The segment is titled, “We are living through the biggest influx of refugees in history,” which in itself is an incomprehensible assertion given the reality that refugee admissions are at record lows. That’s Carlson’s first mistake.

Given the segment’s content, the intent appears to be to paint Afghan refugees in the worst way possible—as violent criminals who will ruin American society as we know it. Tucker points to Europe as proof of this.

“Afghan resettlement in Europe has been an utter failure,” Carlson said, before approvingly quoting a political scientist who claims that Afghan refugees are “notorious for barbaric attacks” on Europeans.

Even if that were true in Europe, that has not been the case with the United States. Population-size adjusted data on Afghan immigrants to the US shows they are almost twelve times less likely to be imprisoned than the average native-born American, implying low rates of criminality.

In contrast to illegal immigration to Europe, a refugee to the United States must undergo an arduous selection and screening process; a process which generally emphasizes the selection of refugees based on vulnerability-based criteria, such as prioritizing women and children.

In fact, 64 percent of all refugees admitted to the US are women or children under the age of 14. And estimates suggest that only 14 percent of the refugees resettled in the US in 2016 were males between the ages of 18 and 35 (i.e. the demographic with the highest propensity to commit crime.)

Even if we were to focus on foreign-born, working-age men specifically, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reports that this demographic group has crime rates four times lower than native-born, working-age men. Simply put: the data show that legal immigrants, refugee or otherwise, have comparable or lower crime rates than the native-born population.

To illustrate the non-effect that refugees have had on crime and terrorism in the US, consider the following:

In January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order which torpedoed refugee resettlement efforts. The year prior to the executive order, the US had resettled 85,000 refugees. Two years after the order was signed, the US only resettled 22,533 refugees, which is a 73 percent reduction in refugee resettlement.

If it were true that refugees were a significant driver of crime, such a drastic policy reversal should have produced a clear effect on crime rates. And yet, a study published in American Political Science Review found that the policy change produced “no discernible effect” on violent crime rates.

Another study came to similar conclusions, failing to find “any statistically significant evidence” of an association between refugee settlement and crime or terrorism rates in counties across the United States. That’s mistake number two.

Finally, Tucker also asks: “Why is [refugee resettlement] our unique moral burden?”

This question is odd considering that the vast majority (86 percent) of refugees globally are sheltered by developing countries, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency data.

Of the 2.6 million Afghan refugees that already existed prior to the collapse of the Afghan government, the overwhelming majority of them have sought refuge in neighboring countries like Pakistan and Iran. Over the last 20 years, the US has resettled a mere 20,841 Afghan refugees, or 0.8 percent of the total. In no stretch of the imagination is refugee resettlement a burden uniquely borne by America.

But given the United States’ status as a global superpower and our national relationship with the Afghan people, whom the US has fought a war against terror with for 20 years, our nation does bear a unique moral responsibility to accept the Afghan refugees who are desperately fleeing ultraviolent religious extremists.

Ultimately, reasonable people can disagree on how many refugees should be accepted, but the mindset should be to take as many as possible, not as few.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Image: YouTube Fox News (screenshot)

The post No, Afghan Refugees Won’t Drive Up Crime in America appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Kaylee Greenlee on July 27, 2021

• Hundreds of anti-communists and Cuban Americans demonstrated in Washington, D.C. Monday to urge the Biden administration to intervene on behalf of citizens against the regime in Cuba.
• “The only reason that people survive in Cuba is because Americans here are sending them money,” Laura Celdran, 29, told the Daily Caller News Foundation Monday.
• One man asked the Biden administration to give Cuban-American’s the money frozen as part of the embargo so they can arm themselves and take back their country from the communist regime.

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of anti-communists and Cuban Americans demonstrated in Washington, D.C. Monday to urge the Biden administration to intervene on behalf of citizens against the regime in Cuba.

Many of the attendees participated in similar demonstration activities around the White House over the last two weeks, though the movement wasn’t organized by a specific group or individual, several attendees told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Cubans participated in the largest anti-government protests in decades, which some have called an uprising, after an increase in COVID-19 infections combined with food shortages and federal crackdowns on civil liberties, Reuters reported on July 11.

“The only reason that people survive in Cuba is because Americans here are sending them money,” Laura Celdran, 29, told the DCNF Monday. “The first time I realized how difficult it was over there was when I walked into someone’s house — my mom took me to donate money to someone and all they had was a bed in an abandoned building, no ceiling, nothing, and those are the people that live solely off the government.”

Demonstrators marched nearly two miles from Lafayette Square Park to the Cuban Embassy to demand freedom for the island nation, only to find that law enforcement officials had set up a perimeter around the park in front of the White House preventing anyone from entering after they returned.

The protesters were eventually allowed to return to the park where a handful of people connected a microphone to a speaker directed at the White House and asked the Biden administration for help.

“Why don’t you face us, Mr. President? Why don’t you give a straight answer to our problems? We need you to show up, we need you to take action,” a man yelled into the microphone. “We only have one demand, dictatorships are no longer overthrown with words or sanctions or empty promises, that’s not the way to overthrow dictatorships. Dictatorships are overthrown with bullets and balls, so our request is very simple, we want intervention!”

The man said the demonstrators understand Biden’s hesitation to intervene with U.S. troops since such a move would require Congressional approval, and instead asked the administration to give Cuban American’s the money frozen under the embargo so they can arm themselves and take their country back.

Dozens of people were arrested during the first day of protests in Cuba earlier in July as law enforcement officials cracked down on unrest with physical force and pepper spray, Reuters reported.

“What the demonstrators did today in D.C. was a powerful and emotional display of solidarity with the people of Cuba. I hope it will be impossible for the current administration to ignore,” executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition and former Trump administration Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cuba and Venezuela Carrie Filipetti told the DCNF. “The current administration has said that it stands with the people of Cuba – now, Cuban American citizens are demanding they do more to prove that.”

The Cuban government has justified the country’s economic crisis by pointing to U.S. sanctions and the COVID-19 pandemic despite widespread civilian criticism of the one-party system and allegedly incompetent government officials, according to Reuters.

“That this took place on July 26 — an important date in Cuban revolutionary history — shows how this movement is subverting the old communist messaging in favor of new change that will finally bring democracy and freedom,” Filipetti added.

Fidel Castro led an attack against the Moncada Army on July 26, 1953, starting the Cuban Revolution, which Cuban’s have since celebrated as National Rebellion Day, according to Met Mexico.

Several protesters carried signs calling for U.S. military intervention, some advocated for unrestricted internet access for Cuban residents and others said the U.S. government should give basic supplies directly to the people because the government would never distribute them.

“I’m out here because of the oppression that’s happening in Cuba against the Cuban people, it’s something that affects Cuban Americans and our families,” Karen Rodriguez, 26, told the DCNF. Rodriguez’s grandmother and great uncle were held as political prisoners for 12 and 26 years for participating in pro-free speech protests in Cuba, she said.

“They have no basic freedoms and we’re just trying to continue the fight that they started 62 years ago,” Rodriguez told the DCNF.

The post PHOTOS: Hundreds Of Anti-Communists Urge Biden To Intervene In Cuba appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“This is a message to the world. We need to stand up. Step up. But if you don’t understand what’s going on, then you need to wake the fuck up. Not only is this a Cuba event, a Cuba thing— it’s a world event. This isn’t about politics. This is about saving lives. This is about unity, not division. The bottom line is about taking action.” the rapper said in a two-minute video he posted to both Instagram and Twitter, Wednesday.

“Let me tell you something, why I am frustrated why when I see everybody out there doing what they are doing—which I love what they are doing. Not only do we live for freedom, we ride for freedom, we die for freedom. We motherfucking appreciate freedom. It gets me hot. It bothers me, and it frustrates me to a certain extent being a Cuban-American and having a platform to be able to speak to the world and not being able to help my own people. Not being able to get them food. Not being able to get them water. Not being able to get them medicine. But most of all not being able to help and get them what they really deserve— which is freedom.” Pittbull continued.

The musician also called on all world allies and international companies to come to the aid of the Cuban people. He specifically called on Jeff Bezos, the founder, and CEO of Amazon.com, who went to high school in Miami, to aid the people of Cuba in their fight to overthrow the island’s dictatorship.

The video has gone viral since being posted, with more than 20k retweets and over 52k likes.

Pitbull has used his platform as a musician to speak out against Communism and advocate for liberty.

Listen to what he has to say on the subject in this podcast segment below:

Image: Wikimedia

The post Pitbull’s Message to the World About Cuba: “Wake the F*ck Up. Step Up.” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Thanks to America’s oldest and last operational cigar factory, J.C. Newman, American consumers may soon be able to taste Cuban tobacco for the first time in 59 years.

According to CigarAficionado.com, Drew Newman of J.C. Newman Cigar Company got the idea to petition the U.S. Government to allow the company to import raw Cuban leaf into their factory after he read an article about the government permitting the importation of Cuban coffee.

“The U.S. government allows coffee and other goods from Cuba to be legally imported so long as they are from ‘independent Cuban entrepreneurs,’ ” Newman said. “I am petitioning the U.S. government to add tobacco leaves grown by independent farmers—not the Cuban government—to this list.” said Newman.

As an avid cigar smoker for over two years, I smoke on a reasonably regular basis. Still, I have yet to smoke anything containing Cuban tobacco, so the possibility of making Cuban tobacco widely available to American cigar smokers excites me because it’s something I have been unable to acquire.

If Mr. Newman’s efforts are successful, his company will be able to revive their famous “Clear Havana” cigars. These sticks were hand-rolled in the Newman family’s factory in Tampa, Florida, using Cuban leaf during the pre-embargo era. I hypothesize that the revival of J.C. Newman’s “Clear Havana” cigar will drastically improve the quality of the modern Cuban cigar. They would be hand-rolled in Tampa with Cuban tobacco grown by private farmers who have been allowed to farm independently, as opposed to under the direction of the Cuban government thanks to recent reforms.

As an advocate for free market economics, I see this as a step in the right direction both for the American consumer and the people of Cuba. For far too long, Cuban cigars have been virtually unavailable to smokers in the United States. This move would allow Cuban tobacco to compete in the American market alongside tobacco from the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Ecuador.

I have yet to taste a Cuban cigar for myself to determine what I think regarding the quality and taste of Cubans. It is my belief that having the cigar rolled in the U.S. and farmed by private growers will allow Americans to taste what the island has to offer without the significant quality control issues, which some cigar aficionados claim began as a consequence of Cuba’s Communist Revolution and the nationalization of the county’s famous cigar industry.

If the Biden administration accepts Drew Newman’s petition, the family faces yet another hurdle before his dream of reversing the nearly six decade ban on Cuban tobacco can become a reality. CigarAficionado.com reported that Habanos S.A. holds a state-enforced monopoly on what can legally be classified as a Cuban cigar.

Drew doesn’t seem to be fazed by this, and I don’t suppose you can allow room for doubt and be part of a cigar family that has been making cigars in America from the birth of J.C. Newman Cigars in 1895.

“The Cuban government should not be afraid of having independent farmers export their tobacco to the United States,” he says. “If the Cuban government believes that their cigar rollers are some of the best in the world, they should not be afraid of having American cigar makers roll cigars with Cuban tobacco again just like we did before the embargo.”, Newman told CigarAficinado.com.

As a liberty-loving cigar aficionado in the making, I wish the Newman family all the success in the world in this endeavor as it would result in more free trade which would mutually benefit both the U.S. and the Cuban people while allowing many American cigar smokers to taste the “forbidden fruit” for the very first time—and that is something worth celebrating.

The post America’s Oldest Cigar Company Seeks to Import Cuban Leaf for the First Time in 60 Years appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Andrew Kerr on May 25, 2021

A Chinese Communist Party-controlled news outlet paid major newspapers and magazines over $1.95 million between November and April to run advertisements stylized as news stories, according to a Justice Department disclosure filed Monday.

Time Magazine received $700,000 from the outlet, China Daily, for “advertisement expenses” during the six-month time period, the filing revealed. The Chinese propaganda outlet also paid a combined $1.26 million for advertisements in The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, The Globe and Mail and the Financial Times during the timeframe, according to the filing.

China Daily spent an additional $883,000 with newspapers across the U.S. for printing expenses, the filing shows.

The filing reveals that China Daily has increased its advertising spending substantially over the past six months. The propaganda outlet had previously reported to the Justice Department spending $881,000 for advertising campaigns in western newspapers and magazines between May 2020 and October 2020, and another $759,000 for ads between November 2019 and April 2020.

The Monday filing was first reported by The Washington Free Beacon.

The revelation that China Daily boosted its advertising spending in western newspapers and magazines comes weeks after the International Federation of Journalists warned that China is using its vast media influence to spread narratives portraying China in the best possible light.

The report specifically addressed China’s distribution of China Daily advertorials in newspapers across the world.

Other pro-democracy groups such as Freedom House and the Hoover Institution have called attention to the China Daily inserts in warnings about the Chinese government’s attempts to push propaganda through American news outlets.

China Daily is one of many Chinese Communist Party-operated news organizations with a foothold in the U.S.

Chinese foreign agents reported spending nearly $64 million in propaganda operations in the U.S. in 2020, a nearly six-fold increase over the $10 million reported in 2016, according to Axios.

The Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported that China Daily had paid nearly $19 million to major American media outlets for advertising and printing expenses between November 2016 and April 2020.

Former outlets that ran China Daily advertorials include The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, Justice Department filings show.

The post Major Media Outlets Continue To Receive Millions From Chinese Propaganda Front appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Rose Corkery on April 20, 2021

Former President George W. Bush commented on the present-day Republican Party on Tuesday and said it wasn’t what he had envisioned.

“I would describe it as isolationist, protectionist and to a certain extent nativist,” Bush said on “The TODAY Show.” The former president said that the GOP’s platform is not what he had envisioned now that he is not actively engaged in Washington, D.C., politics.

“Well it’s not exactly my vision, but you know, I’m just an old guy they put out to pasture so just a simple painter,” Bush said.

Bush proposed solutions to the current migrant crisis, including revamping the U.S.’ asylum system and retooling worker visas, as there are a plethora of unfilled jobs across the country many hard working immigrants could fill.

Bush noted some Republicans have refused to listen to his solutions regarding immigration reform. He said that when he was in office, some Democrats hadn’t listened to him “because you can score political points with the issue.”

The former president denounced the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and said when Biden was sworn into office, “the results of this election, though, were confirmed,” in another interview for the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference, according to USA Today.

WATCH:

Bush said the 2020 election hadn’t been stolen during the SXSW conference, USA Today reported.

“It did make me sick, I felt ill and I just couldn’t believe it,” Bush said on “The TODAY Show.” “You know, but the truth of the matter is, I was optimistic that we would survive that because I believe so strongly in the institutional stability of our country.”

“And it did survive, the Congress met, ratified the election, the courts met and are still meeting today to hold people to account for storming the Capitol,” the former president said.

The former president voiced his concern about people spreading misinformation. Bush said he doesn’t know what can be done about misinformation and added that he doesn’t use social media platforms.

The post George Bush Calls Republican Party ‘Isolationist, Protectionist, And To A Certain Extent Nativist’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Andrew Trunsky

The post Chinese Ambassador Says Uighur Concentration Camps Are ’Not Entirely Different’ From Those In Europe, US appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

No matter the outcome of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, the Republican Party must now decide whether to maintain or abandon Trump-era policies during the Biden administration. Among them is Trump’s “America First” foreign policy agenda.

Trump portrayed the United States as a dominant, self-sufficient world leader that needs little but subservience from other countries. He was skeptical of trade and hostile to China, and he eschewed global diplomacy in favor of military saber-rattling.

That may not be the future of GOP foreign policy, according to my political science research. I analyzed four surveys taken during the Trump administration asking Americans about foreign policy issues. Breaking down responses by both party and age, I found that younger Republicans diverge from Trump’s “America First” agenda.

In fact, on some foreign policy issues, from China to trade, young Republicans are closer on the ideological spectrum to the Democratic mainstream than to their Republican elders.

1. Globalization

Trump espoused economic protectionism and demonstrated a general aversion to trade and other aspects of economic globalization. But young Republicans don’t necessarily feel the same way, according to a 2017 survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

Despite Trump’s description of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as “perhaps the worst trade deal ever made,” half of Republicans under 35 view it as good for the U.S. economy.

Republicans 35 and older were more inclined toward Trump’s position: Only one-third thought it was good for the economy.

Among Democrats surveyed by the Chicago Council, approval of NAFTA was above 70% for all age groups.

2. China

The surveys showed general bipartisan agreement across all age groups that the United States is militarily superior to China.

But younger Republicans were nearly twice as likely as older ones to believe that China has a stronger economy than the United States – 43% for Republicans under 35 versus 23% for those 35 and older, according to the Chicago Council survey.

Recognition of China’s economic power, however, does not lead younger GOP members to demonstrate a Trump-style hostility toward China. In Fox News’ May 2020 poll, 42% of Republicans under 35 identified China as the “worst enemy of the United States.” Among Republicans 35 and older, 60% did.

Age-based differences of opinion on China translate into age-based policy preferences among Republicans. The vast majority of older Republicans – 81% – supported Trump’s punishing tariffs on Chinese imports, a 2019 Chicago Council survey found. Just 60% of Republicans under 35 agreed.

Democrats were mostly consistent on attitudes toward China. Around 1 in 5 view China as the worst enemy of the United States regardless of age; around 1 in 4 support raising tariffs on Chinese imports.

3. Defense spending

When it comes to funding for the U.S. military and national defense, both parties show a generational divide.

In the Chicago Council’s 2017 survey, 64% of Republicans 35 and older said national defense spending should be expanded. Just 40% of Republicans under 35 agreed.

Few Democrats of any age think defense spending should be expanded, and some young Democrats diverge from party elders in thinking the defense budget should be cut. Half of Democrats under 35 would cut defense spending, and one-third of older Democrats would.

A more bipartisan future?

I study the political views of young people to shine a light on where American foreign policy may be headed in the coming years and decades.

Young Americans are voting and running for national office at historic rates. The number of millennial congressional candidates nearly tripled between 2018 and 2020, according to the Millennial Action Project. In last year’s election, 251 candidates for Congress were age 45 or younger; 97 of those young candidates were Republicans.

As more young candidates start to win and occupy office, their views will influence the policy agendas of their party in the post-Trump era.

The surveys I studied show that younger Republicans hold more centrist attitudes on economic globalization, China and defense spending than party elders. In a political climate defined by intense polarization, this data may hint at a slow trend toward more bipartisan agreement on certain foreign policy issues.

Jonathan Schulman, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, Northwestern University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image: Mark Nozell, Flickr

The post Young Republicans Split from Trump and GOP Elders on US Foreign Policy: 3 charts appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Nineteen years of war means some of the soldiers fighting this never-ending war were not even born when it began. President Trump is currently reducing the number of troops in the country known as “the graveyard of empires.” Bringing American soldiers home is gaining popularity and it is long past time.

General Mattis writes about how the US military was caught off guard by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in his book Call Sign Chaos. He recalls how, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he expected the military would be sent to Afghanistan because it had been known to be a terrorist hotbed housing the likes of Osama bin Laden and Islamic extremists for years.

There is never going to be a perfect solution to any issue in the imperfect world that we live in. The best we can do is carefully look at a situation and prescribe solutions that minimize harm. An unprecedented 19-year war with a poorly defined and ever-changing goal of winning is looking more like a failure.

Over 2,000 American service members and over 1,000 American contractors have lost their lives in this conflict. The US has spent billions of dollars in their efforts to defeat the terrorists and stabilize the country. Yet, Afghanistan is still plagued by violent attacks. They had over 3,000 attacks in 2010 and over 1,000 in 2018. The deaths of Afghans from domestic violence caused by Islamic extremists and collateral damage have reached into the tens of thousands during the time we have been there spilling blood and treasure.

The Washington Post published a previously secret government report called The Afghanistan Papers. It sheds light on something that many of us have recognized over time—the war in Afghanistan was flubbed. The US government knew fairly quickly that it was a failure, yet we kept spending money and blood in the “graveyard of empires”.

James Dobbins, a former US diplomat, is quoted in the Afghanistan Papers as saying in 2016,

“We don’t invade poor countries to make them rich. We don’t invade authoritarian countries to make them democratic. We invade violent countries to make them peaceful and we clearly failed in Afghanistan.”

General Mattis felt that the military’s role was to kill a specified enemy and leave. Whatever happened after that was not proper for him as a military man to worry about. However, Mattis watched increasing destabilization, a vaguely defined enemy, and a murky definition of “winning” coming from Washington.

He recalls working toward one of the first basic goals of the Afghanistan war, which was to take control of Rhino Base, that would give US forces a stable starting area to fight Islamic terrorists in the country. He was thrown a confusing comment from a commanding officer that sternly told him they were not conducting an “invasion” of Afghanistan. That comment was, at best, a game of semantics that only hindered the military on the ground from having a clear vision of what they were doing. At worst, it was an indicator that higher-ups in the military and civilians back home had no idea what they were getting into.

General Douglas Lute served as the Afghanistan war czar for both the Bush and Obama White House. He said in 2015,

“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn’t know what we were doing.”

The US didn’t have a clear end-goal to work towards in the Afghanistan war. Without realizing what winning looks like, there never was a chance to plan an organized invasion and withdrawal. The military was blindsided by what was being asked of them after entering Afghanistan – organize a functioning civilized society complete with free markets and democratic government, in the desert that had no history of systems like this. In other words, they were asked to nation-build a democracy in one of the most dangerous and unstable places in the world.

Trump has not been serious about governing in many ways and has not ended all wars. However, he has NOT started a new war. In addition to the war in Afghanistan, America is providing funds to Saudi Arabia as they fight a war in Yemen. Since 2015, the US has assisted the Saudis in a campaign of death and destruction that can only be described as genocide. But Americans boots are not on the ground in Yemen.

Under Trump’s leadership, Republicans are regaining the correct mantle of anti-war or —at least skepticism of never-ending policing of the world. The Conservative Political Action Conference in February of 2020 was bursting with enthusiasm for less war. During Trump’s speech, the room chanted “bring them home” in reference to American troops fighting forever-wars on far away foreign soil. That is a welcomed change from the war-hawk neocons who dominated DC Republican policy 15 years ago.

The Afghanistan War has been fought for 19 years. It’s too long. We can’t keep asking soldiers to die in a war that is older than they are. Bring them home.

The post 19 Years in the Graveyard of Empires: Bring Them Home appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

However, their seemingly inevitable ascendency as the most powerful nation on the planet is not simply a matter of diplomacy and military firepower. It is beyond normal foreign policy constraints. Neither the use of the brute strength of the American military to protect ourselves and our allies nor implementation of the economic catastrophe that is protectionism are sufficient tactics to guarantee political freedom and sustainable economic conditions. Politicking and appeasement are poor strategies to curb the crisis of the next quarter century. Only a resolve to develop a stronger production system in the United States can bolster a state capable of competing with China. 

China employs a system of state capitalism, which is similar to that of market socialism. In effect, the markets of China are meant to experience competition despite the factors of production being controlled and allocated via the CCP. This allows them to simultaneously destroy any sense of personal and civil rights (most notably in the case of the Uyghur Muslims) while participating in international trade at exorbitantly low costs. After all, keeping lower labor standards and the potential to force workers to participate allows for production that is considerably stronger than that of competitors.

The Chinese regime manipulates essentially all national companies, particularly the largest ones. This allows the state to limit regulation intrastate that culminates in cheaper products for the world’s consumption. If a company can avoid the cost of obtaining capital, land, and then avoid the need for better working conditions, the price goods produced can be sold at is dropped precipitously, prohibiting even competition with firms outside the United States.

Economic progress in China, largely dating back to the Nixon presidency, has directly correlated to China’s rise in geopolitical influence. This is without even mentioning the outsourcing by non-Chinese companies for lower production cost, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the prized possession of most international corporations—the Chinese consumer market.

The economic strength without possibility of domestic dissent itself poses a threat; considering the enormous capacity for physical confrontation and victory by the Chinese military, Chinese strength is daunting. Only the United States, India, or the EU could combat the hegemony of Chinese economic prowess, and militarily, the only country capable of stunting Chinese expansion is the United States. Without question, a real cause for retaliation or at least action, has presented itself across the Pacific Ocean. 

Knowing this, the American populous, and therefore its politicians, must ask how to oppose this threat. There are those—particularly the neoconservative or interventionist types—who would argue for a more advanced and aggressive presence in the South China Sea, Japan, and other vulnerable areas to defend those nations and stifle Chinese imperialism. This claim, however, misses a key issue.

Having greater military involvement in some sort of an intimidation mentality does defend our allies from extended influence to a certain extent, but this is only a short term fix. China is a nation on the upswing despite COVID-19 struggles. If preventive action is not taken, it is only a matter of time before they exceed the point where another country can effectively oppose them without resorting to bartering.

Xi Jinping and his party are pursuing long term strategies, so why would they risk their future chance at dominance by caving to a line drawn in the sand? Action needs to be taken. A large percentage of the world’s developed countries are subsidized by Chinese production, large quantities of debt, and sometimes contractual agreements. This an unsustainable reality. Furthermore, protectionism as a means of opposition is not a true option.

Protectionism is largely unnecessary unless it goes to its logical conclusion with sanctions, which are used primarily for countries that are potential threats for physical warfare. The only way we are to effectively solve this dilemma is to provide competition in geopolitics that is not on the decline but rather experiencing growth. Only one country can take the brunt of this endeavor: The United States of America. 

A solution could be quite simple and must be taken on the home front. The United States must once again establish itself as the premier home for business and innovation. Opening our markets, and slashing corporate tax rates and the capital gains tax could aid investment and prevent capital flight.

Regulations must be reduced. Immigration to fill the labor market must be allowed through constitutional means. Debt to China must be paid off. A culture of respect and mutual agreement between consumers, workers, and firms must be cultivated. The imagination of the American economy must be released.

The federal and state governments have an obligation to free the United States economy for our protection and posterity. 

Jack Moore is from Montgomery, Alabama and plans to study Economics and Political Science at the University of Chicago this autumn. Follow him on Twitter @MooreJlm122013

The post The Chinese Threat: A Solution appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.