I am mildly encouraged by recent public announcements coming from Mexico’s President. He seems interested in cooperating to stem the tide of migrants crossing our southern border. However, public announcements have been made before, even limited cooperation has occurred in the past. The sad fact though is that it never lasts once the pure crisis is over. We need to change that paradigm this time.

It is clear to any casual observer that the United States has lost control of its southern border. Thousands of illegal immigrants are pouring into this country in numbers the federal government is currently unable to handle. The majority are asking for asylum, though most don’t appear to be in danger. They are likely really looking for economic opportunity and using asylum as a means. We have to do something to reestablish law and order, enforce national security, and provide humane treatment for those who really do need asylum protection.

The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, to which the US is a signatory, are the international agreements that govern treatment of refugees (asylum seekers). The core principle is that such people should not be forced to returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. A country to which they migrate is required to provide housing, medical care, education, jobs, and treatment with the same respect that all other foreign nationals are treated.

A somewhat controversial element of the these agreements specifies that refugees seeking asylum must not be rejected and deported simply for entering the country illegally. In my reading of these international agreements, there is no requirement to allow migrants to enter our country illegally, only that if they do, we have to consider their asylum requests in good faith.

Overwhelming illegal entry is where the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finds itself on the southern border today – between a rock and hard place, so to speak. Their resources are stretched beyond a capacity to deal effectively with the demand. That makes the current situation untenable. It is disrupting normal American life, and creating political division among states, cities, and the electorate. And it is leading to inhumane conditions for migrants along the border as well as in major American cities.

We are unable to investigate and assess the legitimacy of claims for asylum at the rate they are coming. For lack of enough infrastructure, but to honor our treaty obligations, we are simply releasing many into the interior with instructions to wait for an asylum hearing that often may be years in the future. Worse, we are not able to conduct a rigorous enough screening to pick up disease, criminality, or other dangers to American citizens before they are released.

It is time to face reality. We must do what it takes to gain control of our borders. But we must process asylum seekers who do cross in a timely manor. And we must treat those immigrants we allow to stay in our country humanely. That requires making hard political and humanitarian choices we’d rather not face. Following are key things we must do if we actually care about securing the border any time soon:

• Regardless of, or maybe because of, our endorsement of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, we must stop immigrants from crossing our border illegally; that way we can manage the total number of migrants we allow into the United States in a rational way. No country can be expected to compromise the internal safety and security of its own citizens by allowing uncontrolled illegal migration.

• We must publicly declare to the international community that we are about to stop migrants from entering the United States illegally across our borders; and that anyone caught trying to enter illegally will be immediately refused and ineligible for entry consideration in the future.That public position, if broadly disseminated, may itself partially dampen some of the flow of migrants.

• In conjunction with that public announcement of intentions, the Biden Administration must quickly gain physical control of the southern border. That means using all means available, including substantially increased and mobilized border control personnel (US Border Patrol, federalized national guard, and/or other appropriate human resources), drones and other electronic surveillance, physical barriers, and military and diplomatic cooperation with Mexico, to stop illegal entry.

• Persons apprehended trying to enter the US illegally must not be considered for entry regardless of asylum claims. Success in this effort will be recognized when all potential migrants, both asylum seekers and others, are forced to apply through the normal immigration process in countries of origin or at official US ports of entry.

• The Administration must also quickly assess and report to Congress the federal government’s ongoing daily capacity to process and assimilate asylum seekers in an efficient, timely, and humane manner. Within that defined capacity, asylum seekers must be graded and prioritized for entry based on the severity of the danger they face in their home country as well as USCIS’s capacity in accordance with international asylum standards. All migrants without a legitimate asylum case must be turned away, or if they chose, placed in the cue for normal immigration consideration.

• If we don’t have the processing and assimilation capacity to handle all migrants with legitimate asylum claims, we may have to accept only those most at risk, with some other intermediate treatment for those in less danger. The Administration should ask Congress for funds to expand our capacity if we cannot handle all legitimate asylum seekers. Regardless, no migrants should be released into the US because of capacity limits or without proper vetting and ongoing federal supervision before an asylum hearing.

• Because stopping migrants from illegally entering the US at our southern border will most affect Mexico, and because Mexico is also in the best position to assist in that endeavor, we must be prepared to partner with and support Mexican efforts. That likely means significant economic assistance, as well as close coordination and cooperation with Mexican military and law enforcement operations.

• The most effective approach to choking off illegal immigration is probably to stop US bound migrants at the southern Mexican border. I don’t know what assistance Mexico may need in that regard, but we must be prepared to provide all reasonable support. We should expect Mexico to cooperate; after all it’s in their own self-interest. But in the end if they do not, we simply must move to stop migrants from illegally crossing our shared border to enter the US.

• The Biden Administration is our first line of defense in gaining control of our borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigrants. I believe the President has the authority to do everything I am suggesting under his responsibility to protect national security. It would take political courage, but could all be done very quickly. It would also take strong hands-on leadership from the President himself. 

• Initially the actions I have outlined will be a brute force effort, which is unsustainable in the long term. At the same time he takes these actions, the President must also challenge Congress to immediately follow through with the necessary investment in infrastructure, systems, technology, personnel, and logistics to deploy an efficient sustainable border security network.

Ultimately over the medium and long term it is Congress’s job to draft, debate, and pass legislation that reforms immigration policy, provides robust border security, and addresses immigrants already here illegally; a key quality measure of that legislation will be judged by whether it deals humanely and with empathy toward law abiding immigrants who have significant long term roots in the US even though they came here illegally. First among that group deserving empathetic treatment must be the “dreamers” (residents brought here as children).

The focus of any comprehensive federal immigration legislation must be on what is in the best long term interests of the United States. It should include recognizing the role immigrants will play in filling the need for sustaining and continued expansion of our labor force. The legislation should take in to account the economic, professional, and cultural value immigrants have brought and will continue to bring to our democracy. It must also be inclusively balanced in immigration quotas across the international community based on relative populations of the many nations, and not biased in favor of one population over another.

I know the more progressive Democrats will say what I am suggesting is far too draconian, naive, hateful, unworkable, and inhumane. They will say I’m anti-immigrant, a white supremacist, or worst, a Republican. Let them! My pro-immigrant credentials are well documented. Of course Republicans will say I am coddling and proposing citizenship for those “illegal alien criminals” who are already living among us, and am trying to further dilute the real American electorate by giving those illegals the vote. Both positions are disingenuous.

Truth is, I live in the real world where if one wants to solve a problem, hard decisions have to be made and tough actions taken. What I suggest is bold, but simple, rational, and effective if we really want to control our border and bring sanity to the immigration process.

I know it will be hard work that will produce less than perfect results. And I know it cannot happen overnight. But a committed President can have the border fully under control in 60-90 days. Long term border security will take longer and must engage Congress in a way they have been unwilling to consider in the past. Simply demonstrating that we can control the border, but what it takes using brute force tactics, may convince them to implement a more strategic, efficient, and rational approach.

It is time for American politicians, judiciary, and the electorate to step up and support democratic governance. After review of the evidence, the Supreme Court of Colorado found former president Donald Trump guilty in the January 6th insurrection, and therefore determined he is not eligible to run in the Colorado primary election. Their ruling was in accordance with the terms of the 14th Amendment, which specifies that engagement in insurrection disqualifies an individual from holding public office. 

Trump lawyers say the 14th Amendment does not apply to a sitting president. Paraphrasing their argument, they say the Amendment applies to Senators, Representatives, and Officers of the United States. They say a president holds none of those positions, including that of an Officer of the United States Government. If it had been the intent of the Congress that the Amendment should apply to the president, they say, the language would have specified that.

So let’s consider the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. The government had just put down an insurrection. Congress drafted and voted for the Amendment; the states ratified it. With it Congress and the states were declaring that those who led, participated in, or supported an insurrection could not be trusted in our democratic government and must not be allowed to hold public office.

I am quite familiar with the detailed language in the 14th Amendment as well as the contemporary political and electoral context of the time in which it was passed. Reading the amendment as excluding the president from its scope is patently absurd. That would mean a president could promote, even lead, an insurrection, and if not ultimately successful the first time, may run for the presidency again, hold the office if elected, and then lead another insurrection to achieve his/her personal objectives. Does any rational person think that Congress would have intended that insurrectionists could not hold any federal or state political office EXCEPT President of the United States?

At this point in time, the only serious question anyone should be asking is whether former President Trump is guilty of insurrection as the Colorado Supreme Court has found. If the answer to that is “YES”, then Donald J. Trump must NOT be allowed to appear on the ballot in any state for any federal or state public office.

My recent post on the Israel/Hamas conflict brought a fair amount of comment from several critics. Apparently my claim that only a two state solution could lead to long term Middle-East peace was a bridge too far for several folks.

One said what Israel was doing in Gaza was exactly right and I was too naive to recognize it. Another said that I was clearly anti-Israel, or worst, pro-Hamas and was endorsing its goal of destroying Israel. One said the Palestinians had the chance for their own state 75 years ago and refused; now there could never be peace as long as they occupied part of the Jewish Homeland. That individual did not suggest where Palestinians should go. Another misquoted me as saying Hamas was right on October 7th. Not a single comment expressed concern for the plight of the Palestinian People.

I am certainly familiar with the history of the creation of Israel, the rejection of the UN two state solution by the Palestinians at that time, and the impact this ongoing conflict has had on all Middle-Eastern people. I am not here to defend the Palestinians rejecting the UN “partition” plan. I would note however that the plan was quite biased in favor of the Jews. And I suspect that presented with a similarly unbalanced choice as the Palestinians were offered, virtually all Americans would reject it as well.

I spent more time on the ground pursuing investment and strategic partnership opportunities in Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt than I care to relive. Regardless, that experience did give me some sense of the hopes, dreams, and politics of the various peoples in the region. Unlike the Israeli and American extremists like to claim, virtually non of them (except Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian backed terror groups) have the destruction of Israel as their goal.

As for me saying Hamas was right on Oct. 7th: if the individual claiming that had read my literature more carefully, if he read it at all, he would have seen that I was quite critical of Hamas’s October 7 attack. I specifically wrote that what they did was “pure inhuman evil and is way beyond what any civilized people would do to others, even in war”.

But regardless of what Hamas did, withholding food, water, fuel, and medical supplies from 2 plus million mostly innocent people to punish a few hundred terrorists with indiscriminate bombing is itself criminal. It is certainly not the behavior of a civilized democratic government. It is also guaranteed to fail because it creates a near infinite new supply of terrorists. A special forces approach to gain intelligence, root out the terrorist leaders, and find the hostages would likely produce substantially better results. I recognize Israel will say that would expose their solders to increased danger. That is probably true if Israel’s timetable is a few weeks rather than months. That type of warfare takes time, patience, and intelligence. It certainly can’t be done quickly and it does lack the pizazz of leveling entire city blocks, as they are doing now.

The “jury is still out” on how history is ultimately going to assess this current Israel/Hamas conflict. I suspect if/when the mass killing stops this time, Israel’s star will be seriously tarnished in the eyes of the international community. I am just thankful that the Biden Administration is finally stepping up to try to moderate Israel’s brutal military behavior. The Administration’s willingness to openly reference the creation of a Palestinian State as the only long term solution is clearly a positive move as well.

I recently participated in a mostly two person debate in my Current Events Discussion Group about climate change and whether it is just part of a natural earth cycle or is being caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Another participant and I have polar opposite views on that subject so we agreed to defend our positions on the issue before the other participants. We each prepared a position paper and distributed it to all participants in advance of the discussion.

My friend believes that what the world is experiencing is purely a result of the natural cycle of warming and cooling that the earth has gone through for millions of years. He says that we are in the later stages of a warming cycle that may last for another 3,000 years before a new cooling cycle begins. He discounts human activities as insignificant in the natural earth cycle.

I, on the other hand, am convinced that human activity is disrupting the natural earth cycle and substantially accelerating the warming of the earth. The culprit of course in my mind is excessive release of greenhouse gasses through the burning of fossil fuels. I further fear that if humanity does not take immediate action catastrophic climate change will make large portions of the earth uninhabitable before the end of the 21st century.

Each of us claims the scientific high ground in spite of our radically different perspectives. We are completely in sync on the long history of the earth’s life cycle. We only differ in what has and is happening since the beginning of the industrial revolution. He thinks it’s natural warming which we should accept and that civilization simply must adapt; I think it’s man made and an existential threat to civilization as we know it.

We each produced a document to represent our positions. My friend used an outline format; I used a narrative style. I am copying each position paper verbatim as presented. For the sake of distinguishing the two positions here, I call his presentation “Earth’s Climate History”, and mine “Earth’s Climate Future”. My friend did not provide the scientific sources of his paper. However, from my own sources I agree that his paper represents earth’s planetary physics as well as climate history up until the beginning of the industrial revolution. You draw your own conclusion about what climate change truth is from these and/or other sources.

******************************************************

Earth’s Climate History

Climate Change Factors

I. Insolation from Sun:  Heat from the Sun reaching surface of Earth?

A.  Sun Heat Cycles – e.g. 11-year sunspot cycle cools Earth.

1.   No measure yet of long-term Sun cycles.

B.  Milankovich Cycles, which are astronomical.

1.  Changes in orbit of Earth around Sun – Circular vs Elliptical.

Elliptical means cooler climate.  It’s now more round.  100,000 year cycle.

2.  Changes in tilting of Earth’s axis relative to Sun.  It ranges from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees; it’s currently 23.5 degrees.  41,000 year cycle.

3.  “Wobble” of tilt of Earth’s axis.  A net 21,000 year cycle.

4.  Coincidence of cycles increases impact on Earth’s climate.

II. Feedback Conditions on Earth

A.  Positive feedback conditions for warming Earth.

1.  Warm ocean water absorbs and holds more heat and CO2.

2.  Atmospheric CO2 holds in heat on Earth. 

3.  Ocean surface is dark and has a low albedo, which reflects less heat back into space.

B.  Negative feedback conditions for warming Earth.

1.  Albedo effect of e.g. clouds and ice reflecting Sun’s energy

back into space.  Thereby, a glacier can feed itself.

2.  “Silicate weathering” removes CO2 from atmosphere, as silicate rocks (exposed by melting glaciers) are weathered.

3.  Volcanic and other materials reflecting Sun’s energy back into space.  E.g. the 1815 “Year of Never Summer” after Mt. Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia.

C.  Ocean currents transfer heat and cold horizontally and       vertically around the Earth.  E.g. Gulf and Japanese Currents.

D.   Man’s rapid mining and burning of hydrocarbons are quickly      returning to the atmosphere huge amounts of heat and CO2,     which took millions of years to accumulate and store underground. 

2,600,000 North and South America join at Isthmus of Panama.

Years Ago Pleistocene Ice Age begins.  Since then, continental glaciers advance and retreat over a dozen times.

105,000 Continental glaciers all melted, as warm Inter-Glacial Years Ago Period ends.  Average annual temperature approaches 60 degrees.  Ocean sea level at max – 25’ higher than now. Latest cold Glacial Period begins.

70,000 Wisconsinan Continental Glacier starts to form in NE 

Years Ago Canada, as snow no longer melts in summer and starts

to accumulate.  As moisture is transferred from oceans

to continental glaciers, ocean sea level falls.  Average annual temperature drops to 33 degrees.

25,000 Wisconsinan Glacier reaches Ohio.

Years Ago

20,000 Wisconsinan Glacier reaches its maximum – 10,000’ thick

Years Ago in Canada, 5,000’ thick in Cleveland, and over 1,000’ thick

in Columbus – extending south to Chillicothe.  Ocean sea  level down 400’.  Glacial Period cooling switches to current Inter-Glacial Period warming.

14,000 Wisconsinan Glacier retreats from Ohio.

Years Ago

10,000 Continental Glaciers all melted, except for Greenland and

Years Ago Antarctica.  Ocean sea level rises 375’ to within 25’ of max.

Present Nearing end of Inter-Glacial Period warming.  Average annual temperature now over 55 degrees.  Over next 3,000 years, Greenland glacier will melt and Antarctic 

glacier will partially melt raising ocean sea level another 25’.

3,000 Average annual temperature at 60 degrees. Warm Inter-Glacial Years Period ends, and cold Glacial Period begins.

From

Now

**************************************************

Earth’s Climate Future

International climate scientists are continuing to study the natural evolution of climate cycles. But today there is a strong focus on better understanding the relatively recent disturbing trend in “Global Warming”.

Global Warming refers to the change of global surface temperature relative to a baseline. Specific global warming levels, such as 1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C or 4°C, are defined as changes in global surface temperature relative to the years 1850–1900 as the baseline; that is the earliest period for which reliable observations are available with sufficient geographic coverage.

Scientific investigation over the most recent several decades indicates that humans burning fossil fuels is destroying the historic natural climate cycles, and left unchecked, will soon produce catastrophic climate consequences for civilization. Here is what they now know:

• Climate is influenced by a range of factors, but there is a nearly linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and increases in global surface temperature. The main human drivers of climate change are increases in the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, other greenhouse gases, and aerosols from burning fossil fuels, land use, and other sources;

• The scale of recent changes in the climate system as a whole – and the present state of many aspects of the climate system – are unprecedented over many centuries to many millennia;

• The current rates of increase of the concentration of the major greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) are unprecedented over at least the last 800,000 years;

• Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature was 1.09°C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900;

• Global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least mid-century under all emissions scenarios studied. Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades;

• Effects of global warming tend to lag measured increases by some decades. The impact of the current global warming state as well as that which has already occurred will continue to show up for decades to come. Therefore, we will likely see the climate impact of temperature increases we are measuring today in around 50 years or so;

• Continued global warming is projected to further intensify the global water cycle, including its variability, global monsoon precipitation and the severity of wet and dry events. The global water cycle also describes the north/south and east/west circulations of ocean currents and their impact on regional temperatures;

• Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia in the future, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets, and global sea level;

• Outcomes, such as ice-sheet collapse, abrupt ocean circulation changes, some compound extreme events, and warming substantially larger than that assessed cannot be ruled out and are part of risk assessment.

The latest international scientific climate change assessment (IPCC AR6) concludes that:

• Humans have played the dominant role in driving recent climate change. That influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans, and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred as a result. This conclusion is based on a synthesis of information from multiple lines of evidence, including direct observations of recent changes in Earth’s climate;

• Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. Since 2011, concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 parts per million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2);

• Climate scientists now consider it an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and intensity of weather and climate extremes since 1850, in particular for temperature extremes;

• Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones are attributed to human influence;

• The dominant effect of human activities is not only in the warming of global surface temperature, but also in the pattern of warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the stratosphere, warming of the ocean, melting of sea ice, and many other observed changes;

• Taken together, this evidence shows that humans are the dominant cause of observed global warming over recent decades.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is my primary source for quality climate change information. That body was set up and tasked specifically with collecting and consolidating the best scientific evidence about climate change. They are the world’s foremost authority on what climate scientists are thinking and saying, and what scientific research shows about climate change.

 The points I make in this document reflect my best understanding of the findings presented in the IPCC’s AR6, Working Group I Report released in August of 2021. I have identified what I think are the central themes of that document. But you need to cut me some slack here on the limited technical details I am presenting. They are all in the Report, but it is long, and I have done the best I can to condense 2391 pages into three.

The IPCC has produced five previous Assessment Reports (AR1-5) since 1988. After the first, each subsequent report has refined the previous assessment with new scientific data and understanding. In each report the evidence for the dominance of human influence on climate change gets stronger.

Note:  There are three working groups within IPCC AR6:  Working Group I studies the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change;  Working Group II focuses on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability;  Working Group III considers potential Mitigation of Climate Change. I have not yet explored WG II and WG III in the new Assessment Report 6.