Podcast appearances and mentions of Alex Nowrasteh

Join us for a breakdown and reaction to the recent Soho Forum debate on immigration, hosted by Reason Magazine, where Dave Smith faced off against Alex Nowrasteh to answer a hot question: Should libertarians support open borders?Doug Stuart and Jacob Winograd were there in person and here unpack the arguments, the ideological tension between libertarian populism and policy libertarianism, and what it all means for the future of liberty and immigration discourse.Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com ★ Support this podcast ★

Adam Haman returns, this time to discuss Jacob Hornberger's recent video, where he critiques the Haman/Murphy/Dave Smith takes on immigration.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this conversation.Jacob Hornberger's critique of Haman/Murphy/Smith.The SoHo Forum immigration debate between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh. Adam and Bob's original analysis of the SoHo Forum immigration debate. Bob's breakdown of it on Human Action podcast. Bob's interview of Nowrasteh on the debate.The HamanNature substack.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Alex Nowrasteh is Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. After Bob (on the Human Action podcast) summarized the recent SoHo forum immigration debate between Alex and Dave Smith, Alex had written a substack article responding to Bob's critique. Alex joins Bob to discuss the controversy, covering the empirical studies, the Hoppean argument concerning government-controlled property, and the current situation in LA.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this conversation.This episode's sponsor, PersistSEO.com.Alex Nowrasteh's substack column pushing back against Bob's critique. The list of CATO studies (co-)authored by Alex Nowrasteh.Bob and Adam Haman comment on the SoHo debate. Bob goes solo on the Human Action podcast to parse Dave Smith's arguments and to question Alex's empirical claims.Bob's episode talking about blockades and immigration in a free society (with reference to his novel, Minerva).Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

What did Elon Musk and DOGE accomplish over the first few months of the Trump administration? Tommy talks with Alex Nowrasteh, Vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute

In this episode of the Human Action Podcast, Bob analyzes the key arguments from the recent immigration debate at the Soho Forum between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh. He clarifies the critical issue of how libertarians should approach immigration when the government controls significant property and resources, explores the implications for public property rights, and examines empirical claims made during the debate.Alex Nowrasteh's Cato Article on Immigrants' Welfare and Entitlement Benefits Consumption: Mises.org/HAP502aAlex's Cato Article, "Do Immigrants Affect Economic Institutions?": Mises.org/HAP502bAlex's Cato Article, "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States": Mises.org/HAP502cThe Soho Debate Between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh: Mises.org/HAP502dThe Human Action Podcast, "Simon Guenzl vs. Dave Smith on Open Borders": Mises.org/HAP502eThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

In this episode of the Human Action Podcast, Bob analyzes the key arguments from the recent immigration debate at the Soho Forum between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh. He clarifies the critical issue of how libertarians should approach immigration when the government controls significant property and resources, explores the implications for public property rights, and examines empirical claims made during the debate.Alex Nowrasteh's Cato Article on Immigrants' Welfare and Entitlement Benefits Consumption: Mises.org/HAP502aAlex's Cato Article, "Do Immigrants Affect Economic Institutions?": Mises.org/HAP502bAlex's Cato Article, "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States": Mises.org/HAP502cThe Soho Debate Between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh: Mises.org/HAP502dThe Human Action Podcast, "Simon Guenzl vs. Dave Smith on Open Borders": Mises.org/HAP502eThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

Adam Haman returns, this time for a 2fer. First he and Bob discuss the recent SoHo Forum debate on immigration between Dave Smith and Alex Nowrasteh. Then they discuss Michael Malice's recent appearance on Bret Weinstein's DarkHorse podcast to talk about egalitarianism and anarchy.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this conversation.The SoHo forum debate, and the Michael Malice interview.BMS ep 194 on Bob's views on immigration under anarchy.Dave Smith on the Human Action podcast laying out his views on immigration vis-a-vis libertarian theory.The HamanNature substack.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Analyzing the Dave Smith / Alex Nowrasteh Debate on Immigration – with Sheldon RichmanIn this episode of The Rational Egoist, Michael Liebowitz is joined by Sheldon Richman to analyze and unpack the high-profile immigration debate between libertarian comedian Dave Smith and immigration policy expert Alex Nowrasteh. Richman—executive editor at The Libertarian Institute and former senior editor at both the Cato Institute and the Institute for Humane Studies—offers his seasoned perspective on the philosophical and policy-oriented arguments made on both sides. They explore the economic, ethical, and practical dimensions of immigration policy and discuss what was missed or misunderstood in the debate.Richman is also the author of Coming to Palestine and What Social Animals Owe to Each Other, and has long been a leading voice on liberty, peace, and individual rights.Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings.Explore his work and journey further through his books:“Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X“View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj join our Ayn Rand Adelaide Meetups here for some seriously social discussions on Freedom https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/

Send me feedback!Some thoughts on Dave & Alex's debate. The resolution: Government restrictions on the immigration of peaceful and healthy people make sense from a libertarian standpoint, especially in present-day America.SUPPORT THE SHOWLocals for $5/monthRumble Rants: Click green dollar sign during the showRumble Subscription: Click subscribe $5/monthHOW AM I DOING?Email: libertydadpod@gmail.comSHOW NOTESReasonTV (full debate)Wait Song: Smoke RisingMusic by: CreatorMix.comVideo

Is it consistently libertarian to support government restrictions on immigration?

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,With the rise of American populist nationalism has come the rise of nativism: a belief in the concept of “heritage Americans” and a deep distrust of immigration. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Alex Nowrasteh about the ideology beneath this severe skepticism, as well as what Americans lose economically if we shut our doors to both low- and high-skilled immigrants.Nowrasteh is the vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author of his own Substack with David Bier, as well as the co-author of Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions.Read more of Nowrasteh's work on immigration, nationalism, and other research.In This Episode* Illegal immigration (1:16)* Rise of xenophobia (3:48)* Psychology of immigration skeptics (9:20)* The future American workforce (14:04)* Population decline and assimilation (17:35)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Illegal immigration (1:16)The system that I would favor is one that allows a substantially larger number of people at every skill level to come into this country legally, to work, to live, and to become Americans . . . because this country demands their labor and there's no way for them to come legally.Pethokoukis: Will you, in a very short period of time, give me a sense of the situation at the southern border of the United States of America in terms of immigration, how that has evolved from Trump 1, to Biden, to now? Is it possible to give me a concise summary of that?Nowrasteh: From Obama through Trump 1, the border apprehension numbers were pretty reasonable, you were talking about somewhere between 400,000 and 800,000 per year. Then came Covid, crashed those numbers down to basically nothing by April of 2020.After that, the numbers progressively rose. They were at the highest point in December of 2020 than they had been for any other December going back over 25 years. Then Biden takes office, the numbers shoot through the roof. We're talking about 170,000 to 250,000, sometimes 300,000 a month until January or so of 2024; those numbers start coming down precipitously. December of 2024, they're at 40,000 or so, 45,000. January 2025, Trump comes in, they go down again. First full month of Trump's administration in February, they're about 8,000, the lowest numbers without a pandemic in a very long time.What's the right number?That's a hard question to answer? In an ideal world where costs and benefits didn't matter, I think the ideal number is zero. But the question is how do you get to that ideal number, right? Is it by having an insane amount of enforcement, of existing laws where you basically end up brutalizing people to an incredible extent? Or is it practically zero because we let people come in lawfully to work in this country. The system that I would favor is one that allows a substantially larger number of people at every skill level to come into this country legally, to work, to live, and to become Americans, and that would bring that number down to about what it is now or even lower than what it is now every month, because the reason people come illegally is because this country demands their labor and there's no way for them to come legally.Rise of xenophobia (3:48). . . I just don't think the economic argument is what moves people on this topic.As I've understood it, and maybe understand it wrong, is this issue has developed that — at first it seemed like the concern, and it still is the concern, was with illegal undocumented immigrants. And then it seems to me the argument became, “Well, we don't want those, and then we also really don't want low-skill immigrants either.” And now it seems, and maybe you have a different perspective, that it's, “Well, we don't really want those high-skill immigrants either.”You gave me the current state of illegal immigration at the southern border. What is the current state of the argument among people who want less, perhaps even no immigration in this country?State of the argument is actually what you described. When I started working on this topic about 15 years ago, I never thought I would've heard people come out against the H-1B visa, or against high-skilled immigrants, or against foreign entrepreneurs. But you saw this over Christmas actually, December of 2024. You saw this basically online “H-1 B-gate” where Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk were saying H-1Bs are great. I think Musk had tweeted, “over my dead body we're going to cut the H-1B,” right? And you see this groundswell of conservatives and Republicans — not all of them, by any means — come out and say, “We don't even want these guys. We don't want these skilled immigrants,” using a whole range of arguments. None of them economic, by the way. Almost none of them economics; all culture, all voting habits, all stereotypes, a lot of them pretty nasty in my opinion.So there is this sense where some people just don't want immigrants. The first time I think I encountered this in writing from a person who was prominent was Anne Coulter, Jeff Sessions when he was senator, and these types of people around 2015, in a big way, and it seems to have become much more prominent than I ever thought it would be.Is it that they don't understand the economic argument or they just don't care about that argument?They don't care about it. I have come to the realization — this makes me sad because I'm an economist by training — but I just don't think the economic argument is what moves people on this topic. I don't think it's what they care about. I don't think it animates . . . It animates me as a pro-immigration person, I think it animate you, right?It does, yeah, it sure does.It does not animate the people who are opposed to it. I think it is a cultural argument, it is a crime element, it is a threat element, it is a, “This makes us less American somehow” weird, fuzzy-feeling argument.Would it matter if the immigrants were all coming from Germany, France, and Norway?Maybe for a handful of them, but generally no, I don't think so. I think the idea that America is special, is different, is some kind of unique nation that ethnically, or in other ways cannot be pierced or contaminated by foreigners — I think it's just like an “Ew, foreigners,” type of sentiment that people have. A base xenophobia that a lot of people have combined with a very reasonable fear and dislike of chaos. When people see chaos on the border, they hate it.I hate chaos on the border. My answer is to get rid of the chaos by letting people come in legally, because you legalize a market, you can actually regulate it. You can't regulate an illegal market. But I think other people see chaos, they have this sort of purity conception of America that's just fanciful, in my opinion, and they just don't want foreigners, and the chaos prompts them, makes it even more powerful.To what extent is it fear that all these immigrants will eventually vote for things you don't want? Or in this case, they're all going to become Democrats, so Republicans don't want them.That's definitely part of it. I think that's more of an elite Republican fear, or an elite sort of nativist or conservative fear than it is amongst the people online who are yelling at me all the time or yelling at Elon Musk. I think that resonates a lot more in this city and in online conservative publications, I think that resonates much more. I don't think it's borne out by the facts, and people who say this will also loudly trumpet how Hispanics now basically split their vote in the 2024 election. David Shore, who is the progressive analyst of electoral politics, said he thinks that Trump actually won the naturalized immigrant vote, which is probably the first time a Republican has won the naturalized immigrant vote since the 19th century.The immediate question is, does that kind of thing, will that resonate into a changing opinion among folks on the right if they feel like they feel like they can win these voters?I don't think so because I think it's about deeper issues than that. I think it's a real feelings-, values-based issue.Psychology of immigration skeptics (9:20)When people feel like they don't have control of something in their country or their government doesn't have control of something, they become anti- whatever is the source of that chaos, even the legal versions of it.Has this been there for a long time? Was it exacerbated for some reason? Was it exacerbated by the financial crisis and the slow economy afterward? The only time I remember hearing about people using the idea of “heritage Americans” were elite people whose great great grandparents came over on the Mayflower and they thought they were better than everybody else, they were elites, they were these kind of Boston Brahmans. So I was aware of the concept from that, but I've never heard people — and I hear it now — about people who were not part of the original Mayflower wave, or Pilgrims, think of themselves as “heritage Americans” because their parents came over in the 1850s or the 1880s, but now their “heritage.” That idea to me seems new.I hadn't heard of it until just a few years ago, frankly, at all. I racked my brain about this because I used to have a lot of affinity for the Republican Party, just to be frank. And I'm from California, and I'm in my '40s, so I remember Prop 187 in 1994 when the state had a big campaign about illegal immigrants' enforcement and welfare, and it really changed the state's voting patterns to be much more democratic, eventually.Then I saw the Republican Party under George W. Bush, and John McCain, and all these other guys who were pro-Republican, but always in California the Republicans were very skeptical of immigration across the board, but I didn't really see that spread. Then I saw it go to Arizona in 2010, 2009, 2008, around there. I saw it go to South Carolina, Mississippi, some of these places, and then all of a sudden with Trump, it went everywhere.So I racked my brain thinking, did I miss something? Was there always something there and I was just too myopic to view it, or I wasn't in those circles, or I wanted to convince myself that it wasn't there? And I really think that it was always there to some small extent, but Trump is the most brilliant political entrepreneur of our lifetime and probably of our country's history, and that he took over this party from the outside and he convinced people to be nativists. Because what he was saying, the words — not that different from Scott Walker saying about immigration. It was not that different from what Mike Huckabee was saying about immigration. It wasn't that different from Santorum. But he said it or sold it in a way that just worked, I guess. That maybe absolves me of some responsibility or maybe allows me to say that I didn't miss anything, but I do think that that largely explains it.And how does it explain that, and you may not have an answer. I can sort of understand the visceral concern about chaos at the border or people coming here illegally. But then to take it to the point that we don't even want AI engineers to come to this country from India, or, “I'm really angry that someone from a foreign country is taking my kid's spot at Harvard.” That, to me, seems almost inexplicable.It's not the fact of the chaos, but it's the perception of the chaos, because when Trump came in in 2015, the border crossing numbers were really low. They were in the 300,000s, low 400,000s, but he talked about it like it was millions, and he created this perception of just insane, outrageous chaos.There's a research and political psychology field about the locus of control. When people feel like they don't have control of something in their country or their government doesn't have control of something, they become anti- whatever is the source of that chaos, even the legal versions of it. In some way, it's an understandable human reaction, but in some ways it is so destructive. But, like you said, it spreads to AI engineers from China because it's like all immigration, and it's so bad, and it's so destructive, and that is the best explanation that I've seen out there about that.The future American workforce (14:04)What we notice in the economics of immigration, when we do these types of studies and we take a look at the wage impacts, we've got basically no wage effect on those of native-born Americans.I write a lot about, hopefully, this technological wave that we're going to be experiencing, and then I also write a little about immigration. The question I get is, if we're going to be worried about the jobs of the future being taken over by software or by robots, if we really think that's going to happen, shouldn't we really be thinking very hard about the kinds of people we let enter into this country, even legally, and their ability to function in that kind of economy?I think we need to think about what is the best mechanism to select people to come here that the economy needs. What you described . . . assumes an amount of knowledge, and foresight, and, frankly, the incentive to make a wise decision in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians that they just do not have and that they will never have. and what matters most and who can pick the best in the market,You can say STEM degrees only. I only want people who have STEM degrees from colleges that, on some global ranking, are in the top 500 universities. You could say that. That would be one way of selecting.They could try to centrally plan it like that. . .You're saying “centrally planned” because you know that's going to get a reaction out of me, but go ahead.I do. The thing is, there's all different types of ways to have an immigration system and there's going to be a little bit of planning any immigration system. But I think the one that will work best is the one that allows the market to have the widest possible choice. We don't know how automation is going to turn out.There's this thing called Moravec's paradox in a lot of AI writing, which is the idea that you'll probably be able to automate a lot of high-skill jobs more easily than you will be able to automate, say, somebody who's a maid, or a nanny, or a nurse, or a plumber, just because the real world is harder than . . . You and I type, and talk, and do math. That's probably easier to do. So maybe the optimal thing to do would be to increase immigration for low-skilled people because all the jobs in the future are going to be low-skilled anyway, because we're going to be able to automate all the high-skilled jobs.Though you could say then that that would take away the jobs from the natives.You could say that, of course. What we notice in the economics of immigration, when we do these types of studies and we take a look at the wage impacts, we've got basically no wage effect on those of native-born Americans. If we were to have a situation where let's say massive amounts of jobs disappear in entire sectors of the economy, vanished, automated . . . well, that just means that we're going to have more opportunities and specialization, division of labor, where there's going to be a lot more lower-skilled and mid-skill jobs, just because there's such a much larger and more productive side of the economy.There's going to be so much more profits in these other ones that we're going to have a bigger economy in the same way that when agriculture basically shrank as a massive section of the workforce, those people got other jobs that were more productive, and it was great. I think we could maybe see that again, and I hope we do. I don't want to have to work anymore.Population decline and assimilation (17:35). . . if the whole world is going to have population decline in 20, 30, 50 years, we're going to have to deal with that at some point, but I'd rather deal with that problem with a population of 600 million Americans than a population of 350 million Americans.The scenario — and this was highlighted to me by one of our scholars who looks a lot about demographics and population growth — his theory is that all the population-decline estimates, shrinkage, and slowing down estimates from the United Nations are way too optimistic, that population would begin to level off much faster. Whatever the UN's low or worst-case scenario is, if you want to put a qualifier on it like that, it's probably like that. And a lot of policymakers are underestimating the decline in fertility rates, and eventually everyone's going to figure that out. And there'll be a mad global scandal for population — for people.There's going to be tons of labor shortages and you're going to want people, and there's going to be this scramble, and not every country is going to be as good at it. If people want to immigrate, they're probably more likely, everything else equal, they're going to want to go to the United States as opposed to — not to smear another country — I don't know, Argentina or something. We have this great ability to accept people to come here and for them to succeed and build companies. Maybe that company is a bodega, maybe that company is a technology company. So we're at this moment where we have this great natural advantage, but it seems like we're utterly rejecting it.We are not just rejecting it, we are turning it from a positive into a big negative. You have these students who are being apprehended and having their visas canceled because of a fishing license violation six years ago. People who are skilled science students studying the United States who could go on to be founders of big companies or just high-skilled workers, and we're saying, “Nope, can't do it, sorry.” We're kicking people out for reasons of speech — speech that I often don't like, by the way, but it doesn't matter, because I believe it on principle. It's important.We already see it showing up in tourism numbers plummeting to the United States, and I think we're going to see it in student visa numbers shortly. And student visas are the first step on that long chain of being able to be a high-skilled immigrant one day. So we are really doing long-term damage.On the population stuff, I completely agree, and if the whole world is going to have population decline in 20, 30, 50 years, we're going to have to deal with that at some point, but I'd rather deal with that problem with a population of 600 million Americans than a population of 350 million Americans.What is your general take on the notion of assimilation? Is that a problem? Should we doing more to make sure people are successful here? How do you think about that?I do think assimilation is important. I don't think it's a problem. When I talk about assimilation, I use it in the way that Jacob Vigdor — Jake is a professor, University of Washington economist, and he says, assimilation is when an immigrant or their kids are indistinguishable from long-settled Americans on the measurements of family size, civic participation, income, education, language. Basically it takes three generations. That is, the first generation are the immigrants, second are their kids, third are their grandkids, on average.Some, much faster. Like my Indian neighbors are more than assimilated in the first generation. They do better than native born Americans on most of those measures. Some lower-skilled Hispanic or some East African immigrants, takes three, three and a half, four sometimes, to do that well, but it's going very well.We do not have the cultural issues that some countries in Europe have. To some extent, it's overblown in Europe, those problems, but they do exist and they exist to a greater extent than they do here. Part of that is because we have birthright citizenship. People who are born in this country are citizens, they don't feel like they're an illegal underclass because they're not. They feel totally accepted because they are legally, and we have an ethos in this country, because we don't have an ethnic identification of being American like they do in places like Germany or in Norway. I have family members in Norway who are half Iranian and they're not really considered to be Norwegian, culturally. Here it's the opposite. If I were to go say I'm not an American, people would be offended. There, if you say, “Oh, I'm Norwegian,” they'll correct you and be like, “No, you're not Norwegian, you're something else.”We have this great secret sauce born of our culture, born of our lack of an ethnic Americanness. It doesn't matter what ethnicity or race you are, or religion, anybody can be American. And we have done it so well and we just don't have these issues, and I don't think, as a result, we should do more because I'm worried about the government breaking it.Based on what you just said, at a gut level, how do you feel when someone uses the phrase “heritage Americans,” and they hate the idea of America as an idea, and to be an American you need to have been here for a long time. That whole way of looking at it — do you get it, or do you at some level [think], I am not a psychologist, I do not understand it?A way to make sense of it [is] by swapping out the word “American” in their sentence and we place it with the word “Frenchman,” or “German,” or “Russian,” or “Japanese,” or some other country that's a nation state where the identity is bound up with ethnicity. That's the way that I make sense of it, and I think this is a concept that just does not work in the United States; it cannot work. Maybe it's the most nationalistic I am, but I think that that's just a fundamentally foreign idea that could never work in the United States. It sounds more at home in Europe and other places. That's what strikes meAs I finish up, I know you have all kinds of ideas to improve the American immigration system, which we will try to link to, but instead of me asking you to give me your five-point plan for perfection, I'm going to ask you: How does this turn around? What is the scenario in which we become more accepting again of immigrants, perhaps the way we were 30 years ago?That really is a $64,000 question. The idea that I have floated — which probably won't work, but at least gets people to pause — is the entitlement programs are going insolvent, and I have pitched to my grandmother-in-law, who is a very nice woman, who is a Republican who is skeptical of immigration, but who is worried about Social Security going bankrupt, I say, “Well, there is one way to increase the solvency of this program for 30 or 40 years.” And she said, “What's that?” and I say, “Let in 100 million immigrants between the age of the 20 and 30.” And it gives her pause. I think if that idea can give her pause, then maybe it has a shot. When this country seriously starts to grapple with the insolvency of entitlement programs, that's looming.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro ReadsPlease check out the website or Substack app for the latest Up Wing economic, business, and tech news contained in this new edition of the newsletter. Lots of great stuff!Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Join us for a compelling conversation with Alex Nowrasteh, Cato's Vice President of Economic and Social Policy Studies, and Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, as they discuss the alarming rise in deportations without due process and the erosion of due process protections across the United States. They'll explore the sweeping actions of the Trump administration—what's really happening, why it matters, and how it reflects a dangerous expansion of executive power. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Dan Hugger speaks with Ryan Bourne, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics, and Alex Nowrasteh, VP for Economic and Social Policy Studies, both at the CATO Institute, about all things DOGE. What does efficiency mean in the context of government? What has DOGE been doing? Is its process […]

The federal government's security resources should be allocated to the most efficient means of reducing the costs of terrorism. Alex Nowrasteh details a new paper. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump takes being anti-immigration to a new extreme as president. On a human level, it's clear for many to see why his policies are abhorrent. But, on a practical level, are they also just stupid? Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy expert and vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, joins Chris and Jarv to discuss just how damaging his policies could be for the United States.  Back us on Patreon – we need your help to keep going. Get ad free episodes, extra bits and merch: https://www.patreon.com/c/americanfriction  We're now on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@AmericanFrictionPod  Follow us on social media:  BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/americanfric.bsky.social  Instagram  TikTok Written and presented by Chris Jones and Jacob Jarvis Audio editor: Simon Williams. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis Executive producer: Martin Bojtos. Artwork by James Parrett. Music: Orange Factory Music. AMERICAN FRICTION is a Podmasters Production. www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get the Toolbox Magazine! https://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/magazine Join our Marriage/Family Based Green Card course and community (includes adjustment and consular processing): https://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/courses   Guest: Alex Nowrasteh of CATO Institute   Audio Podcast Link: https://sites.libsyn.com/69112/370-interview-w-cato-institutes-alex-nowrasteh-round-2   Itunes Link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/370-interview-w-cato-institutes-alex-nowrasteh-round-2/id1111797806?i=1000699554494   Share the video: https://youtu.be/gcvg96mSe9M   Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com   Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox

Vice President of the Center for Budget Policy Priorities is Peggy Bailey, Robin Hood and Columbia Population Research Center, Alex Nowrasteh is an analyst with eh libertarian Cato Institute

Immigrants consumed 21 percent less welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans on a per capita basis in 2022. Alex Nowrasteh explains why in a new paper. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Immigration experts Alex Nowrasteh and Bryan Caplan make the case for significantly more and easier immigration to the U.S.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been tasked with identifying regulatory and spending reforms to shrink government. The new report for the informal agency from the Cato Institute identifies trillions in spending cuts and other reforms. Cato's Alex Nowrasteh and Ryan Bourne detail the substantial spending and regulatory cuts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For freedom-enhancing policy, a second Trump term provides obvious, large downsides and risks, but there are likely policy upsides to a second Trump term. Alex Nowrasteh explains what Donald Trump might do in his now-secured second term. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.richardhanania.comLast night I had an AMA with Rob Henderson. The way I'm going to do these from now on is that the livestream is open to everyone in the moment, but only paid subscribers can listen to the whole thing. To join us for future episodes, you need to have the Substack app downloaded on your phone or tablet. Announcements are on X and Notes, and you get a notification when it starts on the app. I don't want to email everybody because I think it creates too much spam in people's inboxes. I'm planning to have a discussion with Alex Nowrasteh this Friday at 5ET, so join us for that if you can. Rob and I begin by discussing a recent video of Jordan Peterson that has been making the rounds. See my criticism here and Rob's defense. We also field questions on the upcoming election, women in politics, how and why we block on X, the few smart conservative institutions that are out there, and more.

Finish the news week strong with Boyd Matheson! Tim Shriver and Natalie Gochnour join Boyd to discuss the dignity index and how it can lead to constructive communication across political party lines. Kenneth Pollack discusses different military lessons we have learned since October 7, 2023. Learn how executive orders can erode the balance of power in society with Alex Nowrasteh and More!

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the focus on policy has taken a backseat to vibes and controversy. Yet, voters need to pay attention because of the amount of power that presidents hold through executive orders. These directives, often overlooked by the public, have the potential to dramatically reshape American governance. Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute emphasizes the implications of this unchecked authority and how it will affect the balance of power in our democracy.

The Rational Egoist: Are Immigrant Murderers Roaming U.S. Streets? An Interview with Alex Nowrasteh In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz interviews Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, to tackle a pressing and controversial issue: Are immigrants convicted of murder roaming the streets of the U.S.? Together, they explore the facts and myths surrounding immigration and crime, examining data, public perception, and policy implications. Nowrasteh provides expert insights into the relationship between immigration and criminal activity, challenging common narratives and shedding light on what the evidence really shows. Tune in for an eye-opening discussion that cuts through the noise on this hot-button issue. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings. Explore his work and journey further through his books:“Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole- Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X“View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj join our Ayn Rand Adelaide Meetups here for some seriously social discussions on Freedom https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/

The Roundtable Panel: a daily open discussion of issues in the news and beyond. Today's panelists are Albany Law School Professor Sarah Rogerson, Partner with the Albany law firm of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, Cianna Freeman-Tolbert, Siena College Professor of Comparative Politics Vera Eccarius-Kelly, Dean of the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity at the University at Albany Robert Griffin, and Alex Nowrasteh is the vice president for economic and social policy studies at the CATO Institute.

In this episode, Doug Stuart talks with Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, about both Nationalism and immigration. Nowrasteh recently debated The National Review's Rich Lowry on the topic of Nationalism, with Nowrasteh taking the opposing view. This conversation lends well to arguments against so-called "Christian" nationalism as well. Though Nowrasteh is not himself religious, he makes compelling points about the destructive nature of nationalism to religious belief. Since religious belief is generally good for society, the last thing we should want to do is destroy it through state-sanctioned compulsion. Immigration turns out to be a issue related to nationalism, given the motivations for stricter immigration rules stem from nationalistic tendencies.(Re-Mastered for Re-Issue.)Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com ★ Support this podcast ★

Texas collects data on the immigration status of those accused of crimes in the state. What it tells us about the crime rates of immigrants versus native-born Americans is valuable. Alex Nowrasteh explains. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Politicians on the right often bring up crime when discussing immigration but research shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the U.S. Guests include Marty Schladen, Reporter, Ohio Capital Journal; Austin Kocher, Geographer, Syracuse University; and Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President of Economic and Social Policy Studies, Cato Institute.

Politicians on the right often bring up crime when discussing immigration but research shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people born in the U.S. Guests include Marty Schladen, Reporter, Ohio Capital Journal; Austin Kocher, Geographer, Syracuse University; and Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President of Economic and Social Policy Studies, Cato Institute.

Rockefeller International chairman Ruchir Sharma explains why he believes capitalism is broken and how it can be fixed. He was interviewed by the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rockefeller International chairman Ruchir Sharma explains why he believes capitalism is broken and how it can be fixed. He was interviewed by the Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We sat down with Alex Nowrasteh, an American analyst of immigration policy currently working at the Cato Institute to get to the truth around many of the questions Americans have about immigration.

Actress Michelle Twarowska and Clint Borgen, President of The Borgen Project discuss the latest global issues. In today's episode, Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President of Economic and Social Policy Studies at the CATO Institute discusses the top myths about immigration.Read the Full Immigrations Myths Report--The Borgen Project is an international organization that works at the political level to improve living conditions for people impacted by war, famine and poverty.

Alex speaks with Alex Nowrasteh about nationalism as more of an innate tendency towards ethnic tribalism than anything resembling patriotism, and how this tendency may never disappear, but is worth resisting nonetheless.  Episode Notes: Alex's page at the Cato Insitute: https://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh  Alex on X:  https://twitter.com/alexnowrasteh?lang=en  Alex's book "Wretched Refuse?: The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions":  https://a.co/d/2JePWpU 

Stanford University history professor Jennifer Burns discussed the life and career of economist Milton Friedman. She was interviewed by CATO Institute vice president for economic and social policy studies Alex Nowrasteh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stanford University history professor Jennifer Burns discussed the life and career of economist Milton Friedman. She was interviewed by CATO Institute vice president for economic and social policy studies Alex Nowrasteh. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From reining in debt and spending to freeing up American healthcare, incoming House Speaker Republican Mike Johnson has an opportunity to bring seriousness to critical pending policy issues. Cato's Alex Nowrasteh comments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The US-Mexico border has seen a surge of illegal crossings and apprehensions since the end of COVID-era restrictions. Alex Nowrasteh joins the podcast to talk about the situation at the US's southern border, why the perception of chaos matters more than the actual number of immigrants, and how we can build a less chaotic immigration system while still remaining open to immigration.  Recommended reading: Immigration game - can you make it legally? - https://www.thegreencardgame.com/ Podcast on Alex's book 'Wretched Refuse' - https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/immigrants-and-institutions-ft-alex-nowrasteh/id1390384827?i=1000515963839 Follow us at: https://twitter.com/CNLiberalism https://cnliberalism.org/   Join a local chapter at https://cnliberalism.org/become-a-member/  

Kyle sits down with Alex Nowrasteh, Vice President for Economic and Social Policy Studies at Cato Institute. They engage in a comprehensive discussion on the present state of immigration in America, encompassing policy, economic ramifications, and envisioning the future landscape of immigration. You can watch the entire video episode on YouTube by using this link.If you're interested in talking with one of our Business Relationship Developers about solving your business labor needs, click the link and fill out your contact information. We will get back to you shortly!Sign up for our free webinars using the links below:H2A: https://share.hsforms.com/1eHfHv447S_iuMUANi5jT4wbupb3H2B: https://share.hsforms.com/1KLC0MF6oQWu4hohiILWhoQbupb3TN: https://share.hsforms.com/1WYtbRWFQSK-GN8YJVcjIKgbupb3Send an email to media@farmerlawpc.com if you'd like to be featured in an episode, if you have a question Kyle can answer, or if you'd like to purchase an advertisement on the podcast.Follow Kyle Farmer on LinkedIn, here.Subscribe to our monthly Immigration Insider Newsletter, here.**The information provided on this podcast does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are for general informational purposes only. Listeners of this podcast should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.  No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation.  Use of, and access to, this podcast or any of the links or resources contained within the description do not create an attorney-client relationship between the listener and Kyle Farmer. **

Why does the Office of Management and Budget want to expand racial categories in the United States? Alex Nowrasteh discusses his new paper that explains why such an expansion is a bad idea. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Green Card Game shows just how time consuming, expensive, and complicated it can be to achieve legal status in the United States. Cato's David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh created the game. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Cato Institute's Alex Nowrasteh and attorney Francis Menton debate immigration policy.

At the Cato Institute Benefactor Summit held in May, Vanessa Brown Calder spoke with Alex Nowrasteh on how libertarians ought to approach issues of broad importance to families. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thank you for watching this week's episode of the "Let People Prosper" podcast. Today, I'm honored to be joined by Alex Nowrasteh, Director of Immigration Studies at Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. We discuss: 1) Immigration myths, including "immigrants steal jobs," and why that isn't true; 2) What data reveal about where today's immigrants are coming from, how their life improves upon moving to America, and how America is improved by immigrants, and 3) Need for immigration reform, why one day we'll tear down the Texas border wall, and more. If you enjoyed the show, please consider liking this video, subscribing to the channel, and sharing this on social media. For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter on Substack (https://vanceginn.substack.com). Thank you for watching this week's episode of the "Let People Prosper" podcast.

How does immigration affect the public treasury? In most scenarios, that effect is positive. Alex Nowrasteh is coauthor of the new paper, "The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the United States." Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Doug Stuart talks with Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute about both Nationalism and immigration. Nowrasteh recently debated The National Review's, Rich Lowry on the topic of Nationalism, with Nowrasteh taking the opposing view. This conversation lends well to arguments against so-called "Christian" nationalism as well. Though Nowrasteh is not himself religious, he makes compelling points about the destructive nature of nationalism to religious belief. Since religious belief is generally good for society, the last thing we should want to do is destroy it through state-sanctioned compulsion. Immigration turns out to be a issue related to nationalism, given the motivations for stricter immigration rules stem from nationalistic tendencies.   Main Points of Discussion: 00:00    Introduction 01:20    How did Alex come to take on nationalism? 03:09    Nationalism has historically played out poorly - like the right-wing version of Socialism. 04:33    What is nationalism? A collectivist ideology based on tribe, ethnicity - America is not a nation 08:58     Nationalism is horseshoe theory in action 11:30    Can't our nationalism be based on libertarian principles and a culture founded on free society 14:30    Patriotism is not the same as nationalism. 15:35    What are Nationalism advocates accomplishing with their advocacy of nationalism? The right has no ideology. 19:30    What's wrong with Americans identifying as a group, being that we're not a proper nation? 23:49    The problem with certain natural instincts is the problem of state involvement. 24:47    The best way to ruin a religion, like Christianity, is to make it state-sanctioned. 26:17    Is Nationalism a bulwark against globalism? 29:25    Hopes for electing Trump against global agenda 30:44    Is there a growing threat from immigration? Perceptions of chaos 34:40    Why don't conservatives seem to understand the state is part of the problem with immigration? 41:52    Is the United States "full" and cannot take more immigrants? 44:40    Closing comments   Additional Resources: - https://www.cato.org/people/alex-nowrasteh - https://twitter.com/AlexNowrasteh - https://reason.com/video/2022/12/16/american-nationalism-rich-lowry-vs-alex-nowrasteh/ - https://www.amazon.com/Wretched-Refuse-Political-Immigration-Institutions/dp/1108702457/ Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com 

Why do immigrants consistently consume less in welfare benefits than native-born Americans? Alex Nowrasteh explains. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The debate about immigration brings out some of the deepest anxieties and biggest disagreements in America. And right now, all of it feels like it's coming to a head. In 2022, there were over 2.76 million illegal migrant crossings at the Southwest border. That's roughly the population of Chicago, America's third largest city. To address this unprecedented surge, President Biden recently announced tougher restrictions and made a show of visiting the border himself.  But unlike a decade or two ago, when the immigration debate was mostly about economics, today it's an issue that's subsumed by the culture wars and our polarized discourse. Republican governors bus migrants to sanctuary cities and they're called “xenophobic” and “cruel” by the left. But what happens when a Democratic governor does much the same thing, bussing migrants from Colorado to New York City and Chicago? Is it still a heartless political stunt? Or is all of this just an inevitable consequence of our broken immigration system?  So today: a debate moderated by guest host Kmele Foster between Alex Nowrasteh and Jessica Vaughan. Are current levels of immigration helping or hurting America? How do we balance humanitarian concerns with America's economic and security needs? Should we be trying to enforce more or less restrictions at the border? And what exactly should we do to fix our immigration policies? Alex is the director of Economic and Social Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Jessica is the director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that describes themselves as “pro-immigrant but low immigration.” While Alex and Jessica couldn't be more opposite in their approach – Alex favors free immigration, while Jessica argues for restrictionist policies – today on Honestly we look for common ground, debate the facts, and search for solutions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nationalism effectively outsources your ideological commitments to whatever the state wants. That's not a good thing. Alex Nowrasteh explains why. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.