The Perverse Consequences of Workplace Raids

 Many posts have discussed immigration.

Nigel Duara and Jeanne Kuang at CalMatters:

While one stated purpose of worksite raids is to remove illegal competition from the labor marketplace, the reality is far messier: Studies have found that immigration raids don’t do much to raise wages – and actually deflate them. Even after a raid, employers are no more likely to use federal immigration verification tools like E-Verify during hiring.

...

Every new job between 2022-2024 was not, in fact, filled by undocumented immigrants. Studies show actually deporting workers en masse from industries that rely on undocumented labor does little for U.S. workers. Giovanni Peri, a UC Davis economist who has studied the economic impacts of deportations in the 1930s and during the Obama administration, has found doing so actually reduces job opportunities for American-born workers.

That’s in part because many American workers, even those outside of immigrant-heavy industries, rely on the services generated by low-wage, undocumented labor — the costs of which would rise with mass deportations.

“Losing some of these workers and jobs that Americans are moving out of, it shrinks the local economy and there’s a reduction in jobs for Americans,” he said.

There is no evidence, Peri said, that in the face of mass deportations, immigrant-heavy industries would raise their wages to hire American workers instead.

“If there is such a world, it has not been the reality in the U.S. in a long time,” he said.

What does tend to happen, according to a study last year by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, is that raids lead to more job turnover while showing little net change in the employment rate.

“Actions that target employers – audits, investigations, fines, and criminal charges – have larger effects than raids, which target workers,” the study authors wrote.

 

Endorsing from the Pulpit

Many posts discuss the connections between churches and politics.

David A. Fahrenthold at NYT:

The I.R.S. said on Monday that churches and other houses of worship can endorse political candidates to their congregations, carving out an exemption in a decades-old ban on political activity by tax-exempt nonprofits.

The agency made that statement in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit filed by two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters.

The plaintiffs that sued the Internal Revenue Service had previously asked a federal court in Texas to create an even broader exemption — to rule that all nonprofits, religious and secular, were free to endorse candidates to their members. That would have erased a bedrock idea of American nonprofit law: that tax-exempt groups cannot be used as tools of any campaign.

Instead, the I.R.S. agreed to a narrower carveout — one that experts in nonprofit law said might sharply increase politicking in churches, even though it mainly seemed to formalize what already seemed to be the agency’s unspoken policy.

...

The ban on campaigning by nonprofits is named after former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who introduced it as a senator in 1954. President Trump has repeatedly called for its repeal.

Distrust

Many posts have discussed public trust in institutions and political leaders.

Daniel Cox at the Survey Center on American Life:

Americans have a generally low regard for many of their political institutions, and most say they mistrust elected officials to act in the public interest. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of Americans say elected officials mostly want to benefit themselves, while only one in four (25 percent) say officials care more about improving the country.

The belief that elected officials are more focused on their own personal gain than on improving the country is widespread among the public, cutting across lines of education, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Democrats are especially cynical: Nearly eight in 10 (79 percent) say elected officials are only in it for themselves, a view held by 64 percent of Republicans.

In his recent election, Trump may well have benefited from Americans’ low esteem for public officeholders. Few Americans believe Trump is honest or trustworthy, but many do not believe he is any worse than the average public official. Close to half (47 percent) of Americans say Trump is less trustworthy than most other elected government officials. But collectively, more Americans say he is more trustworthy (33 percent) or no different (20 percent). Even Americans with moderately negative views of Trump—specifically, those with a somewhat unfavorable opinion of him—do not view him as especially untrustworthy. Most (56 percent) say he is no different from the average elected government official.

Cutting the National Weather Service

Previous posts have discussed budget cuts.

Christopher Flavelle at NYT:

Crucial positions at the local offices of the National Weather Service were unfilled as severe rainfall inundated parts of Central Texas on Friday morning, prompting some experts to question whether staffing shortages made it harder for the forecasting agency to coordinate with local emergency managers as floodwaters rose.

Texas officials appeared to blame the Weather Service for issuing forecasts on Wednesday that underestimated how much rain was coming. But former Weather Service officials said the forecasts were as good as could be expected, given the enormous levels of rainfall and the storm’s unusually abrupt escalation.

The staffing shortages suggested a separate problem, those former officials said — the loss of experienced people who would typically have helped communicate with local authorities in the hours after flash flood warnings were issued overnight.

USAID

Daniella Medeiros Cavalcanti, et al., "Evaluating the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and forecasting analysis," The Lancet, June 30, 2025.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the impact of USAID funding—including all areas of its humanitarian and development assistance—on mortality, both overall and disaggregated by age and cause, over the past two decades and with projections to 2030. Our findings show that USAID-supported efforts have helped to prevent more than 91 million deaths across all age groups, including 30 million deaths among children. High levels of USAID funding were associated with a 15% reduction in all- age and all-cause mortality, a 65% reduction in mortality from HIV/AIDS, a 51% reduction from malaria, and a 50% reduction from neglected tropical diseases. Substantial decreases were also observed in mortality from tuberculosis, nutritional deficiencies, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and maternal and perinatal conditions. By age group, the most pronounced reductions were seen in children younger than 5 years (32%). According to the forecasting models, the current steep funding cuts— coupled with the potential dissolution of the agency—could lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, averaging more than 2·4 million deaths per year. These deaths include 4·5 million among children younger than 5 years, or more than 700 000 deaths annually.

Pride and Patriotism

Many posts have discussed patriotism.

New YouGov polling on July 4 and patriotism
The share of Americans who are very proud to be American has fallen.
% who said they were very proud to be an American in June 2024 | June 2025
U.S. adult citizens 56% | 48%
Democrats 52% | 27%
Republicans 74% | 82%
(Link in reply) pic.twitter.com/freBOTJqUD

— YouGov America (@YouGovAmerica) June 30, 2025

 Jeffrey M. Jones at Gallup:

A record-low 58% of U.S. adults say they are “extremely” (41%) or “very” (17%) proud to be an American, down nine percentage points from last year and five points below the prior low from 2020. The 41% who are “extremely proud” is not statistically different from prior lows of 38% in 2022 and 39% in 2023, indicating most of the change this year is attributable to a decline in the percentage who are “very proud.”

...

At the beginning of the 21st century, U.S. adults were nearly unanimous in saying they were extremely or very proud to be Americans. But that national unity has eroded over the past 25 years due to a combination of political and generational changes. Democrats today are much less likely than in the past to express pride in their country; in fact, their national pride has hit a new low. Additionally, Generation Z and millennials are much less proud of their country than their elders are.

These changes have occurred mostly over the past decade, and have done so amid greater pessimism about the economic prospects for young people, widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, greater ideological divides between the parties, unfavorable images of both parties, and intense partisan rancor during the Trump and Biden administrations.

 

The Greatest Country?

Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

 Karlyn Bowman at AEI:

In 1955, the Gallup Organization asked Americans to suppose they were talking in a general way about the United States and other countries. The organization then asked which of three statements came closer to the respondent’s point of view. Two-thirds chose the response that the United States was the “greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way.” Thirty-one percent believed the US was “a great country but so are certain other countries.” And finally, 1% said that in many other respects, certain other countries were better than the US.

A version of this question has been asked occasionally by pollsters ever since. A 1998 survey of parents done for Public Agenda found 84% believed the United States was “a unique country that stands for something special in the world,” while 13% said the US is “just another country whose system is no better or worse than other countries.”

In 2011, the Pew Research Center began asking another version. That year, 38% responded that “the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world,” while 53% said the U.S. was “one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others.” Eight percent said there were other countries that were better than the U.S. The 38% response has been trending downward unevenly, and in 2024, using a different methodology, 20% said the US stands above, while 55% said there were other countries that were also great. Twenty-four percent said there were other countries that were better, three times as many as had given that response in 2011

The Chicago Council for Global Affairs presents a binary choice: “Some people say the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world. Others say that every country is unique, and the United States is no greater than other nations.” In 2012, 70% chose greatest country response, while 29% opted for the “no greater than other nations.” In 2023, the last time they asked the question, there was a big change in the no greater response: almost as many, 47%, chose it while 52% chose the greatest country. The Chicago Council looked at the responses by generations and found that majorities of the oldest generation, the Baby Boomers, and Gen X-ers all opted for the greatest response. Millennials, born in 1981 and beginning to come of age in the mid-1990s, were different. Just 40% of Millennials chose this response, and 59% opted for the no greater one. Other pollsters show the same generational differences with Millennials and younger generations more skeptical than their elders about the US’s role. The Council noted that racial and ethnic differences to the question were small.