Category Archives: Politics

Immigration

I am in awe of an immigrant. This is someone who has severed ties, forever, with everyone who has ever supported them, and with everything that has served to define them. Friends, family, home, country, culture, familiarity in general; all that and more the immigrant has chosen to leave behind, with no intention of ever returning to stay.

Maybe it’s simply a reflection of my own middle-class background in one of the most peaceful and privileged countries on earth, but I can’t imagine making that choice. It seems an incomprehensibly difficult transition to complete, lonely, deeply unsettling, arduous in every practical way. And more than anything, for me, I can’t imagine permanently breaking the family tie, the ancestral line which, however inconsequential or little known, has brought me to where I was born and raised. Every immigrant must know, in their hearts, that their children will grow up to be fundamentally different from all the family members who have preceded them, that they will never enjoy the blood bonds that they would have had they lived in their country of origin. To immigrate is to accept that you must begin a whole new family history.

I have a friend who, in emigrating, gave up a career as a librarian to become a janitor. I once worked in a restaurant with a man who had been a lawyer in his home country, and who was now host at that restaurant, seating the customers. I know of couples who have not been able to manage the change together, where one or other of the two couldn’t make the leap, and so returned home, ending the marriage. And of course we all know of the people who literally risk their lives for a chance to emigrate. (To me, these people are by definition not immigrants, nor ‘economic migrants,’ but refugees.)

Sue Waters photo
Sue Waters photo

Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, 

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

 These words are of course the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, and they could hardly be more ironic at a time when Donald Trump leads the polls among Republicans running for President, while proposing that a wall be built along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

The very idea that we can draw an imaginary line along some part of the earth, then say, ‘The land on this side is ours; you are not allowed to enter or stay,’ is basically bizarre. Sure, we collectively agree to a set of laws which lends force to this prohibition, but morally, can it be justified? If so, why? Because we got there first, then organized to keep others out? Seems pretty thin justification to me.

Years ago, I watched a short film by madcap artist Byron Black (sadly it doesn’t seem to exist online), in which Byron furtively approaches a small concrete pylon marking the Canada-U.S. border as it crosses Point Roberts, the western-most peninsula descending from Canada across the 49th parallel, making ‘The Point’ a tiny but separate part of the American empire. Byron steps carefully over the pylon, then waits apprehensively for the wrath of god and government to descend upon him. It doesn’t; no bolt of lightning, no megaphone voice telling him to lie face down on the ground, nothing. It goes on, but suffice it for me to say that the piece ends with Byron gleefully hopping back and forth across the border, maniacally celebrating his ability to flaunt the power of big government. For my money, the film surgically and hilariously impales the notion of ‘border.’

Recently, Gboko John Stewart, a young man from Liberia, applied for and was granted admission to Quest University in Squamish, BC. Initially the Canadian government denied him a visa for entry because of the Ebola outbreak in his home country. Reasonable enough, you might say. An international quarantine was in effect against this virulent disease. But once Liberia was declared Ebola-free by the World Health Organization in May of 2015, Mr. Stewart applied again for a visa. And again he was refused; this time because some nameless bureaucrat was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the conclusion of his time at Quest.

I have never met Mr. Stewart; know little about him. He works as a freelance journalist and radio host in Monrovia, and, from his writings, it’s clear he is skilled in the English language. He’s also an activist, deeply involved in an organization called HeForShe, which calls for men to support the equality of women. Mr. Stewart presumably never expressed an interest in staying in Canada permanently, but regardless, and despite my limited knowledge of him, I have to think he should be exactly the sort of person my country might be prepared to admit, temporarily or otherwise.

And, once again, I find myself struggling to understand the helplessness and frustration he must feel at the anonymous, arbitrary power that denies him a chance at his educational dreams.

When it comes to immigration, tragically, none of it seems to make any sense.

 

Climate Change

The problem with climate change is that it sounds so innocuous. So the planet is going to warm by a few degrees. To plenty of people in Canada that sounds like a good thing. The oceans are going to rise. Surely we can deal with that. Look at Holland; isn’t about half the country below sea level? Is it really such a big deal?

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, climate change is a very big deal, easily the greatest threat we collectively face today. And not only is it grave, it’s a complex problem, highly difficult to contend with. Here’s what Jeffrey Sachs, in the just-published The Age of Sustainable Development, has to say about the complexity of the climate change problem:

“There has never been a global economic problem as complicated as climate change. It is simply the toughest public policy problem that humanity has ever faced.”

Drought in Kenya 2004 Brendan Cox/Oxfam photo
Drought in Kenya 2004
Brendan Cox/Oxfam photo

What far too many of us don’t realize is that the biggest threat from climate change comes from the falling food production which will result. And that falling food production, as the result of higher temperatures, will come in some already unstable areas, like sub-Saharan Africa. (Also in the Mediterranean basin, southwestern United States, and parts of China.)

It’s not hard to imagine that the current Mediterranean refugee crisis, with record numbers of people fleeing North Africa for southern Europe, is but the smallest harbinger of what would ensue with crop yields dropping off by as much as 50% in sub-Saharan Africa, a scenario which is entirely possible, if current temperature trends continue.

A few salient facts, courtesy of Mr. Sach’s fact-packed book: Since the Industrial Revolution, the average temperature on the planet has risen by 0.9° C. If we were to stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, because of the inertia built into the natural system absorbing and releasing carbon pollution, temperatures will continue to rise by another .6° C. That’s a total of 1.5 °C. If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the air at current rates, the temperature rise will reach 4 – 7° C by the end of the century. An increase of 4° C is where the 50% drop off in food occurs.

It’s all a little unsettling, to say the least. The real resultant danger with climate change is mass hunger, mass migration, and ultimately of course, revolution and war. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman makes that linkage quite explicitly in his recent writings, pointing to the four-year drought which immediately preceded the appalling breakdown of Syrian society that we are now witnessing.

There are other severe consequences to climate change—the acidification and rising of the oceans chief among them—but again, the most dire threat comes with the prospect of wide-scale famine as food supplies drop with increased heat and aridity in already warm and dry areas, areas already historically subject to drought. Our global agriculture and fishing industries are maxed out now (and agriculture especially is contributing hugely to environmental degradation everywhere), so any prospect of growing food insecurity should be taken very seriously by world leaders. Unfortunately our world leaders have twice now agreed to do something about carbon pollution—in Rio in 1992 and in Kyoto in 1998—and both agreements have been miserable failures. Total greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing significantly in recent years, largely for two reasons: 1) the burgeoning Chinese economy, with its heavy industrial base driven by coal power, and 2) the political power of the oil and gas industries worldwide. One last interesting fact from Sachs’s book: seven of the ten largest companies in the world are in the traditional energy sector.

At the G7 summit in Germany this year, member countries finally agreed upon the need for a no-carbon economy, but not until the year 2100. It’s a significant step, but no one should feel too encouraged. It’s estimated that to remain within the 2° C ‘safe’ zone of rising global temperatures, current greenhouse gas emissions will have to be cut by more than 50% by 2050. Sound easy? I didn’t think so.

So the next time you hear the words climate change, don’t think, ‘Coupla degrees warmer. Not so bad.’ Think instead of these two words: food riots.

The Role of Government

It’s the statistic that got everyone’s attention. A recently released study by Oxfam, the international agency dedicated to combatting poverty and injustice, warns that the richest 1% of the planet’s citizens will soon possess more than the remaining 99%.

The nation's representatives? Michael Riffle photo
The nation’s representatives?
Michael Riffle photo

In an interesting related factoid, The Upshot (a ‘data-driven’ undertaking from The New York Times) reports that the richest 1% of Americans, on average and after excluding capital gains, have seen their incomes increase by $97,000 since 2009; the 99% have seen their average income fall by $100 in that time.

In Canada the situation is less dire, but the trend is in the same direction. In the 1980s, as reported by the Broadbent Institute, the top 1% of Canadians received 8% of all national income; that figure has now risen to 14%.

In that same article in The Upshot, writer Justin Wolfers, professor of economics at the University of Michigan, wonders why it is that “robust employment growth over recent years” has not generated more broadly based income growth in America.

Well, surely part of the answer has to be the structural changes wrought in the economy by the digital revolution. The London taxi drivers currently protesting the arrival of the Uber app are just the latest in a now long line of workers who have found themselves displaced by hi-tech changes in their industry. And those workers, once displaced, rarely find themselves able to land alternate employment at higher wages. As has been pointed out by authors like Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, the people not being displaced by computers—once we get past the coders themselves—tend to be folks like waiters, gardeners and daycare workers; not exactly the sorts pulling down the big bucks.

And the other major factor of course has to be the whole trickle-down, anti-regulatory economic wave that began to swell back in the days of Reagan/Thatcher, and which continues to roll over us today. The financial crash of 2008 is the most obvious example of what economic deregulation can mean to all of us, but, more generally, as times have toughened in the Western economies (that is as we have seen the onset of globalization), people have tended to increasingly resent the hand of government in their pockets. Neo-cons have encouraged this attitude at every turn, and so the back doors have been increasingly left open, allowing the rich to sneak into the kitchen, then scoop up ever larger portions of the economic pie.

The single greatest triumph of the Republican Party in America has been their ability to convince a great many white, working-class Americans that the Party has their backs, when very few propositions could be further from the truth.

We have seen, in recent decades, a steadily growing anti-government sentiment provide steadily growing opportunity for the rich to get ever richer. And let’s be very clear about one thing. The growing bank accounts of the mega-rich are not the best means for growing the economy, for easily apparent reasons. Those guys simply don’t have to spend their money the way us poorer people do, just to stay ahead of the monthly bills. Here’s a TD Bank study that makes this point.

Now no one should rightly go about saying more government is the answer to all our socio-economic woes. Anybody who has ever dealt with a government office in a time of acute need knows that these bureaucracies can be inefficient, self-serving and sometimes obnoxious, even vindictive. But greater government management of the current economy? Well, how much more evident could that need be?

Robert Reich's formula for government intervention.
Robert Reich’s formula for government intervention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It comes down to some fairly old-fashioned ideas like a guaranteed annual income, higher minimum wages, and a more progressive income tax regime. Scary stuff for a whole lot of people. But if you’re one of them, if you’re one of those people who finds the idea of more government anathema, an outrageous infringement upon your economic freedom, you should recognize that if your opinion prevails, then what you see now is what you will see later.

Only worse, if that can be imagined.