The editors of the Washington Post offer advice to the Congress on reforming the asylum system today. First, they state the problem:

Long-term stability at the border calls for a sustainable approach to asylum — the promise, enshrined in domestic and international law, of haven for people facing “persecution or well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion” in their countries of origin. It is a noble and necessary commitment. In practice, however, it was being rendered untenable by the sheer number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years, each with a legal right to press an asylum claim.

and

Instead of the selective, humanitarian adjunct to general immigration flows that the law intended, asylum is evolving into an open-ended parallel system. The backlog encourages people to make a dangerous and expensive trip to the U.S. border, knowing that — even if their asylum cases are weak — they can live and work in the United States for years pending a ruling. Even those whose claims are rejected, as they were in most final rulings over the past decade, seldom face prompt removal. Meanwhile, those with strong claims wait longer than they should.

Then they offer advice:

One key to a more functional asylum system lies outside of it, in wider channels for legal immigration. As part of this, the Biden administration has already nearly doubled, by regulation, the current statutory cap of 66,000 per year on visas for nonagricultural “guest” workers. Of the additional visas, 20,000 are set aside for historical “sender” countries in Central America and Haiti. That share should be increased, as should the statutory caps. Opening lawful pathways for migrants seeking economic opportunity would reduce the number seeking to enter the country by gaming the asylum system. It would also enhance the legitimacy — actual and perceived — of the limitations on immigration that necessarily remain.

Meanwhile, the United States should seek to share responsibility with other countries to resettle asylum seekers. Mr. Biden needs to engage likely partners in the Americas and beyond, including by offering to support their capacities to absorb and protect people. His new plan sets a precedent by relying on Mexico to take in 30,000 people per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — which had been refusing to accept returnees from the United States — and turning away more asylum seekers who travel through third countries such as Mexico before crossing the U.S. border.

I agree with their advice as far as it goes. I would offer more.

First, I think we should accept a considerable number of those seeking asylum but we should be clear-headed about what is and is not a legitimate cause for asylum. The passage from the Immigration and Naturalization Act quoted above should be an absolute guideline, expanded by statute. Unless otherwise provided by law simply having a poor country as a country of origin is not a legitimate cause for asylum. Although the quoted passage does not make it crystal clear, the “fear” must be personal, due to persecution directed at the individual or the individual as a member of a well-defined group for political or religious reasons. While we may sympathize with them deeply, battered wives don’t qualify as asylum-seekers.

Second, I think we should greatly expand the number of work visas for which people from Mexico and Guatemala are eligible and application for those visas should be through normal processes not by crossing the border and claiming asylum. As noted above most asylum requests by individuals from Mexico, Central, or South America or the Caribbean are declined.

I agree with the editors that Congress should approve funding for additional agents who should be doing on the spot determination of eligibility for asylum. That should be done by statute rather than executive order. If letting the determination of eligibility for asylum be done by agents (rather than by judges) according to clear and strict guidelines, a reform long overdue, is rejected by the courts, IMO judges should be drafted for the duty under the president’s emergency powers.

Lori Lightfoot took office in 2019 as the first openly gay and African American woman to serve as the mayor of Chicago. However, her performance in the role has been under scrutiny and criticism from various quarters.

One major issue is the city’s rising crime rate. Despite Lightfoot’s promises to tackle the issue, crime continues to be a significant problem in Chicago, particularly in areas with high levels of poverty and gun violence. The city has seen a rise in homicides and shootings in recent years, and many residents feel unsafe in their neighborhoods.

Another criticism of Lightfoot’s leadership is her handling of the city’s finances. Chicago has been facing a persistent budget deficit for many years, and Lightfoot has yet to offer a comprehensive plan to address the issue. Instead, she has resorted to budget cuts and layoffs, which have negatively impacted essential services such as schools and public transportation.

Lightfoot’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has also been the subject of criticism. Despite being in one of the largest cities in the US, Chicago was slow to respond to the pandemic, and the city has faced numerous supply shortages and other logistical problems. The mayor has been accused of being slow to act and of making contradictory statements about the pandemic, which has led to confusion and frustration among residents.

Lightfoot’s approach to governance has also been criticized as being heavy-handed and authoritarian. She has been accused of limiting freedom of speech and assembly, especially in regards to the ongoing protests and demonstrations against police brutality. Lightfoot has been criticized for her handling of the police department, which has faced numerous scandals in recent years. Many residents feel that she has not done enough to address police misconduct and accountability.

In addition, Lightfoot’s lack of transparency and willingness to engage with the public has been a source of frustration for many residents. Despite running on a platform of transparency and accountability, she has been accused of being inaccessible and unresponsive to the concerns of ordinary residents. Many feel that her administration has been more focused on protecting its own interests than on serving the needs of the city and its residents.

In conclusion, there are numerous reasons why Lori Lightfoot may not be the best choice for a second term as the mayor of Chicago. Her handling of the city’s finances, the rise in crime, her response to the COVID-19 pandemic, her approach to governance, and her lack of transparency and engagement with the public have all been sources of criticism and concern. Unless Lightfoot takes concrete steps to address these issues, it is unlikely that she will be able to secure another term in office.

In the wake of another leaked (or “leaked”) memo from a general, George Friedman remarks on the prospect of war with China:

I have been on record as saying China’s economic and political vulnerabilities make such a conflict unlikely, but when a four-star general and one of the few politicians I actually respect go well out of their way to say something like this, I’m compelled to recheck my thinking. That the two are saying the same thing, moreover, suggests to me that someone in Washington has briefed them on the matter. Briefings are not the subject of random gossip.

concluding

I respect the general and the congressman, and obviously they have access to better intelligence than I do. But I find it hard to believe that China would plan a war so carelessly. Given the leak, a war could still be in the offing, but for China it would likely be short.

Perhaps I am reverting to bad habits. Answering my own questions with my old views is admittedly poor intelligence. Feel free to let me know which questions I didn’t pose and which answers were insufficient. I will happily pout and respond.

i wanted to comment on this observation of his:

Will the war be on land, in the air, at sea, or some combination of the three? The U.S. is not capable of waging a land war in China given its size and population. China can wage an air and naval war, but it would be doing so against a very capable enemy. Beijing’s advantage is that the homeland is secure. The U.S. has the same advantage, of course, but it has the added benefit of being able to draw deep into the Pacific and engage China far from home. In other words, the U.S. can to some degree determine where the war will be fought.

I think he’s leaving out an important theater of operations: space. Don’t ignore the possibility that we, the Chinese, or both of us will be trying and in all likelihood succeeding in taking out each others satellites.

I also think that

1. we are absolutely, positively not prepared for war with China. Our economy would collapse almost immediately. The chaos would be immense.
2. war with China would inevitably go nuclear. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Chinese leadership thinks it could win a nuclear war. I don’t think it is possible to deter China.

The topic of the day among the Wall Street Journal opinion writers seems to be the killing of Tyre Nichols. Gerard Baker has a lament:

But of course the largest question, whenever a black man dies at the hands of law enforcement, is swirling around race.

For many conservatives, in this case it is a self-evidently absurd question. Five black cops kill a black man and the left immediately insists it is racism at work. But you don’t have to believe that the black officers were somehow acting as unwitting agents of white supremacism, or subscribe to the canon of critical race theory, to ponder how the race of suspects affects how they are treated by police.

The right question to ask is: Would the Memphis officers have behaved as they did if the man they were pursuing had been white? We can’t know the answer. But we can frame the question differently: Is it less probable that a confrontation between these officers and a suspect would have resulted in his violent death if he had been, let’s say, a middle-aged white man rather than a 29-year-old black man? There is still much room for uncertainty but I think the answer here is clearly yes.

This, in itself, of course doesn’t prove some wider social or systemic racism. The problem, as well documented in studies of police shootings, is that young black men are disproportionately more likely to be involved in serious crime—and in encounters with police—than are other demographics. This inevitably results in a greater suspicion in the minds of police officers (and the rest of us) that a young black man may pose a greater risk.

This is rational and not primal bigotry. But at what point does this rational, inference-making blur into a set of unworthy assumptions about the behavior of all young black men, even—perhaps especially—among other black men?

There’s a darker question about race in this case which comes to mind as you watch the video of the assault.

The initial phase of the interaction is a depressing picture of incompetent policing. Five burly officers are unable to restrain a single unarmed, underweight man, and he somehow fleetingly escapes the onslaught of arms, fists, batons, tasers they bring to the unequal struggle.

while William Galston wonders what can be done?

Mark LeSure, a retired Memphis police sergeant, offered context for these events that I found illuminating. Over the past decade, he recounted, pay cuts, pension-plan reductions, and other issues had induced many of the force’s veterans to retire, and those hired to fill their place were far less experienced. Elite units such as Scorpion were staffed with police at much earlier points in their careers than previously, raising risks when they were told to move aggressively against street crime. “They let their emotions get the best of them,” he said, “and there was no veteran officer there to stop them.”

To be sure, the presence of a veteran officer is no panacea; the senior officer involved in the George Floyd murder was the most egregious offender. Still, Mr. LeSure’s street-level explanation has the ring of truth. Police officers are subject to all of the vulnerabilities of the human condition, including what St. Augustine called the libido dominandi—the impulse to exert dominance over others. It will take better training, improved on-the-ground leadership, and more reliable mechanisms of accountability to lean against this impulse, which can be fatal when it drives the actions of cops on the beat.

There’s a lot to digest here but let me try to break it into pieces. Young black men clearly have problems. They account for a disproportionate number of those killed by police:

Find more statistics at Statista
and an even more disproportionate number of those apprehended. But look at the graph above more closely. Nearly twice as many whites were killed by police last year than blacks. Yes, the number remains disproportionate. If I were to relate apprehensions to killed it would be interesting but I doubt that it is possible to disaggregate legitimate bona fide apprehensions from hassling. Based on crimes reported I would suggest that young black men are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes.

But there’s an additional issue. I don’t know what other people were taught about interactions with police but I was taught to be very respectful and police and absolutely, positively never wise off, criticize, protest, or resist when dealing with the police. One of the things very apparent from the extremely distasteful bodycam footage is that Mr. Nichols was resisting arrest. He was clearly in fear for his life, with good reason as events proved. The question remains: how strongly did his resistance figure in subsequent events?

As to Mr. Galston’s remarks I am fairly certain that his proposal regarding libido dominandi is unrealistic. If I am not mistaken in law enforcement that is called “situational control” and police officers are taught that it is vitally important to maintain it during an apprehension. Indeed, use of force is generally contingent on using it to regain situational control.

In summary race impinges on this situation in many ways possibly including why Mr. Nichols was apprehended, how the law enforcement officers responded, and how Mr. Nichols responded. But not in the simplistic way that some are suggesting. As noted above whites are killed by police officers, too.

I would support the national sales tax being bandied about with four provisos:

1. It should be prebated to the taxpayer with the amount prebated determined based on income and an estimation of purchases.
2. It should apply to everything including services, real property, and financial assets, i.e. not just things on which poor people spend most of their income.
3. A percentage of the amount derived from each state should be returned to each state in the form of block grants without restrictions on how the money is spent.
4. It should completely replace the income tax.

Otherwise I’d oppose it.

The first proviso ensures it would be progressive. The second also ensures progressivity as well as reducing the degree to which such a tax would pick winners and losers. 45 states have sales taxes as do many local jurisdictions. Without the third proviso a national sales tax could be quite hard, disastrous in fact on many states, counties, and cities that depend on sales tax revenue. The fourth reduces the total time and effort required to comply.

As usual the devil is in the details. Maybe I’ve missed something but that should just about do it.

I have no expectation that such a tax could ever be enacted since it would strip Congress of much of its power.

Last night we had baked chicken, oven roasted potatoes, and a little arugula salad plucked from our tiny basement garden. A small luxury.

There’s a common thread running through several of the things I’ve read today—the need for certain behaviors to change. For example, at IEEE Spectrum Robert Charette says that to reach 2050 emissions targets people need to change their behaviors:

How willing are people to break their car dependency and other energy-related behaviors to address climate change? The answer is perhaps some, but maybe not too much. A Pew Research Centersurvey taken in late 2021 of seventeen countries with advanced economies indicated that 80 percent of those surveyed were willing to alter how then live and work to combat climate change.

However, a Kanter Publicsurvey of ten of the same countries taken at about the same time gives a less positive view, with only 51 percent of those polled stating they would alter their lifestyles. In fact, some 74 percent of those polled indicated they were already “proud of what [they are] currently doing” to combat climate change.

What both polls failed to explore are what behaviors specifically would respondents being willing to permanently change or give up in their lives to combat climate change?

For instance, how many urban dwellers, if told that they must forever give up their cars and instead walk, cycle or take public transportation, would willingly agree to doing so? And how many of those who agreed, would also consent to go vegetarian, telework, and forsake trips abroad for vacation?

The bulk of the article is devoted to the difficulties in reaching the EV adoption targets. I recommend it.

This post by Jennifer A. Kingson at Axios is about the various (mostly fad) diets being introduced to combat climate change:

Move over, locavores: A slew of new labels — from “climavore” to “reducetarian” — reflect the trend of people eating with sustainability in mind to reduce their climate “foodprint.”

Why it matters: Food manufacturers, restaurants, and supermarkets are racing to cater to the zeal for lower-carbon eating choices, which has people eschewing plastic packaging, ingredients flown in from afar, and foods that are environmentally damaging to produce.

• While there’s plenty of disagreement about what to avoid, top villains include faves like red meat, chocolate, avocados, sugar, and — gasp — coffee.
• The “eat local” mantra is being replaced by the notion that what you eat is more important — since transportation is sometimes just a small part of your meal’s carbon footprint.

A considerable proportion of the commentary on the killing of Tyre Nichols centers around changing the behaviors of law enforcement officers.

There’s an irony in this yen to change people’s behaviors: it’s frequently accompanied by an insistence that some behaviors are unalterable and must not just be accepted but normalized.

I think that much of this is painting with far too broad a brush. I think that behaviors fall into multiple categories including needs, wants, inherent, and definitional. So, for example, I doubt that many people feel an urgent need to drive but that driving is a means to an end. Move where they need to go (work, stores, etc.) closer and people will drive less. Doesn’t that bode well for the future of cities? I don’t think so. I believe that people have an inherent, innate desire to live in villages and that’s why every city is surrounded by sprawling suburbs. Living in large cities, packed densely together is a relatively new phenomenon. For tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human existence we were living in small groups.

Similarly with diet. I think that those who fantasize about changing people’s diets the better to address their ideas of environmental soundness are doomed to frustration. Diets are very durable things. The archaeological record suggests that as far back as we have been able to determine human beings have preferentially sought out the highest fat food source in the environment, especially meat and shellfish but also including dairy products, nuts, olives, etc. Given that history I suspect that people will fight before giving up their burgers. As my wife once put it you can lead a horse to water but that won’t make him into a duck.

Changing police behavior sounds felicitous but, again, I think that those advocating it will be frustrated. There is a certain element of thuggery inherent in police work. However well they’re recruited or trained police officers will inevitably return to old, bad methods. Can we improve things? Definitely. But we can’t eliminate police violence entirely. Any more than we can eliminate crime entirely.

Here’s an interesting experiment. I asked ChatGPT two questions:

Why should the United States support Ukraine in its war with Russia?

1. Defense of sovereignty: The war in Ukraine is a conflict over the country’s right to determine its own future and defend its territorial integrity. Supporting Ukraine upholds the principle of state sovereignty and the right of nations to choose their own path.
2. Promoting stability: The conflict in Ukraine is destabilizing for the region and beyond, and supporting Ukraine helps to restore stability and prevent the spread of violence.
3. Countering Russian aggression: Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine represents a challenge to international law and the rules-based order. Supporting Ukraine sends a message that aggressive behavior will not be tolerated.
4. Advancing U.S. interests: A stable and democratic Ukraine advances U.S. interests in Europe and beyond, and supporting Ukraine helps to promote U.S. values and strengthen relationships with important allies.
5. Humanitarian concerns: The conflict has caused suffering for the Ukrainian people, and supporting Ukraine can help to address the humanitarian crisis and promote recovery and reconciliation.

Why should the United States not support Ukraine in its war with Russia?

1. Cost: The cost of supporting Ukraine, including military aid and economic assistance, can be high and divert resources from other pressing priorities.
2. Escalation risk: Providing military support to Ukraine could escalate the conflict and lead to a larger and more dangerous war.
3. Complex regional dynamics: The conflict in Ukraine is part of a larger and complex web of regional and global interests, and supporting Ukraine may have unintended consequences for U.S. relations with other key actors.
4. Limited U.S. influence: Despite its efforts, the U.S. may have limited ability to influence the outcome of the conflict, and supporting Ukraine may not achieve desired results.
5. Potential for blowback: Supporting Ukraine may provoke a strong reaction from Russia, potentially damaging U.S. interests in other areas.

I think it’s stated the pro and con cases pretty well. I don’t know whether to find that scary or encouraging.

Out of the mouths, etc.

Speaking of training and maintenance I found this post at RealClearDefense by Lolita C. Baldor interesting:

A MILITARY BASE IN SOUTHEASTERN POLAND (AP) — On the front lines in Ukraine, a soldier was having trouble firing his 155 mm howitzer gun. So, he turned to a team of Americans on the other end of his phone line for help.

“What do I do?” he asked the U.S. military team member, far away at a base in southeastern Poland. “What are my options?”

Using phones and tablets to communicate in encrypted chatrooms, a rapidly growing group of U.S. and allied troops and contractors is providing real-time maintenance advice — usually speaking through interpreters — to Ukrainian troops on the battlefield.

In a quick response, the U.S. team member told the Ukrainian to remove the gun’s breech at the rear of the howitzer and manually prime the firing pin so the gun could fire. He did it and it worked.

The exchange is part of an expanding U.S. military help line aimed at providing repair advice to Ukrainian forces in the heat of battle. As the U.S. and other allies send more and increasingly complex and high-tech weapons to Ukraine, demands are spiking. And since no U.S. or other NATO nations will send troops into the country to provide hands-on assistance — due to worries about being drawn into a direct conflict with Russia — they’ve turned to virtual chatrooms.

Modern telecommunications certainly change the landscape of battle, don’t it?