EXPEDITED WORK PERMITS MIGHT BLUNT EFFECTS OF MIGRANT TRANSFERS

There is no question that migration patterns at our southern border continue to be a significant challenge for our border control functionaries. Some of the overwhelming consequences are filtering through to municipalities throughout the country. Political blame is readily doled out. However, its substance depends on which party provides the criticism. The Trump administration reduced legal immigration by 63%, but did not make a dent in illegal border crossings. (Cato Institute, Jan. 20, 2021). On President Biden's watch the average number of encounters at the border reached three times those experienced during his predecessor's presidency. The underlying reasons for this result are, again, politically charged and debatable. It is useful, however, to point out that this phenomenon is by no means unique to our southern border. Europe is experiencing a similar situation. Through April of this year, migration patterns from North Africa into the E.U. has increased 2.5 times over what they were just a year ago. Italy alone is confronting a 400% increase. And the U.K. has encountered a record doubling of the migration rate. All this on top of the 8.2 million refugees from Ukraine the continent had to absorb. Republican governors from states impacted by the migration surge have been sending migrants released at our border with Mexico to Democratic strongholds elsewhere in the country. Their barely concealed motivation appears to be to make political statements either for local consumption or to force the Biden administration to do something, whatever that may be. Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent more than 17,500 migrants to Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia. These included several busloads to the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris. Florida Governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis claims to have transferred nearly 11,000 migrants. And former Arizona Governor Dough Ducey prided himself on last year sending fifty busloads of migrants to Washington D.C.. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has lamented that "It is both a sad and a tragic day when a government official uses migrants as a pawn for political purposes." For cities forced to host this massive, unannounced infusion of asylum seekers comes at a significant cost. New York City is a case in point. According to City Hall officials, last year the city took in more than 60,000 migrants. City run shelters and emergency sites are overflowing, competing for space with an already sizable homeless population. Resources are dwindling. The city spends an average of $380 per household per day on migrants, and budgets for providing housing, feeding and other social services for an average 40 new households per day. However, recently, new daily arrivals topped 180. Thus far NYC has spent $1 billion, and it expects to need a budget of $4 billion by July 2024. The situation in other affected cities is not much different. Obviously, New York Mayor Eric Adams is not happy. His urgent request for federal assistance so far netted him $30 million, a drop in the bucket given the magnitude of the financial burden facing the city. On another front, however, Mr. Adams appears to be receiving the attention from a more receptive audience. When asked what he needed most, outside of financial support, he was adamant. "Allow people to work, which is one of the number one things we can do. Allow people to work!" Currently asylum seekers have to wait half a year after filing an application before being issued a work permit. This federal law was enacted in 1996. President Trump extended the waiting period to 365 days. This was implemented in August 2020, but overturned in February 2022. The argument is pretty straightforward. Asylum seekers don't come here to seek donated clothing and shelter beds. They want to find work, contribute to the economy and make a new life for themselves. Work would allow these migrants to get out of shelters and hire an immigration lawyer to help expedite the process. Besides, our country faces a workforce crisis. We have roughly 10.7 million job openings, and just 5.9 million unemployed Americans. Fifty mayors sent a letter arguing along these lines to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) requesting it expedite the permit process. In March of this year, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) introduced the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act of 2023 in the House of Representatives. This Act would allow work permits to be issued 30 days after filing an application for refugee status, and make permits valid for as long as the application remains pending. Many municipalities under financial strain are eager to see this legislation end up on the president's desk. The influx of refugees from the Ukraine into the European Union and elsewhere has forged similar work related responses in affected communities. Ukraine is not an E.U. member. However, its citizens no longer need a permit to engage in paid for activities throughout Europe. Even in the U.S. these refugees can work within the first 90 days following their arrival. They do need to apply for a permanent permit during that time period. The point is that this strategy is being implemented, and it appears to be working. Passage of this Act will undoubtedly face opposition from those who, erroneously, assume that immigrant workers ultimately increase labor market competition and drive down the the wages of native born workers. Many uninformed opponents will also assume that our refugee admissions place a burden on the country as a whole. However, numerous studies have pointed out that these assumptions are generally misguided. A ten year study covering 2005 to 2014 concluded that refugees who had been here from 1980 on contributed $63 billion more to government revenue than they used in public services. A similar study also showed that the proportion of refugee men working was 7% higher than among their U.S. born counterparts. And only 8% of refugees received Social Security or Social Security disability benefits, compared to 15% of the entire population. It does not appear to be a stretch to conclude that the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act of 2023 deserves to be adopted. It will allow people to work, contribute to the economy, be less of a burden on society and blunt some of the overwhelming effects of unconscionable migrant transfers. Theo Wierdsma

RAISING RETIREMENT AGE AN UNPOPULAR SOLUTION

While we prepared for a recent trip to Europe, which included a week in Paris, we grew concerned about potential intrusion from encounters with persistent anti government demonstrations in the French capital. Our fears proved to be unfounded. However, the contentious issues involved remained palpable. More than a million residents have repeatedly taken to the streets to protest President Emanuel Macron's attempt to impose a largely unpopular policy change which would raise the age French citizens are eligible to retire with a full pension from 62 to 64. The president's reasoning has been that the increase is absolutely necessary to keep the country's pension system afloat. Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne, afraid that her government might not have the votes to adopt the retirement bill, a key priority of Macron's second term, invoked Article 49:3 of the French constitution. This strategy allowed the bill to pass without a vote in the National Assembly, leaving protesters with a "fait accompli." Outsiders frequently appear puzzled about the regularity with which the French public openly expresses its discontent. Even when the increase in their retirement age to 64 takes effect, the French will still be able to retire earlier than citizens in any other European country. Most have raised their effective age to 67, and a few plan to take it up to 69. Some observers claim that protest is deeply embedded in French culture, dating back at least to the revolution of 1789. Alexis Poyard, a prominent youth activist, concludes that: "In France we protest whenever we are sad or when we are angry." It does not hurt that these popular outbursts have often been successful The mass revolt in 1968 caused President Charles de Gaulle to flee the country. In 1995, persistent protests and massive strikes pressured the government into backing down from its earlier effort at overhauling the pension system. And the "Yellow Vest" protests a few years ago forced Macron to abandon his effort to introduce a carbon tax. Justified or not, the popular uproar across the country highlights the need to pay attention to funding problems for retirement programs, anticipated to mature in a growing number of countries within the coming decade. These include our own country, where the funding for entitlement programs are getting in the way of debt reduction efforts. However, we have known for some time that, barring appropriate reforms, our Social Security Trust Fund will run dry by 2034. The underlying challenges are well known. The biggest one is "not enough workers!". The ratio of workers who pay into the system to Social Security beneficiaries taking money out is shifting from 2.8 workers for each beneficiary in 2022 to a projected 2.1 by 2035. Basic problems are: A rapidly aging population, longer life expectancy, and lower fertility rates. By 2031 there will be 75 million Americans over the age of 65. This is up from 39 million in 2008. By 2031, the youngest baby boomers - born between 1946 and 1964 - will have passed the Social Security full retirement age of 67. People are living longer. In 1935, when Social Security began, people at the age of 65 could expect to live an additional 12.5 years. Now, women age 65 can expect to live another 21.8 years, and men an additional 19.2 years. All of this places an additional strain on the system. At the same time, the fertility rate, the level at which a population replaces itself from one generation to another, is dropping rapidly. This rate should be 2.1 children per woman. In the U.S., by 2030, this replacement rate is projected to drop to 1.75. Our population is shrinking. While many European countries come in even lower, most still have growing populations because of immigration. The net result is ultimately that we end up with fewer workers paying into the system and a growing number of recipients who no longer contribute to the trust fund. To begin to address this imminent economic problem, politicians of all stripes appear to concentrate on postponing the inevitable by raising the retirement age from the current 67 - for people born in 1960 or later, to 69 or 70, and raise the age at which maximum delayed retirement credits are earned from 70 to 72. However, this approach would only reduce the Fund's deficit by 28%. While we may not express our displeasure with this solution in the way the French are, this is hardly a popular approach. The "solution" might be acceptable to professional groups retiring from cushy, highly compensated jobs. However, for those who have spent their working life doing heavy physical labor, being forced to work additional years before retiring will be less inviting. Alternative solutions, although politically less palatable because they involve taxes or immigration, are not only potentially more beneficial, they are socially more equitable and reasonable. Increase the pool: Admit millions of additional immigrants. They have proven to increase the number of start-ups, help the rate of economic growth, and offset our replacement fertility deficiency. Increase the tax base: Lift the payroll tax cap. Right now, Social, Security taxes only apply to the first $160,200 of a person's annual income. Completely eliminating the cap, without an increase in benefits for those who exceed it, would cut the projected deficit by 73%. Or, alternatively: Increase the tax rate: Social Security taxes account for 90% of the Trust Fund's income. The current rate stands at 12.4%. We could increase the tax rate to 16%, shared equally by employers and employees. In short, the problem is real. However, solutions, other than kicking the can down the road, are available to those with the political will to entertain them. Theo Wierdsma

WORLD’S LARGEST DECENTRALIZED MEMORIAL

International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the day on which we pay tribute to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust, is an annual event, always scheduled for January 27, which marks the anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau by Soviet troops in 1945. The horrific activities leading up to this event will also be in the minds of those participating in liberation day activities routinely observed across Europe throughout the month of May. These commemorations may be designed to highlight the Allied victory over the forces of evil, but many of us won’t be able to erase the memories of what took place during the Holocaust. Yet, the lessons the world should have garnered from the gruesome activity perpetrated by Hitler’s goons in pursuit of a “final solution” are increasingly lost on a growing segment of a younger generation. Antisemitism is on the upswing. In the U.S., incidents are at the highest level recorded since the 1970s. They nearly tripled during the past six years. This worrisome increase coincides with an alarming decrease of basic Holocaust knowledge, especially among adults under 40. According to a national survey, in the U.S., 63% of respondents did not know that 6 million Jews were murdered; 20% believed that the Jews caused the Holocaust, and 23% believed that the entire thing was a myth. In The Netherlands, home of Anne Frank, a country where out of 140,000 Jewish citizens prior to World War 2, 102,000 were killed; 23% believe that it is a myth and 12% have said that they never even heard the word. Sadly, slightly more than 78 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, two-thirds of the world’s population does not know the Holocaust happened, or they deny it. In 1990, German artist Gunter Demnig decided to counter the degenerating interest in keeping Holocaust memories alive. Born October 27, 1947, Demnig belongs to the generation questioning the role their parents played in Hitler’s Germany. Operating from the conviction that a person is not forgotten until his or her name is forgotten, Demnig set out to commemorate Holocaust victims at the last place of their residency before they became a casualty of Nazi terror, forced euthanasia, eugenics, or were deported to a concentration or extermination camp. His idea was to place a 10X10 centimeter (3.9”) concrete cube, bearing a brass plate inscribed with the victim’s name, date of birth, deportation date and the date they were murdered - if known, embedded flush in a sidewalk or street exactly in front of his or her last known residence.

Demnig named his memorial plaques “stolpersteine,” meaning “stumbling stones.” The name generated from an antisemitic saying in Nazi Germany. The Nazis destroyed Jewish cemeteries throughout Germany and frequently repurposed gravestones as sidewalk paving stones. So, when someone accidentally stumbled over a protruding stone on the sidewalk, one might often hear that: “a Jew must be buried here.” Placement of the stones is often inconspicuous. They are discovered by chance, in contrast to central memorial places that can easily be avoided or by-passed. The intention is to “trip up the passer-by” and draw attention to the memorial. The idea is to symbolically bring the victims back to their neighborhood. Aside from Jews, the memorials include all groups victimized by Nazi slaughter: Jews, Roma, Communists, Sinai, Yenish, members of the resistance, homosexuals, Jehova’s Witnesses, and the disabled. While the concept may have been simple, its execution was a massive undertaking. The project involved a significant investment in research and coordination across myriad locations. However, it caught fire. As of January 2022, more than 90,000 stones have already been placed in more than 30 countries and 2000 places in Europe. Demnig produces the plaques by hand, which slows down the process. He can create 440 of them each month. Every one features the language use in the intended location. And thus far the artist has personally installed 95% of them. While extremely successful, there was bound to be some opposition to the project. Some German locations are still refusing to allow placement of the stones. Although, cities like Frankfurt am Main, for instance, already installed 1000 of them. There is also the notion that placement on regular sidewalks is not respectful. However, the desecration of the memory of the dead was implicitly intended. Since people had to walk on the gravestones and tread on the inscriptions, the stones invoked antisemitic remarks of the past, while intending to provoke thoughts about a serious issue at the same time. And then there is the issue of context. In countries like Poland, the call is for clarification. The need to clarify that most of the perpetrators of the Holocaust were Germans, not Poles. Gunter Demnig seems overwhelmed by the scope of the Holocaust he attempts to confront when he suggested from the outset that “I can’t even imagine the six million murdered Jews and the whole inception of Auschwitz.” However, he unmistakably hit a chord and developed an antidote to creeping ignorance by installing the world’s largest decentralized memorial - still a work in progress. Cambridge historian Joseph Pearson sums up what he sees as significant about “stolpersteine”: “It is not what is written which intrigues, because the inscription is insufficient to conjure a person. It is the emptiness, void, lack of information, the maw of the forgotten, which gives the monuments their power and lifts them from the banality of a statistic.” Theo Wierdsma