What Will India’s New Saffron Curtain Mean for its Economic Growth?

History has shown that most countries which built ideological curtains failed to generate economic wealth and achieve their social objectives. They typically gave you their social outcomes at the cost of your economic well-being.

After decades of being stuck in the Hindu rate of growth, 3.5% per annum growth rate in GDP, the Indian economy pulled out of the dark ages to grow at an estimated 6.5% per annum in the years after the 1991 reforms.

The current sluggishness in the economy suggests it may be at risk of being pulled down to a Hindutva rate of growth of below 3% per annum. And that has implications for your near term economic and job security and for your long term investments. Let me explain.

Many countries and civilisations have built physical barriers or “curtains” to protect themselves and to separate themselves from others. Some of these ventures have ended up being social and political disasters.

The Great Wall of China was built by many dynasties from 445 BC and completed by the Ming Dynasty in 1644 AD to keep out the invading armies from the Steppes – nomads like the Mongols.

The Iron Curtain, separating the communist East and the democratic West, was established after World War 2, and flagged off the start of the Cold War. The Iron Curtain was not a physical structure but a conceptual dividing line between the “free world” and the other world. The Berlin Wall, construction of which started in 1961, represented a small part of the physical structure which exemplified the division between the East and the West. Though limited in size to a height of 12 feet and a length of only 27 miles, the Berlin Wall had 302 guard towers and 55,000 land mines. It was a physical manifestation of the Iron Curtain.

The Bamboo Curtain of 1959 was a political demarcation between the Communist-ruled areas of Russia, China, and some nations in South East Asia — and the rest of the world. There was no physical Bamboo Curtain though there was this conceptual dividing line. Those behind the Bamboo Curtain were communists. Mao had just taken over China in the Great Revolution.

Hungary built a barbed wire fence in 2015 on its border with Serbia and Croatia to keep out Syrian refugees. There was no curtain, but Prime Minister Viktor Orban may as well have had one. He had said that Hungary was 96% Christian and must stay that way. Basically, the refugees from Syria, mostly Muslims, were to be kept out.

President Trump is going ahead with his plans to build the wall between the southern borders of the US and Mexico – though Mexico does not seem to be paying for it, as was promised in his 2016 election campaign. Since there are many Christians in Mexico, Trump cannot use religion as a dividing line. Thus, he has built a “rapist” curtain to keep the “criminals” out.

A world with borders is necessary.

Having a physical wall or border has its merits as a means of security. It protects the state from raiding marauders. Having a “curtain” is typical for demarcating a philosophy, or reinforcing a distinction based on an attribute such as religion, or, in the case of communism, enforcing tyranny on your subjects.

Also read: BJP’s Strategy of Pitting Hindutva as an Alternative Agenda to Development is Unravelling

India has physical fences and border walls with, for example:

1) The rogue state of Pakistan, often described as an army with a country.

2) Natural and man-made fences with the ever-threatening fire-dragon of China; and

3) Barbed wire fences with Bangladesh, a country with whom India has enjoyed great friendship and which is indebted to India for its Independence in 1971.

But now, with the move to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), India may be building a saffron curtain between its neighbours and itself. If the critics are to be believed, the saffron curtain may divide India itself.

Count me, but don’t count me out.

To start with there is the need to have:

1) The National Population Register. A list of people who live in the country; a normal and useful database that every country must have. Aadhaar was meant to be this “national” database but it was voluntary  and its limited intent was to ensure that benefits given by the government were received by those who were meant to receive it. Aadhaar was the Holy Grail to stop the pilferage in the system that had become commonplace in every government subsidy scheme. In 2012, P Chidambaram, then home minister under the Congress-led UPA-2, had a public spat with Nandan Nilekani over the duplication of resources and money being used for Aadhaar (run by Nilekani) and the National Population Register (run by the Home Ministry). Chidambaram had branded the NPR as integral to the internal security of India was clearly in favour of an NPR.

2) The National Register of Citizens. This register wishes to find out who, from those who live in the country, are citizens of India. This NRC will also need to make a list of those Indian citizens who may be living outside India (for example, an Indian passport holder working for a tech company in USA under a H-1 visa still needs to be listed in the NRC.) Nothing wrong with that, either. Every country must know how many citizens it is responsible for.

So far, so good. All this information is normal and useful. Other countries have their versions of the NPR and NRC; India must have hers.

The problem arose because of the implementation of the NRC in Assam which has, since the 1970s, seen an influx of immigrants (many illegal) from Bangladesh. The NRC for Assam was published under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court and released on August 31, 2019.

Of the 33 million people living in Assam, 31 million were counted as citizens. This means that about 1.9 million were not. Many of the 1.9 million were Hindus, a crucial vote bank for the BJP. In the 2019 elections for the Lok Sabha, the BJP won 6.4 million votes (9 Lok Sabha seats) while the Congress won 6.3 million votes (3 Lok Sabha seats). The Congress’s share of votes had increased but the BJP still gained more seats. There was an 81% voter turnout in Assam. A swing of 0.1 million votes led to a difference of 6 Lok Sabha seats under the first-past-the-post system in India. To allegedly ensure that many of the 1.9 million Hindu refugees, who may have been citizens of Bangladesh, qualify to be citizens of India, the Citizenship Amendment Act was passed. The CAA has a cut-off year of 2014 while the Assam Accord had a cut-off year of 1971.

The CAA was, allegedly, tailor-made to get the Hindus from Bangladesh into Assam by ensuring that a person “persecuted” for their religious beliefs could be given citizenship of India. Muslims were excluded from the list of people persecuted for their religion. The Muslims from Bangladesh, even if they were persecuted for belonging to a minority Muslim sect, will have to head back to Bangladesh.

So, there are two fears over the CAA:

1) The people of Assam don’t want anyone after the 1971 cut-off year to be given Indian citizenship and a right to live in Assam, irrespective of their religion. The protests in Assam are focused on this cut-off year – Hindu or Muslim refugee is not the issue here; the Assamese don’t want anyone who was a refugee after 1971 to be given a legal right to live in Assam;

2) The rest of India is concerned that the CAA (currently a move to legitimize many persecuted Hindus of Bangladesh origin) may be the first step towards future constitutional amendments and actions which evolve into a bias against those who are Muslims and who may legitimately be citizens of India – but do not have the papers to prove that.

There is a fear that if a Muslim is on the NPR list (which means he lives in India), the body-counters may not convert the Muslim into the NRC list: the list of citizens of India.

Also read: Hindutva Has Nowhere to Go Except Down the Road to Tyranny

Getting on the NPR list is easy. Getting on the NRC list may require more documents.

A Muslim in a Hindu Rashtra Raj could be denied citizenship, even if he was born in India, if he does not have the correct papers. In a country where tens of millions do not have a birth certificate – or where there are local rivalries preventing that person from seeking an endorsement of familiarity from others in the village, another criterion – this process of proving one’s citizenship could be a nightmare. IndiaSpend says that a “larger number of Indians, especially older Indians, do not possess birth certificates”. Additionally, IndiaSpend says that 38% of children under the age of 5 years do not have a birth certificate. “Further, those belonging to the poorest sections, scheduled castes and tribes, and families with no schooling are more likely to not have a birth certificate”. Getting a birth certificate the day you are born to register the child for a good school is an urban phenomena. Record-less rural India does not have that luxury!

More importantly, the Constitution does not permit the denying of a citizenship to any person based on the religion that they follow. This was against the spiritual belief of Mahatma Gandhi as he led the fight for India’s Independence:

“For me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree. Therefore, they are equally true, though being received and interpreted through human instruments equally imperfect.”

In a Hindu Rashtra, such lofty idealistic talk is, well, lofty idealistic talk. The Mahatma is dead and he was, in the eyes of those who want a Hindu Rashtra, a traitor to India for allowing partition and giving the Muslims their own country without giving the Hindus “our own” country. Jinnah got what he wanted for his Muslims: a country of their own; but we did not and Hindus have had to face the perceived injustice of sitting with 150 million Muslims around us on Indian soil. In the eyes of many, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are “imported” religions and need to be expelled. For now, the Hindu sangh recognizes Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism as offshoots of Hinduism: they can be tolerated.

The link to the economy

In November 2016, the BJP government introduced demonetisation. That led to months of chaos as people lined up to change notes. This killed economic activity. The effects of that questionable policy were felt for quite some time.  Rather than adding to economic activity, people stood in lines. Barring those who may have been hawking pakodas, channa-singh, or chai to those who trudged distances to get to the banks there was little economic output. The political objective of demonetisation was achieved — to win the UP elections by ensuring that the horde of cash, stashed by the Opposition, was made worthless. None of the objectives stated on the floor of Parliament as a reason for the exercise of demonetisation were achieved.

Also read: The BJP Is Digging Its Own Grave

In July 2017, the GST was introduced. This questionable idea which ignored the vast differences in the stages of economic evolution of every state originated from the Congress government. Sadly, it was amplified and adopted by the BJP. Rather than allowing small businesses to work and continue to contribute to the economy, GST shut the small businesses out. It benefited two classes of people: (1) the software programmers, accountants and lawyers who got windfall fees from the trails of computer and paperwork for an ever-changing, ever-modifying set of procedures and rules, and (2) the larger companies, including multinationals, who gained business and market share in a slowing economy at the cost of the smaller companies. Since large companies do not add jobs to the extent that small companies do, there was a net job loss in the economy.

The fraudulent practices of many Indian CEOs and founders — from companies involved in banking to telecom to oil to power to steel to retailing — had caused a hole in the balance sheet of many banks. While this theft of money from companies and poor governance is a disease that has infected India for decades, it reached its Golden Age under the rule of the UPA government. With large losses from these legacy loans, the banks have neither the desire, nor the means, to lend more money. Economies only grow when the money is available to lubricate the engines of growth.

But not only was money not readily available, even the engines of growth were stalling.

Companies saddled with debt and lower sales (people standing in line can only buy pakodas and chai, not cars and steel; people who lost their jobs buy even less) have little incentive to borrow more to build factories and add to capacity or create jobs. Those few companies that do wish to borrow have fewer banks to borrow from.

With the banking system in a freeze and consumer demand in a tailspin, real estate companies are sitting on 12 months to 36 months of unsold inventory of flats. With no desire to build more homes, most real estate developers are not hiring labour to work on new projects. Fewer flats being purchased means that fewer people are buying toasters, microwaves, and furnishings for the new flats.

The economy is dead.

Killing a dead cat?

There was hope that the government would do something in the budget of 2019.

They did. And that 2019 budget was perceived to damage the economy further. It was a negative shock! After much criticism and pointlessly defending the indefensible, the government rolled the negatives back and took away the pain.

Then they gave a boost to large companies who pay tax. None of this has created jobs – not even in the stock market which has set successive new peaks due to the recent tax freebies to corporate India.

It is possible that the NPR will add jobs: someone needs to count the people in the country.

It is possible that the NRC will add jobs: someone need to scrutinize the papers of the people to figure out who is a citizen and who is not.

It is possible that those who are not classified as citizens will need to be housed in detention camps.

The building of these camps will require cement, steel, tiling and barbed wire. And labour to put it all together and guards to man the detainees. That could be a boost of some sorts for economic activity!

But those who are standing in line waiting for papers and waiting to be counted will neither be available to work, nor will they be consumers.

The pakoda, channa-singh, and chai sellers may see another spurt in business though.

Also read: What’s So Neoliberal About Narendra Modi’s India Anyway?

As protests sweep across India, there is a huge human cost and a large economic cost. Assam’s oil-fields produce 4.3 million tonnes of oil every year, about 12% of India’s domestic production and 5% of our annual consumption of oil products. If the oil supply is disrupted, and given the higher price of oil in global markets the past few days, there will be a further dent on the import bill and on the Indian Rupee. Tea from Assam accounts for 50% of all tea grown in India and tea generates 5% of the revenue for the state.

Other states and industrial hubs across India (Gurgaon, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune) are larger and contribute more to the national exchequer – and have a roster of global clients and customers. In May 1974, there was a 20-day strike by the Indian Railways demanding the implementation of 8-hour days. 46 years later, the Indian Railways are more crucial to a more integrated domestic economy. The Bharat Bandh, called on January 8, is reminiscent of those unsettling days.

The building of a saffron curtain will cost a lot of money.

The direct cost of Rs. 21,000 crore for the demonetisation (about 0.5% of the annual budget, though this cost was borne by the RBI which many say has already morphed into a Division of the Government of India) was more than the “economic earnings” from demonetisation. The indirect cost of the demonetisation to the economy which went into a slump and had low tax collections, was felt for years. Some have estimated this cost to be in the region of 1.5% to 2% of GDP.

The economic pain of the demonetisation for most people has been significant – even though the BJP may not have lost elections. (For this, the BJP has to thank the Congress for still insisting on being around. As an aside, the expiration date of the Congress was supposed to be 1947; the year India won its Independence. Having led the Freedom Struggle, Mahatma Gandhi said the work of the Congress was over and it should be disbanded.)

Building walls for security is a necessary activity. Building a saffron curtain to segregate a population by religion may be a socially and economically expensive political passion.

India could potentially get stuck in the quicksand of the past.

Under a saffron curtain, India may rewind the clock not to the pathetic 3.5% per annum “Hindu rate of growth” of GDP under the Nehruvian period of the 1950’s to 1980’s, but to a sub-3% p.a. Hindutva rate of growth under the BJP.

And, if the data points released by the government are to be believed and adjusted for the change in the way data has been compiled since 2015, we already are at a Hindutva rate of growth of sub-3% per annum, a new low in post-reform Modern India. This does not make it worse or better than the 7% per annum growth rate achieved under the UPA 1 and UPA 2 governments, where much of the growth can be attributed to crony capitalism and the initiation of projects that were so poorly financed that the banking system is paying the price for those blunders today. The Indian economy has been badly bruised by the poor policies of the UPA and may be knocked out by the social focus of the BJP.

The budget of 2020 will be a challenge. It will have to offset the likely adverse economic impact of a Saffron Curtain and seek ways to boost the creation and distribution of wealth by kick-starting a dead economy. It will not be an easy task. The 2020 budget may either prove our Hindutva-ness – or reinforce our faith in the idea of a more economically prosperous India.

History has shown that most countries which built ideological curtains failed to generate economic wealth and achieve their social objectives. They typically gave you the social outcome at the cost of your economic well-being. And that, too, for a short period of time. The victorious social outcome tended to lose their veneer over time to expose the rot within. A saffron curtain is not what India needs now – it needs focus on the sabka vikas that was promised in 2014. “History”, as Mark Twain said, “never repeats itself, but it often rhymes.” For India, its tryst with destiny may be ending as a curtain rises.

Ajit Dayal is a mutual fund veteran and  is the founder of Quantum Asset Management Company. This article was originally published on EquityMaster. You can read it here.

US Government Shutdown Drags Into Fourth Week Amid Stalemate

About one-quarter of federal operations have been partially closed by a lack of funding since December 22.

Washington/New Orleans: President Donald Trump on Monday rejected a Republican call for temporarily reopening shuttered US government agencies in order to encourage negotiations with Democrats on border security issues, as a partial government shutdown limped through its 24th day.

About one-quarter of federal operations have been partially closed by a lack of funding since Dec. 22 after Trump demanded $5.7 billion this year from Congress for building a security wall on the southwest US border.

At a speech to an American Farm Bureau convention in New Orleans, Trump again urged Congress to grant him the money, saying drones, sensors and other technology cannot do what a wall can do to stop illegal border crossings.

Farmers, a key bloc of Trump supporters, have been hit by the shutdown as federal loan and farm aid applications have stalled and key farming and crop data has been delayed.

“If you want to help farmers, re-open the government,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Twitter posting.

The number of airport security screeners not showing up for work continued to rise since the start of the disruption. Most Transportation Security Administration workers were required to report to work but they are not being paid due to a lack of funds.

TSA spokesman Michael Bilello on Monday said TSA had a 7.6% unscheduled absence rate nationally, compared to a 3.2 percent rate a year ago.

Also Read: As US Gears up for 2020, Elite Politics Is Moving Further Away From the Electorate

Many security officers “are understandably looking for other work to make ends meet, House of Representatives Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Democrats, who control the House, have rejected Trump’s $5.7 billion demand, as have Senate Democrats who are needed to pass most legislation in the chamber even though Republicans hold a majority.

On Sunday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham urged Trump to reopen the government for a short period of time in an effort to restart talks. It is an idea that Democrats have been promoting for weeks.

“That was a suggestion that Lindsey made but I did reject it,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Louisiana. “I want to get it solved, I don’t want to just delay it.”

The partial shutdown is the longest in US history and has seen Trump lurch from one idea to another in an attempt to secure money for building a wall that he argues is needed to secure the US against illegal immigrants and drugs.

Democrats say there are cheaper, more effective ways of enhancing border security than constructing a wall that could cost well beyond $25 billion. They have offered $1.3 billion in new border security funds this year to help pay for a range of high-tech and other tools at the border.

When he ran for president, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall but its government has refused. More recently, he has suggested that a renegotiated trade deal with Mexico could bring in the revenues needed to build the wall or that military funds and US soldiers could be utilized.

Last week, the administration was looking into Trump declaring a “national emergency” and redirecting US Army Corps of Engineers funds to the wall but he has said would not immediately take such action.

In December Trump said he would take responsibility for the shutdown but has since shifted the blame to Democrats. A growing proportion of Americans blame Trump for the closures, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

(Reuters)

Trump Heads to US Border With Mexico to Press Case for Wall

Trump’s trip to the border town of McAllen, Texas, comes on the 20th day of a partial government shutdown that has left hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work or working without pay.

Washington: US President Donald Trump heads to Texas on Thursday to press his case that the country is facing a crisis that can only be solved by spending billions of dollars to construct a wall along the border with Mexico.

His trip to the border town of McAllen, Texas, comes on the 20th day of a partial government shutdown that has left hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work or working without pay, while Trump and fellow Republicans fight with Democrats over his demand for $5.7 billion this year to construct the barrier.

Trump’s plan to build a wall at the southern border was a central promise of his 2016 presidential campaign. He said last month he would be “proud” to shut the government down over the issue but has since blamed Democrats.

He also has been considering whether to declare a national emergency and use it to circumvent Congress by building the wall with money allocated for the Department of Defense. Democrats who control the House of Representatives refuse to approve the wall funding.

Critics say such a move by Trump would be illegal and plan to immediately challenge it in court. Even some Republicans who want to build a wall have said they do not want money to be taken from the military to pay for it.

Trump will travel to Texas with the state’s two US senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. After Trump’s midday visit, Cornyn will host a roundtable discussion with area mayors, judges, law enforcement personnel and others involved with the border issue.

On December 22, about 25% of the government – excluding mainly the Department of Defense and health-related programs – shut down because of Congress’ inability to complete work by a September deadline on funding all government agencies.

Backed by most Republicans in Congress, as well as his most ardent supporters, Trump has said he will not sign any bill to reopen the government that does not provide the funds he wants for the wall.

“There is GREAT unity with the Republicans in the House and Senate, despite the Fake News Media working in overdrive to make the story look otherwise,” Trump tweeted on Thursday ahead of his departure. “The Opposition Party & the Dems know we must have Strong Border Security, but don’t want to give ‘Trump’ another one of many wins!”

Acrimonious meeting

The impasse has continued while Trump’s meetings with Democratic congressional leaders have ended in acrimony. On Wednesday, he stormed out of a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, calling it “a total waste of time.”

Trump says undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs are streaming across the border from Mexico, despite statistics that show illegal immigration there is at a 20-year low and that

many drug shipments likely are smuggled through legal ports of entry.

Democrats accuse Trump of using fear tactics and spreading misinformation about the border situation in order to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise as he looks toward his race for re-election in 2020.

The president has been working to make his case to the public, and bolster any congressional Republicans who might be wavering.

Pressure on them could intensify on Friday when about 800,000 federal employees – including border patrol agents and airport security screeners – miss their first paychecks.

On Tuesday, Trump said in his first prime-time television address from the Oval Office that there was a growing security and humanitarian crisis at the border.

On Wednesday, he visited Republican lawmakers at the US Capitol, emerging from a meeting to say his party was “very unified.”

Less than two hours later, eight Republicans in the House voted with majority Democrats on a bill that would reopen the Treasury Department and some other programs, and did not include any funding for the wall.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear, however, that he will not allow that chamber to vote on any measure that does not includes wall funding.

(Reuters) 

US Democrats Seek to End Shutdown Without Trump Wall Funds

Democrats formally took control of the House from the Republicans after winning a majority of seats in November’s congressional elections.

Washington: Democrats in the US House of Representatives plan to vote on Thursday on a funding package to end the 10-day-old partial US government shutdown, without providing the $5 billion President Donald Trump has demanded for a US-Mexico border wall.

The planned vote sets up a Democratic showdown with Trump‘s fellow Republicans on an issue dear to the president on the first day of divided government in Washington since he took office in January 2017 with a Congress led by his own party.

Democrats formally take control of the House from the Republicans after winning a majority of seats in November’s congressional elections.

The two-part Democratic package filed on Monday in the House includes a bill to keep funding for the Department of Homeland Security at current levels through Feb. 8 with no new wall funding, as well as a bundle of six measures worth nearly $265 billion combined that would fund the other shuttered agencies through the Sept. 30 end of the current fiscal year.

Also Read: US Govt Shutdown Set to Drag on as Trump, Democrats Don’t Budge

The two parts will be voted on separately on the House floor on Thursday, said Democrats, who will hold a 36-seat majority.

If approved in the House, the funding package would go to the Republican-led Senate. Its prospects there appear unpromising, although Trump‘s unpredictability makes it hard to gauge how the shutdown showdown will play out.

“It’s simple: The Senate is not going to send something to the president that he won’t sign,” said a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

The Democratic legislation will mark the first major battle pitting the incoming Democratic House majority led by Nancy Pelosi against Trump and McConnell.

“While President Trump drags the nation into Week Two of the Trump Shutdown and sits in the White House and tweets, without offering any plan that can pass both chambers of Congress, Democrats are taking action to lead our country out of this mess,” Pelosi and top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said in a joint statement.

Democrats oppose Trump‘s demand for wall funding, with Pelosi calling the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive.

Democrats hope their two-pronged funding approach will put Senate Republicans in a tough position. If they reject funding for departments unconnected to border security, Republicans could be seen as holding those agencies and their roughly 800,000 affected workers hostage toTrump‘s wall demand.

“Then they are complicit with President Trump in continuing the Trump shutdown and in holding the health and safety of the American people and workers’ paychecks hostage over the wall,” Pelosi and Schumer said in their statement.

Non-border-related agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Commerce and Justice.

Also Read: Trump Threatens to Close Southern Border If Not Given Funding for Wall

The homeland security piece of the package includes $1.3 billion for border fencing and roughly $300 million more for other border security items including cameras and technology.

Democrats said the entire package is based on legislation that has already been passed by either the Senate or Senate committees.

The shutdown, which began on Dec. 22 and has idled roughly a quarter of the federal government, was precipitated by Trump‘s demand, under pressure from conservative commentators, that Congress approve $5 billion to help fund a wall that was a promise made in his 2016 election campaign, although he said at the time it would be paid for by Mexico.

Trump has called the wall crucial to combating illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The Senate on Dec. 21 failed to muster the votes needed to pass Republican-backed House legislation that included Trump‘s wall funding. The passage in the Senate would need at least some Democratic support to reach the 60-vote threshold required.

“Not A Wall”

A central issue in finding a resolution could be the definition of what constitutes a wall, including the idea of steel slats and other types of barriers versus a concrete structure.

Trump on Twitter criticized Democratic opposition to the wall project, which carries a total estimated price tag of $23 billion. He also seemed to contradict comments made by outgoing White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

In a Los Angeles Times interview published on Sunday, Kelly said: “To be honest, it’s not a wall.”

“The president still says ‘wall‘ – oftentimes frankly he’ll say ‘barrier’ or ‘fencing,’ now he’s tended towards steel slats. But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it,” Kelly added.

Trump wrote on Twitter that border security could not exist “without a strong and powerful Wall.”

Also Read: Caravans – the New Face of Migration to the US, With No End in Sight

“An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by the media,” Trump wrote. “Some areas will be all concrete but the experts at Border Patrol prefer a Wall that is see-through (thereby making it possible to see what is happening on both sides). Makes sense to me!”

Trump, who canceled his vacation in Florida and has stayed at the White House during the holiday government shutdown while first lady Melania and their son Barron were at Trump‘s private estate Mar-a-Lago in Florida for New Year’s Eve, said Democrats could have come over for talks anytime.

“I’m in Washington. I’m ready, willing and able,” Trump told Fox News.

White House officials did not reply to an email asking whether the president had been in touch directly with Democratic leaders to set up a round of talks.

Pelosi has not heard formally from the White House since Dec. 11, when she and Schumer had a contentious Oval Office meeting with the president, Democratic aides said. Schumer has not heard from the White House since he met with Vice President Mike Pence and incoming White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on Dec. 22, Democratic aides said.

Trump Warns Mexico on Migrant Caravan, Threatens to Close Border

Trump, who has made curtailing immigration and building a border wall on the Mexican border a key platform, has previously threatened to shut off aid and dispatch troops there.

Washington: President Donald Trump on Thursday said he would to deploy the US military and close the southern border if Mexico did not move to halt large groups of migrants headed for the United States from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

“I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump threatened to withhold regional aid as a caravan with several thousand Honduran migrants journeyed this week through Guatemala toMexico in hopes of crossing the US-Mexico border and escaping endemic violence and poverty in Central America.

The president also dispatched US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City on Friday.

Trump, who has made curtailing immigration and building a border wall on the Mexican border a key platform, has previously threatened to shut off aid and dispatch troops there.

In a string of tweets on Thursday, Trump also appeared to link the issue to trade and a newly minted deal with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement pact that is awaiting ratification.

“The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border,” Trump wrote, referring to the newest trade deal known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

(Reuters)

Mexico’s Lopez Obrador Commits to NAFTA After Big Election Win

“We are going to accompany the current government in this negotiation, we are going to be very respectful, and we are going to support the signing of the agreement”, says Obrador about NAFTA.

Mexico City: Mexico’s next president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, said on Monday he will seek to remain in NAFTA along with the US and Canada and that he respects the existing Mexican team renegotiating the trade pact.

Lopez Obrador, a 64-year-old former mayor of Mexico City, won a landslide election victory on Sunday, getting more than double the votes of his nearest rival, dealing a crushing blow to establishment parties and becoming the first leftist to win the Mexican presidency since one-party rule ended in 2000.

“We are going to accompany the current government in this negotiation, we are going to be very respectful, and we are going to support the signing of the agreement,” he told Milenio TV in a telephone interview, saying the aim was a deal on the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement that was good for Mexico.

A veteran of two previous unsuccessful presidential runs who moderated some of his policies this time around, he said he would pursue a frank dialogue and friendly relations with the US. Lopez Obrador, who will take office in December, said he would discuss NAFTA with President Enrique Pena Nieto when they have their first meeting after the election, set for Tuesday.

US President Donald Trump has been openly antagonistic to Mexico over trade and migration since his own presidential campaign. The current NAFTA talks began last year after Trump called for the agreement to be renegotiated to better serve US interests.

Although Trump congratulated Lopez Obrador in a Twitter message on Sunday night, a White House aide then reiterated one of the US leader’s most controversial campaign promises.

“In the case of Mexico, obviously we share a border with them (and) this president has made very clear about building that wall and having Mexico pay for it,” Kellyanne Conway said on Fox News.

Mexican politicians across the political spectrum have long said Mexico will not pay for Trump’s proposed wall along the southern US border, which he has said is needed to keep out both illegal immigrants and narcotics.

Strong mandate

Lopez Obrador won more than 53% of votes in Sunday’s election, preliminary results showed. That was the biggest share of the vote in a Mexican presidential election since the early 1980s and gave him a strong mandate both to address the country’s domestic problems and to face external challenges such as US trade tariffs.

In his victory speech and in comments to local TV networks, Lopez Obrador sought to assure investors he would pursue prudent economic policies and the independence of the central bank. His economic advisers repeated this message in a call on Monday with investors and in an interview with Reuters.

Even so, the peso weakened 1.3% against the dollar and Mexico’s S&P/BMV IPC benchmark stock index was also down almost 1.5% as exit polls showed Lopez Obrador‘s MORENA party performed strongly in the elections, which were also for members of Congress.

MORENA and its allies could win majorities in both chambers of Congress, according to projections based on results still trickling in.

That would make it easier for Lopez Obrador to work with Congress, but the parties are expected to fall short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to unwind a five-year-old energy sector reform that has attracted oil majors such as Shell to Mexico.

Oil contracts review 

During the campaign, Lopez Obrador often flirted with the idea of overturning the energy sector opening, although his only firm promise was to say he would review more than 100 oil and gas contracts that have already been awarded, checking for signs of corruption. Fighting corruption in government was a major plank of his campaign.

Credit ratings agency Fitch warned on Monday of prolonged uncertainty over the future of the oil sector opening, achieved via a constitutional reform enacted in 2013.

Rating agency Moody’s said Lopez Obrador‘s election win brought short-term market volatility and raised risks for the oil sector.

Others believe that little will change.

“His coalition is unlikely to secure the two-thirds Congressional majority required to reverse constitutional reforms, and existing contracts do not appear to be at risk,” said Paul Sheldon, chief geopolitical adviser at S&P Global Platts Analytics.

The man tipped to be Lopez Obrador‘s senior finance official also said the next government was not planning on pursuing major legislative overhauls.

“I would say that (majorities in Congress) will make day-to-day management easier… but we really aren’t thinking about changing the Constitution or major laws,” Carlos Urzua told Reuters.

(Reuters)

Trump Offers ‘Dreamers’ a Path to Citizenship but Wants Other Immigration Curbs

The White House offered to more than double the number of “Dreamers”who would be protected from deportation.

People participate in a protest in defense of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, in New York. Credit: Reuters/Stephanie Keith

People participate in a protest in defense of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, in New York. Credit: Reuters/Stephanie Keith

Washington: US President Donald Trump is offering a path to citizenship for up to 1.8 million young illegal immigrants but insists on measures that would curb some legal immigration programs and provide a border wall with Mexico, senior White House officials said on Thursday.

The White House offered to more than double the number of “Dreamers” – people brought to the country illegally as children – who would be protected from deportation, describing it as a major concession aimed at attracting enough votes for an immigration deal from Democrats.

But the plan comes with significant strings attached to appeal to Republicans, including requirements to slash family sponsorship of immigrants, tighten border security and provide billions of dollars in funding for a border wall with Mexico that Trump made one of his major campaign promises.

The package was immediately panned by pro-immigration groups, which said the plan was a bad trade-off. It was also slammed by some conservative groups, which decried the expansion of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

The head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Democratic Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham, said the Trump plan used Dreamers as “bargaining chips for sweeping anti-immigrant policies.”

Early reaction from Republicans in the Senate – where the plan may receive a vote in early February – was positive. Conservative Republican Senator Tom Cotton called the plan “generous and humane, while also being responsible.” Republicans narrowly control the chamber by 51-49 and need Democratic votes to pass legislation.

The fight over protections for Dreamers, which are set to expire in March, was part of the standoff between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate that resulted in a three-day government shutdown that ended on Monday.

They agreed to extend funding until February 8, leaving a small window to come to a deal on immigration. Trump’s plan will help provide guidance for those talks, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement.

Negotiations will be tough. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who has championed the cause of the Dreamers, said the plan put Trump’s “entire hardline immigration agenda – including massive cuts to legal immigration – on the backs of these young people.”

‘Horrendous trade-off’

Trump, whose tough immigration stance was a key part of his 2016 presidential campaign, said in September he was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program for Dreamers that was created by Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

The DACA protections apply to about 700,000 people, but White House officials said there were at least that many illegal immigrants who qualified for the program but did not sign up for it.

Officials said the 1.8 million people could apply to become citizens in 10 to 12 years providing they had jobs and did not commit crimes.

Trump’s plan would require Congress to set up a $25 billion “trust fund” to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico, and invest in better protections at the northern border with Canada.

Congress would have to allocate additional money to border guards and immigration judges, a figure that the Republican president pegged at $5 billion on Wednesday, but which White House officials said was up for further discussion.

The White House also wants Congress to change rules to allow for the rapid deportation of illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico and Canada who arrive at the US border, the officials said.

White House officials made clear that a deal could not only address DACA and the border wall but must also end a visa lottery program for certain countries and limit family sponsorship of immigrants to spouses and minor children – ending sponsorship for parents, older children and siblings.

Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at US Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration, called the plan a “horrendous tradeoff” and predicted Democrats would reject it.

“It offers a one-time citizenship path to innocent Dreamers and expects in return a massive permanent cut to family immigration, the permanent elimination of the entire diversity program, and a huge expenditure for a border wall,” said Legomsky, now at Washington University Law School in St. Louis.

A group of immigrant youth called United We Dream said the deal was “pitting us against our own parents, Black immigrants and our communities.”

Groups that oppose allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the US also voiced criticism, and urged Congress to take its time.

“While it includes a number of tough immigration enforcement provisions, it includes an amnesty that is more than twice the size of the DACA population,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors restrictions.

House path unclear

To become law, the measures would also need to pass the House of Representatives, where Republicans have a bigger majority. A senior White House official declined to speculate on whether the plan would pass the chamber.

“I think the House will have an independent vehicle,” the second official said. “We’re not trying to force something on the House.”

Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican Cuban-American from Miami and longtime advocate of immigration reform, praised Trump for putting forward a “serious proposal.”

Democratic Representative Luis Gutiérrez said, however, that the plan “doesn’t pass the laugh test.

“It would be far cheaper to erect a 50-foot concrete statue of a middle finger and point it towards Latin America, because both a wall and the statue would be equally offensive and equally ineffective,” the Illinois lawmaker said on Twitter.

(Reuters)

In Berlin, Obama Says Rich Nations Can’t “Hide Behind a Wall”

In a thinly veiled reference to Trump’s ‘US-Mexico wall’, Obama said the world was shrinking and it was not possible to stay isolated from troubles abroad.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former US President Barack Obama attend a discussion at the German Protestant Kirchentag in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, May 25, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Fabrizio Bensch

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former US President Barack Obama attend a discussion at the German Protestant Kirchentag in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, May 25, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Fabrizio Bensch

Berlin: Former US President Barack Obama told an audience in Berlin on Thursday that prosperous nations could not “hide behind a wall” to shield themselves from the turmoil and poverty afflicting other countries.

Speaking in a panel discussion on democracy with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in front of 70,000 people at a spot where the Berlin wall once stood, Obama spent 90 minutes talking about international and US issues without once mentioning his successor Donald Trump.

But in what appeared to be a reference to Trump’s vow to build a wall along the border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants and drugs, Obama said the world was shrinking due to localisation and technology. It was not possible to stay isolated from troubles abroad, he said.

“If there are disruptions in these countries, if there is bad governance, if there is war or if there is poverty, in this new world that we live in we can’t isolate ourselves,” Obama said. “We can’t hide behind a wall.”

Obama, who was making his first speech in Europe since leaving the White House, also warned against taking peace and prosperity for granted.

“The world is at a crossroads,” said Obama, speaking in front of the Brandenburg Gate.

The widening inequality gap inside nations as well as between nations was a major concern, he said. At the same time, “The world has never been wealthier, more healthy and never been better educated.”

“If we can sustain that progress, then I’m very optimistic about our future. My job now is to help them take it to the next step.”

In another speech later in the southwestern German town of Baden-Baden where he accepted a German media prize, Obama said he was concerned about how technology advances had made “it ironically easier for people to retreat into our own bubbles.”

He added: “We can find people on the internet who agree with our ideas, no matter how crazy. Democracies do not work if we are not operating on some level based on reason and fact and logic – and not just passion. We’re going to have to find ways to push back on propaganda and listen to those we don’t agree with.”

Obama said he had spent the last four months “trying to catch up with my sleep” and spending more time with his family.

“I’m very proud of the work I did as president,” he said to cheers, adding he was especially proud of health care reform.

“My hope was to get 100% of people health care. We didn’t quite achieve that but we were able to get 20 million people health care who didn’t have it before. Certainly, I have some regrets that we weren’t able to get everyone health care.

“Now some of the progress we made is imperilled because a significant debate is taking place in the United States,” he added, again avoiding direct mention of Trump, who is attempting to dismantle the so-called Obamacare.

Just four months before Germany’s election, Obama‘s mere appearance with Merkel, broadcast live on four networks, raised concerns that he was helping her re-election campaign.

But Merkel and Obama stayed away from the campaign with their discussion focused on faith and politics in general.

He said he hopes to use the “little influence” he has as a former president to help young people be better prepared for the looming challenges.

(Reuters)

Trump Revives Promise of US-Mexico Border Wall

A spokesman for the Mexican president’s office said President Enrique Pena Nieto has repeated that Mexico will not pay for the wall.

US President Donald Trump in Washington, US, April 20, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Washington: President Donald Trump said on Sunday (April 23) he expected Mexico to pay for the wall he has promised to build along the southern border, resuscitating a campaign promise that roiled US relations with Mexico in the first week of his presidency.

“Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall,” Trump said in a Twitter post.

Trump returned to his Mexico demand on a morning in which he simultaneously tried to pressure congressional Democrats to include funding for the border wall in must-pass spending legislation needed to keep the US government open beyond Friday.

A spokesman for the Mexican president’s office said President Enrique Pena Nieto has repeated that Mexico will not pay for the wall.

The Republican president’s demand that Mexico pay for the border wall triggered a diplomatic crisis with the southern US neighbour during the first week of his presidency. Pena Nieto on January 26 scrapped a planned trip to meet with Trump and the White House floated the idea of a 20% tax on goods from Mexico to pay for the wall.

The two leaders agreed the following day not to talk publicly about payment for the wall, the Mexican government said. The White House said the two recognised they had differences over the proposed wall but agreed to “work these differences out.”

Trump sought the wall, projected to cost more than $20 billion, as part of his effort to curb illegal immigration. Mexico has rejected payment for the construction project as out of the question.

Attorney general Jeff Sessions told ABC’s ‘This Week on Sunday the wall would get paid for one way or another.

“I don’t expect the Mexican government to appropriate money for it but there are ways that we can deal with our trade situation to create the revenue to pay for it, no doubt about it,” Sessions said.

US Department of Homeland Security Seeks Proposals For Mexico Wall

The wall should ideally be 30-feet high and the side facing the US side should be “aesthetically pleasing in colour”, the department said.

US President Donald Trump speaks as he holds a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel (not pictured) in the East Room of the White House in Washington, US, March 17, 2017.  Credit: Reuters/Jim Bourg

US President Donald Trump speaks as he holds a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel (not pictured) in the East Room of the White House in Washington, US, March 17, 2017. Credit: Reuters/Jim Bourg

Washington: The US Department of Homeland Security has issued requests for proposals for prototypes for a wall along the Mexican border, saying ideally it should be 30-feet high and the wall facing the US side should be “aesthetically pleasing in colour”.

A wall to stem illegal immigration was one of Donald Trump’s main campaign promises and has been highly controversial. The president has vowed to make Mexico reimburse the US for its cost but Mexico has repeatedly said it will not do so.

Earlier this week, the White House requested $3 billion more for Homeland Security, with some of that intended for planning and building the border wall.

According to one document posted online by US Customs and Border Protection Friday night, the wall should be 30-feet high, built using concrete and “physically imposing”. However, it says designs over 18 feet (5.5 meters) high could be acceptable.

“Designs with heights of less than 18 feet are not acceptable,” the document said. It said the wall should have features that do not allow people to climb over it and should prevent digging below the wall.

“The wall shall prevent/deter for a minimum of 1 hour the creation of a physical breach of the wall (e.g., punching through the wall) larger than 12 inches (30 cm) in diameter or square using sledgehammer, car jack, pickaxe, chisel, battery-operated impact tools, battery-operated cutting tools, oxy/acetylene torch or other similar hand-held tools,” it said.

The other document requesting proposals has many of the same requirements but it does not specify that it be solid concrete.