It’s a grisly affair: Dozens of immigrants locked in a semi-trailer in San Antonio, Texas, apparently abandoned by those attempting to smuggle them into the United States. After their cries for help were heard and rescuers arrived, 48 were found dead at the scene, four more died shortly thereafter, and 16 were hospitalized.

US Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas pronounces himself “heartbroken,” but doesn’t seem inclined to apologize for the “unprecedented” operation he launched less than three weeks ago in “an all-of-government effort to attack the smuggling organizations.” As of that time, DHS bragged, nearly 2,000 smugglers had been arrested in the previous eight weeks.

Texas governor Greg Abbott declares that “these deaths are on [US president Joe] Biden” — not because Biden is ultimately responsible for the “unprecedented operation” leading directly to outcomes like this, but because (in Abbott’s vivid imagination, anyway) Biden pursues “open border” policies.

But if the US government pursued the “open borders” policy mandated in its Constitution,  those immigrants wouldn’t have been locked in a semi-trailer in the first place, nor would their drivers have abandoned them, presumably after suspecting that they were immediate targets of  Mayorkas’s “unprecedented operation.”

Instead, they’d have arrived  in the US alive, in good health, and without fear of abduction by Mayorkas’s or Abbott’s thugs.

They’d have arrived the way any of us arrive anywhere — on foot, by bicycle or scooter, motorcycle, car,  bus, plane — and largely, like all of us, without incident.

Why didn’t they? Because American politicians know that supporting government lawlessness on immigration gets them votes.

A vote for a non-“open borders” politician — these days, that means pretty much any Republican or Democrat — is a vote for mass murder.

If you happen to believe in a deity who watches and judges us, remember that the next time you fill out a ballot.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On June 24, the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Not unexpectedly (due to a leak of associate justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in early May), the ruling overturns decades of precedent established in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992),  largely leaving the question of if (and if so, how) abortion can be regulated to state legislatures.

My usual disclaimer: This column is not about abortion. I’m not going to try to tell you that it’s right or wrong, or that it should be legal or illegal. You’ve probably got opinions on that. They’re probably not going to change. I’m not going to try to change them.

I’m less interested in abortion itself than I am in the quality of arguments about it. And I see a truly silly argument being advanced by supporters of the Dobbs ruling. Let’s call it “the argument from decentralization.”

Constitutionally, that argument often takes the form of claims for “states’ rights,” which is itself a misnomer. Constitutionally, states don’t have “rights,” they have powers. See, for example, the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Most “states’ rights” advocates ignore those last four words, holding that anything goes for state legislatures where a federal power isn’t enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

A specific sub-set of those who favor the “states’ rights” position also attribute a general goodness to “decentralization” as such, rather than mere “federalism” (which really treats state legislatures as the “lowest” level of power).

Decentralization is the notion that decisions should be made at the “lowest” possible level of government. Don’t let Congress decide if a state legislature can decide; don’t let a state legislature decide if a county commission can decide; don’t let a county commission decide if a city council can decide;  don’t let a city council decide if individuals can decide.

I’m pretty fond of decentralization myself. But the Dobbs ruling is exactly the opposite of decentralization.

Per Roe, decisions concerning abortion were largely decentralized to the lowest possible level, that of individual choice. Agree with the logic of the decision or not, that was its effect.

Per Dobbs, such decisions are now largely centralized into the hands of state legislatures.

It’s reasonable to argue that abortion is right or wrong, choice or crime, etc., and that it should be addressed at this or that level of government.

It’s unreasonable to pretend that a massive centralization of power is a decentralization of power.

Whatever else Dobbs may be, it’s unquestionably a “bigger government,” not “smaller government,” ruling.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On June 22, by popular demand, US president Joe Biden asked Congress to pass a three month “holiday” on collection of the federal gasoline tax. With prices hovering at around $5 per gallon, Americans want something done.

I’m all for it. I hate taxes, and I’m all for tax cuts, in any amount, for any length of time. Yay, Biden!

But before breaking into a collective happy dance over the “holiday” proposal and how great it’s going to be for our wallets, let’s look at some numbers.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, Americans used about 135 billion gallons of gasoline — about 408 gallons per man, woman and child in the country — in 2021. That’s not quite eight gallons per week per person.

Even if Americans aren’t reducing their miles driven due to higher prices, that means a “holiday” on collection of the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax would save each of us a whopping $1.47 per week.

Don’t spend it all in one place.

And don’t expect to not pay for it on the inflationary back end.

The popular/common understanding of inflation is “price inflation” — a general rise in prices that happens when more dollars  chase the same goods and services. Everything else equal, if 350 million Americans suddenly have an extra $1.47 their wallets, that will produce at least some small upward blip in prices. A can of corned beef hash will go for a penny more next week than it did last week, or whatever.

Another effect will come in the form of textbook inflation, which is an increase in the supply of money (that is, the Federal Reserve creating new dollars out of thin air) versus total production of goods and services in the economy.

If the feds stop collecting the gas tax, naturally Congress will have to cut government spending by $25 billion per year (about $6 billion over the three-month “holiday”) to make up for reduced revenues, right?

Don’t make me laugh. Government spending will roll right along as usual. Congress will  just borrow the money, which means the Fed will magic that money into existence, making every dollar in your pocket worth less in terms of real purchasing power.

The proposed “holiday” is feel-good, “do something, anything” theater, not a serious solution. Gas prices will fall when supply goes up, demand goes down, or both. Anything else is just the equivalent of avoiding ladders and black cats on Friday the 13th.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY