Category: reason

Immigration Enriches Migrants and Their New Countries

The textbook case for free trade says that if two countries specialize and trade with each other, total production rises—raising living standards for people in both countries. The same logic holds for immigration: If people from two countries specialize and trade, total production rises—raising living standards for people from both countries. When migrants move from places where they produce little to places where they produce much, they don’t merely enrich themselves; they enrich their customers. When Afghan immigrants open a new restaurant in Fairfax, Virginia, for example, they are effectively giving me a raise, because my salary suddenly buys more than it used to. 

These pages are adapted from Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration by permission of First Second.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34Y7TvY
via IFTTT

Immigration Enriches Migrants and Their New Countries

The textbook case for free trade says that if two countries specialize and trade with each other, total production rises—raising living standards for people in both countries. The same logic holds for immigration: If people from two countries specialize and trade, total production rises—raising living standards for people from both countries. When migrants move from places where they produce little to places where they produce much, they don’t merely enrich themselves; they enrich their customers. When Afghan immigrants open a new restaurant in Fairfax, Virginia, for example, they are effectively giving me a raise, because my salary suddenly buys more than it used to. 

These pages are adapted from Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration by permission of First Second.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34Y7TvY
via IFTTT

Stossel: Government Bans Ambulance Competition

Want to start a business? Imagine having to get your competitors’ permission first.

John Stossel points out that in 35 states, laws block new businesses from operating unless they get their competitors’ permission. One such law prevents Phillip Truesdell from operating ambulances in Kentucky.

“You’re going to tell me that I’m not fit to work in your town?” he asks.

He and his daughter Hannah Howe run Legacy Medical Transport, an ambulance service, in Ohio.

When they tried to expand into Kentucky, which is just a few minutes away from them, they learned it would be illegal.

It’s illegal due to Certificate of Need laws, also called “CON” laws. In Kentucky and three other states, you have to get a Certificate of Need to run an ambulance service.

Truesdell doesn’t think this is right.

He tells Stossel, “Anybody that draws breath ought to be allowed to work. Who gives the big man the right to say, ‘You can’t work here?'”

“The government. The law,” Stossel responds.

Then “Kentucky ought to change that law,” says Truesdell.

To do that, he and his daughter are working with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a lawsuit with the goal of getting CON laws declared unconstitutional.

Kentucky authorities and established companies resist. One ambulance provider told us, “When saturating a community with more [Emergency Medical Services] than it can financially support, all agencies become watered down.”

Truesdell’s attorney, Anastasia Boden, calls that “absurd.” She tells Stossel, “It is an abuse of government power to restrict somebody’s right to earn a living. [It’s] just as a handout to the other businesses.”

“It’s not a handout. It’s protecting a vital service,” Stossel pushes back.

“It’s protecting a vital service for the current operators only,” she responds.

Boden says we need competition, “because competition has been the driving force of innovation, lower prices, and better services.”

Stossel agrees: “Competition works! CON laws are a bad deal for both consumers and entrepreneurs. No one should have to ask permission to compete.”

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Q8DXcd
via IFTTT

Stossel: Government Bans Ambulance Competition

Want to start a business? Imagine having to get your competitors’ permission first.

John Stossel points out that in 35 states, laws block new businesses from operating unless they get their competitors’ permission. One such law prevents Phillip Truesdell from operating ambulances in Kentucky.

“You’re going to tell me that I’m not fit to work in your town?” he asks.

He and his daughter Hannah Howe run Legacy Medical Transport, an ambulance service, in Ohio.

When they tried to expand into Kentucky, which is just a few minutes away from them, they learned it would be illegal.

It’s illegal due to Certificate of Need laws, also called “CON” laws. In Kentucky and three other states, you have to get a Certificate of Need to run an ambulance service.

Truesdell doesn’t think this is right.

He tells Stossel, “Anybody that draws breath ought to be allowed to work. Who gives the big man the right to say, ‘You can’t work here?'”

“The government. The law,” Stossel responds.

Then “Kentucky ought to change that law,” says Truesdell.

To do that, he and his daughter are working with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a lawsuit with the goal of getting CON laws declared unconstitutional.

Kentucky authorities and established companies resist. One ambulance provider told us, “When saturating a community with more [Emergency Medical Services] than it can financially support, all agencies become watered down.”

Truesdell’s attorney, Anastasia Boden, calls that “absurd.” She tells Stossel, “It is an abuse of government power to restrict somebody’s right to earn a living. [It’s] just as a handout to the other businesses.”

“It’s not a handout. It’s protecting a vital service,” Stossel pushes back.

“It’s protecting a vital service for the current operators only,” she responds.

Boden says we need competition, “because competition has been the driving force of innovation, lower prices, and better services.”

Stossel agrees: “Competition works! CON laws are a bad deal for both consumers and entrepreneurs. No one should have to ask permission to compete.”

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Q8DXcd
via IFTTT

DACA Has Its Day at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Created by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA was an executive action that stalled the deportation of people brought to the country illegally by their parents when they were under 16, and allowed them to apply for work authorization as adults. To be eligible for DACA, recipients couldn’t have a criminal record.

Some 800,000 people have benefitted from the program. But its legality has long been controversial.

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the administration would be winding down the program, arguing that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally suspend deportations and, therefore, DACA was illegal.

The decision kicked off a flurry of lawsuits against the Trump administration, all asking federal courts to preserve DACA.

Supporting the government’s position are Cato Institute legal scholars Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro. While stressing that they support DACA’s policy outcome, Blackman and Shapiro wrote in an amicus brief that “the president cannot unilaterally make such a fundamental change to our immigration policy—not even when Congress refuses to act.”

“The attorney general reasonably determined that DACA is inconsistent with the president’s duty of faithful execution,” the two wrote.

Disagreeing with them is Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at George Mason University, who maintains that President Barack Obama was well within his rights to enact DACA.

“Critics attack DACA on the grounds that Obama lacked legal authority to choose not to enforce the law in this case. This critique runs afoul of the reality that the federal government already chooses not to enforce its laws against the vast majority of those who violate them,” wrote Somin in a Volokh Conspiracy blog post yesterday.

Because DACA is legal, and the Trump administration has failed to offer a coherent policy reason for getting rid of the program, Somin argues the Supreme Court could well rule against the government.

Lower courts have stalled the administration’s attempts to kill DACA on similar grounds, ruling that the Trump administration has yet to articulate a valid policy justification for ending the program.

Today, legal observers will be watching Chief Justice John Roberts, who has proven to be something of a swing vote when it comes to the president’s powers over immigration—Roberts voted to uphold the administration’s travel ban but voted to strike down its attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Regardless of the legal arguments about DACA’s legality, there’s a strong policy case for preserving the program.

Deporting people who were brought by their parents to the U.S., many of whom know no other home but America, is unjust, since hundreds of thousands of people could be sent back to dangerous countries they have little connection to—some DACA recipients might not even speak the language of their country of origin. Not to mention, ending DACA and the work authorizations that come with it would cost the government and economy billions in lost tax revenue and economic growth.

FREE MARKETS

Over at City Journal, Steven Malanga lists some of the very predictable ways that New York state’s June expansion of rent control is undermining the rental property market.

Malanga writes:

Because New York’s progressive legislators can’t repeal the laws of the marketplace, the effects have already begun to show. Two owners of large portfolios of buildings with rent-regulated apartments have already started falling behind on mortgage payments. Sales of rental apartment buildings in New York plunged 50 percent in the first quarter after the legislation was enacted, and now some owners face the prospect of being saddled with buildings operating at a loss, with a value less than their mortgages.”

New York City has long maintained a rent stabilization program, which caps how much landlords can increase rents at some 1 million rent-regulated apartments.

This year, the state legislature expanded the law, limiting the repair costs property owners can pass on to tenants, and getting rid of a provision that allowed landlords to charge market rates at apartments occupied by high-income renters.

Both Oregon and California have passed statewide rent control legislation this year in response to high housing costs. Research has shown rent control to be a good deal for tenants in price-controlled apartments.

The policy, however, raises rents for everyone else by deterring new construction and encouraging property owners to convert their rental properties into for-sale condominiums.

New York is currently is being sued in federal court by two landlord associations over its rent control regulations.

FREE MINDS

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi’s inexplicable decision to label the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist killed by the Saudi Arabian government, a “mistake” in a recent Axios interview kicked off a brief call to boycott the company yesterday.

“It’s a serious mistake. We’ve made mistakes, too, with self-driving [vehicles], and we stopped driving and we’re recovering from that mistake,” said Khosrowshahi when pressed on the fact that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund remains a major investor in Uber.

The comments, which Khosrowshahi has since walked back, raised the ire of many on Twitter, including Washington Post Global Opinions Editor Karen Attiah.

In response to the boycott, others suggested that this rage might be better channeled at members of Congress who’ve voted to sell weapons to the Saudi government.

QUICK HITS

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O5LC8A
via IFTTT

DACA Has Its Day at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Created by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA was an executive action that stalled the deportation of people brought to the country illegally by their parents when they were under 16, and allowed them to apply for work authorization as adults. To be eligible for DACA, recipients couldn’t have a criminal record.

Some 800,000 people have benefitted from the program. But its legality has long been controversial.

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the administration would be winding down the program, arguing that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally suspend deportations and, therefore, DACA was illegal.

The decision kicked off a flurry of lawsuits against the Trump administration, all asking federal courts to preserve DACA.

Supporting the government’s position are Cato Institute legal scholars Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro. While stressing that they support DACA’s policy outcome, Blackman and Shapiro wrote in an amicus brief that “the president cannot unilaterally make such a fundamental change to our immigration policy—not even when Congress refuses to act.”

“The attorney general reasonably determined that DACA is inconsistent with the president’s duty of faithful execution,” the two wrote.

Disagreeing with them is Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at George Mason University, who maintains that President Barack Obama was well within his rights to enact DACA.

“Critics attack DACA on the grounds that Obama lacked legal authority to choose not to enforce the law in this case. This critique runs afoul of the reality that the federal government already chooses not to enforce its laws against the vast majority of those who violate them,” wrote Somin in a Volokh Conspiracy blog post yesterday.

Because DACA is legal, and the Trump administration has failed to offer a coherent policy reason for getting rid of the program, Somin argues the Supreme Court could well rule against the government.

Lower courts have stalled the administration’s attempts to kill DACA on similar grounds, ruling that the Trump administration has yet to articulate a valid policy justification for ending the program.

Today, legal observers will be watching Chief Justice John Roberts, who has proven to be something of a swing vote when it comes to the president’s powers over immigration—Roberts voted to uphold the administration’s travel ban but voted to strike down its attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Regardless of the legal arguments about DACA’s legality, there’s a strong policy case for preserving the program.

Deporting people who were brought by their parents to the U.S., many of whom know no other home but America, is unjust, since hundreds of thousands of people could be sent back to dangerous countries they have little connection to—some DACA recipients might not even speak the language of their country of origin. Not to mention, ending DACA and the work authorizations that come with it would cost the government and economy billions in lost tax revenue and economic growth.

FREE MARKETS

Over at City Journal, Steven Malanga lists some of the very predictable ways that New York state’s June expansion of rent control is undermining the rental property market.

Malanga writes:

Because New York’s progressive legislators can’t repeal the laws of the marketplace, the effects have already begun to show. Two owners of large portfolios of buildings with rent-regulated apartments have already started falling behind on mortgage payments. Sales of rental apartment buildings in New York plunged 50 percent in the first quarter after the legislation was enacted, and now some owners face the prospect of being saddled with buildings operating at a loss, with a value less than their mortgages.”

New York City has long maintained a rent stabilization program, which caps how much landlords can increase rents at some 1 million rent-regulated apartments.

This year, the state legislature expanded the law, limiting the repair costs property owners can pass on to tenants, and getting rid of a provision that allowed landlords to charge market rates at apartments occupied by high-income renters.

Both Oregon and California have passed statewide rent control legislation this year in response to high housing costs. Research has shown rent control to be a good deal for tenants in price-controlled apartments.

The policy, however, raises rents for everyone else by deterring new construction and encouraging property owners to convert their rental properties into for-sale condominiums.

New York is currently is being sued in federal court by two landlord associations over its rent control regulations.

FREE MINDS

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi’s inexplicable decision to label the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist killed by the Saudi Arabian government, a “mistake” in a recent Axios interview kicked off a brief call to boycott the company yesterday.

“It’s a serious mistake. We’ve made mistakes, too, with self-driving [vehicles], and we stopped driving and we’re recovering from that mistake,” said Khosrowshahi when pressed on the fact that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund remains a major investor in Uber.

The comments, which Khosrowshahi has since walked back, raised the ire of many on Twitter, including Washington Post Global Opinions Editor Karen Attiah.

In response to the boycott, others suggested that this rage might be better channeled at members of Congress who’ve voted to sell weapons to the Saudi government.

QUICK HITS

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O5LC8A
via IFTTT

Is This the Way to Treat a Disabled Person You Believe Is Suicidal?

Do you think it’s a good idea to tase a disabled woman on suicide watch? A lawsuit, a police statement, and some body camera footage suggest that Boulder police did exactly that to Lauren Gotthelf in November 2017.

Gotthelf is mentally disabled, and she owns an emotional support dog named Sage. After getting Sage’s picture with Santa, the pair walked through the Pearl Street pedestrian mall on their way back to Gotthelf’s vehicle. Sage was off-leash.

Boulder Police Department Officer Ryan McAuley approached Gotthelf and told her that she could not have Sage on the mall and could not smoke a cigarette that she had recently lit. Gotthelf replied that Sage was a service animal and therefore was allowable under the Americans with Disabilities Act. McAuley responded by telling Gotthelf that she would be receiving a summons for walking there with a dog, for lighting a cigarette, and—after she put the cigarette on the ground—for littering. Gotthelf protested that there were other dogs in the area whose owners were not being harassed, and she refused to sign the ticket.

McAuley called for backup. Gotthelf was arrested, and she and Sage were forcibly separated.

Boulder County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) deputies were tasked with booking Gotthelf. The booking was captured on body camera, and the sheriff’s office later released the footage.

In the video, Gotthelf accuses the officer of “playing games” over the ticket. As she removes her jacket in compliance with the deputies, she says that she simply wanted to pay her fine and get her dog. 

“It doesn’t work that way,” says Sgt. Chris Reiss, the voice behind the body camera. He proceeds to explain that Gotthelf will have to wait until they receive more information from the arresting officer.

When Reiss says Gotthelf is “a little agitated” by her arrest, Gotthelf responds that she is in fact “agitated” because her service dog has been taken to animal control. She also repeatedly challenges the decision to put her in the holding cell.

There is a significant gap between the end of the first video and the start of the second. During this time, the BCSO claims, the prisoner “continually made negative, vulgar, and racist comments to deputies. She continued to yell insults for forty-five minutes. As the video depicts, Ms. Gotthelf continued to be resistant and disruptive, and Jail personnel determined she would be placed in the restraint chair, which was necessary for her safety.”

The second video picks up with deputies accusing Gotthelf of threatening to hang herself.

Gotthelf is seen behind the holding cell door denying that she threatened suicide. Gotthelf and the deputies continue to argue over what she said. They give her two options: go into a restraining chair, or strip down, put a smock on, and go on suicide watch.

Gotthelf tells them to take her to the hospital if they truly believe she’s suicidal. Once she’s in the restraining chair, a deputy holds Gotthelf’s chin in what is called a hypoglossal hold. Another calls for a spit mask. The rest strap Gotthelf in the chair while Reiss still holds his taser. The deputies repeatedly yell at Gotthelf to “sit down” before Reiss tases her thigh (or, as the BCSO statement puts it, he “touch tased her once with the ‘drive‐stun’ setting in the left thigh for pain compliance”).

Reiss yells at Gotthelf to “sit down” and “stop resisting”; Gotthelf screams, “I can’t.” Once she is completely secured, a deputy pushes her into a cell and has her face the wall before Reiss suggests turning her around.

“It’s obviously excessive force,” Gotthelf attorney, Maury Newman, tells Reason. “They rely on the assertion that she made a suicidal statement as justification to abuse her.” If the deputies felt that Gotthelf was a danger to herself, Newman adds, “There’s nothing about slamming her into a wall, handcuffing her behind the back, slapping her into a restraint chair, grabbing her by the throat, and tasing her that would have helped that.”

In addition to accusing the BCSO of excessive force, the suit accuses the cops of discrimination against a disabled person. The sheriff’s office maintains that it acted in compliance with its use of force and taser policies, since Gotthelf was resisting their commands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O2OHWQ
via IFTTT

Is This the Way to Treat a Disabled Person You Believe Is Suicidal?

Do you think it’s a good idea to tase a disabled woman on suicide watch? A lawsuit, a police statement, and some body camera footage suggest that Boulder police did exactly that to Lauren Gotthelf in November 2017.

Gotthelf is mentally disabled, and she owns an emotional support dog named Sage. After getting Sage’s picture with Santa, the pair walked through the Pearl Street pedestrian mall on their way back to Gotthelf’s vehicle. Sage was off-leash.

Boulder Police Department Officer Ryan McAuley approached Gotthelf and told her that she could not have Sage on the mall and could not smoke a cigarette that she had recently lit. Gotthelf replied that Sage was a service animal and therefore was allowable under the Americans with Disabilities Act. McAuley responded by telling Gotthelf that she would be receiving a summons for walking there with a dog, for lighting a cigarette, and—after she put the cigarette on the ground—for littering. Gotthelf protested that there were other dogs in the area whose owners were not being harassed, and she refused to sign the ticket.

McAuley called for backup. Gotthelf was arrested, and she and Sage were forcibly separated.

Boulder County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) deputies were tasked with booking Gotthelf. The booking was captured on body camera, and the sheriff’s office later released the footage.

In the video, Gotthelf accuses the officer of “playing games” over the ticket. As she removes her jacket in compliance with the deputies, she says that she simply wanted to pay her fine and get her dog. 

“It doesn’t work that way,” says Sgt. Chris Reiss, the voice behind the body camera. He proceeds to explain that Gotthelf will have to wait until they receive more information from the arresting officer.

When Reiss says Gotthelf is “a little agitated” by her arrest, Gotthelf responds that she is in fact “agitated” because her service dog has been taken to animal control. She also repeatedly challenges the decision to put her in the holding cell.

There is a significant gap between the end of the first video and the start of the second. During this time, the BCSO claims, the prisoner “continually made negative, vulgar, and racist comments to deputies. She continued to yell insults for forty-five minutes. As the video depicts, Ms. Gotthelf continued to be resistant and disruptive, and Jail personnel determined she would be placed in the restraint chair, which was necessary for her safety.”

The second video picks up with deputies accusing Gotthelf of threatening to hang herself.

Gotthelf is seen behind the holding cell door denying that she threatened suicide. Gotthelf and the deputies continue to argue over what she said. They give her two options: go into a restraining chair, or strip down, put a smock on, and go on suicide watch.

Gotthelf tells them to take her to the hospital if they truly believe she’s suicidal. Once she’s in the restraining chair, a deputy holds Gotthelf’s chin in what is called a hypoglossal hold. Another calls for a spit mask. The rest strap Gotthelf in the chair while Reiss still holds his taser. The deputies repeatedly yell at Gotthelf to “sit down” before Reiss tases her thigh (or, as the BCSO statement puts it, he “touch tased her once with the ‘drive‐stun’ setting in the left thigh for pain compliance”).

Reiss yells at Gotthelf to “sit down” and “stop resisting”; Gotthelf screams, “I can’t.” Once she is completely secured, a deputy pushes her into a cell and has her face the wall before Reiss suggests turning her around.

“It’s obviously excessive force,” Gotthelf attorney, Maury Newman, tells Reason. “They rely on the assertion that she made a suicidal statement as justification to abuse her.” If the deputies felt that Gotthelf was a danger to herself, Newman adds, “There’s nothing about slamming her into a wall, handcuffing her behind the back, slapping her into a restraint chair, grabbing her by the throat, and tasing her that would have helped that.”

In addition to accusing the BCSO of excessive force, the suit accuses the cops of discrimination against a disabled person. The sheriff’s office maintains that it acted in compliance with its use of force and taser policies, since Gotthelf was resisting their commands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2O2OHWQ
via IFTTT