JPM: It Appears There Is A Worker Shortage

JPM: It Appears There Is A Worker Shortage

Yesterday’s JOLTS Job Openings printed 7.37mm vs. 6.90mm survey and 7.10mm prior.

These February numbers preceded March’s large jobs gains. Combine this with reports from Bloomberg and Reuters, and – as JPMorgan writes today – “it appears that there is a worker shortage.”

Irrespective of the cause (worker flight due to joblessness, or “robust” stimulus keeping lazy workers on the sidelines and in front of their TV, which as we will show shortly, is indeed the case) JPM then notes that “businesses are rapidly raising wages to attract workers; but most of where this phenomenon is seen is for lower-income workers within the Service segment.

As we saw last April with the combination of $600/week federal employment and $1,200/adult and $500/child stimulus checks, which had the effect of bringing the bottom 3-4 deciles income brackets toward the median income, the impact on spending was significant.

While, these wage increases will not have as dramatic an impact as last year’s fiscal stimulus  the impact on spending should be material. Low-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume with a lower savings rate. This may be part of why Staples have outperformed recently; but, more generally, should continue to add support for the Consumer-led rally that JPM believes we will witness throughout 2021.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 19:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fRQNIM Tyler Durden

Joe Biden’s Bait-And-Switch Presidency

Joe Biden’s Bait-And-Switch Presidency

Authored by Charles Lipson via RealClearPolitics.com,

Joe Biden was elected as a moderate-left Democrat, but he is not governing as one. He pledged repeatedly to work across party lines, but he is ramming through the biggest, most expensive progressive agenda in American history without any Republican votes. He is almost certain to try it again with his next two spending proposals, the largest since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. As the White House pushes these mammoth bills with only Democratic votes, Americans are realizing they got a very different president from the one they bargained for, the one they were promised during the campaign. What’s unclear is whether they will recoil from this new reality.

Throughout the summer and fall, Biden ran as a unifier who could work across party lines. He wanted to do so, he said, and he reiterated that comforting message as late as his inaugural address. It was probably his most important policy message, and Americans believed it. They remembered his years in the Senate and his primary victory over socialist Bernie Sanders.

The reality has been very different from the promises. Biden’s pledge of bipartisanship and unity turned out to be a cynical sleight-of-hand, raw partisanship masquerading as comity. In the general election, it worked well enough to defeat a divisive incumbent, whose impulsiveness, rancor, and personal attacks repulsed many Americans. Now that the election is over, so is the message. Despite razor-thin Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill, Biden is determined to pass an ambitious agenda with no support from Republicans.

The clearest indication of Biden’s bait and switch came with the stimulus bill. Before signaling his final position, the president reached out to Republicans, who proposed a $600 billion package, focused on immediate needs plus some fiscal stimulus.

The bipartisan meeting was all for show. Biden quickly rejected the Republicans’ proposal, made no effort to meet with them again or negotiate any compromise, and chose instead to push for a bill three times as large, much of it to be spent long after the COVID crisis has passed. The extra $1.3 trillion did not include the infrastructure and other programs he now considers essential.

Those are coming in additional bills with huge price tags and associated tax hikes.

President Biden, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer knew their mammoth COVID bill would face unified Republican resistance. No matter. They pushed it through anyway, using the Senate’s arcane rule for budget reconciliation. They went big and unilateral, even though Republicans were eager to sign off on a large relief bill that would have commanded a Senate supermajority. This week, we learned Schumer has quietly asked the Senate parliamentarian if he can use the same 50-vote procedure for Biden’s latest spending bills, hoping to avoid any Republican filibuster.

Will this ‘ram-it-through’ mentality characterize the remainder of Biden’s first two years? You don’t have to visit the Oracle at Delphi for an answer. The clearest indication is that the president, who ran for the Oval Office as a man of the Senate, now wants to smash long-standing Senate rules so he can pass the rest of his legislative agenda without Republican votes.

The filibuster rules, Biden says, are nothing more than “relics of the Jim Crow era.” He’s relying on the distant memory that, more than half a century ago, Southern senators used the filibuster to oppose desegregation. Yet the huge civil rights and voting rights bills of the mid-1960s still passed. What’s more, they passed with enough debate and votes to buttress the statutes with a national political consensus.

Since then, both parties have used the filibuster to oppose all sorts of bills, most of them far removed from race. The Democrats used the technique repeatedly last year, when they were in the minority. They used it, for instance, to stop a police reform bill proposed by Tim Scott, an African American representing the state that fired the first shots in the Civil War. But that’s only one example among many. When Joe Biden and Barack Obama served in the Senate, they not only used the filibuster, they explicitly defended it. So did Chuck Schumer. Were they defending Jim Crow? No. They were defending the historic role of the Senate, which grants some power to the minority party.

Now, the same Democrats want to overturn those rules, and they are cynically deploying the sensitive issue of race to do it. But race is not the real issue here. It is whether the Senate wants to afford significant rights to the minority party, as it has for over two centuries, forcing either compromise solutions or stalemate. Put differently, do senators really want to turn their chamber into something like the House, where the minority is powerless and debate is meaningless? Once they do that, they can never turn back.

Behind Biden’s choice to go big, progressive, and unilateral lie three basic calculations.

  • The first is that, if history is any guide, Democrats are likely to lose the House in 2022. The incumbent president’s party almost always suffers losses, often big ones, and the Democrats don’t have any seats to spare. That means Biden has only two years to pass his aggressive agenda.

  • Second is his judgment that voters really like big government spendingRecent polling suggests they do, for now.  The question is whether that support will last and whether it will outweigh voters’ concerns about tax hikes to pay for those programs.

  • Third, Biden is betting that voters in 2022 and 2024 will care a lot more about today’s practical results than about yesterday’s broken campaign promises. That’s probably true. The White House also knows it can blame Republicans for any resistance to its agenda. It has a bully pulpit and a compliant media to help.

The result is a president determined to pass everything on the Democrats’ all-you-can-eat menu, even if he has to do it with strict party-line votes. As a candidate, Joe Biden promised voters a center-left agenda and bipartisanship. As a president, he is giving them neither. Biden’s deception is based on the oldest marketing technique in the book: bait and switch.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 19:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PJ2tCW Tyler Durden

Chinese Shipping Giant Soars After Forecasting 200x Profit Jump On Exploding Shipping Costs

Chinese Shipping Giant Soars After Forecasting 200x Profit Jump On Exploding Shipping Costs

In the past few months, we have extensively discussed the surge in shipping costs (here, here, here and here) as a result of the triple whammy of frayed supply chains, covid and the uneven global reopening, which has sent prices for everything from toilet paper to the lumber used to build houses to record highs. But while inflation is the price we all have to pay – don’t worry, the Fed vows it is transitory – there are those on the other end of the table who rejoice when shipping prices soar. One such company China’s is Cosco Shipping Holdings, part of state-owned behemoth China Cosco Shipping, whose stock price today surged the most since 2008 in Hong Kong on blowout earnings and after the shipping company forecast first-quarter net profit at 15.41 billion yuan (US$2.36 billion), around 200 times the CNY76 million reported a year earlier, thanks to container rates sky-rocketing due to pandemic-induced supply shortages.

Cosco Shipping’s Hong Kong-listed shares were last up 29% at HK$13.66 while its Shanghai-listed shares rose by the daily trading cap of 10% to CNY16.15.

Today’s 30% spike is modest compared to the 6x surge in Cosco shares in the past year.

The good days for Cosco are unlikely to end anytime soon. While shipping rates have fallen 10% from year-to-date highs, they are still sharply higher than a year earlier, Jefferies said Andrew Lee adding that a supply bottleneck could drag on in the short-term following the Suez Canal blockage.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 19:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3wxhpVr Tyler Durden

“Holy Smoke!” – Massive Fire Rages At Texas Industrial Plant

“Holy Smoke!” – Massive Fire Rages At Texas Industrial Plant

A massive industrial fire is raging in Channelview, Texas. The two-alarm blaze broke out late this afternoon. Residents heard loud noises and then saw a huge fireball fill the air, reported Click2Houston.

According to a tweet from Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, “hazmat and fire investigators are en route to assist Channelview Fire Department” to combat the fire raging at the K-solv facility in the 1000 block of Lakeside Drive.

“The two-alarm blaze that broke out at about 4 p.m. is sending a huge plume of thick, black smoke over eastern Harris County. Winds are blowing the smoke to the northeast from the facility. The smoke is so thick it is even visible on doppler radar,” said ABC13 Houston

Multiple reports indicate residents in the surrounding community heard loud noises before the blaze broke out. 

Watch live:

*This is a developing story.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 18:47

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fQy9Rr Tyler Durden

Architect Of Reagan Revolution Blasts “Bidenomics”

Architect Of Reagan Revolution Blasts “Bidenomics”

Authored by Gregory Bresiger via InsideSources.com,

As the Biden administration prepares the largest tax hike since World War II, a longtime Republican economic advisor is sounding the alarm on “Bidenomics.”

In an exclusive interview with Inside Sources, Arthur Laffer, who as a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board is credited with America’s economic boom in the 1980s, warned of the negative impact of tax hikes, especially on those in lower-income brackets.

“Raising taxes will especially hurt the poor and minorities who need jobs,” said Laffer, adding, “It is more than bad policy; it is cruel.”

He says the principles of Bidenomics will slowly bankrupt the country if followed over the next few decades.

Biden’s oft-repeated campaign pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 is meeting the reality of his early presidential agenda. While Republicans criticize the administration’s handling of the southern border and some members of his own party clamor for immediate action on gun control, Biden is keeping his focus squarely on his $4 trillion dollar “infrastructure and jobs” plan, formally unveiling the proposal later this week at an event in Pittsburgh.

According to reports from The Washington Post, the package will be funded by as much as $3 trillion dollars in tax hikes.

Laffer, who also served as an economic adviser to President Trump, believes these policies will lower America’s standard of living and eventually reduce the country to a second-rate economic power.

“There’s a very good chance now that the United States, a few generations from now, will be a minor country,” according to Laffer. He argues that the successful tax-cutting policies of Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Trump and were “not sustained,” but were interrupted by a return to the thinking of the 1930s to 1950s when the highest marginal tax rates were often as high as 94 percent.

“Why,” Laffer asks, “would someone earn an extra dollar when you only get to keep six cents?” He said many high earners in those periods would stop working for the rest of the tax year when they reached the 94 percent level.

He believes many Biden policies discourage work. They also demonstrate, Laffer charges, a “breathtaking economic illiteracy.”

He accuses many Bidenomics supporters of lacking an understanding of the basic principles of economics.

“These aren’t people who have any knowledge. These aren’t people who have economic education,” Laffer contends.

As an architect of the supply-side revolution championed by Reagan in the 1980s, Laffer was an advocate of a principle now known as the Laffer Curve. Proponents of the Laffer Curve argue lower tax rates promote strong growth rates, which in turn puts more money in government coffers without raising taxes.

The origins of supply-side economics can be traced to treasury secretary Andrew Mellon, who served in the administration of President Warren Harding. Harding’s tax cuts helped the United States recover from the depression of 1920, fueling a decade of prosperity and the “Roaring 20s.”

Even as a Republican who has served in multiple GOP administrations, Laffer praised the tax-cutting policies of the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

Biden, by contrast, has proposed raising the corporate tax back to 28 percent. During his term in office, Trump lowered the rate from 35 percent to its current 21 percent.

Biden has promised millions of new government-sponsored jobs owing to higher taxes on the rich and government job creation.

“Democrats,” wrote Biden in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force paper, “will make investments to create millions of family-supporting and union jobs in clean energy generation, energy efficiency, clean transportation, advanced manufacturing, and sustainable agriculture across America.”

Laffer, who favors more enterprise zones in poor neighborhoods, lower capital gains taxes, and tax amnesty programs, says his ideas have little chance of becoming law unless Republicans retake Congress. He is pessimistic about the GOP recapturing the Senate in 2022, but believes the House of Representatives is within reach. Laffer also predicted a Republican takeover of the Senate in 2024.

Laffer commended Larry Summers, who served as a top economic adviser to Presidents Clinton and Obama, for being a rare Democrat willing to sound the alarm on deficit spending.

Summers described the recent spending spree as the “least responsible” macroeconomic policy of the past 40 years. He blames both parties for overspending.

“Even though I disagree with him on a number of issues, he’s a real hero on this issue,” Laffer says of Summer, describing him as much smarter than the people who are running “Bidenomics.”

“These aren’t the people who understand economic science,” Laffer contends. “They are people who replace knowledge with political cliches. This will run the country into the ground.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 18:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3uwoLq9 Tyler Durden

‘Pro-Crypto’ Peter Thiel Warns Bitcoin “Could Be A Chinese Financial Weapon Against The US”

‘Pro-Crypto’ Peter Thiel Warns Bitcoin “Could Be A Chinese Financial Weapon Against The US”

In early 2018, controversial conservative billionaire and PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel said “Crypto is libertarian, AI is communist.”

He was specifically talking about decentralization and centralization.

  • Cryptocurrencies are typically open-source, meaning that anyone with technical ability can contribute. On top of that, anyone disgruntled with a given cryptocurrency’s trajectory can “fork” it, creating a new coin (as we have seen in both bitcoin and ethereum). Cryptocurrencies are also famously designed to be extralegal – beyond the reach of the government – although of course the SEC and the IRS hope to quash that notion.

  • Meanwhile, artificial intelligence relies on the trend that came before it, big data, and big data is gathered by big entities. Historically, communist regimes like the Soviet Union and Maoist China sought to create highly centralized command economies, noted Thiel. A sufficiently powerful AI could realize the bureaucrat’s dream of accurately predicting peasant farmers’ potato yields months in advance from thousands of miles away.

No wonder, then, as the billionaire VC said at the time, “the Chinese Communist Party hates crypto and loves AI.”

Now, three years later, the Palantir co-founder and Facebook board member Peter Thiel joined former Secretary of State Mike Pomeo and former National Security Agency advisor Robert C. O’Brien in a virtual roundtable organized by the Richard Nixon Foundation, to discuss Big Tech’s problematic ties with China.

Some have suggested that the appearance with Pompeo could have implications for the 2024 presidential race. The former secretary of state is widely seen as a possible candidate for the Republican nomination – and Thiel has signaled a willingness to back figures closely aligned with Trump.

But, aside from his comments regard Apple as “probably the one [tech company] that’s structurally a real problem” for U.S. interests, adding that “Apple is the one that has real synergies with China;” Thiel caught the attention of the crypto crowd as he appeared to urge urged the U.S. government to consider tighter regulations… specifically against China.

“From China’s point of view, they don’t like us having this reserve currency as it gives us lots of leverage… like over oil supply chains…

They don’t want the Reminbi to become the reserve currency because then they’d have to open up their capital account [this losing some of the all-important centralized control they cherish].

The euro could perhaps be seen as a potential Chinese weapon against the dollar… though the last decade hasn’t worked out that way… but China may have liked to see two reserve currencies and leveraged the euro.”

And then Thiel shifted his focus specifically to crypto…

“I do wonder whether at this point, Bitcoin should also be thought [of] in part as a Chinese financial weapon against the U.S.,” Thiel said during the event.

“It threatens fiat money, but it especially threatens the U.S. dollar.”.

While the yuan has been strengthening against its fiat peers for much of the last year, it has been dramatically weakening against bitcoin.

Source: Bloomberg

Thiel added:

“[If] China’s long Bitcoin, perhaps from a geopolitical perspective, the U.S. should be asking some tougher questions about exactly how that works.”

The thoughtful VC also commented on China’s CBDC plans, agreeing with our previous comments that it has nothing to do with bitcoin, or any cryptocurrency:

“…that’s not a real cryptocurrency, that’s just some sort of totalitarian measuring device.”

Watch the full comment below:

While some have suggested this appears to be Thiel flip-flopping on bitcoin, it could perhaps been interpreted as him merely stating the fact that crypto is seen generally as a threat to the hegemonic dollar (as insurance against the constant money-printing of the central bank) and if China – in its own battle against the unipolar order – wants the USDollar to appear to be weakening, it makes sense for them to be buying (or mining… illegally) bitcoin.

Source: Bloomberg

Hence, Thiel is more likely suggesting that, in his self-proclaimed “pro-crypto, pro-Bitcoin maximalist” manner, that the US should be buying bitcoin… to counter China’s attempts to ‘corner’ it.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 18:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3d37Kyd Tyler Durden

Law Student’s Instagram Posting Triggers Debate Over Anti-White Speech

Law Student’s Instagram Posting Triggers Debate Over Anti-White Speech

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The University of Miami Law School is facing a controversy over how to handle racist comments directed against white students – with objections over a double standard at the university. 

It is increasingly common to read anti-white commentary in the media, including a column recently from Elie Mystal writer for Above the Law and The Nation’s justice correspondent who lashed out at “white society” and how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic.

Miami Law School has been silent in the face of complaints filed against student Jordan Gary after she posted her comments publicly on Instagram.

Gary publicly declared that she “hate[s] white people,” and noted that “People always tell me like ‘hate is such a strong word. And yes it is, but these are some strong ass stories I heard. And until I can figure out how to reconcile that in my head, and in my heart, I hate white people.”  According to her LinkedIn page, Gary is the president of the Black Law Students Association and also the writing editor for the Race & Social Justice Law Review at the university.

Conservative sites asked Miami’s Dean for a comment but there has been no public statement even after the filing of complaints.

The issue of anti-white commentary raises a subject so sensitive that few universities are willing to openly discuss it. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, my default remains with free speech, particularly for comments made outside of a school on social media. That does not mean that schools should not denounce intolerant or racist speech.  However, these comments are bound up with an array of personal, social, and political issues for students like Gary. I would rather discuss these views than seek to punish their expression.

The free speech community is always concerned with not just the punishment of viewpoints but any differential or biased punishment.  There is little question that a white student at Miami saying that “I hate [black] people” would be immediately and publicly denounced — and likely would be immediately suspended. If there is a difference between anti-white and anti-black commentary, it should be made clear and debated.

In posting the comments, Gary was clearly inviting a public debate — a debate that might have some positive elements in getting different groups and races to think about racist assumptions as well as free speech protections.

Gary is not alone obviously in voicing such views.  Mystal’s column shows the same sweeping characterization of white people. He writes:

“Over the past year, I have, of course, still had to interact with white people on Zoom or watch them on television or worry about whether they would succeed in reelecting a white-supremacist president….Their cops aren’t hunting me when I drive through my neighborhood; their hang-ups aren’t bothering me (or threatening me) when I’m just trying to do some shopping.

…White people haven’t improved; I’ve just been able to limit my exposure to them.”

Notably, Mystal was one of the most vocal voices denouncing Nicholas Sandmann and continued to slam the wrongly accused student even after the reports of a racist incident were debunked. In the coverage of the initial coverage, Mystal’s denounced Sandmann for wearing his “racist [MAGA] hat” and objected to Sandmann doing interviews trying to defend himself. Mystal derided how this “17-year-old kid makes the George Zimmerman defense for why he was allowed to deny access to a person of color.” Putting aside the fact that Sandmann was not denying “access to a person of color,”  Mystal and Patrice were comparing this high school student to a man who was accused of murdering an unarmed African American kid and even assailing his effort to clear his name as the media continued to label him a racist.

Again, Sandmann was entirely innocent of the racism allegations and the Washington Post reached a settlement with him.

Mystal’s latest tirade however still shows that racist statements can reflect social, political, and other experiences. Mystal does concede that “not that most or even many of my interactions with white people are ‘bad.’” However, he has deep-seated feelings about how whites interact with minorities or what he views as a common sense of white privilege.  Many of these speakers are saying that their hostility is derived from experiences with racism from whites.

This brings us back to the Miami controversy and how schools should handle such disputes. One answer is that the approach should be the same regardless of whether the statements target one race or another. If there is going to be a zero tolerance for racist statements, it must be applied consistently. If not, these schools owe their students and faculty members clarity on where the line is drawn and why some racist comments are treated differently. Silence does not shoulder that burden.  We need to discuss if otherwise racist statements can be differentiated and if such differentiation constitutes tolerance for criticisms based on the race of others at a school. Likewise, there is the question of how such sweeping generalities apply to other races or other categories like gender or sexual orientation. It even ask such questions today is to risk being labeled racist or intolerant. As a result, there is just silence and the free speech concerns go unaddressed.

Once again, I tend to oppose the regulation of speech outside of schools on free speech grounds. More importantly, I would prefer to speak freely and collectively about such deep-seated views held by students. I recognize that I hold a traditional (and perhaps dated) view of free speech. However, I still believe that the solution of bad speech is more speech, not speech regulation.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 18:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31RRY2y Tyler Durden

Daily Briefing: The Roaring Twenties:Inflation, Equity Melt-Ups, and Extreme Bond Pain

Daily Briefing: The Roaring Twenties:Inflation, Equity Melt-Ups, and Extreme Bond Pain

Jared Dillian, publisher of The Daily Dirtnap, returns to the Daily Briefing to update Real Vision’s Jack Farley on how America’s red-hot economy is precipitating wage inflation alongside monetary and fiscal stimulus, worth trillions of dollars, which shows no sign of slowing. Dillian argues that this booming reflationary environment will be hostile to bonds but could lead to a “melt-up” in U.S. equity indexes as value stocks surge and growth stocks remain at hold their own. Lastly, Dillian and Farley cover gold, retail leverage, and the Federal Reserve’s release of its minutes from the FOMC’s meeting in March.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/07/2021 – 15:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3uorkuu Tyler Durden

A Limited but Significant Victory for Children the Government Deems to be American Indian

Tim Sandefur, who has done great work on the issue, analyzes the Fifth Circuit’s long, divided opinion on the Indian Child Welfare Act.

As regular readers know, I have spent the last couple of years researching the modern American law of racial classification. (Did I mention that in addition to my soon-to-be-published law review article, I now have a book contract?) If you asked me what is the most obviously unconstitutional (or, for that matter, immoral) law that depends on such classification, my answer would be the ICWA.

Just for example, under ICWA a child could be zero percent Indian on his mother’s side, 1/256 Cherokee on his father’s side, and not a member of the Cherokee tribe, but eligible for tribal membership. According to the ICWA, this makes him “an Indian” for statutory purposes.

His parents decide to give the child up for adoption to a loving white (or black, or Hispanic) family. Great, right? Wrong. The Cherokee Tribe can veto the adoption, and insist that he be adopted by a Cherokee.

But wait, there’s more. Even if the Cherokee tribe agrees to the parents’ adoption wishes, before a court can allow the non-Indian couple to adopt, it would have to make sure that no other Indian tribe wants to claim the child. In other words, this child’s future is being determined solely based on what amounts to a one-drop rule of racial ancestry, allowing a child that’s never set foot on his ancestral reservation to be adopted against the parents’ judgment by a tribe with which he has no connections at all, other than “racial.” The Supreme Court needs to take this opportunity to get rid of this monstrous law.

[Cross-posted with minor differences at Instapundit]

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mrgjWx
via IFTTT

A Limited but Significant Victory for Children the Government Deems to be American Indian

Tim Sandefur, who has done great work on the issue, analyzes the Fifth Circuit’s long, divided opinion on the Indian Child Welfare Act.

As regular readers know, I have spent the last couple of years researching the modern American law of racial classification. (Did I mention that in addition to my soon-to-be-published law review article, I now have a book contract?) If you asked me what is the most obviously unconstitutional (or, for that matter, immoral) law that depends on such classification, my answer would be the ICWA.

Just for example, under ICWA a child could be zero percent Indian on his mother’s side, 1/256 Cherokee on his father’s side, and not a member of the Cherokee tribe, but eligible for tribal membership. According to the ICWA, this makes him “an Indian” for statutory purposes.

His parents decide to give the child up for adoption to a loving white (or black, or Hispanic) family. Great, right? Wrong. The Cherokee Tribe can veto the adoption, and insist that he be adopted by a Cherokee.

But wait, there’s more. Even if the Cherokee tribe agrees to the parents’ adoption wishes, before a court can allow the non-Indian couple to adopt, it would have to make sure that no other Indian tribe wants to claim the child. In other words, this child’s future is being determined solely based on what amounts to a one-drop rule of racial ancestry, allowing a child that’s never set foot on his ancestral reservation to be adopted against the parents’ judgment by a tribe with which he has no connections at all, other than “racial.” The Supreme Court needs to take this opportunity to get rid of this monstrous law.

[Cross-posted with minor differences at Instapundit]

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mrgjWx
via IFTTT