David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is an expert on visa reform, border security, and interior enforcement, and his work has been cited in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Politico, and many other print and online publications.
This past Monday, President Trump released a new executive order shutting down the refugee program for 120 days and banning immigration from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days. President Trump attempted to justify these changes by stating in part that: The Attorney General has reported to me that more than 300 persons who entered the United States as refugees are currently the subjects of counterterrorism investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.The government has refused to provide any additional details about these cases, but an investigation should not be seen as
“The gold was never coined for which I would barter my individual freedom of acting and thinking upon any subject, or would knowingly interfere with the rights of the meanest human being.” -Lydia Maria Child You could call Lydia Maria Child a 19th century “abolitionist” and “women’s rights advocate,” but it is simpler to use today’s word for someone who opposes state-supported slavery and inequality: a libertarian. She once said, “I am so great an advocate of freedom that I would have everything done voluntarily.” Child was a prolific writer, mainly of fiction and much
During his inaugural address, Donald Trump vowed to “completely eradicate” radical Islamic terrorism. Today, in its first moves intended to do that, the administration acknowledged its plans for a complete ban on immigrants and refugees from several majority Muslim countries, including Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Yet the new policy will work contrary to its goal. U.S. Muslim immigration is reducing radical Islamism and anti-Americanism around the world. For President Trump to fulfill his promise, America will need to do more than kill terrorists
Donald Trump has been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, and libertarians already have many reasons to be worried about his agenda. While it is difficult to pick from his various policy proposals that threaten liberty, here are the six biggest concerns for libertarians living under a Trump administration. 1) The rule of law. The rule of law requires the president to follow the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and to apply the law in a uniform manner, not to specifically punish or benefit certain people or businesses. President Donald Trump seems determined
President Obama is abandoning America’s five decade-old policy that guarantees Cubans asylum in the United States. The change comes at a time when more Cubans are arriving at U.S. borders than at any time since 1980, and it is a major win for the Cuban regime and opponents of immigration, who both want to stop Cuban immigration to the United States.But the sudden reversal is bad policy that will harm efforts to secure the border and aid the regime most hostile to human rights in the Western Hemisphere. Cuban Immigration Is a Win for America In
Angelo A. Paparelli contributed to this post. This week last year, Donald Trump proposed prohibiting all Muslim immigration to the United States. He altered the proposal this year to specify “suspending immigration from nations tied to Islamic terror.” He told CNN that this was actually intended as an expansion of the Muslim ban. Last week, he said, “People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East,” but that he would “stop that dead, cold flat.” He has also made clear that this would be one of the actions that he takes as president during his first
Proponents of more restrictions on immigration—legal and illegal—talk a big game, suggesting more penalties for lawbreakers, more assets for the border, and more surveillance for the workforce. These, restrictionists say, will restore the rule of law. Yet while occupying the White House is new for them, the fact is that restrictionists largely dictated U.S. policy until recently. Not only have their ideas failed on their terms, they have backfired, creating more lawlessness than before. Creating the Problem Before the 1920s, America had no numerical restriction on the number of immigrants,
Since Germany first accepted more than a million asylees into its country, the successes and failures of the decision were bound to reverberate around the world. Yet despite this openness at the borders, Germany remained stubbornly closed inwardly, delaying the integration of the people it chose to accept. Most importantly, it retained employment restrictions that prevent asylum seekers from obtaining the jobs they need to survive. Fortunately, America has a much better system with much greater success. In 2015, Germany waited the longest of any country in Europe to restrict the flow of asylum
On Monday, I argued that a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) entitled “Immigrants Replace Low-Skill Natives in the Workforce” provided no evidence that immigrants are causing low-skilled natives to quit working. In fact, the trends point toward immigration pushing employed natives up the skills ladder. In his response yesterday, the author Jason Richwine either ignores my points or backtracks the claims in his original report. Here are six examples: 1. In his paper, Mr. Richwine writes that “an increasing number of the least-skilled Americans [are] leaving the workforce”
Want to know more about Student For Liberty’s impact, new initiatives, and other efforts made to advance liberty around the world?
Sign up for our email newsletter to stay connected.
Subscribe Now