German Chancellor Angela Markel has used the 75th anniversary of the most famous plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler to call on citizens to counter rising right-wing extremism.
How Trump’s arch-hawk lured Britain into a dangerous trap to punish Iran [Click] “With the seizure of a supertanker off Gibraltar, distracted UK government was set up by John Bolton as collateral damage.” Shows how ineffective the UK government has become; does not augur well for relations with the EU.
"Every gun that was ever made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953.
“Warren is doing well in diverse and affluent congressional districts along the coast. Harris' support in the state is less differentiated by demographics. She does pick up delegates in many places across the state, but is not the delegate leader in many individual districts.”
Looking at the map, Warren is doing well in non-diverse and decidedly non-affluent congressional districts along the north coast. Harris is leading in the State of Jefferson, [Click] which is downright weird—but political weirdness is typical in the Land of the Double Cross. Gloria la Riva [Click] did pretty well up there in 2016. =====================================
While you were tweeting: The White House ditches half a century of immigration law
America’s rules on asylum-seeking need to be updated, not erased
IT IS A familiar pattern. The president says something outrageous—this time Donald Trump told four black and brown-skinned Democratic congresswomen, all of whom are US citizens and three of whom were born in America, to “go back” where they came from. His supporters, who have come to accept what many of them previously found unconscionable, stay silent. His opponents, rightly appalled, lament what has happened to their country. At the same time the Trump administration makes a big policy change that attracts far less attention—in this case, an edict that directly affects tens of thousands of people a year and overturns half a century of precedent.
Last year 120,000 people claimed asylum, the majority of them at the south-western border. On July 15th the White House announced that claims will no longer be considered unless applicants can prove that they sought asylum in one of the countries they passed through on their way to America, and were rejected. There will be legal challenges to the new rule, because America is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and because the change may contravene America’s own Refugee Act of 1980. But in the meantime anyone who passes through Guatemala or Mexico on the way to the southern border without first seeking refuge there may be turned away.
There is no kind way to enforce immigration law, which by its very existence must squash the dreams of some who wish to migrate. Plenty of asylum-seekers at America’s southern border are not fleeing persecution but crime and poverty. However, this is the wrong way to go about things, for reasons of principle and also of pragmatism.
First, principle. The idea that a refugee should be protected, regardless of which countries he might have traipsed through beforehand, is worth defending. It is already dying in Australia and Europe. The European Union outsources much of its asylum policy to Turkey and Libya, for example, or to member states on its fringes; thousands of people languish in crowded camps in Greece. But for America to abandon this norm sends an even more disturbing signal. The land of the free has a proud history of resettling refugees from far-off places, rehousing many more than any other country.
Second, pragmatism. Mr Trump has already used threats on trade to persuade Mexico to host more asylum applicants on its side of the border while they await news of their claims. Unable to build his oft-promised wall, his administration has tried to deter migrants by other means, including separating children from their parents at the border. Migration numbers are volatile, and tend to decline in the hot summer months, but so far none of these things has cut the numbers enough for Mr Trump. Clamping down even harder will not alter the incentives to leave El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, where most asylum-seekers come from, in search of a better life. It simply makes it more likely that migrants will rely on traffickers rather than the legal system to cross into America.
There is a better way. The first step would be to increase the number of judges, to clear the backlog of immigration cases. There are currently not far off a million cases pending; the waiting time to hear them can be as long as three years. Many asylum-seekers disappear into the grey labour market as they wait for their cases to be adjudicated, joining the ranks of America’s 10.5m unlawful migrants; the Department of Justice says almost half do not show up for court hearings. The next step would be to allow the immigration and citizenship service to decide asylum applications at the border. Finally, the federal government could provide more aid to improve conditions in Central America. When Mexico’s economy improved and the fertility rate fell, the number of Mexicans migrating north slowed to a trickle. A different president, with a more expansive view of American greatness, would enforce rules and change incentives, not abrogate rights. ■ This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "While you were tweeting" Print edition | Leaders Jul 20th 2019
"Duke retained 94% of the folks he got the first time out (and got new people too), as Trump likely will. So forget these people–or at least don’t wast time tailoring messages to them. And policy plans for affordable college don’t mean shit to them, nor health care…
Their support for Trump was never about policy. It was about the bigotry, the fact that he hates who they hate…Second, as for the “undecideds,” not many of these but seriously? If you’re still undecided at this point about this guy, then there is almost no way to know what would get you to make up your mind. I doubt it’s a plan to deal with Wall Street though, or infrastructure, or tax policy."
"What the left never understands is: we need to stop approaching elections like the goddamned debate team, and start approaching it like the right does, like the cheerleading squad…"..."People who say the Dems should ignore Trump’s race baiting because its some genius political strategy calculated to distract us, are idiots. He is no genius. And if you downplay it you NORMALIZE him. If you make this about policy, you NORMALIZE him. He is a racist…
He is a white nationalist. He is an authoritarian. He and his cult are a threat to the future of the nation and world because of their hatreds. His movement betrays the country’s promise. THAT is the message that will drive turnout. Not debates over marginal tax rates, or how we are going to fund schools. And anyone who says we should ignore the race baiting to talk more about Mueller and Russia is an even bigger fool. "
Yes, the statements about Trump and his supporters are true, but I'm not so sure the conclusions are. Lately I've been seeing in intelligent, reliable sources the statement that the populus as a whole is far less left leaning than the left wing of the Democratic Party. I've even seen intimations that Biden may be the best bet to win a broad majority and defeat Trump. Why would thoughtful writers, as at The Economist and The New Yorker say these things unless they have a grain of truth? I'm not talking about Right Wing crack pots, sympathetic to Trump, but observant and thoughtful people who want to get rid of Trump as much as we do ourselves. It's disconcerting to realize that by such lights I, and indeed all of us here, might be considered Left Wing radicals. I have dismissed talk of Biden's front runner status as mainstream media blather. But what if it isn't? What if, not only is Biden truly the front runner, but he is the one candidate who can draw enough of the vote to defeat Trump? That idea rather shakes me. If it is true, though, then concentrating on Trump's evil and the harm his moral depravity is doing the country and the world won't win votes.
My theory, for what it is worth, is that the writers are thoroughly conditioned to believe the basic New Democrat philosophy that the way to win elections is to be borderline Republicans rather than frank Democrats. That hasn't worked very well; the old jibe that "DLC" stands for "Democratic Losership Council" has more than a grain of truth to it IMO. They can neither perceive nor grasp that times have changed. HRC, for all her munificently salaried campaign consultants, was unable to come up with a decent campaign slogan; I maintain that her *effective* campaign slogan was "MORE OF THE SAME!" and that didn't sell. It won't sell this year, and it won't sell next year, either.
My view -- and this is me -- is that the fundamental problem is that the media and talking heads try to force everything into a left-right axis. I don't think that axis truly represents my vies: liberal in some ways and libertarian in others. And I think it misses much of the basis for Trump's appeal. Parts of his base are racist, but others are people who simply feel they have been passed over and forgotten. Which brings us back to an exchange almost four years ago between Cat and me. Cat reacted to the media's description of Trump as "populist" by saying she thought a populist was someone like Bernie. My response was that, in their different ways, both The Donald and The Bern were populists, appealing to common people against a perceived elite. Which is exactly why I think Bernie is the candidate best positioned to beat Trump.
Ah, I appreciate your comment here, Bill. We all seem united in our wish that Bernie could be the candidate. Not sure it's going to happen, given the DLC, but it sure would feel right.
It looks like the Berkeley IGS Poll is the [worthy] successor to the Field Poll for California political polling. [Click]
ReplyDeleteGerman Chancellor Angela Markel has used the 75th anniversary of the most famous plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler to call on citizens to counter rising right-wing extremism.
ReplyDeleteMerkel marks Hitler assassination attempt with anti-extremism appeal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49056973
How Trump’s arch-hawk lured Britain into a dangerous trap to punish Iran [Click] “With the seizure of a supertanker off Gibraltar, distracted UK government was set up by John Bolton as collateral damage.” Shows how ineffective the UK government has become; does not augur well for relations with the EU.
ReplyDelete"Incompetent" might be a more accurate choice of word than "ineffective."
DeleteClass politics is rising in America. Trump hopes a culture war might stop it [Click] Makes some [IMO very] good points about the Democratic Party.
ReplyDelete"Every gun that was ever made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953.
ReplyDeleteFunny thing, that. Pres. Eisenhower was a soldier. Maybe he knew a little more about it than a draft dodger.
Delete=======================================
ReplyDelete=======================================
Warren Outpaces Biden to Build Iowa Ground Game [Click] Not really news, but interesting to see that Bloomberg and its readers are waking up to it.
==================================
Early contests by the numbers: Democratic delegate race tightens — CBS News Battleground Tracker [Click] I am skeptical about the interpretive portions of this report, because I see that they are out of kilter for California:
“Warren is doing well in diverse and affluent congressional districts along the coast. Harris' support in the state is less differentiated by demographics. She does pick up delegates in many places across the state, but is not the delegate leader in many individual districts.”
Looking at the map, Warren is doing well in non-diverse and decidedly non-affluent congressional districts along the north coast. Harris is leading in the State of Jefferson, [Click] which is downright weird—but political weirdness is typical in the Land of the Double Cross. Gloria la Riva [Click] did pretty well up there in 2016.
=====================================
The Border Patrol–to–Emergency Room Pipeline [Click]
Elizabeth Warren Has Momentum. Can She Build a Movement? [Click]
If the economy is so good, why are some truckers doing so poorly? [Click] Canary in the coal mine…
Speaking of canaries in coal mines: In Just the Past Year, German CO2 Emissions fell by 33%, as Gas Replaced Coal [Click] “The end for German Coal could come Sooner than anyone Expects”
DeleteThis video is dated, but makes good points about the economics of energy transition for the big energy companies. [Click]
When I posted the "EW has Momentum" column above, I had not read it through. Now I have, and I think highly of it.
DeleteA leader from this week's Economist
ReplyDeleteWhile you were tweeting: The White House ditches half a century of immigration law
America’s rules on asylum-seeking need to be updated, not erased
IT IS A familiar pattern. The president says something outrageous—this time Donald Trump told four black and brown-skinned Democratic congresswomen, all of whom are US citizens and three of whom were born in America, to “go back” where they came from. His supporters, who have come to accept what many of them previously found unconscionable, stay silent. His opponents, rightly appalled, lament what has happened to their country. At the same time the Trump administration makes a big policy change that attracts far less attention—in this case, an edict that directly affects tens of thousands of people a year and overturns half a century of precedent.
Last year 120,000 people claimed asylum, the majority of them at the south-western border. On July 15th the White House announced that claims will no longer be considered unless applicants can prove that they sought asylum in one of the countries they passed through on their way to America, and were rejected. There will be legal challenges to the new rule, because America is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and because the change may contravene America’s own Refugee Act of 1980. But in the meantime anyone who passes through Guatemala or Mexico on the way to the southern border without first seeking refuge there may be turned away.
Continued below
There is no kind way to enforce immigration law, which by its very existence must squash the dreams of some who wish to migrate. Plenty of asylum-seekers at America’s southern border are not fleeing persecution but crime and poverty. However, this is the wrong way to go about things, for reasons of principle and also of pragmatism.
DeleteFirst, principle. The idea that a refugee should be protected, regardless of which countries he might have traipsed through beforehand, is worth defending. It is already dying in Australia and Europe. The European Union outsources much of its asylum policy to Turkey and Libya, for example, or to member states on its fringes; thousands of people languish in crowded camps in Greece. But for America to abandon this norm sends an even more disturbing signal. The land of the free has a proud history of resettling refugees from far-off places, rehousing many more than any other country.
Second, pragmatism. Mr Trump has already used threats on trade to persuade Mexico to host more asylum applicants on its side of the border while they await news of their claims. Unable to build his oft-promised wall, his administration has tried to deter migrants by other means, including separating children from their parents at the border. Migration numbers are volatile, and tend to decline in the hot summer months, but so far none of these things has cut the numbers enough for Mr Trump. Clamping down even harder will not alter the incentives to leave El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, where most asylum-seekers come from, in search of a better life. It simply makes it more likely that migrants will rely on traffickers rather than the legal system to cross into America.
There is a better way. The first step would be to increase the number of judges, to clear the backlog of immigration cases. There are currently not far off a million cases pending; the waiting time to hear them can be as long as three years. Many asylum-seekers disappear into the grey labour market as they wait for their cases to be adjudicated, joining the ranks of America’s 10.5m unlawful migrants; the Department of Justice says almost half do not show up for court hearings. The next step would be to allow the immigration and citizenship service to decide asylum applications at the border. Finally, the federal government could provide more aid to improve conditions in Central America. When Mexico’s economy improved and the fertility rate fell, the number of Mexicans migrating north slowed to a trickle. A different president, with a more expansive view of American greatness, would enforce rules and change incentives, not abrogate rights. ■
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "While you were tweeting"
Print edition | Leaders
Jul 20th 2019
https://www.newsandguts.com/tim-wise-what-the-dems-are-doing-wrong-in-2020-campaign/
ReplyDeleteTwo bits from the article:
"Duke retained 94% of the folks he got the first time out (and got new people too), as Trump likely will. So forget these people–or at least don’t wast time tailoring messages to them. And policy plans for affordable college don’t mean shit to them, nor health care…
Their support for Trump was never about policy. It was about the bigotry, the fact that he hates who they hate…Second, as for the “undecideds,” not many of these but seriously? If you’re still undecided at this point about this guy, then there is almost no way to know what would get you to make up your mind. I doubt it’s a plan to deal with Wall Street though, or infrastructure, or tax policy."
"What the left never understands is: we need to stop approaching elections like the goddamned debate team, and start approaching it like the right does, like the cheerleading squad…"..."People who say the Dems should ignore Trump’s race baiting because its some genius political strategy calculated to distract us, are idiots. He is no genius. And if you downplay it you NORMALIZE him. If you make this about policy, you NORMALIZE him. He is a racist…
He is a white nationalist. He is an authoritarian. He and his cult are a threat to the future of the nation and world because of their hatreds. His movement betrays the country’s promise. THAT is the message that will drive turnout. Not debates over marginal tax rates, or how we are going to fund schools. And anyone who says we should ignore the race baiting to talk more about Mueller and Russia is an even bigger fool. "
I can buy that.
DeleteYes, the statements about Trump and his supporters are true, but I'm not so sure the conclusions are. Lately I've been seeing in intelligent, reliable sources the statement that the populus as a whole is far less left leaning than the left wing of the Democratic Party. I've even seen intimations that Biden may be the best bet to win a broad majority and defeat Trump. Why would thoughtful writers, as at The Economist and The New Yorker say these things unless they have a grain of truth? I'm not talking about Right Wing crack pots, sympathetic to Trump, but observant and thoughtful people who want to get rid of Trump as much as we do ourselves. It's disconcerting to realize that by such lights I, and indeed all of us here, might be considered Left Wing radicals. I have dismissed talk of Biden's front runner status as mainstream media blather. But what if it isn't? What if, not only is Biden truly the front runner, but he is the one candidate who can draw enough of the vote to defeat Trump? That idea rather shakes me. If it is true, though, then concentrating on Trump's evil and the harm his moral depravity is doing the country and the world won't win votes.
DeleteMy theory, for what it is worth, is that the writers are thoroughly conditioned to believe the basic New Democrat philosophy that the way to win elections is to be borderline Republicans rather than frank Democrats. That hasn't worked very well; the old jibe that "DLC" stands for "Democratic Losership Council" has more than a grain of truth to it IMO. They can neither perceive nor grasp that times have changed. HRC, for all her munificently salaried campaign consultants, was unable to come up with a decent campaign slogan; I maintain that her *effective* campaign slogan was "MORE OF THE SAME!" and that didn't sell. It won't sell this year, and it won't sell next year, either.
DeleteMy view -- and this is me -- is that the fundamental problem is that the media and talking heads try to force everything into a left-right axis. I don't think that axis truly represents my vies: liberal in some ways and libertarian in others. And I think it misses much of the basis for Trump's appeal. Parts of his base are racist, but others are people who simply feel they have been passed over and forgotten. Which brings us back to an exchange almost four years ago between Cat and me. Cat reacted to the media's description of Trump as "populist" by saying she thought a populist was someone like Bernie. My response was that, in their different ways, both The Donald and The Bern were populists, appealing to common people against a perceived elite. Which is exactly why I think Bernie is the candidate best positioned to beat Trump.
DeleteAh, I appreciate your comment here, Bill. We all seem united in our wish that Bernie could be the candidate. Not sure it's going to happen, given the DLC, but it sure would feel right.
DeleteArgh!! I just saw that there was no new post today yet! I’ll have one up by 7:00pm. And believe me, I can explain. Hang onto your hat and stay tuned.
ReplyDelete