ICE and immigrants

Virginia’s new governor, Abigail Spanberger, has made a big mistake. One January 17, Governor Spanberger signed Executive Order 1, which rescinds a previous directive from former Governor Glenn Youngkin that had required state police and corrections agencies to cooperate with ICE. I assume that like me most American’s want better control over illegal immigration and some, like me, what more legal immigration.

Surely when illegal immigrants are caught and convicted of a crime, they should be deported. Such persons are generally held in American jails. Thus, the proper and most efficient way to deport them is for local officials to turn them over to ICE. Governor Spanberger has made Virginia a sanctuary state. While the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have not committed any crimes other than overstaying their visas, President Trump even in his first term was determined to deport them, presumable at the urging of the immigrant hater Steven Miller.

As an aside, recently deceased CATO Vice President David Boaz’s husband was also named Steven Miller and depending on which one we were referring to we said, “the good Steven Miller” or “the bad Steven Miller.” Even though first term Trump didn’t resort to masked ICE agents grabbing foreign looking people off the street, his push to deport illegals was very disruptive. “Illegal aliens”

We need to take a another shot at passing immigration reform legislation identical or similar to the 2013 legislation that passed the Senate but not the House. In the meantime, the masked ICE agents should be limited to deporting illegal immigrants who have been properly convicted of crimes. Their current behavior is disgusting and turning good hearted American’s off (that excludes the Bad Steven Miller, of course) on the whole effort. This includes arresting reporters and American citizens in complete violation of our principles and laws. The Justice Department should take time off from prosecuting Trump’s critics and prosecute these ICE crimes (including murder). Trump seems to be reducing illegal immigration by making America as unattractive as possible, hardly making America great again.

The list of ICE misbehavior is long and growing: “Minnesota immigration detained US citizen”

But the attack on our values runs deeper than just violating our laws as explained in an article by Radley Balko:

“The lies this administration is telling about Ms. Good aren’t those you deploy as part of a cover-up. They’re those you use when you want to show you can get away with anything. They’re a projection of power….

“It’s one thing to tank or slow-walk an investigation. It’s quite another to publicly declare that no investigation will happen on any level and then announce that you’ll be investigating the victim’s partner and supporters instead. Both paths are unethical and corrupt. Undermining an investigation at least pays lip service to the idea of accountability and public trust. The administration’s actions in Ms. Good’s case are a declaration that there will be no accountability and that it would prefer to instill fear rather than trust.”

Sanctuary cities and states should cooperate with Immigration officials by handing over illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and Congress should get serious about passing sensible legislation. “Immigrants from hell”  “We need comprehensive immigration reform now” In the mean time ICE should take off their masks and get off the street.

Bosnia

In my last blog I condemned the US’s illegal attack on Venezuela and worried about what might follow given the apparent lack of a broadly considered and agreed plan. In this blog I will contrast it with the approach taken at the end of the vicious civil war between the Croat, Serb and Bosnian populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with the signing of the Dayton accords. “Three decades ago, in November 1995, the U.S.-brokered Dayton accords ended the Bosnian war, a three-and-a-half-year ethnic conflict that killed roughly 100,000 people and displaced two million. The settlement imposed a complex power-sharing structure on a divided country, promising the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina a new start.” This quote is from an excellent assessment of that agreement and the new constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina that it created by Elmira Bayrasli in Foreign Affairs: “Bosnia’s Unfinished Peace”

I drafted the monetary section of that constitution, which established a central bank bound by currency board rules (i.e. no monetary policy as the money supply is determined by the public’s demand for and willingness to purchase its currency). I also led the IMF teams that drafted the Central Bank Law that merged the existing three central banks (Croat, Serbian and Bosnian) into one national bank and currency. The negotiations with the three (obviously) future governors of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBBH) lasted for over a year of heated discussions of the CBBH’s powers and the details of its currency notes. For details see my account in “One Currency for Bosnia”  Surprisingly to many the CBBH’s currency board rules were accepted instantly by all three with no debate. The reason was that the three didn’t trust one another and currency board rules eliminate an monetary policy discresion.

The Dayton accord was the product of intense negotiations between the Presidents of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian provinces of B&H and diplomates from the US, UK, EU and Russia culminating with the agreement at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio—the Dayton Accord. To lay out the sharp contrast between these negations and the lack of them in the current “take over” of Venezuela, I will quote extensively from Wikipedia:

“During September and October 1995, world powers (especially the United States and Russia), gathered in the Contact Group, pressured the leaders of the three sides to attend settlement negotiations; Dayton, Ohio was eventually chosen as the venue.

“Talks began with an outline of key points presented by the US in a team led by National Security Adviser Anthony Lake in visits to London, Bonn, Paris and other European stops 10 – 14 August 1995. These included Sochi, to consult Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev. Lake’s team handed off to a separate US inter-agency group led by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, who went on to negotiate with Balkan leaders in their capitals. The Holbrooke crew conducted five rounds of intense shuttle diplomacy from August to October, including short conferences in Geneva and New York that resulted in the parties’ adoption of principles for a settlement on 8 and 26 September respectively.

“The Dayton conference took place from 1–21 November 1995. The main participants from the region were the President of the Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milošević (whom the Bosnian Serbs had previously empowered to represent their interests), President of Croatia Franjo Tuđman, and President of Bosnia and Herzegovina Alija Izetbegović with his Foreign Minister Muhamed Šaćirbeg.

“The peace conference was led by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and negotiator Richard Holbrooke with two co-chairmen in the form of EU Special Representative Carl Bildt and the First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov. A key participant in the US delegation was General Wesley Clark. The head of the UK’s team was Pauline Neville-Jones, political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK military representative was Col Arundell David Leakey. Paul Williams, through the Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) served as legal counsel to the Bosnian Government delegation during the negotiations.”

The history and situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was dramatically different than Venezuela. Ending its civil war required extensive negotiations and considerable international oversight of compliance to the agreed arrangements. As noted in the Foreign Affairs article sighted above, a serious mistake was holding national elections far too earlier. The intense hatreds of the three national groups were not given enough time to soften resulting in the election of hardliners and the continuation of the war by other means. The second mistake was the failure of international oversight (the UN High Representative) to fully exorcise its powers. None the less the three nation country has held together peaceably for three decades following its civil war.

While the political situation in Bosnia remains fragile (see the excellent article sited above in Foreign Affairs) the central bank itself has been a great success, widely trusted and respected by most citizens from the three provinces. I attribute this to its enlightened leadership and the central bank law with its currency board rules. Tragically the DOGE chain saw seems to have eliminated US capacity for effective diplomacy. “At the breaking point”

Venezuela

The only time I have been to Venezuela was in 1981 with Friedrick Hayek to speak at some conference. At that time it had the highest per capita income in south America ($4,951 in 2024 dollars). Today (i.e. 2024) it has dropped to 11th place with a per capita income of $4,218, while Uruguay has risen to $23,089. How and why did this happen?

Venezuela become an independent country in 1830 and a democracy since 1958. But with the election of the socialist Hugo Chávez in 1998 Venezuela’s economy turned South. He oversaw the adoption of a new constitution and the “socialization” of the economy.  Chávez was reelected three more times before dying in office of cancer. He was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro. Their governments were characterized by hyperinflation, famine, disease, and crime, which lead to massive emigration from the country (roughly 8 million).

Maduro’s reelection May 20, 2018 was disputed by his opposition. After being sworn in for a second term on January 10, 2010, the Organization of American States approved a resolution in which Maduro was declared illegitimate as President of Venezuela, urging that new elections be held. On January 19, 2019, the president of the National Assembly, Juan Gerardo Antonio Guaidó, was declared the interim president by that body. Guaidó was immediately recognized as the legitimate president by several nations, including the United States. President Trump threatened to remove Maduro.

President Trump falsely claimed that Maduro was responsible for large illegal drug shipments to the US (very little of which came from Venezuela) and prepared to remove him, offering him safety outside Venezuela. However, the Trump administration’s bombing of speed boats it claims were carrying drugs to the U.S. and its attack on Caracas and kidnapping of its President were illegal in the U.S. and internationally and bad for America. “war” “The military operation, undertaken without UN Security Council authorization, without congressional authorization, without a claim of self-defense, and without even a plausible legal rationale, represents the most harmful attack yet on the rules-based order.” Foreign Affairs: The World Without Rules”

In a recent interview about the U.S. operation to seize Nicolás Maduro and “run” Venezuela, Trump was asked if there were any limits on his power; he replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”  In the same exchange, he added that he does not “need international law,” signaling that he does not view international legal rules as binding limits on his use of military or coercive power abroad. If you love America, this much concern you.

The adherence to acceptable norms of behavior– the rule of law at home and abroad– is an incredibly important contributor to our well-being. Weakening or destroying it is bad for the U.S. and the world. Trump’s threats to expand the US invasions to Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Iran, and Greenland further damaged America’s image and cooperation of previously friendly countries. “A world in which the powerful no longer feel the need to justify themselves is not merely unjust. It is barbaric: operations to kill, steal, and destroy are severed from any claim of right. That world does not have a legal order at all. It has only force, guided by one man’s whims.”  Ibid. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned us that we are in the midst of a “breakdown of values” that is turning the world “into a den of robbers, where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want” 

While Maduro’s kidnaping was impressively well planned and executed, it’s unclear what is planned for the day after.  U.S. experiences with the follow ups to our attacks on Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq were not good.

In Iraq, a hard to understand invasion based on lies, the ruling Coalition Provisional Authority, led by the U.S., removed not just Iraq’s leadership but a very large part of its bureaucracy including disbanding the Army (who were then going to do what??) with disastrous results. I describe my experiences there in: “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”  

In Venezuela the Trump Administration has left the Maduro government in place allowing Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to assume the Presidency, the opposite of our earlier approaches after our invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. This decision seems to have been based on consideration of the options: an evaluation that Ms. Rodriguez, while an important member of the Maduro government, is widely respected and pragmatic, and that the U.S. via its oil sanctions has considerable leverage without the need for boots on the ground. “Rajan Menon: here’s what Trump really wants”

At the White House press conference following the very well planned and execute attack on Caracos, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described America’s strategy for the period ahead: “Step one is the stabilization of the country. We don’t want it descending into chaos. Part of that stabilization, and the reason why we understand and believe that we have the strongest leverage possible is our quarantine. We are going to take between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil. That money will then be handled in such a way that benefits the Venezuelan people, not corruption, not the regime.

“The second phase will be a phase that we call recovery, and that is ensuring that American, Western, and other companies have access to the Venezuela market in a way that’s fair.  Also, at the same time, we begin to create the process of reconciliation nationally within Venezuela so that the opposition forces can be amnestied and released from prisons or brought back to the country and begin to rebuild civil society. And then the third phase, of course, will be one of transition.”

Friday Trump summonsed the main US oil producers’ leaders to seek their agreement to move back into Venezuela’s oil fields. When ExxonMobil’s chief executive Darren Woods said that Venezuela was currently uninvertible, Trump, in typical bully style, stated on Airforce One that: “I didn’t like Exxon’s response. I’ll probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn’t like their response.”  “Trump threatens to block ExxonMobil in Venezuela”  He declared that he would make all the decisions. Putin couldn’t have said it better.

Rather than accepting Vice President Rodriguez becoming President and seeming to toss aside the legitimately elected President Juan Gerardo Antonio Guaidó, why didn’t we convene discussions with all of the relevant parties in Venezuela (Guaidó, Rodriguez, key generals, members of Parliament, etc.), and include in the dialog the relevant members of the US Congress and key allies—especially Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, EU and agree on a path back to democracy and prosperity.  Unfortunately, the DOGE chainsaw has eliminated many of the US DOS officials with knowledge and expertise on Venezuela as well as US experts capable of helping to implement the resulting plan (e.g., “USAID”).

The attack on Venezuela can’t be undone. Unfortunately, we already sold out the Venezuelan opposition, fired all our Venezuela experts and staff capable of negotiating and executing the day after, irretrievably alienated all the allies whose support we need (and even threatened them with attack as well!). The prospects for restoring a successful and peaceful democracy to Venezuela are challenging to say the least.  The U.S. is in a much weaker position that we were a year ago. “Fukuyama: The problem with America’s Venezuela policy”

Econ 101: Bank Deposits and Stable Coins

I have always been fascinated by the details of money and payments and written a lot about it. “Econ-101: Money”  With the introduction in the US of dollar Stable Coins and potentially the retail (bank operated) version that might be established by our central bank (Central Bank Digital Currency) I find it interesting to compare how a payment with a dollar stable coin is executed relative to a payment with a dollar bank deposit.

The totally safe foundation of the dollar are the liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks (we have twelve of them). These liabilities are currency (Federal Reserve Notes) and deposits banks have with their district Federal Reserve Bank, so called reserve deposits. Here in Washington DC our Fed is the Federal Reserve of Richmond. These two Fed liabilities (C+R) together are referred to as High Powered or Base Money.

As explained in my “Econ 101: Money” blog linked above, when you pay someone for a purchase with a check (or electronic payment order) drawn on your bank, the recipient does not accept an increase in their account at your back because they will almost certainly have their deposits in their own bank and deposits in banks do face the small risk of the bank failing and not being able to honor its deposits. Your payment from your bank deposit will be transferred to your payee’s bank and their deposit account via the debit of your bank’s deposits with the Fed and credit of the payee’s bank’s Fed deposit. When your payment is thus “settled” your obligation has been fulfilled and the seller has no further claim on you. Your bank deposits are ultimately claims on the Fed.

Payment of dollar Central Bank Digital Currency (if the Fed ever creates it) is a different story. Your transfer of your CBDC dollars to the seller is the whole story. Your CBDC (whether issued by your bank or directly by the Fed) is a direct claim on the Fed. Transferring it directly to the seller gives the seller a direct claim on the Fed. Thus, no other transactions are needed to provide the seller will the full certainty of such a claim.

Dollar stable coins issued by different banks or other financial enterprises are more like our VISA cards which are issued by around 15,000 different institutions. Mine is issued by United Airlines. Merchants who accept payment via any of these VISA issuers do so because of their confidence in the VISA network’s commitment to reliably delivering payment to the merchants bank account. It remains to be seen whether all or most stable coin issues achieve the same confidence and thus universal acceptance that the accepting party can redeem them for a dollar deposit to its bank account. Regulations that establish virtual certainty that dollar stable coins are fully and safely banked by liquid dollar assets will be essential. Such backing will enable any recipient of such a stable coin payment to redeem it for a deposit to the recipients own bank account.

A similar issue existed back in the days of currency notes issued by commercial banks. When they were accepted far from the issuing bank, they generally were given a lower (discounted) value. The issuance of National bank notes ended in 1935 when the newly established Federal Reserve System acquired a monopoly on bank note (currency) issue.

How to be Safe

Much can be said about how and why almost everyone on earth has risen from poverty to affluence. Two of the most important are free markets that allow entrepreneurs to invent and build, and peace and security that allow our work to build consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Taking the second of these, the safety of our persons and our property allows us to specialize and trade – an absolutely critical condition for flourishing. The more broadly we can trade the greater is the wealth producing potential of our efforts. So a key question and the focus of this blog is how we maximize our safety in order to maximize trade the production of consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Since 9/11 almost one million people have been killed in wars and when including indirect deaths from wars the number rises to around 4.5 million. The U.S. alone has spent over $21 trillion dollars on defense since 9/11.  This is 5.25% of the U.S.’s cumulative GDP over that period of $400 trillion.

If we could trust every country in the world, we could get rid of our military complex and add that amount to our incomes. Obviously that would be unrealistic thus some defense spending will always be necessary. However, with the deployment of skillful diplomacy it can be greatly reduced and the losses from actual wars could potentially be eliminated.

We must live among other people. If we are good neighbors, we will be safer from attacks (verbal or worse) by those around us. Being a good neighbor requires being trustworthy (honest) and behaving in ways that take into account and respect the interests of our neighbors. What is true on the block and village is true globally as well. The adoption of mutually agreed rules/norms for our interactions with others is an important aspect of our safety and productivity.

Within each country, at least, agreement has been reached on which side of the road to drive, what frequency we can broadcast on, and what voltage our electricity will be. Across boarders we have agreed on setting dates and time (the calendar), airline overflight rules, and the orbits our satellites will occupy. After WWII, in addition to the UN and its many agencies, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and World Trade Organization, countries established the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Moreover, the US and most every other country have established embassies in each other’s countries in order to serve the needs of their own citizens abroad and to maintain dialog and informed relations with each other’s governments.

An important part of soft power diplomacy are the supportive relationships with “allies” who contribute to mutual defense, thus lowering its cost. But good (cooperative) relationships in general are an important contributor to our safety and commercial interaction with other countries. To a large extent formal rules of war and treatment of others have promoted peace in the world.

Violating these rules (e.g. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. invasion of Venezuela) raises the cost of our security. It makes us less safe and less wealthy. https://wcoats.blog/2026/01/03/war-2/

President Trump has angered our friends and allies with his tariff and other threats and a generally bullying approach to our relations with other countries. He has created enemies where we didn’t have them before. After bombing Venezuela and kidnaping its President, he is now threatening the same for Cuba, Panama, Columbia, Iran, and Greenland. Denmark’s government, which controls Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense, has told the White House to “stop the threats.”

Protests of US lawlessness is growing. As but one example:

JOINT DECLARATION BY THE GOVENMENTS OF

BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, MEXICO, SPAIN, AND URUGUAY

“The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Uruguay, in light of the gravity of the events that have occurred in Venezuela and reaffirming their commitment to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, make the following joint declaration:

“We are deeply concerned and reject the military actions unilaterally carried out on Venezuelan territory, which infringe fundamental principles of international law, in particular the prohibition of the use and threat of force, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. These actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and security in the region and endanger civilian populations.”

Trump has isolated the U.S. by breaking the rules and angering our friends and alias. We are much less secure than in the past.  WP: “Venezuela-Trump-Global Law and Order”

War

Only the US Congress can authorize war. President Trump, who pays little attention to the law, has ordered an attack on Venezuela anyway. The US has kidnapped Venezuela’s President and his wife, who Trump says are on a US Navy ship on its way to New York. This hardly looks like the promised end of “forever wars.” At Trump’s press conference today, he bragged of a number of other illegal US bombings around the world during his “rule”. In addition, he told so many lies, that it is surely a record. The greatest lier of all times, as he might say.

Trump announced that the US will continue to remain and run the country for a while. As our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has clearly demonstrated, we are bad at running other countries’ we occupy. I have put my own experience in Iraq in a book I urge you to read: “Iraq: An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”

The list of Trump’s disregards for the law continues to grow as does the price America will pay. “The rule of law” The constitution provides only one remedy for such a lawless President. It’s time to apply it.

The Rule of Law

The U.S. bombed seven countries under President Trump’s orders. Congress has not authorized or approved any of them. “US bombed seven countries in 2025 as trump dramatically expanded airstrikes”  This is perhaps the most serious end of Trump’s disregard for law. At the almost trivial end I have received more than half a dozen emails from “Trump” daily for many months. I carefully unsubscribe from each of them (over a hundred times) but they keep coming.

Trump has removed the established guard rails against executive abuse (e.g. all Inspector Generals have been removed). He has put an incompetent sycophant in charge of the Defense Department (appropriately renamed the War Department) who has fired senior military generals and admirals and replaced them with his loyalists. “Trump pushes out top US general-nominates retired three star-2025-02-22”  And the Attorney General’s office regularly takes his orders etc. After illegally sending National Guard troops into LA, Portland OR, and Chicago he is finally removing them in response to the Supreme Courts confirmation of lower court rules of their illegality. “Trump national guard in Chicago Los Angeles Portland”

Trump’s disregard for the law in his effort to deport all illegal residents has become particularly ugly and damaging to the US economy https://wcoats.blog/2025/12/28/ice/

As each violation of law and norms becomes “normal,” Trump pushes further. Is anyone left to stop him? Is Congress slowly waking up to do its job?

ICE

When I complained about the masked ICE bandits, I noted that they cover their faces and grab innocent people, including American citizens, off the street. A few people pushed back on my comment

“Why do you think ICE are bandits. They are there to protect Americans. All those who came here illegally must be sent back home.”

The dialog that followed on Facebook prompts me to provide a fuller treatment here.

Those who commit what for a legal resident would be a crime, should be deported, but this applies to a minority of those apprehended by ICE. And we must distinguish between those seeking refugee status from others here illegally. Refugee applicants claim that they would not be safe remaining in their home country (some of my Afghan friends come to mind). Thus, we cannot properly return them to their home country.

Those non refugees here illegally, about half are illegal because they overstayed their (student, tourist, work) visa and about half entered the US without a proper visa. Less than a third of those deported in recent years have been convicted of a crime (many of them traffic violations). Actual crimes (stealing, battery, etc.) are over whelmingly committed by legal residents.

There are currently almost 15 million illegal residents about 10 million of whom have jobs. A proper immigration regime, one that serves the best interests of the U.S., would better enforce legal status and deport those without legal status or provide a legal path to legal status. This is easier said than done. https://wcoats.blog/2025/08/29/immigration/

In 2013, a bipartisan group of eight senators (the “Gang of Eight”) drafted S.744, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that included a multi‑step path to legal status and eventual citizenship for most undocumented immigrants, alongside major expansions of border security and enforcement.​

The bill passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote of 68–32, including support from 14 Republicans, reflecting unusually broad elite consensus for an earned legalization and citizenship framework. Then‑Speaker John Boehner refused to bring the bill to the House floor because it lacked support from a majority of House Republicans, even though it likely had the votes to pass with a coalition of Democrats and some Republicans. Thus it sadly died.

Simply deporting these “illegal” (undocumented) workers would cripple the economy which is already fully employed. But I want to focus on the approach taken by ICE that I have been complaining about as contrary to America’s tradition of the rule of law. While I could cite a number of examples of ICE grabbing legal US citizens off the street for deportation, I want to focus on the most famous of them Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a resident of Maryland. He entered the U.S. illegally 14 or so years ago and is married to a U.S. citizen and is the father of three children born here. He has not been convicted of any crimes in the U.S. but U.S. officials have repeatedly accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang. These claims were largely based on a 2019 police report citing a confidential informant and Garcia’s choice of clothing (specifically a Chicago Bulls hat). He has never been charged with a gang-related crime.

In 2019 he was granted “withholding of removal”, a form of protection that explicitly prohibited the U.S. government from deporting him to El Salvador because of the risk of persecution and violence he would face there.​ Despite this protected status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him in March 2025 on alleged gang‑related grounds that a federal judge later described as ambiguous and unsupported.

On March 15, 2025, he was placed on one of three planes of alleged gang members sent under a Trump administration operation to El Salvador, where he was delivered to the CECOT mega‑prison, a facility widely described as one of the most dangerous in the Western Hemisphere.​ The U.S. Supreme Court eventually intervened, and he was returned to the U.S. in June 2025 to face the current pending charges. Bari Weiss has been sharply criticized for cancelling a CBS 60 minutes report on the conditions in that prison. “cbs news Bari Weiss intervention”

The administration has acknowledged to courts and the press that his deportation occurred despite the prior legal bar and has variously characterized it as an “administrative error.”  After being returned to the U.S., Abrego Garcia was indicted in Tennessee on two federal counts: conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. The government alleges he played a role in a smuggling ring, a claim he vehemently denies.

On December 11, 2025, a federal judge ordered his release from ICE custody, ruling that his detention was unlawful, and he returned to his home in Maryland. A judge extended an order in December 2025 preventing his return to immigration detention while awaiting further details on his case from the government. His trial is set to begin in January 2026, though he is attempting to have the charges dropped.

More than government’s abuse of Abrego Garcia’s rights, we read ugly and often mistaken “arrests” of residents from the streets and from their jobs. Earlier this month, multiple reports described immigrants being turned away or “plucked out of line” at U.S. citizenship oath ceremonies, especially in Boston’s Faneuil Hall and other locations, after new Trump administration directives targeting applicants from 19 so‑called “high‑risk” countries.

These individuals had already completed interviews and been approved, but USCIS officials stopped them at the final step, cancelling or pausing their naturalization, which advocates have described as “unspeakable cruelty.”

There are approximately 2.3 million to 2.4 million individuals with pending asylum cases in the U.S. immigration court system. These individuals are technically part of the unauthorized population but have “procedural protection” from deportation while they wait for a judge to rule on their status.  Because of a massive backlog, the average wait time for an asylum case to be resolved in court is currently about 4.3 years.

So I stand by my characterization of the masked ICE agents as bandits. Our immigration policy and its enforcement have real problems but they need a more thoughtful and serious approach.

But I want to leave you with a last very disturbing comments. One of my Facebook readers ask: “what are your thoughts on ICE government agents required to follow rules and regulations supporting people who do not follow the rules and regulations. I’ve always thought it Odd that law-enforcement has to enforce the law following the rules, detaining those who do not follow rules. Seems a little hypocritical.” Believe it or not he is actually saying that since the police (ICE) are apprehending people who are thought by them to be breaking the law, why can’t the police break it as well. No comment. https://wcoats.blog/2025/06/12/police-state/

Econ 101: Insurance

Insurance pools the costs of unpredictable events (illness, car accidents, etc.) so that the members of the pool share the costs of the events that fall on individual members of the group. Insurance that covers the costs of medical expenses incurred by a few members of the group (the insurance pool) is share among the group. Thus, most members of the group pay a “modest” amount for medical costs they do not incur in order to help pay the costs of care actually incurred by a few.

Your medical costs depend on many things. If you are paying for it, what you receive (and its cost) is agreed between you and your care giver (doctor). If someone else is paying for it, such as your insurance company, they will determine what is provided and its cost. An insurer can specify the doctors you must use with whom they will have agreements on cost and extent of treatment. Or you might choose your own doctor outside the insurers network, but the insurer will set the cost they will pay and potentially the extent of treatment they will pay for.

The fact that medical care is insured does not mean that the cost of providing it does not exist. The details of what the insurance covers can significantly influence the care given and its cost. As insurance is the sharing of the actual or covered costs with a group, the determination of who is in the group (pool) that will share whatever insured costs are incurred is critical.

When health insurance is provided by companies to their employees, the pool consists of those employees.  This has some advantages and disadvantages. It avoids packing the pool with sick people (e.g. those with preexisting health conditions) and thus increasing the cost to be shared (covered by the insurance). But it will generally result in the loss of insurance coverage if you want to change jobs. Forming insurance pools other than via an employer is an interesting challenge. An insurance pool of bird watchers might expect different premiums than a pool of mountain climbers.

Insurance providers attempt to keep the overall cost to be shared, and hence the cost of the insurance premiums, as low as possible by requiring the members of the pool to pay some amount (copay) of the medical bill thus providing them with some incentive to only get care that they really need. Price transparency is also important in this regard. A medical doctor friend complained to me that he doesn’t even know what his patients are being changed for his services. The approach that maximizes your incentive to economize on your medical expenses is to limit insurance to major medical expenses. Once again, the insurance company rather than the patient will negotiate the charges involved (hospital stay, medications, procedures, etc.).

Clearly what medical services are provided, and how that service is organized and its cost, will be significantly influenced by who pays for them. The policy challenge is to enable everyone to receive the essential medical care they need, while keeping its cost as low as possible overall and to each of us individually.

America First

What does America First really mean and how can we best achieve it? It should mean pursuing a foreign policy—our relations with other countries—that best serves our national interest. That requires that our relations with other countries maximize our security and our ability to profitably trade with them including traveling and vacationing in them. In short, our own interest is best served by having friendly relations with our neighbors. It serves our interest for others to trust us and to interact with us on the bases of known and shared rules. Tourism in the US is one of our best exports both in terms of revenue and its contribution to mutual understanding. Sadly, these goals have been seriously damaged over this year leaving us less safe and poorer than we could have been.

I am reminded of the debate over whether companies should strive to maximize profits (shareholder value). As John Mackey, a co-founder of Whole Food, has insightfully argued, a firm’s profits are maximized (assuming the government is not protecting its monopoly) when its workers, neighborhood, and customers are treated well and kept happy with the most efficient cost possible of supplying whatever the firm supplies. We might call this the right way to serve Shareholders First. Supporting this or that charity or cause should be left to the individual shareholders, who are likely to choose to give to different causes.