What’s the best way to fight for a humane immigration policy? Immigration advocates talk about the decisions that shaped the debate and where we go from here.
7 August 2018
openDemocracy: The future of sharing: it's still about freedom
But five years on, it turns out we were wrong. These corporate platforms have received a barrage of criticism. The most recent research indicates that the environmental impacts of Uber are not positive. One study estimates that Uber and its competitor Lyft could be increasing total vehicle travel miles per year in the US by as much as 5.5 billion. It turns out that ‘sharing’ isn’t quite the right word for connecting independent taxi drivers with their clients. The idea that Airbnb would reduce the environmental impact of where people stay is not backed up by research. The authors of a recent review of the sharing sector concluded that “the early claims of the inherent sustainability of the sharing economy are ill-founded.”
In fact, there were some earlier signs that the large corporate platforms were not as interested in the sustainability potential of sharing as we observers were. At the 2013 summer Davos summit in China the co-founder of Airbnb, Nate Blecharczyk, sought to moderate my enthusiasm by saying he thought that his company had little philosophical commitment to a sharing economy and was simply focused on growing the business. It was early days. The company was only worth $2.5 billion then, not the $31 billion it is today. In the intervening years, the problem of focusing on private profit instead of public purpose has become much more apparent as corporate platforms have experienced a backlash from regulators and stakeholders. [...]
The third head of the Collective, Matthew Slater, is responsible for the software that supports the network across Europe. He has also been leading their research. He explained that they “would like more detailed analysis on the possible pro-environmental impacts both in Australia and across the other 15 countries where we support local groups, but we are all volunteers and maxed out on the day to day support.”
Political Critique: Humanitarian smugglers, fraternité, and european citizenship
The event had all the trappings of a typical festival: a four-day festival pass (for a donation of any amount), souvenir t-shirts, beer in reusable plastic cups. But the celebrities featured were not the usual festival headliners. The crowd went wild for Cédric Herrou, a local farmer who has hosted hundreds of migrants and been brought to court for his actions; José Bové, a deputy in the European Parliament known for his anti-globalisation activism; Mireille Damiano, a lawyer who defends migrant minors in irregular legal situations. As Damiano said, “we’ve been treated as smugglers so often that for once claiming the status of smuggler is good!” They led lively debates along with festival attendees, who had come from the villages of the valley, across France, and some from across Europe. Still, notably absent from the festival were migrants and refugees themselves, with only a few in attendance. To show true solidarity with migrants, those assisting migrants must also make space for their voices. [...]
Residents of the valley are assisting those who arrive with food, shelter, and help with legal processes. However, both EU and French law criminalize actions that facilitate the illegal entry, stay or circulation of foreigners. Violations of this law are known as a “délit de solidarité”, an offense of solidarity, and residents of the valley have faced legal consequences for their humanitarian actions to assist migrants. Despite this hostile climate, residents of the valley continue welcoming migrants in their capacity as individuals and through associations like Roya Citoyenne. Those helping migrants claim that doing so is their duty as French citizens, an act of fraternité to protect the human rights of vulnerable people. [...]
A major victory these activists was the recent decision of the French Constitutional Court affirming “fraternité” as a constitutional principle. The ruling stated that “the concept of Fraternité confers the freedom to help others, for humanitarian purposes, without consideration for the legality of their stay on national territory”. While this is undoubtedly good news, there are some important concerns. First, there is the issue of compensation: the humanitarian action cannot have any direct or indirect benefit for the person performing it. However, compensation is not explicitly defined as financial gain, which leaves a grey area. One court in France has even ruled that if the humanitarian action contributes to a person’s activism that can be considered compensation. The court decision also leaves it up to the legislature how to balance the principle of fraternité with public order, which could still result in measures restricting assistance as part of the political agenda securitizing migration.
SciShow: 5 Things Humans Got Really Wrong About Our Bodies
Throughout history, people have been trying to figure out how our bodies work and how to fix them when things go wrong. This has led to some ideas that, with the benefit of hindsight, seem very strange.
Big Think: Why the wars America starts are unwinnable | Danny Sjursen
Danny Sjursen—a prominent U.S. Army strategist and also a former history instructor at West Point Academy—posits that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't winnable. So... why don't we leave? As he puts it: "We have the inertia of a military-industrial complex, which makes a lot of money for a lot of people and keeps a lot of people employed, on one end, and then we have the sunken cost fallacy on the other side, where we say “We’ve committed so much we can’t possibly leave.” Danny is brought to you today by the Charles Koch Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation aims to further understanding of how US foreign policy affects American people and societal well-being. Through grants, events, and collaborative partnerships, the Foundation is working to stretch the boundaries of foreign policy research and debate by discussing ideas in strategy, trade, and diplomacy that often go unheeded in the US capital. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org. NOTE: The views expressed in this video are those of the guest speaking in an unofficial capacity and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Command and General Staff College, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US government.
Politico: EU vows to thwart Trump’s sanctions on Iran
“The EU is a market economy we protect freedom of enterprise,” a senior Commission official said. “The purpose of the blocking statute is not to oblige any company to invest but actually it is to make sure their business decisions remain free and not imposed upon by legislation, which we consider unlawful.” [...]
The most direct conflicts may not come until November, when U.S. sanctions intended to cripple Iran’s oil industry come back into effect. European officials have already said that they are working to find ways to keep Iran’s oil business alive, including new financing mechanisms perhaps through European central banks. China has already said it will continue buying oil from Iran. [...]
European officials, under pressure for details about how their blocking statute would work in practice, acknowledged that their legislation would not fully blunt the impact of U.S. sanctions. But said they wanted to provide as much reassurance as possible to European businesses. They also said there was continuing strong solidarity with Russia and China to preserve the economic benefits in the JCPOA that convinced Tehran to curtail its nuclear weapons program. [...]
However, European officials noted that the U.S. had rarely tried active enforcement of secondary sanctions and had met with little success in the few attempts in the past. The Europeans said they were hoping for a political deal as occurred in the 1990s during a similar dispute over unilateral U.S. sanctions against Cuba and Iran.
Politico: The real lesson Trump learned from Charlottesville
If that proves to be the case in the long run, a year out from Charlottesville tells a different story and is less clear cut. In fact, while Trump hasn’t changed, he’s no longer isolated, and his race and culture wars now pose one of the biggest challenges to Democrats plotting how to win back the House in 2018 and to take on Trump in 2020. [...]
Indeed, the Republicans in Congress who distanced themselves from Trump during the height of the controversy last summer have since embraced the president on tax reform and his Supreme Court selection, Brett Kavanaugh. Many of the executives who walked away from Trump’s business councils have simply taken their hobnobbing behind closed doors: Now they quietly dine with the president at the White House, or with his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner at their Kalorama mansion. [...]
Meanwhile, Trump himself is less constrained than he was after Charlottesville. At his campaign rallies and on Twitter, he has become more unadulterated in his critiques of what he calls the “fake news” media. The advisers who tried to serve as a check on his rash impulses have since left the administration and have been replaced with people more likely to let Trump set his own agenda. And, as he did on Friday, the president has continued to inflame racial tensions — something Democrats and Republicans alike see as fundamental to his power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)