This Blog has also been posted in FPA's Latin America Blog.

There are a few realities that have hit the world this past year and this past month, to which most of the world has been affected by to some degree. Luckily enough, the issues which affect most Americans have made the greatest impact in the last few weeks of the election campaign, and the decisions people will make when casting their vote will be based on how they wish to change the past, and how they wish to see themselves in the future. Both candidates have accomplished something remarkable. The last two election campaigns offered many a lack of choice in a candidate who they felt would really push the country in a proper direction. Eight years of George Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Economic Meltdown, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, have left only candidates who can do the job available to be elected. Both Obama and McCain are good people, and either one is capable of placing their efforts into repairing a slightly damaged, well used and still well running America with a lot of work. Americans can do little wrong in choosing either candidate, but with the election close by and Obama likely to win, the following is a letter to Mr. Obama, and with some luck, Mr. McCain from the rest of the world who does not have a vote, but will be affected by their decisions as much as any American.

To start, the neighbours of the United States should be acknowledged for their constant support and connection to the United States. Canada and Mexico, despite issues of trade and immigration have done much in the last few years to accommodate not just Mr. Bush, but Americans as a whole. Currently Canada is one of the only developed nations who did not face complete economic collapse and places over 90% of their trade with the US. It should be acknowledged that trade and manufacturing in Canada has been hit as hard as in the US, and while NAFTA is blamed on Canada and Mexico, Canada is losing the same jobs, the same companies and the same households to tough foreign competition as much as the US. Canada is one of the world's largest oil producers and has always worked to move US energy out of the Middle East and grow stronger ties with Canada's energy and Canada's economy. Jobs being lost in the US, means jobs are lost in Canada as well. When the loss of jobs is blamed on NAFTA, it focuses energy and time on those who were never to blame for the economic problems in the US. To fight Canada and Mexico is to create scapegoats and lose four more years in improving the economy for all of North America.

With soldiers dying in Iraq, and allied soldiers giving their lives in support of freedom and lives in their own countries as well as the US, Afghanistan and Iraq need to be taken as a whole and the support should be given by the US to help fix problems abroad. According to Southern Pulse in their Oct 28th newsletter, over 4,000 people have died in Mexico's drug war, with 1,000 being killed in the last 50 days. Canadian, French, British and other allied troops have been taking heavy casualties in Afghanistan, making the region into a stalemate over the last 6 years. The worst problems have yet to be approached, with Darfur and Africa having yet to receive tangible attention towards genocides in the region which mirrors Rwanda in magnitude and action from the international community. Security in the United States cannot be achieved when those who support the US are under constant pressure and attack. Mexico has had as many deaths in the last year in battling the drug lords as soldiers have died in Iraq since 2003. A serious attempt in Afghanistan and a creative approach to Iraq must be achieved soon so other regions do not fall into chaos.

Immigration, while being solidified as a failed policy must start to acknowledge the existence of many from Latin America and Asia as players in the social framework, even if the legality of many residents are non-existent, they still are a part of every community in the United States. While illegal immigration needs a cathartic debate in America, those who have suffered from action, namely 2 million Iraqi refugees need to be addressed as well and accepted as people who are running from an Iraq which the US has not been able to claim victory and peace over. No greater respect to US soldiers and Iraqi citizens would come from a realistic approach that helps Americans, soldiers and their families, but also those so many fought hard to save; the Iraqis themselves. The use of the word "Change" and "Pull Out" will not stop violence and death in Iraq, only proper leadership will help end the conflict.

With a world depending on the US economy to operate, those nations in Latin America and Europe need a strong United States that will work and support their nations as those nations wish to work and support the US itself. While there is much criticism coming out of socialist governments in Latin America, the majority of nations who have spent the last few years in cooperation with the US and achieving great stability and peace within their own borders should be supported by the US and credit given to their development. Bad policy has created a situation where Chavez can attack Bush, as failure in leadership creates a large scapegoat, but good leadership with focus the attention on those local leaders like Chavez and allow for those democracies to eject problems in their societies. While not to the same degree, America's European partners have actually moved to re-engage with the US in a discussion to not only repair the current economic troubles, but also to re-invigorate the relationship of values and equality that should have always existed between Europe and the US. Elected leaders in the EU, Canada and Mexico have moved towards policies which have been considered traditionally American, and America will move towards a position where it adopts some trends from its partners, as well as hopefully cultivating respect with Europe and Latin America in the process. The future of the US will come with the future of Europe and the Americas. Leadership will only allow for a successful relationship in the future.

Emerging economies must be addressed to end this letter. China, India and Russia, as well as other nations have achieved a great deal of development, and with recent funds have been able to address national problems of poverty and development, many thought were impossible to tackle only 5 years ago. These countries have a right to compete and gain wealth, but if companies from the US and EU seek to find fortune in those countries and work with local companies which may produce harmful products or take away American jobs, than those American and European companies should be challenged and blame should not be placed on Canada or Mexico, who have lost much as well, and irrational barriers should not be placed on developing economies because companies from the US and EU take advantage of their consumers. To create scapegoats in this debate, is to create a situation where no one can foresee economic troubles, and regulation is left to create blameless policymakers in its wake. The crisis of the last 20 years was always not one of tangible losses, but in confidence, that companies and the government might and have lied to you, and that anarchy is unavoidable when problems ignite. Trade, finance and economics needs to work in society, as a parallel to democracy, in order to allow a leader to create any "Change" that is needed. The world needs a US presence, one with clear foresight and the ability to stop alienating its friends and address real threats to everyone's security. Only an understanding of the world who cannot vote will allow for any positive change to take place. A failure is no longer an option for America and their friends.

This blog has also been posted in the FPA Latin America Blog.

CNN made a great acquisition taking on policy expert Fareed Zakaria and giving him his own show, Fareed Zakaria GPS which allows for a diverse perspective and a balanced international approach to a network which is often known for its Washington point of view as opposed to the perspective of global politics and policy. The international perspective needs to be understood from the point of view of Paris, Singapore, Beijing and others. Originally the host of a PBS show and author of the book The Post-American World, Zakaria will likely become one of the most important authors on foreign policy in the next few years.

In a week of economic turmoil, Zakaria in his show F.Z. GPS decided to interview political experts from Singapore, India and China in order to get their point of view on current economic and political activities involving the US and other countries. While many perspectives were discussed, it was diverse in that countries like Singapore, India and China did not fare poorly during the last eight years of the Bush administration. While criticism did come about regarding Afghanistan and Iraq and perspectives regarding Russia's current move into Georgia, Bush's reputation is not wholly being shared by many in the Asia-Pacific, standing out in contrast to the distain for Bush in Europe, the US and even in Canada. The Canadian example is an interesting one. Currently there is a national election underway where in a recent election debate, issues concerning the country came down to 3 of 4 opposition leaders bringing the debate down to its lowest level and simply accusing the current Prime Minister, Steven Harper of being another George Bush. While Bush is not a Canadian leader and is extremely different to any existing Canadian politician, the real policy debate was wasted and the electorate was treated as people who only decide how their communities are formed based on whether George Bush's name is shouted out enough times on television. While Bush may not be popular in the Western world, the effect of using him for political gains outside the US can be just as harmful in forming illogical policy decisions based on someone who has no real effect or relation to a government outside the US at all. While the responses from many Asia-Pacific experts was logical and measured, often similar debates about the last 8 years in the Western world are foggy at best.

While new economic giants such as China and India had their perspectives shown on F.Z. GPS, it is curious to see what the last eight years have brought to countries in the Americas, and why certain policies such as immigration has been largely ignored in the recent election campaign. The focus of the Bush administration in early 2001 was immigration and the relationship between the US and the rest of the Americas regarding free trade and the FTAA. Mostly in 2008, the issue of immigration has remained a regional one in the US, concentrating around states on the US-Mexico border which take immigration to heart, but has not become a major election issue. Trade, mostly an issue with China for the US has been brought up in many border states along the US-Canada border. Talks of renegotiating NAFTA to bring jobs back to Americans was rampant, despite the issue having a lot to do with the US relationship north and south as opposed to its ties eastwards. While Mexico has ever increasing numbers going to the US illegally and a severe drug war which has taken more lives in 2008 than US lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the debate on immigration was mostly nullified last year when Bush tried to pass one of his final bills opening up an immigration policy that might rationalize the current status quo on the border. After 7 years of the War on Terror, the original policy issues from 2001 were addressed, but with such complex problems and the lack of support for anything Bush ties his name to, the issue of immigration in the US will not change at all for years to come. In reality, as pointed out in the FPA Immigration Blog, some illegal immigrants are even leaving the US due to the current economic crisis and many in the US are starting to see the effect of Bush policies as changing the perception of America into a country which as one CNN reporter said, is no longer a "beacon of freedom and hope".

The rest of the Americas in the last eight years have done better than many would expect in the Western world despite many issues impacting the US itself. Canada currently stands out as one of the only countries in the G8 that is not suffering economic collapse, due to very prudent financial policies, good leadership by many governments over the last 5 years and a long term economic boom and national surplus. While being attacked in the Clinton campaign over NAFTA, Canada has been able to not be seen as another China to the US on trade and was able through a great deal of legal debates to come up with a deal on softwood lumber and push Chapter 11 decisions on NAFTA towards a more equitable framework where states have regained much of their power over companies in the NAFTA rulings. Canada has separated its support from the US, ie. regarding not supporting with troops in Iraq, but many citizens support Canadians in Afghanistan and trade with the US. Canada has not fared poorly at all, even weathering the current global crisis with merely slow growth, and keeping a lot of funds in the country and allowing cash rich Canadian companies to buy out many American and European assets if they wish. Canada's oil industry had a lot to do with this, but in the long run 8 years in Canada has not had many ill economic effects.

Brazil is currently lead by prudent left wing leader Lula and has become a beacon for reform and investment in South America. Since financial collapses that characterized the country in the 1990s, Brazil has been able to maintain a balanced level of growth and social reforms that has brought confidence into Brazil and has made it the next likely emerging economy to become another China or India. While political issues still exist to a great degree, oil and slow progress seems to be paying off and Brazil will likely weather this economic storm with a few scratches and bruises, but keep afloat. Chile is in a similar situation. With left leaning leaders and prudent economic policies and progressive social policies, stability may become a mainstay of many countries in the Americas in the future.

Venezuela also has stood out from many of its neighbours. While Brazil has benefited a lot from its oil reserves, Venezuela has had its oil reserves propel it into a forum for Chavez's influence in the Americas and remains Venezuela's only notable source of revenue. Venezuela often uses actions by Bush as the motivator of policy decisions, mostly in cases where the US has ignored Venezuela and Latin America in the last 8 years. In reality, the involvement the US has had beyond some trade policy in the last 8 years has been very minimal, only opening up further ties with economically stable countries who stabilized themselves, and not having any heavy response to populist claims by Chavez and others who often use Bush and supposed actions by the US to justify all types of local policy decisions by populist leaders. While the degree of US involvement in Venezuela is not known but likely is minimal, countries like Colombia have been able to use local and US assistance to independently address local issues. The Colombian Army's rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and American hostages from the FARC was seen as a Colombian initiative and praised by the US as solely Colombian. Ironically the FARC later was accused of having been supported by Chavez himself, mimicking accusations he had against Bush in interfering in local politics. Increasingly criticisms of Chavez come with the diminishing influence of Bush. Without Bush as a scapegoat, it will be hard to place Obama in a negative light and accuse the causation of problems in Venezuela on the President of the US. Recently a critical report on Venezuela lead to the coercive expulsion of human rights leaders from Venezuelaactions which will reflect poorly in Chavez in the future with no Bush to blame for the future.

Many other countries in the Americas have been set with their own local issues and have had some support and acknowledgement from the US in positive and negative manners. Mainly the US in the last 8 years have ignored Latin America due to The War on Terror, and minimal support and ties with the US has not had a negative effect for many in the region and their development. Ignoring the Americas, the backyard of the US and important future allies is not an option, as pointed out by Zakaria in his statements and book. A strong America's’ will do nothing but help the US reintegrate into the international community if respect and independent policies are supported by the next President of the US and progress of the Americas is valued and not hindered. Reactionist trade policy and calling the opposition George Bush when no coherent discussion is available to win votes in an election is not acceptable on any level. Policy cannot be formed by name calling, and any politician who uses this tactic does nothing but to embarrass themselves and their supporters in a democracy. The Bush era is over, and only working for new opportunities is an acceptable conclusion.

Many in America do not realize that 89,000 of their neighbours living in their towns and cities were born in Iraq or have parents from that country. With so many US troops going to Iraq and serving in the conflict there, the immigrant communities living in the US have had surprisingly very little media attention. While having the middle name Hussein would not help anyone in becoming the next President, many who live in the US and have a vote in this election are Iraqi and have similar concerns and interested as many other Americans, immigrants or otherwise.

In an IPS article last month, some Iraqi-Americans were asked about their concerns for the US and their place of birth for the next election. With such a diversity of class, ethnicity, language and culture in Iraq and among Iraqi-Americans, the opinion on McCain and Obama tend to reflect those of their neighbors. One engineer when asked about her concerns, said for domestic policy she supports Obama, but also appreciates McCain's position as many of the concerns in the past about security in Iraq have been quelled as it seems a lot safer now than in the past. Much debate surrounds the timetable for leaving Iraq, seeing Obama as better for the economy perhaps, but supporting McCain for security reasons, stated one Iraqi-American journalist in Washington DC.

On of the major issue for new Americans in the Iraqi community are the 2 million refugees which have left Iraq since 2003. A recent older gentleman who had come as a refugee to the US claimed that McCain would likely get support as no one wants a withdrawal right now, but another Iraqi translator which just arrived in the US as well was concerned about the lack of compassion for the Republican immigration policies, which have been seen as soft for the most part on immigration from Mexico and Central America, but have done little to help the 2 million refugees from Iraq.

In the end, the image of the US internally for many new Americans and historically outside the US has always been one of a land of freedom and opportunity. With recent troubles and 8 years of disastrous policies internationally, and as seen this week in the US financial markets, internally as well, any change will be a change for the better, and whoever inherits the seat of the Presidency will likely spend the first four years putting the US back to normalcy as opposed to having the glory of being the US President whop must work with nothing to achieve simple stability. The economy and Iraq, possibly not in that order, will be the issues dominating the next Presidency, with a few months of unsolved immigration debate somewhere in the middle for Obama or McCain.

In an IHT.com article published recently, the issue of visas being given to Iraqis by the US was discussed. US visas were finally being given by the US for Iraqis who worked with the US since 2003 in administering development after the beginning of the war. The argument by the writer was that due to all the assistance many of these individuals have given to the United States, it is finally justifiably reciprocated through the issuing of US visas for these US allies. While this is true, a large part of the story which is continually avoided was regarding the other two million Iraqis, many of Iraq's best and brightest taking refuge in Syria and Jordan, overwhelming societies in both nations without any movement by the US or Europeans to taken in many of these Iraqi refugees.

In past posting in the FPA Migration Blog, Rich Basas and Cathryn Cluver have made several postings on the issues regarding Iraqi refugees and the response by the international community. While meeting in international bodies have done much to address the existence of the issue, the result was to place further onus on countries like Syria and Jordan, who have gone beyond their humanistic responsibility in trying to accommodate and adapt many Iraqi refugees into their societies. This failure of the international community comes with actions taken in Iraq since 2003, lacking in any response or much media coverage on the displaced 2 million. Only when Iraqi government initiatives have sought to create some sort of incentive for its citizens to return has media responded to the issue, still lacking in urgency through much of the narrative however.

It is not the first time media and the international community has failed displaced people in the region. Many reports on the Israeli response to Darfuri refugees had criticized Israel, like Jordan and Syria with Iraq's refugees, for not allowing more African migrants to settle in Israel. While the Israeli government did settle many people and continued to take in Sudanese refugees and place them under protection, many of Sudan's neighbors have killed Darfuri refugees with no response towards the shooting of dozens of Darfuri refugees at the Egyptian-Israel border by Egyptian border security by media or the EU and US. Placing the onus of large international refugee problems on smaller nations, while taking no effective response themselves lead many to believe that the international community will allow another Rwanda with little effective response. While this point of view is the source of much debate, the effect of not responding to Darfur, or having the US in Iraq is that many Western powers may not legally allow an Iraqi to claim refugee status as the US already is present in that nation, which is considered as protecting Iraqi people inside Iraq itself. Iraq cannot prosper and Darfur will become a symbol of poor international leadership unless effective policies are created in the region. While the ICC and Den Haag can ask for extraditions of Karazdic and Sudan's leaders, law without enforcement becomes another failure in global justice.

The Mezze plate, if unknown to readers is a mix of different appetizers of various Middle Eastern foods, often combined together in a mix of powerful flavours and textures. Food in the region is often like its people, a combination of tastes that while creating a wonderful mix of culture and language also can create indigestion in some cases. The following is a mix of issues that have charged the region and its people abroad in the last week, often celebrating victory in conflict and enraging further problems.

-Israel at 60: Last week was the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence as a sovereign nation. At the same time, for many Palestinians it was the remembrance of the Naquba, or ”Catastrophe” of the migration of many from their original homes and towns upon the creation of the new state of Israel. Festivities took place in Israel and among Israelis and Jewish communities all around the world. In 1948, the State of Israel was created as a home for the Jewish people after the mass genocide of the European Jewish community and pogroms of Eastern Jews bringing many into the newly formed nation. While 1.5 million Israeli-Arabs live inside Israel and are a part of Israel society with full legal rights, legal challenges for increased rights for Israel's Arab minority, Palestinians and even some Jewish people with Eastern roots push the system to promote a better equality among the multicultural Jewish State. Separate from the systemic stresses faced in the Israeli context, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are embroiled in a Hot Peace between Fatah and Hamas who periodically debate and often fight for power and control of a future state of Palestine. While some movements for peace between Israel and Fatah in the West Bank have started to produce results, rocket attacks coming in from Gaza leaves little chance for change despite the best and very last minute efforts of Carter or Bush. Unknown to most outside Israel, the conflict in 2006 did not produce the release of Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped by Hamas at the time. The continued attacks and retaliations, blockades, increased poverty and the maintained hostage taking of Shalit will not help produce any peace in Israel anytime soon and will give more support for creating more walls between the various people in the region.

-Muslim Immigrants to Europe: In a Foreign Policy Association Religion and Politics blog post by one of our charming and intelligent bloggers, Karin Esposito, the integration of Muslims into European society is discussed on her posting: Integrating Immigrant Communities. Karin points out in refer to author Olivier Roy, that after 9/11, the French immigrant riots and the killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh there is a feeling that assimilation and multiculturalism was a failure in the European context. In reference to a HRW report in Immigration in the Netherlands, she points out that tests sent to the home countries of many immigrants may act as indirect discrimination, targeting specific immigrant groups even before they come into the country as detailed in the report. The challenge is far from being resolved, as a new way to view integration will likely have to be created to promote any dialogue between communities, preferably without the use of Cartoons.

-Beirut the next Baghdad?: In a May 18th New York Times article and among media worldwide, the issue of sectarian violence taking charge over the fragile democracy that exists in Lebanon is becoming a great concern to the region. After Hizbollah attacks against Sunni citizens, media and political parties put the Lebanese government and the often targeted and assassinated Hariri family into the spotlight again, Lebanon may be approaching a large conflict between its Shi'a and Sunni communities. Like in Iraq, indiscriminant violence by one community over the other has lead to the declaration of blood feuds among Lebanon's communities. In the Middle East the extremity of violence often intentionally created humiliation and dishonour to many proud groups and cultures which can only be met by delicate diplomacy or outright revenge and conflict. While the international community often focused its attention on the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, attention and understanding of the divisions now taking place needs to have the attention it deserves to avoid an all out civil war in Lebanon.

Since the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of refugees in countries throughout the Middle East left or were forced to leave without a Pound or a Franc from lands where they had lived in since biblical times. What is often not addressed in English language media or worldwide as a whole, is that many of these people were Jewish communities which were slowly destroyed for political, cultural and religious reasons in the 20th century. Many of these communities eventually inherited the fate of the Jewish Community in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, leaving towns and villages where their cultures and communities thrived for generations for new destinations abroad, slowly losing their heritage and homes to satisfy the desires of the political majority. While not all countries in the Middle East treated their Jewish communities with severe contempt and some communities were given some equality in their respective societies, the majority of Jewish people who had lived for thousands of years in the Middle East were forced to leave for Europe, the Americas the new state of Israel and even Asia.

Many Jewish people from Arab lands settled in France where Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan Jews could speak French and integrate into society. Jewish people from Iraq and other former British colonies settled in London and the United States, even making it as far as China and Singapore. Many settled in Latin America as well, with Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi Jews creating communities in Brazil and Argentina and many Turkish and Syrian Jews settling in Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and even Cuba. In one community in Havana alone, an entire village with all their religious texts and chattels from their original town in Turkey were transplanted into Cuba in the early 1900s. They moved to live in the US Protectorate at the time of Cuba, which spoke Spanish, similar to the dialect of Ladino they inherited from their ancestors who escaped from Spain to live in Turkey, Italy, France and Greece. In 1948, half of Israel's population alone was made of Jewish people who came from Arab, Persian, Central Asian and Turkish lands. These refugees were often forced to leave their birthplace and all their funds and land built up upon generations in order to arrive poor and homeless in Israel and abroad. While these people often had a difficult time in their birth countries and in Israel upon arrival, their situation has only been given some slight attention in the last 10 years. Almost none of their original communities exist today; making Jewish culture from Arab lands some of the oldest decimated cultures to have been lost to the world in the last 100 years.

Some slight progress has been made in addressing the issue of Jews from Arab and other Middle Eastern lands. On April 1st 2008, the U.S. Congress passed House Resolution 185, which grants first-time-ever recognition to Jewish refugees from Arab countries. For the first time those hundreds of thousands of refugees and emigrants who lost their homes and were turned into poverty were recognised 60 years later as being not simply a forgotten people. US Rep. Ros-Lehtinen made a statement saying:

“Far fewer people are aware of the injustice faced by Jewish refugees from Arab lands and Iran. Many Jews saw their communities, which had existed vibrantly for centuries systematically dismantled. They lost their resources, their homes, and their heritage sites, fleeing in the face of persecution, pogroms, revolutions and brutal dictatorships.”

With many smaller cultures in the Middle East facing persecution in the last 50 to 100 years, the first steps to addressing refugees beyond those well known refugee groups are beginning to take place. Beyond those Jews from Arab lands, other groups such as Zoroastrians, Armenians, Kurdish, Bah'ai, Assyrians, Christians, recent Iraqis and various other oppressed groups and political refugees need to be acknowledged. After 60 years of unknown suffering, this small group of people are finally able to reconcile their history and future as a recognized people and culture in the world community.

Among the hype of Super Tuesday, I thought a frank and brief opinion on the Republican and Democratic Candidates would be a nice relief from the overkill of information and issues coming out of mainstream media about who might be the next President. I hope my perspective, not being a US citizen and from the point of view of the Latino community and other diverse minorities may give some clarity to the issues currently being discussed.

Republicans:

Mike Huckabee: An eloquent speaker and intelligent good hearted man, he is limited to one specific community in the United States, that of the Christian right. While there are diverse opinions in that religious community as well, much of Bush's support came from the same political groups and this has lead to very bad policies by Bush, and perhaps blurring the line between the Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religious expression. In reality, while many good spirited people are from Huckabee's supporters, the rest of the American people do not belong to those supporters or religious affiliations. A lot of the views also are seen by some as being the catalyst for the Iraq war. America is and always will be a diverse community, and no candidate can go forward with one community in a larger America, especially if conflict has been the result in the past. Historically, this support grew after the personal actions of Bill Clinton and his mistreatment of women collegues for decades. A new moral America under Bush after Clinton has lead to the Iraq war, so the result of each administration has its pros and cons, but changing from either one might be better than a return to Clintonism, Bush I and Bush II or Reaganism.

Mitt Romney: Clearly a good businessman, he is the biggest threat to John McCain in the Super Tuesday vote. I always see Romney as somewhat of a Swiss Army Knife. Romney is talented in many ways but nothing specific stands out about him. Romney is really the in between if you dislike the left Republican McCain, or can't stand the right leaning Huckabee. Unfortunately for Romney, people often will just not vote as opposed to vote for the least worst candidate. He will need a lot of luck.

John McCain: No one wants to say this, but McCain, Clinton and Obama are only slightly different in their political outlook. McCain is in the midst of trying to get the Republican Right to support his campaign but with policies which are seen as soft on immigration balanced against his support for staying in Iraq, he is trying to become everyman's Republican. He can only do this by using his past as a patriotic American and his time under Reagan to reach out to those past supporters of Bush in order to solidify his support. The thing about remembering people in the past is that they look a lot better than they actually were. Reagan was the Republican who was very soft on immigration with an Amnesty for illegal immigrants at the time. McCain, who is trying to create a reasonable and realistic compromise on immigration would do better trying to be the balanced President between the Democrats and Republicans than attempt to become the next Reagan who was by no means perfect. It is true that McCain is a real conservative, but he may not be Republican enough to capture the Right as Bush did and Huckabee is trying to do. In reality after eight years of Bush someone like McCain is the only one who can produce a long term change for the Republican party. As well, its not like any Right leaning Republicans will vote for Clinton in any case.

Democrats:

Barak Obama: Critics of Obama say that people do not know enough about him, and that he is inexperienced, but in reality he is in his late 40's, and adult and has a young face which is no crime. No one knows how he will do as President, but if he can conquer the racial divide without having the political fate of Colin Powell or Connie Rice then he has earned a lot of respect already. Unlike Romney, Obama is offering something, a change in the opinions Americans have in the next election. When a country that is based on the Separation of Church and State and the elected official not being kings or from one ruling class or family has a religiously based Bush I and Bush II, and then Clinton I and possibly Clinton II, pulling change can only be done by someone who is not a Clinton or a Bush. Compared with McCain, the Iraq issue outstanding, Obama and McCain would do well learning from each other. Both of them can be the candidate who can bring change to their respective parties and allow for the United States to pass through the damage incurred by Bush and Clinton. In the end, the country would do better if the two ran together..not such an unnatural fit but a likely impossibility. Obama must be vigilant, as while he has much of the youth vote, who knows if they will bother voting at all. Remember, Bush won the last election and he was as unpopular with youth as ever.

Hillary Clinton: Change is not in her vocabulary, unless it will get her the votes. For someone who's husband cheated on her which gave ammunition to the moral debate in America which did more for the Bush campaign than George Bush himself, Clinton is surprisingly popular. Much of this comes from the backtracking in the campaign to patch up any issues or errors they have made, as well as Bill and Chelsea Clinton pushing for her nomination. Obama was right to question her on whether he is running against her or Bill, but it is evident that the momentum from team Clinton is strong as Clinton in the end is not Bush. In comparison to McCain, her past support for the Iraq war will be an issue in the election but will make no difference in the end if Congress is not willing to act, but may lose her some votes in the end from Democrats. Her support for a public health system is a good policy, but despite problems in the American private system, there has not been a real debate about the pros and cons of a publicly funded system. There are bad points in both, but McCain's push to reform and fix the current system as opposed to replacing it will always win as most Americans do have good health care. The Clintons unfortunately have been known to play dirty politics, but defaming the minority candidate will not help anyone, and has already caused damage to their campaign. Regarding Latinos, Clinton has a lot of support as they like Bill, but whether Hillary decides to be the next President or the next Clinton, the diverse communities of the United States can and will be swayed to vote for others, namely Obama and McCain who with Clinton want to be the pioneer of the Middle Way in American politics.

We encourage fair and sensible debate on our Blogplease feel free to agree and disagree and submit your comments.

How does one become President in a country with more than 20 million illegal immigrants? Well, the issue is not so simple as it isn't something that people tend to be bothered by too much. In a VOA article on the Democratic Candidates and Swing States in the US they note that only 20-25% of people would not vote for a candidate if they disagreed with them on immigration. Voters, according to the article “..by and large don't dislike illegal immigrants.." which Senator Clinton, Giulani and Obama have taken to a new level, pushing immigrant issue into the spotlight to earn the votes of the American Hispanic community, while not offending many other Americans in the process.

This soft strategy has not been absorbed into the Republican ranks so far. Rep. Tancredo did not attend a televised Spanish Language debate to make a "mute" point, while Senator John McCain has become the immigration darling of the Republican party supporting much of the immigration reforms discussed in the policy debates this past summer. These two pariahs in the Republican Party on immigration may hinder the Republicans as a whole by alienating the Hispanic vote, with little support for immigration reform from most of the candidates, not helped by Tancredo's silly boycott. Alternatively, McCain may give some Hispanics a reason to have faith in his party, but may alienate more hardline Republicans on the immigration issue. He is often mistaken as a Democratic-Republican, with the exception for his support on Iraq he could be an ideal running mate with a Clinton if the proposal was a realistic one.

In the middle of the debate is Romney and Huckabee, using the immigration issue to take each other to task as the polls heat up in Iowa. Immigration issues in Iowa may become a microcosm for the GOP and the Presidential election in the near future as the interest in Iraq is becoming slowly displaced with the immigration debate. Despite problems in Iraq, no candidate wants to dwell on the issue in order to distance themselves from Bush and dive into another unsolvable debate. Immigration is something candidates can use as ammunition it seems without having anything blow up in their facea luxury which the soldiers in Iraq do not currently possess.

*This article has been posted both on FPA's Migration Blog as well as the Mexico Blog this week.

Illegal immigration may be one of the hot button issues for the next Presidential election, and will favour neither party in the process. In the Democratic party debates televised widely among American networks this past weekend two things were made clear. Firstly, that immigration will likely be a key issue in the next election, and Secondly that no one has a clear idea on how to handle the situation as there is no clear solution to the problem. This has lead to many candidates being seen as slightly differing on the issue in insignificant amounts with the exception of Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo who's recent campaign commercials make reference "that Islamic terrorists roam free in the United States because of an unsecured border". This has made me wonder in a personal context, do Mexican's and Islamic terrorists look similar to each other? I'll leave it as an open question for the reader to decide. In the end the answer is as clear as the debate on the issue as neither has anything to do with securing the border in any realistic way or giving necessary rights to individuals regardless of their legal status. Of course, It will not make a difference for Rep.Tancredo as he is quite far from winning the Republican nomination and has nothing to lose making a decisive choice on an issue no one can resolve.

What did result from the debates this past weekend is that Senator Clinton is starting to assert herself against rival Edwards and Obama after losing some support in the last few weeks in her campaign. Migration issues can place candidates in a position of losing much of the Hispanic vote, or alternatively losing the vote of many Americans who desire an answer to the Immigration question. This was made evident on challenges made by the candidates of each other on specifics of the issue, knowing full well that a slight change in answer or attitude may set their campaign into a downward spiral. With Bush's attempt to deal with illegal migration last summer to turn his legacy away from the focus on problems in Iraq, an explosive question was laid for the next election that could affect the outcome of the election at the end of the day. With such evenly matched candidates in Obama, Clinton, Romney and Edwards poised to challenge other strong candidates in Giulani, America's 9/11 hero and John McCain Vietnam war hero and torture victim the outcome is that one of these American heros will win, but small opinions such as on Immigration may absorb thousands of votes in the process even if the issue will not be resolved itself. The only assurance in the debate on migration and the upcoming election is that people are going to be fatigued with the election well before it begins as much as they are already fatigued discussing the Immigration issue which no one can solve for the next while. It seems that next year's big blockbuster issues are ones that we have seen for months already and will be dealing with for the next months to come.

Thank you, Roger Cohen, thank you. We here on this humble little blog have underlined time and time again, how the Iraqi refugee issue is getting out of hand, and how the United States as leading military force in the country is failing to live up to its commitments in sharing the burden to secure the saftey of refugees fleeing the war-torn country. In earlier entries, we highlighted how Sweden, a country that in many ways could serve as a role model for international refugee policy and immigrant integration, has accepted thousands of Iraqis into the country and has offered them generous protection, including the possiblity to become a Swedish citizen five years upon their arrival.

The comparative numbers have always startled and shocked me, and Cohen's use of them in his recent Op-Ed in the International Herald Tribune, makes the underperformance in this area all that more obvious:

Between January and August this year, Sweden took in 12,259 Iraqis fleeing their decomposing country. It expects 20,000 for all of 2007. By contrast, in the same January-August period, the United States admitted 685 refugees, according to State Department figures.

In January, Sweden admitted 1,500 Iraqis vs. 15 that entered the United States.

In April, the respective numbers were 1,421 and 1; in May, 1,367 and 1; and in August 1,469 and 529.

Cohen goes on to express his frustration with the US government:

“Of all the Iraq war scandals, America's failure to do more for refugees, including thousands who put their lives at risk for the U.S., stands out for its moral bankruptcy. Last time I checked, Sweden did not invade Iraq. Its generosity shames President Bush's fear-infused nation.

I know, the U.S. is showering aid (more than $122 million in 2007) on Iraq's neighbors to help more than two million fleeing Iraqis. It set up a refugee task force in February and, when that faltered, appointed two refugee czars this month.” (..)

“An aggressive American intake of refugees would suggest that their quick return to Iraq is improbable: that smacks too much of failure for Bush. Moreover, you have to scrutinize refugees from countries ”infiltrated by large numbers of terrorists,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff opined recently.”

Note that Sweden seems to be handling that threat just fine.

Slowly but surely, the US government is beginning to understand that it has a potential problem on its hands, as reported “bottlenecks” are preventing Iraqis from coming to the US.

‘'the numbers are totally embarrassing,” says Kirk Johnson, who worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Iraq. ”We can't recognize a moral imperative any more.”

No kidding.

Please, do yourself a favor - read Cohen's full article. Then pick up a pen, a phone or open that email account. Write to your Representative. Do something. Thousands of Iraqis - mothers, fathers, children - are fleeing a country ravaged by civil war and the invasion. Don't tolerate this - Speak up!