Mediaboss Marketing

National Review

Editors Note: Below is an expanded version of a piece we have published in the current issue of National Review. Every now and then, East Africa breaks into world consciousness. It happened in the mid 1980s, when Ethiopia underwent a terrible famine. Teams of pop stars made two hit charity singles: We Are the World and Do They Know Its Christmas? The world again turned to East Africa in the mid 2000s, when the Sudanese dictatorship committed genocide against people in Darfur, a region in the west of the country. (That genocide has not quite ended.) Today, Ethiopia is again in the news, for war in Tigray, a region in the countrys north. What is happening there is worse than war, if such a thing is possible: Tigray is a theater for war crimes and crimes against humanity. To make it all the more interesting if that is the word Ethiopias head of state is the 2019 Nobel peace laureate: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Ethiopia is a challenge to govern, no doubt. With 112 million people, it is the second-most populous country in Africa, after Nigeria. There are more than 80 ethnic groups, and as many languages. Abiy Ahmed speaks the handful of major languages in the country. In many ways, he would seem unusually well suited to national leadership. Born in 1976, he is the son of a Muslim and a Christian. Both of his parents now deceased were of the Oromo people. His father, a farmer, spoke only Oromo; his mother spoke both Oromo and Amharic. Abiy himself married an Amhara woman. He is a Pentecostal Christian, said to be devout. When a teenager, he fought against the regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam, known as the Stalin of East Africa. Later, in the Ethiopian military, he fought in the EritreanEthiopian War. He served as a U.N. peacekeeper in Rwanda, after the genocide in that country. Abiy was educated extensively in Addis Ababa and London. He rose in the military, and intelligence, and business. In 2010, he was elected to parliament. After Mengistu was toppled in 1991, Ethiopia was ruled by a coalition called the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). It was composed of four parties, based on ethnicity. The dominant party was Tigrayan: the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF). A Tigrayan, Meles Zenawi, was boss of the country from 1991 until his death in 2012. Though Tigray has just 6 percent of the Ethiopian population, it long had outsize influence in national affairs. In 2018, after mass popular protests, particularly in the Oromo and Amhara regions, the coalition elected Abiy Ahmed to serve as prime minister. He quickly established himself as a new kind of leader. It is high time for us to learn from our past mistakes, he said, and to make up for all the wrongs that have been done. He apologized for the brutality and corruption of the EPRDF. Indeed, he established a new party the Prosperity Party to replace the old coalition. Three of the four parties of the EPRDF joined Prosperity; so did a slew of lesser parties. The Tigrayans the TPLF declined to join. Abiy released and pardoned thousands of political prisoners. Many had been labeled terrorists simply for opposing the government. He dismissed officials who had been thought untouchable. He invited exiled media outlets to return to the country. Whats more, he at last ended the EritreanEthiopian War. Formally speaking, the war lasted from 1998 to 2000. The two sides signed a peace agreement in December 2000. One of the things they agreed to was that an international commission would decide the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia. When the commission drew its boundary, it placed the town of Badme on the Eritrean side. At this, Ethiopia the EPRDF balked. The Ethiopians had control of Badme, and they would not let it go. Badme was important. In fact, another name for the EritreanEthiopian War is the War of Badme. For 18 years, there existed a condition between the two countries known as no peace, no war. Then Abiy agreed to hand over Badme. He and his Eritrean counterpart signed a joint declaration, officially ending the war, once and for all. They restored full diplomatic relations between their countries. And they threw open the border. Families, long split by the conflict, were joyously reunited. Nor was Abiy through with his peace efforts. There are various conflicts in the Horn of Africa: between Eritrea and Djibouti; between Somalia and Kenya; etc. Abiy Ahmed offered his services, usefully. Given all of the above especially a resolution to the EritreanEthiopian War it was no surprise that the Norwegian Nobel Committee made Abiy its laureate in 2019. In a press release, the committee said it was doing so with the provisions of Alfred Nobels will firmly in mind. What did they mean by those words? Though few know it, Alfred Nobel directed that his prizes all of them, not just the peace prize go to work done during the preceding year. The Nobel prizes are not supposed to be lifetime-achievement awards. They are to reward and encourage people relatively early in their labors. Sometimes, Nobel committees have abided by the will, sometimes often not. The principal criterion for the peace prize, by the way, is fraternity between nations. In announcing its selection of Abiy, the Norwegian committee issued a caveat: No doubt some people will think this years prize is being awarded too early. The Norwegian Nobel Committee believes it is now that Abiy Ahmeds efforts deserve recognition and need encouragement. A university student in Addis Ababa, Tsege Afrassa, was quoted in the New York Times: It is great that he won the prize when I think of what it means for the country. She added, But he has a lot more to do to restore full peace in the country. The prize brings more responsibility with it. That is a common sentiment, when it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize. At the ceremony on December 10, 2019, Abiy Ahmed gave one of the most beautiful, poetic, and moving speeches in Nobel history. (I have read them all.) Here is a taste a passage on the hell of war, an old theme, and one that will ever recur: War is the epitome of hell for all involved. I know because I have been there and back. I have seen brothers slaughtering brothers on the battlefield. I have seen older men, women, and children trembling in terror under the deadly shower of bullets and artillery shells. You see, I was not only a combatant in war. I was also a witness to its cruelty and what it can do to people. War makes for bitter men. Heartless and savage men. Then, Abiy told a story: Twenty years ago, I was a radio operator attached to an Ethiopian army unit in the border town of Badme. The town was the flashpoint of the war between the two countries. I briefly left the foxhole in the hopes of getting a good antenna reception. It took only but a few minutes. Yet, upon my return, I was horrified to discover that my entire unit had been wiped out in an artillery attack. I still remember my young comrades-in-arms who died on that ill-fated day. I think of their families too. Three months after the Nobel prize ceremony, the pandemic set in. A general election scheduled for August, Abiy Ahmed postponed till the middle of 2021. Up in Tigray, the TPLF was furious. The Tigrayans thought Abiy was acting dictatorially. In defiance of Addis Ababa, the TPLF held regional elections in September. In retaliation, Abiy redirected federal funds from the TPLF the regional leadership to local governments. Tensions between the TPLF and the federal government were boiling. This was a contest of wills. Be aware that the TPLF is armed. That is, they have some 250,000 men under arms, while the federal government has some 350,000. The terrible moment came on November 4 the moment that an American might think of as the Fort Sumter moment. As near as can be determined, TPLF forces attacked the headquarters of the federal governments Northern Command. Abiy Ahmed then swept the Ethiopian National Defense Force into Tigray. He and his government have referred to the war in euphemisms: law-enforcement operations; rule-of-law operations. Talk about the epitome of hell: This war has been a shocking spasm of bombings, massacres, and rape. I will spare the details, except for a few. In the second week of November, Tigrayan forces committed a massacre in the town of Mai Kadra. Chief among the victims were migrant workers from Amhara. The killers hacked their victims hundreds of them to death. In late November, Ethiopian and Eritrean forces working together shelled the town of Aksum. This was apparently indiscriminate shelling, killing unarmed civilians. Then, Eritrean forces massacred hundreds of Tigrayans within Aksum. Rape has long been a weapon of war in Sudan, the Balkans, Burma, and any number of other places. Rape in Tigray is on a mass, horrific scale. On January 21, a U.N. official, Pramila Patten, issued a statement. She is the U.N. special representative on the subject of sexual violence in conflict. I will quote just the first two sentences of her statement: I am greatly concerned by serious allegations of sexual violence in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, including a high number of alleged rapes in the capital, Mekelle. There are also disturbing reports of individuals allegedly forced to rape members of their own family, under threats of imminent violence. Who is responsible for the hell in Tigray? The prime minister, the Nobel peace laureate? The assignment of blame would take many pages of analysis. Suffice it to say, Abiy Ahmed is to blame for a lot, including the cut-off of communication between Tigray and the outside world, and the delay of humanitarian aid desperately needed to the region. Many are calling for the revocation of Abiys Nobel Peace Prize. As it happens, the Nobel Peace Prize is neither revokable nor returnable. I will offer a page or two on Nobel history. There was never a time when the Nobel Peace Prize was uncontroversial. The first award ever given in 1901, when the committee divided the prize between Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, and Frdric Passy, a veteran peace campaigner was very controversial. Almost no Nobel selection meets with universal acclaim. This includes the 1979 prize to Mother Teresa. The most controversial Nobel prize ever awarded in any field was the peace prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, in 1973. They received the prize for the Paris Agreement, which they had negotiated. It was signed in January 1973. The Paris Agreement was a ceasefire in the Vietnam War. The Nobel committee hoped that the parties would feel a moral responsibility to abide by the agreement and, ultimately, end the war. North Vietnam, of course, shot the agreement to hell. In 1975, after the fall of Saigon, Kissinger tried to return his share of the prize. He said he felt honor-bound to do so, given the fate of Vietnam. The committee explained that Nobel prizes are not returnable. They further reminded Kissinger that he had been honored for certain work. Events in Vietnam, they said, did not negate his sincere efforts to get a ceasefire agreement put into force in 1973. One way to put this is: A Nobel prize is not conditional. In 1950, the committee honored Ralph Bunche, the American diplomat working for the United Nations. The year before, on the isle of Rhodes, he had negotiated a series of armistice agreements between the new state of Israel and four of its enemies. Those enemies, of course, blew the agreements to hell. While we are on the ArabIsraeli conflict: The award to Egypts Anwar Sadat and Israels Menachem Begin was given in 1978, for the Camp David Accords. Those were preliminary accords, not a peace treaty. The treaty was not consummated until March 1979. But the Nobel committee wanted to put the parties on the hook, so to speak. Sadat did not attend the ceremony in December 1978. His stated reason: A final treaty had yet to be negotiated. The real reason, almost certainly: The Arab world was already inflamed at him, for his peacemaking with Israel; a personal appearance in Oslo, with Begin, would have fanned the flames. Two and a half years after the peace treaty was signed, Sadat was assassinated. As was Yitzhak Rabin, in 1995, less than a year after he received the prize. The Israeli prime minister received it along with the foreign minister, Shimon Peres, and the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. The three were awarded for the Oslo Accords, which had their origin in the Nobel committees hometown. The committee wanted to hold the parties to the accords. Arafat was not to be held. The peace prize to Barack Obama, the American president, in 2009 was very controversialand not just among his critics at home. Many people, including past honorees, decried the award, especially when, less than two weeks before the Nobel ceremony, the president announced a surge of 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. In recent years, many people have wanted the Nobel prize of Aung San Suu Kyi revoked. She won it in 1991. By 2016, she was the leader or the civilian leader, sharing power uneasily with the military of her country, Burma. She seemed shockingly indifferent to the genocide of the Rohingya people. But did she deserve her prize in 1991? Few have deserved the prize more. Today, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has egg on its face. Aung San Suu Kyi aside, the committees 2019 laureate is presiding over this murderous, monstrous mayhem in Tigray. But the 2019 award made sense, on Nobel terms. Classically, a committee asks itself, Who has done the most or best work for fraternity between nations during the preceding year? The hell in Tigray may go on and on. It may spread, making Ethiopia a failed state. The leader of the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front, Debretsion Gebremichael, speaks in clear separatist and secessionist terms: Give in? You have to understand, we will continue fighting as long as they are in our land. Ethiopia is complicated, but I have advice for any Ethiopia-watchers, or watchers in general. It is not my advice, but the advice that Elie Kedourie, the great British historian, born and raised in Baghdad, gave to David Pryce-Jones: Keep your eye on the corpses.

Continued here:
Legal US immigrants call new immigration reform bills a 'slap in the face' - Yahoo News

Demonstrators hold illuminated signs during a rally supporting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), or the Dream Act, outside the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., Jan. 18, 2018.

Zach Gibson | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Democrats in the House of Representatives are expected to move forward this week with their first effort at immigration reform during the current Congress, taking a stab at addressing a problem that has vexed lawmakers for years.

The House will consider two bills, each of which addresses a portion of the sweeping immigration reform proposed in the White House-backed legislation introduced in February. That package seems doomed in the Senate, where it would require 10 votes from Republicans. GOP lawmakers have panned the bill as "blanket amnesty."

The push comes as President Joe Biden's administration is wrestling with a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border with Mexico. The influx has led to record numbers of children being held in the government's detention facilities in a situation reminiscent of the 2019 crisis faced by former President Donald Trump.

While Trump declared an emergency at the time, the Biden administration has declined to do so, and has shied away from saying there is a "crisis." The administration ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help shelter and transfer the children over the weekend.

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Democrats, who have a narrow majority in the House and hold a tenuous grasp on the evenly divided Senate, are hoping that a piecemeal approach to immigration is able to attract more bipartisan support. It's not yet clear, though, whether Republicans will get behind the effort.

One bill, the American Dream and Promise Act, would create a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants known as "Dreamers." Another, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, would establish a path to legal status for immigrant agricultural workers.

The development on the border, which Republicans have seized on as an illustration of the Biden administration's ineptitude when it comes to immigration, has appeared to dim prospects for a bipartisan agreement on the issue in the near term. On Monday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a key supporter of the Senate's version of the Dream Act, said that a cross-party deal was unlikely to happen "until you stop the flow."

The House's Dream Act would create a path to citizenship for about 2.5 million people, according to its authors. More than 4.4 million would be eligible for legal permanent residence in the U.S., according to an analysis from the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.

The Dream Act would apply to immigrants protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program implemented by former President Barack Obama who meet certain work or education requirements. The bill would also provide a path to citizenship for those in the country with Temporary Protected Status, a type of humanitarian designation for immigrants from countries in crisis.

The public broadly supports providing a path to citizenship for immigrants brought to the country unlawfully as children. A June survey by the Pew Research Center found that nearly three-quarters of Americans supported such a measure.

The Dream Act does not go as far as Biden's comprehensive plan, which would create a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Some activist groups, including Human Rights Watch, have criticized it for including provisions limiting benefits for those convicted of certain offenses as children. A Senate version of the bill, authored by Graham and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., lacks those provisions.

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act provides for some agricultural workers in the country illegally to receive a temporary legal status if they've worked at least 180 days in the last two years.

Workers are also eligible under the bill to receive green cards if they pay a fine and work between four and eight additional years in agriculture, depending on how long they had already been employed in the industry. The bill would also modernize the H-2A temporary agricultural worker program.

It is possible that an ongoing challenge to the legality of the DACA program could dramatically shift the contours and urgency of the immigration debate. A federal judge in Houston is currently weighing a suit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who has pledged to tangle with the Biden administration in court.

In June, the Supreme Court rejected a Trump administration effort to rescind the DACA program, which shielded about 700,000 people from deportation at the time. The court ruled that the administration didn't follow the appropriate protocol in terminating DACA, though it didn't weigh in on the legality of the program in the first place.

Paxton's suit, arguing that Obama exceeded his executive authority, is before District Judge Andrew Hanen, a conservative George W. Bush appointee whom advocates have warned is likely to declare the program unlawful. Any decision would likely be appealed, though a 6-3 majority of Republican appointees on the Supreme Court provides little grounds for optimism among DACA's supporters.

The Biden administration has already dealt with early legal setbacks in enacting its immigration agenda. A federal judge temporarily blocked the president's effort to pause most deportations for 100 days within a week of his inauguration, and extended the order in February.

Subscribe to CNBC Pro for the TV livestream, deep insights and analysison how to invest during the next presidential term.

Originally posted here:
What to know about the House immigration bills being voted on this week - CNBC

Editors Note: Weekly Shift is a weekly version of POLITICO Pros daily Employment & Immigration policy newsletter, Morning Shift. POLITICO Pro is a policy intelligence platform that combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the days biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro.

A sudden increase in migrants at the southern border has given Republicans a new reason to hold up immigration reform in the Senate. Even bipartisan measures like the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, H.R. 1603, which would create a path to citizenship for thousands of noncitizen farmworkers and broadly expand the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visa program, seems destined to languish in the closely divided chamber.

There is no pathway for anything right now, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last week, the New York Times reports.

A GLIMMER OF HOPE? The Farm Workforce bill did draw 30 House GOP votes far more than the Dream and Promise Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 2 million undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) subsequently announced they will introduce a companion to the workforce bill, and several additional Senate Republicans mentioned it as a possible priority, our Burgess Everett reports. When it comes to timing, Bennets office told MS, the companion legislation will be introduced soon whenever that is.

RECONCILIATION ROUND 2? With most items on their agenda hobbled by the Senate filibuster, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is hoping Democratic leaders will use the same arcane budget process that let the party bypass GOP votes for its pandemic aid package to advance immigration bills, our Sarah Ferris reports.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer havent formally decided to use the budgetary tool known as reconciliation for Bidens next major priority, an infrastructure and jobs plan, according to Sarah. But given the Senate GOPs continued reluctance, many senior Democrats in both chambers believe it will be the ultimate path, she adds.

Hispanic Caucus chair Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) told his colleagues on a call last week that Biden's comprehensive immigration plan should be included in the infrastructure bill, given that neither are likely to pass the Senate without the aid of the reconciliation process.

But senior Democrats acknowledge that substantial immigration legislation would be difficult if not impossible to get past the Senate parliamentarian, the chambers nonpartisan rules referee. (The same issue doomed Democrats push to raise the minimum wage to $15 in the latest pandemic package.)

GOOD MORNING. Its Monday, March 22, and this is Morning Shift, your tipsheet on employment and immigration news. Send tips, exclusives and suggestions to [emailprotected] and [emailprotected]. Follow us on Twitter at @Eleanor_Mueller and @RebeccaARainey.

A message from the Start Us Up coalition:

Our nation is at a crossroads not experienced in generations. American policymakers are confronting dual pandemics: COVID-19 and growing economic inequality combined with racial injustice. The last 12 months have shown just how interconnected the two are. Updated for 2021, America's New Business Plan is a bipartisan policy roadmap to help policymakers strengthen access to entrepreneurship, create jobs and build an economy that works for all Americans.Download Americas New Business Plan.

WALSH CONFIRMATION VOTE TODAY: The Senate this evening is expected to confirm Boston Mayor Marty Walsh to serve as Secretary of Labor. The vote is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. A DOL spokesperson said while timing on his swearing in is still in flux, Walsh is planning to hit the ground running.

SUPREME COURT

SCOTUS TO HEAR UNION FARM ACCESS CASE: The high court today will hear oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case weighing whether a California state law that allows unions to access agricultural worksites to speak to workers about organizing violates the Fifth Amendment.

Two companies are challenging the state law, arguing union organizers right to visit their land amounts to the government seizing private property without compensation. But the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board has countered that the law serves a critical purpose by allowing unions face-to-face contact with farmworkers a necessary means of informing this increasingly vulnerable community of their right to collectively organize. The case eventually made its way to the 9th Circuit, which upheld the state right-to-access law.

IMPACT: State and local governments have warned SCOTUS that under the growers approach, governments at all levels would face the prospect of having to pay private property owners whenever public officials need to enter the land for example, to conduct health and safety inspections, such as home visits by social workers or to inspect coal mines, railroads or drug manufacturers, writes Amy Howe for SCOTUSBlog.

MORE: A farmers feud with workers union leads to high-stakes Supreme Court showdown, from The Washington Post

BORDER DISPATCH: Local officials and community leaders at the border insist its way past time for leaders in Washington to come up with long-term solutions that will help create better conditions in the migrants home countries and allow those that still want to come to the U.S. to enter via a smooth and fair process, our Sabrina Rodriguez reports from Brownsville, Texas.

Thousands of parents, most of them hailing from Central America and Mexico, are making the trip north, she writes, with the number expected to increase in March and the coming months. But so far, their reception at the border is often contradictory and confusing, Sabrina explains, partly because the U.S. governments capacity to handle the influx of migrants is limited and partly because Mexico isnt always willing or able to receive them.

Washington to blame? Bidens critics say his messaging is squarely to blame for the thousands of migrant parents coming to the U.S. from Central America and Mexico, she writes. But more than half a dozen asylum-seekers interviewed by POLITICO said they would make the trek regardless of who was in the White House. Some of their reasons: lack of job opportunities, concern for the safety of their family and devastation from last years back-to-back hurricanes that walloped parts of Central America.

The crisis is in Washington because its the third administration that cant solve it, said Jim Darling, mayor of McAllen, Texas, a small city 60 miles west of Brownsville. The only thing that could stop families is legislation and actually doing the work to help Central America and thats not happening.

MORE: Biden DHS chief says 'border is closed' but U.S. won't expel children, from our Zach Warmbrodt

AND: No end in sight: Inside the Biden administrations failure to contain the border surge, from The Washington Post

PROGRESSIVES CRANK UP PRESSURE FOR PUSH DEMOCRATS ON THE MINIMUM WAGE HIKE: California Rep. Ro Khanna and other Democratic lawmakers joined AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, SEIU President Mary Kay Henry, Poor People's Campaign co-chair Rev. William J. Barber on a call last week to plot a path forward on raising the federal minimum wage.

What is not negotiable is that we need to have a $15 minimum wage by the end of this year, Khanna said on Friday.

Khanna outlined three potential avenues to pass the wage boost, including making sure the provision can be ruled admissible in the next reconciliation bill, attaching the measure to must-pass legislation or getting rid of the filibuster and simply a wage hike bill with a simple majority.

On that last point: President Joe Biden signaled he was open to filibuster reform last week. More on that here.

DIVERSITY DISCLOSURES: An adviser to the top U.S. securities regulator said on Friday his subcommittee will likely recommend new disclosures about diversity from registered investment advisers and other steps to improve minority representation in finance, Ross Kerber reports for Reuters. Its the latest effort to shed more light on the small role held by women and ethnic minorities in the money management industry, although they could also show the obstacles regulators face in taking on social issues.

REFRESHER: SEC acting Chair Lee proposes mandating asset manager disclosures on diversity, from our Kellie Mejdrich

To Attract Black Employees, Companies Move to Them, from The Wall Street Journal

Republican AGs take blowtorch to Biden agenda, from POLITICO

Trumps Mar-a-Lago Club partially closed after staff infected with coronavirus, from The Washington Post

Current staffer publicly accuses Cuomo of sexual harassment, from POLITICO

There Is No Rung on the Ladder That Protects You From Hate, from The New York Times

How to Manage the New Hybrid Workplace, from The Wall Street Journal

Venezuelans, Burmese among more than 600,000 immigrants eligible for Temporary Protected Status in U.S., from Pew Research Center

A Fed With No Fear of Inflation Should Scare Investors, from The Wall Street Journal

THATS ALL FOR MORNING SHIFT!

A message from the Start Us Up coalition:

Our nation is at a crossroads not experienced in generations.

Will we continue to confer privilege on some while excluding many others, or will we finally dismantle systemic racism?

Will we allow barriers to sustainable growth and prosperity to endure for Americans based solely on who they are and where they live? Or will we expand access in equitable ways that results in an economy that works for everyone?

Will we accept a winner-take-all economy in which the biggest businesses generate wealth for a few, or will we reorder the economy so that many independent small businesses can compete and thrive?

Supported by over 200 organizations, America's New Business Plan gives policymakers a bipartisan roadmap to building a stronger, more equitable economy. Learn more and download the plan today.

See original here:
Senate GOP slams brakes on immigration reform - Politico

Today we're taking a look at a recent op-ed from Politico, penned by Russian studies scholar Leon Aron of AEI.

And the title asks a provocative question, "Could Putin launch another invasion?" Aron links the current political moment in Russia, big protests, struggling economy, and Putin's own thirst for power and popularity, with the factors that led to Russia's incursion into Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. He lays out the possibility that Russia could make military moves yet again, potentially against Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, the three Baltic states that all happen to be members of both the European Union and NATO.

Some context: This has been quite a week for US/Russia relations. President Biden in an interview with ABC News agreed with an assertion that Vladimir Putin is a "killer," I think he called him "soulless," too. And Russia responded by recalling their ambassador to the United States. All this comes as the American intelligence community released a report this week claiming that Russia had launched yet another campaign in the 2020 election to undermine Biden.

So a logical question would be: What is Putin's next move? Could he wage yet another military campaign?

Now, as with many of the pieces that we look at, some points Aron makes are right on the money. Yes, Putin did gain a lot of popularity after the operation in Crimea, especially. And yes, NATO faces real issues; Turkey is barely an ally these days, countries are slow rolling in terms of spending cash that they're promised, the French are talking about strategic autonomy, and yes, Putin always seems to have a surprise or two up his sleeve. But we are completely not convinced by the argument that an invasion of the Balts may be on its way.

So let's take out the Red Pen.

First, Aron writes that Putin's interventions, especially in Ukraine "worked," driving a "Crimean consensus" that victory in war overshadows troubles at home.

Sure, the Crimea intervention "worked" for Putin. Until it didn't. Putin has had to downplay military involvement in Ukraine of late to avoid a backlash from a Russian public that cares primarily about domestic issues still, like pensions, for example. And let's not forget that getting involved in Libya, in Syria, even in Nagorno-Karabakh didn't yield any real popularity bump of note for Putin.

Next, Aron writes that "we tend to repeat what worked." That is, Putin reached for the military lever before when he faced trouble, so he might do so again.

Well, Putin's decision making doesn't occur in a vacuum. Every past intervention was driven by national interest and foreign policy goals. Does Putin care about Putin? Of course. But Putin can't be sure that cooking up a foreign war would help matters it home. In fact, it might actually make them worse.

Finally, Aron says that Putin may consider a "fast and victorious poke at NATO's eastern flank," targeting the Baltic states and breaking NATO.

An attack on the Balts may be fast or it may be victorious, but probably not both. And Putin knows this. Western leaders are conflicted about the alliance, but an assault on full-fledged NATO State and EU members is exactly the kind of provocation that could awaken it. Putin understands this. He hardly wants to bring the alliance together as it's eroding. Low-cost efforts to steadily undermine legitimacy and grabbing targets of opportunity when available, that is much more Putin's speed.

Putin certainly seems to want to be president for life and probably is going to end up running for a fifth term, though a lot can happen in three years. Military moves that diminish his popularity or lead to further widespread protest, never mind bring together his adversaries, that is a strong NYET for now tovarishchey.

More Show less

View original post here:
Immigration reform so divisive that even Democrats can't agree - GZERO Media

By Kevin Xavier Garcia-Galindo 24 (He/Him), Political Correspondent

On February 18th, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey (D) and Representative Linda T. Snchez of California (D) unveiled the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, an immigration reform bill modeled after the proposal made by President Biden.

In the words of the original White House press release concerning the bill which this current one was modeled on, The bill provides hardworking people who enrich our communities every day and who have lived here for years, in some cases for decades, an opportunity to earn citizenship.

The bill, if passed, would create an eight year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who resided in this country as of January 1st, as well as an accelerated route for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to apply for green cards right away, giving them noncitizenship status with the ability to become full citizens in the future.

The DACA program, created in 2012, protects unauthorized immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from possible deportation. The program endured various attacks by the Trump administration, including a termination of the program which put the almost 700,000 DACA recipients in possible danger of deportation. However, the Supreme Court overruled that decision due to the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the Trump administration levied the order.

This bill, if passed, has the capability to increase many undocumented and DACA students chances of obtaining a post-secondary level education. Of the estimated 450,000 undocumented students currently attending college or university in the U.S., only about half of them are eligible for DACA. About nine in ten of those DACA recipients came to this country before the age of 12 (89%), as compared to about half (47%) of undocumened students not eligible for DACA. Altogether, all undocumented students represent about 2% of total college enrollment in the U.S., including here in North Carolina where DACA and undocumented students each make up an equal 1% of the student population, a rate only higher in California, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington.

DACA students will for the first time be able to become eligible noncitizens with an expedited path towards citizenship once they receive their green card. This will make them eligible, along with other criteria, for financial aid, as well as subsidized federal loans. Under North Carolina regulations, even DACA recipients are not eligible for instate tuition, although they are entitled to a NC drivers license, as well as state identification cards. Although many DACA and undocumented scholarships and grants exist in North Carolina, undocumented students applying to NC colleges such as Davidson College have to self-identify themselves as international students and thus largely depend on merit scholarships, high-interest loans, or working in or out of college in order to pay for their education.

These conditions have, for a long period of time, depressed the levels of undocumented students who obtain a post-secondary diploma. An estimated 100,000 undocumented students graduate every year from U.S. high schools, but due to the plethora of disadvantages they face including the always looming danger of deportationfew are able to attended college, and many leave prematurely or take constant breaks before getting their degree. Only about 5% to 10% of all undocumented students even pursue a college education to begin with. Programs like DACA have already showed the immense influence that they can have on educational outcomes of undocumented youth, like raising high school graduation rates by 15%, increasing school attendance of high-school-aged students by 3%, and increasing college enrollment among Hispanic women by 22%.

Dr. Bazo Vienrich, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Worcester University and previously a Visiting Professor at Davidson during the 2019-2020 academic year, researches how institutions and policies have impacted undocumented Latinx youths experiences with belonging and exclusion. While she thinks that this bill will ultimately help undocumented and DACA students, she worries about the possibility of education gaps for these students, like those who due to their immigration status have not considered college as an option and have not been tracked to go to college as high school students. Or those whose parents and other family members may remain undocumented or in liminal legal immigration statuses, which could lead some students to try to get as high of a paying job as possible after high school to financially help out at home instead of going to college.

Out of all 50 states, currently only 21 have a provision that offers undocumented students in-state tuition and sometimes financial aid. As she highlights, its important to still consider that while it will have a major positive impact on the lives of undocumented immigrants, the bill will not do away with the years of state-enforced legal violence and limited opportunities this group has experienced.

The bill also provides a considerable amount of help to international students in STEM Ph.D. programs to stay in the U.S. Just last year, the number of international students in the U.S. dropped for the first time in a decade according to a report by the Institute of International Education and the U.S. Department of State. Despite this, however, international students continue to make up around 5.5% of all students in higher education. This provision would help eliminate many of the obstacles that U.S. tech companies have had to face when it comes to hiring high-skilled international workers which have pushed many of them to open firms in other countries like Canada, where hiring immigrant workers is easier.

Although many higher education advocates would prefer this bill to be far more inclusive of the the greater international student population as only about 12% of international students are enrolled in doctoral programs, this provision alone could open the door for a greater magnitude of highly skilled international students, who already make up more than half of all doctoral degree holders in STEM.

While this bill has the potential to reverse many of the injustices of past administrations concerning immigration, the bill still has a long way to go until it can be passed in both the Senate and the House. It was not that long ago in 2013 that a similar but much less broader bill was able to pass the Democratic-led Senate but failed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Even with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, getting this bill passed with the 60 votes necessary to overcome a likely filibuster will be an ordeal unless Democrats manage to convince more Republicans or are able to pass other smaller reform on immigration. As it currently stands, important republican Senators who have co-sponsored or voted for similar proposals in the past do not seem entirely convinced that right now is the best time to pass immigration reform due to the ongoing crisis at the border.As Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said in an interview with CNN, Were not going to do a comprehensive immigration bill[] I just dont see the politics of it. Its too out of control. Only time will tell if Biden is able to assuage the fears of the few precious congressmen he needs to pass the most ambitious immigration reform bill since Ronald Reagon.

Original post:
How Biden's Immigration Reform will affect Undocumented, DACA, and International Students - The Davidsonian