2018 Analysis of the Spanish Economy: There Is Economic Recovery in Spain, But...

The global financial crisis reverberated throughout the global economy. Some countries were able to recover more quickly. Much like Greece, the Spanish had a terrible time getting past its recession. It is true that the Spanish Economic Crisis technically ended in 2014. It nevertheless took until this year for the Spanish economy to make a full recovery, as the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest Article IV Consultation report illustrates released earlier this week, as did the upgrading of Spain's credit rating from Moody's and Standard & Poor's earlier this year. That was the upside from the IMF report: the Spanish economy is on the mend.




The Spanish economy has many good things going for it. Employment growth is exceeding that of the rest of the Euro area (IMF, p. 4). Employment decreased to 14.7 percent in 2018 from 26.1 percent in 2013 (IMF, p. 5). Monetary policy is accommodative enough to help correct remaining imbalances (OECD). Any economic impact from the uncertainty surrounding Catalonia has been largely confined to Catalonia (IMF, p. 5; also see my 2017 analysis on Catalonia). Low financing costs and improved profit margins are boosting business investment (OECD). Spain became the second most visited country in 2017, even surpassing the United States (IMF, p. 6). Property prices are recovering from a low level (IMF, p. 7), which is important considering one of the major causes of the Spanish Economic Crisis was due to the housing market. The number of non-performing loans is declining, a fact that is in contrast to an Italian economy that is dealing with the adverse effects of a high percentage of non-performing loans.

In spite of these indicators, there are some concerns regarding the Spanish economy. Spain is still dealing with major long-term unemployment and youth unemployment issues (OECD). GDP growth is expected to moderate (IMF, p. 4). Public debt remains at 100 percent of GDP, and doesn't show signs of significantly diminishing (IMF, p. 1). The IMF recommends considerable financial consolidation so the problem does not get out of hand (IMF, p. 10). I hope the Spanish government deals with its fiscal issues so it does not open itself to the craziness the contagion effect from Brexit or the Italian budget debacle.

For more reading on the state of the Spanish economy, please consult the links below.

Major Sources of Information
Banco de España Economic Analysis (in Spanish)
BBVA Research
European Commission
Focus Economics
Heritage Foundation
IMF Article IV Consultation report
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Rabo Research

Brief Thoughts on Military Spending and the Department of Defense's First Comprehensive Audit

Defense spending is one of those large and nebulous areas of government spending. The secrecy of many of the Department of Defense's spending, along with other countries' departments of defense, make it easier to hide corruption or inefficient spending practices. This is compounded by the fact that defense spending ranks third on the federal budget, right after Social Security and Medicare. This is bad not only for the taxpayer because millions (and possibly billions) are being poorly spent, but also because a military that is not spending its resources to the best of its ability undermines national security.

Last week, the Pentagon announced that completed its first-ever financial audit. It turns out that the Pentagon by and large failed this $413 million audit. Out of the 21 departments within the Pentagon, only five received a passing grade. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said that he was not expecting for the Pentagon to pass. This might sound like a carte blanche for someone who is all for smaller government to rip into the Department of Defense and say, "Of course the DoD was going to fail. It's Big Government at its finest. What else would you expect?"

But let's remember something else: this is the first time they are conducting such an audit, thereby making arguably making it the largest audit in history. It took the more nascent Department of Homeland Security ten years before it got the hang of receiving a passing grade in an audit. More importantly, auditing the Department of Defense was technically part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, but politicians kept making excuses for delaying it. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis took on this behemoth and got it done. Again, given the nature of defense spending, it is significant that this audit took place. Not only is defense spending more transparent, but it means that dollars will less likely be mismanaged, especially when it comes to inventory management. As long as the audit process one is a thorough one and carried out as intended, the failures pointed out in the initial audit are a good thing. It means that there will be less failures in the future, such as when the Air Force spent over $300,000 on 391 specialty mugs.

Ultimately, I see the audit as a step in the right direction for bringing greater accountability to the largest and most powerful military on the planet. As for how that money should be spent, that is another conversation for another time.

For more on defense spending and military budget reform, see analysis from the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Heritage Foundation.

Government Regulation Is Not the Only Type of Regulation: The Private Sector Regulates, Too

Whether it is the environment, the labor market, or health, there are many individuals (particularly on the Left) that clamor for more regulation. If someone is cutting workers' hours, an airline is treating a customer poorly, or there is some other infraction, there is an instinctive reaction to respond with the trope of "We need more regulation." In the English language, we have become so accustomed to use the word "regulation" that a lack of government oversight implies no regulation (see meme below where Ayn Rand is a "straw-woman"). It has become such a staple in public policy lexicon that I have even been guilty of using the term erroneously.

The purpose of today's blog entry is to demystify this concept. First, a bit on the meaning of the word "regulate." The word "regulate" comes from the Latin verb regulatus, which means "to direct or rule." According to Webster's, the primary definition is "to govern or direct according to rule." The definition does not specify where that rule comes from or what governs the given regulation or standard.

But let's get to the heart of the matter. People use the phrase "we need more regulation" because we believe that deregulation is bad and disorderly, and the government needs to rein in the disorder. Assuming that the choice between government regulation and no regulation creates a false dilemma based on the law of excluded middle. The choice is between government regulation and private-sector regulation. I like how Howard Baetjer, Jr. at the Foundation of Economic Education (FEE) summarizes it:

"We never face a choice between regulation and no regulation. We face a choice between kinds of regulation: regulation by legislatures and bureaucracies, or regulation by market forces. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. If a market is free, it is closely regulated by the free choices of market participants. The actions of each constrain and influence the actions of others in ways that make actions regular--more or less predictable, falling within understandable bounds."

The Internet has brought such heightened capacity to regulate businesses, whether it is through Amazon, Yelp, Rotten Tomatoes, Angie's List, or giving Uber or Lyft drivers good ratings. Private-sector regulation predates the advent of the Internet, which we know because standards organizations have existed for decades now. The International Organization of Standards (ISO) has existed since 1946, and has provided more global standards for multiple markets. Since 1894, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has provided safety standards across supply chains. The certification for kashrut (Jewish dietary law) is not managed by the federal government, but such organizations as the Orthodox Union, Star-K, and OK Kosher. Other private-sector organizations that regulate industries include the National Fire Protection Association, the International Electrical Testing Association, and the American National Standards Institute.

When the term "free market" is used, it does not mean that it is free of regulation, but free of government interference. Am I arguing that a "free market" is the best market? Not automatically. We have to remember that both the private sector and government are run by human beings that are definitionally fallible. I have worked in market research long enough to know that business owners are capable of making mistakes, much like government bureaucrats. The question is not whether one is perfect or not because neither will be. The question is when looking at a given issue, which can deliver the best outcome: the private sector, the public sector, or some combination of the two? My experience of analyzing public policy and markets over the years has led me to the conclusion that generally speaking, the private sector outperforms the government. That is not to say that there is not a role for government because there is a role. It is just that the role is smaller than many in power would like. When looking at policy decisions in the future, we should not frame it in terms of "regulation" or "no regulation." We should frame it terms of whether the private or public sector regulates better. At least that way, we can start off the discussion more genuinely.

Improved Relations Between China and Japan: An Unintended Consequence of Trump's Trade War

As long as Japan and China have been around, I am at least somewhat surprised that Sino-Japanese relations (中日關係) have not been contentious for a longer period of time. On the other hand, Japan remained relatively isolationist prior to the Meiji restoration in the 19th century. Sino-Japanese relations were a bit messy in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), but they got really tumultuous with the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) on account of the Nanjing Rape of 1937 (南京大屠殺). As you can imagine, relations between the two countries were strained as a result. Things did not really start improving until Shinzo Abe came into power and released a report in 2010 acknowledging the WWII-era atrocities committed. After that, disputes over rare earth metals and the Senkaku Islands put further strain on Sino-Japanese relations. Combine that with a mutual dislike between Chinese and Japanese people (BBC), and it is not a surprise that Sino-Japanese relations have not been going well this decade, even in spite of the fact that Japan and China are major trading partners.

If studying international relations over the years has reminded me of anything, it is how quickly the nature of alliances can change. Since the beginning of 2018, Trump has gone on the offensive on his trade. China has become the primary target in this trade war, and back in July, I made the case for why Trump should knock it off. However, Trump has decided that he wants to go after the U.S.' allies with tariffs, including Japan. In September, Trump threatened to enact a 25 percent national security tariff on Japanese automobiles and trucks. Trump met with Abe in late September, but it looks like it was more of a delaying tactic than anything else.

As a result of both sides are feeling pressure from President Trump (Wall Street Journal), there seems to be a thawing of Sino-Japanese relations. Last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese President Shinzo Abe met to discuss the future of Sino-Japanese relations. Does this mean that everything is copasetic between the two nations? Hardly. Does this mean that things will end up amicably between China and Japan? No, it does not. There are still strategic issues of a military nature. The United States still remains as Japan's primary military ally. Japan has also increased its alliances with Australia and India in hopes to keep China in check. Given the zero-sum nature of geo-politics in eastern Asia, I'm confident both Xi and Abe know why they are meeting.

However, since China is dealing with other economic issues, including a devaluing currency, a real estate bubble, and government debt, it is not shocking that China is trying to hold together its economic clout. Plus, let's not forget that Trump foolishly decided to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his first day in office. All that these economic forces do is draw Japan closer to China, even in spite of militaristic and nationalistic factors. This is another unintended consequence of trade wars, especially when when the President enacts trade barriers on the U.S.' allies: it becomes that much more likely to push your allies towards your perceived enemy. If diminishing trade flows with allies in order to pursue some zero-sum protectionism hokum is your idea of making America great again, I fail to see the economic sense or the appeal in doing so. I hope Trump can see the harm he is doing by eroding relations with allies. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if the result is handing over international power, both militaristic power and soft power, over to China.


12-13-2018 Addendum: Political scientist Jeffrey Hornung of the Rand Corporation is not so optimistic that China and Japan are going to get along. He has three reasons for such skepticism: difference of position on disputed territories, difference in threat perception, and difference in vision of international order.

Parsha Toldot: Why Was Isaac Blind, and What Does That Have to Do With Family or Authentic Living?

As someone who loves studying languages, it's always interesting to learn the meaning of words because the same word can have multiple meanings. That is how the phrase "double entendre" (French for the words "double" and "to understand") came to being. With a double entendre, a word can have an obvious meaning and a less obvious meaning. We have a double entendre of sorts in this week's Torah portion with the name of the Torah portion itself: Toldot (תולדות). In Hebrew, the word primarily means "progeny" (children), but it can also mean "history".

I want to get into the word play and how the word means both "progeny" and "history," but first, I need to answer a seemingly tangential question: why was Isaac blind (Genesis 27:1)? There are a few explanations. For the Rashbam, it was a result of Isaac getting older. One of Rashi's theories is that the smoke that Esau's wives were burning for their idolatrous incense got into Isaac's eyes.

There is a Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 65:10) that actually comes up with an explanation, one I find compelling for the purposes of this insight. When Isaac was on the altar for the Akeidah (binding of Isaac), Isaac took a glimpse at the light of Heaven when the angel appeared in order to save Isaac's life. This blinding light, according to the Midrash, caused Isaac to never be able to see clearly again. As a result, Isaac could not see or recognize that Jacob was clearly lying to him, nor could he see that Esau was unworthy of receiving Isaac's blessing.

Isaac was not the only one that experienced some form of blindness. His father, Abraham, dealt with his own form of blindness. As the story goes, Abraham is about ready to sacrifice his son, an angel comes down to stop him (Genesis 22:12). A verse later, Abraham sees a ram enmeshed in a thicket and subsequently sacrifices a ram (Genesis 22:13). This brings up a question of at what point the ram became enmeshed in the thicket. If it was before Abraham and Isaac went up to the mountain, then Abraham did not see the ram when he initially descended or up until that moment in Genesis 22:12. If it was when Abraham was preparing his son for the sacrifice, again, he did not notice a ram coming up the mountain to get enmeshed. Regardless of when the ram showed up on the scene, there was at least a moment in which Abraham did not notice the ram. Abraham was so focused on following G-d's word that he did not notice the ram. Perhaps the ram represents an alternative to sacrificing his son, an alternative that he saw at the last possible second.

While Abraham ultimately did the right thing by sacrificing the ram (Genesis 22:16-17), his metaphorical blindness nearly killed his own son. The moment of the Akeida was a nexus for both of their blindness. Abraham's blindness might have been temporary, but it was nevertheless able to impact Isaac for years to come, at least according to this Midrash.

This is the part where I bring it back to the word תולדות. The Midrash teaches us how much of an impact our parents have on us, hence the English meaning of "children." Children are primarily influenced by nature and nurture. Parents play a major role in both. Parents pass on their genes to their children. Parents are also the single largest influence on an individual. Perhaps this is why when Abraham was making his journey to Canaan, the verse said that he left "the home of his father, his community, his country (Genesis 12:1)." It's because family influences us even more than community or country.

Yes, it is true how much influence family can have over, but we are more than just our upbringing or our genetics. The Zohar attributed a different character trait to each of the Patriarchs: kindness (חסד) for Abraham, strength (גבורה) for Isaac, and beauty (תפארת) for Jacob. This implies that in spite of familial traits or impact, you can and should make our own destiny and have our own personality. Although we are greatly influenced by family, we are ultimately and inevitably not a continuation of our family. We have the power to be our own person.

The Chassidic tale of Rabbi Zusha of Hanipol, a 18th-century rabbi, emphasizes this point of "be your own person" greatly. Essentially, R. Zusha is on his death bed crying. His disciples are wondering why he is in tears since the Rabbi did so many mitzvahs. His reply was the following. When he gets to Heaven, G-d will ask why R. Zusha wasn't as kind as Abraham or as wise as Moses, to which his reply would be "Well, I'm not Abraham or Moses." However, when asked "Why weren't you more like R. Zusha?," R. Zusha had no answer. What ultimately scared him was a lack of authentic living, an inability to make his own history.

To tie it all together, this is the double meaning and lesson of the word "Toldot". On the one hand, we are to remember where we came from. After all, it is how we came into being and why we are the way we are. At the same time, we are meant to be our own individual and to do so authentically. Pirke Avot (4:1) teaches us that a wise person is one that learns from every one. Let us learn from R. Zusha, as well as the Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac, and create a life that is both Jewish and authentic to ourselves.

Has Anti-Semitism in the U.S. Been on the Rise Because of President Trump?

The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting at the Tree of Life Congregation that took place a week and a half ago reverberated throughout the Jewish world. After all, it was the deadliest attack on Jews in American history, with 11 fatalities. Although I did not personally know any of the individuals who were murdered, the evil of anti-Semitism in this massacre was strong enough where I felt its impact. I have been called anti-Semitic slurs in the past, but the impact of those insults seemed to pale in comparison when I heard what happened at the Tree of Life Congregation. Why? Because the suspect of the massacre (who I will not mention by name here) was reported screaming "Kill All Jews!" It didn't matter what the Jew's political affiliation, religiosity, skin color, or sexual orientation was. It acted as a reminder that there are still people out there who will not be happy until all Jews are dead. As you can imagine, I take that personally.

After the massacre, I saw my Facebook inundated with support of the Jewish community and a call against anti-Semitism. However, I noticed something else. There was a rally cry of sorts against President Trump. It was not anything as explicit as "Trump pulled the trigger," but it was indirectly blaming Trump. Essentially, the theory that is popular among those who are anti-Trump is that his rhetoric is responsible for inciting hate-mongers to come out of hiding since they feel like they are emboldened by a President who they believe supports them. Essentially, Trump's incendiary language and anti-immigration, anti-globalism stances motivated the alt-right/white nationalism to be revived in the United States. Part of this alleged revival is a supposed spike in anti-Semitic incidents. And let's forget for a moment that Trump's daughter and son-in-law are Jewish or that he has been one of the most pro-Israel presidents since the creation of the State of Israel.

I do have concerns of whether Trump's rhetoric is stoking the fires because there are times that he can be quite divisive. I expressed concern after the Charlottesville attack last year when I analyzed the prevalence of hate crimes, particularly from the far-Right, in the United States. I found that the odds of being injured in an attack from someone on the far-Right was 1 in 7.6 million, but I can also acknowledge the possibility that a lot can change in a year. Conversely, I know how sensationalist the media can be, and I know how a tragic incident can alter our perception of overall trends, such as with school shootings. As tragic as the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting is, I want to see if it was part of a greater trend because otherwise, it would be cherry-picking, and I'm not a fan of confirmation bias. I am also not a fan of having emotion dictate facts, because the multiple logical fallacies having to do with appeal to emotion also detract us from finding a more objective truth on these matters. If there truly has been an uptick, we should try to find some data to corroborate the theory.

The report that gets most often cited on this topic is the Anti-Defamation Legaue (ADL) report entitled the Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents. Their data indicate that between 2016 and 2017, the number of anti-Semitic incidents increased from 1,267 to 1,986. That is a year-to-year increase of 719 incidents, which represents a 57 percent year-to-year increase. Before continuing, we should take this finding with a grain of salt for the reason that we are talking about a one-year trend. Regardless of how robust the data are, two points on a data plot hardly tell us anything, especially when asking some of the bigger questions. But let's say that this increase is significant. We already run into some issues with the ADL's report.

Scrutinizing the ADL Report
One is that the ADL's figures are inflated by bomb threats having nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Even by the ADL's own admission (p. 8), at least 150 of the incidents were due to a disturbed Israeli teenager, Michael Kadar, making hoax bomb threats to Jewish Community Centers (JCCs) in the United States. An additional eight bomb threats were made by Juan Thompson, a man who was using the bomb threats to intimidate his girlfriend. This would mean that 22 percent of this increase in the statistics were because of bomb threats in which the motivation ultimately was not anti-Semitism.

Second, a similar argument about the bomb threats could be made for the acts of vandalism. As an example, there was the Jewish cemetery in St. Louis that was vandalized. In this case, the vandal was "drunk and mad," and did not vandalize the cemetery for anti-Semitic reasons. While this is but one case, I wonder how many of these incidents have comparable ambiguities or find to have the motive not be anti-Semitism. As the ADL report's Methodology section states (p. 12), the report includes incidents in which Jews perceive themselves being victimized due to their Jewish identity, as well as those in which the perpetrator expressed anti-Jewish animus. If ADL's reporting includes more incidents in which the motive was perceived rather than determinable, that could skew the perception in terms of perception of the overall trend.

Third, the number of incidents on colleges and universities increased by 108 incidents from 2016. The flaw in the data presented is that it does not indicate who the perpetrators are. Is it far-Right populists or far-Left, pro-Palestinians that have a penchant for such acts? The ADL remains silent on this question.

Finally, the number of assaults on Jews dropped from 36 to 19 incidents, or a decrease of 47 percent. While it accounts for the smallest amount of incidents, it is also the most telling since the nature and motive of assaults is less subjective and more unambiguous.

Postscript
Can we rule out the possibility of a spike in anti-Semitism in the United States? No, we cannot. We would need more data to show a trend line of any sort. At the same time, the ADL report does not definitely prove a huge rise in anti-Semitism, much less that Trumpian populism is the cause for the rise. Not only does the ADL report not provide adequate information, we do not have survey data showing that Trump supporters are more likely to be anti-Semitic, nor do we have FBI hate crime data for 2017. There are plenty of feelings and emotions going around about President Trump's influence on anti-Semitism, but none of this translates into data that could be used to discern whether Trump is responsible. Anything beyond that is speculative.

Before giving into hysteria, let's look at the bigger picture here. While the Pittsburgh synagogue attack was the attack on Jews with the highest casualties in the United States, it was not unprecedented. There was the 2014 Overland Park Jewish Federation shooting, the 2009 shooting at the DC Holocaust Museum, the 2006 attack at the Seattle Jewish Federation, and the 1999 attack on the Los Angeles Jewish Federation.

Second, and more importantly, I question that the far-Right is the only player because of the history of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is the oldest, most universal hatred on this planet. It is so irrational that the Jewish people have been blamed for both capitalism and communism. There is a lot that the far-Left and the far-Right disagree on, but one area where they find common ground is Jew-hatred. Yes, there are white nationalists who hate Jews, but there are those on the far-Left (particularly those of the "pro-Palestinian" variety) that hate Jews, as well.

Before there was a state of Israel, Jews were the minority wherever they went. The Jewish people personify difference and what it means to be "other." This is not to say we should not call out other forms of hatred, whether it be racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or transphobia, because hatred has no place in a pluralistic, democratic society. At the same time, anti-Semitism is unique that it has been taken on by many groups of people over many years in many forms, including religious, cultural, economic, racial, and political anti-Semitism. Anyone who simplifies the anti-Semitism in the United States as a "problem from the alt-Right" or solely blames Trump does not understand the first thing about anti-Semitism.

Executive Order to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Would Be Shoddy Policy, as Well as Unconstitutional

There is no rest for the weary when it comes to President Trump and his anti-immigration policy. Since his election in 2016, his stance on immigration has gone well beyond undocumented workers, or alternatively illegal immigration. He has been on the offensive with multiple types of legal immigration, including chain migration, immigrants here through Temporary Protected Status and DACA, low-skilled immigrants, and high-skilled immigrants here on H1-B visas. This week, he has found a new target: birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli, is the principle stating than anyone who is born in the territory of a given nation-state is offered the right of citizenship. In an exclusive interview with Axios, Trump claimed that the United States is the only nation with birthright citizenship. This is simply untrue. Birthright citizenship also exists throughout much of Latin America, Canada, Pakistan, and Lesotho. Limited versions of birthright citizenship are extended in such countries as Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Morocco, Spain, Thailand, and United Kingdom. This is to say that the idea of birthright citizenship is hardly unique to the United States, especially since it finds origins in English common law, and ultimately ancient Greek law. Trump thinks that he could simply repeal the Constitution with an executive order. Forgetting for a moment that executive order is not the way to repeal a constitutional amendment, the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

The Fourteenth Amendment was significant because per the Naturalization Act of 1790, citizenship was granted only to white people. Slaves were counted as three-fifths of people (Article I, Section 2, Clause iii) so that the southern states could have greater congressional representation. Fortunately, the Thirteenth Amendment undid that gross injustice. This makes the Fourteenth Amendment because race or ethnicity did not prohibit one from becoming a U.S. Citizen, thereby making the American dream that much more of a reality. Trump not only has to contend with the plain text of the Constitution or the fact that the majority of the legal community views birthright citizenship as a right afforded by the Constitution. The Supreme Court actually affirmed that right in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). See more here for the constitutional aspects of the debate.

My concern is that Trump does not understand the limits of the executive branch. This was the same President who tweeted that we should revoke citizenship for flag burners, although to reiterate, that's not how the Fourteenth Amendment works. I am not sure whether the President is showing blatant disregard or is simply ignorant of constitutional procedure, but what I can say is that we should be worried about more than the constitutional aspect. There are a litany of unintended consequences of what would happen if President Trump were successful on repealing birthright citizenship.

Unintended Consequences of Birthright Citizenship Repeal

• Lower economic productivity and GDP. I can see this playing out one of two ways. One scenario is that most of those granted birthright citizenship stay, but do so as undocumented immigrants. This will cause lower economic productivity because legal status keeps people better connected to the economy (as opposed to going to the underground economy), as has been observed with immigrants here through TPS or DACA. Under this scenario, Trump would most probably create a new class of illegal immigrants. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that repeal would do just that: double the undocumented worker population by 2050. The second scenario is that people would leave (more likely for high-skilled immigrants to do so), which would lower the GDP. This is important because more immigration increases economic growth. 
• Increased hospital surveillance and enforcement costs. If implemented, this would be Big Brother intruding at an astounding level. In order to effectively enforce this law, the federal government would have to create and maintain a database (Sears, 2014). This is currently done at the local level. Aside from the transition costs from a decentralized system, parents would immediately have to produce citizenship papers at the child's birth. In 2011, the Left-leaning Center for American Progress found that it would cost $600 per child along with weeks of the Department of Homeland Security assessing and verifying the validity of those documents. With an average of nearly 11,000 births a day (CDC), this would be a costly bureaucratic nightmare. 
• Less immigration integration. A major literature review from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) looked at how birthright citizenship helps with immigrants integrating in the host country. The conclusion was that birthright citizenship was one of the most powerful mechanisms for political and civil inclusion, which means that revoking it would destabilize social cohesion. The OECD follows suit in the NAS' findings. I discussed this a few years ago, specifically with regards to European nations having difficulties successfully integrating Muslim immigrants, thereby creating resentment. 
• Creating a disenfranchised group of people. Repealing birthright citizenship would create a subclass of people who would have their quality of life greatly diminished, as is clear in the Dominican Republican case study (also see Fix and Van Hook, 2010). In contrast, birthright citizenship results in a lower fertility rate and healthier immigrants (Avitabile et al., 2014; Gathman et al., 2014), as well as reducing return migration (Sajons, 2016) and improving youth development by closing the education gap between immigrants and natives (Felfe et al., 2018).

If Trump is successful in this endeavor, he will unravel the Constitution while eroding the immigration that has helped build this country to what it has become today. I hope that this doesn't work and that Congress could fix the broken immigration system, but I won't exactly hold my breath while I wait for Trump to see sense on the immigration issue.