Latest news with #Trump-like
Hindustan Times
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
New enemy in the West is the illegal migrant
In 1992, the American political strategist James Carville coined the catchphrase, 'It's the economy, stupid'. It conveyed that the singular issue which mattered the most to voters in the US was the condition of the economy and how it impacted on their personal finances. Today, economic considerations continue to remain crucial determinants of voter choice, but the other issue which has risen to the fore is immigration. Record numbers of people moving past national borders are also ensuring that the word migrant has an edgy and controversial connotation. (AFP) During the 2024 US presidential election, concerns about high levels of inflation (a proxy for the economy) and fears of humongous inflows of migrants from the southern border with Mexico combined to ensure the stunning return to power of President Donald Trump for a second term. Trump's bare-knuckles election campaign rhetoric against migrants galvanised a large segment of Americans to rally around him as the last saviour who can regain control over their country and harden what they perceived to be dangerously loose borders. Although Trump's allegation that his predecessor President Joe Biden had 'allowed 21 million illegals to pour in from all over the world' may not be accurate, the message of keeping America safe from unwanted hordes echoed deeply among conservatives and boosted the appeal of his Right-wing populism, which combines economic anxieties over losing out to other countries through foreign trade and globalisation with cultural insecurities about erosion of the social fabric and core racial identity due to opening the floodgates to migrants by liberals. The recent disturbances in California involving a crackdown by the Trump administration to conduct mass arrests and deportations of immigrants, and street protests and running battles of targeted Latino communities with law enforcement officials, were a reiteration of the same electoral political wedge between the Right-wing and Left-wing on the fundamental questions of who is an American and what an ideal American society should look like. Trump's historic move to deploy US military troops and the National Guard to quell 'a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the US', and vehement opposition to this step as an authoritarian violation of State sovereignty and fundamental human rights of innocent Americans by the liberal Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, was a demonstration of the deep divide which has polarised the US into two hostile ideological tribes that are at each other's throats. Such extreme confrontational theatre is not limited to the US. Over the past decade, immigration has emerged as a red-meat issue across Europe following the massive influx of refugees fleeing wars in Syria and Iraq and economic collapse in Africa. Trump-like politicians in Europe have been declaring do-or-die wars and calling for national emergencies to tackle illegal immigration. While the far-Right has not managed to sweep all elections and win office throughout Europe, it has succeeded in mainstreaming radical anti-immigrant attitudes and values, compelling traditional incumbent parties to co-opt them. In most western democracies which are struggling to sustain their liberal multicultural models from being overrun, the very concept of national security threat has been reformulated to refer to illegal immigration rather than to any revisionist foreign enemy like Russia or China. Defence and foreign ministries still worry and plan about how to prevent World War III with Russia backed by China, but the political mood on the streets is to defend borders against refugees and migrants. In the present zeitgeist, the rejection of open borders and mass mobilisation to block undesirable people is not limited to the West. Anti-immigrant threat perceptions have grown in large developing countries like Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and India too. In parts of the Global South, animosity against immigrants and asylum seekers has an economic logic, with local citizens fretting that the already limited resources and jobs they have will be stolen by foreigners who slip across their borders. In India, where over 20 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are estimated to have entered through the eastern border, there is widespread unease about demographic alteration and exclusive enclaves that could become hotbeds of Islamist extremism and terrorism. Even though anti-immigrant feelings may not determine the overall national electoral calculus in India, the lines are clearly drawn between 'secular' political parties, which sound similar to liberals in the West, and Right-wing parties which present a Trump-style doomsday scenario of losing the country to a silent invasion. Even as migrants are in the eye of the storm globally in terms of politics, they do perform economically useful functions in recipient countries. The demographic decline in rich nations and consequent labour shortages pose existential challenges to the long-term viability of their economies. Numerous studies by economists show that allowing in more migrants through legal and institutional channels will benefit host nations and enhance their economic growth prospects. Still, with political emotions running high, the distinctions between authorised and unauthorised migrants, as well as between refugees who flee war and political persecution and economic migrants who chase dollar dreams, are blurring. Record numbers of people moving past national borders are also ensuring that the word migrant has an edgy and controversial connotation. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there were over 281 million international migrants in 2020, which was 128 million more than in 1990 and over three times greater than in 1970. The pressure of these numbers, which get further exaggerated by politicians, means that this ballooning global crisis will worsen. Solutions for orderly and legitimate migration, wherein supply of labour is matched with demand, do exist on paper. But politics will likely override economics on this issue, which means the struggle over immigration is going to be prolonged, irrational and violent. Sreeram Chaulia is Dean, Jindal School of International Affairs. The views expressed are personal.
Toronto Star
3 days ago
- Politics
- Toronto Star
First Nations warn against fast-tracking of Carney government's ‘nation-building' bill
OTTAWA — For the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the Liberal government's rushing of its major projects bill through Parliament is a little too reminiscent of the American administration the proposed law was designed to counter. 'We see that in the States, how they govern themselves, they push things through and they try and ram things through and be very aggressive. I don't think Canada needs to be like that,' Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told the Star. 'When we're just trying to ram something through, what if we make mistakes?' Woodhouse Nepinak, who says the Carney government's fervour for its 'One Canadian Economy' bill is 'Trump-like,' said she is prepared to do 'whatever the First Nations want us to do' when it comes to responding to the proposed legislation. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The national chief spoke to the Star on Tuesday in the midst of a demonstration on Parliament Hill, where roughly 200 people led by the Chiefs of Ontario gathered to voice their opposition to a bill now barrelling its way through the House of Commons. 'The government of Canada … has been using a process that's undemocratic, that doesn't allow for very much of anybody … First Nations or non-Indigenous, to have input into legislation,' said Abram Benedict, the Ontario regional chief for the Chiefs of Ontario. 'You've heard the leadership talk about calling upon the prime minister to sit with the rights-holders, sit with the leadership, find a pathway forward,' Benedict said. 'We have been very clear that our nations are not against development. Our nations want to be part of the prosperity of Canada.' Tuesday's protest was the latest flashpoint concerning Bill C-5, which would give Ottawa temporary powers to sidestep existing environmental laws and regulations to fast-track 'nation-building' resource and infrastructure projects. A second component of the bill deals with lifting federal barriers to internal trade and improving labour mobility across the country. The government's stated goal in introducing the legislation is to boost Canada's economy and security in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump's aggression, by speeding up approval processes while simultaneously protecting the environment and Indigenous rights. The government says projects chosen for fast-tracking could be weighed against other factors, such as ensuring they 'advance the interests' of Indigenous Peoples. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW A rare alliance between Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals and Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives late Monday means that the bill now has a clear runway to be passed in the lower chamber by weeks' end. 'Bill C-5 has given rise to a Conservative-Liberal coalition working for the oil companies. After years of saying that the Liberals are the devil incarnate, the Conservatives are now eating out of their hands,' Bloc Québécois MP Patrick Bonin said Monday. The Bloc, the New Democrats and the Green Party's Elizabeth May all opposed the fast-tracking efforts, warning that without proper parliamentary oversight, proposed projects would be beset by protests and mired in court challenges. As the clock approached midnight Monday, the two traditionally rival parties also joined forces to send the bill to committee, where it will be studied for a drastically condensed two-day period. In an appearance before the House transport committee late Tuesday afternoon, Woodhouse Nepinak said lawmakers should expect to see more demonstrations opposing the bill. 'Will it lead to legal issues later? Well, certainly, if you're not talking to the rights-holders,' she told MPs, adding that the bill needs more time to be reviewed. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'I mean, you're going to have legal wrangling right up the yin-yang if you don't do the right thing and do this bill in a proper, respectful and good way. I think Canada can save itself years of litigation if they do that.' Earlier in the day, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Crown Indigenous Affairs Minister Rebecca Alty fielded questions from the Senate floor about the bill. Both ministers repeatedly pointed to two sections of the legislation that the Liberals believe shield them from criticism that they are not upholding Indigenous rights. LeBlanc referred to 'the five criteria' in the law that would determine which projects get greenlit, one of which ensures that projects advance the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill, as written, does not refer to those examples as compulsory criteria; it instead says the government 'may consider' anything cabinet deems relevant, 'including' the five factors listed. At committee, Woodhouse Nepinak said those factors should be made mandatory. Alty also referred to checks and balances that will be put in place after the bill's expected passage, such as creating an Indigenous advisory committee within the law's proposed 'major projects office' that will oversee the assessment process. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'Through the proposed major projects office, we will be centralizing knowledge and tracking of consultation activities, developing a centralized approach to identifying impacted Indigenous communities to consult, clearly identifying rights holders early in the process to reduce uncertainty and avoid delays in project timelines, serving as a point of contact for escalating consultation issues, and ensuring timely access to senior decision-makers,' Alty said, patting LeBlanc's shoulder. On the sidelines of Tuesday's protest, Liberal MP Greg Fergus, who was observing the demonstration, said he didn't expect that projects would be nixed by the Indigenous advisory council if they made it that far into the process. 'The whole point of bringing these projects forward is that they have Indigenous consent,' Fergus told the Star, 'so I expect that they wouldn't make the cut otherwise.' Nevertheless, he said he sympathized with the discontent. 'I understand, given our long history of not doing the right thing, as to why these communities would be here on the Hill to express their point of view. But I really believe, and this is sincere, that Canada has changed. There's no possible way that any big project can go through without having Indigenous consent,' Fergus said. 'I'm glad they're here, but message received.' Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Ignoring the doctor's advice not a sound strategy
A dried lake as drought strikes the island of Sicily. PHOTO: REUTERS What would you do if your doctor told you to act now to stop drinking so much whisky because, if you don't, you only have a short time to live? What would you do if your family told you they agreed and that your drinking was endangering their health too? What if your best friend was the manager of the bottle store where you bought your whisky? Would you put your best friend's whisky sales ahead of your doctor's advice and your family's pleas? It looks as though Prime Minister Christopher Luxon would. He's been told by 26 of the world's leading climate scientists that we are not doing enough to reduce our methane emissions. Those emissions affect everyone on the planet. Our own Climate Commission recommended we do more, but Luxon appointed a separate panel to review methane emissions and accepted their advice although they were not climate experts. Farmers, whose sheep and cattle are responsible for nearly all our methane emissions, and on whom Luxon's National Party depends at election time, argue that emissions are inevitable to maintain their income and the economic prosperity of the country. Luxon agreed. As a result, we included in our official report to the United Nations in January that instead of reducing our methane emissions we promised not to increase them. "No additional warming," we said. No wonder the scientists wrote him a letter. It's like you telling your doctor and your family that you promise not to increase your whisky consumption. And, just as Luxon, Trump-like, claimed that we are managing our methane emissions "better than every other country on the planet", you would say that you were "the most responsible whisky drinker in the world". Not too long ago New Zealand had an international reputation for being clean and green. We were leaders in caring for our environment. It was a reputation in which we all took pride. Now that reputation is in tatters. It started collapsing in 2023, when the previous government's climate policies were described as "highly insufficient" by the international Climate Tracker organisation. Since then, our current government has only worsened the situation. And this year's Budget worsens things still further. It reduces our climate finance commitments from $250 million annually to $100m, withdrawing from our previous commitment to triple this funding by 2030. It allocates funding support for investment in new gas fields but makes no significant investments in energy security, affordability and sustainability. There are no incentives for mitigation, and no mention of budgeting for adaptation to future climate events, even though the cost of the combined Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 was over $3.5 billion. Our government's reduction in commitment to the impacts of climate change comes when those impacts across the planet are only escalating. The World Meteorological Organisation tells us that the climate changes now happening in the Southwest Pacific (that's us) are "alarming". Luxon shows no signs of alarm, alas. The Paris Agreement of 10 years ago agreed that we must at all costs prevent the planet warming by 2°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. The WMO now warns that we are on track to reach that temperature by 2030 — in five years' time. Our government is either an ostrich (hoping climate change will go away if it ignores it) or cowardly (unable to commit to what must be done for fear of losing an election). What it doesn't seem to realise is that the National Party is the best-placed party to tell the agriculture sector what must be done if we are to survive. Somebody certainly needs to make farmers, and everyone else, understand that we are in a fool's paradise if we expect to keep on living the way we do. If we can't hold warming to 2°C by 2030, we'll find it almost impossible to hold it to 3°C by 2050 and 4°C by 2070, at which point we are closing in on the extinction of the human species. And that's in the lifetime of our grandchildren. — John Drummond is an emeritus professor at the University of Otago.
Sydney Morning Herald
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australians must not follow Trump's road to ruin
It would appear as through Parnell McGuinness (' JD Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong ', June 8) and similar-minded conservative commentators such as Sky News After Dark, are continuing on their ideologically driven warpaths oblivious to the voice of the Australian people as expressed in the May 3 election. While these media darlings of the right still want to rant and rave and feed each other's egos with negativity, doom and gloom, the great mass of Australians are getting on with life, comfortable with their government which is safe, stable, secure and focused on traditional Australian positive values of a fair go, kindness and friendliness. To become relevant again and play a meaningful role in modern Australia, the right-wing media needs to jettison these antagonistic Trump-like approaches which were clearly rejected by the Australian people. Warren Marks, Richmond (Tas) Parnell Palme McGuinness warns against the suppression of ideas, quoting the US vice president's controversial advice to the Munich Security Conference in February that 'governments must listen to and respect their citizens'. However, she, like JD Vance, can't resist cherry-picking just which ideas and citizen groups are worthy of respect. She uses the case of the phrase 'identified as' being currently questioned and 'no longer [deemed] acceptable' by some activists, as an example of 'groups trying to control public conversation'. But is this really a 'kind of slippery censorship', or just the progression of an idea so it more accurately conveys the lived experience of a group? Wasn't JD Vance's speech realistically more of an attempt to control? It's a shame Palme McGuinness sabotages her own argument, adopts the culture war cover, and portrays progressive ideas as threats. Everyone counts, Parnell. Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown EVs not for me After 60 years of driving, I recently explored the hybrid option (' The sweet spot: How to get the most out of your super and the pension', June 8). I currently drive a diesel SUV, and being a self-funded retiree, I receive no government pension. I spend about $100 per fortnight on fuel. The hybrid currently comes with no spare wheel and no tow-bar, which I need to tow my boat. The changeover figure is $12,000 in the dealer's favour. The cost of a one-off tow-bar is an extra $2000, and a spare wheel costs a couple of hundred more. That equates to about six years' driving if I continue to use diesel. There is no government incentive for me to change. Free rego for all EV-driving retirees might sway me. I think I will stay with my diesel as I am not that green. David Sayers, Gwandalan Undeserved reward This just brings discredit to the whole honours system (' Politicians, scientists and costume designer feature in King's awards ', June 8). The highest honours go to those who have already achieved a higher role in society, often just for doing what that job requires. Isn't achieving that position (and the salary that goes with it) reward enough? Meanwhile, those who make a real sacrifice and give true service to others might receive a lower honour (when nominated), if any at all. In the case of the honour given to Scott Morrison, one hopes that it is primarily because most ex-PMs have historically received a similar award. Otherwise, it wouldn't seem to be merited. The citation says it's for 'his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and his key role in the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal'. Doesn't that come with the job of being PM? His role in the pandemic overlooks the refusal to require those already wealthy to pay back JobKeeper payments for which they were ultimately found to be ineligible, the 'stroll-out' of vaccines, and the needless antagonism of China over the pandemic's origins (which damaged Australia's trade). And the value of the AUKUS deal remains questionable. And then there are the multiple ministries, robo-debt, claims to not hold a hose, and statements that women protesters were lucky not to be shot. I predict that this will prompt many other letters to the editor.
Herald Sun
06-06-2025
- Business
- Herald Sun
The lessons from IDP Education's week from Hell
The student recruiter has been hit by the migration backlash not just here, but in Canada, the UK and the US Other listed colleges are tweaking their business models to focus on domestic students While there's no end of the pain in sight, some brokers reckon IDP Education is a buy at its marked-down valuation It's not unusual for a small cap stock to decline 50% in value or more in one day. But when the top 200 stock IDP Education (ASX:IEL) achieved that this week – erasing more than $1 billion of market value – it was a case of 'class, take note'. The dramatic plunge came after the overseas student wrangler's confession on Tuesday that full-year revenue and earnings would plummet on the back of visa crackdowns. The stock has lost an astonishing 75% over the last year. Arguably the downgrade was years in the making, given the quality issues besetting both the tertiary and vocational sectors for some years. Still, investors were shocked by the scale of the revision or maybe they just hadn't done their homework. IDP guided to a 28-30% decline in student placement volumes, with its language testing arm likely to fall by 18-20%. Adjusted earnings before interest and tax (ebit) are expected at $115-125 million, a circa 50% year-on-year decline and well shy of market expectations of $166 million. Trump-like 'regulation by fiat' The visa crackdown was contained in a bill that the old Parliament did not pass, but government went ahead via a Trump-style Ministerial Directive (MD107). The measure means visa applications are processed on the perceived risk of the education provider and the student's country of origin. Dubbed by college operator Academies Australasia (ASX:AKG) as 'regulation by fiat', the measure compounds the problems of providers with high visa rejection rates. The reasons for the knock-backs are likely to be beyond the colleges' control. Nowhere to hide as migration policies bite IDP's problems don't start and end at home. Half-owned by sandstone universities, the company started out as a local uni recruiter but now touts for colleges in the UK, Canada and the US. Half of the company's revenue deriving from English language testing and teaching. The UK is even more zealous on reducing migration, as is Canada given the backdrop of the recent close election. We'll simply call US a no-go zone, given Trump's order to block Harvard University from admitting international students. Heeding the lessons IDP is not the only ASX-listed, overseas student focused education play feeling the pinch. It's a case of accepting the new reality and adapting. The amalgam of Icollege and Redhill Education, NextEd Group (ASX:NXD) reported a $2.2 million first half loss, amid a 21% revenue decline (to $47 million). However Nexted offset some of the impact of a 52% English language services decline with increased international vocation enrolment. The aforementioned Academies managed to grow half year revenue by 2.8% (to $23.9 million). The company also narrowed a previous $7.5 million loss to a $958,000 deficit. Operator of the Ikon (tertiary) and ALG (vocational) colleges, EDU Holdings (ASX:EDU) gets a gold star by doubling calendar 2024 revenue to $42 million. The company also managed a $2.6 million profit after three years of losses. Gary Burg told last month's AGM the impact of the visa changes remained unclear and the company was focusing on the domestic student market. A free kick of the 'political football'? Despite the IDP sell down there's still a country mile between its $1 billion market cap and the circa $20-40 million valuation ascribed to the other providers. As with all harsh sell-offs, have investors have over-reacted? Broker UBS contends IDP's business model is unbroken and the company 'remains a high-quality business in challenging conditions'. The firm rates the stock a 'buy' with a price target of $4.95, implying around 40% of upside. IDP is undertaking a detailed business review, with an update promised at its August full-year results. At Academies' AGM last year, acting chairman Chiang Meng Heng decried the sector being turned into a political Sherrin. 'Certain comments being bandied about smack of populism, rather than carefully considered positions that are good for the country,' he said. 'The air may not clear until after the federal election.' More than a month after the poll, clarity awaits. Originally published as Criterion: IDP Education's share plunge is a harsh lesson for the overseas student industry
