Wednesday, April 9, 2025

Immigration Myths

 How Immigrant Tales Are Told Through A Bag Of Food On A Sculpture : The  Salt : NPR

Immigration Myths 

Immigration has become one of the world's hottest potatoes. It seems virtually everyone in every nation vilifies immigrants — everyone, that is, except that nation's economists. In the United States, the Congressional Budget Office projected that a surge in immigration over the period 2021-2026 would add $8.9 trillion to the nation's GDP over the next decade, simultaneously reducing the national deficit by $0.9 trillion. So it turns out this is less of a political topic than it is one of economics vs. misinformation, which makes immigration myths fair game to be placed squarely in the crosshairs of our skeptical eye.

Immigration MythsI'm just going to say this up front: This is a completely US-centric episode. It would not be practical to attempt a comprehensive discussion of immigration issues in every country, so I'm confining this one to the country where the majority of Skeptoid listeners are. To my international listeners, you may either skip to your next podcast, or stick around to better understand the volatile situation in the United States.

One of the first things to understand is that there are many different types of immigrants, of many different statuses. Let's run through a few of these:

  • US citizens who immigrated and eventually became citizens. It's still accurate to call them immigrants.

  • Family members of immigrants: Foreign spouses, children, and other close relatives of US citizens or other lawful permanent residents.

  • Employment-based immigrants: There are five types of visas for this, EB-1 through EB-5, for about 140,000 people a year like investors, elite athletes, doctors, professors, exceptionally skilled workers, religious workers, and so on.

  • Temporary visa holders: This includes people studying here with a student visa, and temporary workers who legally are in the country to work for a limited period of time. These also include people on an H-1B, H-2A or H-2B (which are the seasonal migrant workers who come and go mostly according to agricultural seasons), O-1, L-1, or other visa types.

  • Refugees and asylum seekers: Following the atrocities of WWII, international law incorporated the right to seek asylum for persecution (or reasonable fear of persecution) based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The United States is among 146 nations who are signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and in 1980 adopted the Refugee Act of 1980 which brought the US in line with international obligations. This requires the United States — and all 145 other signatory nations — to grant safe haven to asylum seekers. At the time of this podcast, various judicial and executive actions have placed the US in violation of these acts; and so while present status is contradictory and unclear, refugees still make up a large category of immigrants.

  • Undocumented people: People who have entered the country without any of the above credentials, or who have overstayed their credentials. Obviously, these are the ones some Americans are concerned about or fearful of. They generally represent about one quarter of each year's immigrations, though that number may go up and down a lot year over year.

So that's six basic categories of immigrants — five of which are totally legal, and all of which are common worldwide. They come from every country, from every background, with every aspiration, for every reason. Suddenly the idea of an "immigrant" isn't so stark. It's blurry. Is there really any one thing you can say of "immigrants" that's accurate? Can such a culturally and economically diverse class be painted with a single brush?

I fear our episode today may be a fool's errand. For every myth about immigrants, there are many for whom it is true. So what I've done is go to all the articles I could find about immigration myths, and collected all of those that are worth talking about. But I ignored the answers given for each myth, and instead put the skeptical eye on the job, to cut through the popular stuff, and get to the real facts.

So without further ado, let's give ten top immigration myths the full Skeptoid treatment.

1. Immigrants commit more crimes than native citizens.

This is #1 because it's probably the most widely believed, and yet most surprisingly false, of all the immigration myths. It's often hard to study, because most states' arrest records don't include citizenship status. Only one state does, as of the time of this writing: Texas.

A 2020 study using data from the Texas Department of Public Study looked at data throughout the 20-teens to see who committed the most crimes. The results:

  • US native citizens averaged from 1,000-1,100 arrests per 100,000 persons.

  • Legal, documented immigrants (five of those six categories we just talked about) averaged 800-900 arrests per 100,000 — substantially fewer than native citizens.

  • But the most surprising? Undocumented immigrants — or "illegals" as some call them — were the most legal of all, averaging only 400 arrests per 100,000.

Why would this be? According to a paper by the Stanford Institute for Economic Research which studied males aged 18 to 40, undocumented immigrants are more likely to be employed, married with children, and in good health, which are all factors associated with a lower crime rate. Conversely, white males in the United States, especially those who did not finish high school, were more likely to be unemployed, unmarried, and in poor health.

And recall this data came from Texas, a state not renowned for its positive reporting about undocumented immigrants.

2. Immigrants raise the crime rates where they settle.

Based on 150 years of US Census Bureau data, a 2024 study by Northwestern University found that immigrants, including both legal and undocumented, are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than native citizens. Thus, increased immigrant populations end up being associated with declining crime rates.

Largest Immigrant Groups in USA | 1820-2023 | Immigration to United States 

3. Undocumented immigrants freeload all kinds of social services.

While immigrants fund social services with their taxes at about the same rate as native citizens, some are unable to access some of those very same services they funded due to their citizenship status. A 2023 brief by the Cato Institute found that in 2020, immigrants consumed 21% less welfare and entitlement benefits than native citizens. This again goes back to the fact that they are significantly more likely to be employed and in good health than native citizens.

4. Undocumented immigrants pay no taxes.

Immigrants, documented or not, pay the same taxes everyone else does. They pay sales tax, property tax, and almost all of them pay income tax — and when they are illegally paid cash under the table, it's the American employer who's committing a crime, not the worker. Various studies find that undocumented immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion dollars a year in federal, state, and local income taxes.What Some New US Citizens Look Forward to Most

5. Immigrant laborers drive wages down, harming native citizens.

Immigrants tend to complement, rather than compete with, native workers. Certain industries, such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality, tend to have their lowest-paying jobs filled more often by immigrant laborers. So since they are working different roles with different skills, their lower pay does not reduce the pay of native workers in other roles. On the contrary; the National Bureau of Economic Research found in 2024 that immigration from 2000 to 2019 increased wages for less-educated US born workers by 1.7% to 2.6%.

6. There is an unprecedented invasion at the southern border, constituting a national emergency.

The Coronavirus Derails Citizenship Oath For Thousands Of ImmigrantsFor several years during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration increased significantly worldwide as most national economies plummeted and people desperately sought work. But these numbers were also skewed in many countries where Venezuelans sought to escape their nation's catastrophic economic collapse under Nicolás Maduro, most notably the United States. In most years, illegal immigrants would evade border patrol and so were never counted; but Venezuelans actively turned themselves in to seek asylum. So the official count was much higher than it would have been during those years.

Contrary to claims made by some, there has never been any evidence that any significant percentage of illegal immigrants are criminals or terrorists — except for, obviously, the crime of illegal entry.

7. Immigrants bring fentanyl into the US from Mexico.

No, they don't. The inflow of illicit fentanyl into the United States is an industrial scale operation, in which lone individuals splashing through the Rio Grande play no role whatsoever.

The actual way that fentanyl gets into the United States is via a large, well established, intercontinental pipeline, never better explained than in an October 2024 special report from Reuters. It starts with Chinese chemical suppliers, who operate with little oversight, and who manufacture the precursor chemicals needed to synthesize fentanyl. These are packaged in small boxes disguised as any of the millions of little ecommerce packages. Such boxes are consolidated into large master cartons by Chinese freight forwarders, and these master cartons are then combined and palletized. These pallets are then shipped by commercial passenger and cargo flights to the United States.

These all get through US customs with no problem, since the majority of them are legitimate little ecommerce boxes from Temu and Alibaba; which are so vast in number (each pallet may contain thousands of packages, all individual bits of merchandise addressed to individual American households) that customs could never possibly inspect them individually. It's called de minimis shipping, where the shipper declares that entire pallet to contain less than $800 worth of merchandise. Currently, over 4 million such packages a day enter the United States. Not all of the precursors get through, a few tons of it are seized in this process each year; it's a constant arms race between American scanning technology and American purchasing of cheap junk from Temu.

Recipients of precursors, usually US addresses near the Mexican border, accumulate them until they have enough to fill a small truck and drive it south into Mexico. American border officers don't care what leaves, and Mexican border officers rarely inspect anything. It goes to cartel-owned processing labs which synthesize the fentanyl. All that remains is to send it back to the United States for sale by dealers.

How does it get there? Every single day, hundreds of passenger cars driven by US citizens, often with smiling wives and happy children, and loaded with fentanyl, are waved on through the border back into the United States, where they deliver it to distribution centers.

Clearly, lone illegal immigrants running across the desert would be a much worse gamble for the cartels than Mr. John Q. Smileyface and his white American soccer mom wife, in their oversized crossover SUV.

It should be noted that for their report, the Reuters investigators spent $3,600 and bought everything they'd have needed to make $3 million worth of fentanyl.

8. Immigrants take good jobs from native citizens.

Economists are nearly all in unison that immigration provides an economic boost for any country. A larger workforce equals a larger GDP, and immigrant workers also create jobs by spending in local economies and by starting businesses — immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs than native workers.

As far as entry level work that may compete with native workers who lack a high school education, we still don't see much conflict. In agriculture or restaurants, immigrants are often given manual labor tasks, while native workers manage and assume customer-facing roles.

9. It's easy to get citizenship legally, there's no reason they can't do that.

This claim is simply false — ask anyone who has completed the process. To apply for US citizenship, you must first get a green card, which grants legal permanent residency — and that process alone can take years or even decades. This isn't just for non-English speakers; it applies to people from England, Australia, Japan, anywhere — even Norway.

But then obtaining citizenship requires tests, substantial fees, and other barriers that disproportionately affect lower income and non-English speaking immigrants. So it's not easy, in fact it's not a realistic option at all for many.

10. The US has long had an open border policy which has been economically disastrous.

This has not been true since 1921, when the United States actually did have open borders. This was mainly because we had so much open space and we needed people to fill it, in order to drive economic growth. Which it did — enormously. It was another example of immigration being the fastest way to turbocharge your economy.

Today no nations have open borders, although there are several regions where certain nations allow freedom of movement between them, to live or work or attend school or whatever. This is to obtain the same benefits of immigration as a driver of growth. Examples include the Schengen Area in Europe, which is mostly the European Union countries; and a treaty arrangement between India, Nepal, and Bhutan.



 

Unsung Women of Science

 16 Wonderful Women Scientists to Inspire Your Students - We Are Teachers

Unsung Women of Science 

 

by Brian Dunning

Ask someone to name a woman scientist, and it's a virtual certainty that you'll get Marie Curie. Who's second place on that list? To answer that, I am reminded of the initial running of the America's Cup yacht race in 1851, when the America was so far ahead that Queen Victoria had to ask "Who is second?" Her attendant gave the famous answer: "Your Majesty, there is no second." Marie Curie truly is the only woman scientist whose name is widely known.

Perhaps in a pinch, a few people might come up with Jane Goodall, the primatologist made famous by television. And if really, really pressed, some might remember the computer pioneer Ada Lovelace or may have heard that the actress Hedy Lamarr had patented something or other. You could probably ask 100 laypeople on the street to name a woman scientist and not get any other name. This shouldn't surprise anyone, considering the lack of credit woman scientists have received. Before 1950, only three women were given Nobel Prizes in the sciences. By the year 2000, had that number gone up much? What do you think? It had only increased to ten. That is a gobsmackingly small number. Certainly no rational person agrees that only ten women had an equal impact on science as over 400 Nobel Prize-winning men.

In answer to this challenge, the Internet has been graced with various lists of "overlooked woman scientists". Unfortunately, most of these lists online all include only the same ten women (or often just a subset of them), as if someone once made a list and nobody ever did any further research. It's an impressive ten; although not one of them won a Nobel Prize, fully seven of the ten worked with male colleagues who did later win one for the work she either led or shared in. These ten women are:

Vera Rubin, b. 1928: Discovered evidence for dark matter in the universe.

Cecilia Payne, b. 1900: Made early determinations of the chemical makeup of stars.

Ida Tacke Noddack, b. 1896: First to speculate on nuclear fission.

These two women died before a Nobel Prize was awarded to their colleagues, and were thus ineligible to share in it:

Henrietta Leavitt, b. 1868: Made it possible to measure the distance of faraway galaxies.

Rosalind Franklin, b. 1920: Discovered the helical structure of DNA.

These five women were still alive when their male colleagues were awarded Nobel Prizes, and are all generally thought to have deserved it:

Nettie Stevens, b. 1862: Discovered the X and Y chromosomes.

Chien Shiung Wu, b. 1912: Manhattan Project scientist who disproved an early accepted particle theory.

Esther Lederberg, b. 1922: Made a number of important discoveries in bacterial genetics.

Lise Meitner, b. 1878: Nuclear physicist who did important work on transuranium elements.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell, b. 1943: Discovered pulsars.

As a result of these ten women's frequent mentions online, they all now have very nice Wikipedia pages, and to some extent, have arguably been rescued from the backroads of obscurity. This only leaves uncounted scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of women who made significant contributions and are still virtually unknown. There are two important questions that this raises. First is why don't more women go into the sciences? And equally important is why are the ones who do treated as second class citizens?

A lot of the same causes affect women in other fields where they are equally underrepresented. In addition to the familiar factors of lack of encouragement, teasing, and stereotyped feelings like "women just don't do that", we have the deeply entrenched Good Old Boys network that permeates so many fields and leads to biases, inequality of pay, and passing over for promotions. Women tend to be more impacted by the need to provide child care and have a tougher time balancing this with graduate school. And in an interesting twist that is unique to the sciences, women tend to change their names when they get married. The need to publish and establish a reputation by name is key to a science career, and a changed name often results in a forgotten person.

So let's give a spot of recognition to a few names that are hopefully unfamiliar to you, starting with a group of six:

The ENIAC Six

The ENIAC was the first truly programmable computer, and while the men who designed its hardware are well known, the six women who essentially invented computer programming were largely ignored at the time. Kay McNulty, Betty Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Wescoff, Fran Bilas and Ruth Lichterman would spend days or even weeks figuring out how to solve a specific problem, such as calculating the trajectory of an artillery shell, by setting switches and connecting patch cables.

Yvonne Brill

Born in 1924, this rocket scientist is best known for developing the electrothermal hydrazine thruster that's still used today. Brill was probably the only American woman working as a rocket scientist in the 1940s, and she was still in her twenties at the time. She had degrees in mathematics and chemistry.

Annie Jump Cannon

Born in 1863, she deserves credit just for how awesome her name is, but what's truly staggering is the scope of her contribution to astronomy. She classified some 400,000 stars. Cannon catalogued them by brightness and by their chemical spectrum, which was her particular specialty. She developed improved methods for spectral analysis that are still used today.

Emmy Noether

Born in 1882, this mathematician was one of Albert Einstein's closest and most prolific advisors. Under pressure from the community to award her a professorship, Göttingen University finally relented by creating its first unpaid faculty position. And, as the Nazis rose to power, Noether was the very first Jewish professor fired. Her best known legacy, called Noether's theorem, is a cornerstone of modern theoretical physics.

Barbara McClintock

Born in 1902, McClintock was never able to land a professorship. However she was one of those very few women to win a Nobel in the sciences: it was for her discovery, in the 1950s, that genes could switch on and off and could change locations within the chromosome. This was a breakthrough that revolutionized the infant science of genetics and completely disrupted what other geneticists thought was carved in stone.

Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin

Born in 1910, she was an X-ray crystallographer, one who studies photographs of the diffraction produced by X-rays passing through a crystalline structure. Using this technique, she worked out two molecular structures that most people of the day thought was beyond the capability of the technology: the structures of penicillin and Vitamin B12. Like Barbara McClintock, Hodgkin was eventually given a Nobel Prize.

Hertha Ayrton

Born in 1854, this close personal friend of Marie Curie made important improvements to arc lights. She was the first woman allowed to read her own paper at the Royal Society, but only after 5 years of having them read for her by men, and was never allowed to join. Over 100,000 devices called Ayrton Fans, shaped according to her work in fluid dynamics, were used in World War I to dispel poison gas.

Sofia Kovalevskaya

Born in 1850, she was able to continue her education in mathematics outside of Russia only through a sham marriage to an activist who was part of a group fighting for such opportunities for women. She excelled radically, editing a mathematical journal in Sweden and lecturing at Stockholm University. Her crowning achievement was winning a prize by the French Academy of Sciences in 1888 for a complex problem involving movement around a fixed point; it resulted in the Kovalevskaya Top. There are three such tops: the Lagrange Top, the Euler Top, and the Kovalevskaya Top.

Elsie Widdowson

Born in 1906, she and her research partner Robert McCance essentially invented the science of nutrition. Her volume The Chemical Composition of Foods, published in 1940, contained fifteen thousand values, all established through exhaustive testing. They created a special low-cost, high-nutrition diet for Britons during World War II, and when the war ended, Widdowson traversed Germany to ensure proper nutrition for the tens of thousands of war orphans.

Mary Anning

Born in 1799, she and her brother discovered the first Ichthyosaur skeleton when she was only twelve. It was soon followed by a Plesiosaur and then a Pterodactyl. She refined the processes of sketching and recording her finds to new levels. Hers were among the earliest and most complete such finds known to science, and they continued throughout her career, well funded by investors who sold her discoveries while male paleontologists were credited for the resulting academic work.

Hilde Mangold

Born in 1898, this experimental embryologist created pipettes fine enough to transfer specific groups of cells from one amphibian embryo into another for her PhD thesis. Using them, she was able to create two-headed tadpoles. Her faculty advisor, who was not involved with the work, attached his own name to her paper (which he didn't do with anyone else's) and, eleven years after her tragic accidental death at age 25, was awarded the Nobel Prize for her work.

Florence Nightingale

Born in 1820, I considered not including her here because we all know her name already. But we know her as a nurse, the one who laid the foundations for modern nursing standards. But what many of us don't know is that her biggest contribution to science was as a statistician. During the Crimean war she noted that more than twenty times as many soldiers died from disease than from wounds. She successfully lobbied for the creation of the Army Medical Department's Statistical Branch, and was arguably the most influential inventor of the use of data in science-based medicine. Florence Nightingale is not just the mother of changing the sheets in your hospital bed; she's also the mother of the clinical trial that created your treatment.

Grace Murray Hopper

Born in 1906, this computer scientist is best known for discovering a moth jammed in a computer relay, thus coining the term "bug" for a computer problem. The first woman to get a PhD in mathematics from Yale also invented the compiler, one of the most basic and important processes in software. The first truly ubiquitous programming language, COBOL, was based on her work. I like her best for often threatening to "come back and haunt" engineers who ever used the phrase "We've always done it this way."


中美贸易战 中国人民 “吃树皮都没问题”

 中共在中美贸易战中的强硬姿态。中共之所以敢与美国硬杠,不是因为底气足,而是仗着中国人民被压榨到“吃树皮都没问题”的悲惨耐受力。她点出,中共高层如王岐山曾厚颜无耻地对西方炫耀,中国人民能忍受一切苦难,暗示这种奴性是中共对抗美国的“法宝”。这种逻辑暴露了中共对人民的冷血漠视,把民众当做牺牲品来维护政权。
观察:郭文贵爆料能否撼动“习王体制” - BBC ...
中美贸易战近日急剧升温。7日,特朗普怒斥北京无视他“切勿报复”的警告,扬言若中国不于8日前取消对美进口商品加征的34%报复性关税,美国将从9日起追加50%关税。加上特朗普1月上任时已实施的20%关税,美国对华关税将飙升至104%。中国商务部8日色厉内荏地回呛:“若美方一意孤行,中方奉陪到底!”这不过是中共虚张声势,掩盖其经济早已不堪重负的真相。
 

习近平的底牌不过是自欺欺人。自特朗普首任期发动贸易战以来,中共宣称已准备8年与美国脱钩,但实际成效令人怀疑。她嘲讽,中共并非不怕经济崩溃,而是笃信没有选举的体制能让人民默默吞下苦果。反观美国,涨价可能引发抗议,总统若搞砸经济就得下台,而中共却靠压迫民众的“耐受性”苟延残喘。她直言,这场对决不仅是经济战,更是中共无耻嘴脸的暴露——他们赌的是人民的血汗,而非自身的实力,妄图用人民的苦难拖垮美国意志。

Tuesday, April 8, 2025

美国立卫生研究院禁止陆港澳等地机构访问受控数据

微博谈〗伸头一刀,缩头也一刀| 博谈网 

 美国立卫生研究院禁止陆港澳等地机构访问受控数据

综合消息显示,美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)4月4日起禁止位于受关注国家的机构访问NIH的受控访问数据存储库和相关数据,这些国家包括中国(包括香港和澳门)、俄罗斯、伊朗、朝鲜、古巴和委内瑞拉。“财新网”7日报导称,多名中国学者确认无法访问上述数据库。

美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)院长办公室本月2日在网站上发布一份《实施更新:增强NIH受控访问数据的安全措施》文件,称自2025年4月4日起,NIH将禁止位于上述受关注国家的机构访问NIH受控访问数据存储库和相关数据。

“财新网”报导指,NIH的“受控访问数据存储库”是指由NIH支持的、用于存储和共享受控访问数据的数据存储系统或平台。这些存储库主要保存需要限制访问的敏感信息,例如涉及人类基因组的研究数据。

据“第一财经”报导,NIH相关数据库拥有全球最核心的人类基因组、表型信息和疾病研究数据,全球研究人员长期高度依赖。中国多位从事基因或肿瘤研究相关领域专家表示,NIH是全球最大的生物医学研究机构,旗下平台数据的覆盖面广泛、全面,过去对全球研究人员免费开放。

现在美国单方面关闭数据库,意味中国的很多医学研究要拿到全球核心的数据库难度增加,会对科学的发展产生一定的负面影响,也不利于一些国际合作项目。

报导提及,中国的临床医生此前已预料到美方可能会采取此类封锁行动,因此一些肿瘤领域的临床专家早在三五年前就呼吁要建立中国自己的数据库,但这一过程面临多重挑战,至今也没有建立诸如肿瘤生物样本的大数据库平台

北约秘书长称中国军事扩张惊人吁日本加强双方合作

NATO-JAPAN Defense Industrial Cooperation 

 北约秘书长称中国军事扩张惊人吁日本加强双方合作

(法新社东京8日电) 北大西洋公约组织(NATO)秘书长吕特今天表示,中国的武装力量扩张「惊人」。他今起展开访日行程,与日本防相会晤时,呼吁双方加强合作。


Lack of NATO-style command in focus as Japan reviews security strategy -  Nikkei Asia北约秘书长吕特(Mark Rutte)告诉「日本时报」(Japan Times):「我们对中国不能天真看待。」

吕特在昨天刊出的专访中指出:「他们的武装力量扩张,以及在国防工业和国防实力的投资,令人震惊。」

吕特今天访问横须贺海军基地,以及一家日本国防承包商,随后他与日本防卫大臣中谷元会晤,呼吁双方加强合作。

Idea of an "Asian NATO" discusses in Japan吕特告诉中谷:「北约和日本拥有共同的价值观,我们也面临许多相同的挑战。」

他说:「中国、北韩和俄罗斯正在加强军事演习与合作,这对全球稳定造成破坏,这意味着欧洲大西洋地区的事务对印太地区也有影响,反之亦然。」

Japan, NATO step up ties amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine | The Asahi  Shimbun: Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis吕特指出:「在日益危险的世界,日本与北约加强合作有其必要性。」

英国《每日电讯报》- 薄弱的加拿大北极防御

 英国《每日电讯报》-  薄弱的加拿大北极防御



3月29日英国《每日电讯报》刊文《俄罗斯和中国如何利用加拿大在北极的疏忽》,称“加拿大成为北约安全联盟的薄弱环节,被莫斯科和北京盯上了”,并指“过度依赖美国的安全保障”,加拿大唯一的生存之道就只能是成为“第51州”,这似乎为特朗普的51州说提供了更合理的解释。


The Nanisivik Naval Facility – Canadian Naval Review文章指在加拿大巴芬岛(Baffin Island)“纳尼西维克海军基地(Nanisivik Naval Facility)码头尽头有三座未使用的泊位,这座偏远基地大部分时间都被冰雪覆盖,直到季节更替才得以解冻”。

这座基地象征着加拿大对捍卫北极领土的承诺,但却因多年军费投入不足而成为加拿大边界缺乏保护的象征。它2007年开始建造,因成本超支和设计变更迟迟未能启用,从2015推至2018,再到2020、2024,如今更不知何时才能启用。

在过去一年,北约安全联盟薄弱环节的裂隙吸引了俄罗斯和中国,令他们加快了渗透北极的步伐。

中俄聯手,轟炸美國!轟6首次現身阿拉斯加,中國突破地理困局的關鍵在哪里?怎樣打美國(補充篇) | 說真話的徐某人- YouTube中俄轰炸机抵近阿拉斯加秀肌肉 China, Russia conduct first joint bomber patrol near Alaska  #东谈西论 #早报播客巴芬岛的气温上升速度是全球平均水平的四倍。冰层消融显露出新的海峡和深沟,为威胁北美提供了更多通道。去年夏天,俄罗斯和中国轰炸机联合飞入阿拉斯加的防空识别区(ADIZ)。今年 1 月,俄罗斯大规模北极军演令加拿大战机紧急升空,拦截逼近领空的俄军飞机。

同时更隐秘的渗透也在进行中。中国企业试图收购北极的矿产资源,中国间谍被控干预加拿大选举,试图阻止北京不喜欢的人当选。

特朗普指责加拿大国防投资不足,过度依赖美国的安全保障,意味着其唯一的生存之道就是成为美国的“第51州”。最令华盛顿担忧的是一旦爆发战争,俄罗斯的潜艇可能突破加拿大防线,在五角大楼作出反应前,从加拿大本土上空发射导弹。

尽管加拿大领土面积大于美国,但军事实力却相去甚远:美国军队规模是加拿大的六倍(美军 45 万人,加军仅 6.3 万人),军费预算相差 30 倍(美国 8420 亿美元,加拿大 280 亿美元)。按GDP比例计算,加拿大国防开支长期停滞在1.3%左右,在北约成员国中排名垫底,低于2%的最低标准。

在英国每日电讯报刊文的前一天,美国国会山报(the hill.com)发表美国和平与外交研究所高级研究员安德鲁·莱瑟姆(Andrew Latham)的文章《加拿大需要真正的北极战略》,指当马克·卡尼在镜头前摆姿势,发表关于“气候适应力”和“可持续投资”的演讲时,俄罗斯正扩大其北极军事基础设施,中国正加紧巩固其在北极治理中的地位。

他认为“卡尼的北极战略反映了他对绿色政策的执着。他设想未来加拿大不是通过军事存在或战略基础设施来维护主权,而是通过气候友好型经济发展。他正将自己的绿色议程重新包装为北极战略。但可再生能源项目无法阻止俄罗斯轰炸机测试加拿大领空,也无法阻止中国为自己的战略用途绘制北极水域地图”。

北极直接关系到美国和北约。曾被冰封的有争议的西北航道正成为一条可行的航线。加拿大称它是内水,美国视其为国际海峡,中国则建议将北极作为“全球公域”进行治理,这将剥夺加拿大对其自身水域的大部分权力。

文章警告“如果渥太华想维护北极主权,就必须投资军事和民用基础设施,再也不能像过去那样把北极安全外包给盟友。如果现在还犹豫不决,那么渥太华未来将会讨论主权是如何丧失的。美国认为加拿大在北极地区的薄弱存在不仅是加拿大的问题,也是整个北美安全日益沉重的负担”。

乌军在其境内抓获两名为俄军作战的中国公民

乌军与多名中国士兵交战!俘虏两人影片曝光-环球大观-万维读者网(电脑版) 

 乌克兰总统泽连斯基(Volodymyr Zelenskyy)周二表示,乌军在其境内抓获两名为俄军作战的中国公民,指示与北京联系以澄清中方对此回应。泽连斯基说:“我们有情报显示,占领者部队中的中国公民远不止这两人”。乌克兰外长瑟比加(Andrii Sybiha)介绍称,已召见中国驻乌克兰使馆临时代办,“谴责这一事实,并要求作出解释”。 

Chinese Soldiers Spotted in Ukraine! - YouTube泽连斯基在社交媒体平台X上发帖称:“我军俘虏了两名中国公民,他们当时作为俄罗斯军队的一部分在战斗。此事发生在乌克兰境内的顿涅茨克州。在他们身上发现了身份证件、银行卡和个人资料”。

泽连斯基称,“我们掌握的信息表明,占领军部队中的中国公民远不止这两人。我们目前正在核实所有事实——情报部门、乌克兰国家安全局和乌军的相关单位正在对此进行调查”。

泽连斯基表示:“我已指示乌克兰外长立即与北京联系,澄清中方打算如何对此回应”。他同时上传了其中一人被审讯时的视频。视频中,该男子用中文夹杂英文和手语似乎在描述战场上的情形。

乌外长瑟比加转发了泽连斯基的帖子,并附文指“我们强烈谴责俄罗斯将中国公民卷入对乌克兰的侵略战争,并参与对乌克兰军队的战斗”。

瑟比加指出,“我们已将中国驻乌克兰临时代办召到外交部,谴责这一事实,并要求作出解释”。他续称:“中国公民作为俄罗斯侵略军的一部分在乌克兰作战,使中方宣称的和平立场受到质疑,也损害了北京作为负责任的联合国安理会常任理事国的信誉”。