Hi Claire - this was such a good analysis and one that unfortunately won't be seen as far and as wide as it needs to be. Posting here even though I know this thought/question should go on your other recent post about number reporting. I am now seeing more and more posts from friends and other orgs I follow on social media about the devastation and loss and Gaza and how it now exceeds anything in UKR - even Mariupol. After reading your numbers article I am wondering if all this is just being spread from one account to the next with no verification driving this conflict above and beyond anything else, causing distractions from other global situations. I hate discussing the loss of women and children in any conflict in such a mathematical context but I am truly afraid of the lack of support and coverage of Ukraine at this point in the war and the consequences that lie ahead should the US fail to support them. I have friends from Lithuania and Romania all with families and friends still living in their home countries and they know from their own history and personal experiences that Russia taking UKR will not be the end. Also did you see (you probably did since you have Global boots on the ground :) ) the arrest of several men in Berlin and Copenhagen on terrorism charges. The support for Hamas seems to be emboldening them but no one can see it. And I am one of the people who believes in safety and protection for Jews and Palestinians but the support for Hamas is beginning to wear that down. :( Thanks again for your excellent writing!
There's an alternate narrative in which it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are holding up a Ukraine aid package because that don't want to make concessions on border security. It's well explained here:
In the article, Senator John Fetterman, no MAGA hothead, is quoted as follows: “I hope Democrats can understand that it isn’t xenophobic to be concerned about the border. It’s a reasonable conversation, and Democrats should engage.”
And then there's Senator Mitt Romney, no MAGA favorite:
"[H]ere’s the position of my side and our side. And that is we have gone from 1,000-2,000 encounters—illegal encounters—at the border a day under the three prior presidents, under Bush, Obama, and Trump — 1,000-2,000 a day. Now we’re seeing 10,000 to 12,000 a day. As Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman said, we’re basically seeing Pittsburgh show up at the border every month, all right. We’re at a rate of incursions into the country of about four million a year. That’s larger than the population of 24 of our states. So, we want to solve that to secure the border. I just saw the President of the United States say that we’ve got to secure the border. He’s right. So, any effort that doesn’t do that will be rejected by Republicans. We want to get it back to the level that existed under the three prior presidents.”
Like it or not, the politics of aid to Ukraine and the politics of border security are linked. And though it may be argued that the former is a more important issue than the latter, that does not play politically in this country. So obviously some give-and-take is indicated. And nuts to David Frum, by the way. His argument that the Republicans are using the border security issue to cut off aid to Ukraine is b.s. That would only happen if the Biden Administration refused to compromise.
I would just add that unless the Biden Administration changes its basic policy, another aid package will be a waste of money. The reason the war has come to a stalemate is because those fools slow-walked military aid to Ukraine at a time when the Russians were on the back foot. Particularly stupid was the refusal to give Ukraine the wherewithal to seize or at least contest command of the air. That deficiency is in my opinion the main reason why Ukraine's summer counteroffensive failed to make major gains. I have little confidence that Biden & Co. have learned anything from that goof.
Republicans (and a majority of Americans) want controls on the southern border.
8MM (!!!) illegals have entered the country since Biden took office and the Dems show an incredible indifference to these events (similar to the indifference that liberals show towards the rape of Jewish women on 10/7).
Schumer's offer? Ask Manchin about the value of Schumer's promises. Remember Wimpy ("I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.")?
Yes, let's make a deal to fund Ukraine, but let's get something that the country also needs.
I was in Western Europe for a month ended in November. They aren't interested in stepping up.
Combination of:
(1) America wants to be boss - let them pay.
(2) We can't afford it.
(3) The Russians aren't so bad, we can make a deal.
So once again, the U.S. is looking to do what the Europeans are too feckless to do themselves.
Fine, but let's get what we need out of saving their asses (again).
Cynicism (awareness?) aside, we need to give the Ukrainians the ability to win.
I agree with the sentiment. Biden should take the border deal and get to Ukraine all the arms it needs, posthaste. Having said that I'm less sure of the author's grasp of US politics.
The Republican deal is a poison pill for manifold reasons. If the Democrats take the deal, they risk losing more of the Latino vote that was already trending Republican. That in addition to caving in a way that will embolden even more Republican hostage taking -- as they have already done throughout the tortuous debt ceiling negotiations.
Now that the Republicans only care about taking power by any means necessary, and neither care for the general welfare nor the national security, such caving is doubly dangerous. From the selfish Republican view of lust for power without regard to its effects on the country, this border provision is a grand slam.
If Biden takes the deal the Republicans can run on having "done something" for the border "crisis," and if he doesn't take it, Republicans will blame Biden unjustly for doing "nothing" on the border. Unjustly because Biden is genuinely interested in engaging the border issue, while the Republicans care only for border related demagoguery.
So, yes, take the deal with open eyes. It's just another chapter in the ongoing decline of America. But not taking it would be much, much worse.
Do you have a citation for your numbers? Can anyone REALLY track illegal activity, which by its nature exists to evade the authorities? Are your numbers net of migrants deported, based on the number arrestees, or do they come from some source like Alex Jones?
But more to the point. The immigrants who come to the southern border want to to work, they take jobs that most native born Americans do not. They are Christian, and they assimilate into the culture, unlike the Muslims who come to Europe. They support the American Experiment. Why the hysteria??
Furthermore, NO politician could really advance a real immigration reform proposal right now, since such a proposal would have to include legalization of hard drugs to stop the flow of money to the cartels and creates a situation where so many Mexicans and other Central Americans legitimately need asylum. America is not about to treat drugs the way Portugal or Switzerland do, and absent that, nothing will be fixed.
Most of the Muslims who come to Europe assimilate just fine. Problem is it only takes a small percentage of assholes to make a very bad name for yourself.
Tens of thousands of Muslim demonstrators on the streets of London, Paris and other European cities praising Hamas and celebrating the October 7th massacres in Israel suggest that its far more than a few bad apples that we need to worry about.
Claire, since you are based in Paris and know the situation on the ground. Are you telling me that in general the Muslims who come to Europe are (excluding said assholes) willing to buy in to/ support the liberal values of the European project? And is the support for people like Geert Wilders just a reaction to that asshole percentage, or is it based on something else entirely?
I’m not sure about even approximate numbers, but the total is obviously high and is overwhelming any attempt to provide the traditional refugee support services.
The immigration from Mexico had actually slowed despite increasing cartel violence. I would guess Mexico’s rising wealth and falling birth rates are the causes- even though the US remains much wealthier, their home country is comfortable enough that it isn’t worth the trouble to immigrate. To prevent mass immigration from Central America or the other places that send large numbers to the southern border, it would probably suffice for their economies to grow to middle-income status. The cartels generally don’t help this, but if Mexico can reduce the rate of emigration then Guatemala et al can as well. Legalizing hard drugs may not have been a disaster in Portugal, but the high and rising death rate from overdoses here makes me think it wouldn’t be a good idea to copy that.
I mostly agree with your characterization of the southern border immigrants as Christian, hard-working, and willing to assimilate, and I haven’t heard anything said against eg Venezuelans specifically in the way that some states refused Syrian refugees a few years ago. I would guess that “atheist/agnostic from historically Christian countries” is at least as common as Christian, and people from more nations are taking that route, but you’re right, either way doesn’t provoke fear. I’ve heard from a couple of Spanish-language professors that it’s hard to get their kids to learn Spanish here, and at least online it seems that many residents of Latin America don’t consider the children of immigrants to be Latin Americans, just Americans.
Good points re incomes in Mexico and Central American countries. Re Portugal, the WaPo has carried articles saying that the initial results of drug decriminalization were good, because in tandem with the decriminalization the country spent the necessary money on drug treatment programs and used social pressure to ensure that addicts actually got help. Then the treatment programs got cut to save money. Assuming the Post is right, that would be an important point regarding recent issues with Portuguese drug policy.
But I'd never suggest that the drug problem is simple.
Your apparent inability to back up your numbers is typical of ignorant conspiracy theorists. Your Trumpist conflation of immigrants with rapists is not only racist, it demeans actual rape victims.
What do you think you are doing in a forum of people who actually know something about foreign affairs? Other than trolling?
Incorrect. An assertion stated that lacks support (citation, quotation, etc) is nothing more than an opinion and definitely not dispositive fact. If you want to be taken seriously around here, back up your claims. Oh, and leave off the personal attacks. Your reliance on ad hominem attacks discredits no one but yourself.
Hi Claire - this was such a good analysis and one that unfortunately won't be seen as far and as wide as it needs to be. Posting here even though I know this thought/question should go on your other recent post about number reporting. I am now seeing more and more posts from friends and other orgs I follow on social media about the devastation and loss and Gaza and how it now exceeds anything in UKR - even Mariupol. After reading your numbers article I am wondering if all this is just being spread from one account to the next with no verification driving this conflict above and beyond anything else, causing distractions from other global situations. I hate discussing the loss of women and children in any conflict in such a mathematical context but I am truly afraid of the lack of support and coverage of Ukraine at this point in the war and the consequences that lie ahead should the US fail to support them. I have friends from Lithuania and Romania all with families and friends still living in their home countries and they know from their own history and personal experiences that Russia taking UKR will not be the end. Also did you see (you probably did since you have Global boots on the ground :) ) the arrest of several men in Berlin and Copenhagen on terrorism charges. The support for Hamas seems to be emboldening them but no one can see it. And I am one of the people who believes in safety and protection for Jews and Palestinians but the support for Hamas is beginning to wear that down. :( Thanks again for your excellent writing!
There's an alternate narrative in which it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are holding up a Ukraine aid package because that don't want to make concessions on border security. It's well explained here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/how-democrats-are-holding-up-a-ukraine-aid-deal/
In the article, Senator John Fetterman, no MAGA hothead, is quoted as follows: “I hope Democrats can understand that it isn’t xenophobic to be concerned about the border. It’s a reasonable conversation, and Democrats should engage.”
And then there's Senator Mitt Romney, no MAGA favorite:
"[H]ere’s the position of my side and our side. And that is we have gone from 1,000-2,000 encounters—illegal encounters—at the border a day under the three prior presidents, under Bush, Obama, and Trump — 1,000-2,000 a day. Now we’re seeing 10,000 to 12,000 a day. As Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman said, we’re basically seeing Pittsburgh show up at the border every month, all right. We’re at a rate of incursions into the country of about four million a year. That’s larger than the population of 24 of our states. So, we want to solve that to secure the border. I just saw the President of the United States say that we’ve got to secure the border. He’s right. So, any effort that doesn’t do that will be rejected by Republicans. We want to get it back to the level that existed under the three prior presidents.”
Like it or not, the politics of aid to Ukraine and the politics of border security are linked. And though it may be argued that the former is a more important issue than the latter, that does not play politically in this country. So obviously some give-and-take is indicated. And nuts to David Frum, by the way. His argument that the Republicans are using the border security issue to cut off aid to Ukraine is b.s. That would only happen if the Biden Administration refused to compromise.
I would just add that unless the Biden Administration changes its basic policy, another aid package will be a waste of money. The reason the war has come to a stalemate is because those fools slow-walked military aid to Ukraine at a time when the Russians were on the back foot. Particularly stupid was the refusal to give Ukraine the wherewithal to seize or at least contest command of the air. That deficiency is in my opinion the main reason why Ukraine's summer counteroffensive failed to make major gains. I have little confidence that Biden & Co. have learned anything from that goof.
It's called horse trading.
Republicans (and a majority of Americans) want controls on the southern border.
8MM (!!!) illegals have entered the country since Biden took office and the Dems show an incredible indifference to these events (similar to the indifference that liberals show towards the rape of Jewish women on 10/7).
Schumer's offer? Ask Manchin about the value of Schumer's promises. Remember Wimpy ("I will gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today.")?
Yes, let's make a deal to fund Ukraine, but let's get something that the country also needs.
I was in Western Europe for a month ended in November. They aren't interested in stepping up.
Combination of:
(1) America wants to be boss - let them pay.
(2) We can't afford it.
(3) The Russians aren't so bad, we can make a deal.
So once again, the U.S. is looking to do what the Europeans are too feckless to do themselves.
Fine, but let's get what we need out of saving their asses (again).
Cynicism (awareness?) aside, we need to give the Ukrainians the ability to win.
I agree with the sentiment. Biden should take the border deal and get to Ukraine all the arms it needs, posthaste. Having said that I'm less sure of the author's grasp of US politics.
The Republican deal is a poison pill for manifold reasons. If the Democrats take the deal, they risk losing more of the Latino vote that was already trending Republican. That in addition to caving in a way that will embolden even more Republican hostage taking -- as they have already done throughout the tortuous debt ceiling negotiations.
Now that the Republicans only care about taking power by any means necessary, and neither care for the general welfare nor the national security, such caving is doubly dangerous. From the selfish Republican view of lust for power without regard to its effects on the country, this border provision is a grand slam.
If Biden takes the deal the Republicans can run on having "done something" for the border "crisis," and if he doesn't take it, Republicans will blame Biden unjustly for doing "nothing" on the border. Unjustly because Biden is genuinely interested in engaging the border issue, while the Republicans care only for border related demagoguery.
So, yes, take the deal with open eyes. It's just another chapter in the ongoing decline of America. But not taking it would be much, much worse.
8MM illegals since Biden took office.
You are remarkably sanguine about the "crisis" (as you describe it.
Do you have a citation for your numbers? Can anyone REALLY track illegal activity, which by its nature exists to evade the authorities? Are your numbers net of migrants deported, based on the number arrestees, or do they come from some source like Alex Jones?
But more to the point. The immigrants who come to the southern border want to to work, they take jobs that most native born Americans do not. They are Christian, and they assimilate into the culture, unlike the Muslims who come to Europe. They support the American Experiment. Why the hysteria??
Furthermore, NO politician could really advance a real immigration reform proposal right now, since such a proposal would have to include legalization of hard drugs to stop the flow of money to the cartels and creates a situation where so many Mexicans and other Central Americans legitimately need asylum. America is not about to treat drugs the way Portugal or Switzerland do, and absent that, nothing will be fixed.
Most of the Muslims who come to Europe assimilate just fine. Problem is it only takes a small percentage of assholes to make a very bad name for yourself.
Tens of thousands of Muslim demonstrators on the streets of London, Paris and other European cities praising Hamas and celebrating the October 7th massacres in Israel suggest that its far more than a few bad apples that we need to worry about.
Claire, since you are based in Paris and know the situation on the ground. Are you telling me that in general the Muslims who come to Europe are (excluding said assholes) willing to buy in to/ support the liberal values of the European project? And is the support for people like Geert Wilders just a reaction to that asshole percentage, or is it based on something else entirely?
I’m not sure about even approximate numbers, but the total is obviously high and is overwhelming any attempt to provide the traditional refugee support services.
The immigration from Mexico had actually slowed despite increasing cartel violence. I would guess Mexico’s rising wealth and falling birth rates are the causes- even though the US remains much wealthier, their home country is comfortable enough that it isn’t worth the trouble to immigrate. To prevent mass immigration from Central America or the other places that send large numbers to the southern border, it would probably suffice for their economies to grow to middle-income status. The cartels generally don’t help this, but if Mexico can reduce the rate of emigration then Guatemala et al can as well. Legalizing hard drugs may not have been a disaster in Portugal, but the high and rising death rate from overdoses here makes me think it wouldn’t be a good idea to copy that.
I mostly agree with your characterization of the southern border immigrants as Christian, hard-working, and willing to assimilate, and I haven’t heard anything said against eg Venezuelans specifically in the way that some states refused Syrian refugees a few years ago. I would guess that “atheist/agnostic from historically Christian countries” is at least as common as Christian, and people from more nations are taking that route, but you’re right, either way doesn’t provoke fear. I’ve heard from a couple of Spanish-language professors that it’s hard to get their kids to learn Spanish here, and at least online it seems that many residents of Latin America don’t consider the children of immigrants to be Latin Americans, just Americans.
Good points re incomes in Mexico and Central American countries. Re Portugal, the WaPo has carried articles saying that the initial results of drug decriminalization were good, because in tandem with the decriminalization the country spent the necessary money on drug treatment programs and used social pressure to ensure that addicts actually got help. Then the treatment programs got cut to save money. Assuming the Post is right, that would be an important point regarding recent issues with Portuguese drug policy.
But I'd never suggest that the drug problem is simple.
Your question is like asking how deep the rapist penetrated.
The issue is the rape, not how deep.
Typical of lefty morality.
Your apparent inability to back up your numbers is typical of ignorant conspiracy theorists. Your Trumpist conflation of immigrants with rapists is not only racist, it demeans actual rape victims.
What do you think you are doing in a forum of people who actually know something about foreign affairs? Other than trolling?
Suntrader:
You questioned my numbers.
Up to you to disprove them.
Typical of you lazy buggers to demand that other people do your work.
And the immediate default of the lazy leftist - accuse your opponent of being racist.
"Up to you to disprove them."
Incorrect. An assertion stated that lacks support (citation, quotation, etc) is nothing more than an opinion and definitely not dispositive fact. If you want to be taken seriously around here, back up your claims. Oh, and leave off the personal attacks. Your reliance on ad hominem attacks discredits no one but yourself.