Immigration turmoil: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles - by Basak Kus

Immigration has always been a prominent issue in American politics. It has become even more salient with the presidency of Donald Trump. A major debate at the moment concerns the economic impact of immigration—low-skilled immigration, in particular. It is argued that immigration has suppressed wages, discouraged unions, and exerted fiscal pressure on the welfare state.

How valid are these arguments? Is immigration really the culprit for these woes?

Let us start with welfare. It is argued immigrants make demands on the welfare state, while not paying enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive. This is not accurate. America’s welfare system is facing pressure; there is no dispute about that. However, immigration is not the cause. Non-citizens’ use of welfare benefits has declined significantly since the 1996 Welfare Reform no matter where you look: TANF, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid (see here, here and here). At the same time, there is evidence that, in urban areas, immigrant households are paying taxes at nearly the same rate as native households.

If the American welfare system is in distress, that is largely because of the revenue side. The tax revenue the US collects is relatively small, which renders the American welfare state ineffective and unable to meet the needs of the public, as political scientist Sven Steinmo’s work shows. To be specific, in 2015, US’s total tax revenue, at 26 percent of GDP, stood significantly below the OECD average of 34 percent, while in many European countries it exceeded 40 percent. The US’s total corporate tax revenue that year, at 2.2 percent of GDP was also below the OECD average.

Since the 1970s, the highest marginal income tax rate has nearly halved. The bottom line is, it is not the demand on the system caused by immigration that is threatening the welfare state, it is the tax revenue needed to fund it, which is not being collected. Unfortunately, the situation is not likely to improve with the recent passing of the new tax bill.

The truth is, immigrant workers themselves are the victims of the same structural forces that have contributed to the demise of unions: de-industrialization, financialization, and policies, which for decades prioritized market flexibility over wages, employment protection, and unionization rights. Depending on particular political and institutional factors, unions fared better in some countries than others in the face of these global challenges. To make some comparisons with America’s northern neighbor, the percentage of the foreign-born population has been increasing in both countries, and, in fact, it is now higher in Canada than in the US (20% versus 13%). Yet, unions seem to have been faring far better in Canada—both in the private and public sector, despite higher rates of immigration. To be more specific, America’s unionization rates remained very similar to Canada’s until the 1960s, whereas now trade union density in Canada is more than twice that of the United States. Why is this the case? That is a complex question, as Barry Eidlin shows, having to do with these nations’ particular contexts of labor mobilization and party politics.

The worry that immigrants take more than they give, that they would become a “public charge” rather than an “economic contributor” is not new. Cybelle Fox’s work shows, for instance, how deep the economically-based-anti-immigration sentiment ran during the New Deal, how “rumors circulated in the press that there were a million or more aliens on relief,” and how most Americans believed aliens should not receive relief and that those who did should be expelled from the country. These arguments surface time and again, are misguided and simply fuel new nativist attitudes. The overwhelming evidence is that the inflow of immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, contributes to US economic growth and is not the cause of American workers’ plight.

Read more: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles

Turkish-Dutch foreign relations break down; Ambassador recalled - by Janene Pieters

Talks on improving the relationship between the Netherlands and Turkey have failed, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Monday.

The Netherlands officially withdrew its ambassador in Ankara.

Relations between the Netherlands and Turkey have been tense since the Netherlands refused Turkish ministers access to the country to campaign for a referendum that gave Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan more power.

Turkey responded by comparing the Dutch to Nazis, calling them fascists, imposing a number of sanctions and accusing the Netherlands of mass murder in Srebrenica. The Netherlands refused to congratulate Erdogan when he won the referendum. 

Over the past months the two countries have been in talks on repairing the relationship. In December Erdogan called Prime Minister Mark Rutte an 'old friend' and said that he wanted to restore the relationship with the Netherlands.

And in mid-January Rutte said he no longer demanded that Erdogan publicly apologize for calling the Dutch Nazis and fascists, according to RTL Nieuws.

But these talks have been unsuccessful, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Monday. "For the time being these talks do not offer any view on the normalization of bilateral relations", the Ministry said in a statement. Foreign Affairs Minister Halbe Zijlstra added: "The recent talks provided an opportunity for Turkey and the Netherland to come closer together again, but we did not agree on how normalization should take place."

The government therefore decided to officially withdraw the Dutch ambassador to Ankara. The ambassador hasn't had access to Turkey since March 2017. "As long as the Netherlands does not have an ambassador in Turkey, the Netherlands will also not grant permission for the appointment of a new Turkish ambassador in the Netherlands. This message was conveyed to the Turkish agent in The Hague", the ministry said.

Read more: Turkish-Dutch foreign relations break down; Ambassador recalled | NL Times

Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Sara Gorman

In 2016, in the midst of a devastating measles outbreak, California decided to repeal the philosophical exemption to vaccines, which allows parents to opt out of required childhood vaccines because of “personal beliefs.”

Soon after that law went into effect, the number of exemptions for medical reasons suddenly soared. Some have argued that the philosophical exemption ban may have in some ways made matters worse, since school administrators are powerless against medical exemptions, but may have had more room to question philosophical exemptions.

Responding to complex social issues such as the anti-vaccine movement requires a full view of human behavior and a solid understanding of what it really takes to change minds. We need to let go of the idea that we can just strong-arm people into complying. Policymakers must understand that changing attitudes and behaviors requires a comprehensive approach that doesn’t rely exclusively on punitive measures alone.

These kinds of laws should be familiar to anyone who has followed the evolution of the response to anti-vaxxers in the US and elsewhere.

Last year, France, Italy, and Germany all announced new laws and fines that in each case made more vaccines mandatory and raised the stakes of not complying. In India, Kerala state instituted a new vaccine mandate for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine after growing resistance led to serious declines in vaccination rates and constituted a major threat to India’s progress toward eliminating measles. Such policy responses to anti-vaccine sentiment are very common and often the first line of defense.

When faced with a viewpoint or behavior that seems completely irrational, it’s often very tempting to essentially “bully” people with facts, overwhelming them with all the reasons why their viewpoint is factually wrong. But recent research has found that not only does this approach often fail to change people’s minds and behaviors, it may even backfire. This is the basis for the “backfire effect,” a phenomenon in which people become more entrenched in their views after being bombarded with evidence against it.

A recent experiment from researchers at Dartmouth illustrates the principle well. Subjects were given fake newspaper articles that seemingly confirmed several very common misconceptions from recent history, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When they were then given a corrective article indicating that weapons were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite. In fact, those who did not change their view reported being even more convinced that there were weapons after being exposed to the correct information.

Another recent study showed what goes on in the brain when someone experiences the “backfire effect.” Participants were surveyed about their opinions on particular political issues and then were placed in an fMRI machine to measure brain activity. They were then presented with a large quantity of information that disproved their stated opinions. In a follow-up survey several weeks later, researchers found stronger inclination toward original views in the majority of participants. More importantly for this study, however, is what they found about brain activity during these informational challenges. Regions of the brain associated with strong emotion were heavily activated while parts of the brain associated with cognitive reasoning and comprehension were suppressed. In essence, the parts of the brain needed to absorb the new information were shut down by the parts of the brain associated with strong emotion.

As we can see, when people are faced with challenges to strongly-held beliefs, they may become emotional and dig their heels in. This can be a response to a barrage of new information that challenges what they believe, or a response to new laws that challenge the behavioral outcomes of strongly-held beliefs. Either way, we can see how punitive policies to address strongly-held beliefs might be limited, even if they are necessary.

Even when new laws are passed, lawmakers must take great care about how they communicate about them, especially if the law touches on “hot-button” issues like childhood vaccines or gun control. For example, recent research has suggested that presenting people with views they disagreed with on paper made them discount the intellect of the person presenting the views much more than when there was a video explanation provided instead. This is just one of many ways in which the medium and the precise content of a potentially controversial message can change the way it is received.

When faced with difficult viewpoints and behaviors of constituents, policymakers must think very carefully about how to respond. Often laws and regulations are needed, but what gets put in place with those regulations also needs to be carefully considered before new laws are implemented, not as an afterthought.

Read more: Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Quartz

NATO: The U.S. and Turkey: Past the Point of No Return? - by Svantee Cornell

.US.-Turkish relations have deteriorated for some time. But until recently, no one would have thought that the American and Turkish militaries, closely allied since the 1950s, could end up confronting each other directly. Yet in northern Syria today, that is no longer unthinkable.

In mid-January, to forestall U.S. intentions to build a “Border Security Force” composed mainly of Syrian Kurdish fighters, Turkey launched a military operation in the Kurdish-controlled Afrin enclave in northwestern Syria. On January 24, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expressed his determination to move beyond Afrin into other parts of northern Syria, mentioning specifically the town of Manbij, where U.S. forces are deployed alongside Kurdish YPG troops. Turkish officials warned the United States to sever its ties to the Kurdish forces, which Turkey considers a terrorist group. This led President Donald Trump to tell Erdoğan to “avoid any actions that might risk conflict between Turkish and American forces.”

The collision course Ankara and Washington are on is making any notion of a Turkish-American alliance increasingly hollow. If a point of no return is to be avoided, both sides will have to rethink their priorities, and begin to build trust. That process can begin with an honest appraisal of how we got to this point, with America and Turkey on the verge of coming to blows.

In the United States, much of the blame has naturally been laid at the feet of Erdoğan, the headstrong and authoritarian Turkish President. To American eyes, it is easy to see how Erdoğan’s growing intolerance of dissent goes hand in hand with an increasingly adventurist foreign policy that directly challenges American interests. Yet while Erdogan is part of the problem, its full scope goes far beyond a single individual. The real story of the past several years is how the Syrian and Kurdish issues have interacted with Turkish domestic politics to pull Ankara and Washington apart.

Read more: The U.S. and Turkey: Past the Point of No Return? - The American Interest

Poland: Warsaw lawmakers pass Holocaust bill to restrict term 'Polish death camps'

Polish Holocaust Death Camp

Polish lawmakers approved a bill on Thursday that would impose jail terms for suggesting Poland was complicit in the Holocaust, drawing concern from the United States and outrage from Israel, which denounced "any attempt to challenge historical truth."

Poland's ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) says the bill is needed to protect Poland's reputation and ensure historians recognize that Poles as well as Jews perished under the Nazis. Israeli officials said it criminalizes basic historical facts.

The Senate voted on the bill in the early hours on Thursday and it will now be sent to President Andrzej Duda, who has 21 days to decide whether to sign it into law.

The president has not said whether he will sign the bill, but has suggested he sympathizes with its aims. He told state television on Monday: "The matter needs to be explained calmly, but we absolutely cannot backtrack."

The bill would impose three years prison sentences for mentioning the term "Polish death camps," although it says scientific research into the Second World War would not be constrained.

Israel "adamantly opposes" the bill's approval, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.

"Israel views with utmost gravity any attempt to challenge historical truth. 

No law will change the facts," ministry spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon said on Twitter.

Israeli Housing Minister Yoav Galant, one of several cabinet ministers to denounce the bill, told Israel's Army Radio that he considered it "de facto Holocaust denial."

The bill has come at a time when right-wing, anti-immigrant parties like PiS have been in the ascendancy in Europe, especially in the former Communist countries of the east. EU officials have expressed alarm over the PiS administration in Poland, which they say has undermined the rule of law by exerting pressure over the courts and media.

The socially conservative, nationalist PiS has reignited debate on the Holocaust as part of a campaign to fuel patriotism since sweeping into power in 2015.

The U.S. State Department said the legislation "could undermine free speech and academic discourse" and Washington was concerned about the repercussions it could have "on Poland's strategic interests and relationships."

Read more: Warsaw lawmakers pass Holocaust bill to restrict term 'Polish death camps' - World - CBC News

EU diplomats plot against Trump on Jerusalem - by Andrew Rettman

EU diplomats in the Middle East will try to undermine Donald Trump's plan to establish Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The blueprint for the EU counter-measures was contained in a confidential report filed by EU states' ambassadors in East Jerusalem and Ramallah, in Israeli-occupied Palestine, after the US president, on 6 December, unilaterally recognised Israel's claim to the holy city.

Trump's decision was "a fundamental shift in US policy", the 49-page EU report, seen by EUobserver, said.

"This is the first time that one of the final status issues has been subject to a policy change by a third party since the … Oslo Accords [in 1993]," the report added.

EU leaders should send out a "common message", the text said, that Europe will "continue to respect the international consensus" that Jerusalem should be shared by Israel and Palestine in a two-state solution.

EU states should also "ensure that the location of their diplomatic missions remains in line with its provisions on location until the final status of Jerusalem is resolved," the report said, after Trump promised to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The EU report on Jerusalem is a yearly exercise meant to steer talks by ministers in Brussels.

The 2017 edition contained several new recommendations designed to hamper Trump's plan.

It urged EU capitals: to push their line on Jerusalem in all "bilateral and multilateral contacts" in 2018; to "unequivocally oppose" Israeli laws to alter the city's status; and to consider "development of further actions on distinguishing between the territory of the state of Israel and the occupied territories".

Previous EU actions included blocking grants for Israeli settler firms and publishing label guidelines for settler products in European retailers.

The 2017 report also called for "systematic media outreach in support of … [the] EU policy on Jerusalem".

It said high-level EU visits to the city should "ensure that logistics follow EU policy, e.g. through choice of hotel, change of transport between East and West", referring to Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem and Israel's West Jerusalem.

There was less violence in the city last year despite some "confrontations" between Palestinian protesters and Israeli police after Trump's announcement, the EU text noted.

Thirteen Palestinians and seven Israelis were killed in violent incidents in total in Jerusalem in 2017, compared to 23 people the year before, and 41 the year before that.

But Israeli settlers were seizing Palestinian land at a "record" pace "including in areas identified by the EU and its member states as [being] key to the two-state solution", the EU report warned.

Israel advanced plans for more than 3,000 housing units in East Jerusalem last year, it said.

This added to the 215,000 settlers who have moved there since Israel conquered it in 1967 to live among the 317,000 Palestinians who are still left.

"Developments in 2016 to 2017 indicate that the Israeli authorities are taking active measures to prepare for settlement expansion in [the E1] area," the EU ambassadors added, referring to a zone that would cut off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and cut the West Bank into two cantons if it fell into settlers' hands.

The EU said Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had systematically ignored its appeals on the issue.

"International objections were met by more announcements [of settlement expansion]," the EU ambassadors said.

The diplomats painted a grim picture of life under Israeli occupation.

They spoke of Israel's "long-standing policy of political, economic, and social marginalisation" of Palestinians, which "worsened" last year and which caused the kind of "high levels of stress and depression" that were fertile ground for violence.

They condemned killings on both sides, but singled out Israeli soldiers for "excessive use of force".

They also said Palestinian economic activity in East Jerusalem halved over the past 10 years and that 75 percent of Palestinians now lived below the poverty line.

That figure rose to 84 percent among Palestinian children, half of whom dropped out of school.

"The city has largely ceased to be the Palestinian economic, urban, and commercial centre it used to be," the EU report said. 

Read more: EU diplomats plot against Trump on Jerusalem

EU: Visegrad: The clash of the euro visions - by Katya Adler

After Brexit could come Nexit, Dexit and Frexit, we thought, as a wave of anti-establishment euroscepticism washed across the continent.

But shock at the ongoing political disorder in the UK following the Brexit vote, plus a sense of uncertainty in Europe provoked by the Trump presidency, have served to solidify EU membership in most countries.

Now the battle is no longer about survival but over the direction the European Union should take. And in whose name.

The celebrated assumption in Brussels has been that Merkel and Macron, or M&M as I like to call them, would become the EU's golden couple - breathing life back into the Franco-German motor of Europe, getting the engine of EU integration purring once again, once troublesome Britain was out of the way.

But the spoke in the wheels of that EU motor-vehicle scenario comes from central Europe and the so-called Visegrad group of former communist states: Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Otherwise known as the V4.

Hungary's foreign minister once told me they see themselves as the "bad boys" of Europe. Pushing back against Brussels edicts, such as the migrant quotas.

Eurosceptic they are not. V4 economies have benefited hugely from EU subsidies.

Brussels-sceptic would be a more accurate description. With a common, though varying degree of dislike for EU centralisation.

The Visegrad 4 certainly do not share the post-World War Two vision of the EU espoused by mainstream decision-makers in western Europe, in countries like Germany, France and Italy.

The governments in Hungary and Poland have made front-page news over the last few months for thumbing their nose at EU laws, lectures and mores.

Their vision for Europe is one where the nation state is strong and independent.

Agoston Mraz, CEO of the Hungarian government-sponsored Nezopont Institute, told me fighting empires is a Hungarian tradition: first the Turks 500 years ago; then the Austrian Empire; followed by the Nazis and the communists in the 20th Century. Now, he said, they were resisting attempts to build a European empire.

He believes a clash of "euro visions" between the V4 and EU-integrationists is inevitable. And that the V4 view of Europe is catching on.

The EU certainly worries that the self-declared illiberal democracy of Hungary's domestically popular Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, is inspiring others.

Ultimately, though, the EU vision division is no binary matter.

Look at Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands and you'll see there are nuanced positions between the Orban/Macron extremes.

As the UK exits the EU it leaves behind a gaping hole - not just in the EU budget - but also in terms of balance of power.

It's not clear yet who will fill the vacuum - the federalists, the pragmatists or more nationalist-minded governments.

Note EU-Digest: History tells us that a nationalist trend has always led to disaster for Europe, so whatever the Eastern European say, lets keep on a Federalist course and dear Europeans in the East : take it or leave it.

Read more: Visegrad: The clash of the euro visions - BBC News