Last week President Trump lost his game of chicken with Congressional Democrats and signed a bill that will keep the government open until February 15th. The fight over the recent government shutdown centered on border security, with the president insisting that Congress provide funds for a border wall. Congress didn’t provide the funds, and Democrats in Congress have been celebrating their victory over the president. Preventing the president from building the border wall is a clear political victory for Democrats. However, the border security legislation lawmakers in Congress eventually negotiate could include the increased deployment of border surveillance technology, an outcome worse than the physical barrier Trump wants.

The president’s “big, beautiful” Mexico-funded wall was a staple of his presidential campaign. Once he moved into the White House reality set in, and even with both houses of Congress under Republican control Trump was unable to get the funds for his wall. He was also unable to persuade Mexico’s president to cough up the cash for the project.

This isn’t surprising. The wall would be an expensive and ineffective way to stop illegal immigrants from crossing into the U.S., and governments are generally reluctant to fund other country’s infrastructure projects predicated on xenophobia. Construction of the wall would also infringe on private property, with the government exercising its power of eminent domain. Fortunately, prospects for border wall funding during the 116th Congress look even bleaker than they did for the first two years of the Trump presidency.

Trump’s stubborn attachment to his wall and its symbolic importance only motivates Democrats to oppose it with equal steadfastness. But eventually Congress will pass and the president will sign border security legislation. Neither the president nor Congressional Democrats will get exactly what they want. After all, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal. Such legislation could include surveillance technologies that have far worse implications for civil liberties than a physical border wall.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have supported more surveillance on the border as part of a so-called “smart” or “virtual” wall. In such a wall, drones, radar, and other technologies take the place of or augment physical barriers. Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC), the number three Democrat in the House, has said that he and his Democratic colleagues could support a $5.7 billion border bill that included drones and other surveillance tools but no wall. The spending bill Trump was prepared to sign included around $7.3 billion for “marine vessels, aircraft, and unmanned aerial systems.”

Even in these politically contentious times, there seems to be at least some consensus over the need for more surveillance equipment at the border. This consensus is regrettable given the risks associated with border surveillance. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses Predator B drones commonly associated with American foreign policy to patrol the border. These drones might not be outfitted with hellfire missiles, but their surveillance capabilities should concern American citizens nonetheless.

As my colleague David Bier and I wrote last year:

[D]rones undermine Americans’ privacy. Their surveillance records the daily lives of Americans living along the border, and because CBP regularly uses its drones to support the operations of other federal agencies as well as state and local police, its drones allow for government surveillance nationwide with minimal oversight and without warrants.

Large drones aren’t the only threat. CBP has tested small, hand-launched drones. In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security’s Silicon Valley Innovation Program (SVIP) issued a solicitation for small drones, noting an interest in facial recognition capability. Last year, SVIP awarded the contract to Intelleuron, a Boise, Idaho-based machine learning and autonomous vehicle company.

The proliferation of small and large drones on the border will mean that DHS further intrudes on law-abiding Americans’ privacy. Such intrusions are unlikely to be reserved to the border given that CBP can install checkpoints up to 100 miles from the border and DHS has allowed local police departments to request border patrol drones. It would be naïve to believe that border patrol surveillance equipment won’t be turned on Americans going about their days.

The U.S. border is already a needlessly over-militarized region. Blackhawk helicopters, Predator B drones, and jets should not be a regular sight in a non-combat zone. This post-9/11 trend of ever increasing militarization and surveillance on the border should be halted, not accelerated.

President Trump made the border wall proposal one of his key campaign pledges, and today the wall is a symbol of the president’s immigration agenda. As such, the president’s opponents clearly benefit from ensuring the wall is never built. What they may offer instead of a physical wall, however, could end up being a disaster for Americans’ civil liberties.

President Trump announced the first version of his “travel ban” 2 years ago this weekend. The policy has already separated thousands of U.S. citizens from their spouses and minor children. In its current form, the travel ban blocks visas to nationals of five majority Muslim countries. By the end of this fiscal year, the government is on pace to separate an estimated 15,000 spouses and adopted minor children of U.S. citizens.


While the State Department has not publicly revealed the exact figures, prior trends in visa issuances indicate that as of January 1, 2019, the travel ban had already prevented 9,284 spouses and adopted minor children from uniting with their U.S. citizen spouse or parent. By the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, the separations will hit 15,165.

• Spouses of U.S. citizens: As of January 1, 2019, the travel ban had kept out an estimated 3,742 spouses (or fiancés) of U.S. citizens. By October 2019 (i.e. the end of the FY 2019), this figure will reach 6,070.
• Adopted minor children of U.S. citizens: As of January 1, 2019, the travel ban had kept out an estimated 5,542 adopted children of U.S. citizens. By October 2019, this figure will hit 9,095.

Figure 1 breaks down the estimated separations by country of origin, as of January 1, 2019. A majority (57 percent) of the separated family members are Yemenis; 16 percent are Iranians; 16 percent are Somalis; 9 percent are Syrians; and 2 percent are Libyans.

The State Department has not published official statistics on how many applicants the travel ban has affected, and even if it did, it could not estimate how many applicants have chosen not to apply because they are now presumptively ineligible. This post estimates the number of separations by taking the difference between the average visa issuances prior to President Trump—during the five years from 2012 to 2016—compared to the numbers in Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 and 2019, when the travel ban had full effect. 


Figure 2 documents the decline in visa issuances for nationals of the five majority Muslim countries still subject to the travel ban, showing an 83 percent decline in visa issuances for children and an 80 percent decline for spouses and fiancés of U.S. citizens. In FY 2017 and earlier, the numbers for spouses, fiancés, and minor children of U.S. citizens were above 9,000, but the number of issuances suddenly plummeted to about 2,000 in FY 2018, and the trend has fallen further so far in FY 2019.

Spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents have also been affected. As of January 1, 2019, an estimated 1,191 spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents from the five majority Muslim travel ban countries have already been separated. There was a 68 percent decline in visa issuances for spouses and minor children from the five affected countries compared to the pre-Trump average. The policy is on pace to separate 1,928 spouses and children of legal permanent residents by the end of FY 2019.

President Trump’s series of travel bans started on January 27, 2017, but due to court rulings, only the third iteration—Proclamation 9645—was allowed to take full effect. Portions of the travel ban were in effect in FY 2017 starting in June 2017 but close family were exempt. Since December 4, 2017, the five majority Muslim countries—Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen—have been subject to the restrictions on visa issuances. Chad appeared briefly on the list but was removed.


Immigrants can apply for waivers from the travel ban restriction, but the president’s proclamation explicitly states that being a close family member of a U.S. citizen—including a spouse or child—is not a basis for a waiver. Rather, immigrants must prove that “the denial of entry would cause the foreign national undue hardship.” The State Department has defined undue hardship to mean “an unusual situation” that “compels immediate travel by the applicant and that delaying visa issuance and the associated travel plans until after visa restrictions imposed with respect to nationals of that country are lifted would defeat the purpose of travel.”


This standard is very difficult for spouses and children of citizens to meet because, in theory, traveling later to reunite with their families would not “defeat the purpose of travel.” Of course, the “temporary” nature of the travel ban is extremely dubious given that the criteria for being placed on the list are not objective and so are impossible to meet. For this reason, family members of U.S. citizens may be separated for as long as President Trump remains in office.


 



The Washington Post published an oped based on this research and produced this short documentary about separated families.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released new budget projections. In 2019, the federal government will spend $4.4 trillion, raise $3.5 trillion, and borrow $900 billion to cover the resulting deficit. As spending grows faster than revenues over the coming decade, deficits will grow larger.

CBO’s chart below shows budget data a share of gross domestic product (GDP). Except for four years under President Bill Clinton, the government has run almost continuous deficits in recent decades. Indeed, the budget has only been balanced 14 percent of the years since the 1930s, which was the great divide in U.S. fiscal history.

The government has been spilling red ink a long time, but the current rash of deficits and rising debt is unprecedented. On the chart, the spending-revenue gap in coming years is large and persistent. But even that is an optimistic view based on steady economic growth over the next decade.

Look at what happened during the last recession and consider that we are overdue for one today. Spending shot up 5 percentage points of GDP from 2007 to 2009 and revenues fell more than 3 points. That recession started after the deficit had narrowed to about 1 percentage point of GDP, but the next one will start when the deficit is already more than 4 points. Also, the last recession started when accumulated federal debt held by the public was 35 percent, but now it is 78 percent and rising.

We are in a much worse fiscal position today if a recession should strike. A bad recession would be a disaster for federal finances, which in turn could trigger broad damage to the global economy. Despite the obvious threat, the politicians in Washington have been asleep on the debt issue for years.

Former Starbucks head Howard Schultz announced that he may run for president as a fiscally responsible independent. He is correct in saying, “I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations.”

Running as an independent is an uphill battle, but let’s hope that fiscal barista Schultz can deliver espresso shots to wake up the two main parties about the debt threat.

The Coalition to Reduce Spending, a nonpartisan political advocacy group, announced an expansion of its Spending Tracker last week. The Spending Tracker assigns each member of Congress a spending score by matching voting records to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores for every bill affecting spending since 2009.

According to the Spending Tracker, during the 115th Congress, the average member of Congress voted to spend roughly $1.58 trillion. Five Representatives (Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Jimmy Duncan, Raúl Labrador, and Morgan Griffith) and two Senators (Rand Paul and Mike Lee) voted for net spending cuts.

The lowest-spending Representative in the 115th Congress (and over his lifetime) was Michigan’s Justin Amash, who voted to cut roughly $165 billion during the 115th Congress. Nearly tied with Amash was Kentucky’s Thomas Massie.

Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee each voted to cut over $150 billion during the 115th Congress, with Rand Paul as the lowest-spending Senator. Surprisingly, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders voted to increase spending by the fourth-lowest amount, roughly $140 billion. By comparison, Republican Senator Marco Rubio voted for a net spending increase of roughly $330 billion, more than twice as much as Sanders.

Laura Nicolae co-authored this post.

The federal shutdown revealed some of the ways that the government needlessly shackles the economy through subsidies and regulations. The microbrew industry is a microcosm of the general problem.

Beer companies take federal loan guarantees and they need federal approval for business activities such as launching new beer labels and opening facilities. The idea that we need the government providing business loans is ridiculous, as discussed here. And the permitting of new facilities ought to be a local government activity.

As for beer labels, the Washington Post reports, “Last year, the federal government received 192,000 applications for new lines of wine, spirits and beer, including more than 34,000 for beer.”

Taxpayers are paying for goodness knows how many high-paid bureaucrats to study 192,000 bottle labels a year? That seems absurd. Even if federal review of labels made sense, why do we need a system of preclearance? Why don’t we at least allow companies to proceed with their new products without delay, but allow for later review by the bureaucracy if noncompliant labels are suspected?

Here is the Washington Post on the shutdown’s disruption of small brewers:

Chris Burns thought he had escaped the uncertainty of working for the federal government when he left his IT contracting job five years ago to open a craft brewery in the D.C. suburbs.

But even with the government shutdown over for now, he cannot widely distribute two new beers and had to cancel the release of a third. He also could face delays opening a second location.

“It’s been real,” Burns, the owner of Old Ox Brewery in Ashburn, Va., said about the consequences of the 35-day shutdown.

President Trump and congressional lawmakers reached a short-term deal Friday, but the pain isn’t over for the nation’s craft brewers.

They lost revenue they will never recoup and will continue to lose money while they wait for federal agencies that process labels, brewery permits and small-business loans to clear a backlog built up during the shutdown.

During the closure, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau within the Treasury Department stopped approving new labels, hamstringing businesses that consistently churn out new products.

“Growth in our industry is driven by innovation,” said Bill Butcher, the founder of Port City Brewing Co. in Alexandria. “If we can’t introduce new beers into the market, it stalls our business.”

His company spent the last four months of 2018 planning release and production schedules for six new beers. The shutdown threw those plans “out the window,” he said.

… Last year, the federal government received 192,000 applications for new lines of wine, spirits and beer, including more than 34,000 for beer.

… Colorado brewer Zac Rissmiller recently contracted with a Baltimore brewer to produce beer under the name 1623 Brewing Co., a reference to the distance between him and his Maryland-based business partner and cousin.

They ordered a big batch, planned to sell it in the D.C. area, Northern Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and submitted their label application. Three days later, the government shut down. They’re sitting on 1,000 cases worth about $30,000, with a shelf life of 120 days.

… Burns’s family, which owns the brewery, recently purchased a new building in Middleburg, Va., for a tasting room and a second brewery. It needs a permit from the federal government to open. They could lose $40,000 to $75,000 for every month it languishes.

… Port City Brewing made a $2 million investment in a new bottling line financed by a Small Business Administration loan. During the shutdown, the SBA was closed, and Butcher couldn’t lock in an interest rate, potentially costing him thousands of dollars.

I enjoyed Port City’s excellent beer Saturday night in Alexandria with friends Dan and Kimberly, but we were surprised that the facility does not serve any food. We asked a bartender why and he said, “We stick to what we do best.”

I suggest the same for the federal government—stick to the basic constitutional duty of ensuring an open national economy, and get out of business loans, beer labels, and needless micromanagement of American industry.

For your interest, here and here are some of the BATF’s extensive beer and wine rules.

Alex Berenson’s recent attempt to generate panic at the prospect that marijuana use may become legalized and normalized, with his book Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence, even borrows its title from the camp 1930s propaganda film Reefer Madness. While not nearly as over-the-top as the film, Berenson certainly exaggerates suggestions that marijuana can cause psychosis.

Drawing on the 2017 report of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on “Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research,” he directs attention to its conclusion, in Chapter 12: “There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk among the most frequent users.” Berenson admits in a January 4 Wall Street Journal column based upon his book, “None of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness, although they do offer suggestive evidence of a link.” Indeed. But correlation is not causation. And there is always the question of “which came first–the chicken or the egg?” Some schizophrenics might be using cannabis as a form of self-medication.

The NASEM report also notes, “There are a number of proposed explanations for why the comorbidity of substance abuse and mental health disorders exists.” One suggested explanation is “an overlap in predisposing risk factors (e.g., genetic vulnerability, environment) may contribute to the development of both substance abuse and a mental health disorder,” and indeed there are studies suggesting a genetic predisposition exists for some cannabis users to develop schizophrenia. There is also research showing an increased risk for the development of schizophrenia associated with heavy marijuana use where a family history of schizophrenia exists.

But it is also important to note that many countries saw stable or declining rates of psychosis between the 1960s and 1980s, a time when marijuana use in those countries increased dramatically. A 2003 Australian study found “no causal relationship” between cannabis use and schizophrenia, and a 2012 British study found rates of schizophrenia stable from 1950 to 2009, a time of greatly increased marijuana use.

And while there may be a correlation between schizophrenia and heavy marijuana use, the NASEM report stated, “cannabis use does not appear to increase the likelihood of developing depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder.” Yet these are the most commonly cited “serious mental illnesses” that were found to be associated with heavy cannabis use among 18 to 25 year-olds in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health on which Berenson also relies to make his case. 

Psychiatrists have long known that the majority of patients with substance abuse disorders have psychiatric comorbidities, which need to be addressed in concert with the treatment of the substance abuse disorder. What is not yet known is how much the substance abuse disorders are actually driven by the comorbidities. 

No one is arguing here that heavy use of cannabis cannot be associated with a form of psychosis. The same can also be said regarding the heavy use of alcohol. In fact, heavy use of alcohol has been shown to cause organic psychosis and dementia. 

But just as the risks associated with heavy alcohol use don’t argue for completely avoiding alcohol consumption in those without preexisting vulnerabilities, any risks that may correlate with heavy marijuana consumption don’t argue for completely avoiding marijuana in those who likewise lack preexisting vulnerabilities. 

Perhaps Berenson could have considered a different title for his book, such as “Everything in Moderation.”

Some media reports and analyses on the latest developments in Venezuela are repeating the following five misconceptions:

 1. “Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself president of Venezuela”

 Juan Guaidó is the president of the National Assembly, a body that is controlled by the opposition. On January 10 a new presidential term started and, as required by the Constitution, the president-elect had to be sworn-in in front of the National Assembly. However, Nicolás Maduro was “reelected” last May in a sham election that the leading opposition parties were prevented from contesting it. Thus, on January 10 most Western governments refused to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro and instead correctly deemed that the National Assembly remained the only legitimate body of the Venezuelan government. The Legislature invoked articles 233, 333 and 350 of the Constitution, declaring Maduro a “usurper.” Article 233 states that given the permanent absence of the president, the president of the National Assembly would assume his/​her duties until a new election is organized. Thus, Juan Guaidó didn’t declare himself president. He was invested with such powers by the democratically elected National Assembly that followed the Constitution given the illegitimate reelection of Nicolás Maduro.

 2. “Venezuela is deeply divided”

Not anymore. That was certainly the case back in 2013 when Hugo Chávez died, and Nicolás Maduro succeeded him in power. However, the economic meltdown and ensuing humanitarian crisis, plus the grotesque levels of corruption of the regime, have turned an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans against Maduro. Most polls indicate that over 80% of Venezuelans want Maduro gone. A recent survey indicates that 83% recognize Guaidó as the interim-president.

 3. “There is the risk of a civil war”

To have a war, both sides need to be armed. In the case of Venezuela, only one side—the government—has the guns. So far, Maduro has enjoyed the full support of the armed forces, the National Guard—which is responsible for brutally repressing protests—and the colectivos, which are armed thugs that terrorize the population on motorcycles with the assistance of the police and the National Guard. In previous instances of unrest, almost all the fatal victims have been civilians killed by the National Guard or the colectivos.

 4. “The opposition is encouraging the Armed Forces to launch a coup”

The coup took place years ago and it was carried out by Maduro with the active involvement of the Armed Forces. In 2017 Maduro installed a puppet Constituent Assembly subverting the requirements established in the Constitution. Since then, that Assembly has taken away all the powers of the legitimately-elected National Assembly. The Supreme Court is under such complete control of the regime that since 2005 it hasn’t once ruled against the Executive. What the opposition is encouraging is for the Armed Forces to act in accordance to the Constitution.

 5. “This is a struggle between the Trump administration and Maduro”

It is a struggle between the Venezuelan people and their dictator. Even though the United States has played an important role in denouncing Maduro and imposing targeted sanctions on his regime, it is not the only country to recognize Guaidó as interim president. So far, the following countries have done so too: Canada, Australia, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru, as well as the secretary general of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro. The European Union is on the verge of recognizing the legitimacy of Guaidó too. Thus, this is not a standoff between Washington and Caracas. It is a showdown between the Venezuelan people, who has the support of most Western democracies, and Maduro, who has the backing of several dictatorships and autocracies such as Russia, China, Cuba and Turkey.