May 20, 2019

They Were Conned’: How Reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers


Thousands of immigrant taxi drivers were trapped in exploitative loans by bankers who made huge profits.
The drivers, chasing the dream of owning a New York taxi medallion, were left destitute, a Times investigation found.


NY TIMES

Over the past year, a spate of suicides by taxi drivers in New York City has highlighted in brutal terms the overwhelming debt and financial plight of medallion owners. All along, officials have blamed the crisis on competition from ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft.

But a New York Times investigation found much of the devastation can be traced to a handful of powerful industry leaders who steadily and artificially drove up the price of taxi medallions, creating a bubble that eventually burst. Over more than a decade, they channeled thousands of drivers into reckless loans and extracted hundreds of millions of dollars before the market collapsed.

These business practices generated huge profits for bankers, brokers, lawyers, investors, fleet owners and debt collectors. The leaders of nonprofit credit unions became multimillionaires. Medallion brokers grew rich enough to buy yachts and waterfront properties. One of the most successful bankers hired the rap star Nicki Minaj to perform at a family party.

But the methods stripped immigrant families of their life savings, crushed drivers under debt they could not repay and engulfed an industry that has long defined New York. More than 950 medallion owners have filed for bankruptcy, according to a Times analysis of court records. Thousands more are barely hanging on.

The practices were strikingly similar to those behind the housing market crash that led to the 2008 global economic meltdown: Banks and loosely regulated private lenders wrote risky loans and encouraged frequent refinancing; drivers took on debt they could not afford, under terms they often did not understand.

Some big banks even entered the taxi industry in the aftermath of the housing crash, seeking a new market, with new borrowers.

The combination of easy money, eager borrowers and the lure of a rare asset helped prices soar far above what medallions were really worth. Some industry leaders fed the frenzy by purposefully overpaying for medallions in order to inflate prices, The Times found.

Between 2002 and 2014, the price of a medallion rose to more than $1 million from $200,000, even though city records showed that driver incomes barely changed.

About 4,000 drivers bought medallions in that period, records show. They were excited to buy, but they were enticed by a dubious premise.

“The whole thing was like a Ponzi scheme because it totally depended on the value going up,” said Haywood Miller, a debt specialist who has consulted for both borrowers and lenders. “The part that wasn’t fair was the guy who’s buying is an immigrant, maybe someone who couldn’t speak English. They were conned.”
Uppkar Thind said he has to drive his yellow cab as many 13 hours a day, as he struggles to pay off a taxi medallion that he bought 11 years ago.CreditCreditCaitlin Ochs for The New York Times
After the medallion market collapsed, Mayor Bill de Blasio opted not to fund a bailout, and earlier this year, the City Council speaker, Corey Johnson, shut down the committee overseeing the taxi industry, saying it had completed most of its work.

Over 10 months, The Times interviewed 450 people, built a database of every medallion sale since 1995 and reviewed thousands of individual loans and other documents, including internal bank records and confidential profit-sharing agreements.

The investigation found example after example of drivers trapped in exploitative loans, including hundreds who signed interest-only loans that required them to pay exorbitant fees, forfeit their legal rights and give up almost all their monthly income, indefinitely.


It is unclear if the practices violated any laws. But after reviewing The Times’s findings, experts said the methods were among the worst that have been used since the housing crash.


“I don’t think I could concoct a more predatory scheme if I tried,” said Roger Bertling, the senior instructor at Harvard Law School’s clinic on predatory lending and consumer protection. “This was modern-day indentured servitude.”

Lenders developed their techniques in New York but spread them to Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and elsewhere, transforming taxi industries across the United States.

In interviews, lenders denied wrongdoing. They noted that regulators approved their practices, and said some borrowers made poor decisions and assumed too much debt. They said some drivers were happy to use climbing medallion values as collateral to take out cash, and that those who sold their medallions at the height of the market made money.

The lenders said they believed medallion values would keep increasing, as they almost always had. No one, they said, could have predicted Uber and Lyft would emerge to undercut the business.

“People love to blame banks for things that happen because they’re big bad banks,” said Robert Familant, the former head of Progressive Credit Union, a small nonprofit that specialized in medallion loans. “We didn’t do anything, in my opinion, other than try to help small businesspeople become successful.”

Mr. Familant made about $30 million in salary and deferred payouts during the bubble, including $4.8 million in bonuses and incentives in 2014, the year it burst, according to disclosure forms.

Meera Joshi, who joined the Taxi and Limousine Commission in 2011 and became chairwoman in 2014, said it was not the city’s job to regulate lending. But she acknowledged that officials saw red flags and could have done something.

“There were lots of players, and lots of people just watched it happen. So the T.L.C. watched it happen. The lenders watched it happen. The borrowers watched it happen as their investment went up, and it wasn’t until it started falling apart that people started taking action and pointing fingers,” said Ms. Joshi, who left the commission in March. “It was a party. Why stop it?”



Every day, about 250,000 people hail a New York City yellow taxi. Most probably do not know they are participating in an unconventional economic system about as old as the Empire State Building.

The city created taxi medallions in 1937. Unlicensed cabs crowded city streets, so officials designed about 12,000 specialized tin plates and made it illegal to operate a taxi without one bolted to the hood of the car. The city sold each medallion for $10.

People who bought medallions could sell them, just like any other asset. The only restriction: Officials designated roughly half as “independent medallions” and eventually required that those always be owned by whoever was driving that cab.

Over time, as yellow taxis became symbols of New York, a cutthroat industry grew around them. A few entrepreneurs obtained most of the nonindependent medallions and built fleets that controlled the market. They were family operations largely based in the industrial neighborhoods of Hell’s Kitchen in Manhattan and Long Island City in Queens.

A sampling of medallions issued by the Taxi and Limousine Commission through the years.CreditSam Falk, Fred R. Conrad, John Sotomayor, Andrea Mohin and Richard Perry/The New York Times, Kholood Eid for The New York Times
Allegations of corruption, racism and exploitation dogged the industry. Some fleet bosses were accused of cheating drivers. Some drivers refused to go outside Manhattan or pick up black and Latino passengers. Fleet drivers typically worked 60 hours a week, made less than minimum wage and received no benefits, according to city studies.

Still, driving could serve as a path to the middle class. Drivers could save to buy an independent medallion, which would increase their earnings and give them an asset they could someday sell for a retirement nest egg.

Those who borrowed money to buy a medallion typically had to submit a large down payment and repay within five to 10 years.

The conservative lending strategy produced modest returns. The city did not release new medallions for almost 60 years, and values slowly climbed, hitting $100,000 in 1985 and $200,000 in 1997.

“It was a safe and stable asset, and it provided a good life for those of us who were lucky enough to buy them,” said Guy Roberts, who began driving in 1979 and eventually bought medallions and formed a fleet. “Not an easy life, but a good life.”

“And then,” he said, “everything changed.”

In the early 2000s, a new generation took power in New York’s cab industry. They were the sons of longtime industry leaders, and they had new ideas for making money.

Few people represented the shift better than Andrew Murstein.

Mr. Murstein was the grandson of a Polish immigrant who bought one of the first medallions, built one of the city’s biggest fleets and began informally lending to other buyers in the 1970s. Mr. Murstein attended business school and started his career at Bear Stearns and Salomon Brothers, the investment banks.

When he joined the taxi business, he has said, he pushed his family to sell off many medallions and to establish a bank to focus on lending. Medallion Financial went public in 1996. Its motto was, “In niches, there are riches.”

Dozens of industry veterans said Mr. Murstein and his father, Alvin, were among those who helped to move the industry to less conservative lending practices. The industry veterans said the Mursteins, as well as others, started saying medallion values would always rise and used that idea to focus on lending to lower-income drivers, which was riskier but more profitable.

The strategy began to be used by the industry’s other major lenders — Progressive Credit Union, Melrose Credit Union and Lomto Credit Union, all family-run nonprofits that made essentially all their money from medallion loans, according to financial disclosures.

“We didn’t want to be the one left behind,” said Monte Silberger, Lomto’s controller and then chief financial officer from 1999 to 2017.

The lenders began accepting smaller down payments. By 2013, many medallion buyers were not handing over any down payment at all, according to an analysis of buyer applications submitted to the city.

“It got to a point where we didn’t even check their income or credit score,” Mr. Silberger said. “It didn’t matter.”

Lenders also encouraged existing borrowers to refinance and take out more money when medallion prices rose, according to interviews with dozens of borrowers and loan officers. There is no comprehensive data, but bank disclosures suggest that thousands of owners refinanced.

Industry veterans said it became common for owners to refinance to buy a house or to put children through college. “You’d walk into the bank and walk out 30 minutes later with an extra $200,000,” said Lou Bakalar, a broker who arranged loans.

Some pointed to the refinancing to argue that irresponsible borrowers fueled the crisis. “Medallion owners were misusing it,” said Aleksey Medvedovskiy, a fleet owner who also worked as a broker. “They used it as an A.T.M.”

As lenders loosened standards, they increased returns. Rather than raising interest rates, they made borrowers pay a mix of costs — origination fees, legal fees, financing fees, refinancing fees, filing fees, fees for paying too late and fees for paying too early, according to a Times review of more than 500 loans included in legal cases. Many lenders also made borrowers split their loan and pay a much higher rate on the second loan, documents show.

Lenders also extended loan lengths. Instead of requiring repayment in five or 10 years, they developed deals that lasted as long as 50 years, locking in decades of interest payments. And some wrote interest-only loans that could continue forever.

Almost every loan reviewed by The Times included a clause that spiked the interest rate to as high as 24 percent if it was not repaid in three years. Lenders included the clause — called a “balloon” — so that borrowers almost always had to extend the loan, possibly at a higher rate than in the original terms, and with additional fees.

Yvon Augustin was caught in one of those loans. He bought a medallion in 2006, a decade after emigrating from Haiti. He said he paid $2,275 every month — more than half his income, he said — and thought he was paying off the loan. But last year, his bank used the balloon to demand that he repay everything. That is when he learned he had been paying only the interest, he said.

Mr. Augustin, 69, declared bankruptcy and lost his medallion. He lives off assistance from his children.

During the global financial crisis, Eugene Haber, a lawyer for the taxi industry, started getting calls from bankers he had never met.

Mr. Haber had written a template for medallion loans in the 1970s. By 2008, his thick mustache had turned white, and he thought he knew everybody in the industry. Suddenly, new bankers began calling his suite in a Long Island office park. Capital One, Signature Bank, New York Commercial Bank and others wanted to issue medallion loans, he said.

Some of the banks were looking for new borrowers after the housing market collapsed, Mr. Haber said. “They needed somewhere else to invest,” he said. He said he represented some banks at loan signings but eventually became embittered because he believed banks were knowingly lending to people who could not repay.

Instead of lending directly, the big banks worked through powerful industry players. They enlisted large fleet owners and brokers — especially Neil Greenbaum, Richard Chipman, Savas Konstantinides, Roman Sapino and Basil Messados — to use the banks’ money to lend to medallion buyers. In return, the owners and brokers received a cut of the monthly payments and sometimes an additional fee.
Andrew Murstein, left, with his father, Alvin.CreditChester Higgins Jr./The New York Times
In late 2012, Andrew Murstein appeared on the Fox Business Networkto talk about medallions.

“These are little cash cows running around the city spitting out money,” Mr. Murstein said, beaming in a navy suit and pink tie.

He did not mention he was quietly leaving the business, a move that would benefit him when the market collapsed.

By the time of the appearance, Medallion Financial had been cutting the number of medallion loans on its books for years, according to disclosures it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Murstein later said the company started exiting the business and focusing on other ventures before 2010.

Mr. Murstein declined numerous interview requests. He also declined to answer some written questions, including why he promoted medallions while exiting the business. In emails and through a spokesman, he acknowledged that Medallion Financial reduced down payments but said it rarely issued interest-only loans or charged borrowers for repaying loans too early.

“Many times, we did not match what our competitors were willing to do and in retrospect, thankfully, we lost the business,” he wrote to The Times.

Interviews with three former staffers, and a Times review of loan documents that were filed as part of lawsuits brought by Medallion Financial against borrowers, indicate the company issued many interest-only loans and routinely included a provision allowing it to charge borrowers for repaying loans too early.

Other lenders also left the taxi industry or took precautions long before the market collapsed.

The credit unions specializing in the industry kept making new loans. But between 2010 and 2014, they sold the loans to other financial institutions more often than in the previous five years, disclosure forms show. Progressive Credit Union, run by Mr. Familant, sold loans off almost twice as often, the forms show. By 2012, that credit union was selling the majority of the loans it issued.

In a statement, Mr. Familant said the selling of loans was a standard banking practice that did not indicate a lack of confidence in the market.

Several banks used something called a confession of judgment. It was an obscure document in which the borrower admitted defaulting on the loan — even before taking out any money at all — and authorized the bank to do whatever it wanted to collect.

They used the confessions to get hundreds of judgments that would allow them to take money from bank accounts, court records show. Some tried to get borrowers to give up homes or a relative’s assets. Others seized medallions and quickly resold them for profit, while still charging the original borrowers fees and extra interest. Several drivers have alleged in court that their lenders ordered them to buy life insurance.risis, but virtually all of the hundreds of industry veterans interviewed for this article, including many lenders, said inflated prices and risky lending practices would have caused a collapse even if ride-hailing had never been invented.

At the market’s height, medallion buyers were typically earning about $5,000 a month and paying about $4,500 to their loans, according to an analysis by The Times of city data and loan documents. Many owners could make their payments only by refinancing when medallion values increased, which was unsustainable, some loan officers said.

City data shows that since Uber entered New York in 2011, yellow cab revenue has decreased by about 10 percent per cab, a significant bite for low-earning drivers but a small drop compared with medallion values, which initially rose and then fell by 90 percent.

As values fell, borrowers asked for breaks. But many lenders went the opposite direction. They decided to leave the business and called in their loans.

Drivers lost everything. Most of the more than 950 owners who declared bankruptcy had to forfeit their medallions. Records indicate many were bought by hedge funds hoping for prices to rise. For now, cabs sit unused.

Read more including some heartbreaking stories of cab drivers at NY TIMES

May 19, 2019

Old or disabled, and no place to live

NY DAILY NEWS
By ALANE SALIERNO MASON


People crossing a traffic light by crosswalk in Harlem, Manhattan. (Jordi de Rueda/Getty Images)

“Don’t get old,” the old folk used to say. But the golden years in New York City are full of advantages over the suburbs: no driving, no lawn maintenance, an endless cycle of museum exhibitions, half-price theater tickets and free concerts. That is, if your monthly fixed income is well above $1,458, the average Social Security payment in New York State.


If you’re at, near or below that level, don’t get old, and especially don’t get disabled. Even unfashionable neighborhoods may no longer have a place for you.


When my 64-year-old friend with multiple sclerosis could no longer manage the stairs, she found no help in locating an affordable, accessible apartment. Like many others in the city’s 40,000 walk-ups, she was increasingly becoming a prisoner in her home.


Then she and her father, a retired landscaper in his mid-80s, were evicted by their landlady of over 20 years. Their Bronx neighborhood was suddenly advertising many newly renovated two-bedroom apartments at $1,800 and up, priced to appeal to young careerist apartment-sharers with prosperous parent guarantors.


Despite decades of legal efforts, there is next to no affordable senior housing in New York City. A new building of transitional and affordable housing with 135 apartments that opened in the Bronx last year had 50,000 applications. Organizations like Breaking Ground and the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens list low-income apartments with a complicated application process requiring elderly, disabled applicants to have executive function and saintly patience to wait, literally, for years.
Community organizers at Metro IAF have been pressuring Mayor de Blasio to make good on his promise to build senior housing for public housing residents on vacant NYCHA land, freeing up larger units for younger, larger families. But they haven’t gotten far.


Meanwhile, on rental sites like Streeteasy, you can search by “pied-a-terre allowed,” by gym or swimming pool, pre-war or “green” building; terrace or balcony — but not “wheelchair accessible.” “Elevator” is a search term among “amenities” — but no site will tell you if there are stairs between the sidewalk and the elevator.


Craigslist includes a search term for “wheelchair accessible,” but for under $1,500 per month, the hits are in Connecticut. Thankfully Zumper, so fine-grained as to allow search for a concierge service, a ceiling fan, or a walk-in closet, does include “wheelchair accessible,” and even “income restricted” — but, unfortunately, there is “nothing here… yet” — nor will there ever be, unless the city takes action on a massive scale.
It is staggeringly difficult for a healthy person — let alone anyone with any sort of cognitive decline — to navigate the dozens of overlapping and redundant not-for-profit organizations and government agencies tasked to prevent homelessness.


My friend has been on a waiting list for a Section 8 voucher for nine years. At a targeted telephone number for housing assistance in the Bronx, the voicemail is full and no longer taking messages. Multiple exchanges with the Mayor’s Office of Adult Protective Services provided one lead: a number for a landlord in Staten Island who never answered his phone.


From the Multiple Sclerosis Society to the local City Council office, the ultimate advice is that if you are elderly, disabled and in need of city-subsidized accessible housing, you must go into a homeless shelter and hope.


So my writer-friend with MS did. The first night in the shelter, she ended up on the floor in the bathroom, unable to pull herself up; there were no handholds on the wall or other provisions for the disabled. She ended up in the hospital, severely dehydrated, her neurological condition greatly worsened due to stress.


Two and a half months later, she is still in the medical system. Her elderly father is still in the shelter. Early on, the city did offer him one — if only he and his daughter could get up a flight of stairs. Alternatively, New York City will give them a travel voucher, one way, to take their aging, disabled bodies anywhere else in America.


Mason is an editor at W. W. Norton & Company.

May 18, 2019

May 17, 2019



I.M. Pei, Master Architect Whose Buildings Dazzled the World, Dies at 102





NY TIMES

HERMAN WOUK



Herman Wouk, Perennially Best-Selling Author, Dies at 103




NY TIMES

The Opportunity of White Anxiety




ANDREW SULLIVAN, NEW YORK

There are times when it feels as if two huge tectonic plates are colliding beneath the surface of Western politics, and, right now, neither seems to be giving ground.
The first plate is the force of demography. In most Western countries, the pace of immigration from the fast-growing and ever-younger global South, and the higher birth rates of immigrants, is shifting us to a whole new model of nationhood: culturally and ethnically far more diverse, with no single historical or traditional national narrative. At the same time, the inhabitants of those countries — still largely white — are increasingly troubled by the pace of change, panicked about the fast-shifting identity of their country and angry at the elites who created this swift ethnic transformation. You have an almost irresistible demographic force and a near-immovable psycho-political response. Hence the deadlock. “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born,” in Gramsci’s words. “Now is the time of monsters.”
Maybe this is, in fact, the single most powerful force in Western politics. That’s the really engaging thesis of Eric Kaufmann, whose new book, Whiteshift, is by far the most thorough and scholarly treatment of the politics of white majorities I’ve read. Kaufmann is a professor at Birkbeck, University of London; a Canadian born in Hong Kong and living in England, one-quarter Chinese and one-quarter Latino, he passes as “white.” And what’s so refreshing is that Kaufmann is not afraid to go there. He’s candid about race and identity — and how they fit into any immigration debate — and argues that much of the right’s gains (for decades, in fact) have come from a white majority witnessing its own decline and even disappearance, and freaking out. In this, Kaufmann echoes in some ways the critique of the left: that all that’s really going on right now is white fear of a nonwhite future. But that’s a whole lot going on!
The difference is that where the left regards “whiteness” as a form of unending oppression, Kaufmann sees the potential for a kind of inclusive liberation. Yes, white racism is still around. Perhaps a good deal. And it’s vital to call that out. But what Kaufmann insists on is that much of the resistance to mass immigration is not so much racist as merely conservative, emerging not from generalized loathing of others but from attachment to one’s own in times of rapid change. He makes a distinction between “racism” and “racial self-interest,” the first abhorrent, the second understandable. No one objects to nonwhite groups defending their self-interest. So why not whites as well, Kaufmann asks? I learned from Kaufmann’s book, for example, that in the 1990s, Congress granted five territories — including American Samoa, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands — the right to control immigration to maintain their ethnic majorities.
The lack of outrage at that policy, Kaufmann argues, is due to something he calls “asymmetrical multiculturalism.” That’s a definition of diversity that does not include white people (i.e., the current definition of “diversity”). And if your model of society uniquely excludes white people from the rights and privileges of being an ethnic group, or denies them the right to express their racial self-interest like every other ethnicity, then whites will begin to push back. And, when they push back, they are called racists, or deplorables, or bigots, and they tend to double down. That’s what’s behind increasing numbers of Americans, specifically most Republicans, telling pollsters that white people are more discriminated against in America than black people. That’s absurd in almost all cases, but I suspect it’s more of an expression of frustration at being left out of the future than an accurate view of the present.
Sure, you can stigmatize this resistance to a majority nonwhite America (and a little stigma is probably a good thing). But the truth is that repression often strengthens the thing it is trying to repress. Resistance to mass nonwhite immigration was intense when diversity began to take off in the 1960s. If you go back and read the debates around the 1965 Immigration Act, which ended a national-origin-quota system that favored immigrants from majority-white countries, you find that no one seemed to believe it would alter the ethnic composition of the country at all! Robert Kennedy, for example, was asked at one point how many Asian immigrants he foresaw as likely to come to the U.S. in the future and he replied: “I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear.” Later this century, Asians are forecast to be the single largest group of immigrants.
Similarly, the British public were never formally asked whether they wanted their country to be a multiracial society when they first began admitting immigrants from the Commonwealth countries in the 1950s and 1960s. When the British Tory, Enoch Powell, made his infamous (and racist) “Rivers of Blood” speech, denouncing nonwhite immigration in 1968, he was buoyed by 74 percent support in the polls. But he was dismissed from his Shadow Cabinet position, exiled from the Tory party, banished from respectable society, and the taboo against any mention of race deepened.
What we’re seeing now in both Europe and the U.S., Kaufmann argues, is the long-delayed, long-suppressed consequences of this suppression. We have forgotten in our good intentions that human beings are tribal creatures, that race is a part of tribal identities, and that the racial composition of a country, for good and ill, is something people care about. But you can only ignore human nature for so long until it comes back to bite you.
It’s that force of human nature — often an irrational but still potent force — that has given us the agonies of Brexit and Trump. A revolt against mass nonwhite immigration lies at the heart of both developments. It’s perfectly clear by now that Brexit was not about trade: If the E.U. had allowed the U.K. to control E.U. immigration, the Brits would have been fine with the customs union and the single market. But they were told they had to lose trade if they wanted to control borders. So they chose to control their borders. In the U.S., Trump’s core distinction was his appeal to white Americans to cut down on nonwhite immigration. It was his first message, it was a winning message, and it will be central to his reelection attempt.
And look at what has happened in both countries, with respect to immigration, over the last three years or so: Nothing. The U.K. remains in the E.U. — with freedom of movement — and there’s now a distinct, if small, possibility of never getting out, as Brexit’s cliff edge is extended to — yes! — Halloween. In the U.S., undocumented immigration will likely be higher this year than in any year under Obama, and there seems to be absolutely no way to change that. Over 100,000 migrants entered the U.S. last month — on pace for more than a million this year alone, including many, many children (it’s forecast that 2019 will have more unaccompanied minors entering the country than in the last influx in 2014). Finally, liberal outlets are beginningto cover this as the crisis it is. These migrants are being ushered in quickly and will get a court hearing in a few years’ time, if the system works as it should. But the system is not working as it should. It’s on the verge of what even the New York Times has to report is a “breaking point.” Yes, a majority will probably show up for their asylum court hearings. But between 25 and 40 percent will not. And for that group, there is no quick or easy mechanism for deportation. There are no cops in immigration courts tasked with arresting or detaining anyone. There’s no good data on what percentage of those deemed deportable are actually removed from the country. “ICE officials occasionally make a statement about the very low number of failed Central American asylum seekers who are removed, and it’s probably around 5 percent or less of the number who could be,” says Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the restrictionist group the Center for Immigration Studies. That means that more than 95 percent of all immigrants showing up at the border get to stay in America. And that is a massive incentive, as we are now seeing, for yet more millions to come.
At some point, sooner rather than later, we will have to find a point between allowing mass immigration and outflanking white nationalism. “We can’t label everybody who is disturbed by immigration as racist,” Barack Obama said this week. “You know, that’s a self-defeating tactic. You push away potential allies, people who maybe just haven’t thought about it … but if they’re exposed to new information and they’re meeting people from other countries and they understand the nature of these different traditions and they see that others are eager to work with you, then suddenly they go, ‘Ah, okay.’” And he’s right. (As usual.) In a meta-analysis of all academic articles published between 1995 and 2016 on the relationship between support for diversity and opposition to immigration, Kaufmann found that “both ethnic change and raw minority levels counted at a national level — though minority change was a somewhat stronger predictor of white hostility than national share.” Yes, there are racists; but there are also many who are simply uncomfortable and conservative. The only way to stop the populist, white-nationalist right is to separate the former from the latter, and engage the conservatives.
What Kaufmann recommends is some kind of reassurance to the worried whites. I think that may be the only way forward — and it’s the only reason I favor Trump’s wall. Merely as a symbol of border control, it could calm people down, curtail some of the hysteria, and dampen the appeal of the far right. But it’s also why I favor limiting immigration, and reminding people that this kind of ethnic shift (if not quite on this scale) has happened in the past and America didn’t cease to exist. It’s a moment to remind ourselves how integrative and expansive and inclusive idea of “whiteness” has been in America, as new immigrant groups, with each subsequent wave, claim it as their own. Throughout the next century, it’s important to tell people, Kaufmann argues, that America will always have a large “white” majority — but this time with simply a lot of Hispanic last names. And this is in part because many Latinos want to integrate, admire the Anglo-Saxon roots of this experiment in self-government, and want to decrease immigration themselves. (A Quinnipiac poll last year found that 54 percent of blacks and 55 percent of Hispanics thought illegal immigration across the southern border was an “important problem.” One-quarter of Hispanics support Trump’s wall.)
I understand why this feels so wrong to many who believe that “whiteness” is the source of our problems rather than a semi-solution to them. But until we tell a convincing story of the future evolution of American identity, and include whites firmly within it, I fear white nationalism will only get worse. We can and should call out xenophobia and racism, but we also need to accommodate the deep human need for continuity in national and community life. Especially if the alternative only alienates those who are afraid, and empowers the demagogues who exploit them.


PROMISES MADE

Colombia’s Peace Deal Promised a New Era.


  • Colombia’s government and the country’s main rebel group said the peace deal heralded a new era. But violence is soaring.
  • This is the first in a series in which we return to news events to see if promises by those in power were kept.



  • NY TIMES


    Venezuela’s Collapse Is the Worst Outside of War in Decades, Economists Say

    Butchers have stopped selling meat cuts in favor of offal, fat shavings and cow hooves, the only animal protein many of their customers can afford.




    NY TIMES

    May 16, 2019



    Pelosi Raises Impeachment as a Way to Break Trump’s Information Stonewall



    De Blasio Enters 2020 Race for President

    Republicans’ Messaging on Abortion Puts Democrats on the Defensive



    The Time Is Now’: States Are Rushing to Restrict Abortion, or to Protect It
    The Republican Party has aggressively reset the terms of one of the country’s most divisive and emotionally fraught debates.
    Democrats face challenges they did not expect as they struggle to combat misinformation and thwart further efforts to undercut access to abortion.



    NY TIMES

    With grisly claims that Democrats promote “birth day abortions” and are “the party of death,” the Republican Party and its conservative allies have aggressively reset the terms of one of the country’s most divisive and emotionally fraught debates, forcing Democrats to reassess how they should respond to attacks and distortions that portray the entire party as extremist on abortion.

    The unusually forceful, carefully coordinated campaign has created challenges that Democrats did not expect as they struggle to combat misinformation and thwart further efforts to undercut access to abortion. And advocates of abortion rights fear it is succeeding in pressuring lawmakers in more conservative states to pass severe new restrictions, as Alabama did this week by approving a bill that would essentially outlaw the procedure.

    These new measures, combined with the likelihood that the Supreme Court will agree to take up at least one case in the coming months where Roe v. Wade will be tested, have stirred intense passions on both sides and elevated abortion into a prominent issue in the presidential race.

    [Make sense of the people, issues and ideas shaping American politics with our newsletter.]

    Much to the distress of abortion rights supporters, their own polling is showing that the right’s message is penetrating beyond the social conservatives who make up a large part of the Republican base. Surveys conducted for progressive groups in recent weeks found that more than half of Americans were aware of the “infanticide” claims that President Trump and his party have started making when describing abortions that occur later in pregnancy.


    Initially, many Democrats and abortion rights groups believed that the notion was so absurd that it was not worth responding to it. But they discovered that was a dangerous assumption to make in an information environment dominated by Mr. Trump.



    Mr. Trump is using the issue to rouse his base, including the crucial voting bloc of Christian conservatives for whom abortion is an overarching issue. His false statements that Democrats would “execute” newborn babies — which he has repeated on his Twitter feed, during his State of the Union address and at campaign rallies, sometimes as he mimics swaddling a baby — are being picked up and repeated by conservatives all over the country.

    Activists in the anti-abortion movement, who during previous Republican administrations were left to drive their messages with far more measured public support from the White House, have welcomed the president’s approach as refreshing, saying it has infused them with new purpose and perspective.
    Richard Land said he believed Mr. Trump won the votes of evangelicals, and thus the presidency, because of his visceral response to a debate question on abortion.CreditMark Humphrey/Associated Press

    Trump Fulfills His Promises on Abortion, and to Evangelicals.
    Trump, through his appointment of judges who oppose abortion rights and his graphic language, is again speaking a language the evangelicals embrace.
    NY TIMES

    Richard Land, a prominent evangelical Christian leader, said he could pinpoint the moment that Donald J. Trump secured his election. It was in the third presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, and the question was about abortion.

    “If you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby,” Mr. Trump said.

    That emotive, visceral answer, Mr. Land said, was probably enough to win over skeptical working-class Catholic voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, who at that moment found an unlikely champion in Mr. Trump on the single issue that would determine their choice and deliver the White House to Mr. Trump.

    “The relationship that evangelicals have with President Trump is a very transactional one,” said Mr. Land, who serves on a spiritual advisory board to the president. “They feel like their voices are heard and he is keeping their promises to them.”


    Mr. Land said that Mr. Trump, far more than Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, an evangelical himself, has given evangelicals a place at the table and a welcome at the White House.

    As he enters his re-election campaign, Mr. Trump, through his appointment of judges who oppose abortion rights, including to the Supreme Court, and his equally graphic language about late-term abortions, is again speaking a language that evangelicals embrace.

    The issue has taken on renewed prominence after the Alabama Legislature passed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, drawing fierce opposition from Democratic opponents and presidential candidates seeking to challenge Mr. Trump.
    CreditMark Humphrey/Associated Press
    Image

    Trump’s Latest Move Takes Straight Shot at Huawei’s Business








    NY TIMES

    The Trump administration has filed criminal charges against Huawei for stealing technology. It has all but snuffed out the Chinese tech giant’s sales in the United States, calling the firm an espionage threat. And it has tried to persuade other governments to do similarly.

    But Washington had not taken a straight shot at Huawei’s ability to do business anywhere in the world until late Wednesday, when the Commerce Department announced restrictions on the company’s access to American technology.

    American companies including Qualcomm, Intel and Broadcom sell Huawei microchips and other specialized parts that go into its smartphones and telecom equipment. Google’s Android software powers its phones. Of the $70 billion that Huawei spent on components and other supplies last year, $11 billion went to American companies, a Huawei spokesman, Joe Kelly, said.

    If Huawei is cut off from these suppliers, the effect could be catastrophic for the millions of people who use Huawei smartphones — and for the mobile networks, across a wide swath of the planet, that run on Huawei gear.

    It would be “the trade equivalent of a nuclear bomb,” said Kevin J. Wolf, a partner at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and an assistant secretary of commerce under President Barack Obama.

    Much remains unclear, however, about the scope and potential impact of the Commerce Department’s move. The department says it is putting Huawei on its “entity list” of firms that need special permission to buy American components and technology. How it decides to grant such permissions, and how broad a range of products the policy covers, will determine how badly Huawei’s business is disrupted.

    Trump Tells Pentagon Chief He Does Not Want War With Iran.

    President Trump’s statement was a message to his hawkish aides amid an intensifying American pressure campaign against Tehran.
    It came during a briefing on the rising tensions. Officials said Mr. Trump was firm in saying he did not want a military clash.

     

    NY TIMES

    President Trump has sought to put the brakes on a brewing confrontation with Iran in recent days, telling the acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, administration officials said, while his senior diplomats began searching for ways to defuse the tensions.

    Mr. Trump’s statement, during a Wednesday morning meeting in the Situation Room, sent a message to his hawkish aides that he does not want the intensifying American pressure campaign against the Iranians to explode into open conflict.

    For now, an administration that had appeared to be girding for conflict seems more determined to find a diplomatic off-ramp.


    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the leader of Oman, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, on Wednesday to confer about the threat posed by Iran, according to a statement. Long an intermediary between the West and Iran, Oman was a site of a secret channel in 2013 when the Obama administration was negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran.

    Mr. Pompeo also asked European officials for help in persuading Iran to “de-escalate” tensions, which rose after American intelligence indicated that Iran had placed missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf. The intelligence, which was based on photographs that have not been released but were described to The New York Times, prompted fears that Tehran may strike at United States troops and assets or those of its allies.


    The developments cast into sharp relief a president who is instinctively wary of military adventures and a cadre of advisers — led by the national security adviser, John R. Bolton — who have taken an uncompromising line toward Iran. The internal tensions have prompted fears that the Trump administration is spoiling for a fight, even if the commander in chief may not be.

    Those divisions are playing out against a fierce internal debate among administration officials about the gravity of the Iranian threat. While officials and British allies say the intelligence about the threat is valid, lawmakers and some inside the administration accuse Mr. Trump’s aides of exaggerating the danger and exploiting the intelligence to justify a military clash with Tehran.

    The administration’s internal debate over Iran was described by five senior officials who demanded anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.

    Iran dismissed any suggestion of a dialogue with Mr. Trump.

    There was a new potential flash point in Iran’s standoff with the United States, stemming from its vow last week to step away from some of the limitations imposed by the nuclear deal, a year after Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement that was negotiated between Tehran and world powers in 2015.

    State Department officials, speaking to reporters, set a red line that they warned Iran would cross at its peril: It could not ramp up its nuclear fuel production to the point where it could produce a nuclear weapon in less than one year.

    May 15, 2019


    Americans Are Among the Most Stressed People in the World, Poll Finds





    NY TIMES

    May 14, 2019

    Trade Dispute Between U.S. and China Deepens as Beijing Retaliates.




    NY TIMES

    WASHINGTON — The United States and China intensified their trade dispute on Monday, as Beijing said it would increase tariffs on nearly $60 billion worth of American goods and the Trump administration detailed plans to tax nearly every sneaker, computer, dress and handbag that China exports to the United States.

    NY Times: Toys, Phones and Sneakers: The Chinese Goods Trump Wants to Tax Next

    An escalation of the president’s trade war with China is poised to hit every conceivable consumer product, and then some.The escalation thrust the world’s two largest economies back into confrontation. While President Trump said on Monday that he would meet with China’s president, Xi Jinping, next month in Japan, the stakes are only increasing as the president continues to taunt and threaten China, causing it to retaliate on American businesses.
    In this Nov. 9, 2017, file photo, U.S. President Donald Trump, right, chats with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a welcome ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. The United States and China are scheduled Thursday, May 9, 2019, to resume talks to try to back off an escalating trade war. (AP Photo/Andy Wong, File)
    Financial markets fell on Monday after China detailed plans to increase tariffs, with the S&P 500 index down more than 2.4 percent for the day and more than 4 percent this month. Shares of companies particularly dependent on trade with China, including Apple and Boeing, fared poorly, and yields on three-month Treasury securities exceeded those on 10-year bonds, a sign that investors may be souring on the outlook for short-term economic growth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down over 600 points for the day.

    China’s Finance Ministry announced Monday that it was raising tariffs on a wide range of American goods to 20 percent or 25 percent from 10 percent. The increase will affect the roughly $60 billion in American imports already being taxed as retaliation for Mr. Trump’s previous round of tariffs, including beer, wine, swimsuits, shirts and liquefied natural gas exported to China.

    Among the products that will be hit by higher levies is seafood from China imported into the United States.




    Credit
    Wu Hong/EPA, via Shutterstock
    The move came after Mr. Trump increased tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods to as much as 25 percent on Friday, and threatened to move ahead with taxing the remainder of goods that the United States imports from China. The Office of the United States Trade Representative released a list on Monday of the roughly $300 billion worth of products that could face up to a 25 percent tariff and requested public comment, which will begin the formal process for enacting those duties. The list includes almost every consumer product imaginable, from coffee makers to sneakers to telescopic sights for rifles.

    Economists and industry groups were not sanguine.

    “Americans’ entire shopping cart will get more expensive,” said Hun Quach, the vice president of international trade at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Dollar General and other stores.

    Rick Helfenbein, the president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, called the measure a “self-inflicted wound” that he said would be “catastrophic.” While footwear and apparel were largely spared from Mr. Trump’s first two rounds of tariffs, they are on the list of items that would be taxed if the president follows through with his threat to raise taxes on an additional $300 billion worth of goods.

    “By tightening the noose and pulling more consumer items into the trade war, the president has shown that he is not concerned with raising taxes on American families, or threatening millions of American jobs that are dependent on global value chains,” Mr. Helfenbein said.

    Both China and the United States have left a window for negotiators to try to reach a deal before the latest round of higher tariffs goes into effect. China said it would delay the higher rates until June 1, while Mr. Trump’s new 25 percent rate affects only products sent to the United States as of May 10, leaving a two- to four-week gap from the time most goods leave China by boat to when they arrive at an American port.

    But the two sides would have far to go to quickly resolve what has once again become a heated economic dispute. Progress toward a trade agreement between the United States and China nearly collapsed over the past two weeks, after American negotiators accused China of reneging on substantial portions of a potential trade agreement it had previously committed to. Significant differences remain over how tariffs should be rolled back between the countries, and whether the negotiated provisions must be enshrined in Chinese law.



    In remarks this week, Mr. Trump said companies that did not want to pay the tariffs could shift production out of China and into the United States or another country that has not been hit with tariffs. While there are signs that this shift is happening, it seems to be benefiting countries like Mexico and Vietnam more than the United States.