Freedom and Democracy: How Do They Stack Up Globally?

We’ve all heard that America is the home of democracy. The land of free and home of the brave. We hear it every time our National Anthem is sung. There’s few things which make us feel more secure and proud than watching Old Glory gently blowing in the breeze on a sunny day or watching a military parade rolls down the street. While there’s no questioning our military strength or the dedication of our men and women in uniform, have you ever wondered just how free we really are?

America was founded on the concept of individual freedom. We took on the world’s greatest superpower of the time over freedom and the notion of issues like taxation without proper representation, and yet here we are, some 250 years, and our Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize the nation they fought to hard to create.

Most of our freedoms, even the most basic ones likes speech, expression, or right to bear arms are challenged on a daily basis And what about taxation without representation, the core reason we fought the British? How often do you get to vote on a tax or rate increase? Many of these are decided by some appointed committee, not by anyone you voted for. Some have built-in increases that don’t even require public debate.

 Partisan political primaries are taxpayer funded by state legislation. But what if you don’t belong to one of the two corporate owned and controlled political parties? Well, too bad.  Independents, who are the nation’s largest political bloc, and people who’ve joined a third party for whatever reason, are still required to pay for the Democratic and Republican primaries, and it gets worse.

While they are involuntarily taxed, they are legally prohibited from participating in their primaries (as an aside third party primaries are strictly self-funded. No taxpayer support)  Fair? No. Legal? Questionable. Democratic? Hardly. In keeping with the founding tradition of “no taxation without representation”? Hell no! So, I can almost hear you ask “well, if you don’t like it, why don’t you just vote them out?”. That’s a great question. Very logical, but the answer is, sadly, not quite so clear cut.

The reason is that both parties, in the spirit of bipartisanship (some might call it “collusion”) have made it nearly impossible for them to be voted out of office. Briefly, the 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon rulings, declared that corporations, which are actually artificial legal fictions, are now “people” with the same rights as ordinary flesh and blood humans, with one key exception, and that concerns “free speech”.

According to the (un)Supreme Court, declared that money is now the same as “free speech”.  And while we are free to voice our opinions via donations to political campaigns, we are capped in what we can give. Corporations, on the other hand, are not. Apparently they have more “free speech” than you or me, and that means more influence.  They can give essentially as much as they want (not that we have a spare $10 million laying around to give to some candidate). As a result, they finance not just campaigns and political parties but also fund so-called “leadership funds” (which are basically political “slush funds”), and through various legal loopholes run commercials and ads on behalf of a candidate or issue supported by that candidate. Independents and third parties typically don’t get a dime.

Through state legislation, unequal ballot access is the norm. That means there are one set of rules and requirements for Independents and third parties and another set for the two corporate owned parties. They don’t even have their own election representative to protect their interests! As a rule, they are lumped in with whichever party has the smallest voter numbers and forgotten.

Other issues, such a partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees control of a district by the majority party. It allows districts to be drawn to ensure they retain control of it. It’s a case of a party choosing the voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. This is why gerrymandered districts have reelection rates in the high 90% range.

Also, despite approval ratings in the upper 20% or low 30% range (and occasionally as low as 9%), Congress has a reelection rate of 97%. Do you think that’s by coincidence?  Corporate lobbyists help write (or write altogether) legislation as well as review bills, provide summaries, and so forth. Do you think any of this is for our benefit? Don’t bet on it.  So, I will again ask you, do you think we are free? How do compare with the rest of the world?

According to the 2024 “Freedom Index”, published by the CATO Institute, the freest country in the world in terms of personal and economic freedom, is Switzerland, followed by New Zealand and Denmark. The next three are Luxembourg, Ireland, and Finland. Seventh place is a three way tie between Australia, Iceland, and Sweden. Then comes Estonia, Canada, and Japan. Rounding out the top 15 economically and personally freest nations are Norway, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

Did you notice anything particular here? Who is missing? That’s right, the United States. We are not only not in the top five, we’re not in the top ten or even the top 15! What the hell? If we’re supposed to be the “home of the free”, why is nobody at home? Where are we?

Before getting to the U.S., I’d like to mention that according to the Freedom Index, of the top 15 freest country, the index points out that 13 of those 15 countries have seen a decline in their ratings. Just two saw improvements. The nation which has seen the greatest loss of personal and economic freedom was the Czech Republic with Finland and Canada close behind. Only Japan and Denmark have both experienced slight improvements at 0.07 and 0.02 respectively in personal and economic freedom.

As for the United States, we ranked 17^th of the 165 countries on the Freedom Index. For the record, Mexico was 94^th overall. India was 110^th. Russia was 139^th. Taiwan was 19^th. Brazil was 70^th, South Korea was 32^nd, and China was 150^th. The freest regions were North America, Western Europe, and Oceania. The least freest was the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan Africa, and South Asia. In terms of freedom for women, the top regions were North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. The worst areas for women were the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan  Africa, and South Asia.

When it comes to democracy, representative governments, political participation, civil liberties, and electoral pluralism, we need to turn to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit of The Economist publication. They looked at various factors, such as to those just mentioned,  to determine just how effective the political system is in a given country. Countries were ranked as “Full Democracies” (10.00 – 8.99), “Flawed Democracies” (7.99 – 6.99), “Mixed” (5.99 – 4.99) and “Authoritarian” (3.99 - .99).

The chart rates each of the 165 countries surveyed on a scale of 0 to 10 with zero being the most authoritarian and ten being the most democratic. At the top of the list are Norway (9.81), New Zealand (9.61), Sweden (9.39), Iceland (9.38). and Switzerland (9.32) rounding out the top five democratic countries in the world.

These were followed by Finland (9.3), Ireland (9.19), Netherlands (9.0), Luxembourg (8.98), and Australia (8.85) finishing the top ten. Honorable mention goes to Taiwan (8.78), Germany (8.73), Canada (8.69), and finally Uruguay (8.67).  

As for the United States, we are ranked 28^th of the 165 surveyed with a democracy rating 7.85. Again, not a real good selling point as the “home of the free”. In fact, the U.S. is actually listed as a “flawed democracy” and may be teetering on becoming a failing democracy.  Some of the main reasons for why are mentioned at the beginning of this article.

In fact, countries like Costa Rica (8.29), Mauritius (8.23), Estonia (8.13), and Malta (7.93) are more democratic than the United States. As if that’s not bad enough, we barely beat out Chile (7.83) and Slovenia (7.82). That’s not good people. Of course, there’s nothing wrong or negative about these countries. In fact, good on them for doing a great job representing their people. However, the United States can and should be doing a much better job serving the people and not on Wall Street executives.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to know what the least democratic nations on the planet were so that I could go ahead and mark them off any future itineraries should the occasion arise. Liberia was 5.57. Mexico was 5.32.  Palestine (West Bank) has a rating of 3.44, while Nepal was 4.6 (so much for Buddhist enlightenment). The North African nations of Morocco,  Tunisia, and Algeria  were 4.97, 4.71, and 3.55 respectively. Egypt was 2.79. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was 1.78, making it sound neither democratic or a republic.  

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni monarchy, was only 2.08. Yemen, home of the Houthi which keeps attacking Israel amid its claims of Israeli brutality in Gaza, has a 1.95 on the Democracy Index. Syria, which is still dealing with a civil war, was 1.32. Iran, an Islamic theocracy, was 1.96. Iraq was only a little better at 2.8. Jordan, another Sunni kingdom, was 3.28. Kuwait, also a Sunni monarchy, where we fought a war to liberate Kuwaiti oil under the guise of “restoring democracy”, has democracy rating of 2.78. South Africa was 7.16 and India was 7.29.

 Turkey, whose government is secular despite a 98% majority Muslim population, was a notable 4.6. The highest rated nation in the region was, not unexpectedly, Israel, the only parliamentarian democracy in the region. It’s democracy rating was 7.8 (remember, America’s was just 7.85). Russia was 2.03 while China was 2.11. Ukraine was 4.9 and Belarus was 1.99.  However, the worst places to be if you’re looking a democratic government were the Central African Republic (1.18), North Korea (1.08), Myanmar (0.96) and Afghanistan (0.25).

Finally, in terms of regions, Africa was 3.92 overall. Asia was 4.06. North America was 5.64. South America was 6.01. Europe was 7.41 and Oceania was rated 7.46. The Middle East as a region wasn’t specifically mentioned, but averaging the numbers would be approximately 2.11 (excluding Israel) on the Democracy Index.

Additionally, did you know that there are only 25 “full democracies” in the world today? There are 46 “flawed democracies” (of which the U.S. is one), 36 so-called “hybrid” governments or that global democracy had been declining for 19 years straight?  Just 20% of the world lives in a “free country”. 42% live in a “partly free” nation, and 38% live under some form of authoritarianism, all according to the Freedom House.

It’s bears mentioning that most of the nations facing the worse influx from migration from countries with little or no tradition of freedom or democratic governments are the ones highest on both the Freedom Index and the Democracy Index lists. This begs the question of what happens when a country or region with a history of personal liberty and economic freedom is overrun by peoples with a history and culture based on oppression?

Well, historically speaking, the latter will almost always win out unless the former has the will to either enforce assimilation through regulation and legislation or expels the latte by whatever means necessary. If you’re looking to create a society of compliance and blind obedience, then you do exactly what the West is doing now. There is no middle ground.

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Human Freedom Index

Democracy Index

Freedom House: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle ForDemocracy

Did We Do Right By Bombing Iran?

What’s your opinion about the United States bombing three nuclear sites in Iran? Did we have a national security or moral obligation to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and try to disrupt its potential nuclear bomb making capabilities? Was there an ulterior underlining motive? To address those, and other questions, we need to take a brief look back at the history of Iran and its relationship with the United States.

In 1953, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown via a CIA orchestrated coup (with the help of British Intelligence, MI6), under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr, a intelligence officer with the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination, and grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.   

Roosevelt had previously helped orchestrate the 1952 coup in Egypt with the Free Officers Movement to topple King Farouk. The movement was led by a small cadre of Egyptian and Sudanese officers and was led by Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, and included such future notables Gamal Abdul Nasser (who became close friends with Kermit Roosevelt), Salah Nasr, and Abdel Hakim Amer.

Mohammad Mosaddegh had been appointed prime minister by the democratically elected Iranian Parliament (the “Majlis”). He had also co- founded the National Front, a Left leaning pro-democracy, secular, and Iranian nationalistic political party. They also implemented a number of land and tax reforms aimed at helping the lower class.

Amid a period of political unrest, assassination, and emerging religious extremism, Mossadegh sought to maintain power and improve Iran’s economic stability by nationalizing its burgeoning oil and gas industry, beginning with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Eventually, following a series of constitutional crisis events, which included the Shah fleeing to Italy out of concerns for his safety, Mossadegh was forced to align himself with pro-Soviet factions (despite strongly disliking the Communists). This was all the CIA and MI6 needed. The result was an overthrow of his government (and future suppression of the National Front) under “Operation Ajax”.

The result was the installation of a much more pro-Western government under the direction of  CIA recommended General Fazlullah Zahedi as the new Prime Minister. Among the many changes implemented by Zahedi was ending nationalized oil and gas production and returning control to British, French, and American oil companies.

The CIA also organized guerrilla groups to disrupt pro-Communist groups. In addition, the CIA also directed Major General Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. (father of “Stormin Norman” of Gulf War fame) to Italy and “encourage” the Shah to return to Iran. He also helped organize and train Iran’s new security service, SAVAK, in order to help the Shah maintain power (in time the SAVAK would develop a reputation similar to Stalin’s NKVD which eventually became the KGB).   

All went well between the West and Iran until 1979 when Shah Reza Mohammed Pahlavi was overthrown by a small group of religious extremists led by the exiled cleric, Ruhollah Khomeini (incidentally, who was also named Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1979) and was described as the “face of Shia Islam”.  He was later to be named the supreme leader in Iran and given the title of “Ayatollah ”, an honorific title of the “Twelver” Shia sect which was to become Iran’s official state religion (95% of the world’s Muslim population is Sunni, however, Iran is 95% Shia). He was also credited with labeling the U.S. as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan”.

Although the U.S. wasn’t happy that their man had been thrown out of power and forced to flee the country (he was given asylum in the U.S. for health reasons), what really irked the U.S. government was the seizure of 66 Americans, which included diplomats, civilian personnel, and a small security detail U.S. Marines, along with the U.S. Embassy itself in a series of assaults by the Muslim Student Followers of  the Iman’s Line, not to mention instigating hostilities with the CIA’s man in Iraq, Saddam Hussein which ultimately led to the Iran-Iraqi War.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 18, 1981. During that time, then President Jimmy Carter made numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation. In October 1980, Carter authorized a rescue operation (euphemistically named “Operation Eagle Claw”) which was an all-around disaster and national embarrassment, representing a political, military, and intelligence blunder. Eight servicemen were killed and four were injured amid several mechanic failures and crashes.  

Largely forgotten today, there was also an attempted attack on the U.S. embassy in Pakistan by over 1000 pro-Iranians protestors and an aborted attempt to seize the Soviet Union’s embassy for its “Marxist and anti-god beliefs”.  Some U.S. embassy personnel were able to evade capture and hide in a Canadian embassy before being able to escape through an ingenious CIA ruse popularly called “The Canadian Caper” (a 2012 movie entitled “Argo” details this secret rescue operation).

Meanwhile, the Iranians made numerous threats about the imminent execution of the hostages unless the U.S. agreed to a number of demands (essentially blackmail), including the return of the Shah to face trial and probable execution (which was refused). The Iranians ransacked the American embassy, revealing great many political, diplomatic, and intelligence secrets. Finally, after 444 days, and the election of Ronald Reagan, the hostages were released (this was seen as a calculated insult directed at Carter for the attempted rescue operation).

Ever since, The U.S. military and intelligence community has been looking for a way to overthrow Iran’s theocratic regime. Accordingly, Iran has been ostracized, boycotted, and even had billions of its dollars held in U.S. bank accounts frozen, The result had little effect on Iran’s ruling elite although, as usual, the average Iranian felt the brunt of the embargos. Much of the money was ultimately returned. President Obama approved releasing $400 million in August 2016 and President Joe Biden released $6 million in September 2023 for "humanitarian purposes".

 Meanwhile the Iranian government helped organized, train, and finance numerous terrorist organizations whose sole intent was the destabilization of the West (especially the U.S. and Israel) as well as specific Asian nations by any means possible with the ultimate goals being creation of a global caliphate under their version of extreme Islam.

Key among these groups was Hamas, responsible for the October 7^th attack on Israel which resulted in the butcher of over 1,139 men, women, and children. as well as seizing 251 hostages. They are also responsible for keeping the Gazans living in a state of terror. Hezbollah is another such group, which routinely launches missiles into Israel from Southern Lebanon.

 Boko Haram, who are known for their raids on African villages to capture women and girls to sell as slaves and butchering non-Muslims. The Houthi, who operate in Yemen, regularly launches missiles into Israel and is active in destabilizing the region. Of course, there is also ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Talban, who received support from the Iranians.

It’s believed that Iran has sponsored establishing sleeper terrorist cells in Europe, Canada, South America, and the United States, and is responsible for the hoard of immigrants into Europe (conquest through numbers?).  It’s been often noted that many of these so-called “migrants” are very fit, aggressive military age males, which isn’t typical of the average refugee (also notable is the lack of women, children and seniors accompanying them).

It should be mentioned that starting with the Ayatollah Khomeini, they have repeatedly promised to “wipe Israel off the map” by every means available, including the use of nuclear weapons, even if it meant their own total destruction. They have been responsible, directly or indirectly for attacks in Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv,  and “lone wolf” operations in the United States and elsewhere as well as dozens of so-called “self-radicalizations” terrorists.

However, resistance has been growing, especially in Iran where women, long denied basic rights to education, employment, choice of marriage, physical mutilation of their genitalia, political suffrage, have been becoming more militant to their suppression, even to the point of risking death. It’s common for resisters to be blinded in one eye, tortured, suffer broken bones, face mutilation such has having their tongue, nose or ears cut off, or have acid thrown in their faces, and so forth. As an aside, this is, in part, those who back the Iranian regime or radical Islam are supporting.

Despite U.S. and Israeli warnings, Iran has been engaged in the development of a nuclear infrastructure, which they claim is for "energy purposes" only (and yet they sit on some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves). Taking Iran’s threats seriously, Israel has done everything it could to deter Iran’s efforts overtly and covertly (I’m particularly impressed with the massive computer virus and the exploding cell phones of Iranian nuclear scientists. Bravo Israel! Very clever).

However, despite their best efforts not to provoke an all out war, Israel had little realistic options remaining except to go after Iran’s reactors. It’s noteworthy at how many countries, including those inside the United States, who turned on the Israeli government following the barbaric attack by Hamas on Israel or Hamas’s use of private homes, schools and hospitals to launch their missiles, store weapons, and hide some of the hostages it taken on October 7^th (including a tunnel system under a EU hospital!).  

 Hamas has repeatedly attacked or hijacked relief columns of food, fresh water, and medicine, often selling it on the black market for either more weapons or to fund expensive vacations for Hamas leadership. Europe, especially Germany, long been an allies of Israel, now accuse the IDF of doing what Hamas is guilty of. Turkey, an EU and NATO member, even hinted at a possible direct intervention in Gaza. How would that affect NATO's mutual defense clause? Would that plunge NATO into war? 

Finally, this brings us to the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by U.S. bombers. Did we have a moral or political obligation to attack those sites? Every U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, from Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, regardless of the officially stated reason, has had the secondary goal of bringing us a little closer to Iran.  Was this then just an opportunity to strike Iran after all these years or was it, as President Trump said, an opportunity to make the world a little safer?

According to polls, most Americans opposed the bombings. A poll by The Hill showed that 56% of Americans in general disapproved of the bombings although 82% of Republicans were in favor. However, 60% of Independents (America’s political majority) weren’t happy with the bombings along with 88% of Democrats. 78% of Americans were concerned we will get drawn into a war with Iran.

Additionally, 71% of Democrats said they didn’t trust Trump to make the right decisions on behalf of the United States when it came to Iran.  62% of Independents said they had little or no confidence in Trump's decision ability. On the other hand, 51% of Republicans confirmed that they had a great deal of faith in Trump while 37% said they had a moderate amount of confidence in the president.

 It bears mentioning that prior to the current ceasefire, 59% of Americans in general thought that our attack on Iran actually made it more of a threat to the U.S. and the world. Many were concerned that our attacks might provoke Iran to launch more attacks on Israel either directly or through its many surrogates as well as possibly activate imbedded terrorist cells in Europe, Canada, or the United States.

Finally, there’s Israel itself. Aside from being the only democracy in the Middle East, it is also an important trading partner and a vital source of intelligence information in the region. It also provides a key strategic position for U.S. and allied operations in the Middle East and Africa. Iran has made it crystal clear that it intends to wipe Israel off the map even at its own destruction and there's no reason not to take them at their word. 

Such a fallout would trigger a dire humanitarian crisis regionally as well as globally. Israel’s beef with Iran is direct and personal. The outcome of Iran’s boast would have a severe impact on the rest of the world, not to mention on Humanity as well, which Iran and its cohorts abhor. A nuclear Iran is not just a threat of the survival of Israel. It’s a threat to the survival of Mankind too.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 Free Officers movement (Egypt)

Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

Iran hostage crisis

October 7 Attacks

The Canadian Caper

56 percent disapprove of U.S. strike on Iran: Survey

Voters 51 – 42 Percent Oppose U.S. Joining Israel inMilitary Strike…

Islam in Iran

Nuclear facilities in Iran

Trump Getting Real with Zelensky: Find Peace with Russia or No More Money

 

Much has already been made of the heated meeting between President Vladmir Zelensky of Ukraine and President Donald Trump and Vice President  JD Vance.  President Trump, in effect, told Zelensky to make peace with Putin or he was taking away the keys to Ukraine’s war machine…and put a damn tie on where he’s at it!

Zelensky seems to believe that with U.S. financial backing, he will be able to stalemate Putin virtually indefinitely, perhaps even in the long run, obtain NATO membership. That’s something Trump opposes. Putin has attempted several overtures at peace, which Zelensky has essentially blown off like, and why not? He’s got the biggest bully in the world in his court, the United States.     

Trump used the meeting to make a very public statement to Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, to Putin, and to the world---no more money, no more armament and no mineral deal until Zelensky puts on his big boy pants and can set down for a serious discussion about peace with Russia, otherwise we walk, and he can deal with one very angry Russian bear.

 NATO, which also heavily depends on the US, can do as it pleases, but the US needs to set this one out thank you very much should they continue to poke the bear (and kudos to Italy’s Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni, for rejecting UK-French plan to send European troops to Ukraine). It’s one thing to come to the aid of ally being attacked, but when they bring it on themselves, maybe a lesson in “told-you-so” diplomacy is in order.

Putin, on the other hand, has committed much of his military to what amounts to a slow bleed of Ukraine’s economy and military. His has activated antiquated weapon systems (such as outdated tanks) and even employed North Korean troops in what amounts to a ”fight for food” deal for the bankrupt Communist state.

The only sensible reason for Putin to do this is one of taking a measured stance against Ukraine. Putin didn’t start the war. Zelensky and NATO did (with a little help from a former president’s son looking to score a big financial payday). Putin has been consistent his insistence that NATO missiles and armament will not be deployed along his border with Ukraine. Zelensky and NATO thought that by playing the U.S. card, Putin could be intimidated. That wasn’t going to happen

Putin is not a spineless leader of the sort that Europe has produced in abundance lately (for an example, look at their immigration disaster and its effect on crime and their culture). Putin is very intelligent. He was a senior KGB officer. He doesn’t bluff. Unlike European leaders, he doesn’t care if you call him names.  However, since the fall of the USSR and Soviet Russia, their leaders, starting with Mikhail Gorbachev, have tried  once again to build bridges to the West.

Ever since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has wanted to join with the West and act as a bridge between East and West. At one point,  they even asked to join NATO and was rejected out of hand and perhaps justifiably so. With the end of the Cold War, there had been a lot of talk about dismantling NATO.

Therefore, NATO’s justification for its continued existence depended on having a bad guy and that bad guy is Putin. It’s also why many neo-cons and policy gamers are anxious to start a new Cold War. War is profitable---cold or hot. It bears mentioning that the establishment of the Warsaw Pact came about only after the creation of NATO and then with the intention of being a defensive deterrent, presumably against the same military and industrial complex President Eisenhower spoke of in his 1961 “Farewell Address to the Nation”.   

In 1990, as the Warsaw Pact nations began to fall, Secretary of State James Baker informed Soviet Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze (in the presence of Gorbachev) that once the unification of Germany was complete, NATO had no intention of advancing “one inch to the east”, and yet within ten years, that’s exactly what happened. Gorbachev saw it as a time to restart and one of openness or as he called it, “Perestroika”. As Gorbachev said at the time, “we are duty bound to learn to live in peace”.

One by one, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland (1999),  Hungary (1999), Romania (2004), Czechia (1999), Bulgaria (2004), the Baltic states (2004), and so forth were admitted into NATO, and each time Russian leaders protested through all the proper international channels and were ignored.

At first, the Russians were assured there would be no more, until there was. But each time a country joined, NATO missiles were deployed all along their border. As a result, Russia was slowly helmed in. It would be like Russian missiles being deployed along our southern border, first in the numerous Caribbean islands one by one, until finally, in Mexico along the Rio Grande.

What if the Russians started deploying missiles along the Canadian border just like what happened after Norway and Denmark joined NATO in 1949, Finland in 2023, or Sweden in 2024.   How would you expect Washington would react?

Actually, you don’t even have to imagine. That was what the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was all about. It was Russia’s response to U.S. nuclear tipped intermediate range “Jupiter” missiles previously being deployed in Turkey (which had joined NATO in 1952).

Amusingly, then Soviet Premier Khrushchev would walk visitors to his vacation home on the Black Sea to the balcony and hand them  a pair of binoculars, asking “what do you see?”. They typically replied, “I see the sky” or “I see the water”. He would then look through the binoculars and bellow “I see American missiles in Turkey aimed at my dacha!”.

It seems that everyone knew that a NATO presence in Ukraine would be the straw to break the bear’s back, yet they expected Putin to do nothing but grouse and saber rattle like the West does, but that didn’t happen. Putin secured the Crimea, which has been a Russian possession since 1783 when it was annexed by Catherine the Great. It has a majority Russian population. Strategically, the Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, at Sebastopol, which is their version of our naval base in San Diego.

Russian is taught in its schools and it’s the common language of its people. It was followed by a plebiscite, asking the citizens whether they wanted to remain apart of Russia or the Ukraine. The overwhelming majority said “Russia”.

But this had nothing to do with the history of the region, the will of the people, national sovereignty, or even the long standing presence of the Russian military in and around Sebastopol. This was about oil and gas, which had been discovered in abundance in the Black Sea, and western oil companies wanted it.

In addition to large reserves of oil and gas, the Ukraine has vast deposits of key minerals, much of it in the disputed Donbas Region which is occupied by Russian troops. The deal President Trump was willing to sign with President Zelensky would have allowed a U.S. presence in the Donbas (technically still belonging to Ukraine) to mine for deposits valuable minerals, with each country splitting the processes 50/50. It would enable the Ukraine to begin paying the U.S. back some of the billions it owes us in aid, retain Ukrainian soil, and help Ukraine to rebuild its infrastructure.

In addition, it would be an incentive for Putin’s troops to either withdraw from the areas being explored and mined, or perhaps even pull back altogether. After all, Putin doesn’t want to kill or injure U.S. civilians at any cost. It would serve as a de facto “economic buffer zone” without the need for a single pair of U.S. military boots on the ground and each side wins.

However, Zelensky needed to agree to a peace talks with Russia, and that’s where he has repeatedly dropped the ball. When it comes to power politics, Zelensky is out of his league. He’s a standup comedian turned politician unlike others who are politicians turned fools.  Accordingly, he got a dressing down in his meeting with Trump and Vice President Vance. He was put on notice that the U.S. would not finance his war with Russia indefinitely or for free.

Even during the early stages of WWII, before the U.S. was directly involved, Prime Minister Churchill gave the U.S. 99 year leases to bases on their island possessions in the Caribbean as a “down payment” and “thank you “ to all the war material and economic support we provided to England under the Lend Lease Act of 1941 (the act also extended to the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union and other allied nations).   As of 2024, we have given Ukraine $174.2 billion dollars in aid (military and otherwise) while the European Union has given about $18 billion.

President Trump announced during his speech to Congress on March 4^th, that he had received a letter from Zelensky finally agreeing to sit down with Putin and hammer out some sort of peace deal. It may not be entirely to Zelensky’s liking, or that of Putin’s, but it will mean no more killing on either side and ending the destruction of Ukrainian cities and villages.

In addition, President Zelensky said in his letter to President Trump that he was still willing to sign the minerals agreement, which would be a good thing for the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine is a country with vast untapped economic potential, from the oil and gas reserves it does control, to its timber and mineral wealth, and it possesses the most fertile soil in Europe and quite possibly the world. (hence the moniker “breadbasket of Europe”).

This was also an education of sorts for Zelensky about what Otto von Bismarck called “Realpolitik”. Never disrespect your benefactor or take them for granted. By that, don’t show up in casual slacks and t-shirt and “knock-around” boots to meet the leader of a world power and expect to be given a virtual blank check for a never-ending war without a plan to pay them back.  America isn’t your ATM. Show some humility. Even Churchill arrived dressed to the nines with hat in hand and he offered at least island leases!  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

  Zelensky vows to ‘make things right’ with Trump and negotiate peace

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion

4 Lessons to be learned from Zelensky’s White House Meeting

 

What they said: Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance’s heated argumentin the Oval Office

NATO Members

Russo-Ukrainian War  

Controversy regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATOexpansion

Lend Lease Act

EU Assistance to Ukraine (in U.S. Dollars)

No suit, no lunch, no respect: Zelenskyy-Trump feud startwith a fashion dig

The Decline of America May Not Be What We Think

I've been writing about illegal immigration for decades and there still doesn't seem any end to it, but that's on purpose as I'll show you. States along the border with Mexico are being inundated with individuals wanting to come to the U.S., not to gain citizenship, but to obtain---for free--- the benefits available to citizens because they worked and paid into the system through their taxes.

The federal government maintains that it controls the border problem, however it does next to nothing, and worse, it wants states not to enforce existing federal laws concerning illegal entry. Eric Holder, the AG under President Obama, even sued Arizona for doing nothing more than using existing federal laws to halt immigrants from illegally crossing the border (worse, he even allowed Mexico to join in the lawsuit against Arizona as a co-plaintiff).  Now it's Texas.

Some states and cities have declared themselves "open" to illegal immigration under the euphemistic sounding title of "sanctuary". The result has been thousands of individuals heading there and immediately demanding and receiving taxpayer funded government services.

As a result, some of the cities involved have seen increases in crime, homelessness, and a growing demand for public and private services, especially food and medical care. Unable to keep up with the demand, these cities and states have...ironically...turned to the federal government and requested additional federal dollars and aid to cope with the very problems they intentionally created. Did their legislatures, mayors, and governors not think this through?

Currently it's believe that there are some 10 million or more individuals  illegally in this country, The majority of them drawing on services paid for by taxpayers---you and me---that they never contributed  into.  Many have also decided that they have no intention or interest in integrating into society as previous migrants have historically done (other nations, such as Canada and countries in Europe and Asia) face similar problems.

It's as if these immigrants want to keep their  traditions, values, customs, and languages while at the same time relocate to where they can receive "free" resources---food, housing, medical care, child care, transportation, and so forth for nothing. In fact, not just do they "demand" these items (and more), but believe they are actually "entitled" to them!  Worse, they expect us---the citizens--- to conform and adapt rather than them!

Remember, these individuals have not come with the intent of gaining citizenship, few have applied for entry, and few have come seeking asylum. They come because they've been told they would be openly welcomed and provided with freebies simply for showing up. The majority of immigrants are coming north for nothing more than economic reasons---"economic asylum".  Bear in mind that the U.S and United Nations does not recognize "economic amnesty". Even Amnesty International doesn't promote "economic amnesty".

Amnesty can only be granted for ethnic, racial, political or religious  reasons only, and then only if you are in danger of torture, extreme discrimination, imprisonment or death.  Even then international law says they must seek shelter in the next closest stable country...not travel thousands of miles through safe countries and attempt crossing  the U.S. border illegally!

So, who is promoting this migration north? Why is the U.S. seen as the only acceptable destination?  

Many of those headed north are coming for economic reasons, so that seems to be a logical place start. The U.S. and some of its allies have instituted sanctions and/or embargoes against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Of those, Cuba's has been the longest, first imposed on March 14, 1958 by President Eisenhower against the Batista Government to prohibit the sale of arms.

In October 1960, following the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship by the Fidel Castro's led revolution, another embargo was placed against Cuba. This applied to everything but food and medicine. The embargo was expanded in February 1962.

In Venezuela, sanctions were imposed in January 2017 by President Trump, for alleged human right violations, but rumors have persisted that it had more to do with Venezuela's suppressing a U.S. led attempt to overthrow the government. Either way, unlike Cuba, the sanctions helped Venezuela's economy to collapse, causing record level inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crime (Venezuela has the highest rate of violent crime in the world).   

The sanctions resulted in freezing $5.5 billion dollars belonging to Venezuela. Also, there was a 65% decline in the number of international banks willing to do business with them, with 99% of them coming between 2017 and 2019. This has resulted in severe shortages of food and medicine which the country must buy abroad.

It's estimated that some 80,000 HIV+ patients were affected along with roughly 32,000 individuals in need of cancer or dialysis medication or treatment. Some 15% - 20% of the population no longer has access to potable water during the height of the sanctions.

High unemployment (the result of many oil related businesses closing) triggered a serious increase in crime, making Venezuela the most violent crime ridden nations in the world. Presently, the crime rate (as of 2023) in Venezuela is 83.76 per 100,000. The majority of the crime is committed by individuals ages 20-30 years old. By comparison, the United States has a crime rate of 47.70%. So, if you want a reason for the exodus northward, there you go. U.S. imposed sanctions.

Economic issues have affected other countries in the region as well, such as the Caribbean island nations of Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Their problems are primarily the result of inept governments, rudimentary infrastructure, failed social programs and perpetual poverty. 

The result is chronic unemployment and high crime rates (Trinidad and Tobago are ranked sixth in the world while Jamaica is tenth).  Another key factor, not found elsewhere, is the weather. Due to climate change, the Caribbean has found itself in bull's eye of some of the worse tropical storms and hurricanes on record.

Most of these countries have long depended on the tourist trade to pump money into the economy, but the weather and crime has caused tourists to go elsewhere. As an aside, in 2023, the U.S. pumped $110 billion dollars in humanitarian aid into Haiti alone. Without this aid, we'd see a much larger exodus northward toward the U.S. Compare that with $16 billion in aid (humanitarian and military) to Ukraine in 2023 and $3.3 billion to Israel.  

Brazil is one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world. It is a key member of the economic union know as "BRICs" along with China, India and Russia, among others. Few know that Brazil was one the world's most impacted nations by the Covid-19 epidemic . The economy had been growing at a steady rate of 3.3% between pre-Covid 2001 and 2014. But between 2014 and 2020, the economy shrunk by the same percentage of 3.3%.

However, things bounced back by 2021 with growth rate of 5.5% followed by 2.9% in 2022 and 2.6% in 2023. Despite this, Brazil has seen a relatively high crime rate of 23.6 per 100,000 (ranked 9th in the world). It previously had been as high as 30.8. Unemployment is about 7.8% thus far for 2024, Compare that 2.6% in Mexico. The poverty rate is slightly higher than it neighbors at 24.3%.

Mexico, which has borne the brunt immigration crisis, has the 15th largest economy in the world and the second largest in Latin America behind Brazil. However, for the last 30 years, the Mexican economy has underperformed in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction, and the development of a strong middle class according to the World Bank.  

The  Mexican economy grew at just 2% between 1980 and 2022, though in 2023 it saw a growth rate of 3.2%. However, poverty, while dropping from 43.9% in 2020, still remains high at 36.3% in 2022.

Other countries in Latin America are facing economic difficulties due to a slow global economy (bearing in mind that the majority of these countries are rural and dependent of agriculture, mining, forestry, and tourism, not to mention U.S. and international aid. As a result, many of these countries have expanded their trade interests from one based primarily on the U.S. to one based more on China, as well as Asia and the EU.

However, China's economy has cooled somewhat which has had the expected ripple effect on some of its poorer trading partners.  The result has been something of a unbalanced unemployment rate and largely stagnant poverty levels. Relatively high global interest rate and inflation remains a serious problem in servicing debt and public programs. As a result, we see moderately high unemployment along with a reduction in social programs, adding to poverty.

While "economic amnesty" is not recognized, under other forms of amnesty, an individual must seek sanctuary in the "next nearest safe country" . In Latin America, it appears there is no "safe" country. Just varying levels of poverty and unemployment. So, we see possible explanation for thousands of individuals willing to make the long walk to the U.S..

The next big issue is "who" is encouraging these individuals to come to America. Surely they know that illegal immigrants aren't welcome in America. They must know what they'll face when they get to the border. Are they delusional enough to think they'll be an exception? No doubt the drug cartels encourage these people to sell everything they have to make the long and often brutal journey, as long as they make money.

The cartels, using "coyotes" or guides, charge roughly $200 per person (which is a fortune for most of these people). In lieu of money (or even with it), they are often forced to smuggle drugs or other illegal contraband. Sometimes, they are only able to send their children to friends or relatives until they can raise the money to follow. In many cases, there's no assurance the children will reach their destination or that they'll ever see them again.

Using cartel connected coyotes is very dangerous. Immigrants have often reported being beaten, raped while seeing others murdered. The trip is fraught with other dangers such a injuries and no medical facilities (often the coyotes will confiscate any personal medication), corrupt cops and militias who have to regularly be bribed, as well as the lack of food or fresh water while dealing with the weather conditions and having no shelter other than what they brought with them.  

Aside from drug cartels, there are the various religious organizations, especially Catholic. 57.1% of Hispanics are Catholic. Most are historically highly devout and closely follow the dictates of their parish priest.  In America, Catholics are much more open minded and don't give the same level of credence to the priest's instructions, treating them more like  "suggestions" to be followed...or not at one's own discretion.   

From the 1960's onward, most conservative churches have been dying, especially Catholic, causing many parishes to merge while closing numerous schools and other institutions. In addition, there have been fewer priests and nuns signing up. The average age of a priest in 1970 was 30. Today it's 63. When it comes to nuns, only 1% are under 30 with the average age being 80! 

With the immigration of individuals from mostly Catholic Latin America, it's hoped this trend can be reversed. Thus, they are offered shelter (and presumably legal sanctuary since most law enforcement agencies won't enter a religious institution) once they cross the border, as well as help find housing, a job, help with translations and getting various services at taxpayer expense, and of course, religious services are offered in their native Spanish or Portuguese.  

However, to the chagrin of these churches is that a growing number of immigrants, while taking advantage of the services offered, are leaving the restrictions of the church behind. A good number are converting to Islam faster than any other demographic. In fact, in Latin America itself, Islam has grown by 23% with Shiites outnumbering Sunnis. A smaller, but significant percentage, have converted to Evangelical  Protestantism. So, we find not just Catholic organizations encouraging migrants northward, so apparently are Islamic and Protestant organizations too.

Illegal immigration has become more than a political issue of right versus wrong in terms of following the law. It's become an economic issue as employers seek a cheap work force not dependent on unions and are willing to accept long hours for very little money without complaining, thus forcing the traditional workforce to work for less too.

 Various religious groups are looking to grow their numbers and political clout. Meanwhile, mostly traditional conservative Americans are desperately trying to hold on to an America they see slipping through their hands like Texas sand. Hitler once praised Islam, saying that he wished all Germans were Muslims because Islam makes people compliant to authority.

So why isn't Washington doing anything? Simple. The federal government is on the side of Big Business. They fill their coffers, provide the perks and underwrite their campaigns. Both political parties may pretend to be concerned about illegal immigration, but remember that both the Democrats and Republicans are corporate owned and controlled. In truth, they are only concerned to the level Wall Street is. Meanwhile, Washington and Wall Street will continue to offer smoke and mirrors as our America slowly evaporates before our eyes.  

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Sanctions during the VenezuelanCrisis

How Sanctions Contributed to Venezuela's Economic Collapse

 

World Population Review: Crime RateBy Country 2024

USAID: Providing AdditionalHumanitarian Assistance to Respond to Rising Needs in Haiti

Foreign Aid By Country: Who's getting the most---and how much?

Latin America economic outlook, November 2023

 

Why are more Hispanics converting to Islam...

 

The Migrant As Pawn

For decades city mayors and state governors, mostly Democrat, have chosen to ignore federal immigration laws by defiantly declaring themselves  a"sanctuary" in the name of compassion. However, all isn't so well in the liberal world of "Bolshevia'. The problem is that they're running out of taxpayer money. 

I suppose all is well so long as the "gravy train" continues to run.  But for that to happen, ordinary working men and women must work longer and harder to stoke the economic engine with more of their hard earned money while leaving ever less money to pay their own bills, put food on the table and put a roof over their heads. Data shows a virtually non-existent middle class compared to just as few generations ago while poverty and homelessness (especially among veterans) grows to unsustainable levels.

To make matters worse for these mayors and governors of Utopia is that other elected representatives and their constituents in other states and towns don't want to play the "kick-the-can-down-the-road" game any longer. Someone, after all, has to be the grown up.

As a result, they've started sending these migrants to all those sanctuary locations with one way bus tickets and a meal card. It's certainly cheaper than forcing their citizens to pay millions just to support the grand ideals of others. If sanctuary cities and states want them, then they can have them along with the responsibility that comes with their words.

But now sanctuary cities and states are rapidly  running out of money. They've already had to cut back on public programs which were available for and paid by their citizens. They've started allowing the homeless to live in public parks, doorways, or wherever else they want. They can use public sidewalks as their personal toilets. Local businesses can't keep them out of their stores or from using their restrooms to clean up in. Businesses are even prohibited from detaining shoplifters, thus crime and everything associated with it becomes rampant.

The result is that tax generating businesses are leaving and taking revenue generating jobs with them. So, local mayors and state governors are demanding that the federal government in Washington turn up the money faucet in order to help them continue to defy federal immigration laws and reinstate public programs. How's that for having chutzpah? 

No one is quite sure about how many illegal immigrants have been shipped around the country, but it's  at least around 100,000 if not more. Of course, you have to feel sorry for these individuals---the men, women, and children---for being moved here and there like some pawn on a chess board, to be used and discarded. After all, most are simply coming here for work and hopefully a better life.

But nevertheless, it's fair to assume that they are aware of the risk and what they were attempting to do was illegal. Breaking U.S. immigration laws was little different from breaking immigration law in their native homeland, except that the repercussions were almost always far more severe.

We can only assume that these individuals have been convinced themselves that they were different. That they could evade authorities and slip across the border undetected. Perhaps long the way one of those church organizations who help individuals break the law could help them. Maybe too they could help shield from the border patrol, ICE, and others. All they need to do was make their way undetected to one of those sanctuary states or cities.  

Hopefully someday, down the road, they can stop looking over their shoulder, stop running and hiding, and just settle down. Perhaps, if they're lucky, some U.S. President, while trying to curry support from certain voters, will grant them amnesty like President Reagan or President Obama did.  Until then, they remain political pawns and will continue to live their life like anyone else on the run. But until then, that's a lot of hoping, wishing, and stress to go along with those "maybes" and "perhaps".

We've all seen those signs which read "No Human is illegal". It seems they're always at every pro-amnesty or pro-migration protest. While it's true that "no person is illegal", on occasion their actions are. That's why we have laws and a judicial system to enforce those laws.

The countries from where many of these migrants embark from, be they in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East, all have similar immigration laws. just like the United States does. The main difference is that the punishment for breaking their migration laws often far more severe than ours, and yet why does no one complains or speaks out against those?

Nations have defined borders and the right to regulate who crosses those borders. It's one of the cornerstones to national sovereignty which have existed for over five millennia, but today there are those who would deny us that right.  Why should we not have that same right of national sovereignty as any other country? Why should other nations be allow to have borders and laws to enforce those borders but America's be porous?

Europe is prime example of what happens when countries fail to secure their border. The EU has a "open border" policy which allows anyone from anywhere in enter their country regardless of any other factor. As a result, they are being overwhelmed by migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Most are young, male, poorly educated, and Muslim. The result has been a serious clash of cultures.

Many of these individuals are under the false impression that they are "entitled" to practically everything; that the state has to provide them with whatever they want. As a result many have become a serious drain on the nation's safety net. There have been numerous clashes over culture traditions, and values which has its basis in Christianity and the Enlightenment. Crime has also become as serious matter with assaults, rapes, and robberies leading the way.

Meanwhile, oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or Kuwait  have seen virtually none of these migrants despite sharing similar traditions, values, culture, and language as many of these migrants. They even share the same faith--- Islam.

Saudi Arabia alone has enough tents with air condition to house and support three million migrants, and yet they remain empty. So, why aren't these millions of migrants from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Africa not going there?

For one, these Arab nations have strong border security. Anyone illegally crossing their borders are dealt with severely. They also have very restrictive immigration laws. While they do allow individuals to apply to come and work there, long term settlement is very rare.

In addition, these countries are highly selective in who they award temporary work permits to, preferring individuals with good educations and no criminal records, and while they have a very liberal social safety net, they actually expect people to follow the law and work. Imagine that!  As a result, Europe is getting the dregs I suppose.

The U.S. may be facing a similar situation. Very few of those seeking to come illegally aren't well education. The overwhelming majority have a minimum education. Many have little about a basic level. In addition, most of these individuals are low skilled or unskilled. They're coming for any low level job they can find, which is unfortunate since it perpetuates the poverty they're trying to get away from.

In today's high tech world where companies (and employees) compete on a global basis, what the United States desperately needs are doctors and nurses, engineers, data scientists, software developers, and AI specialists. There is, however, a demand for skilled and licensed electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC specialists, data systems service technicians, and carpenters thanks to the closure of trade and technical schools several years ago.  

So, what does that mean for us? While most of the illegal immigration is coming from Latin America, there are strong indications that we're beginning to see more coming from Asia (especially China and North Korea), India and Ski Lanka, the poorest of the African nations such as Somalia, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone, as well as the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Among this latter group, there has been several arrest by Mexican authorities of individuals with connections to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and ISIS. These individuals were caught while trying to blend in with the migrant caravans. While there's no doubt that there are likely terrorist cells already here, what we don't need are more.

Presidents, Congress, and others of both parties have been promising the American taxpayer for decades that they will "do something" to secure our borders, especially our southern border which is a porous as Swiss cheese.  Thus far, whether you like him or not, only one--- Donald Trump----actually made a serious effort, and he meet with unbridled resistance from both political parties, the media, and financed special interest groups with a vested interest in keeping the border open.

We cannot continue to allow our borders to remain open. Not only are these serious national security issues, they represent a serious threat in the form of diseases we're no longer vaccinated again and viruses like COVID, while the influx also puts as serious strain on our national safety net just as in Europe. And while we need to fill low level jobs, what we seriously need are engineers, doctors, and high tech specialists. Anything less, will only continue hasten America's decline as a world leader.  

Finally, no more "anchor babies". To many women have used their pregnancies and the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to circumvent immigration laws to remain in the United States. The 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was never intended to be use in that way. It was intended to confer citizenship on all former slaves. Currently, any child born on U.S. soil automatically gains birthright citizenship. That right extends to the child's parents as well.  

In the interim, the United States needs to accept responsibility for its part in creating the situation in the first place.  We need to stop trying to remake other nations over in our own image. Not everybody wants to be America when it grows up. Hell, given our broken political system, even we don't even want to be America anymore!

 We need to stop throwing our political, economic, and military weight around and intervening in other countries elections. That also includes imposing sanctions and embargoes. If they want to freely elect a socialist, republican, or whatever form of government, that's their business not ours (as an aside, let's stop installing Far Right wing military juntas too okay?). Why don't we act like a world leader and come to a civil solution?

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

A few countries take responsibility for most of the world's refugees

US to reopen border crossings as illegal immigration drops

 

Migrant crisis explained: What's behind the border surge

CFR: Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle WithMigrant Flows in 2022

Anchor Babies

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist?

Saudi Arabia Has Enough Tents With AC To House 3 MillionPeople, And Yet Has Taken In ZERO Refugees