Government 📍

📽️ Videos

Thoughts on immigration

I was listening to the radio tonight, thinking I really don’t understand the purpose of border walls or limits on immigration. It seems silly, if not an outright failure of mankind, that people aren’t allowed to roam and cross from one part of the world to another.

There is no wall or even a clear cut between New York State and Pennsylvania, just a sign along the road that informs you are crossing into a different state. Both states have their own laws and policies – certain activities that are totally lawful in one state can result in thousands in fines and years of incarceration by just crossing that imaginary line shown on maps. But you are free to travel between the states or even relocate to a different state if you should so choose.

Rather than building a wall with Mexico, the United States should work closely with Mexico to tear down the remaining differences. People should be free to cross the border without restriction, there shouldn’t be tariffs or restrictions on the movement of goods and people. While each country may have their own laws, let them compete for people and jobs – and let the best country win.

Why is Quebec and New York or Texas and Mexico so much different than New York and Pennsylvania? Sure, there is a needs for extradition in some matters and concerns with industrial pollution crossing borders, but people crossing borders in search of a better life should not be discouraged. Competition will improve all states, make them improve their laws and policies to increase their competiveness.

Ultimately I think the goal of leaders should be to tear down walls and bring forward market forces. To work together cooperatively to bring forth innovation and freedom of movement without delay or cost to the economy. Existing walls and border crossing delays hurt all, by delaying the movement of goods and services, needlessly wasting away potential economic growth.

Map: Leonard Hill State Forest

NPR

Supreme Court just made it harder for federal agencies to regulate in sweeping ruling : NPR

The U.S. Supreme court on Friday undid decades of regulatory law, making it far more difficult for federal agencies to issue rules and regulations that carry out broad mandates enacted by Congress. Along ideological lines, the court reversed a 40-year-old precedent that has governed what agencies can and cannot do in interpreting federal statutes.

The decision overturned Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 decision that was not particularly controversial when it was announced 40 years ago. Indeed, the vote was unanimous in declaring that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of what it means.