Category: News and politics

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”

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”

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/

Kill

On Friday President Trump announced that: “Any document signed by Sleepy Joe Biden with the Autopen, which was approximately 92% of them, is hereby terminated, and of no further force or effect….” https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115629010097815862

Rather than evaluating each Presidential order and rescinding those that are inconsistent with Trump’s policy objectives (whatever those might be), Trump rescinds them all if not signed personally by former President Biden.

This reflects Trumps use of his position to attack anyone who disagrees with him—his enemies. Rather than explaining why a policy is bad, Trump simply condemns the work of his “enemies.”

When six democratic congressmen posted a video reminding solders of their legal obligation to refuse to execute illegal orders, Trump exploded.  “The president said lawmakers who appeared in a video committed “seditious behavior” and should be arrested and put on trial for treason.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/20/trump-democrats-seditious-behavior/

A prime example of such an illegal order was Secretary Hegseth’s order to bomb boats in the Caribbean he thought were bringing illegal drugs to the US and to kill all aboard. “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/

Hegseth’s order was illegal under both US and international law. SEAL Team 6, which committed these murders, executed an illegal order, thus violating their pledge to uphold the constitution.

President Trump also violated the law by directing the Justice Department to pursue those who criticize him—his enemies. From universities and law firms to former FBI head James Comey, and former national security advisor John Bolton, Trump has threatened to withhold Federal funds from universities that do not bow to his demands or try his enemies for one thing or other. Bolton’s crime is the same as Donald Trump’s – the improper handling of secret government documents. And of course, anything Biden did is condemned as the cause of anything wrong.

Trump’s masked ICE teams arresting and deported supposedly illegal immigrants has been a lawless disaster—occasionally arresting legal American citizen and embarrassing the whole effort to strengthen the enforcement of immigration rules.

Trump’s haphazard announcements of Tariffs, (hopefully) soon to be declared illegal by the Supreme Court, followed none of the rules of the World Trade Organization, which are designed to promote economic efficiency and thus maximize world incomes. They were deployed to bully individual countries to agree to whatever was in Trump’s interest, an interest rarely compatible with American interests.

I am all for downsizing the government, but on the basis of careful reviews of what functions are needed and desirable and the required staff to carry them out efficiently. Elon Musk’s led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) took a chainsaw approach that led Trump appointed department heads to object.

This, of course, is not how a mature adult would govern in a constitutional republic. Trump and many of his appointees are not such people. Living together peacefully and productively requires civil discussion of issues and cooperation and compromise—not bullying.

Those breaking the law or issuing illegal orders should be removed from their positions and tried for the crimes they have committed.

The drums of war

The drums of war are beating for Venezuela.  Since the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon next door, we have bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Niger and Mali, and boats in the Caribbean and Pacific oceans. With the approach of each war, I suspect that most American’s never knew or have forgotten what war is really like. If they did they surely would oppose them and increase our reliance on and capacity for diplomacy. Last evening’s viewing of The Killing Fields provided a good reminder. War inflicts horrors beyond most of our imaginations. It should be ruled out other than for defense when we are actually attacked.

Law and Order

Every evening when we are not hosting or attending a dinner party, attending a play, concert, or conference, we lie down in bed and watch a movie or a few episodes of a TV series. Ito pushes a button and our large TV screen rises just beyond the end of our bed. Over the last few months, we have watched over 200 episodes for the original Law and Order show, starting for some reason with season 5 (1995). I want to explain why we have found this show so interesting.

The first half of each show follows the search by the police (two regulars) for the perpetrator of a crime (usually a murder). The second half presents the trial to convict the accused perpetrator conducted by two regular justice department characters. The stories themselves can be quite intriguing and the crimes and the issues around them explore every conceivable social issue in America today (e.g., affirmative action, gangs, capital punishment, same sex marriage, abortion, race and sexual discrimination, treatment of minors).

The regulars in the show—police and prosecutors –are “real” people, i.e. flawed but honestly trying to do their best. Aside from the acting being superb, what impresses me most is that for each controversial issue the arguments on both sides are strongly presented. To say the episodes are thought provoking would be an understatement. I don’t always understand the bases on which the judge allows or disallows evidence but we do learn a lot about what the law says and how it is applied. The show is still being produced and is now in its 25th season. To last that long, it must be good. We have many episodes to go and will eagerly watch them all.

Portland, Oregon

Three years ago (June 2022) I accepted an invitation to speak at the Western Economic Association meeting in Portland Oregon because it provided the opportunity to visit with my family. My daughter and her two kids live near Seattle and my son and four of his five kids live in Vancouver Washington across the Columbia River from Portland. My daughter and her kids came down to Portland for the occasion and we have a wonderful dinner together in the city.

Serious crime peaked in Portland that year with 95 homicides.  We were also aware of the unsightly presence of the homeless sleeping on sidewalks. Since then serious crime has rapidly declined, with homicides falling to half that number in 2024. President Donald Trump has repeatedly described Portland as “war ravaged” and a “hotbed of violent protest activity”.  He has directed the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to deploy troops to protect Portland and ICE facilities from groups like Antifa which he refers to as “domestic terrorists”. Antifa, by the way, is not an organization but rather a term to describe those fighting fascism.

“Trump on Saturday said he had authorized the use of “full force” if needed to suppress protests targeting immigration detention centers.  Oregon has responded by suing the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment of the National Guard to Portland is “unlawful”. The lawsuit, filed on Sunday by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, called the move “provocative and arbitrary”, and said it “threatens to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry”. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddmn6ge6e2o

Federal Judge Karin J. Immergut, a Trump appointee during his first term, blocked Trump’s activation of 200 state Guard troops, then issued a second ruling stopping the administration’s workaround—sending troops from Texas and California instead.

In a letter from my Senator, Tim Kaine, he stated that “President Trump issued an executive order directing Secretary Hegseth to establish new “specialized units” within the National Guard, explicitly trained and equipped to address “public order issues” and available for rapid nationwide deployment. While the National Guard already maintains reaction forces under the command of state governors, this order blurs the line between military support and domestic law enforcement and raises unresolved questions about chain of command, federal authority, and compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. By creating a framework that could allow federal authorities to bypass governors and insert Guard units into local jurisdictions, the order heightens concerns that the Trump Administration is seeking to normalize the use of the military in routine public safety functions and expand such deployments beyond Washington, D.C. into other U.S. cities.”

We are surely used to Trump’s many lies, so why have I given so much space to lies about Portland? While addressing the strangely assembled Admirals and Generals at the Marine Corps Base in Quanitico on September 30, Trump suggested that his deployment of the military to American Cities could provide a training ground for our “enemies within.” These uses of our “defense” forces against our own people is unprecedented and totally against American law and practice.

President Trump said Monday that he may invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops to Portland, calling ongoing protests there a form of “criminal insurrection.” The Insurrection Act permits the federal deployment of troops in extreme cases. Surely the courts will block him.

Week after week Trump has chipped away at our constitutional protections. After each “small” step into autocracy is absorbed, he takes another. He has fired the Inspector Generals, who are meant to provide a guard rail of oversight against government abuses of power, and violated the customary autonomy of the Justice Department by instructing the Attorney General to go after his “enemies,” (not just Comey). What might be next? And where (and how) will it end?

Charlie Kirk, RIP

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was another tragedy. I disagreed with many of the things Kirk said, but respected and admired his patient willingness to dialog with disagreeing members of his audience.  It was a behavior the country would greatly benefit from more of.  But liking or not liking Charlie Kirk should be totally irrelevant to strongly condemning his assassination.

A The Hill headline stated “A top State Department official on Thursday warned “foreigners” in the U.S. against praising the death of Charlie Kirk, the conservative influencer who was shot and killed at an event in Utah on Wednesday.”  “foreigners-warned-Charlie Kirk” I would like to unpack that statement a bit. No one should praise his death. If we are sharing with foreign visitors the behavior we would expect from them and that they should display if they want to get on well, that would be fine. But coming from our current State Department I suspect that the warning is a threat of deportation for anyone who would dare to be so rude, which would violate the fundamental free speech principles that have always been so important to our culture.

President Trump stated that the assassin was from the “radical left.”  As the assassin has not yet been apprehended, we don’t even need to wonder what information the President has that has not yet been shared with us. I very much want to know who the assassin was and what his motivation was. But that information will in no way absolve him of the evilness of his crime (we do know that it was a man/boy from FBI photographs). The President’s baseless claim is not contributing to a better atmosphere in America. It certainly did not reflect Charlie Kirk’s commitment to civil dialog.

Immigration

what is the problem and what should be done?

The United State—a nation of immigrants—is the most prosperous nation in the world because of the freedom of its residents to innovate, work hard, and seek out what the public wants to buy (i.e. to profit). Many of the founders of our most successful companies (e.g., Google, Tesla, Panda Express, Uber, WhatsApp, eBay, Stripe, PayPal) are first generation immigrants. Immigrants are drawn to America because it offers such opportunities, thus we tend to attract the best and brightest. “Immigrants from hell”

Along with the clear benefits of immigration, it poses challenges and some costs as well. The internal migration of people within a country as new jobs or tastes result in people moving into new homes and neighborhoods produces most all the same issues as immigration of foreigners from abroad. We live in communities and have rules (even laws) for our rights and those of our neighbors. What we do effects then and vice versa.

Before moving back to Crystal/Pentagon City in Arlington Virginia, we lived in a 64 home (two acres each) community in Bethesda Maryland with a convenient reflecting very ridged rules for what we could and could not do on our property in order to preserve its natural wooded environment. This is what we were buying. But over some decades more and more families with children moved in with different tastes and desires (e.g., basketball hoops visible from the road). Many community discussions were held, and some rules were adjusted but it required a lot of community discussion.

Our immigration laws are inadequate. We need more immigrant workers and entrepreneurs and better border control, i.e., we need more legal immigration and better control of the illegal sort.  Laws to give immigrants legal status are inadequate and not consistently enforced. “illegal aliens” In 2013 a bipartisan bill to address these problems (The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013) passed the Senate by 68-32 in favor but sadly failed to pass the House. Quoting from Wikipedia:

“If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas were proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers.[6] It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.”

Refugees pose a special challenge (e.g. Afghans who worked for the US or international bodies and are thus suspect to the new Taliban government) as do the “guest” seasonal workers in California’s farmland. If Congress is up for serious work they should get to it.