Connect with us

Politics

America needs an immigration debate — just not the one we're having

Published

on

America needs an immigration debate — just not the one we're having

Immigration will figure prominently in the 2024 presidential campaign, continuing its run as one of the nation’s longest-running and most divisive issues.

Republicans plan to feature the troubles at the southern border as evidence for their argument that President Biden is failing. Former President Trump has amped up his already inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, accusing migrants of “poisoning the blood” of Americans.

He focused on the subject again in his speech after winning Monday night’s Iowa caucuses, saying that if he were elected he would enforce “a deportation level that we haven’t seen in this country in a long time … since the Eisenhower administration.”

Democrats find themselves on the back foot. Public support for immigration, which rose during the Trump years, has sunk since Biden took office, no doubt partly because of chaotic scenes at the border. While immigration issues unify Republicans, they divide Democrats.

Advertisement

The Times’ most recent UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll of California voters provided clear evidence of the party’s divisions: Asked whether immigrants in the U.S. without authorization have created a burden for the country, Republican voters almost unanimously said they did.

Democrats were divided, with about 1 in 5 saying the migrants created a “major burden,” 2 in 5 saying they created a “minor burden” and about one-third saying they were not a burden.

Sidestepping the big issue

The result is a one-sided debate: Republicans have relentlessly been on the attack, and Democrats have taken a defensive crouch.

For the last couple of months, the White House, for example, has been trying to make concessions to Republicans in hopes of reaching a compromise on border security. So far, the talks haven’t achieved their goal, but the debate has further soured relations between the president and his party’s left wing.

As the debate has droned on, neither party has seriously tried to grapple with the biggest issue: Just how many immigrants does the U.S. need?

Advertisement

The immigration trade-off

For any country, immigration poses a trade-off. On the one hand, newcomers bring new ideas, new resources and welcome vitality. The poll of American immigrants that The Times did last year with KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation, vividly illustrated how immigrants today are the keepers of the flame when it comes to optimism about the future — once a hallmark of American society.

But high levels of immigration can also bring social instability. Large numbers of unskilled immigrants can depress wages in certain parts of the economy, at least for a time. And new residents with new customs can generate a backlash, as the U.S. has vividly seen in recent years.

Striking the right balance is complicated, but it starts with grappling seriously with the question of what level of immigration would be optimal.

The answer: A lot more — at least if the U.S. wants to slow the graying of its population and stave off long-term population decline, demographers say.

Declining population growth

This decade probably will experience the smallest percentage population growth in U.S. history, said Brookings Institution demographic expert William Frey. That’s partially the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased death rates and caused some couples to postpone having children. But even with the pandemic receding, the U.S. is heading for very little growth in the years to come.

Advertisement

That’s a huge change from the past. Since 1900, the U.S. population mostly grew between 1% and 2% each year. The exceptions came during traumatic periods — the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919, the Great Depression.

Now, according to Census Bureau projections, the country is, at most, likely to have about 4% population growth over this entire decade. The rate will slow further after that.

Should you worry about that?

Some people would say no. Among environmental activists, for example, some take the view that fewer Americans would be a good thing because our lifestyle uses more resources than in other countries.

But there are other ways to reduce the American impact on the global environment — greater reliance on renewable energy, for example.

Advertisement

And a U.S. population decline imposes real, and heavy, costs.

If you plan to retire, or care about the country’s military strength or its economy, an aging or declining population is definitely something to be concerned about.

An older population with a shrinking number of workers makes paying for Social Security or other retirement programs much harder, for example, because there are fewer workers to support a growing number of retirees.

Countries such as Japan and Italy, which are aging faster than the U.S., are already experiencing the problems that population decline brings. Even China, which decades ago adopted drastic policies to hold down its population, is now anxiously trying to restart population growth.

Those countries, notably, don’t allow much immigration.

Advertisement

1 million a year. Or more?

The chief reason for slower growth is a demographic shift that the U.S. shares with almost every other wealthy, developed country: Women are having fewer children, and the population, on average, is getting older.

The U.S. staved off that decline longer than most developed countries, mostly because of “healthy immigration levels from the early 1980s to around the 2010s,” Frey said.

But starting in 2007, with the onset of the Great Recession, population growth rates tumbled and have not recovered.

What population growth has occurred has mostly been due to immigration, Frey recently reported, based on an analysis of census data.

The number of immigrants entering the U.S. slowed sharply during President Trump’s years in office, in part because of new restrictions on legal immigration. Under President Biden, the level has rebounded to about 1 million in 2021 and 1.1 million in 2022.

Advertisement

But even at a rate of 1 million new arrivals a year, U.S. population growth would flatline in about 40 years and then slowly begin to decline, the census says. If immigration were held to the level of the Trump years, the U.S. population would level off in about 15 years and go down after that.

Conservative advocates of less immigration sometimes argue that a decline can be avoided with policies that would entice women into having more children. So far, however, such policies have almost universally failed in countries that have tried them, and even rudimentary pro-family policies, such as subsidized child care, have failed to be approved in the U.S., largely because of opposition from the same conservative political figures who want less immigration.

In the absence of a dramatic, and wholly unlikely, increase in the U.S. birthrate, keeping the population growth at something close to the historical average would require what the census describes as a “high immigration” scenario — about 1.5 million immigrants a year.

Perhaps, as Trump and his allies believe, Americans simply won’t accept that level of newcomers. If that’s the case, however, there’s an inevitable price to pay: an aging population, a declining workforce and a less vibrant America.

A presidential campaign would be a good opportunity to focus voters on that trade-off. But don’t bet on it.

Advertisement

There’s little evidence that America’s gridlocked political system is capable of such a straightforward debate.

Politics

Democrats demand Kristi Noem be fired or warn impeachment will follow

Published

on

Democrats demand Kristi Noem be fired or warn impeachment will follow

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

House Democrats ramped up pressure on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday, calling for her firing and warning that impeachment proceedings would follow if she remains in office, citing deadly actions by federal agents in Minnesota.

The calls came from both House Democratic leadership and Judiciary Committee Democrats, marking a coordinated escalation from public condemnation to formal impeachment threats.

In a joint statement, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to carry out deadly violence.

“Taxpayer dollars are being weaponized by the Trump administration to kill American citizens, brutalize communities and violently target law-abiding immigrant families,” the leaders said. “The country is disgusted by what the Department of Homeland Security has done.”

Advertisement

NOEM SAYS SHE GRIEVES FOR FAMILY AFTER CBP-RELATED SHOOTING IN MINNEAPOLIS, VOWS THOROUGH INVESTIGATION

House Democrats ramped up pressure on DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. ( Al Drago/Getty Images)

The leaders warned that unless Noem is removed, impeachment proceedings would follow.

“Kristi Noem should be fired immediately, or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives,” the statement said.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Advertisement

The demands come as Noem faces widespread criticism after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota this month.

Separately, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called on Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to immediately begin impeachment proceedings if Noem is not fired or forced to resign.

“Unless Secretary Noem resigns or is fired, the Judiciary Committee’s Chairman, Jim Jordan, should immediately commence House Judiciary Committee impeachment proceedings to remove her from office,” Raskin said.

BORDER PATROL COMMANDER GREGORY BOVINO TO LEAVE MINNESOTA, AS TOM HOMAN TAKES OVER

Federal agents try to clear demonstrators near a hotel, using tear gas during a noise demonstration protest in response to federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis. (Adam Gray/AP Photo)

Advertisement

Raskin accused Noem of overseeing what he described as unlawful killings and a subsequent cover-up.

“Far from condemning these unlawful and savage killings in cold blood, Secretary Noem immediately labeled Renée Good and Alex Pretti ‘domestic terrorists,’ blatantly lied about the circumstances of the shootings that took their lives, and attempted to cover up and blockade any legitimate investigation into their deaths,” he said.

Separately, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., called on Trump to fire Noem directly on Tuesday.

In a post on X, the senator accused Noem of “betraying” the department’s central mission.

In a joint statement with other Democratic leaders, Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to carry out deadly violence. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Advertisement

However, President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that he has no plans to ask Noem to step down from her role.

Trump was asked about Noem’s status during a gaggle with reporters outside the White House. He told the press that he still thinks Noem is doing a “great job.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Is Kristi Noem going to step down?” a reporter asked.

“No,” Trump responded bluntly.

Advertisement

He later said he believes she is doing a “very good job,” citing her role in closing down the border.

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump signs executive order to ‘preempt’ permitting process for fire-destroyed homes in L.A.

Published

on

Trump signs executive order to ‘preempt’ permitting process for fire-destroyed homes in L.A.

President Trump has announced an executive order to allow victims of the Los Angeles wildfires to rebuild without dealing with “unnecessary, dupicative, or obstructive” permitting requirements.

The order, which is likely to be challenged by the city and state, claimed that local governments have failed to adequately process permits and were slowing down residents who are desperate to rebuild in the Palisades and Altadena.

“American families and small businesses affected by the wildfires have been forced to continue living in a nightmare of delay, uncertainty, and bureaucratic malaise as they remain displaced from their homes, often without a source of income, while state and local governments delay or prevent reconstruction by approving only a fraction of the permits needed to rebuild,” Trump wrote in the executive order, which he signed Friday.

The order called on the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to “preempt” state and local permitting authorities.

Advertisement

Instead of going through the usual approval process, residents using federal emergency funds to rebuild would need to self-certify to federal authorities that they have complied with local health and safety standards.

The order comes as the city and county approach 3,000 permits issued for rebuilding. A December review by The Times found that the permitting process in Altadena and Pacific Palisades was moving at a moderate rate compared to other major fires in California. As of Dec. 14, the county had issued rebuilding permits for about 16% of the homes destroyed in the Eaton fire and the city had issued just under 14% for those destroyed in the Palisades fire.

While Mayor Karen Bass did not immediately provide comment, the executive order drew intense pushback from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A spokesperson for Newsom, Tara Gallegos, called Trump a “clueless idiot” for believing the federal government could issue local rebuilding permits.

“With 1625+ home permits issued, hundreds of homes under construction, and permitting timelines at least 2x faster than before the fires, an executive order to rebuild Mars would do just as useful,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in a post on X, citing the number of permits issued solely by the city of Los Angeles.

Advertisement

Newsom said that the federal government needed to release funding, not take over control of the permitting process. The governor said that what communities really lack is money, not permits.

“Please actually help us. We are begging you,” Newsom wrote.

Instead of descending into the permitting process, Newsom called on the president to send a recovery package to congress to help families rebuild, citing a letter from a bipartisan delegation of California legislators that called for federal funding.

“As the recovery process continues, additional federal support is needed, and our entire delegation looks forward to working cooperatively with your administration to ensure the communities of Southern California receive their fair share of federal disaster assistance,” wrote the California legislators on Jan 7.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, responded in a statement that read: “If the federal government is interested in expediting recovery from the most expensive disaster in this country’s history, they can start by committing to real financial support — to close insurance gaps, to repair critical infrastructure damaged in both the fire and the debris removal process, to help this region rebuild two entire communities from the ground up.”

Advertisement

Park also said that “dangling SBA loans and hazard mitigation funding in front of victims while summarily denying FEMA claim and other support to municipalities behind the scenes is subterfuge, not support. The City can only approve permits that have been submitted and the reality is that many disaster victims are still not ready to move forward with their rebuilds. This federal government can fix that by allowing desperately needed financial assistance to flow down to the Los Angeles region and let us get to work.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said she would “welcome any effort to responsibly accelerate rebuilding.”

Barger said permits take 30 days to move through the county’s plan check, but often encounter delays due to “complex multi-party work of architects, engineers, and builders.”

She also called for more federal funding and long-term disaster aid.

“The most urgent need in the Altadena region is financially driven,” she said in a statement to The Times.

Advertisement

Some in the Palisades agreed that money was a bigger issue than permitting.

“When I talk to people it seems to have more to do with their insurance payout or whether they have enough money to complete construction,” said Maryam Zar, a Palisades resident who runs the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

Zar called the executive order “interesting” and said that it was fair of the president to call the recovery pace slow and unacceptable.

Jonathan Zasloff, a UCLA Law professor who focuses on land use, called the executive order “childish and irresponsible policy.”

Zasloff, who lost his Palisades home in the fire, said that the president does not have the authority to get rid of state and local law just because he doesn’t like them. Instead, Zasloff said, the president should focus on fully funding disaster recovery so that the city and county can have adequate staff to process permit applications.

Advertisement

“My house burned down in the Palisades. Getting rid of the building codes would make it easier to rebuild something, but it could also make things a lot more dangerous,” he said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mamdani’s early moves as mayor clash with affordability pledge: ‘Ripple effects are significant’

Published

on

Mamdani’s early moves as mayor clash with affordability pledge: ‘Ripple effects are significant’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani ran on a message of making the Big Apple more affordable for everyday Americans, but some of his actions in the first few weeks of his tenure have served to undercut that reality.

In the early days of his time as mayor, Mamdani has already shown a penchant for vehemently defending low-wage, unskilled delivery-app workers in a manner that industry executives and business experts think will hit consumers’ pocketbooks. He sued a delivery app startup earlier this month for allegedly violating the city’s worker-rights laws, and warned the broader range of delivery app companies operating in the city to abide by ramped up worker rights being imposed at the end of the month, or else.

At a press conference announcing the lawsuit and accompanying demand letters issued to delivery app companies warning them to follow the updated worker protections, Mamdani also accused the delivery-app startup, MotoClick, of stealing workers’ tips. Among the reforms Mamdani has signaled he plans to vigorously enforce is a mandated tipping framework that estimates show could push more than half-a-billion in additional costs on consumers annually. 

The updated protections will also add more delivery-app companies, such as those that deliver groceries, to the list that must follow the delivery-app worker rights laws, including a mandated minimum wage higher than what some emergency medical services (EMS) personnel in the city make.

Advertisement

‘ZOHRANOMICS’: NYC MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S SOCIALIST MATH DOESN’T ADD UP 

Zesty is now in beta in San Francisco and New York as DoorDash tests and refines its personalized matching experience. (iStock)

“We know affordability is not just about the cost of goods — it’s about the dignity of work,” Mamdani’s Commissioner of the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) Sam Levine told companies including DoorDash, GrubHub and Uber. “Today’s lawsuit against Motoclick is not just an action against one company, it’s a warning to every app-based company from this Administration. You cannot treat workers like they are expendable and get away with it. We will seek full back pay and damages. We will seek full accountability.”

Mamdani pointed to a recent report put out by Levine, which showed disobeying city mandates going into effect later this month, requiring apps to give the opportunity for customers to tip before or at the same time that an order has been placed, significantly impacts the amount of incoming tip revenue. Levine’s report that Mamdani touted estimates alternative tipping frameworks, such as only allowing tips upon completion of a delivery, have altered tipping revenue by an estimated $550 million per year.

Mamdani also stood by in tacit agreement during the press conference as delivery-app worker advocates called for an increase to their already mandated minimum wage they have that is approximately $4.50 higher for delivery-app drivers than the city’s base minimum wage of $17 per hour. The workers said they wanted a mandate that they get paid $35 per hour, to which Mamdani replied: “closed mouths don’t get fed.”

Advertisement

Mamdani campaigned on raising the base minimum wage to $30 per hour for all New Yorkers by 2030.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at a press conference defending worker rights for delivery-app drivers on Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, his eager enforcement to protect delivery-app drivers will include making sure a wider breadth of delivery-app companies, such as those who deliver groceries like InstaCart and Shipt, abide by New York City’s extended minimum wage laws for their workers – plus the other mandates related to the tipping structure and more.

DCWP has indicated plans to set a minimum pay rate for all delivery apps by early 2027.

HOURS AFTER TAKING OFFICE, NYC MAYOR MAMDANI TARGETS LANDLORDS, MOVES TO INTERVENE IN PRIVATE BANKRUPTCY CASE    

Advertisement

“The challenges facing delivery workers, small businesses, and consumers are real, and deeply interconnected. That’s why this issue cannot be reduced to a single policy lever or viewed in isolation,” a spokesperson for the Bronx Chamber of Commerce told Fox News Digital. “Small businesses across the Bronx and throughout New York City are already under extraordinary pressure. When additional costs are layered on without a full economic analysis, those costs are predictably passed down to consumers or absorbed through reduced hours, reduced staffing, or closures. When businesses close, communities lose jobs, services, and economic anchors, and the ripple effects are significant.”

The Chamber of Commerce spokesperson added that Mamdani has an opportunity “to lead by tackling affordability in a holistic way,” which they said would require “comprehensive cost analysis and coordinated solutions that support workers while ensuring the small business ecosystem and consumer affordability are not unintentionally harmed.”

Signage reading ‘Days of a New Era’ is juxtaposed behind New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during a press conference he attended about reining in ‘junk fees.’ (Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

When reached for comment about the discrepancy between Mamdani’s message of making New York City more affordable for everyone, versus his push to protect delivery-app worker rights that could impact consumer pricing, a New York City Hall spokesperson argued that “the insinuation that putting more money in the pockets of delivery workers undercuts affordability is absurd.”

“Delivery Workers are important members of our city’s economy, and deserve to be paid fairly – anything less is unacceptable,” the spokesperson added. “As Mayor Mamdani continues to stand up for everyday New Yorkers and actualize his ambitious agenda to make New York City truly livable for families. Affordability has been, and will continue to be, a guiding light.”

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But DoorDash’s head of public policy for North America, John Horton, said that ensuring delivery-app workers “earn double what many first responders in the city make” is not a policy solution they believe will make New York City more affordable. Currently, a local fire technician and emergency medical services union in the city is in the midst of a public awareness campaign to raise their wages because they make less than delivery-app drivers at $18.94 per hour.

Delivery-app workers in New York City must be paid $21.44 per hour according to local worker protection mandates.  (iStock)

“A thriving New York will take a partnership between elected officials, the business community and workers to ensure we are all working in the best interests of New Yorkers in the midst of the city’s affordability crisis,” Horton added. 

Fox News Digital followed up with Mamdani’s campaign to inquire about the complaint that EMS and some firemen in the city are making less than delivery-app workers, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending