How Marriage and Inequality Reinforce Political Polarization

As politicians polarize, Americans are also sorting into clearer partisan camps who dislike the other side. What reinforces that cycle? Perhaps both our social relationships and our increasingly unequal society. Tobias Konizter finds that Americans are increasingly selecting spouses based on partisanship and then passing on our political views to our children. But John Kuk finds that economic inequality is increasingly tied to divisions on social and racial issues, which in turn are driving dislike of the other party. Our social ties, resources, and racial views are all dividing us into two partisan sides.

The Niskanen Center’s Political Research Digest features up-and-coming researchers delivering fresh insights on the big trends driving American politics today. Get beyond punditry to data-driven understanding of today’s Washington with host and political scientist Matt Grossmann. Each 20-minute episode covers two new cutting-edge studies and interviews two researchers.

You can subscribe to the Political Research Digest on iTunes here.

Transcript

The post How Marriage and Inequality Reinforce Political Polarization appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/how-marriage-and-inequality-reinforce-political-polarization/

Do Immigrants Fraudulently Use Public Benefits?

For well over 100 years, the United States has denied entry to immigrant applicants who may become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, on the grounds that they will likely become a “public charge.” To reduce the likelihood, all family visa applicants must have a sponsor provide an Affidavit of Support that makes the sponsor liable to the government and the immigrant for failure to support the immigrant financially; failure to provide this affidavit will result in an inadmissibility determination. Similarly, an individual can be deported if he becomes a public charge within five years of entering the United States.

In recent months, the Trump administration has indicated a renewed interest in cracking down on the fraudulent use of immigration benefits that the administration alleges is rampant. Is it? By one metric—prosecutions for fraud—the answer is no.

Background

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), commonly known as welfare reform, introduced tight restrictions on recent immigrant use of virtually all public benefits. Qualified aliens, like lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or green card holders, are banned from means-tested programs for 5-years from their date of legal entry. The ban and subsequent tweaks to the rule sowed confusion among aliens who worried about the risk of deportation from obtaining such basic services as emergency medical assistance, or immunizations against communicable diseases.

Recognizing a potential risk to public health and other federal policy goals, clear definitions and standards for determining a public charge were laid down in a 1999 rulemaking by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or USCIS) after extensive inter-agency consultations. INS ultimately determined public charge to refer to being “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” — not mere use of supplementary or non-cash benefits.

To deport or deny admission on public charge grounds requires an analysis of the immigrant’s “totality of circumstances” including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. According to contemporary USCIS guidance, no single factor is sufficient for identifying a public charge.

Cash assistance and long-term institutionalization are the primary grounds for categorizing an individual as a public charge. Public charge determinations only affect those applying for a green card or seeking entry into the United States; not nonimmigrant visa applicants. Public benefits that do not count towards a public charge calculation are primary subsidized benefits, like transit and childcare subsidies.

Health services like immunization, testing and treatment of communicable diseases, and prenatal care also do not count towards the public charge determination. The same is true — for now — of nutrition programs like school meals, housing benefits, emergency disaster relief, job training programs, Title II Social Security, and community programs like soup kitchens and crisis counseling.

Prosecutions for fraud/false statements by immigrants are very low

Using prosecutions is a striking tool in measuring the credibility of fraud claims because the prosecutorial numbers are not influenced by politics. Furthermore, there is no dependable evidence that contradicts prosecutorial figures.

The illegal use of a benefit by an immigrant is not in and of itself criminal per se, but using false or misleading information to apply for the benefit is a felony, making it criminal for all intents and purposes.

Immigration prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1001 — Fraud/false statements or entries generally  — are low. Both the recent levels of prosecutions are low, and the yearly trends have been consistently decreasing over the past decade. Even at peak levels, prosecutions for fraud were fewer than 400 cases annually. You look at both levels and recent changes.

As of August 2018, there have been 35 prosecutions that lead with this charge, a 6 percent decrease from last year; a -33.8 percent decrease from 5 years ago; and an -87.1 percent decrease from 10 years ago, according to Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) which uses FOIA information to provide the following information.

It’s important to put this number in perspective. Give or take, there are roughly 43 million immigrants residing in the United States, which account for 13.5 percent of the population. Of those 43 million, there were 35 prosecutions for fraud, meaning that were was one case of fraud for every 1.228 million immigrants.

To be clear, there are mitigating factors. Immigrants cannot accept benefits for the first five years they are in the United States, so that changes the calculation slightly. Furthermore, there are additional cases whereby prosecutions under this statute are not the primary charge, but a secondary charge. Although the numbers of those cases is similarly low, it does skew the numbers slightly as well.

Immigration Prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1001

The long-term trend, again according to TRAC, demonstrates a gradual decline in the number of immigration prosecutions for this crime.

Immigration Prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1001 over 20 years

When you break it down by judicial districts, the relatively few cases prosecuted in 2018 are even more stark. During the first nine months of 2018, the district with the highest number of prosecutions—16— occurred in the Southern District of Florida. The next closest was seven prosecutions in Texas.

In 2017, the Justice Department said the government obtained 1.6 fraud-federal program prosecutions for every one million people in the United States; which is expected to drop to 1.5 per one million this year.

To be clear, that is not to say that immigrants are not committing fraud, but it does make clear that the prosecutions under the primary statute are exceedingly low, and arguably, do not justify the draconian changes to regulations on public charge that the administration released last Saturday night.

Given that the number of prosecutions of immigrants and Americans for fraud are very low, the purpose behind the government’s proposed regulation overhauling the the regulation to make determination as a public as a means of reducing said fraud is unfounded, and the rule itself, overly broad.

The post Do Immigrants Fraudulently Use Public Benefits? appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/do-immigrants-fraudulently-use-public-benefits/

NEW RESEARCH PAPER: The Strategic Case for Refugee Resettlement

by Professor Idean Salehyan

Professor of Political Science, University of North Texas

Adjunct Fellow, Niskanen Center

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Trump administration has dramatically reduced the number of refugees resettled to the United States. For Fiscal Year 2018, the cap on the number of resettled refugees was lowered to 45,000, although the actual number of admissions is likely to be far lower.

These cuts were predicated on the notion that refugees could potentially pose a security risk to the U.S. However, these fears are misplaced, as vetting procedures for refugees are quite robust. In addition, refugee resettlement is a useful tool for achieving broader U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The United States has a long tradition of welcoming people fleeing conflict and persecution. Beyond the humanitarian impact of generous refugee admissions programs, they also help bring stability to conflict-ridden regions. Through refugee resettlement and generous overseas assistance programs, the U.S. has reduced the burden on countries of first asylum, which often have weak capacity to manage migration. Moreover, refugee resettlement helps to facilitate the cooperation of regional partners and allies as the U.S. pursues broader geostrategic objectives, including military operations.

Finally, since the refugee resettlement program was created in 1980, not a single refugee has been involved in a fatal terrorist attack on the U.S., attesting to the robustness of vetting procedures. This includes thousands of refugees resettled from Muslim nations, including Syria and Iraq, which are believed to pose the most risk.

Instead, the vast majority of refugees have successfully adapted to life in America, contributed positively to the economy, and eventually acquired citizenship. These success stories serve to foster a positive image of the United States abroad, countering extremist narratives. Therefore, cuts to the resettlement program do little to enhance national security, and indeed, run counter to that end.

The full paper is available here.

 

The post NEW RESEARCH PAPER: The Strategic Case for Refugee Resettlement appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/new-research-paper-the-strategic-case-for-refugee-resettlement/

How to Do a Change of Use When Leasing Commercial Space

When buying or leasing commercial real estate you sometimes will come across a commercial property that was previously used as something different than your intended use.

For example say you find an industrial space for rent Austin that was previously used by a wine distributor. According to the City of Austin zoning chart their use was considered Limited Warehousing and Distribution. Your a food and beverage company that wants to use this industrial space for food preparation. Before you will be able to open for business you will have to apply and be approved for Light Manufacturing which would take about 15 to 20 days.

Change of Use Process

The change of use process will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most counties and cities you will have to visit your city planning department or development assistant center. Anytime there is a proposed change in the use of a space or building you must obtain a permit. The change of use permit is required because they want to make sure you comply with the applicable codes for a new use before issuing a certificate of occupancy.

Change of Use in Austin Texas

In Austin, Tx however a change of use is a two step process.

1. First you need a site plan exemption application or a site plan correction application if they have a current site plan on file for the property. Either application must be submitted to the Austin Tx Development Assistance Center located at One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, Austin, Tx 78704. They are open from Monday to Friday 9 am to 12 pm. The review time is 7-10 days.

2. Next you need to submit a building permit application with Commercial Plan Review which is located at the same address on the 2nd floor Monday – Friday, 8:00 to 12 pm. Once you have approval of the building permit you will be issued a Certificate of Occupancy and you can open for business.

If you have any questions about whether you are required to do a change of use on your commercial space in Austin or how to do it feel free to give us a call to discuss at 512-861-0525

A Response to Nancy MacLean

I have honestly tried as hard as possible to maintain my equilibrium and good nature when engaging with Professor Nancy MacLean around the subject of her book, Democracy in Chains. And I sincerely attempted to have my say last year in a couple of pieces with Henry Farrell and leave it at that, but Professor MacLean insists on repeating outright falsehoods that could be avoided by a two minute Google search.

Prof. MacLean chose to slander me on Facebook, a medium that I have had the good sense to avoid. Here’s what she had to say:

Let’s start with the simply wrong and move on from there. First, Bill Niskanen was not president of Cato, but chairman of the board. That’s a pretty big difference. She can find the evidence right here on Wikipedia. If she had done any research on the Niskanen Center whatsoever, she would recognize that Bill Niskanen’s work has very little in common with the Center’s, beyond a willingness to call things as we see them. Second, when the book was published Brink Lindsey was no longer at VP at Cato, as he had moved to Niskanen. She would have found that here.

Third, the Niskanen Center does not describe itself as libertarian. For those who are interested, here’s Niskanen’s “About” page. It is certainly true that a lot of Niskanen’s staff came out of libertarian organizations, including Cato. And it’s right that Jerry Taylor’s original motivation for starting Niskanen had a lot to do with his rejection of climate science denial. But she might also find that Jerry was very involved on one side of the battle over control of Cato, with a certain bête noire of hers on the other side.

In any case it’s certainly not even remotely correct to say that that Niskanen “holds on to the libertarianism.” Has she even bothered to visit the Niskanen website before saying things like this? If she had, she’d have run into, for instance, Sam Hammond’s excellent work on the “free market welfare state,” which argues that in an era of market disruption the cause of social insurance is even more vital than ever.  If that was too long she could have read Jared Bernstein’s interview with Sam, craftily hidden at the Washington Post.   

Looking around elsewhere on the Niskanen site, Prof. MacLean might have read our Vice-President for Research Will Wilkinson’s attack on the Republican tax bill last year, which traces its flaws back to libertarian ideas. It was deep in the dark web…no, it was in the New York Times, which is easily available in Durham. She might also be interested in Will’s argument with a prominent George Mason University libertarian, Ilya Somin, on what he sees as libertarianism’s fundamental conflict with democracy. The piece, by the way, says that Professor MacLean is right on the question of libertarian hostility to democracy, but that, among other things, she is “overly fond of Infowars-style dot-connecting.”

If Professor MacLean was under the impression that Niskanen is just a libertarian mouthpiece, she could have also picked up my book with Niskanen VP for Policy Brink Lindsey, The Captured Economy. There are two copies in Duke’s library, for her reading pleasure. There she would have found us arguing for reversing Republicans’ cynical cuts in Congressional analytical capacity, which we argue simply empower lobbyists for concentrated interests. She might have also looked on the New York Times website, where she would have found Brink and I criticizing the Trump administration’s record on regulation as simply advancing upward redistribution and rent seeking. Neither of these are the standard argument around the halls of Reason or Cato.

Why does Professor MacLean make such basic errors and misstatements of motivation? The answer, I fear, is that she cannot imagine any criticism of her work that is not motivated by partisanship and financial conflict of interest. But the truth is that there are now significant scholars who are not on the right who read her book and had much the same reaction that Henry and I had. Those range from the sociologist Elizabeth Popp Berman at Albany (who describes the book as “hyperbolic, overly speculative, and sometimes uses sources in misleading ways”)  to the Stanford University historian Jennifer Burns (“Democracy in Chains is characterized by a fundamental lack of curiosity. The book is disconnected from not just economics or political theory, but from all the social sciences…it bears witness to an alarming parochialism.”) And that’s just as a taste.

It’s also worth noting that the co-author of my critical essays, Henry Farrell, is a full-throated Irish-born social democrat and ringleader of the wonderful but quite lefty blog Crooked Timber. And given that she quotes me extensively in her book, Prof. MacLean clearly thinks my scholarship is valuable and not just financially conflicted ideological claptrap.

Prof. MacLean cannot, despite all the evidence to the contrary, imagine this as anything but a political dispute, when it is at its core a scholarly disagreement. At the end of her post she says that this whole conflict is a waste of time because “people could be our (sic) registering voters and canvassing to stop the cause the two [myself and Geoff Kabaservice] are at pains to defend.” I will let Geoff account for his own partisan leanings.

But Prof.MacLean seems to have a very mistaken impression of where I’m coming from where electoral politics is concerned. That’s because she is now reading backwards from scholarly criticism to partisan motivations, and in doing so simply embarrassing herself. But where the general elections of 2018 are concerned, there is no daylight between myself and Prof. MacLean. Neither was there in the general election of 2016. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or…well, any general election since I first voted for president back in 1988.

My scholarly impression of Prof. MacLean’s work, however, has nothing to do with any of this. It’s just that, wearing my scholar’s hat, I came to the same impression as Professors Berman, Farrell and Burns—that Prof. MacLean had written a very poor piece of scholarship, regardless of my agreement with some of her positions. She can disagree with that, but she should do so as a scholar, responding to the specific criticisms that have been made of her book. My original pieces with Henry Farrell are here and here. I would hope that she would finally address them substantively, along with the other work cited above, and cease hurtling slander at her critics as a way of avoiding responsibility for the scholarly merits of her work.

The post A Response to Nancy MacLean appeared first on Niskanen Center.

from nicholemhearn digest https://niskanencenter.org/blog/a-response-to-nancy-maclean/

What is a Certificate Of Occupancy?

A certificate of occupancy (C.O.) is a document given by a building department or local government agency that certifies that your commercial building and/or space complies with the plans you submitted to and that were approved by the city, the city’s / county’s applicable building codes and laws, and that it’s in a suitable condition to occupy. 

Who Needs a Certificate of Occupancy?

The procedure and requirements for a certificate of occupancy vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and on the type of commercial property. In general however it’s required when

• A new building is built
• When a property is changing from one use to another(e.g. an industrial building changed to residential use)
• Change of ownership
• Occupancy of a commercial building changes
• When doing tenant finish outs and a permit is required

Temporary Certificate of Occupancy

A Temporary certificate of occupancy gives the occupants the same rights as a CO however only for a temporary time period.

Certificate of Occupancy in Austin TX

If you are buying or leasing commercial real estate Austin Tx and doing any construction or improvements you more than likely will need to get a permit and then ultimately approval for a certificate of occupancy. When you complete and pass the inspection phase after tenant finish out and construction you will receive a certificate of occupancy. The C.O. proves that your building and space is safe for your particular use. If you are trying to get a C.O. in Austin and not sure where to start the following steps will help.

1. Start with the City of Austin Development Assessment center . Here you will verify the intended use that is allowed under current zoning, submit plans for construction, determine if a site plan is needed.
2. Next is Commercial Plan Review. Anytime a structure is erected, altered, improved, repaired, etc the review staff has to approve.
3. Permitting – After the commercial plan review has approved your building plans and application you can pick up permits and pay.
4. Inspections – Your project will be inspected to ensure that it’s compliant with mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and zoning, as well as other structural and engineering inspections. Once everything passes you will be issued a certificate of occupancy.

How to Choose a Reliable Commercial Contractor

When buying or leasing commercial real estate in most cases you will end up having to build, renovate, construct, or do some sort of tenant improvements whether you want to occupy office, retail, or warehouse space. Choosing the right contractor however can be a difficult process especially if you have not been through the process before.

Picking the wrong contractor can lead to your tenant improvement project being way over budget and not on time which can create a lot of stress especially if you have a hard deadline or existing lease expiration date. Going through a commercial real estate renovation is not ideal or fun however choosing the right commercial contractor can make the different between a successful move in and a stressful one. Below are a few tips on how to select the right contractor that will keep your project on time and within your budget.

Know What Your Needs Are First

Have some plans and ideas. Contractors can’t guess your needs and while verbally telling them what you want is possible on a small job in most cases you want to have things in writing. If the scope is really small (e.g. just building a couple of walls or having new flooring installed) then you really won’t need plans but do have what you want done in writing. If the scope is larger you need to hire an architect or space planner to draw up an office layout that meets your current and future needs. Once you have a good plan that you are at least 90% sure will work then you are ready to get preliminary bids.

Find Out Commercial Contractor Recommendations

There are a few ways to go about choosing the best contractor. If using a commercial real estate company Austin you can start with them. They have been through the process a ton and can share a complete list. You can also ask the landlord for a few references on who they have used for tenant finish outs. Ask neighboring tenants who they used and how their experience was. As you do your research you will find that there will be a handful of commercial contractors that do most of the tenant build out work in your city. 

Ask Contractors Lot’s of Questions Before Asking For Construction Bids

Before asking for contractor bids you want to interview at least 5-6 contractors and ask them a lot of questions about their experience.

• Find out how busy they are right now and if they have the bandwidth to do your job. 
• How they communicate during construction regarding timelines, challenges, issues, etc
• What do they do to keep costs down and within budget?
• What do they specialize in?
• Get references for other projects they have done
• Do they have employees or do they subcontract everything out?
• What work will be completed by subs vs employees?
• What vendors do they use (e.g. architects, electricians, plumbers, etc..)?

Obtain at Least 3 Preliminary Construction Bids

Now you are ready to request preliminary commercial construction bids. You may have not signed a lease yet or closed on a property however BEFORE you do it’s important that you get at least 3 preliminary written bids first. The landlord may be giving you $50,000 in a tenant improvement allowance however how do you know if the total construction costs will be above or below that? In most cases it ends up being above and if so it might make this property too expensive for you. You don’t want to be surprised later on by finding out you have to come out of pocket by $100,000.

You need to set your expectations and having an idea of what the costs will be is VERY important. Even if you are 90% sure you are going with XYZ company getting a few other prelim bids will educate you on typical costs and you will be able to keep your contractor honest. Make sure the bids include a line item for every aspect of the build-out. For example total plumbing, electrical, flooring, walls, mechanical costs, etc.

Compare Each Commercial Bid

Make sure to compare each bid ensuring each one includes the same level of materials, tasks, and scope of work. You want to ENSURE they are apples to apples. If the landlord is charging a construction management fee make sure you know whether it’s on the total construction amount (hard and soft costs) or just the hard costs. Also make sure to get estimates on architectural and engineering fees if needed and insert those as line items on the bids.

Value Engineer the Construction Scope of Work If Needed

If the bids came back much higher than you anticipated then discuss with each contractor how you can value engineer. This essentially means reducing the scope where possible to get the costs down. You want to meet in person or jump on a conference call and go through the bids line by line. Do this with each contractor and find out where (if possible) you are able to reduce the costs. You can also negotiate with the contractor to see where they are able to reduce their list price.

Choose the Least Expensive Qualified Commercial Contractor

After comparing all the bids now is the time to choose a contractor. Don’t always go for the cheapest, however picking the most expensive doesn’t mean you will get the best service. I like to pick the “least expensive qualified contractor”. I also make sure I pick the one that I know has the time and bandwidth to work on my project. If I have a deadline it’s important that it gets met. In addition you want the contractor to commit in writing to give you weekly progress updates whether physical onsite meetings and/or conf calls. There needs to be some sort of penalty for not doing this. Communication is key to a successful build out.

Don’t Pay Contractors All Up Front

You may be required to pay a small retainer fee or money needed to cover ordering materials but paying the full construction costs in advance is not advisable.

Get Building Permits If Necessary

For small jobs a construction permit may not be required. However if the scope of work is significant the city will require a building permit. In most cases (such as City of Austin) a qualified commercial contractor is required to obtain permits of their work. Be wary of one that asks you to obtain a permit on their behalf. The party that pulls the permits is held responsible for any construction work that does not meet city code. Before the project begins request proof from the contractor that the building permits and trade permits (if required) have been obtained.

Weekly Construction Updates & Timelines

Communication is key for a successful tenant improvement finish out or other construction. Get in writing up front that the contractor will have a predefined day and time to either meet onsite or have a conference call to review construction progress and if the project is still scheduled to be completed on time. The best experiences I have had have been when we have all met in person to discuss project progress, obstacles, etc..

For more info checkout Federal Trade Commission Consumer Information hiring a contractor