Oh, Ukraine!

​

Let's be clear: Europe and the U. S. have conceded Ukraine to Russia. All the rhetoric and all the "We stand with you" cannot erase this fact. Biden made this explicit: U. S. troops will not engage Russia. And why? Apparently, Biden judges that any direct engagement would risk World War 3, and this must be avoided.

 

If we abandon Ukraine, with over 40 million people, what about Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary...? These supposedly are protected by NATO's mutual defense guarantee, but if we will not fight for Ukraine, why would we fight for other, smaller countries? Especially if fighting would risk World War 3?

 

The extreme sanctions on Russia are well-justified, but when have sanctions changed a country's behavior? Not in North Korea. Not in Iran. Not in Cuba. Not in Venezuela (where, incidentally, the U. S. goal also is regime change).

 

Dictators will not stop unless the military and political costs become unbearable. Instead of the U. S. fearing a confrontation with Russia, it is Russia which should fear a confrontation with the U. S.

 

Mutually assured destruction has kept the wider peace since the 1950's. Unless Putin has gone mad, the bottom line is that he will not unleash nuclear war. And if he has gone mad, we face Armageddon anyway.

 

There are no good options, but I believe it is imperative that we defend Ukraine.

 

In descending order of preference:

 

Option 1. The U. N. ignores Russia's veto and sends in a peace-keeping force.

 

Question: Why should the five "victors" from World War II have permanent seats on the Security Council? Why should these five have the ability to veto global security issues, even when they, themselves, violate international law? (See my blog on reforming the U. N.)

 

Option 2. A coalition of countries forms an independent peace-keeping force to intervene in Ukraine.

 

Option 3. U. S. Air power is used to blunt the Russian military, giving the Ukrainian military the support it needs to push Russia out.

 

Option 4. The U. S. and Ukraine sign a mutual defense pact, and the U. S. intervenes.

 

Option 5. We continue the current path and Putin recreates the Russian Empire (if he actually stops there).

 

The slow build-up of Russian troops gave Putin time to gauge the Western response. Once we refused to defend Ukraine, he moved in, with a brutality not seen on such a scale for many years. Putin has exposed the U. S. and Europe as callous, cruel and cowardly.

 

Yes, we have no treaty obligations to Ukraine. But defending Ukraine is both the moral and the practical thing to do. What has happened to the home of the brave, the beacon of hope to the world? Have we truly lost our courage?

 

Unless we support Ukraine, all our pious proclamations will be empty. The final scene will have us standing at the border, tears in our eyes, waving goodbye as 40 million Ukrainians disappear behind the new Iron Curtain.

 

And Ukraine will not be the last victim...

Tuesday, 15 March 2022

 

Immigration?

 

The Biden administration is loosening or reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous administration. As this process takes hold, however, questions will arise over whether we will have open borders, encouraging a flood of migrants into the country, or whether we will have a well-defined and well-controlled process to sort out refugee claims. The balance between generosity and limits will continue to be a major political issue. My view is that unless we balance generosity for undocumented immigrants already here, with stricter limits for new illegal immigrants, much of immigration reform will be lost.

 

Let’s begin with the definition. A review article by the American Immigration Council notes that “Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or arriving at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.” (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states)

 

The long history of immigration law and policy indicates that at the time, this definition assumed that persecution would be governmental, and that relatively small numbers would qualify for asylum.

 

But the world has changed much in the last 50 or 60 years. American wars and interventions have generated hundreds of thousands of refugees in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, for example. Should the U.S. take responsibility for resettling all of these refugees, or should it share that responsibility with others? To date, we have been relatively restrictive, even for those who directly assisted our troops. Translators and local fighters risked their lives to assist the U.S. Many have been left behind to face the consequences alone. How many admitted to the U.S. would be enough, both practically and morally?

 

Terrorism also has changed the equation. These non-state entities definitely have persecuted civilians, generally on the basis of religion. Should refugees from these areas be admitted to the U.S.? Even if the U.S. has not been a major actor in their countries?

 

In some of Latin America, drug lords and local gangs certainly threaten civilians. It is questionable, however, whether their situation meets the international definition of persecution. If fear for their lives merits asylum in the U.S., millions would be eligible. Our policies need to make it clear that non-governmental persecution does not qualify for asylum.

 

At the same time, our policies need to substantially increase aid to Latin America, to protect and improve the lives of these millions. Our aid should target infrastructure, education, and health care (including clean water, sanitation, food security, electricity, and internet, for example).

 

Similarly, around the world are many “failed states,” in which poverty is unimaginably crushing for millions of people. In the 19th century, when our population was much smaller, seeking a better life economically was an acceptable reason for immigration. Now, this is not an acceptable reason, and it is doubtful that the majority here would support an open door for economic migrants. Again, while closing the door to economic asylum, we must open the door for much greater foreign aid to fight poverty around the world, as noted above.

 

In the longer run, climate change is likely to produce hundreds of millions of climate refugees around the world. As one of the largest contributors to climate change, what will be our responsibility to these refugees? This, too, will have to be sorted out in our policies.

 

We have two immigration systems, one for legal immigration, allowed for many reasons, and one for refugees seeking asylum. In recent years, we have admitted smaller and smaller numbers in both systems. Perhaps it is time to consider up to 500,000 legal immigrants a year, and up to 200,000 asylum seekers a year? We can be more generous to legal immigrants, while tightening the rules for illegal immigrants.

 

Many questions. This review is intended to provoke a healthy debate, and encourage clear decisions.

 

Sunday, 14 Feb 2020