Jobs Abroad Or Jobs In Africa? Why A Focus On Work In Other Countries Shouldn’t Replace Opportunities At Home

Thousands of African nurses are recruited to work in western countries every year. Wikimedia Commons

BY MICHAEL BOAMPONG, DANIEL ASAMAH AND MELISSA MOUTAAN

African governments are increasingly encouraging young people to work abroad. To address youth unemployment at home, for example, Ghana and Kenya have expanded labour mobility agreements with other countries. These include Spain, Qatar and Caribbean states.

Agreements with Gulf countries have largely focused on construction and service-sector jobs. But newer partnerships with Caribbean countries are targeting skilled professionals like nurses and healthcare workers.

These arrangements can create structured pathways for people to work abroad, often in sectors where labour is in high demand.

Many African countries have large and growing youth populations struggling to get decent jobs. Meanwhile, wealthier economies face ageing populations and labour shortages. Evidence suggests that 71.7% of young adult (25-29) workers in sub-Saharan Africa are engaged in “insecure” work. At the same time, countries across Europe and elsewhere need labour in sectors such as care, agriculture and construction. Matching workers to labour shortages abroad appears to offer a practical solution.

But a deeper question emerges. What are the long-term development implications of governments promoting overseas employment as an economic strategy?

We study migration governance and youth aspirations in Ghana. We have examined how governments, international actors and young people understand the role of migration in development. Drawing on documentary analysis, interviews with policymakers and migration stakeholders, and ethnographic research with young people in Ghana, our recent research found that policymakers increasingly adopt an “economic gains” lens. They view migration as a source of remittances, skills and investment. On the other hand, young people’s aspirations to migrate remain rooted in limited opportunities and broader socioeconomic realities.

Our study focused on migration governance rather than labour mobility agreements themselves. However, it raises the question of what happens when seeing migration as an economic resource begins to shape labour mobility policy.

The drivers

In Ghana, remittances account for 6% of the country’s GDP. In 2024, this was about US$4.6 billion. It was far more than foreign direct investment and official development assistance combined that year. Expanding overseas employment is therefore seen as increasing these inflows while easing pressure on domestic labour markets.

One example of the implications concerns the protection of migrant workers.

Recent research from Kenya has shown how governments may encourage overseas employment even when protections for migrant workers remain uneven. This is an important concern, but misses a larger issue.

Broader development trade-offs can receive less attention. Even where labour mobility agreements are relatively well regulated, they may still contribute to structural challenges at home, such as the loss of skilled workers in critical sectors like health and education.

Ghana provides a clear example. The country is already experiencing a significant outflow of health professionals. Records show 500 nurses have left every month in recent years to work abroad. At the same time, health systems at home remain under pressure, with high patient-to-healthcare personnel ratios and limited resources.

This has prompted wider debates about ethical recruitment from countries already facing healthcare workforce shortages. Promoting further migration, even under formal agreements, raises important questions. Can countries sustain essential services while easing the departure of skilled workers? And how do these policies affect long-term investments in human capital?

What happens when migrants return?

Our research also highlights the importance of thinking about migration as a broader development process rather than simply movement across borders. As labour mobility expands, the question of what happens when migrants return is becoming increasingly important. Many migrants eventually return home, bringing skills, experience and financial resources.

Return migration can support entrepreneurship, innovation and local development. But these outcomes are not automatic. The UN World Youth Report on Youth and Migration suggests that returnees often require effective reintegration support and access to economic opportunities to translate the skills and experience acquired abroad into local development gains. Policies such as skills recognition and access to finance can help make this possible.

Rethinking labour mobility

One implication of our research is that migration policies should be embedded within broader development strategies rather than judged only by their immediate economic returns. This does not mean labour mobility should be discouraged. Rather, it should complement (not replace) investments in decent work, skills development and strong public institutions at home. Labour mobility is therefore not inherently negative. When well designed, it can contribute to both individual and national development.

For this to happen, it needs to move beyond a narrow focus on job placement abroad.

First, strategic partnerships between governments, employers, education and training institutions, recruitment agencies and international organisations are essential. This could involve jointly designed training programmes, mutual recognition of qualifications, and agreements where destination countries invest in training skilled workers in origin countries.

Second, reintegration needs to be taken more seriously. Providing access to finance, training and employment opportunities for returnees can help translate migration experiences into local economic development gains.

Third, labour mobility should not replace domestic job creation but complement it. Governments need to continue investing in sectors that can offer young people decent work at home, rather than relying on migration as the primary solution to youth unemployment or underemployment.

The key question is how migration fits into a broader development strategy.

Labour mobility can create opportunities for individuals and families. But it cannot substitute for long-term investments in decent work, education and economic transformation at home.

If treated simply as a short-term solution to unemployment, labour mobility risks deepening inequalities and weakening already fragile systems. When embedded in a broader development strategy, it can contribute to more inclusive and sustainable growth.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Deportation Tactics From 4 US Presidents Have Done Little To Reduce The Undocumented Immigrant Population

Men wait in a holding cell on June 21, 2006, in Nogales, Arizona. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

BY KEVIN JOHNSON

DEAN AND PROFESSOR OF INTEREST

LAW AND CHICANO STUDIES,

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

All modern U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have attempted to reduce the population of millions of undocumented immigrants. But their various strategies have not had significant results, with the population hovering around 11 million from 2005 to 2022.

President Donald Trump seeks to change that.

With harsh rhetoric that has sowed fear in immigrant communities, and policies that ignore immigrants’ due process rights, Trump has pursued deportation tactics that differ dramatically from those of any other modern U.S. president.

As a scholar who examines the history of U.S. immigration law and enforcement, I believe that it remains far from clear whether the Trump White House will significantly reduce the undocumented population. But even if the administration’s efforts fail, the fear and damage to the U.S. immigrant community will remain.

Presidents Bush and Obama

To increase deportations, in 2006 President George W. Bush began using workplace raids. Among these sweeps was the then-largest immigration workplace operation in U.S. history at a meat processing plant in Postville, Iowa in 2008.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deployed 900 agents in Postville and arrested 398 employees, 98% of whom were Latino. They were chained together and arraigned in groups of 10 for felony criminal charges of aggravated identity theft, document fraud and use of stolen Social Security numbers. Some 300 were convicted, and 297 of them served jail sentences before being deported.

In 2008, Bush also initiated Secure Communities, a policy that sought to deport noncitizens – both lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented immigrants – who had been arrested for crimes. Some 2 million immigrants were deported during Bush’s two terms in office.

The Obama administration limited Secure Communities to focus on the removal of noncitizens convicted of felonies. It deported a record 400,000 noncitizens in fiscal year 2013, which led detractors to refer to President Barack Obama as the “Deporter in Chief.”

Obama also targeted recent entrants and national security threats and pursued criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry to the U.S. Almost all of these policies built on Bush’s, although Obama virtually abandoned workplace raids.

Despite these enforcement measures, Obama also initiated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in 2012. The policy provided relief from deportation and gave work authorization to more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.

Obama deported about 3 million noncitizens, but the size of the undocumented population did not decrease dramatically.

The first Trump administration and Biden

Trump’s first administration broke new immigration enforcement ground in several ways.

He began his presidency by issuing what was called a “Muslim ban” to restrict the entry into the U.S. of noncitizens from predominantly Muslim nations.

Early in Trump’s first administration, federal agents expanded immigration operations to include raids at courthouses, which previously had been off-limits.

In 2017, Trump tried to rescind DACA, but the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort in 2020.

In 2019, Trump implemented the Remain in Mexico policy that for the first time forced noncitizens who came to the U.S. border seeking asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims were being decided. He also invoked Title 42 in 2020 to close U.S. borders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump succeeded in reducing legal immigration numbers during his first term. However, there is no evidence that his enforcement policies reduced the size of the overall undocumented population.

President Joe Biden sought to relax – although not abandon – some immigration enforcement measures implemented during Trump’s first term.

His administration slowed construction of the border wall championed by Trump. Biden also stopped workplace raids in 2021, and in 2023, he ended Title 42.

In 2023, Biden sought to respond to migration surges in a measured fashion, by temporarily closing ports of entry and increasing arrests.

In attempting to enforce the borders, his administration at times pursued tough measures. Biden continued deportation efforts directed at criminal noncitizens. Immigrant rights groups criticized his administration when armed Border Patrol officers on horseback were videotaped chasing Haitian migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As of 2022, the middle of the Biden’s term, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants lived in the U.S.

A second chance

Since his second inauguration, Trump has pursued a mass deportation campaign through executive orders that are unprecedented in their scope.

In January 2025, he announced an expanded, expedited removal process for any noncitizen apprehended anywhere in the country – not just the border region, as had been U.S. practice since 1996.

In March, Trump issued a presidential proclamation to deport Venezuelan nationals who were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. In doing so, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – an act used three times in U.S. history during declared wars that empowers presidents to remove foreign nationals from countries at war with the U.S.

Declaring an “invasion” of migrants into the U.S. in June, Trump deployed the military to assist in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

Trump also sought to dramatically upend birthright citizenship, the Constitutional provision that guarantees citizenship to any person born in the U.S. He issued an executive order in January that would bar citizenship to people born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

The birthright executive order has been challenged in federal court and is mostly likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Under the second Trump administration, immigration arrests are up, but actual deportation numbers are in flux.

ICE in June arrested the most people in a month in at least five years, roughly 30,000 immigrants. But deportations of noncitizens – roughly 18,000 – lagged behind those during the Obama administration’s record-setting year of 2013 in which more than 400,000 noncitizens were deported.

The gap between arrests and deportations shows the challenges the Trump administration faces in making good on his promised mass deportation campaign.

Undocumented immigrants often come to the U.S. to work or seek safety from natural disasters and mass violence.

These issues have not been seriously addressed by any modern U.S. president. Until it is, we can expect the undocumented population to remain in the millions.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Comparing ICE To The Gestapo Reveals People’s Fears For The US – A Holocaust Scholar Explains Why Nazi Analogies Remain Common, Yet Risky

A Paraguayan woman whose relative was detained by ICE agents scuffles with officers in the halls of an immigration court in New York City on July 16, 2025. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

BY DANIEL H, MAGILOW

PROFESSOR OF GERMAN,

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently sparked controversy by comparing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Nazi Germany’s notorious secret police, the Gestapo.

“Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets,” Walz said during a May 2025 speech at the University of Minnesota Law School’s commencement ceremony.

“They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons, no chance to mount a defense, not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye, just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared,” Walz added.

ICE, tasked with enforcing immigration policies, has dramatically increased the number of nationwide arrests of immigrants since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025. ICE’s arrests of immigrants have more than doubled in 38 states since then.

In recent months, other Democratic politicians, including U.S Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, have also compared ICE to the Gestapo, or Adolf Hitler’s “secret police,” as Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said in April.

But do ICE’s tactics actually resemble those of the Gestapo?

Because I am a scholar of modern Germany and the Holocaust, people regularly ask me if this analogy is accurate. The answer is complicated.

Understanding the Gestapo

The Nazi regime established the Gestapo, short for the German phrase Geheime Staatspolizei, meaning secret state police, soon after Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Among other responsibilities, the Gestapo was tasked with investigating political crimes and monitoring opposition activity. It later enforced racial laws in Germany and across occupied Europe.

As part of its daily work, the Gestapo identified and monitored the regime’s political enemies. It arrested, interrogated, detained and tortured suspects and sent others to concentration camps. To identify suspects, it often relied on anonymous denunciations that came not only from zealous Nazis, but also from disgruntled neighbors or business competitors who tipped off the Gestapo to Jews and other people.

While the Gestapo was relatively small in terms of personnel, it projected an image of being, as one scholar wrote, “omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”

It enforced the regime’s will and suppressed dissent not through sheer manpower but by creating a pervasive sense of fear. This aura of menace and terror has long outlived the Nazi regime itself.

ICE’s operations

ICE, with around 21,000 officers and staff operating in a country of more than 340 million, is smaller both in absolute terms and on a per capita basis. At its height between 1943 and 1945, the Gestapo had between 40,000 and 50,000 personnel in a country of 79 million.

ICE is set to expand its work in the next few years with an additional US$75 billion in funding that Congress appropriated in July as part of Trump’s tax and spending bill.

And while ICE focuses on immigration, the Gestapo had a more expansive role. It was responsible for suppressing all forms of political dissent, not just violations of immigration law.

ICE operates with vastly more advanced technologies that did not exist in the 1940s, including facial recognition and social media monitoring.

There is technically more transparency around ICE’s work than the Gestapo’s, since ICE is a federal agency that is subject to its work and information being reviewed by politicians and the public alike. But in June 2020, the first Trump administration reclassified ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as a “security/sensitive agency.” This designation makes it harder for people to request and receive information about ICE’s work through Freedom of Information Act records requests.

Like the Gestapo, ICE can seem performative in its work, like when it carried out a dramatic July raid of a cannabis farm in California in which balaclava-wearing officers used tear gas against protesters.

The Gestapo in today’s world

Since World War II and the fall of the Nazi regime, the term Gestapo has become shorthand in the United States to describe police repression.

Using the word Gestapo to describe the worst possible authoritarian oppression has been popularized in popular movies in everything from the 1943 film “Casablanca” and “The Black Gestapo” in 1975 to “Inglourious Basterds” in 2009 and “Jojo Rabbit” in 2019.

Walz’s remarks in May, though provocative, were also far from isolated in politics. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, as well as political observers, regularly use Gestapo and Nazi metaphors to attack their opponents.

In 2022, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia famously confused the term Gestapo with gazpacho soup in a gaffe that went viral. “Now we have Nancy Pelosi’s gazpacho police spying on members of Congress,” she said.

In 2024, Trump accused President Joe Biden of running a “Gestapo administration” as the Justice Department prosecuted Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Overall, mentions of the word Gestapo in social media increased by 184% between 2017 and 2024, according to the nonprofit group Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is among the organizations that have condemned making comparisons to the Holocaust and the Nazis for many reasons, including their historical inaccuracy and because they are insulting to people whose families remain scarred by the Holocaust.

What historical comparisons really say

Analogies can be useful for clarifying complex ideas. But especially when they stretch across decades and vastly different political contexts, they risk oversimplifying and trivializing history.

I believe that comparing ICE to the Gestapo is less a historical judgment than a reflection of modern anxiety – a fear that the U.S. is veering toward authoritarianism reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

If politicians and other public figures are looking for historical comparisons to modern law enforcement agencies that use severe tactics, there is, unfortunately, no shortage of options: the Soviet Union’s secret police agencies NKVD and KGB, Iran’s former secret police and intelligence agency SAVAK or East Germany’s Stasi, to name just a few. All of those organizations denied suspects due process and grossly violated human rights in order to protect political regimes – but they don’t necessarily easily compare to ICE, either.

Still, politicians and political observers alike most often turn to the Gestapo and other Nazi references instead.

Ultimately, the Gestapo, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust serve as a powerful, shared cultural reference point. The catastrophes of World War II epitomize the worst possible outcomes of evil left unchecked.

They have become the master moral paradigm and an ethical compass for the world today. In an age of polarization, World War II and the Holocaust remain the mirror in which Americans examine their present.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Birthright Citizenship Case At Supreme Court Reveals Deeper Questions About Judicial Authority To Halt Unlawful Policies

Legislation introduced by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley would ban judges from issuing most nationwide injunctions. Sen. Chuck Grassley office

BY CASSANDRA BURKE ROBERTSON

PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF

THE CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

When one judge blocks a president’s policies nationwide, alarm bells ring. Should a single judge wield this much power? Can they halt policies across the entire country after just a quick first look at whether they might be illegal? The Supreme Court now faces these critical questions.

In a lively session on May 15, 2025, filled with justices’ questions that at times interrupted the attorneys appearing before them, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case stemming from President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, the provision in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that says all children born in the United States are granted citizenship.

While the underlying lawsuit involves birthright citizenship, the immediate question before the court was about a legal tool called a “nationwide preliminary injunction.” This allows a single federal judge to temporarily halt presidential policies across the entire country – even before fully considering whether those policies are constitutional.

Three judges had stopped the president’s attempt to deny birthright citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States. It was the Trump administration’s appeal of those injunctions that was argued before the justices on May 15, with the administration asserting that “universal injunctions compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions,” and that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue them.

The justices also grappled with a key question: How much should judges consider whether a policy is likely constitutional when deciding whether to issue these temporary blocks? The National Immigration Law Center, which supports the use of nationwide injunctions, wrote in its filing with the court that granting the administration’s request to bar such injunctions would “tie the hands of the judicial branch in the face of unlawful executive action.”

What exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?

Immediate, irreparable harm

When presidents try to make big changes through executive orders, they often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, can stop these policies across the entire country.

These court orders have increasingly become a political battleground, increasingly sought by both Republicans and Democrats to fight presidential policies they oppose.

And while the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide preliminary injunctions, Congress has also held hearings on curtailing judges’ ability to issue the injunctions.

When the government creates a policy that might violate the Constitution or federal law, affected people can sue in federal court to stop it. While these lawsuits work their way through the courts – a process that often takes years – judges can issue what are called “preliminary injunctions” to temporarily pause the policy if they determine it might cause immediate, irreparable harm.

A “nationwide” injunction – sometimes called a “universal” injunction – goes further by stopping the policy for everyone across the country, not just for the people who filed the lawsuit.

Importantly, these injunctions are designed to be temporary. They merely preserve the status quo until courts can fully examine the case’s merits. But in practice, litigation proceeds so slowly that executive actions blocked by the courts often expire when successor administrations abandon the policies.

More executive orders, more injunctions

Nationwide injunctions aren’t new, but several things have made them more contentious recently.

First, since a closely divided and polarized Congress rarely passes major legislation anymore, presidents rely more on executive orders to get substantive things done. This creates more opportunities to challenge presidential actions in court.

Second, lawyers who want to challenge these orders have gotten better at “judge shopping” – filing cases in districts where they’re likely to get judges who agree with their client’s views.

Third, with growing political division, both parties aim to use these injunctions more aggressively whenever the other party controls the White House.

Affecting real people

These legal fights have tangible consequences for millions of Americans.

Take DACA, the common name for the program formally called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects about 500,000 young immigrants from deportation. For more than 10 years, these young immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” have faced constant uncertainty.

That’s because, when President Barack Obama created DACA in 2012 and sought to expand it via executive order in 2015, a Texas judge blocked the expansion with a nationwide injunction. When Trump tried to end DACA, judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. blocked that move. The program, and the legal challenges to it, continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the second Trump administration faces continued legal challenges over the constitutionality of the DACA program.

More recently, judges have used nationwide injunctions to block several Donald Trump policies.

While much of the current debate focuses on presidential policies, nationwide injunctions have also blocked congressional legislation.

The Corporate Transparency Act, passed in 2021 and originally scheduled to go into effect in 2024, combats financial crimes by requiring businesses to disclose their true owners to the government. A Texas judge blocked this law in 2024 after gun stores challenged it.

In early 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect, but the Trump administration announced it simply wouldn’t enforce it – showing how these legal battles can become political power struggles.

Too much power or necessary protection?

Some critics say nationwide injunctions give too much power to a single judge. If lawyers can pick which judges hear their cases, this raises serious questions about fairness.

Supporters argue that these injunctions protect important rights. For example, without nationwide injunctions in the citizenship cases, babies born to mothers without legal permanent residency would be American citizens in some states but not others – an impossible situation.

Congress is considering legislation to limit judges’ ability to grant nationwide injunctions.

The Trump administration has also tried to make it expensive and difficult to challenge its policies in court. In March 2025, Trump ordered government lawyers to demand large cash deposits – called “security bonds” – from anyone seeking an injunction. Though these bonds are already part of existing court rules, judges usually set them at just a few hundred dollars or waive them entirely when people raise constitutional concerns.

Under the new policy, critics worry that “plaintiffs who sue the government could be forced to put up enormous sums of money in order to proceed with their cases.”

Another way to address the concerns about a single judge blocking government action would be to require a three-judge panel to hear cases involving nationwide injunctions, requiring at least two of them to agree. This is similar to how courts handled major civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s.

My research on this topic suggests that three judges working together would be less likely to make partisan decisions, while still being able to protect constitutional rights when necessary. Today’s technology also makes it easier for judges in different locations to work together than it was decades ago.

As the Supreme Court weighs in on this debate, the outcome will affect how presidents can implement policies and how much power individual judges have to stop them. Though it might seem like a technical legal issue, it will shape how government works for years to come – as well as the lives of those who live in the U.S.

READ RIGINAL STORIES HERE

Is The Foreigner My Neighbor? A Christian Dialogue On Immigration

JAMES ORR AND JOEL LOOPER

We asked two of our contributors to discuss the ethics of Trump’s immigration policies.

Dear James,

My wife, an immigration attorney here in Texas, held a well-attended “know your rights” session for immigrants last night. But not a soul who was at risk of deportation came. Undocumented people here are terrified, and they have good reason to be. Vulnerable women, male breadwinners, and people facing destitution or death in their countries of origin are being deported on an hourly basis—not, as the Trump administration sometimes claims, just criminals.

Trump and his backers often say that immigrants are leeching off the American social service system. Some version of “We need to take care of our own” is their typical conversation-stopper. But the truth is that undocumented immigrants are the ones taking care of us. They pay taxes, including social security tax, which they’ll never benefit from themselves. Nor can they receive other entitlements like Medicaid or SNAP. Businesses stay afloat by paying them below minimum wage for farm work, picking our fruits and vegetables, nannying, or construction work. They’re an easily preyed upon shadow population—and the American economy is deeply dependent upon them.

So, as you can imagine, I don’t find President Trump’s policies to be morally coherent or rational even from a purely self-interested perspective. But more importantly, I think they’re theologically unsupportable.

Christians are supposed to be a people who live a different sort of Spirit-led politics, a “nation” (1 Peter 2:9) of people from every nation. That we Christians would deport our fellow citizens of the kingdom because they don’t have the right papers and don’t look like “job creators” militates against this fundamental Christian logic. It also repulsed the Catholic Church’s greatest modern thinkers. As Gaudium et Spes says, deportation “insults human dignity,” “poison[s] human society,” and is a “supreme dishonor to the Creator.”

Clearly you think otherwise. I’d be pleased to learn why.

Joel

Dear Joel,

Your wife’s experience indicates that the laws constituting America as a nation and Americans as a people are at last being enforced. That is a good thing. What is mystifying is that it should have taken political leaders so long to fulfill their duty to implement laws enacted by Congress at the behest of the people. As Aquinas reminds us, it is a basic precept of natural law that rulers are to uphold the positive laws that it grounds, especially those laws intended to protect citizens from physical injury and financial insecurity. Romans 13:1–7 instructs Christians to submit to governing authorities on the basis that they are instituted by God to maintain order and punish wrongdoing. Illegal migration by definition involves disregarding the legal authority of a nation.

Rapid unvetted migration at scale harms citizens. It depresses working-class wages. It strains public services. It sustains the vast criminal networks that make up the human trafficking industry. It facilitates the flow of drugs that are killing tens of thousands every year. It erodes civic trust. It gradually dissolves the shared heritage of a people—its norms, its traditions, its language, its culture—to the point where it can no longer use the first-person plural. And it harms the migrants’ countries of origin by draining them of the very citizens who would make poor countries less poor.

You cite Gaudium et Spes, which does indeed condemn unjust deportation; but it is not unjust to deport those who hold in contempt the laws of the nation whose hospitality they are seeking to enjoy. Moreover, that encyclical also insists on the indispensability of ordered societies (§26) and the importance of legitimate political boundaries (§74). Nowhere does it imply that there is a universal human right to live and work in a nation, nor would it have been coherent to posit one. Immigration is not a human right that any charter or convention would recognize—it is a privilege that should be granted to a person only insofar as it promotes the national interest.

Yours,
James

Dear James,

We can agree that Gaudium et Spes shouldn’t be interpreted as prohibiting deportation no matter what. Some people do hold the law in contempt, after all. But even on your reading, the Trump administration’s mass deportations should be understood to fall under the council’s condemnation. The first people the administration deported legally entered and applied for asylum through the now-defunct CBP One app. Others with no criminal record were sent to Guantánamo Bay. If the council fathers thought these people deportable, what immigrant isn’t a legitimate target (see §26)?

Further, shutting down the U.S. asylum process—which President Biden campaigned on and President Trump carried out—appears to violate the right to asylum (article 14) set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (article 1. A. 2). U.S. asylum law is based on the Protocol’s definition of a refugee; hence the recent proliferation of immigration-related lawsuits.

But I doubt the ultimate basis of our disagreement lies here. Perhaps we can get at it by considering the biblical query, “Who is my neighbor?” If I’ve read you rightly, you believe Christians should put their countrymen above the foreigner. I believe, however, that Christ rejected such thinking in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Recall what led the expert in the law to ask Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:27) He believed that to inherit eternal life he must love his neighbor as himself. Jesus agreed. In fact, he called this the second greatest commandment (Matt. 25:27).

So Christians advocating strict limits on immigration seem to have a dilemma: (1) Either they must argue that they could lovingly deport their neighbor—and themselves. Or (2) they must say that the foreigner isn’t their neighbor. Do you believe that the foreigner isn’t your neighbor?

Regards,
Joel

Dear Joel,

You argue that Trump’s deportations violate Gaudium et Spes, but that document champions the common good, not an unrestricted right of entry for all. You claim that shutting down asylum breaches international law, but that law grants a right to seek asylum, not to receive it, and restricts refugee status to the persecuted, excluding economic migrants.

Hospitality is a virtue, but not one that eclipses every other. Chesterton’s observation that “[t]he modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad” aptly captures the way some Christians assume that hospitality trumps the many and various virtues required to preserve a just and ordered community.

You say limits on immigration deny that foreigners are neighbors, citing the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But that parable simply enjoins charity to those within our sphere of moral concern, not a dissolution of Samaria’s borders with Judaea! It’s a singular, proximate act—binding a wound—not a summons to treat all, near or far, kin or stranger, with equal practical regard.

Charity does not end at home, but it does begin there. Paul urges the Christians in Galatia to do good to all, but especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). Love, in other words, is radial; and love’s intensities must be ordered if we finite and fallen creatures are to love all our neighbors well.

Your dilemma presents a false dichotomy: The foreigner can be my neighbor situationally, but that does not mean he enjoys perpetual parity of moral regard with those tied to me by kin, culture, or citizenship. Deportation is a loving act insofar as it upholds justice by protecting the innocent. Nowhere is this truth plainer than when the deported are criminals like the gang members and people-traffickers of Tren de Aragua, notorious for their murderous violence and callous commodification of human life.

Reconciling love for humanity and love for one’s own is a moral challenge that will often be freighted with difficulty, but no Christian should treat it as insuperable.

Warmly,
James

Dear James,

Do you have in mind a right to “seek” asylum that a government could fulfill without a functioning asylum program? That’s a pretty miserable little right. But no matter. We have bigger (theological) fish to fry.

Back to the Good Samaritan. You wrote that the parable “simply enjoins charity to those within our sphere of moral concern,” not “to treat all, near or far, kin or stranger, with equal regard.”

I take it you’re describing the ordo amoris, the notion that Christians should love those closest to them—family, friends, countrymen—before strangers and foreigners. You’ve rightly noted before in First Things that Augustine is often credited with Christianizing the idea. But in coming to grips with the Good Samaritan, Augustine didn’t put human beings in rank order by how tightly natural ties bound them. Instead, he asked in De Doctrina Christiana: “Who can fail to see that there is no exception to this, nobody to whom compassion is not due? The commandment extends even to our enemies.” Augustine didn’t jive well with our modern ordo amoris.

His conclusion is rooted in the parable itself. Some readers will know that Samaritans—descendants of the exiled northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17)—had built a counter-temple on Mount Gerizim. A century before Jesus’s birth, Jews burned that temple, sacked their cities, and enslaved the population. Samaritans could hardly fail to remember this. For their part, Jews saw Samaritans as a cultural pollution: heretics at best, traitors and idolators at worst.

So Jesus’s Samaritan had far weightier natural reasons to bypass the wounded Jew than American Christians today have to summarily deport their neighbors without papers. These two didn’t know each other. The Samaritan doubtless had kin and friends with pressing claims on his affections, time, and money. Their peoples hated each other.

And yet he showed mercy. Doing likewise, Jesus said, is the path to eternal life (Luke 10:25, 37).

Joel

Dear Joel,

No one contests the basic principle of asylum. But the mass importation of tens of millions of unvetted aliens—some deserving asylum, but many not—has shattered public trust in such systems all across the West. It has hardened citizens against the truly needy and replaced charity with resentment, especially among society’s most marginalized.

You misunderstand the ordo amoris. Love for all could not possibly entail equal practical concern for all. That way lies moral paralysis and social collapse. Proximity is the criterion for calibrating compassion. No one would have faulted the Samaritan for failing to care for the victim had he decided not to take the road to Jericho that day. If you think that the message of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that Samaria should welcome and care for all of Judaea’s dispossessed, think again.

In the passage you cite, Augustine tells us that compassion is due to all, not that it is due to all to the same degree. He also correctly insists the duty extends to enemies, but note that he uses the word inimicos (personal enemies), not hostes (public enemies). The command to forgive and love a personal foe does not mean we should embrace those who are hostile to the common good. And if you’re not clear that unvetted mass migration swells the ranks of public enemies, ask the grieving families of Laken Riley, Mollie Tibbetts, Kate Steinle, Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, or Aiden Clark.

Strangers deserve kindness within the constraints of reason and justice. Aquinas rightly insists that prioritizing the common good means barring alieni who threaten it, a position plainly rooted in Scripture: Deuteronomy 23:3–4 excludes Moabites for their past hostility; the fate of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9:21–27 for deceitful entry is servitude not membership; Leviticus 19:34 applies only to sojourners who honor their host nation, as Ruth the Moabite so movingly does (Ruth 1:16); Hebrews 13:2 and Matthew 25:35 urge personal kindness to strangers; and so on. None of these justifies the immense social upheaval and demographic chaos that mass migration has unleashed.

Yours,
James

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

America Is Increasingly Dependent On Foreign Doctors − But Their Path To Immigration Is Getting Harder

BY SELMA HEDLUND

POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATE AT

CENTER OF FORCED DISPLACEMENT

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a pressing issue: The U.S. health care system is increasingly dependent on immigrant physicians, but it’s becoming harder for aspiring ones to work and settle in the U.S.

Today, 1 in 4 doctors are foreign-born, international medical graduates. Their numbers are even larger in underserved areas – essentially, low-income, more rural parts of the country where many American doctors don’t want to work.

This immigrant workforce is key to offsetting a dire physician shortage. The need for more doctors is due, in part, to America’s growing and aging population; U.S.-born doctors’ unwillingness to move to poorer and more rural areas; and U.S.-born doctors’ lack of interest in going into primary care, which can be less lucrative and prestigious than other areas of medicine.

As a result, immigrant doctors have become indispensable in hospitals and clinics across the nation. But while they’re in demand, more and more foreign doctors are starting to see the immigration process as a risky endeavor.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, I wrote my dissertation about how immigrant physicians navigate the U.S. immigration system and foreign licensing procedures. My interviewees described how a combination of stricter immigration policies and more competition for residency spots have made the U.S. a less feasible destination.

Visa vicissitudes

U.S. visas can be categorized into two categories: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Nonimmigrant visas, such as tourist, student or exchange visitors visas, prohibit holders from having what’s called “immigrant intent,” meaning that they don’t plan to use their visas to permanently stay in the U.S.

In order for immigrant doctors to be licensed to practice in the U.S., they need to complete licensing exams. They also need to obtain clinical experience in the U.S. This can be completed while on a tourist visa or a student visa, which are relatively easy to obtain.

However, all immigrant physicians – even if they’re certified specialists in their home country – need to get accepted into and complete a U.S. residency program in order to practice in the U.S. as specialists. These are intensive, supervised training programs that can last up to seven years.

Nonetheless, a majority of immigrant doctors in the U.S. will complete their American residencies on nonimmigrant visas, even though by this point in the process they quite clearly have immigrant intent.

It wasn’t always this way.

There’s a special work visa called the H-1B that allows for both immigrant and nonimmigrant intent. A few decades ago, many immigrant physicians entered residency programs that sponsored H-1B visas, which served as stepping stones to green cards.

But drastic restrictions to the number of people admitted into this visa program, coupled with cuts in graduate medical education funding, have directed most foreign-born doctors to what’s called a J-1 exchange visitors visa.

Challenges of working in underserved areas

The J-1 not only explicitly prohibits immigration intent, it also requires that doctors return to their home country for at least two years upon completing American residency training.

Foreign-born doctors nonetheless pursue the J-1 because there’s the opportunity to obtain a waiver, with limited slots that will allow them to remain in the U.S. and adjust to an H-1B visa. If selected for the waiver program, they must commit to a minimum of three years of service in a designated medically underserved area in the U.S.

While this system can offer short-term relief to physician shortages, it can also lead to exploitation.

As one interviewee told me, “We hear very scary things about the J-1 waiver. The employers can take advantage and make you work more and pay less.”

For the duration of the waiver program, immigrant physicians have minimal ability to change employers without violating the conditions of the waiver – and their path to immigration. Underserved areas are often understaffed and underresourced, which can make for stressful working conditions.

Forced to go above and beyond

The challenges don’t end with the visa process. There are financial burdens as well.

International medical graduates often spend tens of thousands of dollars to pay for U.S. medical licensing exams, multiple visa applications, international travel and lodging, residency and green card applications.

They also spend months in unpaid positions in hospital settings to gain the U.S. clinical experience that’s required to apply for residency. Then, in order to match into residency, immigrant physicians typically need to outperform their American peers on exams. They also need to have more prestigious research qualifications and stronger recommendation letters. Still, immigrant doctors are more likely to match into less competitive residency programs.

While interviewing immigrant physicians, many testified to the competition getting steeper in recent years.

“I told a friend, if you don’t have scores in upper 90s in all the exams and you’re not a green card holder, don’t even bother,” an Indian physician who immigrated 20 years ago explained to me. “It’s so tough.”

Stuck in limbo

Over the course of my research I noticed a trend: Many international medical graduates will come to the U.S. on student visas to pursue U.S. graduate degrees in health-related fields, such as public health, before they even start the licensing process. This helps them get their foot in the door into a very complicated immigration system and build a stronger resume as they prepare for residency applications. It’s also another expensive investment.

But even those who match into and complete residency won’t necessarily be able to stay and work in America.

Those with positive experiences from working in underserved communities often struggle to remain in their positions after their waiver contracts are fulfilled because of the green card backlog.

The average immigrant’s wait time for a green card has doubled since the national quota system was introduced in the early 1990s.

By 2018, an applicant had to wait an average of 18 months to get approved for their green card and another five years and eight months to receive it. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new barriers and delays.

Indians, one of the biggest nationalities among immigrant physicians, have the longest wait times under the current system, sometimes waiting up to a decade to obtain the security of permanent residence. Among the 1.8 million cases currently stuck in the employment-based green card backlog, 63% are Indian nationals.

A pending green card application is often formally considered abandoned if the applicant leaves the country, preventing people from visiting loved ones abroad for years.

No fix on the horizon

Despite frequent calls for change and reform, these bottlenecks continue to adversely affect both patients and doctors.

While the current model has its benefits, it also reflects a trend in which much-needed immigrant professionals live in prolonged, demoralizing uncertainty. Work visas have been subject to increasing cuts and restrictions in recent years under both the Trump and Biden administrations. Conditions will likely worsen if Trump returns to office: The “Muslim ban” he enacted in 2017 adversely affected many immigrant doctors and their patients, and his calls for increased vetting will likely exacerbate existing barriers to legal immigration.

A paradox has emerged: While the U.S. says it wants to attract and retain world class talent, its byzantine immigration system continually discourages potential hires.

The doctors I interviewed gave a variety of reasons for wanting to work in the U.S., including better lifestyles and opportunities for professional development. But the complexity and sheer unwieldiness of the U.S. visa regime is causing the nation to lose skilled professionals to other countries with more streamlined processes.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Immigrants Are Unsung Heroes Of Global Trade And Value Creation

AUTHORS:

BEDASSA TADESSE

PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH

ROGER WHITE

PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS

WHITTIER COLLEGE

In nearly every country that hosts foreign-born citizens, immigration emerges as a lightning rod for controversy. The economic realities of immigration, however, are far more complex than the negative sound bites suggest.

Far from being a burden, as critics claim, immigrants play pivotal roles in driving innovation, enhancing productivity and fostering economic growth in their adopted countries. They also elevate their adopted and origin countries’ standings in global value chains, contributing to economic resilience.

We are economists who study global trade and migration, and our recent work reveals that immigrants contribute far more to the economic fabric of nations than previously understood.

By facilitating what’s known as “trade in value added,” or TiVA, immigrants play a crucial role in helping countries specialize their production, move up the value chain and significantly enhance trade sophistication.

Moving up the value chain means progressing from producing basic, low-value goods to more complex, higher-value products. This shift involves improving skills, technology and production techniques, allowing a country to capture more economic value and develop advanced industries.

So, what exactly is trade in value added, and why is it important?

In today’s global economy, products are rarely made entirely in one country. Instead, different stages of production occur across multiple nations. TiVA measures each country’s contribution to a final product, providing clearer insight into global value chains. For instance, while an iPhone may be assembled in China, its components come from various countries, each adding value.

Measuring the effect on global value chains

Our study found that a 10% increase in immigrants from a particular country residing in one of the 38 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member states leads to a 2.08% increase in the value added from their home country that becomes embedded in their host country’s exports to the world.

This effect was strongest in the services sector, followed closely by agriculture and manufacturing.

To understand how this works, consider Indian software engineers in Silicon Valley. Their understanding of the U.S. tech industry and India’s IT sector can lead to partnerships. These partnerships lead to Indian firms providing specialized coding services for American tech giants. The result? Higher-value U.S. tech exports that incorporate Indian expertise. This perfectly illustrates how immigrants boost trade in value added.

Or take Chinese immigrants in Italy’s fashion industry. Their cultural knowledge might help Italian luxury brands tailor products for the Chinese market and connect Italian designers with highly skilled textile workers in China. The result? Italian fashion exports incorporate Chinese craftsmanship, elevating both countries’ global fashion value chain positions.

Our findings show that immigrants are pivotal bridges in global trade networks. They leverage their unique knowledge, skills and connections to strengthen economic bonds between nations. That’s in line with previous research showing the significant role immigrants play in fostering bilateral trade.

Why immigration matters in the global economy

In an era of increasing skepticism toward globalization and migration, understanding the positive economic impacts of immigration is crucial. Our current and previous research, and the findings from related studies, indicate that rather than “stealing jobs,” immigrants often create value and new economic opportunities that might not otherwise exist.

Immigrants bring diverse skills, knowledge and networks to their host countries that can enhance innovation, fill labor shortages and open new market opportunities. They often possess unique insights into their home country markets, helping host country firms navigate cultural nuances and business practices that might otherwise pose trade barriers.

For home countries, emigrants can serve as cultural ambassadors, creating awareness, showcasing products and services, and helping to integrate their homeland into global value chains. They may also contribute to knowledge transfer, investment flows and business connections that boost their home and host countries’ economic development.

Moreover, immigrants’ ability to enhance trade in value added suggests they play a role in moving countries up the economic value chain. Rather than simply facilitating trade in raw materials or essential manufactured goods, immigrants appear to boost trade in more sophisticated, higher-value products and services. This is crucial for economic development, as countries that position themselves higher in global value chains tend to see bigger benefits.

Rethinking immigration and trade policies

Our observations have important implications for both immigration and trade. For one, they suggest that restrictive immigration policies might have unintended consequences, hindering a country’s trade performance and position in global value chains. Countries that want to become more economically competitive might consider more open immigration policies.

What’s more, our research indicates that immigrants’ economic benefits extend beyond the often-cited labor-market and fiscal impacts – in other words, having more workers who pay more taxes.

The evidence suggests policymakers should take a more holistic view of immigration’s economic effects, considering its role in facilitating sophisticated international trade and value creation.

Our results also align with previous research highlighting the potential value of workforce diversity for businesses, particularly for firms engaged in international trade. Employees from diverse national backgrounds can bring valuable insights and connections that help their companies navigate global markets and value chains.

It’s worth noting that immigrants’ impact on trade in value added varies across countries and sectors. This suggests that rather than one-size-fits-all approaches, targeted policies might most effectively leverage immigration for economic benefit.

Maximizing immigration’s positive impacts on trade and value chains also requires supportive policies and institutions that allow immigrants to use their skills and networks fully. These might include programs to assist with economic integration, language training, credential recognition and support for immigrant entrepreneurship.

A new perspective on immigration

As the global economy continues to evolve, with value chains becoming ever more complex and interconnected, the role of immigrants as facilitators of trade and value creation is likely to grow even more significant. Countries that recognize and leverage this potential stand to gain a competitive edge in the global marketplace.

Our research paints a picture of immigrants not as economic burdens but as valuable assets who enhance their host and home countries’ positions in the global economy. By making sophisticated trade linkages possible, and by boosting participation in global value chains, immigrants contribute to economic growth and development in ways that go far beyond conventional understanding.

As debates around immigration continue, it’s crucial to move beyond simplistic narratives and recognize the complex and often subtle ways that immigrants contribute to prosperity. In an interconnected world, immigrants aren’t just crossing borders – they are helping to weave the fabric of global trade and value creation.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Has Africa Become A Battleground For The New Cold War? It’s China Vs America In Mother Continent

Rich in resources and strategic opportunities, Africa has become the new hunting ground where China and the US are vying for influence. This rivalry, rooted mainly in economic ambitions rather than ideology, bears striking similarities to the old US-Soviet Cold War

BY PRABHASH K. DUTTA

From mining to road construction to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) to economic and political governance model training, China is ubiquitous in Africa. The West, espeically the US, today sees China as its principal challenger almost everywhere but despite the flare-ups in the Pacific particularly the South China Sea, the simmering tension is equally palpable in Africa.

The US-led West might have missed the trick but China’s Africa story begins in the 1950s, when Western powers rivalled, at times one another, to maintain their superiority in Africa. China — along with India — vouched for freedom and self-reliance of African countries through several channels and platforms including the most-famous Bandung conference hosted by Indonesia.

Soviet Russia, rivalled for hegemony. This time, the key players are not the United States and the Soviet Union, rather the US and China. Africa has emerged as a critical theatre in this geopolitical contest.

Incidentally, the new cold war, if we can call it so, involves post-Soviet rising communist power which like the former seeks to challenge the leading capitalist power on the globe. Back then, Asia was seen as the hunting ground for its known exploitable natural resources and manpower, Africa is now viewed as the new minefiled to dig prosperity and security from.

However, the crucial question remains: Is Africa really becoming the new battleground in this global power game?

How China has expanded its footprint in the Mother Continent

Africa is called the Mother Continent as the theory of evolution tells us that humanity sprang from the earlier branches of humans that shot from eastern African roots. In the post-War age of ideological expansion, China set its eyes on Africa as the USSR and the US-led West were involved at various points in Asia, East Europe and Central and Latin Americas.

China’s relationship with Africa has been building for decades. At the Bandung conference, representatives from 29 Asian and African countries gathered to voice their opposition to colonialism and to seek economic cooperation among the Global South —- back then called the “Third World”.

In early decades, China’s interest in Africa was primarily driven by a sense of solidarity with other nations that were also shaking off the chains of colonial rule.

Fast forward to post-Cold War, especially after the 2008 global meltdown, and China’s presence in Africa has grown immensely. The country has poured billions into the continent, building roads, railways, ports, and power plants.

China gradually in the middle years, and in recent years electrifyingly, overtaken the United States as Africa’s biggest trading partner, and its investments continue to shape the continent’s economic landscape. But these investments often come with strings attached, such as requiring African countries to use Chinese companies and materials for their infrastructure projects, further cementing Beijing’s influence.

This isn’t just about business — it’s also about strategy. Africa’s wealth of natural resources, from oil and minerals to fertile agricultural land, is vital to China’s booming economy. In return for access to these resources, China has offered financial aid, loans, and development assistance to African nations.

This hands-off approach made China a popular partner for many African leaders, even as it draws criticism from those who worry about the lack of transparency, environmental damage, and the support of authoritarian regimes.

China’s game in Africa has moved in phases — solidarity in early decades to investments and low-interest loans in middle years to complete domination in trade and now to political governance training, something that African leaders earlier accused the US and its allies of doing. China earlier policy of non-political interference helped it edge out the Western countries in developing cooperation with African countries.

According to the African Centre for Strategic Studies (ACSS), “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has escalated its training of African party and government officials as part of CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping’s ‘new model of party-to-party relations,’ particularly in the Global South.”

“An indication of this renewed emphasis is the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School. Launched in 2022, the Nyerere School trains ruling party members from the Former Liberation Movements of Southern Africa (FLMSA) coalition—Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe,” it says.

However, political training by China is not new as they began this programme back in the 1960s. But the recent and rapid change is the emphasis on propagating the governance idea of Xi Jinping.

The Nyerere School is the first institute to be modeled after the CCP Central Party School, which trains China’s top cadres and leaders. It is also the first of its kind to cater to multiple African political parties.

“This school parallels the China-Africa Institute, a continental CCP initiative to train African party and government leaders. The Institute, which started in 2019, is based within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing and the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa [Ethiopia],” says ACSS.

Why America is concerned and how it responds

The US seems increasingly alarmed by China’s growing influence in Africa as Washington DC sees Beijing as a challenge to American interests on the continent. For a long time, the US has been used to calling the shots in Africa. Now, with China’s rise, that dominance has been seriously challenged. In several countries — from Ethiopia to Uganda to Angola — China has practically come to dictate market terms.

American leaders, though overtly critical of China’s action in the South China Sea, have been particularly concerned that China is exploiting Africa in ways that mirror the colonial powers of the past. There are fears that Chinese loans are leading African countries into a debt trap, potentially compromising their independence. The recent Kenya riots — following an economic crisis linked to Chinese debts — were seen as fitting similar patterns witnessed in countries like Sri Lanka.

The US has also accused China of propping up corrupt and authoritarian regimes, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, and undermining democratic institutions—all in pursuit of its own economic and strategic goals.

Of late, the US has also courted some of the African dictators to counter Chinese influence on the continent. For example, US President Joe Biden hosted President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea reportedly to fend off China’s efforts to build a naval base in that country.

The naval base would give China a new military foothold in the Atlantic Ocean on the Gulf of Guinea, off the coast of West Africa. Biden ignored America’s own complaints of human rights abuse against the regime led by the world’s longest-serving ruler.

Incidentally, Equatorial Guinea, too, is facing acute economic crisis and 82-year-old Obiang, who has been in power for 44 years, has appointed a former banker as the prime minister this week to fix economic woes of the country.

The US, on its part, has been trying hard to counter China’s influence with its own initiatives — including the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), which aim to promote economic development and good governance in Africa.

Additionally, the US has expanded its military presence across the continent, establishing a network of bases and partnerships designed to combat terrorism and protect its strategic As America continues to influence Africa in the face of China’s relentless economic engagement, the cold war narrative looks only natural on the continent.

What Africa is doing to stave off two rival powers

While China and the US compete for influence, African nations are not just passive bystanders in the new geopolitical struggle. Several African leaders have become adept at playing both sides, using their relationships with China and the US to secure benefits for their countries. However, this balancing act is fraught with challenges, given their rivalry heats up over even a seemingly minor issue.

Africa’s home to some of the world’s fastest-growing economies — including Niger, Senegal, Libya, Rwanda, Ethiopia and the Gambia — and holds vast reserves of the natural resources that, in the first place, make both China and the US interested in the region.

Its rapidly growing population and increasing urbanisation makes Africa a massive future market for goods and services. At this junction, African countries usually take a middle path but that is also fraught with risks, given their sandwiched situation between Chinese money and America’s muscle.

How the new cold war may shape up Africa

It is a difficult proposition to predict the future of Africa in this new cold war as the post-Covid realities of the world are changing at a rapid rate. China’s economy is stagnating. The country is witnessing a flight of big companies as Beijing continues to antagonise the West, which is home to most of the top multinational firms.

However, there is another possibility that Africa may actually benefit tremendously from the increased attention and investment not only from rivals China and the US but also from emerging economic giants such as India and Brazil.

For Africa to emerge stronger from this geopolitical oneupmanship, its leaders look for ways to pass through these turbulent waters carefully. The sudden collapse of growing economies like Sri Lanka have driven home the point that too much dependence on opaque Chinese loans may endager their long-term prosperity.

Whether Africa can extract benefit from this China-US or communist-capitalist tug-of-war and build a secure future depends on how its current crop of leadership explores and chooses their options. For, the continent has to find solutions to its food, energy, environmental, and social crises that threaten to devastate not just Africa but potentially the entire world.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE