Donald Trump is not an option.

Really, America?

Donald Trump is not an option.

With his Peter Andre-esque spray-on orange hue, and his wispy toupée; his image is almost as fake as his ‘self-made man’ philosophy. Donald Trump shouldn’t even be considered for the presidency.

---

Donald Trump is often judged for his stance on immigration and the like; his recent comments about Muslims take Islamophobia to a whole new level. However, as much as his bigoted outlook on life disgusts many, polls have unequivocally shown him at the head of the GOP candidacy race. The main reason his supporters cite for this is his appeal to the average American: even if his views are a little extreme, his $4.5 billion net worth is testament to his immense commercial expertise, and it is this that attracts voters to him. But where does this assumption of business acumen come from?

In a 2012, Brian Millar and Mike Lapham, researchers at United for a Fair Economy, wrote a book entitled “The Self-Made Myth”. In this book they explored how key figures, such as Donald Trump, who at that point was talked up as a potential presidential candidate (in the end he decided not to run, opting instead to host another series of The Apprentice), who claimed to be ‘self-made’, had, in fact, benefitted from the very things they later wished to scrap and destroy, such as public education, research grants and government-regulated banks.

In their book, Trump’s early life is examined. He was born in New York City in 1946 to Fred Trump, a wealthy real estate tycoon. His father’s wealth afforded him a comfortable childhood, and he was educated privately. This wealth was then passed down to him upon his father’s death; an estimated $40 to $200 million. Whilst this seems paltry compared to his current $4.5 billion net worth, it is important to remember how his father got this money.

In 1934, Fred Trump was struggling greatly. The Great Depression of ’29 had hit the property market hard, and Fred was faced with a real and severe risk of bankruptcy. However, the state recognised the imminent collapse of the housing market, and moved quickly to prevent it. As Millar and Lapham write, “financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast”. So there it is; Donald Trump’s inherited wealth was brought to him through state intervention in the markets – the very thing he now stands to oppose.

However, proponents of Trump say that, whilst he inherited a successful business, he still managed to transform that small time Brooklyn-based property enterprise into a nationwide, cross-market empire. And, in part, this is true – Donald Trump became the president of his father’s organisation in 1974, and immediately began expanding into golf courses, hotels and casinos. By 1980, his personal empire was so large that he established the Trump Organization to oversee his business operations.

10 years later, Trump landed himself in serious trouble. Due to excessive leveraging, the Trump Organization found itself in over $5 billion of debt, $1 billion of which was personally attributed to Trump himself. It seemed as through bankruptcy was inevitable. A group of 70 banks offered Trump a lifeline, allowing him to take out 2nd and 3rd mortgages on most of his properties, and deferring nearly $1 billion of debt attributed to his organisation. If it were not for the banks generosity (and a little state coercion) in 1990, Trump’s business would have failed and all because of a series of immature and amateurish risk-taking decisions. Is this really the sort of man Americans want at the head of their country?

It is clear that the persona Trump conveys to the public is not true. He claims to be self-made, and regularly speaks out against government intervention in business affairs, but were it not for that very same intervention, his wealth would be non-existent. Donald Trump is not a self-made man; he is a hypocrite who cannot recognise how much state intervention has supported his success.

Immigration, huh: what is it good for?

Anti-immigration protestors in New York, USA – a country built from immigrants.

 Immigration, huh: what is it good for?

Economically and socially speaking, in fact, really quite a lot.

---

The most common argument against open borders and free migration is one of xenophobia. People are scared of things they don’t understand; hence the belief that all Muslims are terrorists; and all Eastern Europeans are here to scrounge benefits and take from the economy.

The former belief, surrounding Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants, which is based largely on ignorance and inaccuracy (although fueled in part by the ever-reliable tabloid press), is easily debunked by simple statistics: 6% of American terror attacks are carried out by Muslims; this number drops to 2% in Europe. Terrorists make up less than 0.00009% of the global Muslim population, and 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been Muslims.

But what of the argument surrounding economic migrants: those who travel to this country to work, allegedly stealing jobs and benefits – and driving down wages – from the already squeezed British public. An ITV News poll showed that 46% of the British public felt that Eastern European migrants receive more in public services and welfare than they contribute in taxes. Only 14% expressed the opposite opinion that, in fact, hard-working migrants are a positive influence on this country.

Prof. Chris Dustmann, a leading expert in the field of immigration economics and a professor at University College London, believes these 14% are correct – immigration is economically beneficial, and he has the research to prove it. His analysis from 2007 to 2011 found that there was a huge disparity between the amount that natives and immigrants contribute to society. Developing on work from three years prior, his 2013 paper concluded that the average native person lost the state a net total of £1,900 per year. Conversely, immigrants were found to contribute a net average of £2,610 per year. Clearly, the urban myth that Eastern European workers are lazy is just that; a myth.

Michael Clemens, head of the Migration and Development initiative at the Centre for Global Development, offers an international perspective on the benefits of migration. Economically, he explains, there are two labour markets that are affected by any instance of mass migration: the country receiving workers, referred to as the host country, and the country being left behind, referred to as the country of origin. In the host country, more workers arrive. Due to the basic laws of supply and demand, an influx of workers ought to cause a sharp drop in wages – theoretically, the host country should lose out because of immigration – but this is not what economists and analysts are observing.

A negligible decline in wages is seen amongst low-skilled workers, but other areas of the labour market are unaffected, and wages sometimes appear to increase. Reasons given for this vary: some argue that the education gap between immigrants and natives mean that immigrants do not challenge natives for jobs and rather unlock new markets; others believe that immigrants can drive certain areas of the economy into a boom, and this provides new jobs for native workers. For example, mass migration from Albania to Spain in 1991, following the collapse of the communist regime in Albania, led to the expansion of the construction industry in Spain. Indeed, this revolution of contruction gave rise to a popular Spanish urban legend that the word for builder, ‘albañil’, stems from the word for an Albanian, ‘albanés’ (linguists believe it actually stems from the Arabic, بَنَّاء , meaning ‘bricklayer’).

Unlike the almost unnoticeable effect on the labour market in the host country, the country of origin sees a huge change in wages. The labour force shrinks greatly following a mass migration exodus, meaning that demand for workers rises and wages go up. The government then receives higher tax revenues from these well paid workers; this money is usually spent on infrastructure projects and public service expansions. Overall, therefore, those who stay in the country of origin receive higher wages and experience a higher quality of life than before the mass migration event.

In conclusion, immigration is beneficial both socially and economically. Socially, it challenges prejudices; antisemitism was common in Britain until the aftermath of the Holocaust forced the British to accept Jews into their society as refugees, at which point antisemitism seemed to disappear. A similar experience of acceptance and a down-beating of prejudice could hopefully occur with immigrants today. Economic consensus today rests around the shrine of the free markets, yet for some strange reason, governmental policy does not allow free movement; this is a direct contradiction. Further, allowing mass migration appears (from numerous studies) to be beneficial to all – in an interview with ITV News, Professor Chris Dustmann states that “when you take recent immigrants as a group, the country is better, not worse off”. Immigration, huh, what is it good for? Well, as it turns out, really quite a lot.

Refugees are not terrorists.

Refugees are not terrorists.

Refugee – noun; a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

Terrorism – noun; the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

---

According to the UN High Councillor for Refugees, there are currently 59.5 million displaced people in the world; every single day, 42,500 people are forced out of their homes due to conflict or persecution. Last year, 51% of all refugees were under the age of 18. It is vital that we welcome them with compassion and care – any hostility will surely lead to susceptibility for extremist recruitment.

Several leading members of the press in the United Kingdom and the USA have been eager to highlight an alleged intrinsic link between refugees, who are fleeing for their lives, and hideous terrorist atrocities. Sporting bogus statistics and ridiculously far-fetched narratives, a perfect example of this fear-mongering comes from the 55p tabloid, The Daily Express. It claimed last year that ISIS has helped to smuggle over 4,000 militant “gunmen” into western nations, “hidden amongst innocent refugees”.

According to recent Europol statements, this simply isn’t true. Speaking at the launch of a new European-wide anti-terrorism scheme today, Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol, concluded that there is “no concrete evidence” linking refugees and terror attacks. Further, investigating into the November 13th Paris attacks, Europol analysts and crime experts found nothing whatsoever to support the idea “that terrorist travellers systematically use the flow of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed”. This myth has been generated as a sophisticated ploy to sell newspapers, and it is wholly disgusting.

However, the Europol investigation revealed three main things that have to change if we are to stand any chance of preventing radicalisation and stopping further terror attacks from happening.

Firstly, Europe needs to pay close attention to relocating and clearing refugees from so-called bottlenecks in Greece and Turkey – and fast. Europol found that refugee holding camps were quickly becoming hotbeds for radicalisation, and vulnerable scared refugees were frequently targeted by ISIS recruiters operating in these camps; their research suggests that it is in these refugee camps, not in the refugees’ home countries, where radicalisation is occurring.

Secondly, Europol uncovered a lack of information exchange between European countries. As a result, the European Counter-Terrorism Centre was set up on Monday. Rob Wainwright, Europol director, explains, “Our ambition is for the European Counter-Terrorism Centre to become a central information hub in the fight against terrorism in the EU, providing analysis for ongoing investigations and contributing to a coordinated reaction in the event of major terrorist attacks”.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Europol called for a change to our culture. It lamented the rise of subtle xenophobia and concluded that a major contributing factor to radicalisation is a feeling of isolation. As long as the tabloid press smears refugees and immigrants are murderers and rapists, it will be impossible for those groups to integrate fully with. society. And, if integration does not occur, large proportions of our population are left vulnerable to radicalisation.

It is absolutely vital that we stop viewing refugees as terrorists – this is categorically untrue. Doing so merely detracts and distracts from the sensible discussion surrounding the best methods of counter-terrorism. Europol’s suggestion are clear and effective and seem to be the best. option in an increasingly muddled debate.

Immigration: we’ve been through this before.

Hungary, 1956: A toppled statue of Stalin gazes amusedly into the dark Budapest skyline.

 Immigration: we’ve been through this before.

As aggressively right-wing politicians such as Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen soar to power on a wave of hatred and fear, there is one vital thing to remember concerning immigration: we’ve been through this before.

---

1956. Hungary. Following the death of Stalin, many Hungarians hoped to see a rollback of Stalinist policies, and, in June, the Secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party, Rákosi, fell from power. That October, students, workers and soldiers attacked the AVH (the secret police), and smashed statues of Stalin – they could taste victory with every revolutionary act.

On 24th October 1956, Imre Nagy, a western minded moderate, took over as prime minister; just four days later, he negotiated the removal of Russian troops from Hungary. The icy grip of the USSR was slipping, and Stalin’s dream seemed to be crumbling. On November 3rd, Nagy declared that Hungary would leave the Warsaw Pact; he was calling for an end to communism in Hungary.

The next day, Russian troops returned. Incensed by the Hungarian declaration, Khrushchev ordered 1000 tanks into the country, where they killed 20,000 Hungarians, destroyed the native army, and captured national radio studios. The last words broadcast were “Help! Help! Help!”

In the immediate aftermath, several hundred Hungarians were executed, hundreds of thousands fled Hungary as political refugees. By the time the borders were fully sealed, 180,000 refugees had moved to neutral Austria, and 20,000 had fled south to Yugoslavia. In the following weeks, a huge operation was established – refugees were relocated to other countries faster than they arrived in Austria. Under the leadership of the United Nations, particularly the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, refugees were moved to over 37 different countries, with minimal fuss. One famous name amongst the immigrants is László Kovács, a cinematographer whose filmography include classics such as Ghostbusters, receiver of three Lifetime Achievement Awards. Andrew Grove and Leslie L. Vadász are others, the first two employees of Intel – the latter was head of the department that produced the first microprocessor.

These events have huge implications for today – refugees can be hugely beneficial, and, if spread over a number of countries, the quantity of refugees involved in today’s Syrian crisis can easily be accommodated, especially if the effort is coordinated effectively by the UN. As a result, we need to look on immigration with hope and optimism; we need to recognise refugees’ potential and open our arms to them as a collective of countries. We need to wholly avoid the kind of fear mongering that is being conducted by Donald Trump.

Government cuts have played a key role in recent UK flooding chaos.

 

Government cuts have played a key role in recent UK flooding chaos.

Cuts of over £115 million in flood management have led to over-stretched safety services and a country vastly unprepared to deal with natural disasters such as the storms that have plighted the north of England.

---

Kerry McCarthy, the shadow environment secretary, announced that cuts made by the Conservative government have led to a country wholly “unprepared for extreme weather events”. The government has removed over £155 million from risk management and flood defence services, leaving a vulnerable country in its wake.

Liz Truss, the environment secretary, supported the government’s austerity budget and argued that as the government has funded over £2.3 billion worth of brand new flood defence projects over the past 6 years, the Conservative party has hardly been naïve about the risk flooding poses o the UK. She also went on to reassure MPs that the current £171 million budget to maintain and upgrade existing defense systems would be protected and ring-fenced; safe from George Osborne’s eager eye for cuts. However, if the government is spending a record amount of the taxpayer’s money on building new and more effective methods of flood prevention, why do disasters, such as the trauma that has hit Cumbria, still occur?

Truss admits that she must review the “way we invest in flood defences”; this perhaps suggests that the safeguards put in place are simply not enough. This point could not be much clearer than following the revelation that many of the worst affected areas, including Carlisle; currently bearing the brunt of the damage, were in fact proclaimed safe from flooding, with newly built flood defences simply overflowing as rainfall reached an all-time high.

Despite this, many Labour ministers have highlighted the fact that the overall flood and coastal erosion management budget has seen a huge slide in funding. The current budget of £695 million for this actually fell by 14% this year. This is lower than 2014, and when adjusted for inflation, still less than 2009 and 2010.

Flood management is all about prevention. Defences need must be in place before floods hit, otherwise, they are useless. It is, therefore, according to McCarthy, exasperating to watch David Cameron speak about flood management. She said: “It is not enough for David Cameron to promise that money is no object after serious floods happen… The government needs to do everything it can to protect people’s homes and businesses before flooding occurs.”

Political figures in Carlisle, and the surrounding Cumbria area, are desperate to avert potential disaster as this becomes an increasingly political issue. The most recent instance of a similar event was in January 2014 on the Somerset Levels, when local MPs were accused of not doing enough to help local people. At the time, Labour butted heads with the government over which cuts had been made; which services had been affected the worst; and to what extent those cuts had caused the chaos in Somerset. Unfortunately, a similar response seems to have been triggered; it will be interesting to see how Cameron and his party reply when the effects of their harsh and unnecessary cuts are placed before them.

The war in the Middle East is not a new one.

 

The war in the Middle East is not a new one. 

On Wednesday 2nd December, British MPs debated late into the night about whether or not the UK should ‘go to war’ with Syria, and at 22:32 the result of their vote was announced: Britain was to bomb Syria. A new war had begun.

---

At least, that was the impression you would receive if you read any of the newspaper headlines the morning after. “It’s WAR”, screamed one, “Britain at War”, yet another. The truth is, this is not a new war. The war in the Middle East has been an issue for centuries; the First Crusade of 1096–1099 is widely viewed as the very first West vs. Middle East war. Christianity and Islam were clashing at fault-lines all across eastern Europe, so following the Muslim capture of Jerusalem Pope Urban II declared war in 1905, in order to win back the Holy Land. The war lasted three long years, and in the climax of the Crusade (the infamous Siege of Jerusalem), around 11,000 Christian soldiers and over 50,000 civilians lost their lives trying to reclaim the Holy City.

All parties were in agreement that a war of such scale should never occur again, but just over 100 years later, the states formed by the First Crusaders were crumbling. In 1150 the County of Edessa, the very first state formed by the earliest Crusaders, fell; this led to the Second Crusade, which featured a similar plot line to the first: Middle Eastern unrest; Catholic intervention; unnecessary bloodshed. History repeated itself in the Third Crusade, and by that point, the total death toll for Christian wars in the Middle East had risen to over 250,000, even by the most conservative estimates.

The West appears to have an addiction to intervention in the Middle East, and, whether you view this as good or bad, there is one absolutely vital lesson for the West to learn. Forethought. The West lacked forethought in the Gulf War – having liberated Kuwait and gained occupation of Iraq, they failed to deal with the oppressive dictator in command of the country, Saddam Hussein. The CIA believed it would be better to allow a coup d’etat to overthrow Hussein. However, due to a lack of coordination; a lack of planning; a lack of forethought; by the CIA, the coup failed and Hussein, and his regime, remained.

However, whilst Hussein had enough military power left to crush the CIA-orchestrated revolt, he could not hold on to the dog-eared corners of Iraq. A power vacuum had been created. This is viewed by many Middle Eastern commentators and historians as one of the main causes for the chaos that we see in Iraq, and, increasingly, in Syria, today. The north of Iraq has been shattered by war; the Kurds are piecing together the shards in the northeast, whilst Daesh have swept in from the west. The result is a harshly divided three-way struggle for power; a political hot potato that cannot be, and has not been, solved by air strikes alone.

Whilst Britain’s politicians clash heads over the UK’s military strategy (or, in Jeremy Corbyn’s case, why we even need a military strategy), they must keep this important lesson in mind. Air strikes, ground warfare, or a political future are nothing without forethought. Any strategy requires careful planning for the future of Syria, and, for that matter, the liberation and restructuring of Iraq. If this planning is not completed, I fear we will all be feeling a strange sense of déjà vu around 15 years into the future when this terrible mess repeats itself.