FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Feb 4

Trump’s Latest Visa Restrictions Will Have A Negative Impact On Canadian Immigration

by bcurry

Well, here we go again! The Trump administration has just introduced restrictions on immigration to include six more countries, including Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation. You may remember that President Trump first introduced a travel ban in 2017, closing U.S. borders to citizens from seven countries, most of them with Muslim majorities. He is now targeting Nigeria, Sudan and Eritrea, already among the largest sources of refugee claims lodged by people crossing irregularly into Canada from the U.S.  The 2017 decision also signalled the end of the American program giving Haitians a reprieve from deportation.  That move prompted thousands of Haitians to seek asylum in Canada, with sometimes hundreds crossing at unmarked border points in a single day.

According to the most recent data available from Canadian authorities, Nigeria is currently the largest source country for border crossers, making up 14,621 of the 50,635 claims lodged between February 2017 and September 2019. The bizarre thing is that many of those crossing irregularly from the States are applying for refugee status in Canada, often as a result of lapsing temporary visas in the U.S.  There is little doubt that the latest visa restrictions are part of Trump’s attempt to do his level best to ensure that more refugees stay out of the U.S.  However, the policy has prompted thousands from these countries to seek asylum in Canada. Imagine, seeking asylum from government policies in the U.S.

Unfortunately, Canada shares one of the world’s longest borders with another country. The situation in the U.S. means that Canada has to devote more resources to policing its borders. In addition, the onus is now on Canada to physically accommodate and financially assist the thousands of new asylum seekers while their request for refugee status is reviewed and adjudicated by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Needless-to-say, the process is costly and time consuming, sometimes lasting months and even years.  For example, in 2017 according to the Immigration and Refugee Board, over 8,000 Haitians sought asylum in Canada. In 2018, that number was only about 1,500.

Homeland Security argues that the past and new restrictive visa measures were the result of failures by countries to meet U.S. security and information-sharing standards. Perhaps, what the Americans should be doing is to discuss with those countries ways and means to meeting such requirements.  Instead, the U.S. appears quite content to carry out exclusive policies when it comes to immigration and travel, most often targeting countries that they simply don’t like for one reason or another. Meanwhile, Canada, with its laws and its Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program for refugees seeking protection from outside of Canada, has to deal with the overflow of desperate individuals and families fleeing the Trump Administration’s inhumane and extremist policies. Go figure!

Canada Immigration Immigration Policies U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Jan 26

Liar. Liar. Lie Your Pants On Fire.

by bcurry

Do you remember this little rhyme when you were a child? I do.  Having listened to Donald Trump’s speeches and having read his tweets over the last three years, one cannot believe that it doesn’t apply to the current President of the United States? I don’t need to go into outlining each and every account since most major American news media has clearly recorded the hundreds of outright lies.  Now, the President’s staff do try to downplay Trump’s lies and inaccuracies but to no avail.  They suggest that the President was misquoted or misunderstood.  Indeed, no one has ever apologized for his “gross misstatements” or downright “lies”.  Interestingly, the Democrats are focusing on Trump’s character as they argue in the impeachment trial for his removal from office.

Trump has come up with every excuse under the book. He frequently claims that he doesn’t know people who he has had business with or have had their pictures taken on several occasions with him.  His number one co-liar is of course Rudi Giuliani who claims to be Trump’s personal lawyer.  Indeed, the impeachment trial has shown just how Giuliani is the President’s personal henchman.  The problem is that Giuliani has a tendency to open his mouth before first thinking about what he is saying.  Even Fox News has questioned why Giuliani was working in Ukraine as the president’s attorney, instead as a government official or an appointed presidential envoy with an official title. The impeachment proceedings have made it very clear that the President was initially withholding military aid to the Ukraine as a club to get the Ukraine authorities to launch a fraud investigation into past dealings by Joe Biden and his son with the Ukraine. Of course, despite all the evidence, Trump denies the allegations, seconded by Giuliani who proclaims that the President did no wrong. Instead, Giuliani is on record as proclaiming that “Joe Biden is a crook and he sold out the United States of America — in Iraq, in Ukraine, in China” without ever offering a thread of proof.

Meanwhile, despite being on trial, the President is calling the shots for the Republican Senators in the impeachment trial. The President’s defense has yet to offer any new evidence or witnesses to counter the charges that were brought forward.  All you get are “conspiracy” theories and deny, deny and deny some more.  After all, Trump did nothing wrong as the President has publicly declared a hundred times before.  Can one really believe him?  Unfortunately, with a Republican controlled Senate, there isn’t any chance that the President will be impeached.  Too bad!

Impeachment Proceedings US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Jan 19

U.S. Lags Behind Most Other Countries In Paid Maternity Leave

by bcurry

The U.S. provides no paid leave for mothers.  Any kind of leave is regulated by federal labour laws.  The U.S. ranks right up there with Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea which are the only other countries found to not guarantee leave with income to new mothers.  Not something to brag about!  For the majority of American workers at companies with fewer than 50 employees, there is no legal right to paid or unpaid leave to care for a new child or recover from childbirth.  Furthermore, recent studies show that the current laws disproportionately impact women of color and low-income women, who are less likely to take unpaid leave.

On the other hand, the Canadian government mandates both a leave and a benefits component, the latter being administered by employment insurance (EI) plans. Depending on the length of employment history and the hours worked, eligible new mothers can take between 17 and 52 weeks of leave from their jobs. Their employers are required to accept the employees back into their jobs, or the equivalent, at the end of the mandated leave at the same rate of pay with the same employment benefits. On top of mandating maternity leave, the government offers paid leave for one or both parents through Canada’s EI plan. A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Subsequently, paid EI parental benefits are also offered to parents who are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child or children, most often up to one year. In addition, in Canada, many companies and public services top up their employee allocated EI amounts for maternity and parental leave.

The reality of new working motherhood in America is both hidden and horrible: millions of women, every year, are forced back to work within just days or weeks after giving birth. Isn’t it about time that U.S. governments recognize the importance of allowing new mothers to nurture their babies at least for an appropriate length of time after giving birth or following an adoption. Surely, such a rich country can afford to ensure that mothers are provided with some form of mandatory financial assistance and “return-to-work” assurances found in all industrialized countries.  Maybe it’s about time that Congress act quickly on reforming its labour laws.  The time for more debate is over!

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »
Jan 13

American Assertions of Imminent Iranian Threat to Attack U.S. Embassies Appears to be Questionable

by bcurry

Trump’s claim made to justify the decision to kill Iranian general Qasem Soleimani that attacks were being planned to attack four U.S. embassies has not been verified by actual intelligence. Even his Defence Secretary Mark Esper stated that he ‘didn’t see’ evidence of an Iranian plot to attack four U.S. embassies. Kind of reminds you of another President’s rationale for invading and occupying Iraq after 9-11.

16 years ago on February 5, 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his infamous presentation at the United Nations making the case for war with Iraq. Remember that Powell insisted that the Iraqis, and in particular their dictator Saddam Hussein, were behind the attacks on 9-11 and had “weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”, including tons of the deadly nerve agent VX. This despite the fact that Iraqi insiders and American intelligence sources had confirmed that the Iraqi regime had secretly destroyed the nerve agent soon after the Gulf War in 1991. Indeed, legitimate sources concluded that all WMDs — biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear — were subsequently destroyed.  Following the occupation of Iraq and an extensive search, the Americans did not find any WMDs. The result was that over four thousand Americans and coalition troops died and almost 32,000 were wounded in action in the Iraq War.  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about $1.9 trillion would be the long-term price tag for the war.

Unfortunately, Congress never investigated Powell’s use of the intelligence he was given. Furthermore, based on misinformation regarding the actual intelligence, most members of Congress supported the decision by President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Now, history may have just repeated itself.  President Trump decided to kill a top Iranian commander without providing clear and unquestionable facts to justify the action.  On top of which, Congressional leaders were not consulted beforehand because Trump has accused some as being “corrupt”.  We have also now learned that Trump reportedly okayed assassinating Soleimani seven months ago.

Whether or not you agree that Soleimani should have been assassinated is not real question. Let’s face it, he will most likely be replaced by one of his underlings.  However, we now have increased the instability in the region and raised the risks to Iraqis, Iranians and foreigners.  This is unfortunately demonstrated by the tragic shooting down of the Ukraine International Airline flight 752 by an Iranian missile, resulting in the deaths of all 176 passengers and crew.  Hopefully, all sides will attempt to deescalate these new tensions and Congress will do a better job of overseeing the President’s actions then it did in the past.

Iran Iraq Today The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Jan 7

Trump Is Completely Out To Lunch When It Comes To Iran

by bcurry

Here we go again! Hasn’t the American administration learned from past mistakes in the Middle East?  Remember supporting the former dictator, the Shah of Iran, against the Iranian people who suffered terribly under his regime.  Remember the flimsy excuses given by Bush Jr. to invade Iraq based on false intelligence about  Saddam Hussein’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction”.  Remember how the American occupation of Iraq and failure of subsequent Iraqi governments led to the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIL) and subsequent years of terror in the region.

Now, we have an American President ordering the assassination of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who the Trump administration claimed to pose a “clear and present danger.”  One can always ask “why now”?  Seems all too convenient as a distraction for a President who is smack in the middle of the impeachment process.  Now, U.S. and NATO forces and Westerners in the region are at real risk from Iranian reprisals.  The Iraqi parliament has voted to kick American and foreign forces out of the country, despite Trump’s threats of placing stiff sanctions on Iraq and making the Iraqis pay for the al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq.  This important base hosts many U.S. troops and was a strategic key in the war against ISIL.  Indeed, the U.S.-Iranian conflict may have just opened the door for the reemergence of ISIL in the region which is a much greater threat to everyone.  Remember that Iranian-backed forces fought against ISIL in Syria.

The actions by Trump carried out by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo  and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper may have just complicated what is already a dangerous situation in the region.  As was the past case in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current administration appears to have no strategy to deal with the likely escalation of U.S.-Iranian conflict that will most definitely follow.  Iran on the other hand has been given an opportunity by the American actions to distract the Iranian people from recent protests and uprisings within Iran against the regime driven by the country’s poor economic conditions.  In addition, the Iranian regime now has an excuse to recommense its nuclear arms program by withdrawing from the current accord which, under Trump, is no longer recognized by the U.S.

Canada, which has hundreds of military and other personnel in the region, has helped in the training of Iraqi security forces. With the recent events, they have been told to stand down.  The Americans have unfortunately paused their counterterrorism operations and are now focused on ensuring their security on bases throughout the region.  Some retaliatory moves by Iran are bound to happen, leaving Westerners throughout the region in a very dangerous position.  Trump’s further threats of potential reprisals, military or economic, may only add to what is already a very volatile situation.  Indeed, I would advocate that all Canadian personnel be withdrawn immediately and entirely from the region, in particular from Iraq.  Once again, why should Canadians pay with their lives for U.S. mistakes in the region?

Canada Donald Trump Iran Iraq Iraq Today Terrorism US

Leave a comment »
Dec 25

Accepting the Inevitability of Technical Surveillance is Just Wrong

by bcurry

I just finished reading a Washington Post article on how American colleges are turning students’ smartphones into surveillance machines, keeping track of their attendance in class and their activities around the campus. To say that this is highly disturbing is an understatement.  It’s bad enough that companies and even the authorities can track us at any time using surveillance software, but now even the privacy of students on campuses across the U.S. and Canada is under attack.

Officials like to employ euphemisms to justify their actions, including references to “monitoring” instead of “tracking” and moving toward “heightened educational vigilance”. In particular, colleges appear to be interested in tracking via smartphones the activities of those athletes in receipt of athletic scholardships.  You’d think that the purpose of grades would be enough to ensure scholarship requirements are being met.  Some have even suggested that such surveillance can be used to track the “behaviour” of students in order to evaluate their mental health.  Again, you would think that there exist adequate and available campus services to assist students in need while maintaining their privacy at the same time.

As data scientists and companies themselves recognize, much of the data collected is not always guaranteed to be “accurate, complete, correct, adequate, useful, timely, reliable or otherwise”. For example, this issue is one that has particularly been raised with respect to “facial recognition” software.  Unfortunately for students, tracking their attendance in classes, visits to libraries on campus, etc.,etc. may be misinterpreted due to faulty soft-ware or the misuse of data.

As the article points out, surveillance technology is becoming more and more ubiquitous in societies. People being constantly monitored — their peers, and themselves — feel that they can’t really do anything about it, thus “reinforcing a sense of powerlessness”.  The issue of privacy of our movements and activities has become even more pertinent with the increasing use of surveillance technology and expanding reach of “surveillance creep”.  Over 90 percent of North Americans now claim to use a smartphone, highlighting what will become the greatest privacy issue of the next decade.  I firmly believe in ensuring one’s privacy is protected as a fundamental right.  This is why, by choice, I don’t have a smartphone and prefer to go with a so-called “dumb phone” as my cellular option.  Think about it!

Canada Technology Surveillance US

Leave a comment »
Dec 15

Canada and the U.S. Trade Fall-Out From U.K.’s Brexit

by bcurry

Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Donald Trump issued statements congratulating Boris Johnson on his recent overwhelming electoral victory, pledging to co-operate on “issues that matter to both of our countries”.  One of these issues will be that of trade between our countries and the U.K. when it leaves the European Union (EU) with the implementation of Brexit. Although the U.K. now looks set to leave the EU on Jan.31, 2020, an “implementation period” will maintain its existing trade agreements through to Dec. 31, 2020. Currently, Canada’s trade with the U.K. is covered under the terms of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiated by Canada with the E.U. Donald Trump’s United States doesn’t currently have a trade agreement with Europe. Of course, Boris Johnson would love to enter into a free trade agreement with the U.S.  Good luck on that one.

The UK is by far Canada’s most important commercial partner in Europe and our fifth largest trading partner globally. According to Global Affairs Canada, two way merchandise trade in 2018, reached over $25 billion. However, Canada is not expected to make any moves on trade with the U.K. until it sees what happens with the outcome of U.K. trade negotiations with the EU. As it now stands, British trade policy is perceived as being in a mess, especially in the financial services and agricultural sectors. Depending on how things go with Brussels, the powerful U.K. banking industry may want more access to Canada’s market.  It’s very unlikely that Canada is going to be willing to give them something in that area. The Canadian banking and financial services sector is quite highly regulated and restrictive.

As for the U.S., next to the EU, the U.S is the top trading partner with 13.3% of total UK exports going to the U.S. in 2019, totalling about $64 billion (U.S.). It’s much more important for the UK to have access to American markets than it is for the U.S. to have increased access to UK markets. Trump has already made it clear that Boris Johnson wants to do business with the U.S. “so badly” — but at what costs? For example, concerns have been raised that parts of the Britain’s publicly-funded National Health Service (NHS) could be made available to U.S. markets by a Conservative government.

Whatever the case, as a result of the new Conservative government’s desire to move quickly on Brexit, 2020 will bring about some interesting and often troubling trade and domestic issues for the U.K. It is certain that Britain’s leaving the EU will lead to renewed independence initiatives in Scotland and the question of the potential union of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, both regions which strongly preferred to remain as part of the EU. Whether Brexit will lead to better economic conditions in the U.K. will be a determining political factor for the new government. Meanwhile, Canada and the U.S. can only sit back and observe the outcome before making any further trade-related moves. Many North American businesses which have U.K. subsidiaries are sitting on their hands and postponing any planned investments. Unfortunately, the British people are the ones who have to deal with the economic vulnerabilities and political uncertainties resulting from Brexit.

Canada Donald Trump Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with EU US

Leave a comment »
Dec 9

Accusing Canada of Not Living Up to Its NATO Commitments is Overkill

by bcurry

Canada has roughly the same population (approx. 36 million people) as the state of California. Despite this, Canada has a long and proud military history — having significantly contributed citizens and materials to two World Wars and more recently to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) involvement in Afghanistan and Latvia. With a relatively small number of regular military personnel who are well armed and trained, Canada has contributed to numerous peace time operations of both NATO and the United Nations.

At a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, NATO nations for some arbitrary reason agreed to the target measurement of 2 per cent of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for its total defence spending. Canada currently spends about 1.31 per cent of GDP on defence. However, tabulate the defence dollars actually being spent on the military and Canada ranks an impressive sixth among the 29 NATO nations. A number of expert observers have agreed that NATO’s defence budget formula is very flawed, and allows small obscure countries like Bulgaria and Estonia to declare that they are more than meeting the 2 per cent target. In such cases, the purchase of a new ship or aircraft and one can easily surpass this GDP target. However, these and other similar countries contribute little in actual on-the-ground NATO support or suffer casualties as Canada did in Afghanistan.

So along comes Donald Trump who threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO if all its members didn’t meet the 2 per cent of GDP target. The U.S., as a so-called super power and having its own foreign policy objectives backed up by an immense military-industrial establishment, now spends 3.42 per cent of its GDP on defence. Little surprise there, especially given vast American operations in the Middle East, South-East Asian seas and Afghanistan. For Trump to say that NATO is “obsolete” and frequently compliment Russian President Vladimir Putin are both absurd and even dangerous. After Russia’s “illegal annexation” of Crimea, NATO spoke of its solidarity with the Ukraine. Someone has to stand up to Russian aggression — if not NATO then who?

As part of its commitment to national security and to NATO, Canada is due to embark on major expenditures on fighter jets and the navy. Whether or not Canada meets some arbitrary target in defence spending is not all that critical. What is, is the country’s need to maintain a professional, prepared and well trained military.  I fully believe that the brave and competent men and women of Canada’s armed forces will continue to uphold the country’s proud military heritage. Something that the likes of Donald Trump cannot and will not fully appreciate.

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Military Prowess NATO Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Dec 2

Canada and U.S. Need to Consult More on How to Manage Artic Waters

by bcurry

Increasingly, the Artic waterways are open for a longer period to limited shipping, including commercial vessels, due to the impact of climate change in warming the oceans’ waters. For years, the former Soviet Union and now Russia have been building a greater capacity to travel through the Northwest Passage, even when the ice is still fairly thick. North of Russia shipping from Europe to Asia now takes place on an intermittent basis. Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers. Currently the U.S. has two heavy icebreakers that are in their last days of service, and no new replacements are under construction at this time. Under a previous Conservative government, Canada proposed building a heavy polar icebreaker, but almost no progress has been made toward its actual construction.

Besides the potential natural resources that the Artic has, the Artic waters are of an important strategic value, militarily and politically, to both Canada and the U.S.  This year Canada released a comprehensive Arctic policy framework that places the emphasis for future development on civilian development. However, Canadian policy does not address Arctic shipping concerns.  This certainly is not a way to reinforce Canadian sovereignty off our Arctic coast.  Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, recently proposed the creation of an Arctic Shipping Federal Advisory Committee to centralize discussions about shipping in Alaskan waters.

I would go one step further and suggest that a joint North American body needs to be created, just as we have one for common defense concerns in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the International Joint Commission (IJC) to deal with mutual issues involving the Great Lakes waterways, commercial shipping and environmental concerns. Not only do we need to monitor Russian activities in Artic waters, but both countries can better coordinate investments in the creation of an ‘Artic seaway’ and the development of Artic ports.

At this time, neither Canada nor the United States has much to offer in the event of a maritime disaster in North American Arctic waters. Isn’t it about time that both countries get together to share resources and expertise to counter the growing Russian influence in Artic waters.  Instead of investing in military capabilities in outer space, it might be wiser to invest more resources right here on earth where more immediate and important needs must be addressed.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Military Prowess US

Leave a comment »
Nov 21

Canadian Prime Ministers Continue To Create Large and Strange Cabinet Configurations

by bcurry

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just created a new cabinet for his minority government. His new cabinet will have a substantial number of members with its 36 ministers.  Since the turn of this century, PMs have significantly increased cabinet sizes, as evidenced by former Prime Minister Harper who had 38 ministers in 2011.  This number was far from the 20-odd ministers of previous federal governments in the past.  Once again,  Trudeau has created a whole new contingent of weird cabinet positions such as ministers for Middle Class Prosperity; Families, Children and Social Development; Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development; and Digital Government. Fortunately, PMs are no longer creating Ministry of States as was done by previous governments which often caused more confusion and bureaucracy.

The creation of new portfolios not only satisfies the need to accommodate new and aspiring Members of Parliament, but also appears to reinforce the policy direction of a ruling party’s election campaigns and political slogans. Let’s take the new position of Minister for Middle Class Prosperity.  The difficulty is how one defines the so-called ‘middle class’ and what one means by prosperity.  Based on most studies and current statistics, all researchers can conclude is that the middle class is declining in numbers, especially with many higher paying blue-collar jobs disappearing and the introduction of new technologies.

There already exists a Minister of National Revenue who can consider changes to income taxes to help out targeted groupings of tax payers. The Minister of Finance can look at economic policies aimed at benefiting everyone, including the middle class.  The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion can develop employment programs to help out those who require retraining or mobility assistance.  Departments already exist to help implement the policies developed by these ministers.  So what does a Minister for Middle Class Prosperity do exactly?

Years ago, the Canadian government undertook to consolidate several departments to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. The attempt was somewhat successful at the time, but governments have since reverted back to more political manoeuvrings.  You now need a game program to know who’s who in the federal cabinet and what their titles are.  One thing that I admire about the American federal cabinet is that it tends to remain fairly constant in its make-up with 15 cabinet members, although those appointed to cabinet are not elected as is the case in Canada. Never-the-less, one knows what the responsibility of each cabinet member is and the department or agency for which he or she is responsible.  Unlike with the more unwieldy Canadian federal cabinet where one is often guessing as to what matters certain members are responsible for.

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.