Apparently, men can’t win at the gym anymore. Look at a woman, and you’re a creep. Ignore her, and you’re part of the problem. One woman publicly shames men for so much as glancing at her, while another openly admits she dresses provocatively to attract their attention.

And somehow, men are supposed to know the difference. Which makes the outrage over comedian Shane Gillis’s recent joke about women’s gym attire all the more ridiculous. Women across social media insisted their outfits had absolutely nothing to do with attracting male attention. They were simply dressing for themselves, and men needed to mind their own business.

Well, apparently, somebody forgot to tell the women openly admitting they’re wearing those exact outfits because they WANT men to notice them.

In one video, a woman declared , “Okay, we need to bring back hitting on women at the gym because I genuinely miss it!” She said she deliberately wears skimpy outfits to encourage men to talk to her. Another complained that men have become too respectful and explained that women sometimes stare at attractive guys hoping they’ll approach.

These women prove that Shane Gillis had a point.

But they are once again suggesting that men are the problem, just for an entirely different reason. Perhaps they should have a word with their fellow female content creators. After all, between the hysterical outrage over a joke and women losing their minds when a man dares to comment on their workout, is it really any wonder men are playing it safe and keeping to themselves?

One viral gym encounter perfectly illustrates why men hesitate to even step into the same workout space as a woman, let alone dare to speak to her.

In the video, a woman complained that an older man had sexually harassed her at the gym. That’s a serious accusation. But what actually happened?

According to her account, the man was lifting weights in front of a mirror, so she repeatedly moved aside to avoid blocking his view. That’s when he jokingly referred to himself as a “dirty old man” and told her he didn’t mind her standing in front of him.

Was it necessary? Not remotely. Was it an obnoxious comment? Absolutely.

But rather than simply telling him his comment was inappropriate and moving on, she involved gym management, tracked him down after he had already walked away, and berated him for making her uncomfortable. She followed him around and hurled f-bomb-laden insults. Even after he said he was sorry, she continued her vulgar tirade, eventually prompting him to rescind his apology and tell her she was “nuts.”

That’s where this entire situation highlights a deeper problem: the growing tendency to treat every uncomfortable interaction as though it’s a serious offense.

There’s an enormous difference between genuine harassment — a man following a woman around, making repeated sexual remarks, or refusing to leave her alone — versus an awkward, unwanted comment. Treating every uncomfortable interaction like a major violation of women’s rights is ridiculous.

And this woman presented her experience as if it were further proof that men disrespect women and deny them peace, arguing that Gillis’s joke only made life harder for women.

Yet all she really did was reinforce the thing that men already know — far too many women are looking for reasons to be angry with men. They create a more hostile gym environment for women, not a comedian who simply pointed out that some women’s workout attire looks more like underwear than appropriate public clothing.

Women themselves have created impossible standards for gym etiquette. Men don’t know which women want to be left alone and which ones want them to step up, or who will welcome conversation and who might publicly humiliate them for even trying.

Then there’s the issue of attraction, which undeniably influences how women respond to romantic attention. A comment from a man they find attractive might be considered flattering, while the exact same comment from someone less attractive is suddenly labeled creepy. That leaves men navigating another minefield of constantly changing expectations.

In our culture, the wrong desires often shape every interaction. Is a woman dressing to attract attention, or looking for an opportunity to turn an innocent comment into rage bait for clicks? Either way, men are expected to take the risk, never knowing whether they’ll end up with a dinner date or a court date. That’s an absurd amount of pressure on men who simply want an ordinary social interaction.

Men aren’t mind readers. So if women want men to start approaching them again, they need to spend less time losing their minds over a comedian’s joke and stop treating every awkward interaction like a federal crime.

Sometimes, a little perspective and common sense go a long way.

When the Democrats who won both chambers of Congress last Tuesday take office in January, they will get the gavels, every committee chair and broad investigative power. AIER's writer argues they will also inherit a fiscal problem that is already on the calendar: more than $40 trillion in national debt, $32.7 trillion of it held by the public, and a $41.1 trillion debt ceiling that the government is on pace to hit in the first half of 2027.

The warning signs are coming from lenders. In October the International Monetary Fund told heavily indebted governments to deal with their finances before they become unmanageable. Between February and September, the average 10-year government bond yield across the G7 rose by more than a full percentage point, to multidecade highs. For the United States in particular, the IMF found that long-term forward rates have become more sensitive to projected government debt. In the author's words, bond markets are beginning to lose patience.

The arithmetic is unforgiving. A one-point rise in yields on $32.7 trillion of publicly held debt eventually adds about $327 billion a year in interest, phased in as debt rolls over. That comes on top of the $1.05 trillion Washington already spent on interest in 2026. Another point would push the bill to roughly $1.37 trillion, and that assumes the debt stops growing. The Treasury paid an average of 1.6 percent on its debt in 2021 and pays 3.5 percent today. Because it has leaned on short-term bills, that average will keep rising. The author compares this to taking out an adjustable-rate mortgage you know will reset higher and still making only the minimum payment.

The incoming majority's early priorities point toward more spending, not less. Several members-elect who campaigned on affordability want to restore the Affordable Care Act subsidies first put in place during the pandemic. Those were billed as temporary, partly because a temporary program gets a lower cost estimate. The author quotes Milton Friedman: "there's nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." Reversing the Medicaid cuts would cost about $880 billion over ten years.

That brings calls for higher taxes. The IMF urges indebted countries to "strengthen tax systems," and some on the New Right talk about a "grand bargain" that pairs tax increases with promised spending cuts. The article raises two objections. First, Congress can set tax rates but not tax revenue. Since 1950 the top marginal income-tax rate has ranged from above 90 percent down to 28 percent, yet federal receipts have held near 17 percent of GDP, because people change how and when they take income when rates rise. Second, the money Congress collects is largely committed in advance to mandatory programs that sit outside the normal budget process and grow automatically unless benefits or eligibility are changed by law.

So why do governments keep borrowing when debt keeps getting more expensive? The author's answer is that it is good politics. Spending delivers visible benefits now to organized groups, while the cost of borrowing comes later and is spread thinly across taxpayers who barely notice each new issue.

The author expects a familiar script within months of the swearing-in. A Democratic Congress and a Republican president will fight over the debt limit, each casting the other as the villain, and then raise the ceiling without fixing anything. Real repair, he says, would take decades of sustained effort, which shows the problem is structural rather than technical.

It was not always this way. Until 1917, federal borrowing had to be tied to specific projects, such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Panama Canal, which let voters judge Congress's fiscal record directly. The debt limit began as a temporary World War I shortcut to speed approvals and has, the author argues, long outlived its purpose.

He concludes that the IMF and the bond market are saying the same thing: waiting makes stabilization more expensive. The new Congress can change the incentives that produced $40 trillion in debt, or it can wait for lenders to force the change.

After the Republican Party endured a shellacking last Tuesday, President Donald Trump wasted little time trying to salvage some of its lessons. To do so, he sat for an interview with Ross Douthat, the new guy on the block at CBS News’s “60 Minutes.”

First, a little background on CBS. Former New York Times writer Bari Weiss took over at CBS News a year ago — after having launched the successful Free Press — and she immediately set about making changes to mitigate the eyeball network’s gross left-wing bias. Specifically, she began an overhaul of “60 Minutes,” which included firing longtime correspondent Scott Pelley and others. Anderson Cooper also left. Weiss hired Douthat , a conservative journalist, from her own former paper, The New York Times.

Weiss is no conservative, though, and none of that means CBS is suddenly fair, or that “60 Minutes” doesn’t still have a left-wing agenda at times. Why, just a couple of weeks ago, our Hudson Baldwin hammered the show for its dishonest empathy for a deported illegal alien. But at least Douthat is an honest broker.

So, back to the interview with President Trump. Douthat and Trump talked about many things, but I’ll focus most on immigration after Trump admitted that his deportation policy might have been “too tough.”

The president believes he “got an A+ for closing up the border” and “very high marks for getting the bad ones out.” He’s undoubtedly right about that .

“But I get hurt because we also took people that had good jobs, that created one violation, or breaking of the law, and that was that they came into the country illegally,” the president continued. “Now, there is a large part of the country that think that they should be put out. And there’s a large part of the country that think that they should be allowed to stay if they’re good people working in a landscaping company, or working in a hotel, or doing something, right? And in some cases, paying taxes.”

He’s also undoubtedly right about that. According to exit polling , 58% of voters said Team Trump went too far.

Frankly, Americans hold a contradictory position on immigration. Most folks think we needed to close the border but not do anything to the millions of people who crossed illegally. Stop committing the crime , they say, but don’t punish anybody who already committed those crimes.

Logically, it makes little sense. But it’s not only about logic, is it? No, it’s about emotion, though that’s not all bad. Compassion for the sojourner is a Christian virtue. Yet we are — or should be — a nation of laws, and breaking laws comes with consequences. When you cross the border illegally, the legal consequence is deportation. The debate is over the conditions for forgoing that consequence.

Once a person has successfully evaded law enforcement for years, working as a dishwasher, hotel maid, or lawn guy, it gets harder to win public support for that consequence. That’s understandable and certainly not all bad, but it’s somewhat dissonant with the desire for a closed border.

Moreover, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has had a major optics problem over the last year or so. Democrat sanctuary jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, making ICE’s job much harder and more dangerous. Throw in some disobedient and violent protesters, and people get killed . Could ICE have done better? Definitely. But leftists lit the fire and stoked the flames specifically to discredit ICE.

An interesting side note: On Friday, Trump tapped Stephen Miller to replace White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who resigned on Thursday. Miller is widely seen as the architect of the administration’s tough deportation policy. He’s also combative, calling the two U.S. citizens killed by ICE last year “domestic terrorists” and “would-be assassins.” That was overwrought and entirely unnecessary. In any case, his promotion signals that Trump won’t back off much. The CBS interview was recorded before the Miller announcement.

Immigration was far from the only topic Trump discussed in the interview.

On the economy, he opined, “I think it was bad messaging, maybe by me, but I would talk about it all the time.” He insisted “the numbers are phenomenal,” but “we couldn’t get the word across.” He’s right .

The war with Iran hurt the economy, especially gas prices, and Trump acknowledged that voters “didn’t like the war.” Still, he believes he acted correctly and in U.S. national interests: “I think historically, this will be a very good decision. Is it a good decision for today and tomorrow? Maybe not. But ... I have to go with what’s right for our country. ... If they had a nuclear weapon during my term, I would be excoriated far worse than what’s happened.” He’s right again .

“I’ve stopped them from having a nuclear weapon,” Trump added. “That’s a big thing.”

Where Trump started, however, was with himself. Asked for his analysis of the GOP’s “historic defeat,” Trump began, “Well, number one, I was not on the ballot.”

Actually, he kinda was . “You were out on the trail,” Douthat noted, “and you said, ‘Vote like I’m on the ballot.’”

If I had to sum up not just the interview but Trump’s second term so far, I’d say he frequently does the right thing but too often shoots himself in the foot with his rhetoric or the execution. His presidency isn’t over, but thanks to that truth and victorious Democrat opposition, it’s going to be tough sledding.

On January 3, House and Senate Republicans will give up their gavels, and Donald Trump will take on a new role as President Veto. But that’s 55 days away. The real question is: What happens between now and then?

Somewhat lost amid all the gnashing of teeth about last Tuesday’s shellacking is the fact that Republicans are still in control of all three branches of government. Granted, the GOP has a razor-thin margin in the House, and its 53-47 advantage in the Senate is perhaps even more tenuous when we consider the Trump-derangement of Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, and the bitterness of lame ducks like North Carolina’s Thom Tillis and Texas’s John Cornyn, and the reliable unreliability of Maine’s Susan Collins. And the “leadership” of John Thune.

John Solomon at Just the News offers an interesting list of eight “power moves” Donald Trump and the Republicans could still make — either in the next 55 days or sometime thereafter through the power of the executive branch. Those ideas range from hamstringing spendthrift Democrats by passing multiyear budgets for all key agencies in order to lock in federal spending until after Trump leaves office, to using the funds recovered from the administration’s fraud-fighting efforts to help secure Medicare and Social Security, to revoking the tax-exempt status of leftist anti-American (but I repeat myself) nonprofits, to blocking the blue states’ effort to do away with the Electoral College via the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, to passing the key elements of the SAVE America Act — photo ID and proof of citizenship — through the budget reconciliation process, to using the tax code to go after quasi-governmental leftist organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and the teachers’ unions.

Then there’s the judiciary. “The stakes could not be higher,” writes Article III founder and President Mike Davis. “Outgoing Senate Majority Leader John Thune ... must use every remaining day to confirm all of President Trump’s pending judicial nominees. That means 23 judges, four for the circuit courts and 19 for the district courts, before the gavel changes hands.” Why are these judgeships so important? Davis continues:

Appellate courts are the most consequential. They get the final word in the vast majority of cases. The Supreme Court grants only about 1% of all petitions for review. For nearly every litigant in federal court in America, the circuit court is the last stop. President Trump has nominated four outstanding jurists to strengthen key appellate benches: Anna St. John and Todd Butler to the 5th Circuit, Lee Rudofsky to the 8th Circuit and Dan Domenico to the 10th Circuit. St. John, Rudofsky and Domenico already serve with distinction on the district courts in Louisiana, Arkansas and Colorado. All four are well prepared to step into these roles.

Speaking of the third coequal branch of government, there’s another hugely important matter here that Republicans should consider: the future of the Supreme Court. Stalwart justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are 76 and 78 respectively. And Alito recently sounded about as likely to leave the High Court as Jordan Belfort was to leave Stratton Oakmont.

Which leaves Justice Thomas, whom every constitutional conservative loves and admires. But unless the GOP has a secret plan to nullify last Tuesday’s election results, Thomas should consider his age and the electoral landscape and refuse to be the Republican version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We can’t afford to cough up the third branch of government. Thomas, at 78, is a full seven years past the life expectancy of a black American male. And the electoral map for the next two Senate cycles doesn’t look at all favorable. Which means he’ll likely be at least 84 by the time a Republican president might have a Republican Senate with which to nominate and seat a worthy successor.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently observed , “Chance of confirming a worthy successor to Justice Thomas and/or Alito during President Trump’s term: Zero.” DeSantis is certainly right if he’s talking about January 3 and beyond. But there are still 55 days during which to prove him wrong.

We should build a monument to Justice Thomas, and communities across the United States should name streets and schools for him. But Donald Trump should have a heart-to-heart with him this week, and he should suggest a 50-year-old strict constructionist to replace him. (For context, Trump needed just 38 days to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett in the fall of 2020. The Democrats and the media could shriek all they want, but there’s nothing they can do besides shriek. Indeed, the shrieking of the Left would be like cool rain on a blistering hot day.)

For many years now, the Supreme Court has been the mostly conservative bulwark against leftist legislative overreach. We can’t afford to lose Justice Thomas’s seat.

Questions abound about the future of the American Experiment, but none of them have the urgency of this one: Will the Republicans of the 119th Congress quietly slink away during the next 55 days, or will they come together with a sense of urgency and do the vital work of the people who elected them? Because this much we know: The Democrats and their Democratic Socialist fellow travelers are most definitely going to go to work on January 3.

The Republicans have 55 more days in power, and they can go out with a whimper or a bang. So far, all I hear is a lot of whimpering — that, and a “60 Minutes” stopwatch going tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick .

The so-called “blue tsunami” washed across America. Only a few states held firm, including the obvious deep-red culprits, as well as Florida.

The Sunshine State has grown more conservative over the last couple of decades, and much of that recent progress can be attributed to Ron DeSantis. Florida’s current governor has maintained a strong track record and expanded Republican voter registration.

DeSantis didn’t pull any punches when assessing the election and criticized the GOP’s handling of core civic virtues — all of which any political party should uphold.

First, he mentioned voting on the release of the Epstein files: “We ran as Republicans on saying we need to do that. And then you actually have people in the Congress voting against release when the attorney general said she had all this horrific stuff on her desk and that people were gonna be held accountable.”

He also talked about the issues with congressional insider trading: “It’s untenable when you have people going in trading stocks. I’ve never traded stocks since I’ve been in elected office. How do you have no investment acumen, and then all of a sudden get elected to Congress, and then you’re outperforming Warren Buffett?”

Ron DeSantis’s brand has been doing what he promised. Voters have rewarded that. He presents that in stark contrast to Washington GOP leaders, and he specifically pointed to President Donald Trump.

“He obviously ran saying he wasn’t going to do a Middle East war, and they did. So, we had some of our voters who’ve checked out because they’re like, I didn’t want any more Middle East wars, and now we’re doing it . And what’s happened is it’s kind of an open-ended conflict, and it’s having a direct impact on people’s finances. Gas is higher. It hurts people, working-class people, and it’s higher because of this conflict. That’s just a fact. If you can’t admit that to voters, then you’re gaslighting them, and they’re not going to listen to you on other things.”

DeSantis hasn’t always been a huge fan of the current administration’s tactics, but he played along so long as Team Trump controlled the party. However, since the midterm has evidently signaled the nation’s shift against the Trump administration and associates, the Florida governor has a potentially popular position among Republicans and the nation at large.

The question of the 2028 presidential election looms large in the minds of Republicans looking to return to form from a likely lame duck presidency. Perhaps the era of the MAGA Republicans is over, and the American people want literally any other option. One window into that will be JD Vance’s presidential prospects.

Betting odds have Vance’s nominee chances at around 30%, down from nearly 60% just a couple of months ago. Marco Rubio has steadily crept up over the past few weeks, and has held firm even post-midterms. But Ron DeSantis’s chances have shot up this past week, taking most of the odds that Vance lost.

It seems clear why. Republicans tried the populist experiment for a decade and experienced some high highs and low lows. In promoting policy, President Trump has largely been successful. But in governing a country and catering to the people, he has not been as successful. DeSantis presents a stark contrast. He displays competency in governing Florida. He’s managed his economy well and improved Floridians’ quality of life over recent years. Because he’s done that, he’s been able to engage in his more ideological battles with little backlash.

DeSantis is actively pointing out the flaws of the Republican strategy, and his record indicates he could fix it. He is primed for a run for the Oval Office. But will he defeat the likes of Vance and Rubio, as well as the strong Democrat contenders, to keep the Oval Office red? That’s anyone’s guess — or online bet.

After last week's Republican rout, party leaders reached for explanations. President Trump blamed Fox News. Vice President JD Vance offered a more pointed one on X: "The reason we lost is the war." The Iran conflict surely hurt. Trump had bragged on election night 2024 about keeping the country out of war, and once a key global energy chokepoint closed, average gasoline climbed from $2.98 a gallon in late February to $4.50 in early May while his approval ratings fell.

AIER's authors grant that Vance is not wrong about the war, but argue the data point more strongly at the second item on his own list, the cost of living. In a nationwide ABC News poll, about one in three voters said the Iran war was "crucial" to their vote, while fully half said the same about the cost of living, and about government corruption.

Tariffs, they argue, sit at the center of that affordability anger. Before the election, Cato's Alfredo Carrillo Obregon wrote that sweeping White House tariffs had become "a culprit behind increases in Americans' cost of living," and the polls and vote totals bore him out. Last month, New York Fed economists found tariffs raised prices in 67 categories of goods in 2025, and the typical household is paying at least $1,000 more, perhaps several times that, to keep the same standard of living. Contrary to the president's promises, consumers pay: about 64 percent of the tariff bite comes from pricier imports, and the other 36 percent from domestic producers who either pay more for imported inputs or raise prices once foreign competitors are penalized.

Defenders say higher prices are the point. Americans now pay 75 percent more than the rest of the world for aluminum and 64 percent more for steel, and the trade deficit appears to be shrinking. Manufacturing jobs are rising again, but only after cratering in the first year of what the authors call "tariff theatrics." AIER's Dave Hebert notes the administration is claiming victory for partly filling a hole it dug.

Voters did not buy it. In NBC News exit polls, just 21 percent said Trump's tariffs had helped the national economy, against 66 percent who said they had hurt it. Asked about their own area, only 14 percent said tariffs helped and 64 percent said they hurt. Earlier polls showed most voters, including 75 percent of Republicans, had noticed tariffs raising prices. Strategists seemed to know it. Democratic House candidates spent more than $58 million on ads mentioning tariffs, while Republican House candidates spent nothing promoting them, and only a penny of each GOP ad dollar went to spots that even mentioned "Trump." Small businesses and makers report thinner margins and forced price hikes on goods with imported parts, angering the small-government, pro-business base that liked what Candidate Trump promised.

Corruption, another top reason 2024 Republican voters backed Democrats in 2026, is built into tariffs too. Every tariff creates something valuable for officials to hand out: an exemption from a tax competitors must keep paying. Tariff-related lobbying reached record levels, according to LegiStorm, and more than 1,000 discretionary exemptions to the April 2025 tariffs were granted through an opaque, unequal process, many tied to White House connections. Small firms without lobbyists face heavy compliance costs from shifting rules. Even after the Supreme Court struck down the emergency tariffs, the refund process favored big money: Wall Street firms bought businesses' refund rights for as little as five to twenty cents on the dollar from small importers who couldn't wait.

The authors conclude that neither the war nor tariffs alone caused the defeat, but both contributed mightily. Voters who turned out in 2024 for no more wars and cheaper groceries came back in 2026 to punish broken promises. Vance, a leading tariff champion who says trading partners have been "taking advantage" of America, may prefer to blame only the war. Concentrated benefits for a few steel mills have long sustained protectionism while its costs spread across millions. But as tariffs grew broader and businesses openly passed costs on, and Fed research showed consumers cutting back on tariffed goods more than prices rose, Americans reacted. The 2026 election, the authors write, suggests Americans are no longer willing to pay the price of protectionism.

Month-long riots in France have given immigration restrictionists new attention and support. Polls show anti-migration sentiment, including against legal immigration, at record highs, and some 63 percent of French voters favor suspending legal immigration for three years. A top argument, in France and elsewhere, is that immigrants depress wages. The "Econ 101" logic: more immigrants, more labor supply, lower wages.

The author says this stops halfway through the lesson. Newcomers add to labor supply, but they also add demand. What immigrants consume has to be produced, and producing it means hiring workers. If the added demand for labor is big enough, immigration can raise wages. Ultimately that's an empirical question, and the evidence is mixed. A recent Labour Economics meta-analysis of 88 peer-reviewed studies published from 1985 to 2023 found the distribution of wage effects "centred near zero," meaning demand growth often offsets the supply increase. But it also "exhibits substantial dispersion": roughly as many studies find positive effects as negative ones, and study design often shapes the result.

To explain the spread, the author, drawing on ongoing work with Casey Pender of Mount Allison University, argues that demand shifts can easily outgrow supply shifts, but only if markets are free to respond. One channel is productivity. Employers pay more when labor is more productive, and productivity rises with specialization, which depends on market size. More participants support more specialization and upskilling for both immigrant and native workers, provided markets are open and barriers to entrepreneurship are low.

Capital is the second channel. Adding workers first means more workers per machine, which nudges wages down. But that makes new equipment more profitable, so investment follows and spreads the extra workers over more machines until wages return to their old level or rise. Internationally, capital chasing returns tends to flow toward countries with growing workforces, financing factories and new businesses, as long as it can cross borders freely.

The catch, the author notes, is that immigration's effect on wages depends heavily on policies that have nothing to do with immigration. High barriers to starting businesses choke off specialization. Limits on foreign investment cut the capital that offsets wage pressure. Progressive taxes on skill-building shrink the payoff from upskilling, and taxing investment keeps capital away from the expanding workforce. The more a country restricts markets, the harder it is for immigrants' demand to outweigh their added supply, which is why wage studies find such different results in different places.

Housing works the same way. Restrictionists say more immigrants mean higher rents, and immigration does raise housing demand. But if wages rise more than rents, housing can become more affordable for everyone, as long as builders can respond quickly: no rent control, limited land-use rules, open bidding for construction, and a predictable, flexible market. Heavy intervention turns immigration into congestion, and U.S. cities with more housing restrictions have seen faster rent increases from similar numbers of immigrants. Because American homebuilding relies disproportionately on immigrant labor, blocking those workers also slows the new construction that would ease prices.

The author's conclusion is the "most depressing lesson": many complaints about immigration are really byproducts of government interference elsewhere that keeps markets from absorbing new workers. It may be no surprise, he writes, that France, with its bureaucracy, high taxes, heavy regulation and costly state-owned companies, is now the hottest hotbed of anti-immigrant feeling. In economies hogtied by bad policy, few of immigration's benefits show up, while its visible costs remain.