Begone vulgar youff, you have wandered far and wide to finally arrive at this remote corner of the full to overflowing intertubes, only to discover there is nothing here for you.
Instead there's darkness at noon, blood moons in the wee hours, and burning pits of sulphuric hell in the morning ...
Hie thee off to more useful places ...
Perhaps you were too young to enjoy the musical, perhaps Madonna is a distant memory your grandparents revive as they urge you not to cry for Argentina, but you can always head elsewhere and shed a tear for America...
When the populist strongman Juan Perón ran Argentina’s economy from his presidential palace in the mid-20th century—personally deciding which companies received favors, which industries got nationalized or protected, and which businessmen profited from state largesse—economists warned that the experiment would end badly. They were right. Over decades of rule by Perón and his successors, a country that had once been among the world’s wealthiest nations devolved into a global laughingstock, with uncontrollable inflation, routine fiscal crises, rampant corruption, and crippling poverty. Peronism became a cautionary tale of how not to manage an economy.
President Donald Trump seems to have misunderstood the lesson. His second term has begun to follow the Peronist playbook of import substitution, emergency declarations, personal dealmaking, fiscal and monetary recklessness, and unprecedented government control over private enterprise. And, as with Argentina’s Peronism, much of U.S. economic policy making runs directly through the president himself.
Trump’s tendency toward Peronist policy is strongest on trade. Central to Perón’s economic vision was an “import substitution industrialization” strategy, or ISI, that used tariffs, quotas, subsidies, localization mandates, and similar policies to push Argentines to produce domestically what they’d previously imported more cheaply from abroad. The approach was intended to fuel domestic growth, but it instead created insular and uncompetitive manufacturing industries saddled with high production costs, bloated finances, and rampant cronyism. Perversely, it also crushed Argentina’s globally competitive agricultural sector by diverting resources away from it and toward protected industries. Argentinian consumers suffered from higher prices, unavailable products, and lower overall living standards.
One of the most notorious examples of ISI’s failure was when the government of the Peronist President Cristina Kirchner attempted to incubate a local electronics industry through steep restrictions on imported televisions and smartphones. The result was disastrous: Modest increases in low-value domestic-assembly operations were more than offset by a market that featured substandard products priced at double what consumers were paying in neighboring Chile. Popular items such as iPhones were simply unavailable, forcing Argentines into local black markets or shopping trips abroad.
Trump’s second term is following the ISI playbook in several respects, in some cases even more so than Argentina did. According to the World Bank, for example, Argentina’s average tariff rate has hovered between 10 and 16 percent since 1992, while the Yale Budget Lab estimates that the United States’ now exceeds 18 percent and could go higher in the months ahead. “National security” tariffs for Trump’s preferred industries—including steel, aluminum, copper, and automotive goods—top out at 50 percent, well above the 35 percent duty that Argentina once applied to smartphones. And with U.S.-imposed tariffs varying by product, country, and content, what was once a relatively simple tariff system has been replaced by a labyrinth of overlapping requirements that even large and sophisticated American importers struggle to navigate...
President Donald Trump seems to have misunderstood the lesson. His second term has begun to follow the Peronist playbook of import substitution, emergency declarations, personal dealmaking, fiscal and monetary recklessness, and unprecedented government control over private enterprise. And, as with Argentina’s Peronism, much of U.S. economic policy making runs directly through the president himself.
Trump’s tendency toward Peronist policy is strongest on trade. Central to Perón’s economic vision was an “import substitution industrialization” strategy, or ISI, that used tariffs, quotas, subsidies, localization mandates, and similar policies to push Argentines to produce domestically what they’d previously imported more cheaply from abroad. The approach was intended to fuel domestic growth, but it instead created insular and uncompetitive manufacturing industries saddled with high production costs, bloated finances, and rampant cronyism. Perversely, it also crushed Argentina’s globally competitive agricultural sector by diverting resources away from it and toward protected industries. Argentinian consumers suffered from higher prices, unavailable products, and lower overall living standards.
One of the most notorious examples of ISI’s failure was when the government of the Peronist President Cristina Kirchner attempted to incubate a local electronics industry through steep restrictions on imported televisions and smartphones. The result was disastrous: Modest increases in low-value domestic-assembly operations were more than offset by a market that featured substandard products priced at double what consumers were paying in neighboring Chile. Popular items such as iPhones were simply unavailable, forcing Argentines into local black markets or shopping trips abroad.
Trump’s second term is following the ISI playbook in several respects, in some cases even more so than Argentina did. According to the World Bank, for example, Argentina’s average tariff rate has hovered between 10 and 16 percent since 1992, while the Yale Budget Lab estimates that the United States’ now exceeds 18 percent and could go higher in the months ahead. “National security” tariffs for Trump’s preferred industries—including steel, aluminum, copper, and automotive goods—top out at 50 percent, well above the 35 percent duty that Argentina once applied to smartphones. And with U.S.-imposed tariffs varying by product, country, and content, what was once a relatively simple tariff system has been replaced by a labyrinth of overlapping requirements that even large and sophisticated American importers struggle to navigate...
And so on and if Argentina is not to your taste, then how about a trip to Africa wth Krugman? The Dangers of Fiscal Dominance How Trump could Zimbabwify America
Too short on cash, you indolent bludger, to afford to be Krugmanned?
Never mind, perhaps you're a nerd, and will be appeased by a sacrificial offering from the appropriately named Rogé Karma, Just How Bad Would an AI Bubble Be?, The entire U.S. economy is being propped up by the promise of productivity gains that seem very far from materializing.
...when the METR team looked at the employees’ actual work output, they found that the developers had completed tasks 20 percent slower when using AI than when working without it. The researchers were stunned. “No one expected that outcome,” Nate Rush, one of the authors of the study, told me. “We didn’t even really consider a slowdown as a possibility.”
No individual experiment should be treated as the final word. But the METR study is, according to many AI experts, the best we have—and it helps make sense of an otherwise paradoxical moment for AI. On the one hand, the United States is undergoing an extraordinary, AI-fueled economic boom: The stock market is soaring thanks to the frothy valuations of AI-associated tech giants, and the real economy is being propelled by hundreds of billions of dollars of spending on data centers and other AI infrastructure. Undergirding all of the investment is the belief that AI will make workers dramatically more productive, which will in turn boost corporate profits to unimaginable levels.
On the other hand, evidence is piling up that AI is failing to deliver in the real world. The tech giants pouring the most money into AI are nowhere close to recouping their investments. Research suggests that the companies trying to incorporate AI have seen virtually no impact on their bottom line. And economists looking for evidence of AI-replaced job displacement have mostly come up empty.
Disappear vulgar youff, for here we spend time examining the entrails of completely useless reptiles who add not a whit or jot to productivity, but do add enormous amounts of fear and loathing to the GDP...
This is where the rubber hits the road, where the pedal hits the metal, where the EV sparks and burns, where real herpetologists labour at their studies, suffering without any chance of redemption in sight ...
No individual experiment should be treated as the final word. But the METR study is, according to many AI experts, the best we have—and it helps make sense of an otherwise paradoxical moment for AI. On the one hand, the United States is undergoing an extraordinary, AI-fueled economic boom: The stock market is soaring thanks to the frothy valuations of AI-associated tech giants, and the real economy is being propelled by hundreds of billions of dollars of spending on data centers and other AI infrastructure. Undergirding all of the investment is the belief that AI will make workers dramatically more productive, which will in turn boost corporate profits to unimaginable levels.
On the other hand, evidence is piling up that AI is failing to deliver in the real world. The tech giants pouring the most money into AI are nowhere close to recouping their investments. Research suggests that the companies trying to incorporate AI have seen virtually no impact on their bottom line. And economists looking for evidence of AI-replaced job displacement have mostly come up empty.
Disappear vulgar youff, for here we spend time examining the entrails of completely useless reptiles who add not a whit or jot to productivity, but do add enormous amounts of fear and loathing to the GDP...
This is where the rubber hits the road, where the pedal hits the metal, where the EV sparks and burns, where real herpetologists labour at their studies, suffering without any chance of redemption in sight ...
Now that vulgar youff has departed, the adults in the room can turn to the hive mind to see wot's wot this day ...
Oh cheeky ...
Nah, not the content, calling it an EXCLUSIVE, that's the cheeky bit ...what with it being credited to the WSJ...
Is the entire Murdochian empire now a monolith hive mind?
Still saucy is what saucy does ... and it's off to the archive ...
Just for the record, so the pond can share in the fun...
And look, just below the pudenda, the adults in the room are squabbling, and the bromancer simply had to step in, and explain how the Price Is Wrong ...
A full five minutes of bro fury, so the reptiles say, in Jacinta Nampijinpa Price out of line in debate on Indians, Asserting that a majority of Indian migrants vote Labor – and then pursuing an internal slugfest over the issue – has seriously damaged the Liberal Party.
For those who recently landed from Mars as Kryptonian aliens, the caption for the snap: Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is facing calls to make rogue senator Jacinta Price apologise.
The mighty bro could barely conceal his irritation ...
Will the Liberal-National Coalition become a Nigel Farage populist party or will they have Farage visited upon them in a more popular party of the right stealing their voters?
The answer is probably neither. The Coalition seems to confront two stark choices, both of which they must reject. One is to become a party of milksop centrists, Labor-lite, merely going along with the zeitgeist and fighting no big political battles, especially battles of principle.
The other is to try to become a populist party, a la Farage or Donald Trump.
That would be an unmitigated disaster for the Coalition, ensuring electoral impotence and needless community division for absolutely no benefit to anyone, least of all the Liberal Party.
At the moment the party is a mess.
The answer is probably neither. The Coalition seems to confront two stark choices, both of which they must reject. One is to become a party of milksop centrists, Labor-lite, merely going along with the zeitgeist and fighting no big political battles, especially battles of principle.
The other is to try to become a populist party, a la Farage or Donald Trump.
That would be an unmitigated disaster for the Coalition, ensuring electoral impotence and needless community division for absolutely no benefit to anyone, least of all the Liberal Party.
At the moment the party is a mess.
Then came a snap, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price’s comments were ‘unbelievably ill-advised’.
The bro turned Shaksperian, or kind of ...
Friends, dinkum hive minders, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Price, not to praise her.
The evil that women do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Price. The noble Alex
Hath told you Price was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Price answer’d it.
I come to bury Price, not to praise her.
The evil that women do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Price. The noble Alex
Hath told you Price was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Price answer’d it.
And so on, but Shakspere is no match for the bromancer.
See how he does it...
It would be difficult for anyone to have greater admiration for senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price than I do. Her leadership in the voice campaign was courageous, magnificent in its way. But her comments on Indian migrants were inexplicably stupid and will be used as social media grabs by Labor forevermore to try to convince Australians of Indian extraction that the Coalition doesn’t like them.
Price said the Labor government was bringing in some migrants over others because they voted Labor, then nominated Indians as an example. This is both untrue and unbelievably ill-advised. If you take the whole of the Indian subcontinent, there may be more than two million Australian citizens with Indian heritage.
If a majority of these folks vote Labor, that demonstrates spectacular campaigning failure by the Coalition. It’s reasonable to argue the overall level of immigration is too high at the moment. To single out Indian Australians as a problem is almost insane.
In the US, as it happens, Indians are the most successful ethnic minority, with educational achievements and average income levels far above the national average.
Price said the Labor government was bringing in some migrants over others because they voted Labor, then nominated Indians as an example. This is both untrue and unbelievably ill-advised. If you take the whole of the Indian subcontinent, there may be more than two million Australian citizens with Indian heritage.
If a majority of these folks vote Labor, that demonstrates spectacular campaigning failure by the Coalition. It’s reasonable to argue the overall level of immigration is too high at the moment. To single out Indian Australians as a problem is almost insane.
In the US, as it happens, Indians are the most successful ethnic minority, with educational achievements and average income levels far above the national average.
It wouldn't be a bro piece without the liar from the Shire, Narendra Modi and Scott Morrison talk in Rome during the G20 summit in October 2022. Picture: Adam Taylor
The bro went into a reverie, a mourning for a tragedy ...
In the UK, Indian Brits are generally critical to any Conservative party election victory. In Australia, Indian Australians at first liked Scott Morrison’s leadership very much and voted for the Coalition in large numbers at the 2019 election. They are individuals, they change their voting decisions from time to time. But if you convince them that you don’t like them because of their Indian background, you’ll find it very hard ever to get them back.
Indian Australians are natural Coalition voters. They revere family and tradition, they’re conservative socially across the board, they thrive in small businesses and are deeply committed to educational excellence. They come from a democratic culture, have generally mastered English, and don’t have a government in their country of origin that is hostile to liberal, democratic values. They are almost designed by God to be conservative voters.
Like everyone else, of course, they have their good and bad. But by making such ridiculous comments and then pursuing an internal Liberal Party slugfest over the issue, Price has seriously damaged the Liberal Party for absolutely no benefit at all.
The truth is all of Price’s actions since the election have hurt only her own side of politics. It was a mistake to switch to the Liberals after the election as it seemed to deprive the electorate of an honest choice. It was a mistake to declare that she was running for the deputy leadership two minutes after arriving in the party. And now this wholly destructive controversy over Indian Australians.
The tragedy of all this is that Price has the ability to be a major figure in Australian politics. But you can’t ignore the rules and disciplines of modern politics. Price is the shadow minister for defence industry. She needs to master that critical portfolio area. Bob Hawke came into the parliament with the label of future leader written all over him. But his first job was as shadow minister for industrial relations. He devoted himself to mastering that job and doing it well to show colleagues that he was conscientious, collegial, collaborative and serious.
Most Liberal frontbenchers don’t do anywhere near enough work on a subject before they talk about it. Price should have been in complete control of what she wanted to say about immigration.
Indian Australians are natural Coalition voters. They revere family and tradition, they’re conservative socially across the board, they thrive in small businesses and are deeply committed to educational excellence. They come from a democratic culture, have generally mastered English, and don’t have a government in their country of origin that is hostile to liberal, democratic values. They are almost designed by God to be conservative voters.
Like everyone else, of course, they have their good and bad. But by making such ridiculous comments and then pursuing an internal Liberal Party slugfest over the issue, Price has seriously damaged the Liberal Party for absolutely no benefit at all.
The truth is all of Price’s actions since the election have hurt only her own side of politics. It was a mistake to switch to the Liberals after the election as it seemed to deprive the electorate of an honest choice. It was a mistake to declare that she was running for the deputy leadership two minutes after arriving in the party. And now this wholly destructive controversy over Indian Australians.
The tragedy of all this is that Price has the ability to be a major figure in Australian politics. But you can’t ignore the rules and disciplines of modern politics. Price is the shadow minister for defence industry. She needs to master that critical portfolio area. Bob Hawke came into the parliament with the label of future leader written all over him. But his first job was as shadow minister for industrial relations. He devoted himself to mastering that job and doing it well to show colleagues that he was conscientious, collegial, collaborative and serious.
Most Liberal frontbenchers don’t do anywhere near enough work on a subject before they talk about it. Price should have been in complete control of what she wanted to say about immigration.
Then came an appalling image, trite and insulting, but fitting for the bromancer, The fastest rising immigrant force in Australia this decade (and likely beyond) is the Indian community. Picture: istock
To match that banality, the bro managed to drag in the onion muncher and the lying rodent, supine in his endless, undying gratitude ...
Now, some people who claim to be her supporters are showing their support by mounting rhetorical attacks on Indian Australians. Price should be defending Indian Australians.
To avoid populist madness, the Liberals must always handle immigration with nuance and finesse. The current numbers are too big. Fair enough. Don’t then criticise innocent and successful migrant communities.
The biggest backers of immigration in our history have been Coalition governments. Before Covid, the only leader to achieve net emigration from Australia was Gough Whitlam. As a percentage of our population, the biggest number of migrants came here under Robert Menzies. The Liberal Party has had more immigrants as leaders than Labor, among them Sussan Ley and Tony Abbott.
Immigration requires nuance. Populism hates nuance. Anti-immigration campaigns have fuelled populist support in Europe and the US but their situations are completely different from Australia’s. In Europe, the backlash is overwhelmingly against uncontrolled Muslim immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. In the US, it’s against illegal immigration through the southern border that was uncontrolled under Joe Biden.
John Howard stopped illegal immigration to Australia by boat. Once he’d done that, he increased legal immigration. Abbott stopped it a second time.
Both Howard and Abbott deserve the thanks of a grateful nation, not least because they re-established the credibility of our immigration program. Immigration is a central part of the Australian success story. In recent years it has been the explosion of long-term so-called temporary visas that has been problematic. People in large numbers pursue those visas to stay in Australia permanently. Most such folk are good people but this is a misuse of the system and a bad design fault.
To avoid populist madness, the Liberals must always handle immigration with nuance and finesse. The current numbers are too big. Fair enough. Don’t then criticise innocent and successful migrant communities.
The biggest backers of immigration in our history have been Coalition governments. Before Covid, the only leader to achieve net emigration from Australia was Gough Whitlam. As a percentage of our population, the biggest number of migrants came here under Robert Menzies. The Liberal Party has had more immigrants as leaders than Labor, among them Sussan Ley and Tony Abbott.
Immigration requires nuance. Populism hates nuance. Anti-immigration campaigns have fuelled populist support in Europe and the US but their situations are completely different from Australia’s. In Europe, the backlash is overwhelmingly against uncontrolled Muslim immigration from North Africa and the Middle East. In the US, it’s against illegal immigration through the southern border that was uncontrolled under Joe Biden.
John Howard stopped illegal immigration to Australia by boat. Once he’d done that, he increased legal immigration. Abbott stopped it a second time.
Both Howard and Abbott deserve the thanks of a grateful nation, not least because they re-established the credibility of our immigration program. Immigration is a central part of the Australian success story. In recent years it has been the explosion of long-term so-called temporary visas that has been problematic. People in large numbers pursue those visas to stay in Australia permanently. Most such folk are good people but this is a misuse of the system and a bad design fault.
We must be grateful for learning the art of onion munching?
On with the art of bashing Kryptonian aliens, invading the country and ruining everything ... LNP MP Garth Hamilton says Australians “shouldn’t be experiencing” the volume of immigration currently happening. Mr Hamilton says the high intake of migrants makes the “share of the pie that much smaller”. “Australians have lost faith in our immigration system. “We’ve lost faith that our immigration program is being used for the benefit of our citizens and for this country. “We are not a stupid nation.”
Then the bro managed his usual both siderism ... instead of being an unmitigated disaster, it seems King Donald is doing both good and bad things ...
Populism actually offers much less political reward than it appears to on the surface. The only European populist who occupies government is Italy’s Giorgia Meloni. She’s a brilliant leader who has taken the achievable parts of her platform into government, mastered the art of compromise, takes a solid, traditional view of national security and respects the protocols of good government. Boris Johnson promised the same in Britain but unravelled as prime minister.
Trump is doing both good and bad things. Unlike George W. Bush he has not won a majority of the popular vote in either of his victories. He won a narrow plurality in 2024, running against an extremely weak opponent from a discredited administration. In any event, presidential systems, like first past the post and proportional representational systems, are much more sympathetic to populism than our system of compulsory and preferential voting.
The truth is, there’s no substitute for the hard work of politics which the Liberals show little taste for. Margaret Thatcher and Howard remain much better models than Farage or Trump.
Trump is doing both good and bad things. Unlike George W. Bush he has not won a majority of the popular vote in either of his victories. He won a narrow plurality in 2024, running against an extremely weak opponent from a discredited administration. In any event, presidential systems, like first past the post and proportional representational systems, are much more sympathetic to populism than our system of compulsory and preferential voting.
The truth is, there’s no substitute for the hard work of politics which the Liberals show little taste for. Margaret Thatcher and Howard remain much better models than Farage or Trump.
Dearie me ...
Now what's happening over on the extreme far right?
A couple of items can be taken care of easily, while staying inclusive. Lordy lordy, how the reptiles are inclusive.
For those who want to chamber another round ...
Talk about an endless comrade Dan feast, yet he was only doing what King Donald yearned to do, except he didn't score an invite, and so it was Modi's turn to be berated ...
Then it was King Donald's turn to suffer ancient Troy's ire ...
That sent ancient Troy off on a final rant ...
Trump pardoned the insurgents who tried to mount a coup in 2021, ransacked the US Capitol and assaulted law enforcement. He ignores court rulings, refuses to accept election outcomes and ruminates on a third term, which the US constitution forbids.
Yet the US remains our closest ally while Trump treats Australia with disdain and contempt. He has levied tariffs on Australian imports to the US. He still has not personally committed to the AUKUS agreement. Nor has he sent an ambassador to Canberra. Meanwhile, the US military footprint in Australia continues to expand with much of it kept secret.
While Trump insults and threatens allies, his deadlines and demands are routinely ignored by other nations, and he shows no interest in leading multilateral forums as the world’s most notorious and dangerous regimes are banding closer together, showcasing their awesome weaponry and offering an alternative to US global leadership. These are indeed perilous times.
Philosophically, some members of the government essentially favour an open-borders approach and welcome everyone who can get their hands on a visa. They are in the Big Australia camp.
Other members are more circumspect. Rather, they accept that annual migrant intakes should not be so large as to put unwanted pressure on housing, infrastructure, services and social cohesion.
Having said this, there are operational difficulties in guaranteeing sustainable intakes because of the predominance of temporary migrants.
Another key feature is the pressure that the government is put under by various lobby groups to maximise the migrant intake so their commercial interests can be met. The universities have become a powerful force pushing for higher international student numbers. They fiercely resist any caps on the numbers and are not impressed by any other conditions or restrictions. Property developers and some employer groups also favour high rates of immigration. Some ethnic groups lobby for particular visa conditions – parent visas is a case in point.
While state governments are consulted by the federal government on immigration matters, including the setting of the annual permanent numbers and the composition, these state governments are also subject to the same pressures from the vested interest groups. Indeed, the force of these pressures can be stronger at the sub-national level.
Dame Groan was so enraged she resorted to dot points ...
For those keen to bung on a war with China by Xmas, Beijing looms over Pacific plans for an ‘ocean of peace’, As Anthony Albanese heads to Honiara this week for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, he won’t find one big happy family.
The pond decided to feature what ancient Troy had to say about King Donald doing good and bad things ...
The header: Trump’s chaotic foreign policy unites dictators and tyrants against the West, At a time when democracies need to unite to defend the global rules-based order, the US vacates its post-war leadership role.
The caption for the alien Kryptonians who recently dropped in from Krypton: From left, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Pictures: Various sources / AFP
Ancient Troy wasn't happy ...
Donald Trump’s incoherent, confused and chaotic approach to foreign policy has united dictators, tyrants and autocrats, as evidenced by China’s huge military parade in Beijing last week. When democracies need to be united in defending the global rules-based order, the US has vacated its post-war leadership role.
While the US President treats longstanding allies with disrespect, threatens to seize their land and levies punitive tariffs on imports, Xi Jinping welcomed more than 25 foreign leaders to Beijing and rolled out, literally, the red carpet. Xi is uniting countries, not all anti-democratic, to join a Chinese-led, post-US world order.
Viewing the demonstration of China’s military might was Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as special guests. Also there were Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Myanmar’s military junta chief Min Aung Hlaing and Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
It should be deeply concerning to Australian policymakers that also attending from the Asia-Pacific region were Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Cambodian King Norodom Sihamoni, Vietnamese President Luong Cuong and Laotian President Thongloun Sisoulith. And, of course, Australia’s Daniel Andrews was there shaking hands with Xi on the red carpet and photographed in the rogues gallery only a few rows back from Putin and Kim. Andrews is either supremely naive or was there only to further his business and lobbying interests.
While the US President treats longstanding allies with disrespect, threatens to seize their land and levies punitive tariffs on imports, Xi Jinping welcomed more than 25 foreign leaders to Beijing and rolled out, literally, the red carpet. Xi is uniting countries, not all anti-democratic, to join a Chinese-led, post-US world order.
Viewing the demonstration of China’s military might was Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as special guests. Also there were Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Myanmar’s military junta chief Min Aung Hlaing and Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
It should be deeply concerning to Australian policymakers that also attending from the Asia-Pacific region were Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Cambodian King Norodom Sihamoni, Vietnamese President Luong Cuong and Laotian President Thongloun Sisoulith. And, of course, Australia’s Daniel Andrews was there shaking hands with Xi on the red carpet and photographed in the rogues gallery only a few rows back from Putin and Kim. Andrews is either supremely naive or was there only to further his business and lobbying interests.
Comrade Dan interrupted ancient Troy, Former Victorian premier Dan Andrews (top right) has posed for a photo with some of the world’s most ruthless autocrats. Picture: Sergey Bobylev / Pool / AFP
Talk about an endless comrade Dan feast, yet he was only doing what King Donald yearned to do, except he didn't score an invite, and so it was Modi's turn to be berated ...
He is not stupid so one can assume only the latter.
Especially concerning was the participation of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in Tianjin. Modi and Putin joined hands as they approached Xi at the summit. Modi previously has spoken of his warm friendship with Putin, a dictator and aggressor who is waging a devastating war against democratic Ukraine.
This makes the Quad between the US, Japan, India and Australia with the stated purpose of “supporting a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific” an utter nonsense with India firmly in the embrace of Russia and China.
Modi has long been backsliding when it comes to liberal democratic freedoms in India. He is not a defender of the liberal democratic world order.
Especially concerning was the participation of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in Tianjin. Modi and Putin joined hands as they approached Xi at the summit. Modi previously has spoken of his warm friendship with Putin, a dictator and aggressor who is waging a devastating war against democratic Ukraine.
This makes the Quad between the US, Japan, India and Australia with the stated purpose of “supporting a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific” an utter nonsense with India firmly in the embrace of Russia and China.
Modi has long been backsliding when it comes to liberal democratic freedoms in India. He is not a defender of the liberal democratic world order.
An intervening snap seemed designed to set ancient Troy off again ... Vladimir Putin held talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a show of defiance as US President Donald Trump pressures New Delhi to stop buying Russian oil.
Then it was King Donald's turn to suffer ancient Troy's ire ...
The image of Xi, Modi and Putin talking warmly together prompted Trump to post: “Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together!” This typically petulant response by Trump underscores how hopeless and dangerous Trump’s foreign policy has been.
In many ways the US encouraged India to move closer to Russia and China. Trump claimed to have been personally responsible for ending the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, which incensed Modi. The Trump administration has levied 50 per cent tariffs on India. It was not long ago that the US thought India would help counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific.
The US forged and led the post-war global order. Great presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower led the way in the 1940s and 50s. This was continued by their successors, from John Kennedy to Joe Biden, who all valued bilateral relationships and multilateral forums through which shared values could be articulated.
Trump has abrogated US leadership. He does not show any respect towards historical alliances or longstanding bilateral relationships. He has been ineffective in ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which he promised to resolve on day one of his presidency. He will not attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg in November but wants to host the G20 at his Florida golf course next year because, well, he will be able to profit from that personally.
In many ways the US encouraged India to move closer to Russia and China. Trump claimed to have been personally responsible for ending the recent conflict between India and Pakistan, which incensed Modi. The Trump administration has levied 50 per cent tariffs on India. It was not long ago that the US thought India would help counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific.
The US forged and led the post-war global order. Great presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower led the way in the 1940s and 50s. This was continued by their successors, from John Kennedy to Joe Biden, who all valued bilateral relationships and multilateral forums through which shared values could be articulated.
Trump has abrogated US leadership. He does not show any respect towards historical alliances or longstanding bilateral relationships. He has been ineffective in ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which he promised to resolve on day one of his presidency. He will not attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg in November but wants to host the G20 at his Florida golf course next year because, well, he will be able to profit from that personally.
Then came a snap featuring a signature which might well pass for pudenda, US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order, renaming the Department of Defense, as the Department of War.
That sent ancient Troy off on a final rant ...
The President has adopted the nativist and isolationist America First slogan that predates World War II as the leitmotiv of his foreign policy. He promised to end US involvement in wars. Yet last week the US Defence Department was renamed the Department of War. Does this signal a new aggressive global posture?
The argument advanced by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was that the US had not won a war since his department changed its name to Defence in 1949. It could hardly be more moronic.
US foreign policy has become utterly confused and contradictory, and its leadership in global affairs has been squandered. Key groupings such as the Quad, G20 and APEC – created to encourage free trade between nations – that we play a lead role in have been undermined and their future is uncertain. Australia’s security ally does not share its approach to trade, climate change, the war in Ukraine and democracy.
We can no longer rely on the US to safeguard the liberal world order. The US is sliding towards autocracy and no longer values the democratic principles that Australians have protected, advocated and fought for.
The argument advanced by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was that the US had not won a war since his department changed its name to Defence in 1949. It could hardly be more moronic.
US foreign policy has become utterly confused and contradictory, and its leadership in global affairs has been squandered. Key groupings such as the Quad, G20 and APEC – created to encourage free trade between nations – that we play a lead role in have been undermined and their future is uncertain. Australia’s security ally does not share its approach to trade, climate change, the war in Ukraine and democracy.
We can no longer rely on the US to safeguard the liberal world order. The US is sliding towards autocracy and no longer values the democratic principles that Australians have protected, advocated and fought for.
Oh indeed, indeed, for once let us agree ...
And yet, and yet ...
Trump pardoned the insurgents who tried to mount a coup in 2021, ransacked the US Capitol and assaulted law enforcement. He ignores court rulings, refuses to accept election outcomes and ruminates on a third term, which the US constitution forbids.
Yet the US remains our closest ally while Trump treats Australia with disdain and contempt. He has levied tariffs on Australian imports to the US. He still has not personally committed to the AUKUS agreement. Nor has he sent an ambassador to Canberra. Meanwhile, the US military footprint in Australia continues to expand with much of it kept secret.
While Trump insults and threatens allies, his deadlines and demands are routinely ignored by other nations, and he shows no interest in leading multilateral forums as the world’s most notorious and dangerous regimes are banding closer together, showcasing their awesome weaponry and offering an alternative to US global leadership. These are indeed perilous times.
Welcome to the world of Faux Noise ancient Troy, and please pass on your congratulations to the emeritus chairman for helping bring all this to pass ...
And of course there was Dame Groan, sighing and groaning away in her Tuesday way ...
The header: Shoddy economics behind the debate on migration, Open-border sympathisers/Big Australia advocates attempt to manipulate the numbers to push the line that there is no reason to reduce the migrant intake.
The caption: Federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley visits local businesses and meets with local leaders at Harris Park. Picture: NewsWire / Monique Harmer
The pond could have taken the easy way out, offered a link to Dame Groan in the archive and been done with her.
But the archive is a little unsteady on its feet, and some things are too important to stay hidden in its walls.
Somebody had to say the Price is Right, and who better than Dame Groan, expert basher of those alien Kryptonians who come here and ruin everything ...
The topic of immigration, particularly illegal entry, is politically red-hot in many countries around the world, including in Britain, France, Germany and other European countries. There is also no doubt that the massive numbers of illegal migrants crossing the southern border of the US was an important factor in the electoral victory of Donald Trump.
President Trump said his administration is ‘going to clean up our cities’ when he was asked why he plans to deploy National Guard troops and immigration agents in Chicago.
The fact that we have very few illegal migrants lowers the temperature here. But our high rate of regular immigration since Covid is clearly starting to affect the political debate.
The real import of the recent anti-immigration protests held here was not the unpleasant, nay despicable, behaviour of certain activist groups but the attendance of ordinary folk who simply favour much lower annual rates of immigration. We know this from repeated surveys that indicate a growing majority of Australians are keen to see smaller migrant intakes.
The position of the Albanese government on immigration, including the appropriate annual intake, is confused.
President Trump said his administration is ‘going to clean up our cities’ when he was asked why he plans to deploy National Guard troops and immigration agents in Chicago.
The fact that we have very few illegal migrants lowers the temperature here. But our high rate of regular immigration since Covid is clearly starting to affect the political debate.
The real import of the recent anti-immigration protests held here was not the unpleasant, nay despicable, behaviour of certain activist groups but the attendance of ordinary folk who simply favour much lower annual rates of immigration. We know this from repeated surveys that indicate a growing majority of Australians are keen to see smaller migrant intakes.
The position of the Albanese government on immigration, including the appropriate annual intake, is confused.
Indeed, indeed, good people on both sides ...
Oh dear, talk about red flags ...
As for the government being confused?
The last thing the pond read suggested that the IPA was confused...
"It was under John Howard that, for the first time since federation, the overseas-born proportion of the population exceeded 24 per cent, and it was also under Howard that the non-European component of the overseas born went above 50 per cent for the first time.
"And as well as increasing overall numbers, the Howard government progressively increased the refugee intake from 3,802 in 1999-2000 to 6,022 in 2005-06."
He noted that the journalist George Megalogenis had "sagely" observed in 2006 that "the former Hansonite belt … think Howard is keeping out all the foreigners, when he is bringing them here at a rate Paul Keating never contemplated".
And so on, but back to Dame Groan's deep, dire fear of alien Kryptonians ...
Philosophically, some members of the government essentially favour an open-borders approach and welcome everyone who can get their hands on a visa. They are in the Big Australia camp.
Other members are more circumspect. Rather, they accept that annual migrant intakes should not be so large as to put unwanted pressure on housing, infrastructure, services and social cohesion.
Having said this, there are operational difficulties in guaranteeing sustainable intakes because of the predominance of temporary migrants.
Another key feature is the pressure that the government is put under by various lobby groups to maximise the migrant intake so their commercial interests can be met. The universities have become a powerful force pushing for higher international student numbers. They fiercely resist any caps on the numbers and are not impressed by any other conditions or restrictions. Property developers and some employer groups also favour high rates of immigration. Some ethnic groups lobby for particular visa conditions – parent visas is a case in point.
While state governments are consulted by the federal government on immigration matters, including the setting of the annual permanent numbers and the composition, these state governments are also subject to the same pressures from the vested interest groups. Indeed, the force of these pressures can be stronger at the sub-national level.
Time for a snap evoking Dame Groan's world, but gently please, no sketchy AF signs, Anti-immigration protesters at recent rallies held around Australia.
Dame Groan was so enraged she resorted to dot points ...
There is a great deal of shoddy economics written about the immigration figures and the economic impact of net arrivals.
Were a first-year economics student to serve up these falsehoods, they would fail. But open-border sympathisers/Big Australia advocates attempt to manipulate the numbers to push the line that there is nothing to see and there is no reason to reduce the migrant intake.
These canards include the following:
Were a first-year economics student to serve up these falsehoods, they would fail. But open-border sympathisers/Big Australia advocates attempt to manipulate the numbers to push the line that there is nothing to see and there is no reason to reduce the migrant intake.
These canards include the following:
- Recent high figures of net overseas migration (long-term arrivals minus long-term departures) are merely a catchup from the pause caused by Covid.
- The overall trend numbers are no different from the ones that the Morrison Coalition government had predicted.
- The problems in the housing market have nothing to do with the surge in the number of migrants.
- Any additional pressures on infrastructure and services are the result of poor planning, not because of the migrant intake.
- Any supposed loss of social cohesion is essentially the fault of those born in Australia and their intolerance to different cultures.
The pond was immediately convinced.
It's impossible to argue against dot points, let alone PowerPoint presentations.
Dame Groan went into visiting prof. mode to consider the points ...
Consider the first two points. What is being argued here is that surging net migration after the Covid restrictions were lifted – NOM was almost one million between July 2022 and June 2024 – was to be expected and was never any real concern. In the decade up to Covid, the annual NOM had averaged about 200,000.
It’s a bit like saying the road was closed for a while and so no cars could get through. But with the road now opened, it was fine for the cars to massively exceed the speed limit.
The fact is that economists have always recognised the limitations of the absorptive capacity of the economy to accommodate new migrants. It was something boosters simply decided to forget.
As for the cumulative figures being little different from the Morrison government’s forecasts, these speculative projections were never set in stone and were subject to considerable debate. Note here that Scott Morrison, as treasurer and prime minister, always favoured large migrant intakes. Note also that these same commentators who make this point have nothing favourable to say about any other aspect of the policies of the Morrison government.
As for the howler that the surge in migrant numbers has not affected the housing market or house prices, this is another example of commentators simply forgetting their lectures on supply and demand.
It’s a bit like saying the road was closed for a while and so no cars could get through. But with the road now opened, it was fine for the cars to massively exceed the speed limit.
The fact is that economists have always recognised the limitations of the absorptive capacity of the economy to accommodate new migrants. It was something boosters simply decided to forget.
As for the cumulative figures being little different from the Morrison government’s forecasts, these speculative projections were never set in stone and were subject to considerable debate. Note here that Scott Morrison, as treasurer and prime minister, always favoured large migrant intakes. Note also that these same commentators who make this point have nothing favourable to say about any other aspect of the policies of the Morrison government.
As for the howler that the surge in migrant numbers has not affected the housing market or house prices, this is another example of commentators simply forgetting their lectures on supply and demand.
Indeed, indeed, and now it's time for one of those incredibly vacuous and meaningless visual distractions, It’s hoped high density developments will create tens of thousands of new homes and affordable housing. Picture: Nikki Short / NewsWire
Dame Groan groaned away ...
Peter Tulip of the Centre for Independent Studies maintains that cutting immigration would be “a distraction from dealing with clear dysfunction in our housing policy, that we have a system that makes supply unresponsive to demand”.
This is completely absurd. Even if supply is responsive to demand, there are limits to this responsiveness within certain timeframes.
With all of Tulip’s preferred reforms in place – rezoning for high-density housing, rapid approvals and the like – there is simply no way that new home construction could fully respond to such a rapid increase in the population.
The massive uptick in demand caused by migration has clearly been a factor and no sensible economist would deny this.
Questioning the integrity of those who point this out is shameful. “Housing is raised by many people who have unattractive values they’re wanting to hide,” according to Tulip.
The reality is that no one is arguing for all migrant arrivals to cease. Rather, people are begging to see the net numbers much lower than the past several years.
There is also a strong case for ensuring that skilled migrants really possess relevant skills rather than simply ticking arbitrary boxes devised by bureaucrats. There are far too may low-skilled temporary migrants staying in the country for lengthy periods.
As for the recent kerfuffle with the Australian Bureau of Statistics rebuking certain commentators about what the agency regards as the misuse of certain migration statistics, it’s easy to infer that the topic has become extremely politically sensitive.
What seems likely is that the government’s own NOM targets of 335,000 this financial year and 260,000 in 2026-27 are to be exceeded. And the government knows it. It just doesn’t want anyone else to know.
This is completely absurd. Even if supply is responsive to demand, there are limits to this responsiveness within certain timeframes.
With all of Tulip’s preferred reforms in place – rezoning for high-density housing, rapid approvals and the like – there is simply no way that new home construction could fully respond to such a rapid increase in the population.
The massive uptick in demand caused by migration has clearly been a factor and no sensible economist would deny this.
Questioning the integrity of those who point this out is shameful. “Housing is raised by many people who have unattractive values they’re wanting to hide,” according to Tulip.
The reality is that no one is arguing for all migrant arrivals to cease. Rather, people are begging to see the net numbers much lower than the past several years.
There is also a strong case for ensuring that skilled migrants really possess relevant skills rather than simply ticking arbitrary boxes devised by bureaucrats. There are far too may low-skilled temporary migrants staying in the country for lengthy periods.
As for the recent kerfuffle with the Australian Bureau of Statistics rebuking certain commentators about what the agency regards as the misuse of certain migration statistics, it’s easy to infer that the topic has become extremely politically sensitive.
What seems likely is that the government’s own NOM targets of 335,000 this financial year and 260,000 in 2026-27 are to be exceeded. And the government knows it. It just doesn’t want anyone else to know.
The good news? Per the link above, none of this is new...
A sample ...
...Mr Berg also noted, with concern, that then-opposition and Liberal party leader Tony Abbott might cut immigration if he won the upcoming 2013 federal election.
"If Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister next year, he is going to have to make a decision: what to do about immigration?" he wrote.
"Does he want to continue the Liberal legacy — a legacy of mass migration and population growth? Or, as he has at times unfortunately suggested, does he want to repudiate it?" he asked.
Mr Berg was concerned about Mr Abbott's intentions for immigration because, a couple of years earlier, in the 2010 federal election campaign, Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott had both criticised the idea of a "Big Australia" (famously promoted by Kevin Rudd) and had started promoting the benefits of reducing or slowing migration.
Free-market think tanks like the IPA and the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), and the editorial writers at the Australian Financial Review, heavily criticised Gillard and Abbott for that anti-immigration stance.
In 2011, a research fellow at the CIS, Jessica Brown, explained why Australia's government had little control over our country's population growth since we now have a "globalised workforce".
"Rather than asking central planners to set firm targets or caps for particular types of skilled visas, we largely leave it to the market to decide," she wrote.
"Governments don't like to admit this, but it is incredibly difficult for them to predict — let alone control — what net overseas migration will be from year to year."
She continued:
"Why don’t politicians tell us the truth that short of some pretty radical policy changes, they really don’t have much control over how fast our population grows?
"The debate about population growth in the lead up to the last federal election, and the response from both sides of the political spectrum, suggests that it is far easier for politicians to talk about cutting population growth than it is for them to address some of the complex challenges brought about by population growth."
"If Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister next year, he is going to have to make a decision: what to do about immigration?" he wrote.
"Does he want to continue the Liberal legacy — a legacy of mass migration and population growth? Or, as he has at times unfortunately suggested, does he want to repudiate it?" he asked.
Mr Berg was concerned about Mr Abbott's intentions for immigration because, a couple of years earlier, in the 2010 federal election campaign, Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott had both criticised the idea of a "Big Australia" (famously promoted by Kevin Rudd) and had started promoting the benefits of reducing or slowing migration.
Free-market think tanks like the IPA and the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), and the editorial writers at the Australian Financial Review, heavily criticised Gillard and Abbott for that anti-immigration stance.
In 2011, a research fellow at the CIS, Jessica Brown, explained why Australia's government had little control over our country's population growth since we now have a "globalised workforce".
"Rather than asking central planners to set firm targets or caps for particular types of skilled visas, we largely leave it to the market to decide," she wrote.
"Governments don't like to admit this, but it is incredibly difficult for them to predict — let alone control — what net overseas migration will be from year to year."
She continued:
"Why don’t politicians tell us the truth that short of some pretty radical policy changes, they really don’t have much control over how fast our population grows?
"The debate about population growth in the lead up to the last federal election, and the response from both sides of the political spectrum, suggests that it is far easier for politicians to talk about cutting population growth than it is for them to address some of the complex challenges brought about by population growth."
There was also a special note on Killer's killing kontributions ...
...the IPA's new chief economist, Adam Creighton, has been writing extremely critically of Australia's high rate of immigration.
It's been fascinating to watch.
He recently finished his reporting stint as The Australian's Washington correspondent in the United States, where he observed the Biden and Trump administrations up close.
The United States would send "third country nationals" to the tiny Pacific Island nation of Palau, under a new proposed deal with the Trump administration.
In his new role as IPA chief economist, he still writes regularly for The Australian.
And in one of his most-recent pieces, he laid into the Albanese government for Australia's currently very high net immigration.
"The vast bulk of these new arrivals are from developing nations, where English isn't a first language nor Christianity a majority religion," he wrote.
"A cynic could think the political class is seeking to destroy Australian culture.
That Killer link is in the archive, and the pond only wanted to go there as a reminder that behind all the current rhetoric, there's a deep strain of white nationalism, mixed with the great replacement theory ... a festering mass of bigotry, fear and loathing ...endlessly cultivated by the Murdochians, with the old biddy trying to give it a benign dot point face...
And the end result for bears with little brain? Take it away Wilcox, and thank the long absent lord vulgar youff was spared the sight of adults fighting like kids in the playground ...
So the Chairman Emeritus and Young Lachlan come out on top in the family stoush and surprise surprise, it all comes down to a mountain of money. I suppose that at least proves that the apples didn’t fall far from the tree when it comes to Rupert’s other spawn. The hope is that with Lachlan in charge, the empire’s output will become increasingly marginal and poor management continue, hastening its eventual collapse.
ReplyDelete... post 2030.
DeletePost 2050...
Delete"Who is getting what as Lachlan Murdoch wins the family business in succession battle with family"
9 September 2025
...
"Had an agreement not been reached, the existing family trust was set to expire in 2030, which would have given Prudence, Elizabeth, and James the ability to sell their shares, which would have seen the Murdoch family lose control of the business.
The deal
"In the deal brokered, the existing family trust will be dissolved. In its place will be two trusts, the first is to be shared by Prudence, Elizabeth, and James. It has been valued at $US3.3 billion, which delivers each of them US$1.1 billion each.
"The new trust fund held by the trio will be filled with the proceeds of approx 14.2 million News Corp Class B shares and 16.9 million Fox Corporation Class B shares. The Class B shares will give them voting rights.
"Meanwhile Lachlan and the two youngest siblings, twentysomethings Grace and Chloe, will be given their own trust. This trust holds the rest of the Murdoch family stake in the two companies – 33.1 per cent of News Corp and around 36.2 per cent of Fox Corporation.
"The new trust for Lachlan, Chloe, and Grace will keep the business in the hands of Lachlan Murdoch until at least the time comes for the trust to expire in 2050
...
"News Corp holdings include:
• The Australian
• State-based papers The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail, The Advertiser, The Mercury, and the NT News.
• Community papers, inclusive of the Quest newspapers, and the Leader newspapers.
• REA Group, which includes realestate.com.au locally and realtor.com in the US.
• Dow Jones & Company, Inc, which includes The Wall Street Journal
• HarperCollins
• The New York Post
• UK papers The Times, The Sunday Times, and The Sun
• UK radio stations including Talk (formerly TalkTV) and Virgin Radio UK
"Due to the size of the US market, the Fox Corporation business delivers significantly higher revenues than News Corp. It recently reported revenues of over US$16 billion for 2024-25. News Corp reported revenue of US$8.45 billion for 2024/25.
"Fox Corporation Holdings include:
...
https://www.mediaweek.com.au/who-is-getting-what-as-lachlan-murdoch-wins-the-family-business-in-succession-battle-with-family/
$1bn each + Newscorpse & Fox holdings - profit for propaganda - smoothes all moral, ethical & family dissonance and rivalry.
And is a bad sign.
The Bro: "Most Liberal frontbenchers don’t do anywhere near enough work on a subject before they talk about it".
ReplyDeleteDear me, what kind of surrogate mea culpa is that ?
And then there's this from The Bro: "there may be more than two million Australian citizens with Indian heritage."
ReplyDeleteAnd that compares with about 984,000 indigenes according to the 2021 census. So, more than twice as many of "Indian heritage" as there is of the original inhabitants. Yep, I'd be all in favour of more Indians if I were Nampijinpa, wouldn't you ?
The BLINDED Bro.... "They are almost designed by God to be conservative voters." !!! Clipped from semen airy news.
DeleteA bit like Johnny Cash. Faithful to the wife (newscorose) Too many gigs (column inches), too many uppers & downers, hence conversion to 'oh xhrist!-, after doing to die in a disused (Gina's) mine.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price-(bend the nee)Farage.
rogue senator Jacinta Price-Farage...
"ensuring electoral impotence and needless community division for absolutely no benefit to anyone"
~ The Bro
"Dearie me"...
They are barren.
She, Mrs NJP-Farage, is invoking, and will soon be US ICE Australian Ambassador, after being expelled from the LNP, or resigns, due to her MOoDI, to the VERY CROSS bench.
The Bro... "But if you convince them that you don’t like them because of their Indian background, you’ll find it very hard ever to get them back."
"Fourth Largest Group Of ICE Detainees: Indian Nationals
January 2, 2025
...
"According to ICE, 2,647 Indian nationals are currently detained in U.S. facilities, making them the fourth-largest group of detainees by nationality, following Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.
"In addition, 17,940 Indian nationals with final removal orders are on ICE’s non-detained docket, monitored while awaiting deportation.
"Deportations of Indian nationals have surged, with 1,529 removals in FY 2024, a significant increase from 292 in FY 2021.
"ICE’s total deportations across all nationalities also increased, reaching 271,484 this fiscal year compared to 59,011 in FY 2021.
"Earlier, US Customs and Border Protection data had shown that between February 2019 and March 2023, a staggering 149,000 Indians had been detained while attempting illegal entry into the US. Moreover, during this escalating problem, over 1,600 more people crossed the northern border.
"Many of these Indian immigrants enter the country for economic reasons, although they are not eligible for asylum, the Wall Street Journal pointed out. A significant motivating factor for these migrants is the influence of other Indians who have successfully found employment in the US through similar means, the paper said."
https://indiawest.com/fourth-largest-group-of-ice-detainees-indian-nationals/
More NJP-Farage please.
She will wear Nigel's Pants.
And get very MOoDI!
When NJP-Farage divorce, NJP will marry both the ghosts
Bro; "The truth is, there’s no substitute for the hard work of politics which the Liberals show little taste for. Margaret Thatcher and Howard remain much better models than Farage or Trump."
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price-Thatcher/Little Rodent.
Sort of like inbred Etonians.
Another News Fox business model outline...
ReplyDelete"Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court in Boston [re Harvard] ...In Burroughs’ words, it is “difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s [government] premier universities.”
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2025/09/confronting-the-golem.html#more-287173
And yes, Trump as a golem.