Why building a wall on the US-Mexico border is a symbolic monument, not sensible immigration policy

By Blog Admin One of Donald Trump’s signature policies is to “build a wall” in order to better secure the border with Mexico. Susannah Crockford has spent nearly two years in Arizona conducting an ethnographic study; many in the area feel that constructing the wall is unnecessary. She writes that the real function of the wall is not to keep people out, but to serve as a symbol to mostly white, ageing conservatives, that President Trump will keep them safe. One of the major platforms of Donald Trump’s campaign was to build a wall along the whole length of the US-Mexico border. Within five days of his inauguration he signed an executive order promising just that. While it may seem like a rational, albeit conservative, policy to address the issue of undocumented migration, the practicality of building a wall is far more complex. It also sends a strong message about what sort of nation America is and who is allowed to go there. The idea that building a 50ft wall along the border with Mexico will improve US security is belied by the social reality of the border. There are already 650 miles of wall and fencing on the 1,900 mile border. The new wall would extend this to cover an additional 1,000 miles, with the remainder being terrain such as desert and mountains considered too difficult to traverse. The extension is a re-enactment of the Bush-era Secure Fence Act of 2006 which built the existing wall at a cost of $7 billion. Since the imposition of the “Prevention Through Deterrence” policy in the 1990s, the US-Mexico border has become the most militarised border between two peacetime nations. This policy focuses the efforts of the Border Patrol on densely populated and easy to cross areas. A wide array of technological surveillance and fortification is already used including SUVs, drones, thermal imaging cameras, motion sensors, infrared cameras, ground sensors, surveillance towers, and even a blimp. Jason de León of the Undocumented Migrant Project likens the Border Patrol’s use of expensive high-tech gadgets to magical fetishes. And like talismen, the weapons of the Border Patrol operate to ward off the unwanted. The effect of this policy has been to funnel crossings to the dangerous mountain and desert ranges of Southern Arizona. This has decreased the number of attempted border crossings while increasing the number of deaths of migrants attempting to cross. With crossings increasingly occurring over the most dangerous terrain; the border area has precipitated a humanitarian crisis. This terrain would still be open under Trump’s plan, as it is not possible to build a 50ft wall there. The wall will therefore increase the number of migrants crossing in hostile terrain. The result will be that more people will die. This is because without a meaningful attempt to address the root causes of migration, people will still cross. Smuggling will also continue with drugs going into the US and firearms going into Mexico. As former Arizona governor and Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Continue reading

Enhancing the Fed’s transparency didn’t hurt its deliberations

By Blog Admin For more than two decades, transcripts of the US Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee meetings have been made available to the public. But has the move to greater transparency about monetary policymaking hurt committee deliberations? In new research which examines committee meeting transcripts from 1978 to 2007, Joseph Gardner and John T. Woolley find that leadership – not transparency – had the greatest effect on how members deliberated during meetings. One hallmark of the 1990s “quiet revolution” in central banking was the movement towards greater transparency. This movement was often rapid and was a remarkable departure from the long-dominant practice of conducting central banking in secret. One example of transparency that provides an exceptional window on the conduct of central banking is the release of verbatim meeting transcripts. The first major central bank to adopt this practice, in 1993, was the US Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Bank of England (BoE) announced in late 2014 it too would begin releasing meeting transcripts of its Monetary Policy Committee. The Fed’s decision to release transcripts was made under pressure from Congress. At the time, many central bankers argued that this would hurt its deliberations. Were they correct? Does transparency of this sort harm committee decision making? What might the BoE learn from the Fed’s experience with this practice? Our recent research on the FOMC indicates that while releasing meeting transcripts probably altered some of the ways members talked with each other, it had no lasting negative effect on how much FOMC members actually deliberated during meetings. The merits of transparency have been much debated. In a report prepared for the BoE, Keven Warsh summarized those debates and concluded that transparency was “an essential best practice for central banks.” Former FOMC Vice Chair Alan Blinder argues not only that transparency improves democratic accountability, it can also make monetary policy more effective: it can make it easier for markets to understand and respond to central bank policy. Transparency can, of course, take many forms. For example, it could involve promptly and clearly explaining policy decisions, publicizing inflation targets, releasing transcripts, or, at its most extreme, opening meetings to the public or the media. Most advocates of transparency would caution that effective monetary policy also depends on effective central bank independence from partisan political pressures. When it comes to releasing meeting transcripts, some central bankers are skeptical that its benefits outweigh its costs. Former FOMC Chairman Alan Greenspan is among those who opposed even the delayed release of transcripts. In 1993 congressional testimony he spoke against the proposed release of FOMC meeting transcripts saying it would be a “major mistake” that would weaken the Fed’s defenses against political pressures. In his view, releasing meeting transcripts “would so seriously constrain the process of formulating policy as to render those meetings nearly unproductive. The candid airing of views, the forthright give and take, and the tentative posing of new ideas would likely disappear.” His concern, in short, was that the meetings Continue reading

US parents enjoy time with children—but moms feel more strain

By Blog Admin Compared to past decades, children receive more time, effort, and interest from their parents. While this is likely to be of benefit to children, what are the impacts on the well-being of parents? In new research, which examines time diary data from over 12,000 respondents between 2010 and 2013, Kelly Musick, Ann Meier and Sarah Flood find that mothers spend more time with children performing chores such as basic childcare and housework, while fathers spend more time with children in leisure activities. Mothers and fathers also differ in the quantity and quality of their downtime. The disparities in stress and fatigue that mothers and fathers experience in their different activities throughout the day can be linked to lower levels of parental well-being. Parenting in the US—and elsewhere—has become more time-intensive and child-centered than it used to be. This shift is widely assumed to have positive effects on kids, but what about mom and dad? Implications for parental well-being are less clear. In new work, we find that parents enjoy the time they spend with their children. They experience greater happiness and meaning and less sadness, stress, and fatigue in activities with children compared to time without their children. But parenting carries more strain for mothers. In our study, mothers reported more stress and fatigue and less happiness in parenting than fathers. We rely on nationally representative time diary data linked to more than 12,000 respondents and their feelings in over 36,000 activities from the 2010, 2012, and 2013 well-being module of the American Time Use Survey. Our results show that how mothers and fathers spend time with children accounts for some of the gap in how they experience parenting. Mothers spend more time with children while doing chores like basic childcare, cooking, and cleaning, whereas fathers spend more time with children in enjoyable, low-stress activities like play and leisure. Most of fathers’ time with children is spent in leisure activities like TV or downtime. Mothers and fathers also differ in the quantity and quality of their downtime. Although mothers get 27 minutes more sleep than fathers, they also suffer more sleep interruptions than fathers, with 16 percent of mothers experiencing three or more sleep episodes compared to 9 percent of fathers, indicating lower sleep quality. Mothers spend significantly less time in leisure than do fathers (11 minutes less), and a greater proportion of their leisure time is with children only: just over 6 hours or 19 percent of all leisure for mothers versus 9 percent of all leisure for fathers. Mothers also experience more interrupted leisure than fathers, with 27 percent of mothers reporting leisure time interrupted by childcare at least twice during the day compared to 14 percent of fathers, suggesting less continuous and relaxing free time. Mothers engaged in activities with their children are also significantly more likely to be solo parenting: 49 percent of mothers’ activities with children do not include another adult present compared to 32 percent of fathers’ activities. This is true, Continue reading

There is no evidence to suggest that charter schools increase school segregation.

By Blog Admin Charter schools are a controversial part of the US education system, with opponents expressing concern that more advantaged students will tend to choose them, taking resources away from traditional public schools and potentially increasing how segregated they are. In a new study of charter schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, Gary Ritter and colleagues find that levels of segregation were very similar in both charter and public schools. They also find that only around 1 percent of students transferred from public to charter schools, compared to 16 percent who leave the school district for other destinations. In the world of US education policy, the controversy over the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education shows that debate continues over the merits or downsides of charter schools. US charter schools are, as many education observers know, roughly equivalent to “academies” in the United Kingdom. Charter schools can seek waivers from some requirements that apply to traditional schools such as teacher licensure, teacher contracts, and length of the school day or year. Like traditional schools, charter schools are public and are free for students to attend. Unlike traditional schools, students can attend regardless of where they live. Traditional school enrollment is determined by a student’s address. If charter schools receive applications from more students than they can serve, students must be selected by random lottery. Charter schools cannot selectively enroll certain types of students such as those with higher academic ability. Opponents of charter schools fear that given freedom of choice, more advantaged students would congregate in better charter schools with an abundance of resources while the less affluent will be left behind in traditional public schools with depleted resources, resulting in greater levels of segregation and decreasing school quality for low-income students. It is plausible, on the other hand, that increased schooling choices could have the opposite effect and foster greater racial and economic diversity within schools and increased school quality for all students. In traditional US public school systems, students’ schooling options are almost entirely a function of where their families live. Household income largely constrains housing choices, resulting in neighborhoods are largely segregated along racial and class lines. As such, students attend schools that are as racially and economically segregated as the neighborhoods in which they reside. Charter schools, however, have the potential to detach schooling choice from housing choice; students can cross racially segregated neighborhood and district boundaries. As a result, charter schools could lead to lower levels of segregation than that which exists in traditional school systems. Research concerning charter schools and their effect on racial integration shows mixed results. Adding to the confusion of this literature is the fact that there is no single working definition for important terms such as integration and segregation. Some studies have defined segregation by labeling schools as “racially homogeneous” or “hyper-segregated” if they meet a certain threshold, such as having 90 percent or more of their students represented by a single race, or 90 percent or more Continue reading

Book Review: Aspirational Power: Brazil on the Long Road to Global Influence by David R. Mares and Harold A. Trinkunas

By Blog Admin In Aspirational Power: Brazil on the Long Road to Global Influence, David R. Mares and Harold A. Trinkunas examine Brazil as an exemplar of the use of soft power to obtain greater global influence. While identifying cases that challenge some of the book’s analysis, Mark S. Langevin finds this is an indispensable evaluation of Brazil’s changing position in the world order that also provides a comprehensive framework through which to better understand the workings of soft power. Aspirational Power: Brazil on the Long Road to Global Influence. David R. Mares and Harold A. Trinkunas. The Brookings Institution Press. 2016. Find this book: Brazil’s road to global influence provides the compound metres for David R. Mares and Harold A. Trinkunas’ Aspirational Power: Brazil on the Long Road to Global Influence. Aspirational Power is a systematic treatment of the global order and an explanation of why Brazil remains a ‘rule taker’. The book reads like Heitor Villa Lobos’s symphony O Trenzino do Caipira, rumbling through the melodic contours of repeated national efforts to scale the heights of development and international leadership only to plunge into the valley of misfortune. Mares and Trinkunas offer a comparable framework for studying emerging powers, the obstacles they face and decisions they take to climb the ladder of global power. They apply the founding principles and myths associated with the so-called liberal international order to their case study, but add a compelling analytical twist to suggest that ‘Brazil is […] a poster child for learning about soft power’ (17). For Mares and Trinkunas, soft power is the expression of the international ‘attraction of a state’s domestic model’; such magnetism is dependent upon a stable set of political, economic and social institutions and policies that can reproduce and expand national power over time. The authors catalogue Brazil’s repeated failures to establish a stable domestic order that can project soft power through global governance. The challenge for Mares and Trinkunas is to explain how the interaction between international opportunities and national leadership decisions account for Brazil’s episodic moments of emergence followed by crisis. Image Credit: Sugar Loaf Cable Car – Bondinho Pão de Açúcar (Laszlo Ilyes CC BY 2.0) International security poses a distinct set of challenges for an emerging power to become a ‘rule maker’. For Brazil, these are complicated by the foreign ministry’s unwillingness to brandish the swords of coercive diplomacy to shape the global order. Brazilian diplomacy requires national economic and social development that inspires others, while also generating the resources necessary for upgrading ‘hard power’ assets to deepen the country’s role in collective security initiatives. Mares and Trinkunas argue that the exercise of soft power is contingent on military force capabilities, but Brazil has not yet achieved a level of economic and military power that could serve as the basis of expanding its contributions to the international security domain without ‘eroding domestic support for its policy of ‘‘grandeza” [realising the enormous potential for development given the country’s remarkable natural resources] by assuming Continue reading

Book Review: Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein by John Nixon

By Blog Admin In Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, John Nixon tells the fascinating story of Saddam Hussein’s capture and interrogation. At the same time, writes Joe Devanny, Nixon excoriates the George W. Bush administration’s approach to intelligence and policy in the build-up to the Iraq war. This is a short, highly readable book, suffused with controlled anger at the intelligence community’s shortcomings, but also offering some striking lessons for would-be intelligence analysts and policymakers, underlining the risks of unchallenged assumptions and the pitfalls of decision-making with imperfect information and political bias. Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein. John Nixon. Bantam Press. 2016. Find this book: Intelligence analysts enjoy unfettered access to information about their ‘targets’ in order to produce deep insights for the benefit of policymakers and political leaders. Despite the breadth and depth of this access, analysts commonly operate at one remove: they never actually get to meet their targets. For John Nixon, the terms of this deal were turned upside down. As a leadership analyst of Iraq for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Nixon was one of the first people to interrogate Saddam Hussein following Hussein’s December 2003 capture. Nixon’s Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein vividly conveys the best and worst aspects of a career in intelligence analysis. He clearly relished his analytical role as one of the US intelligence community’s resident experts on Saddam, spending several years poring over every available scrap of information to form a picture of what made him tick. And at the heart of this book is the fascinating story of how Nixon was involved in the search for Saddam after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Then, hours after special operations forces had apprehended a suspect, it was Nixon’s responsibility to travel to the detention site and perform an identification check to see if they really had found and detained Saddam Hussein. It may surprise readers that Nixon had to frantically write down his checklist in the hours immediately preceding the first interrogation, compiling a list of questions and things to look out for in the identification process, including tribal tattoos on Saddam’s right hand. Nixon reflects that no-one in the US government had expected Saddam to be captured alive, believing he would fight to the end. This is but one, and by no means the worst, mistake catalogued by Nixon in the US preparations to invade and occupy Iraq. Having spent years trying to join the CIA, Nixon narrates his difficult first few years in the Agency, citing several examples of the bureaucratic frustrations that can await eager, newly-minted intelligence analysts: his managers gave him a hard time, were sceptical as to whether he had anything to offer and reportedly chose to take advice from within their social circle rather than on the basis of expertise. Nixon laments a bureaucratic culture in which telling senior officials and political leaders what they wanted to hear distorted the process of telling them what they Continue reading

Leaks are the real scandal, how gerrymandering effects Congress, and Trump’s “Randian” foreign policy: roundup of US academic political blogging for 11 – 17 February

By Blog Admin USAPP Managing Editor, Chris Gilson looks at the best of the week’s political blogging from academics and think-tanks. Don’t see a blog referenced here that you think we should be reading? Let us know what we’ve missed out and we’ll try to include it next week. Jump to President Trump and the Republican Party The Democratic Party The House and Senate Elections and American democracy The Government, Beltway and the Supreme Court Foreign policy, defense and trade Obamacare and health policy The economy and society President Trump and the Republican Party This week, Outside the Beltway writes that President Trump’s Twitter feed is a good illustration that he has not really switched from campaigning to governing mode, after Trump stated that “Pocahontas” – his name for Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren – was now the face of the Democratic Party. Perhaps one reason why Trump tends to put so many thoughts into short tweets is that he does not read, but watched TV, suggests Epic Journey. On Sunday, the Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption looks at whether or not Donald Trump’s use of his Mar-e-Lago private members’ club as a “Winter White House”, could lead to corruption allegations. Since moving into the White House the Mar-e-Lago joining fee has doubled to $200,000, meaning that Trump is likely to benefit financially from the presidency. Outside the Beltway meanwhile reports that a Trump advisor and author of the controversial immigration executive order, Stephen Miller, has stated that the “president’s powers [to ban the entry of foreigners] are beyond question”, and that unelected judges cannot “make laws for the entire country”. Lawyers, Guns & Money talks Miller – who this week also stated that voter fraud cost Trump votes in New Hampshire last year – commenting that journalists should “impose a blackout” on him, because of his false statements. On Thursday, ImmigrationProf blog reports that rather than pushing against the stay of the current executive order on immigration by the courts, the administration will soon be releasing a new, narrower executive order to replace it. On Tuesday this week, following the resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser, FiveThirtyEight looks at whether the Trump administration is in disarray. American Power comments Wednesday that narratives of “crisis” about the Trump administration are just “leftist media agitating…to destroy the administration”. Lawfare writes that amidst this week’s chaos, Trump has found the “real scandal” affecting his administration – leaks from US intelligence agencies. They say this accusation raises a number of concerns; there’s no reason to assume that these are intelligence community leaks, Trump appears to be more interested in hunting down the source of the leaks than getting to the bottom of the allegations against his administration, and he may be signaling that he intends to use accusations of leaking as political retaliation. In the wake of the withdrawal of President Trump’s pick for Secretary of Labor, Andy Pudzer, FiveThirtyEight says that the nomination failed because he faced several scandals Continue reading

If NAFTA fails, Canada should reach across the Atlantic to the UK

By Blog Admin The future of the North American Free Trade Agreement is looking increasingly uncertain under Donald Trump as president of the United States. In case NAFTA implodes, Armand de Mestral proposes the creation of the Atlantic Free Trade Area between Canada and the United Kingdom, in a framework involving Europe and the US. _ A close look at NAFTA NAFTA has been in force since 1994. It replaced the 1988 Canada – US FTA for Canada and the United States and brought Mexico into the fold – the first major FTA to link both developed and a developing country. In many respects it has been the model for other FTAs around the world as it covers goods, services and investments in depth as well as a range of non-tariff barriers. It covers trade in energy goods as well as protecting intellectual property. Among other innovations it included investor-state arbitration in the investment chapter and experiments with dispute settlement arising out of trade remedy disputes. By any standard (except those of Donald Trump) NAFTA has been a remarkable success which has seen trade triple between the USA and Mexico and Canada and increase considerably even between Canada and Mexico. But NAFTA has not been changed in over 25 years; much has happened in that time, including 9/11, and the resulting adoption of no less than five border security agreements, all concluded outside NAFTA. Now President Donald Trump is calling for the repeal or the renegotiation of NAFTA. Is this the end of a beautiful “free ride” for Canada and Mexico? Should NAFTA be trashed along with globalisation and all its works? Will the wall put an end to close economic relations between the United States and Mexico? There has been delocalisation as a result of NAFTA, it was after all designed to allow companies to rationalise production. Considerable delocalisation has been from Canada to plants in the United States. Even more has occurred as a result of low wages and subsidies in the Southern United States. Mexico has certainly seen an explosion of industrial investment in the automotive sector, some new by international producers, some resulting from moves by American producers. All three countries have been affected by automation, robotisation and laser printing production techniques. Currently Canada has kept 13 per cent of global North American automotive production, the United States has kept 57 per cent and Mexico has attracted almost 30 per cent. Overall trade in goods and services has increased three times since 1994. Mexico has become a global producer as well as a producer of goods for the United States. Many goods produced in Mexico, both industrial and agricultural have kept prices low and consumption high in the United States. Canada and the United States have seen their economies deeply integrated with 75 per cent of Canadian exports going South (down from 85 per cent in 2000). Canada is the major trading partner of 36 American States. One truck moves each way across the Canada – Continue reading

Warren Buffett’s unusual new bet

By Justin Dove From Justin Brill, Editor, Stansberry Digest: Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway reported it owned 8 million shares – worth nearly $1 billion – of Stansberry’s Investment Advisory portfolio holding Monsanto (MON) as of December 31. As Digest readers may recall, Monsanto agreed to be purchased by German conglomerate Bayer AP last year for $66 billion, or $128 a share. Yet the deal is still awaiting regulatory approval. And MON shares are still trading for less than $109 per share – more than 15% less than the agreed-upon price – indicating the market is skeptical the deal will be approved. What’s notable in this case is that Berkshire bought this entire stake in the fourth quarter of 2016… after the deal was made. As Bloomberg merger-and-acquisitions columnist Brooke Sutherland noted on Tuesday, this suggests Buffett and/or Berkshire execs are making a big bet the deal will go through… The quickest and cleanest way for Berkshire to realize a return on its investment would be for that takeover premium to be fully realized with a deal that’s approved by both shareholders and regulators – especially because Berkshire’s dumping of its stake in tractor maker Deere & Co. signals it’s not too keen on the agriculture industry as a stand-alone investment. It’s a merger arbitrage play, essentially, on a deal that’s far from a slam dunk… We don’t know for sure if it was Buffett himself or one of his stock-picking deputies who made the investment. Either way, he no doubt gave his blessing. When the Oracle of Omaha turns arb, perhaps it’s time to follow suit. Depending on when Berkshire made its purchases, it could earn up to 30% – or more than $250 million – if the deal is approved. As of today’s close, Stansberry’s Investment Advisory subscribers are up more than 15% on the trade. Buffett’s firm also “doubled down” on some existing positions… Berkshire reported it had increased its positions in the four biggest U.S. airlines by nearly seven times. It disclosed total stakes of more than $2.1 billion each in American Airlines (AAL), Delta Air Lines (DAL), Southwest Airlines (LUV), and United Continental (UAL). Longtime readers may recall this is a significant departure for Buffett, who long considered airlines to be among the worst businesses in the world. As he wrote in Berkshire’s 2007 annual letter to investors… The worst sort of business is one that grows rapidly, requires significant capital to engender the growth, and then earns little or no money. Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers. Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down. The airline industry’s demand for capital ever since that first flight has been insatiable. Investors have poured money into a bottomless pit, attracted by growth when they should have been repelled by it. And I, to my shame, participated in this foolishness when Continue reading

The take up of E-Verify programs shows that state officials prefer the highly skilled over temporary immigrant workers with lower skills

By Blog Admin The election of Donald Trump illustrates that the immigration debate is here to stay. In new research, Adriano Udani uses data on temporary immigrant labor admissions to better understand which immigrant groups policymakers think deserve to work in the United States. He finds that state officials ease employment verification rules when there are more “highly-skilled” migrants gaining visas. He argues that this policy preference for more specialized, highly skilled migrants is likely to reinforce patterns of segmented assimilation and racial and gender disparities among immigrants. The E-Verify program, which allows employers to check the work authorization of new hires, is one of the more notable immigration control policies which have been discussed in Congressional debates over comprehensive immigration reform in recent years. Past studies have used E-Verify policies to indicate a state’s restrictive stance toward immigrants and assume that a state’s decision to not institute E-Verify symbolizes a relatively more welcoming immigrant environment. In light of studies (here and here) on how policymakers will first think about who they want as policy recipients before designing policies to achieve political objectives, we can use the E-Verify program to help determine which immigrant groups policymakers think are deserving enough to work in the United States. In new research on temporary immigrant labor admissions in the United States, I find that elected officials eased employment verification rules in response to the growth of immigrants who work in occupations that are considered “high-skilled:” immigrants who receive H-1b visas to work in legal, engineering, computer science, medicine, higher education, and health sciences professions. This was not the case for immigrants who work in occupations that are commonly referred to as “low-skilled:” immigrants who receive H-2a or H-2b visas to work in food preparation, landscaping, hospitality, maintenance, manufacturing, and agricultural industries. Temporary Immigrant Labor Admissions To understand whether growth rates of different immigrant workforces influence restrictive policymaking on immigrant employment, I assembled a dataset of temporary immigrant labor admissions in the United States between 2006 and 2014. I use methods to demonstrate how responsive state legislatures are to their demographic, economic, and political contexts, and in particular, their temporary immigrant workforce over time. I also utilize data on temporary immigrant labor that delineates class characteristics of the foreign-born population. I draw particular attention to differences between immigrants who work in specialty occupations through the H-1b visa program; non-specialty occupations on farms through H-2a program; and, non-specialty/non-agricultural occupations through the H-2b program. What I find My findings are consistent with public opinion studies that show more favorability toward high-skilled than low-skilled immigrants as well as the overwhelmingly positive elite rhetoric in politics and pop culture on admitting H-1b workers to strengthen the US economy. Others document a competitive race among corporations to acquire H-1b visa permits. In light of such public appeal and competition for this group, my results show that the growth rate of H-1b immigrants in a state over time reduces the rate at which local legislatures enact E-Verify policies. Having such Continue reading