hurricane Dorian. The storm left at least 50 people dead and about 2,500 are missing. An estimated 70,000 more are homeless.

Temporary protected status would allow Bahamians to temporarily live and work in the United States while their country recovers, but Reuters reported on Wednesday that the program, which currently includes about 300,000 people from 10 different countries affected by natural disasters and wars, would not be extended to hurricane refugees. Per Axios, a TPS designation would affect only those Bahamians in the US at the time of the designation, an estimated 1,500 people. Officials from Florida had requested TPS status to allow Bahamian refugees to live with families in that state earlier this week.

“The Bahamians impacted by Hurricane Dorian are facing a humanitarian crisis, and the American government, international partners and private organizations continue to support them with aid and services. At this time, we do not plan to invoke Temporary Protected Status for those currently in the United States,” a White House official said.

There seems to be no leeway in accepting Bahamian refugees. Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan of U.S. Customs and Border Protection initially said, “We will accept anyone on humanitarian reasons that needs to come here” and that, “If your life is in jeopardy and you're in the Bahamas and you want to get to the United States, you're going to be allowed to come to the United States, whether you have travel documents or not.”

But President Trump overruled Morgan on Monday, telling reporters, “We have to be very careful. Everybody needs totally proper documentation. The Bahamas had some tremendous problems with people going to the Bahamas that weren’t supposed to be there. I don't want to allow people that weren't supposed to be in the Bahamas to come into the United States, including some very bad people and some very bad gang members, and some very, very bad drug dealers. So, we're going to be very strong on that.”

“Bahamians must be in possession of a valid, unexpired passport or a Bahamian Travel Document listing nationality as Bahamian. Bahamians arriving to the United States by vessel must be in possession of a valid passport AND valid travel visa,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Monday. “Travelers who would otherwise qualify for the Visa Waiver Program and who travel by air from a CBP Preclearance facility in Freeport or Nassau may not need a U.S. visitor's visa.” The DHS statement also contradicts Morgan.

It is understandable to want immigrants to come to the US legally, but it is not understandable to insist that people obey the law and then make the law almost impossible to follow. “I want tremendous numbers of people to come in,” Donald Trump said in 2015 as he promised a “big beautiful door in the wall,” but, since becoming president, the door to legal immigration has been pushed further closed by Trump’s policies.

If Republicans really want to encourage legal immigration, the process should be made easier, not more difficult. If not, they should be honest about it.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Debates Exposed Schisms In Democratic Party

The most important takeaway from the second round of Democratic debates, other than the fact that Joe Biden performs better after a practice round, is that there is a deep division within the Democratic Party. Contrary to claims by many of the pundit class, the Democrats are not all in lockstep solidarity with the democratic-socialist left. Over the past two nights, several Democratic candidates sounded almost (but not quite) conservative.

In particular, there seems to be an ongoing struggle between different factions of the party with respect to two issues: immigration and health insurance. Several sharp exchanges in the debates related to whether healthcare reform plans should eliminate private medical insurance in favor of Medicare-for-all and whether illegal immigration should be decriminalized.

Joe Biden led off the second night of debates with an attack on Kamala Harris’ plan to replace private health insurance, saying, “There is no talk about the fact that the plan in 10 years will cost $3 trillion. You will lose your employer-based insurance. And in fact, you know, this is the single most important issue facing the public. And to be very blunt and to be very straightforward, you can't beat President Trump with double-talk on this plan.”

Sounding almost like a conservative, Biden continued, “The plan, no matter how you cut it, costs $3 trillion when it is, in fact, employed, number one. Ten years from now, after two terms of the senator being president, after her time. Secondly, it will require middle-class taxes to go up, not down. Thirdly, it will eliminate employer-based insurance. And fourthly, what happens in the meantime?”

Biden is on firmer ground here than Harris. The former vice president was deeply involved with Obamacare, the 2010 health care reform bill that was intensely unpopular until Republicans came close to replacing it in 2017. At that point, Obamacare suddenly gained more fans and maintains a 10-point advantage in polling.

On the other hand, the approval of Medicare-for-all fluctuates wildly in polling and is heavily dependent on the details. AP polling from January found that voters like the idea of Medicare-for-all but not the higher taxes and longer wait times that it could bring. More recently, FiveThirtyEight pointed out that more voters are on board with the idea of allowing people to buy into Medicare voluntarily than in eliminating private insurance and forcing everyone into the program.

This is underscored by the recent endorsement of Joe Biden by the International Association of Fire Fighters, who said in a statement that union members “do not support the concept of abandoning those plans for a government-run single-payer plan,” adding, “The elimination of employer-based insurance in favor of a Medicare-for-all or government-run single-payer proposal is a bad idea that punishes working families who have secured quality healthcare.”

In his opening statement on the first debate night, John Delaney, a former Maryland congressman, argued that the focus on Medicare-for-all could cost Democrats the election. “We can go down the road that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren want to take us with bad policies like Medicare for All, free everything and impossible promises that’ll turn off independent voters and get Trump reelected,” Delaney said. “That’s what happened with McGovern. That’s what happened with Mondale.”

Later that night, Delaney took on Sanders directly, saying, “His math is wrong” and warned that many hospitals across the country would close if they had to rely on Medicare reimbursement rates.

“Why can’t we just give everyone healthcare as a right and allow them to have choice?” Delaney asked. “I’m starting to think this is not about healthcare. This is an anti-private sector strategy.”

Amy Klobuchar voiced similar concerns about the Medicare-for-all plans of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “I just don’t buy… that it’s somehow not moral to not have that public option,” she said.

The other big policy disagreement between the Democrats was over immigration. When former Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro advocated decriminalizing illegal immigration, it was Joe Biden once again who resisted the urge to pile on the popular liberal talking point.

“I have guts enough to say his plan doesn't make sense,” Biden responded to Castro. “Here's the deal. The fact of the matter is that, in fact, when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they're seeking asylum. People should have to get in line. That's the problem. And the only reason this particular part of the law is being abused is because of Donald Trump. We should defeat Donald Trump and end this practice.”

There was one other issue where one Democrat sounded more conservative than present-day Republicans. At one point, John Delaney mounted a spirited defense of free trade, something rarely heard these days in either party.

“So listen, this is what I don’t understand,” Delaney postulated. “President Trump wants to build physical walls and beats up on immigrants. Most of the folks running for president want to build economic walls to free trade and beat up on President Obama.”

“I’m the only one running for president who actually supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Delaney continued. “President Obama was right about that. We should be getting back in that. Senator Warren just issued a trade plan that would prevent the United States from trading with its allies. We can’t go and we can’t isolate ourselves from the world. We have to engage with fair, rules-based trade.”

At the end of the two nights, it was obvious that there are two different overlapping factions within the Democratic Party. One is the Obama faction represented by candidates like Biden, Delaney, Klobuchar. The other is the far-left faction of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. After attempting to keep one foot on both sides of the party in recent months, Joe Biden seems to have firmly embraced his position in the moderate lane.

As I’ve argued in the past, Biden is the dominant moderate candidate in the Democratic primary while numerous strong candidates are vying for the limited number of progressive votes. Barring unforeseen circumstances such as a gaffe of Trumpian proportions or a sudden health problem, this makes Biden likely to become the eventual nominee.

It also makes Biden likely to eventually become president. As he stakes down middle-of-the-road policy positions, he makes himself palatable to the moderate and independent voters who will decide the election, voters who have been all but ignored by Donald Trump for the past three years. As Biden attacks Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, he is also inoculating himself from charges of socialism by Republicans and positioning himself for the general election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

July 27th, 2019 Trump Wins Victory On Wall At Constitution’s Expense

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to lift a stay by a lower court judge preventing President Donald Trump from reprogramming funds appropriated by Congress to build the wall. The decision will allow the president to use $2.5 billion in funds designated for defense spending to begin construction on about 100 miles of border wall. Republicans applauded the decision, but the blows being struck against the Constitution’s balance of powers will have lasting consequences.

The ruling stems from President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency on the southern border last February and move money appropriated by Congress for other purposes to the construction of the border wall. Under the president’s plan, $600 million from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counter-narcotics activities, and $3.6 billion from military construction projects would be reprogrammed to finance construction of the wall. Friday’s ruling regards the $2.5 billion for the Defense Department, which Trump had designated for fencing in Arizona, California, and New Mexico.

Plaintiffs in the case were a group of environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and represented by the ACLU. The groups argued that they had “recreational and aesthetic interests” such as “hiking, birdwatching, [and] photography” in areas near the border. In June, a federal judge appointed by Barack Obama agreed and blocked the transfer of funds. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in a two-to-one vote, noting that Congress had appropriated $1.375 billion for border barriers, rather than the $5.7 billion requested by the president. In the court’s view, that meant that the $2.5 billion had been “denied by the Congress.”

“As for the public interest, we conclude that it is best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction,” Judge Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee, wrote for the court.

The Trump Administration appealed the stay to the Supreme Court, which ruled on Friday, that, “The government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review.” This means that the injunction preventing the Trump Administration from spending the reprogrammed $2.5 billion is lifted and the case returns to the lower court.

The Supreme Court’s five conservatives voted to lift the stay while Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer proposed a compromise in which the government could negotiate contracts but not actually spend the reprogrammed money until the case was fully decided.

While the ruling is understandably being celebrated by Republicans, the decision, along with another June decision by a different federal court, puts the judicial thumb firmly on the executive branch’s side of the scale that represents the balance of federal power. In the June decision, a Trump-appointed judge rejected a similar lawsuit by House Democrats, arguing that the national emergency spending represented a political dispute that was outside his authority to decide.

The fundamental problem is that courts are tying the hands of Congress in the face of abuses of executive authority. President Trump moved the funds under a federal statute that allows money to be reallocated to address “unforeseen needs” that have not been “denied by the Congress.” In the case of the border wall, neither condition applies. The problem of illegal immigration is hardly unforeseen, having been a hot button issue for more than a decade. The question of the border wall is one that has been repeatedly considered and denied by Congress. In fact, Trump’s national emergency declaration came immediately after the government shutdown in which he demanded unsuccessfully that Congress appropriate money for the wall.

As Republicans were fond of noting during the Obama era, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power of the federal purse. If federal courts refuse to rein in an executive that flouts the rule of law in order to bypass an uncooperative Congress, then the constitutional power of Congress is weakened and the president, already much more powerful than the Framers envisioned, becomes even stronger and less accountable. If the courts won’t uphold the constitutional role of Congress in the appropriation of funds then impeachment may be Congress’ only weapon against an out-of-control executive branch.

The judicial battle over national emergency funding for the border wall is not over yet, however. The Sierra Club case will now go back to the lower court to be decided. House Democrats are also appealing the lower court ruling in their own lawsuit against the president’s transfer of funds. It is entirely possible that one or both cases will return to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the question of whether using a national emergency to bypass congressional appropriations is constitutional, rather than the technical question of whether plaintiffs have the legal standing to sue.  

The idea that a border wall is the answer to the illegal immigration problem has become an article of faith on the right. Personally, I have my doubts about whether a barrier along the border would be as practical or effective as its proponents claim (click here for details). However, the legal question that needs to be answered is not whether a wall is a good idea but whether the president can unilaterally transfer funds appropriated by Congress to programs that were specifically rejected by Congress.

For Republicans to back the president on that question is to support a broad expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress. Backing that expansion confirms that Republicans are not a small government party of constitutionalists but a party that favors big government solutions when they come from the right. With many new Trump appointees on the bench, it is entirely possible that Republicans may get their wall over the objections of Congress, but the expansion of presidential power may come back to bite them.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Shelves Citizenship Census Question

After an unfriendly Supreme Court ruling last week, the Trump Administration has dropped its controversial attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. A spokesman for the Trump Administration said on Tuesday that they would not appeal the Supreme Court’s decision. President Trump had said as recently as Monday that he would consider delaying the census to appeal the ruling.

“We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 decennial census questionnaire without a citizenship question and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process,” Justice Department attorney Kate Bailey wrote in an email to groups opposing the census question.

In a statement, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross also confirmed, “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question,” also stating, “I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.”

In fact, even though the immigration status of people living within US borders is clearly within the legitimate interests of the federal government, the Supreme Court ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have been the correct decision. The question for conservatives and constitutionalists is how Roberts got from his observation that the “Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire” to his ultimate decision that the Trump Administration violated the law adding the question.

While many pundits are quick to point out that citizenship questions have been asked on the census before, few look to Roberts’ written decision for an answer to the seemingly contradictory statements in the decision. In his justification, the chief justice cited the Administrative Procedures Act, a 1946 law that requires courts to strike down government actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

“The Census Act confers broad authority on the Secretary, but it does not leave his discretion unbounded,” Roberts wrote.

“The Secretary’s decision was supported by the evidence before Him,” Roberts continued. “He examined the Bureau’s analysis of various ways to collect improved citizenship data and explained why he thought the best course was to both reinstate a citizenship question and use citizen-ship data from administrative records to fill in the gaps. He then weighed the value of obtaining more complete and accurate citizenship data against the uncertain risk that reinstating a citizenship question would result in a materially lower response rate, and explained why he thought the benefits of his approach outweighed the risk. That decision was reasonable and reasonably explained, particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census.”

However, Roberts continued, “In order to permit meaningful judicial review, an agency must ‘disclose the basis’ of its action.” This is where Secretary Ross and the Trump Administration ran into problems.

“Viewing the evidence as a whole, this Court shares the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot adequately be explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA [Voting Rights Act],” Roberts stated.

Roberts goes on to describe how enforcement of the VRA seemed secondary to other considerations, despite the government’s claims to the contrary. Ross tried to involve the Justice Department in the census question, but “DOJ’s actions suggest that it was more interested in helping the Commerce Department than in securing the data.”

“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision,” Roberts said. “Unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived.”

In other words, the addition of the citizenship question was not illegal except for the fact that Secretary Ross lied about the reason for wanting to ask the question. Since the Administrative Procedures Act charges the courts to “ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public,” the Supreme Court had a duty to strike down the question when it became apparent that Ross’s justification for asking it was dishonest.

The citizenship question was not struck down because an activist Court wanted to prevent data from being collected about the number of illegal immigrants in the United States (although it is certainly possible that this was the motive of the liberal wing of the Court). The government lost its case because of the reflexive dishonesty of members of the Trump Administration. Given the latitude with which the government is given in conducting the census and the history of census questions about citizenship, there seems to have been no reason for Ross to have lied about the rationale for the question, yet lie he did.

For conservatives and those who wish to abide by the rule of law, the position should be that the government must adhere to the law, even when the law restricts policies that we would favor. If the Court had ignored the Administrative Procedures Act’s requirements for an honest bureaucracy, that would have been an example of judicial activism. To be intellectually and morally consistent, we have to abide by laws that we don’t like as well as those that we do (such as those against illegal immigration).

The ruling also underscores the importance of voting for honest and competent candidates, not just those who say what we want to hear. The addition of the citizenship question could have been accomplished by the administrations of any number of Republicans. Immigration concerns are not unique to the administration of Donald Trump. However, it seems likely that the culture of dishonesty that permeates the Trump Administration from the top down is what ultimately killed the attempt to learn more about noncitizens living within the United States.  

Character matters.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Julian Castro Is The Most Radical Democrat

After watching last night’s Democratic B-Team presidential debate, it’s hard to put a finger on who was the most radical figure on the stage. There was intense competition from Bill de Blasio, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard, but, for my money, Julian Castro won the prize for being the most far-out candidate. Castro, who presented himself well in the debate, nevertheless surpassed the other liberals on the stage not once but twice last night.

It’s difficult to stand out on abortion in a party in which advocacy of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand up to the moment of birth is becoming the norm, but Castro succeeded. How did he do it? you may wonder. I’ll tell you: He did it by advocating abortions for men. No, I’m not making this up.

When asked if his healthcare plan would cover abortion, Mr. Castro, who served as mayor of San Antonio and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Obama, answered, “Yes, it would. I don't believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice.”

“And, you know,” he continued, “What that means is that just because a woman -- or let's also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.”       

For those of you confused about what a “trans female” is (and I confess that I’m in that number), a trans woman is “a person who was born male but whose gender identity is female.” In other words, a trans woman is a man who thinks he is a woman.

By logical extension, a Castro Administration would extend the “right to choose” to men who claim to be women. Castro doesn’t specify what the choices would be but I think we can infer that he means they could choose to kill their unborn baby.

The biological conundrum here is that, since they are men, trans women, cannot get pregnant. Considering this scientific truth, Castro may have stumbled upon an expansion of abortion rights that even pro-life conservatives can get behind since it will neither kill any babies nor cost the taxpayers a dime. The rub is in the details. Castro may be so woke that he would support taxpayer funds to help men get pregnant so that they can then exercise their newfound right to an abortion.

Exactly what “reproductive justice” means is unclear. It probably does not involve due process for unborn babies, however.

Castro may have misspoken or been confused about “trans women,” but can we really be sure that he didn’t say exactly what he meant? This writer would not be surprised either way.

Fresh from his expression of support for gender-neutral of abortion rights, Castro moved on to advocate decriminalizing illegal immigration. After attacking President Trump’s metering policy for asylum-seekers, which he blamed for the drowning death of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his two-year-old daughter, Valeria, this week, Castro launched into his policy proposal.

“On day one, I would do that executive order that would address metering,” he said. “And then I would follow that up in my first 100 days with immigration reform that would honor asylum claims, that would put undocumented immigrants, as long as they haven't committed a serious crime, on a pathway to citizenship.”

“And then we'd get to the root cause of the issue, which is we need a Marshall Plan for Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador so that people can find safety and opportunity at home instead of coming to the United States to seek it,” he continued.

A few seconds later, Castro interrupted Corey Booker’s answer to add to his own, saying, “My plan also includes getting rid of Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, to go back to the way we used to treat this when somebody comes across the border, not to criminalize desperation, to treat that as a civil violation.”

“And here's why it's important,” he said. “We see all of this horrendous family separation. They use that law, Section 1325, to justify under the law separating little children from their families.”

“I want to challenge every single candidate on this stage to support the repeal of Section 1325,” Castro added, noting that Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee have already endorsed the plan.

While Castro’s idea of a Marshall Plan for Latin America has some merit as a way to reduce illegal immigration, repeal of criminal statutes for illegal immigration is a nonstarter. Without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, repeal would be about as successful as Republican attempts to appeal Obamacare and would only harden partisan divisions by providing evidence that Democrats are an open-borders party. Decriminalization of illegal entry into the United States would send the wrong message and encourage more illegal immigration.

Other Democrats were not so quick to sign on to Castro’s plan. In a subsequent exchange, Beto O’Rourke pushed back at Castro’s demand that he endorse repeal of Section 1325 (you can watch the exchange here).

“As a member of a Congress, I helped to introduce legislation that would ensure that we don't criminalize those who are seeking asylum and refuge in this country,” Beto answered.

“I'm not talking about the ones that are seeking asylum,” Castro retorted, leaving no doubt that he meant migrants who cross the border illegally since it is legal to seek asylum. “I'm talking about everybody else.”

“If you're fleeing desperation, then I want to make sure you are treated with respect,” O’Rourke answered, “But you're looking at just one small part of this. I'm talking about a comprehensive rewrite of our immigration laws and if you do that, I don't think it's asking too much for people to follow our laws when they come to this country.”

Castro then retorted that O’Rourke had cited human trafficking and drug smuggling in his opposition to Section 1325 repeal, which he claimed were covered by other parts of the US criminal code, but the exchange exposed a fault line between the open-border Democrats and those who favor a more liberal version of immigration reform.

In a collection of radicals, it is difficult to stand out, but Julian Castro accomplished that last night. Abortions for men and making Beto O’Rourke defend immigration law put the Texas liberal on the far left of the far left. His extreme positions make it unlikely that he can win the Democratic nomination and less likely that he could win the general election, but if Democrats choose to nominate him, the name “Castro” would at least be reflective of the current ideological direction of the Democratic Party. It would be almost like placing a warning label on the ballot.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Relaunches Trade War With Mexico

There is a saying that “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” When it comes to tariffs, Donald Trump is a man with a hammer. Tariffs seem to be his tool of choice to (attempt to) fix any problem.

The most recent example is illegal immigration. Yesterday, President Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican imports on an escalating basis. The president said that tariffs would begin on June 10 at a five percent and rise periodically to 25 percent in October unless Mexico stops “ illegal migrants” from entering the US.

Let’s think about the profound illogic of this plan for a moment. First, Mexico has shown itself to be unable to stop the migrant caravans from crossing its own southern border. We all remember the pictures of thousands of migrants streaming across bridges and overwhelming Mexican border security forces.

On the other hand, the migrant caravans were stopped cold when they reached the US border. After marching across Central American and Mexico for weeks, the majority of migrants stopped in Tijuana and waited for their turn to ask for asylum in accordance with US law.

The inability of the Mexican government to stop the caravans and to track down and detain smaller groups of migrants is a problem, but it does not seem that the problem is due to lack of trying from the Mexican government. In fact, the larger, richer, better-equipped US government has the same problem when confronted with migrants traveling in small groups.

Second, how are tariffs on Mexican imports, supposed to resolve the issue? As we have established before, “tariff” is a fancy word for a tax on trade. Like any tax, such as a sales tax or tax on cigarettes or soft drinks or even increases to the minimum wage, the cost of the tariff tax is passed along to the end user, which in this case is the American consumer. When we acknowledge the reality that tariffs are taxes, Donald Trump quickly becomes one of the biggest tax increasers in American history with much of the burden falling on the American middle and lower-income classes.

Of course, Trump’s hope is that the increased cost of Mexican goods will make Americans stop buying from Mexican companies. Tariffs are intended to raise prices on American consumers, hurting them to eventually hurt foreign companies. But again, it isn’t clear that Mexico could be doing a lot to stop illegal immigration that it isn’t doing already. If there are additional steps that Mexico could take, hurting the country’s economy may not be the best way to encourage them to spend more money on border security. Damaging the Mexican economy would likely result in more illegal immigrants, not fewer. 

There is also the question of how the new tariffs will impact the president’s new US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which has yet to be ratified. The replacement deal for NAFTA may be endangered by the president’s capricious use of tariffs to try to leverage Mexican cooperation. The real danger for the US economy is that the free trade deal will implode, resulting in higher taxes and more regulation on trade with Mexico, which is an important part of the supply chain for many American companies.

President Trump’s tweets suggest that he favors tariffs for their own sake. The protectionist president has called himself “a Tariff Man” and has repeatedly shown a misunderstanding of the economics of tariffs and international trade. He fails to accept the fact that the cost of his tariffs is being borne by American taxpayers and not multinational corporations.

There are signs that Congress, which is now reaping the bitter harvest of tariff laws that delegated too much congressional authority to the executive branch, is starting to resist the president’s tax increases. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) in the House and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in the Senate have been particularly outspoken against the president’s trade policies.

“Trade policy and border security are separate issues. This is a misuse of presidential tariff authority and counter to congressional intent,” Grassley said in a statement, adding that the tariffs “would seriously jeopardize passage of USMCA.” Grassley has suggested in the past that ratification of the USMCA be tied to the removal of tariffs, but, at this point, it is not clear that President Trump values his free trade deal more than his tariffs.

“I support nearly every one of President Trump’s immigration policies, but this is not one of them,” Grassley added.

Meanwhile, markets are roiled as a front on the trade war that was deemed quiet has suddenly flared up again. The economy has been one of Donald Trump’s top strengths and his supporters hold out hope that it will be the key to his re-election, but most of the current weakness and instability in the economy can be traced back to the president’s trade war. It is entirely possible that Trump’s insistence on interfering in international trade will weaken the economy just in time for the election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Good Trump Keeps Border Open While Bad Trump Threatens New Tariffs

Both Good Trump and Bad Trump were on display yesterday as President Trump backed off from his threat to close the Mexican border and simultaneously threatened to add more tariffs to Mexican auto exports to the US. The threat to close the border had sparked fears of a disruption in trade with Mexico that could have led to shortages and price increases on numerous products including avocados.

Addressing reporters at the White House, President Trump said that Mexico was not doing enough to stop cross-border traffic of illegal immigrants and drugs, but that he would give the Mexican government a year to improve.

“We’re going to give them a one-year warning and if the drugs don’t stop, or largely stop, we’re going to put tariffs,” on cars, Trump said. “And if that doesn’t stop the drugs, we close the border.”

When asked if his comments meant that he would not close the border for a year, Mr. Trump answered, “I didn’t say that. We’ll start with the tariffs and see what happens.”

The president did not explain how what he has described as a national emergency at the border could withstand waiting a year to take action.

Trump’s reversal on the threat to close the border was a welcome sign for businesses and economists. After decades of free trade under NAFTA, Mexico ranked as the second-largest export market for American-made goods as well as the second-largest supplier of imported goods to the US per the US Trade Representative. Many corporate supply chains are integrated within both countries with Mexican factories building components for products finished in the United States. Many consumer goods are also imported from Mexico.

Since the president made his threat to close the border, the avocado has become symbolic of the trade with Mexico that would be lost if Mr. Trump follows through. The fruit used in guacamole has become a very popular food in the United States and most of the American supply is imported from Mexico. Some supporters of the president’s strategy argue that avocados are also grown in the US and so the market would not be disrupted if the border was closed.

Several US states do grow avocados. The US produced a total of 292 million pounds of avocados in 2017. Unfortunately for avocado aficionados, Americans consumed about 2.2 billion (with a “b”) pounds of avocados the same year. If avocado imports were cut off from Mexico, the world’s largest producer. The avocado deficit means that the US would certainly suffer a large avocado shortage if supplies from Mexico were cut off.

When a product with high demand is in short supply, the laws of supply and demand take over. Prices increase and demand simultaneously falls. This has already happened as avocado markets reacted to the threat of border closure by increasing avocado prices by 34 percent.

The problem is the same for many other products as for avocados. Cars are one example. Mexico exports more than 2.5 million autos to the US that are produced by almost all major automakers, including popular Ford, Chrysler, and GM models. The application of tariffs or the closure of the border could hit American automakers and consumers hard. It would take years to move production back to the US.

Increasing prices would make it more attractive for American farmers to grow avocados, but the loss of avocado supplies could not be immediately replaced.  As with moving a factory, it takes 3-4 years for newly planted avocado trees to produce fruit. Diverting American farmland to avocado production would also mean that other crops could not be planted, causing shortages of other commodities due to limited resources.

The resources of the Mexican government are also limited. Security forces in the third-world country face a much greater threat from drug cartels than from migrants seeking to make their way to the US border. If the Mexican government gives in to President Trump’s demand to allocate more resources to intercepting and detaining migrants, those resources won’t be battling the cartels and drug smugglers.

While the decision to keep the border open will be welcomed by many Republicans and members of the business community, the president’s threat to step up the tariff war is more problematic. The Trump Administration completed a NAFTA rewrite with Mexico and Canada last year, but the new treaty has yet to be ratified by each country. It is possible that Mexico will refuse to ratify the deal if President Trump continues to threaten new tariffs.

Killing the new version of NAFTA may suit President Trump just fine. Mr. Trump blamed NAFTA for US economic woes on the campaign trail in 2016.  As recently as December, the president threatened to withdraw from NAFTA entirely. Killing the free trade agreement would allow both countries to place tariffs on US goods and could cause an economic shock.

President Trump’s erratic trade policies put the growth of the US economy at risk and work at odds with his regulatory and tax reform. Economic growth surged in the first half of 2018 following the passage of tax reform but slowed to Obama-era levels after the onset of Mr. Trump’s trade war. Growth for the fourth quarter of 2018 was recently revised downward to 2.2 percent, which is below the post-WWII average.

President Trump deserves credit for reversing his decision to close the border, but the reversal merely corrects a self-induced problem that stems from the president’s rash and ill-considered comments of a week earlier. Closing the border would be unlikely to have a significant effect on slowing smuggling and illegal immigration, especially since most new illegals enter the US legally and overstay visas, but it would have a punishing effect on trade and the economy.

If President Trump stands by his threat to close the borde next year, the debate would shift to the runup to the 2020 elections. The issue of a disruption of trade with Mexico could prove to be enough that many business leaders would see the socialist Democrats as less of a threat to the economy than an isolationist Trump Administration.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Cuts To Central American Aid May Spark More Illegal Immigration

President Trump announced over the weekend that his administration will cut aid to three countries that White House staffers said were complicit in sending illegal immigrants to the United States. While the move will certainly be popular among the president’s base, it may prove to have an adverse effect on the problem at the southern border.

Despite a now-infamous chyron from Fox News announcing that the Trump Administration was cutting aid to “three Mexican countries,” the cuts were actually applied to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras but not to Mexico. The three Latin American countries are the source of many of the refugees that have joined migrant caravans seeking to enter the United States. As with many things Trump, there is both good and bad to what we know about the decision.

As a fiscal conservative who believes that the mounting national debt is the worst crisis that we currently face, I applaud almost any curbs to federal spending. The truth, however, is that these cuts are insignificant. The Wall Street Journal notes that the Trump Administration has not specified how much money would be cut, but points out that aid to the three countries amounts to between $500 million and $750 million each. In contrast, several countries in the Middle East and Africa receive more than $1 billion each and the combined amount of aid to all three nations is less than what President Trump has proposed to spend on his wall project.

Per the Journal, the State Department announced on Saturday that it had ended funding for the countries that was appropriated in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, but there was no mention of fiscal year 2019. The White House requested less than $400 million for the three countries in its 2020 budget proposal and pledged $5.8 billion in aid and public and private investment to strengthen economic development in Central America last December. The reversal leaves open the question of whether the policy decision was made on the spur of the moment by President Trump.

The Journal also notes that the White House did not explain how President Trump had the authority to withhold foreign aid payments that were lawfully appropriated by Congress. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limited the president’s authority to impound appropriated funds by requiring that Congress vote to rescind funds that the president does not want to spend. If both the House and Senate do not vote to rescind the money within 45 days of continuous session, the money must be made available to the program for which it was appropriated. Historically, Congress has ignored most rescission requests and the Democrats in the House are unlikely to agree to the president’s request.

The president’s action also does not take into account the Law of Unintended Consequences. Aid to Central America was increased by the Obama Administration after a surge of unaccompanied minors arrived at the southern border in 2014. At the time, the Obama Administration requested $1 billion for a variety of programs that included anti-poverty, security and anti-crime, and anti-corruption initiatives. As US aid increased, the number of illegal border crossings from Latin America fell to its lowest level in decades, reaching a 45-year low in 2017.

Since 2016, the Trump Administration has reduced aid to Central America and the result has been a corresponding increase in illegal immigration. After several court rulings that make it more difficult to detain asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants with children, the number of arrests of family members on the southern border reached a record high in September 2018. In February, the total number of arrests reached a 10-year monthly high. Although the number of illegal border crossings remains low by historical standards, the increases in recent months may be part of a trend toward more illegal immigration under President Trump.

The Trump Administration is caught in cross-purposes with the cuts to foreign aid. While the cuts give President Trump the opportunity to look tough, they will likely exacerbate the problem of illegal immigration. It stands to reason that when money given to poverty-stricken countries for security and economic development is removed that their economic and political stability will get worse. This will create more refugees seeking to both escape political violence and find economic opportunity by immigrating to the United States.

While I am in favor of across-the-board cuts to the federal budget in general, if President Trump wants to slow illegal immigration, foreign aid to Central America seems to be money that has been well spent in terms of slowing the flow of migrants. Eliminating the aid may trigger a new surge of migrant caravans and contribute to what President Trump already considers to be a national emergency on the southern border.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Abuse Of Presidential Power Is The National Emergency

President Trump’s planned declaration of a national emergency on the southern border today is exactly the sort of thing that prompted many conservatives to oppose his presidency. In declaring a national emergency based on Congress’s failure to take action to the president’s liking, Trump sets a horrible precedent that will probably fail to get the wall built and will certainly come back to haunt Republicans.

To begin with, there is no national security emergency.  Illegal border crossings are near a 50-year low even though the arrests of families at the border have increased in recent months. Contrary to Trump Administration claims, there is also no wave of violent crime associated with immigrants, either legal or illegal. Statistically speaking, border counties are some of the safest counties in the country.

If illegal immigration didn’t constitute a national security emergency when the number of illegal border crossings was five times the number that we have today and it wasn’t an emergency in the wake of the September 11 attacks, it is difficult to see how it is an emergency today at much lower levels after 18 years in which no illegal immigrant has been connected to a terrorist attack and more than six times as many suspected terrorists were caught crossing the Canadian border than entering from Mexico.

In fact, illegal immigration wasn’t considered a national emergency for the first two years of President Trump’s presidency. In January 2018, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offered $25 billion for a border barrier, much more than Trump hopes to get from his emergency declaration, but President Trump didn’t accept the deal. If illegal immigration was a national emergency all along, then why didn’t Trump jump at Schumer’s deal? For that matter, why didn’t Trump declare a national emergency two months ago prior to the government shutdown? What changed?

The answer is that Trump was beaten by the Democrats and needs to shore up his base. The crisis is not that illegals are threatening the security of the nation, but that Trump’s poor legislative abilities are threatening his approval rating among Republicans.

Unfortunately, Trump’s emergency declaration is an ill-conceived plan that is borne of desperation and is certain to blow up in his face. As with the shutdown, the president is attempting to use an unpopular strategy to enact an unpopular policy. By two-to-one margins, voters oppose an emergency declaration. With the beginning of the 2020 primary season only a year away, the move may spark enough division among Republicans to encourage a primary challenge against Trump. It may also kill Trump’s chances of winning enough moderates and independents to secure a second term.

The move is also unlikely to result in construction of the wall. The president isn’t allowed to declare a national emergency to bypass Congress when legislators choose not to act on longstanding problems. Trump’s decree will be challenged in court and is likely to be overturned.

The worst part of the national emergency declaration is the precedent that it sets. President Trump got his ideas on the use of executive powers from Barack Obama but Trump is pushing the envelope of the imperial presidency even further. The next Democrat is also likely to push the boundaries even more and dare Congress to stop him.

There are many “national emergencies” that Democrats could choose to act upon. They could use executive powers to tackle climate change, assault weapons, the national debt, racism, and who knows what. If the guiding principle is not the Constitution but the ability to rhetorically turn a problem into a crisis, the opportunities for executive action are limited only by Democratic imaginations.

As with President Obama, Donald Trump’s abuses of his executive authority are more of a crisis than the problems that he purports to address. It is past time for Congress to rein in the presidency and put limits on the power of the chief executive to act unilaterally. If Congress doesn’t limit President’s Trump’s abuses of power, it will be up to the voters to do so.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Why Trump’s DACA Offer Failed And What He Should Do Next

President Donald Trump has proposed a compromise offer to end the shutdown impasse and Democrats seem to have rejected it out of hand. While Trump’s deal has been lauded by many Republicans, in reality, it is not as magnanimous as it seems. Even though Trump’s offer is a step in the right direction, it is completely understandable why Democrats have rejected the offer.

Trump’s offer includes $5.7 billion for a wall that would not stretch the full length of the border but be placed in strategic locations. Construction would include the 115 miles now under construction or under contract, and 230 more miles this year. In exchange, the president offered Democrats three years of relief for 700,000 DACA participants. This would include the ability to get work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation.

While the border barrier part of the offer seems fair, the DACA portion is problematic. Essentially what Trump is saying is that if you give me everything I want, I’ll give you something slightly better than the status quo for three years and, at that point, we are back to square one. Trump gets something permanent and the Democrats get something temporary.

A big part of the problem is that Speaker Pelosi knows that Congress is unlikely to fix the immigration problem three years from now. Congress has neglected to act on illegal immigration since 2007, largely because Republicans oppose anything that can be termed “amnesty,” which in their view means “anything other than deportation of all illegals.”

If President Trump wins the 2020 election and Republicans retain control of the Senate, a DACA fix would be dead on arrival. Some radical Republicans oppose a pathway to legalization under any circumstance as much as radical Democrats oppose a wall under any circumstances.

Prospects for a standalone DACA deal look bleak even if Democrats have a good year in 2020. If they win the Senate but not the White House, President Trump can veto the bill. If Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, Republicans will most likely retain enough votes to filibuster a Democrat immigration bill.

For years now, I have held the opinion that the only way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is with a comprehensive reform bill. Both sides want different things and neither has enough votes to pass their own priorities. Both sides do have enough votes to block the other, however, so the result is a stalemate. There are only two possible solutions: Either wait until your party controls the presidency, the House, and has a supermajority in the Senate or else meet in the middle with a compromise.

President Trump is on the right track with his offer, but there are several elements that a successful bill must include. To minimize the effect of the law of unintended consequences as well as to get the necessary votes to pass, a compromise bill must contain:

·        Border security with triggers to make sure that a secure border is in place before the pathway to legalization. Security should go beyond a wall in select areas and include sensors to detect tunnels as well as an increased Border Patrol presence.

·        In exchange, Democrats get a pathway to legalization, not just for DACA participants, but for illegals who reside in the US and hold productive jobs with no record of serious or violent crimes. (Yes, illegal immigration is a crime, but it’s a crime in the same way that speeding is a crime. Improper entry by an alien is a civil infraction punishable by a $50 fine.) Legalization should be on a case-by-case basis with priority toward illegals who benefit their community and the US economy.

·        In exchange for leniency, penalties need to be severe enough to deter future illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration should be a felony punishable by prison time followed by mandatory deportation.

·        E-verify should be implemented to require businesses to hire legal immigrants only. Penalties should be stiff for those who knowingly violate the law.

·        In exchange for stronger penalties, the US needs to revamp current immigration law to make it easier for migrants to legally enter the country to work for US employers and then return home. There should be a guest worker program to avoid a labor shortage when the flow of illegal migrants is cut off.

·        The immigration process for permanent immigrants also needs to be reformed. Currently, the US educates foreign students in our colleges and then denies them green cards to work for our companies. This makes no sense and is actually encouraging companies to move outside the US. Decades-long waits for legal immigration encourage illegal immigration and need to be fixed.

·        Finally, visa overstays make up two-thirds of new illegal aliens. A system to track foreigners here on visas needs to be put into place.

Even with such a sweet deal, Democrats might not take President Trump up on his offer. After two years of name-calling and goading the opposition party, Trump may have so poisoned the well that no deal is possible. However, if Democrats turn down a total and fair reform of the immigration system, they will have to answer to their own base.

Ironically, Donald Trump might be the president who could deliver Republican votes for comprehensive immigration reform. In the same way that only Nixon could go to China, Trump’s hardline reputation on immigration and his devoted following from his base could inspire Republicans to support a comprehensive bill where they would desert most traditional Republicans. However, there is a significant risk for Trump that his base would fracture over what they perceive as amnesty. Anne Coulter is Exhibit A for this possibility.

Despite the risks for Trump, he obviously needs to sweeten the pot to bring Democrats on board. Doing so will require significant and permanent concessions from the GOP. That is the only way that a wall is going to happen.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why The Wall Is Not The Solution To Illegal Immigration

Donald Trump’s wall has been a centerpiece of Republican immigration policy since 2015. The bruising fight over wall funding led the current government shutdown that, at this point, is certain to last into the new year. Aside from funding, however, there is another big problem with the wall: It won’t do what it is intended to do.

The idea of the wall is established on the premise that a physical barrier running the entire length of the US-Mexico border is the only way to prevent illegal immigration. The total length of the US-Mexico border is 1,989 miles (3,201 km) and the sheer length of the border would make the construction of a wall along the southern border a massive undertaking.

Still, a wall of that length is not impossible to build. China’s Great Wall is 5,500 miles (8,850 km) long. Contrary to popular belief, however, the Great Wall is not entirely composed of the wide stone walls that we know from pictures. While about 3,900 miles are constructed wall sections, there are also 225 miles of trenches, and 1,400 miles of natural barriers such as hills and rivers.

Natural barriers are also present along the southern US border. While many Americans picture the Mexican border as a flat, desert wasteland, in reality, there are many different types of terrain. As pictured in an interactive map from USA Today, the border geography ranges from urban areas in places like San Diego and Laredo to the sheer rock cliffs of Texas’ Big Bend to coastal marshes and salt flats along the Gulf of Mexico near Brownsville, Texas.

One of the largest obstacles to the construction of a wall is that 1,260 miles of the border are defined by the Rio Grande. The entire border between Texas and Mexico is defined by this river, which in many places is shallow enough to walk across. At its deepest point, the Rio Grande is only 60 feet deep and at times the river is a mere trickle if there is a surface flow at all.

Walling up the Rio Grande may be possible from an engineering standpoint, but the river raises a different sort of problem in Texas. In the arid regions of south and west Texas, ranchers depend on the Rio Grande to water both crops and cattle. If the wall is erected on the northern side of the river, it would be equivalent to ceding the region’s primary water supply to Mexico. The Mexicans would most likely not cooperate with placing the wall on the southern side and a wall built in the center of the river would not only be structurally unsound but could alter the course of the river, a violation of treaties with Mexico.

At present, many plans for the border wall in Texas would be set back from the Rio Grande. The problem here is that it would not keep people from crossing the border illegally. It would only impede them in moving from the border region to the interior of the country. Such a wall would be more effective against smugglers than refugees seeking amnesty, who would easily cross onto US soil. It would also be a major inconvenience for American citizens who live or own property south of the wall.

Because much of the border land in Texas is privately owned, the federal government has had to use eminent domain laws to condemn and seize land where it plans to build the wall in Texas. After passage of the after the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Noel Benavides of Roma, Texas lost a swath of land that had been in his family since 1767 to a wall that has yet to be built across his property.

Wall-building would also be difficult in the desolate areas of west Texas. The southwestern United States contains rocky mountains and sheer cliffs that are reminiscent of Wile E. Coyote cartoons. This terrain is ill-suited to construction but is passable to determined travelers.

Even after the wall is built, the need for maintenance would be constant. Earthquakes, rock slides, floods, erosion, corrosion, and, of course, vandalism could cause damage to sections of the wall. The structure would have to be constantly monitored and repaired.

Would the wall be worth the time, trouble, and treasure that it would take to build and maintain it?

There are already about 650 miles of border fence along the borders of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The current fencing consists of a mix of vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing that vary in height, construction, quality, and condition.

While the wall is a centuries-old technology, the current fencing has shown that the concept can be defeated by other old technologies such as ladders, ramps, and tunnels. A 2010 viral video showed two young women scaling a border fence unaided by ladders or climbing gear in 18 seconds.  Last November, we witnessed members of the migrant caravan climbing the fence near Tijuana. In 2012, a smuggler’s SUV got stuck crossing the border fence with the aid of ramps. It is uncertain how many similar attempts were not detected. More recently a plethora of smuggling tunnels underneath the border has been found in areas where there are physical barriers above the surface.

The bottom line is that a border wall is no panacea. While the wall might make it more difficult or costly to cross the border, smugglers and illegal immigrants will find a way unless they are physically stopped by Border Patrol agents.

Even though a wall backed up by sensors and Border Patrol agents would be at least partially effective, the immense investment in time and money would leave open another route for illegal immigrants. The Center for Migration Studies reports that visitors who enter the US legally and then overstay visas have exceeded those crossing the border illegally every year since 2007. By 2014, two-thirds of new illegals were visa overstays.

The bottom line is that assuming that a wall is feasible to build at all in areas that have not already been fenced, it will be much more difficult and expensive and much less effective than Republicans generally assume. If the fight to build it is ever won, the wall will still require a significant Border Patrol presence as well as constant maintenance. Even then, the wall would do nothing to prevent visa overstays, a larger source of illegal immigrants than the southern border.

H.L. Mencken famously said, “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” As conservatives, we should look beyond simplistic and emotional arguments to determine the facts before spending untold billions of dollars. Those facts tell us that a wall is not the best solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Fencing is appropriate for some areas but doesn’t make sense for the entirety of the border. Wall funding is almost certainly the wrong hill to die on, especially since most polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the wall.

The inability to control the border isn’t a problem unique to the southern United States. Walls didn’t work well for the Chinese either. The Great Wall didn’t prevent its defenders from being overrun on multiple occasions. No less than four times the Xiongnu, the Jurchens, the Mongols, and the Manchus pierced the defensive barrier.

Originally published on The Resurgent