We already allow freedom of movement from countries within the EU, whose population sizes are an order of magnitude more than ours. Yet the amount of paperwork it takes for a US citizen to work here is fairly high. They also don't get any unemployment benefits as long as they are on a work permit because of NAV's rules.
Why should the US offer us more than what we offer them?
Swiss banks routinely either reject Americans, or ask for so much paperwork.
To be clear: The issue with FACTA is that saying "yes" to an American citizen (or national) adds costs to the foreign bank (in free labour on-behalf of the US). The US doesn't fund any of the work of reporting these accounts back to US.
Its almost as if the US has internal sources of free labour and expects no repercussions from expecting the same from their international counterparts...
Which frankly speaking should be rejected due to Congress reneging on their side of agreement.
Everyone I know who has worked there for >5 years is a millionaire, including some fairly junior people.
Gimme my money.
Probably among other reasons is because this would have to be bi-directional and the US has a lot of people and Norway doesn’t want those people coming there.
But if you are only getting Americans with no college education or 60k in debt with soft/useless degrees, I can see why they wouldn't want the drain.
Immigration in general isn’t a moral good or moral bad. It’s just public policy. At least in my view.
We have that problem in the UK, especially London. Rich Russians, Chinese, and from just about everywhere else.
If Norway does not make an exemption for rich people to come in if they want to, its very unusual. Generally, if you are rich, you can visit or live in anywhere you want. I can think of multiple cases where rich people with histories of serious crime or links to organised crime have no problem travelling to multiple countries.
Norway still needs people to collect the garbage, sweep the streets, drive cabs etc. Why do you dismiss low-skilled labour so easily?
/s
Also, I would love to have the French as part of AUKUS (but that _would_ really mess up a great acronym). The reason being I'm impressed with the French's nuclear nuclear experience through power generation (although, it's been a bit stagnent the last 20+ years). I'm curious if this was just too complicated to broker for some reason (4 parties instead of 3) or there was another reason I'm missing. As the article points out, French submarine reactors use different fuel, which could be a reason, but that seems like something that could be figured out given that we're talking about a clean sheet design anyway.
It would make it even better IMO: FRAKUS, close enough to “fracus”
Not really. The Australia Act 1986 just closed a technical loophole but Australia was for all intents and purposes fully sovereign since ratifying the Statute of Westminster in 1942. [1]
There's already a place in Australia I suspect is developed in anticipation
(disclosure: I work at Rocket Lab, but not on anything to donwith this.)
But as a half hearted member due to the nuclear issue, and historically a bit of a weak link in the Five Eyes, ITAR privileges are likely not on the cards.
South Korea alone seems to have more military industrial ambition than either France or Germany.
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at...
French defense spending, strategy, and export has always been... less aligned with US interests. SK's recent resurgence in popular awareness is in part due to the alignment between Ukraine's situation and SK's situation (ie, artillery production). France's defense industry has been aligning towards French interests for the last few decades (ie, maintain high end halo products like Rafale, FREMM, and also have equipment suitable for expeditionary war in Africa). Similarly with SK... just that SK's situation involved huge amounts of artillery.
Especially with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, I think it is quite difficult to speak of a single "European NATO". I think there's a clear east-west split in terms how you hear American analysts speak of NATO. It's not really possible to criticize the activity of most of the eastern NATO countries.
They did do a deal where artillery shells needed in Ukraine were laundered through the US
They are looking at changing their law.
Marcon, at least, seems to get it though? I thought the words about the "end of abundance" were fairly spot on, though it does seem like he's pushing the ship himself.
So we hear their grand claims, and they never enforce it.
This creates frustration in Europe because the leader of the European identity has a reputation of being a C student. (And no one seems to be ready to let Germany lead)
Including the Germans.
The stand-up comedy in question
There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated).
Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite.
The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
That the Spanish Empire established large extractive colonies in 2 densely populated Indias (Aztec, Inca empires) [0] does not erase the complete and near total genocide the Spanish perpetrated in the less populated Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina etc to replace the natives with their settlers.
The intractable population density of large extractive colonies does not excuse Empire, and does not provide moral superiority.
Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy.
> As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers.
I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
There are significant differences between anglo countries but they also all have similar moral philosophy, Britain-derived legal and political systems, they’re maritime powers so have mostly compatible geopolitical dispositions, since WWI they have a history of close military cooperation, and since WWII they’ve established a stable pecking order. That’s all before considering the shared language which means they have similar ways of chopping up reality, similar myths, and a lot of contemporary cultural sharing. The differences that exist will keep them separate countries and distinct cultures but the similarities compared to other European countries let alone elsewhere are significant.
Which colonies have been established by the US? Are you talking about the military bases in foreign countries?
[1] I don't know enough about the events you're referencing in Armenia and Romania, but Afghanistan was war. Of course we were going to set up a government that was friendly to the US.
The only wrinkle is the "occupied" part. But most European colonies in Africa didn't have a huge number of settlers either and nobody questions whether these colonies were colonies.
They literally fended off communism and stalinism.
Its really easy to make grand claims when you are Iceland.
The first statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What does it mean to promote freedom and democracy? How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza?
Fended off Communism? Last I checked, China was a superpower, and the fact that the western media are heating up their hysterics means they are doing quite well.
Stalinism was fended off by Stalin kicking the bucket. For most of his life he was a US ally.
Yes exactly.
Without the US involvement, instead of getting democracies, you get ethnic squabbles or regional powers involved.
You are just new to the anarchic nature of state-level politics.
These conflicts are inevitable, its up to the United States to tilt them in the direction of human rights. Historically its true.
(And its not like the morally poor side in Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza has the moral high ground when the US gets involved. )
Anyway, really cool hipster take that Europe and their 1000 year old ethnic rivalries would have navigated any of these better. Maybe for their own realpolitk self interest. How is that more moral than democracies?
But you might just remain convinced that you are just better because murica.
Oh boy.
Of course, Australia found out they got the raw end of the deal a couple of years later: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/15/australia-may-...
I'm not even being snarky. Despite fighting a war for independence, the USA has always loved mom (the UK) and likes its siblings (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Five Eyes is probably the most obvious example of our familial cooperation.
The USA will always prioritize AUKUS and Five Eyes before NATO.
That said, the UK are docile vassals, not allies, which is why they get preferential access.
So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
Obviously NATO is larger militarily but the US will want to protect both flanks (or project power across both the Atlantic and the Pacific).
Or is there more to it?
ITAR can also intertwine with EAR regulations as well.
Parts of itar are very clear....others can be vauge to mean anything and can be up to interpretation of the government. Also key thing to note. If you think HIPPA or OSHA has harsh penalties.... ITAR violations can be career prospect ending. I'm talking massive fines, jail time, and if your a lawyer you get disbarred iirc.
Example: You put up on a whiteboard in a conference room an engineering drawing of a Air-to-Air missile's internals. When you leave the room, you forget the drawing on the board.
Later that day, somehow, a foreign visitor is walking around the office and peeks inside, and sees the whiteboard.
Congratulations, you just committed an ITAR violation.(Why? The apparent logic behind this rule is that spy agencies regularly employ people with photographic memories)
Another example: You take your phone that has your work email/chat on vacation to a foreign country. On arrival, your phone gets confiscated for "inspection" and then is handed back hours later. Bam. ITAR violation.
A nice side effect of this, by the way, is that you just leave all work stuff behind when you go on vacation. No pesky work-calls while chilling on the beaches of Portugal. Don't want to go breaking the law now, would we?
It might seem draconic, but it's to plug a very easy loophole that can be exploited, and people actually do try to exploit when they don't understand exactly to what the regulations apply to.
