The Debatable Land

Cats lie down with dogs...

And other oddities. for perhaps the first time ever, I find myself agreeing, in broad terms, with John Prescott. How did this happen and how, for the love of god, did Prezza end up besting my old pal Fraser Nelson? Ah, yes, immigration... As Fraser put it himself:

I’ve just done a BBC1 Politics Show where they introduced me as being from both The Spectator and The News of the World. As a result of this I was savaged by the Labour-supporting audience. Perhaps vengeance for my being rude to John Prescott in the middle bit, which was off-air . I have to say Prescott came out of the exchange better than I did. We had a set-to about debt figures, jobs and immigration. “How many of those 3m new jobs you were talking about are immigrants?” I asked. “I have no idea” “Two-thirds.” “Funny how these Tories are fixated with immigrants – I’m pleased Poles are getting new jobs.” I tried shouting out at him “five million on benefits” but he had the camera and the microphone and didn’t flinch. Had it been on air, it would have no doubt left me looking like a refugee from Speaker’s Corner.

Now, of course, the theory of open immigration and the idea of a world without frontiers is easier to support when you're isolated or removed from the social pressures unchecked immigration might bring to societal services in, say, parts of London. In oher words, the theory is wholesome while the practice, as matters currently stand, is more complicated, especially for poorer citizens for whom high levels of immigration may pose something of an economic as well as a cultural threat. Nontheless, the expansion of the EU to the east has been one of the most heartening developments of recent years, providing opportunities for advancement to millions of people. If it's fine for a Frenchman to move to London, why ain't it fine for a Bulgar to do so too? And if a Bulgar, then why not a Turk?

America Under Siege!

American icons are under threat! The Chrysler building has been sold - gasp! - to Arabs; now the Belgians have launched a bid to buy - double gasp! - Budweiser... The governor of Missouri has, of course, pledged to do all he can to prevent the company from falling into (filthy) foreign hands. Where-oh-where will it all end?

Coming to America

Since Andrew has already posted about this, everyone will have learnt about this poor Icelandic woman's horrific story by now. But just in case you haven't, here's her awful story. Her crime? She remained in the United States for three weeks after her tourist visa expired in 1995. Silly girl, you may say. You may even think it grounds for denying her entry into the US now. But perhaps you might care to draw the line at this:

During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible...

...I was exhausted, tired and hungry. I didn't understand the officials' conduct, for they were treating me like a very dangerous criminal. Soon thereafter I was removed from the cubicle and two armed guards placed me up against a wall. A chain was fastened around my waist and I was handcuffed to the chain. Then my legs were placed in chains. I asked for permission to make a telephone call but they refused. So secured, I was taken from the airport terminal in full sight of everybody. I have seldom felt so bad, so humiliated and all because I had taken a longer vacation than allowed under the law.

They would not tell me where they were taking me. The trip took close to one hour and although I couldn't see clearly outside the vehicle I knew that we had crossed over into New Jersey. We ended up in front of a jail. I could hardly believe that this was happening. Was I really about to be jailed? I was led inside in the chains and there yet another interrogation session ensued. I was fingerprinted once again and photographed. I was made to undergo a medical examination, I was searched and then I was placed in a jail cell. I was asked absurd questions such as: When did you have your last period? What do you believe in? Have you ever tried to commit suicide?

Like they say: read it and weep.

No One likes Us, We Don't Care

National Review's Andy McCarthy on a foreign policy difference between John McCain and Rudy Giuliani:

McCain is business as usual — even though there is no good reason why the quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians should be a priority, much less that we should intensify our commitment to a settlement in the absence of Palestinian fitness for statehood. Giuliani says we can talk about it after the Palestinians grow up. That's rather a large difference, and it's far from the only one.  McCain, for example, would perpetuate the State Department way of doing things (as part of restoring our allegedly tarnished image in the world) while Giuliani argues that we need to make major changes in the State Department and Foreign Service so that they are judged by how clearly they advocate U.S. policy.

Well, I confess I have no great idea for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. But resolving it would seem to be a good thing on the merits of the matter even if doing so had no other consequences or implications for American (or anyone else's) interests.

But let me simply observe that anyone who thinks the United States' image in the rest of the world has only allegedly (ie, it hasn't) been tarnished is, well, either someone who rarely speaks to foreigners or an idiot.

It may also be the case that McCain's ideas for repairing the US's image overseas would come to nothing but Giuliani seems to be of the view that foreigners will come to heel if only the United States is prepared to treat them roughly enough. This is, to put it kindly, arrant nonsense.

Furthermore, anyone who believes that these are trivial matters that can be ignored if The Right Tough Guy is in the White House comes close to automatically disqualifying themselves from being treated with any degree of seriousness on any foreign-policy-related matter in the future.

It's all in the way you tell them...

According to the Adam Smith Institute's blog, this was recently voted the funniest joke in Belgium:

Why do ducks have webbed feet?

To stamp out fires.

Why do elephants have flat feet?

To stamp out burning ducks.

Who says foreigners aren't funny?

It's a funny old world...

"News" you expected from Russia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin's party has won a landslide election victory, official results show.

With more than 80% of ballots counted, his United Russia had 63% of the vote. The opposition Communists and two other parties were also poised to win seats.

Opposition allegations of fraud were dismissed by the electoral commission.

News you may not have expected from Venezuela:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has narrowly lost a referendum on controversial constitutional changes.

Voters rejected the sweeping reforms by a margin of 51% to 49%, the chief of the National Electoral Council said.

Mr Chavez described the defeat as a "photo finish", and urged followers not to turn it into a point of conflict.

No wider point here, except that a) there's only so much that is likely to be gained from castigating Mr Putin and b) whatever his shortcomings perhaps this result might persuade some hysterics that Mr Chavez is not, as the phrase has it, an especially grave "clear and present danger" to the United States of America.

Flying in China and Japan

James Fallows has a splendid snapshot (ha!) of the differences between Japan and China:

With usual caveats against sweeping generalization, what this made me think was: Japan is all about the way of doing things. Practice, ritual, perfectionism, as much fanatical attention to the process as to the result. China is all about finding a way to do things. Improvisation, little interest in rules, putting up with whatever is necessary to attain the result...

At the moment, I am feeling positive toward both approaches. The emphasis on the right  way of doing things is re-surprising on each encounter with Japan. And the determination to do things in China, no matter what, commands respect, despite the obvious complications and problems it creates.

But when it comes to refueling the plane..

Make sure you check out the pictures too.

King of Spain to Hugo Chavez: Shut up, clown

Hugo Chavez is hardly the world's greatest problem. But Spain's King Juan Carlos shows how best to deal with this buffoon. Via Foreign Policy and a helpful correspondent, I came across this:

The king of Spain told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to "shut up" Saturday during a heated exchange that soured the end of a summit of leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal.

Chavez, who called President Bush the "devil" on the floor of the United Nations last year, triggered the exchange by repeatedly referring to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a "fascist."

Aznar, a conservative who was an ally of Bush as prime minister, "is a fascist," Chavez said in a speech at the Ibero-American summit in Santiago, Chile. "Fascists are not human. A snake is more human."

Spain's current socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, responded during his own allotted time by urging Chavez to be more diplomatic in his words and respect other leaders despite political differences.

"Former President Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people," he said, eliciting applause from the gathered heads of state.

Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, but his microphone was off.

Spanish King Juan Carlos, seated next to Zapatero, angrily turned to Chavez and said, "Why don't you shut up?"

Spanish-speakers will enjoy the video of the King scolding chavez in much the same manner one might deal with an especially tiresome child:

What's all the fuss about?

Calm down people. Reasons' Brian Doherty has it right:

Bush comes out with a blood-curdling threat to Congress: if they don't confirm Michael Mukasey for attorney general, why then the U.S. will just have to go to bed without any attorney general at all for the remainder of his term. Can justice survive? Will chaos reign? Why don't we find out?

Elsewhere, Belgium has had no government for 144 days with, as best one can tell, precious few adverse consequences. At the very least no new bad laws are being passed which puts the Belgians one up and leaves the rest of us, naturally, one down.

Heroes of Public Diplomacy

David Frum on Karen Hughes:

My column for this weekend's National Post will try to explain why Karen Hughes so signally failed as US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Hint: It's not because she is a shallow and ill-informed person with scant experience of the world outside America's borders but dangerously unlimited confidence in her own abilities. Although of course that didn't help.

Mr Frum of course is a senior adviser to a Giuliani campaign which, thus far, does not seem overly concerned with matters as trifling - or as tricky - as public diplomacy. A message of strength is all very well and good - it may even be necessary - but it is far from sufficient if the Unite States wants to achieve its tactical and strategic goals. The Bush administration half-recognised this - hence Hughes' appointment - even if it was by then far too late to do anything about it even if Hughes had been up to the job or, as they say these days, fit for purpose.

Values: An Immensely Malleable Concept

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is visiting Britain this week. Fine. These are people we need to be able to do business with, however much one might wish it otherwise. But that's no excuse for a minister of the crown to embarrass himself like this:

On Monday, Foreign Office minister Kim Howells called for Britain and Saudi Arabia to work more closely together, despite their differences.

He said the two states could unite around their "shared values".

  

Who dares say the Japanese are odd?

The New York Times' Martin Fackler has your most entertaining story of the day. Magnificent stuff, and oddly charming too:

On a narrow Tokyo street, near a beef bowl restaurant and a pachinko parlor, Aya Tsukioka demonstrated new clothing designs that she hopes will ease Japan’s growing fears of crime.

Deftly, Ms. Tsukioka, a 29-year-old experimental fashion designer, lifted a flap on her skirt to reveal a large sheet of cloth printed in bright red with a soft drink logo partly visible. By holding the sheet open and stepping to the side of the road, she showed how a woman walking alone could elude pursuers — by disguising herself as a vending machine.

Make sure you take a look at the accompanying slide-show too. Amazing.

Three Yanks and you are out?

So, yes, the bloody New York Yankees came a cropper. Smirk all you like. They remain my American League peeps.

It is, as I explain, all Dubya's fault. Give me death before you give me more Boston gloating...

Tattoos would be cheaper...

Hmmm. Just how would this work, Rudy?

EVERY foreigner in America, including British visitors, would be required to carry an ID card bearing photograph and fingerprints under plans drawn up by Rudolph Giuliani, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Giuliani is hoping to cement his status as the Republican favourite by promising to enforce immigration and border controls, drawing on expertise in combating crime from his time as mayor of New York. He announced last week that all foreigners, including holiday-makers, would be obliged to carry a “tamper-proof” biometric card, which could be issued at ports of entry.

“If you don’t have that card, you get thrown out of the country,” Giuliani said. He intends to call it a Safe card (for secure authorised foreign entry).

One might dismiss this as pointless grandstanding were this daft proposal coming from any other candidate. But there is the grisly prospect that Giuliani actually means this...

Of course, foreigners are already photographed and have their fingerprints taken upon arrival in the US, so it's not clear to me exactly what the point of this "Safe" card would be, beyond being seen to be seeming to do something "tough" on security matters. In other words, it's an extension of the approach to airline security: appearances matter more than realistic appraisals of risk.

Does the GOP want to be the Nasty Party?

David Frum looks at the GOP's slide in support amongst voters under 30 and doesn't like what he sees:

White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points. The Democrats owe their advantage among youth to a huge lead among young African-Americans (78 points) - and a very large lead (43 points) among Hispanics.

In the past, Republicans could win elections despite their unpopularity among ethnic minorities. But with the huge surge of immigration since 1980 - and especially since 2000 -  the voting map of the United States has been redrawn in ways inherently deeply unfavorable to the GOP. If Republicans face an inhospitable future after 2008, we will hear much of the dreadful legacy of George W. Bush on social issues, the war, the environment, etc. But Greenberg's own work makes clear that these issues matter relatively little...

No, the legacy that will damage his party is the legacy of immigration non-enforcement. This has imported a large new community of people who are both economically struggling (and thus open to Democratic arguments) but who lack deep attachment to the American nation (and who are thus immune to the most potent of Republican appeals). It is these voters who will sway elections in future. And thanks to this president's immigration policies, there are going to be a lot more of them than there might otherwise have been.

There are plenty of perfectly respectable reasons to support restrictions on immigration (though they don't particularly appeal to me) but the suggestion that the immigration tap should be turned off because immigrants vote for the wrong party is not, I'd suggest, one of the more attractive of them. It might be true in a "this is a tough thing to say but someone's gotta say it" kind of way but it's hard to think of a dafter, more disastrous message for conservatives to send than to tell large swathes of the population that they're the enemy.

Aside from the obvious ugliness of doing so, a hostile attitude towards immigrant and minority gorups will cost the GOP support amongst a number of white voters too. Some of those middle-class voters who may not make much of a fuss about their politics but, secreted in the voting booth, generally vote Republican will desert the party if, like the British Tories, they become known as "the Nasty Party". In Britain it became awfully infra dig to admit having voted Tory. This wasn't only true in Hampstead and Islington, but in once Tory strongholds in the Shires too.

Now parallels between British and American politics can only be stretched so far. But allow me to hazard that the Republican party might run some similar risk were it to adopt too much of Mr Frum's rhetoric. In fact, the logic of his argument, it seems to me, supports Bush's effort - or at least desire - to build support amongst black and latino voters, rather than pursue policies which give the impression that the GOP sees minorities as an inconvenient enemy.

One other point: we're often told - rightly, generally speaking - that the United States is unusually, even exceptionally, good at assimilating immigrants and foreigners. Indeed liberals and (especially) conservatives alike tend to think that's one of the things that makes America superior to other countries. Yet to read Mr Frum and many other conservatives, it seems that assimilation stops (and indeed becomes impossible) as soon as the conversation shifts to immigration. How can this be so? Apparently immigrants are only proper Americans and proof of the virtues of the American way when it's convenient for them to be so; the rest of the time they "lack deep attachment to the American nation". Fishy stuff, no?

PS: Does David also worry about too much immigration from Canada? Or are those Canadians who become Americans  generally reliably and sensibly conservative?