America may offer Ukraine weapons to repel Russia - Economist

America may offer Ukraine weapons to repel Russia

At the same time, the Ukrainian government has begun to persecute anti-corruption activists

WHEN Russian members of parliament uncorked champagne to celebrate the electoral victory of Donald Trump, they hoped that America would stop meddling in the former Soviet backyard and ease sanctions imposed in response to its war in Ukraine. But as some Russians are now saying, it was too early to drink it. On August 2nd Mr Trump reluctantly signed a law which heaps new sanctions on Russia and limits his ability to lift them. A few days earlier, Mike Pence, America’s vice-president, went to Estonia and Georgia and warned against further aggression from “your unpredictable neighbour to the east”. And America may soon supply Ukraine with lethal weapons, a step that Barack Obama refused to take.

Mr Obama’s inaction was heavily criticised at the time by many Republicans, including Kurt Volker, a former ambassador to NATO and a close associate of John McCain, a hawkish Republican senator. Last month Mr Volker was appointed by the State Department as America’s special representative to Ukraine. It is up to Mr Trump’s administration to approve the supply of arms to Ukraine, but most members of his cabinet are said to be on board. A decision could come within weeks.

American officials and their European counterparts are also discussing whether to begin using the terms “aggression”, “war” and “Russian forces” in place of “conflict” and “separatists” with regard to the fighting in eastern Ukraine. One reason Russian aggression got as far as it did, the argument goes, was that neither the West nor Ukraine was prepared to call it by its proper name. America and its allies restrained Ukraine from fighting when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea—and a weak, post-revolutionary Ukrainian government acquiesced.

Following Russia’s interference in its elections last year, America seems willing to push back more robustly. Members of the Trump administration calculate that Russia has limited scope to escalate. Mr Putin will try to persuade them otherwise. One option might be to occupy Belarus, a former Soviet republic. Another might be to stir political instability in Ukraine.

Awkwardly, America is increasing its support for Ukraine just as Ukraine’s leaders are becoming more focused on their own economic and political fortunes, rather than the good of the country. Last week Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine’s chocolate-tycoon-turned-president, stripped Mikheil Saakashvili, a radical anti-corruption reformer, of Ukrainian citizenship. Mr Saakashvili, a former president of Georgia who was forced out of his native country by Bidzina Ivanishvili, its richest oligarch, came to Ukraine after the Maidan revolution in 2014 to carry on with his fight against the post-Soviet malaise.

After serving as a governor of Odessa, he fell out with Mr Poroshenko, accusing him of corruption and collusion with oligarchs. In an interview with Ukrainska Pravda, an independent Ukrainian news site, Mr Saakashvili said Mr Poroshenko’s main motivation was making money. Other activists have criticised Mr Poroshenko for lacking the political will to tackle corruption. Government prosecutors have inadvertently provided evidence for that charge by launching attacks on anti-corruption activists.

The prosecutors’ latest target is Oleksandr Danyliuk the reform-minded finance minister. Mr Danyliuk has tried to make the country’s system of VAT refunds (a major source of corruption) more transparent. He has also tried to prune the budget of the prosecution service. On July 31st the prosecutor general’s office said it was probing his income and property.

In fact, the finance minister’s problems stem from a fight between Mr Poroshenko and his own government. Last month, while Mr Danyliuk was in London discussing Ukraine’s economic reforms, the country’s budget was re-carved by the Rada, the parliament, with the help of a close associate of Mr Poroshenko. Some of the changes introduced in Mr Danyliuk’s absence make the budget impossible to fulfil, and resemble dodgy schemes used under the previous regime. The budget also over-estimates the expected tax collection from businesses, creating even more room for extortion.

No amount of weapons supplied by America will defend Ukraine from the internal malaise which made it vulnerable to Russian aggression in the first place.

This article appeared in the Europe section of the print edition under the headline "Arming Ukraine"

Why Alexander Hamilton Started the Coast Guard - TIME

Why Alexander Hamilton Started the Coast Guard Posted: 04 Aug 2017 06:00 AM PDT Alexander Hamilton boasts many claims to fame: He was Secretary of the Treasury and the brains behind a national bank, founder of The New York Post, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the inspiration for a Tony Award-winning musical. But this week, the U.S. Coast Guard community celebrates his role as the “father of the U.S. Coast Guard,” the oldest continuous seagoing service. Friday marks the anniversary of the date in 1790 when Congress approved his plan for a small fleet to ensure the safe conduct of trade. About a year into Hamilton’s tenure as the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. had hit rough seas, financially speaking. The American Revolution had created millions in debt, especially to France. There was no income tax to raise money, so the nation had to rely on tariffs on luxuries brought into the country. However, in the lead-up to independence, the colonists had gotten pretty good at avoiding paying those fees. The high seas were the first highways, and a boat with a cargo of rum could be cruising up to Boston, when, to avoid paying a duty on the liquor, its crew might hand off the good to a small boat that paddled out to meet it. “It was considered patriotic to smuggle because you were preventing funds from getting back to the British,” says Jennifer A. Gaudio, curator at the U.S. Coast Guard Museum at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn. Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter As part of his plan to reduce the nation’s debt, Hamilton federalized the nation’s lighthouses and called for ten ships known as “revenue cutters” to check out the cargo on ships heading to U.S. ports and make sure the goods they declared matched up with the items actually on board. The government hired ex-smugglers, who could spot the small boats used for the practice, and established a military-inspired system of ranks. Customs agents at the ports would report to the federal government how much money they collected periodically (though they could be bribed easily). The boats’ first major test came during the so-called “quasi-war” with France at the very end of the 18th century. “The French got annoyed that we weren’t paying [debts] back as fast as they wanted, and annoyed that we were trading with the British, which it was at war with,” Gaudio explains, “so French privateers were sent over to capture American merchant ships and keep them to recoup their losses. The only agency around to fight them was the revenue cutters service.” The U.S. did not end up going to war with France, but the expanded role of the seafaring service stuck. Nowadays, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection handles taxes and duties, but the requirements for the job that Hamilton spelled out in a letter for the service’s first officers — to be “prudent, moderate and good tempered” — have become a timeless mantra of sorts for current service members. “Officers will always keep in mind that their fellow citizens are free, and, as such are impatient of anything that bears the least mark of a domineering spirit,” reads a version edited for modern-day readers. “They should carefully refrain from anything resembling arrogance, rudeness or insult. They will strive to overcome difficulties by a cool and even-tempered perseverance in their duty.”

Pope Francis' allies accuses US Catholics of forming an 'alliance of hate' to back Trump - Independent

Pope Francis' allies accuses US Catholics of forming an 'alliance of hate' to back Trump

Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figuerola have denounced the world view of some US Christians saying they are 'not too far apart' from Islamist jihadists

Pope Francis poses with US President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and the daughter of Ivanka Trump at the end of a private audience at the Vatican AFP/Getty

Two people close to Pope Francis have accused ultra-conservative American Catholics of making an alliance of “hate” with evangelical Christians to back Donald Trump.

Catholic priest Antonio Spadaro and Protestant theologian Marcelo Figueroa published a joint article in La Civilta Cattolica, a journal published by Jesuit priests in Rome and overseen by the Vatican, in which they denounced US Catholics for supporting the extremist positions of the American right, saying the world view of hard-line Catholics is “not too far apart” from that Islamist jihadists.

They singled out Steve Bannon, Mr Trump’s controversial chief strategist who was raised Catholic, as a “supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics” which had hampered efforts to combat climate change and exploited fears about migrants and Muslims with demands for “walls and purifying deportations”.

Pope Francis allies accuse Trump's team of 'apocalyptic geopolitics'

Pope Francis says he will stand up to Donald Trump

Although the criticism has not come directly from Pope Francis, who is a member of the Jesuit order, the two authors are known to be very close to him and all articles published in the journal have to be approved by the Holy See before publication.

The article echoes a lot of Pope Francis’ more muted criticism of the Republican since he entered the White House.

In May, ahead of his first official meeting with the President at the White House, he said he would be “sincere” with the Republican about their differences on issues like immigration and climate change.

“I will say what I think and he will say what he thinks. But I have never wanted to make a judgement without first listening to the person," he said.

It is not clear whether the article received the Pope’s personal approval but he has not publicly or privately reprimanded them for it since the article was first published in July despite the anger it has provoked from US Catholics, the New York Times reported.

Charles Chaput, the Archbishop of Philadelphia, wrote an article for CatholicPhilly.com where he called the authors “useful idiots” for Pope Francis and emphasised the widening gulf in opinion between the Holy Father – who is seen as a reformer – and more conservative elements in the church.

Many conservative Catholics have watched in horror as Pope Francis has made a number of public statements since being elected in Pope in 2013 which they feel are softening the Church’s stance on issues like abortion.

In November last year he indefinitely extended Catholic priests’ ability to forgive women who have abortions – a measure that was originally introduced as part of the Vatican’s special Jubilee year which means thousands of pilgrims flock to Rome for prayer and forgiveness – though he emphasised he still believed it was a “grave sin”.

Thousands of U.S. Job-Seekers Line Up to Work in Amazon Warehouses - TIME Business

---

Thousands of U.S. Job-Seekers Line Up to Work in Amazon Warehouses Posted: 02 Aug 2017 07:00 PM PDT (FALL RIVER, Mass.) — Thousands of people showed up Wednesday for a chance to pack and ship products to Amazon customers, as the e-commerce company held a giant job fair at nearly a dozen U.S. warehouses. Although the wages offered will make it hard for some to make ends meet, many of the candidates were excited by the prospect of health insurance and other benefits, as well as advancement opportunities. It’s common for Amazon to ramp up its shipping center staff in August to prepare for holiday shopping. But the magnitude of its current hiring spree underscores Amazon’s growth when traditional retailers are closing stores — and blaming Amazon for a shift to buying goods online. Amazon said it received “a record-breaking 20,000 applications” and hired thousands of people on the spot, and will hire more in the coming days. The number was less than the 50,000 it had announced it was planning to hire before the event took place. Most of the jobs are full-time positions in packing, sorting and shipping and will count toward Amazon’s previously announced goal of adding 100,000 full-time workers by the middle of next year. The bad news is that more people are likely to lose jobs in stores than get jobs in warehouses, said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. On the flip side, Amazon’s warehouse jobs provide “decent and competitive” wages and could help build skills. “Interpersonal team work, problem solving, critical thinking, all that stuff goes on in these warehouses,” Carnevale said. “They’re serious entry-level jobs for a lot of young people, even those who are still making their way through school.” The company is advertising starting wages that range from $11.50 an hour in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to $13.75 an hour in Kent, Washington, near Amazon’s Seattle headquarters. The $11.50 rate amounts to about $23,920 a year. In Washington state, the current minimum wage is $11.50 but by 2020 will increase to $13.50. By comparison, the warehouse store operator Costco raised its minimum wage for entry-level workers last year from $13 to $13.50 an hour. Some job candidates Wednesday were looking to supplement other income. Rodney Huffman, a 27-year-old personal trainer, said the $13-an-hour job in Baltimore would pay enough to help cover bills while he starts his own company. “I’m looking to do the night shifts and then run my own company during the day,” he said. At one warehouse — Amazon calls them “fulfillment centers” — in Fall River, Massachusetts, Amazon was looking to hire more than 200 people Wednesday, adding to a workforce of about 1,500. Employees there focus on sorting, labeling and shipping what the company calls “non-sortable” items — big products such as shovels, kayaks, surfboards, grills, car seats — and lots of giant diaper boxes. Other warehouses are focused on smaller products. While Amazon has attracted attention for deploying robots at some of its warehouses, experts said it could take a while before automation begins to seriously bite into its growing labor force. “When it comes to dexterity, machines aren’t really great at it,” said Jason Roberts, head of technology and analytics for mass recruiter Randstad Sourceright, which is not working with Amazon on its jobs fair. “The picker-packer role is something humans do way better than machines right now.” Steve King, 47, a job candidate in Fall River with experience running his own business, agreed: “I don’t think robots are up to snuff yet. I think they will be. Hopefully I can get in before the robots get that good and get above the robots in administration or something.” In recent years, reports have emerged about difficult working conditions at Amazon’s warehouses, including deaths at two Amazon warehouses in 2014. The company also came under fire in 2011 for extreme heat at its warehouses that caused “heat-related injuries” among workers. Amazon said at the time that it took emergency actions during heat waves and subsequently installed cooling systems in its warehouses. But many of those who showed up Wednesday were excited by the prospects of health insurance and other benefits, as well as advancement opportunities. “I like to be busy, so I know Amazon is busy and they want hard workers,” retired police officer Brian Trice said. Trice was among those who stood in line in Baltimore on a hot day as Amazon contractors passed out bottles of water. In Fall River, a line snaked out of the warehouse and under an air-conditioned tent. In Kent, Washington, a vendor offered free cups of shaved ice from a truck playing steel-drum music. Among those lining up in Kent were 18-year-old Javier Costa and his 49-year-old uncle, Manuel Alvarenga. Costa said the warehouse work wasn’t necessarily what he was looking for, but his uncle, a recent immigrant from El Salvador, was looking for whatever he could get. “He was making $6 an hour in El Salvador; you can imagine what the people below him were making,” Costa said. “It’s a harder life down there. At this point he just needs a job.” Ron Joslin, 55, said he’s long worked at call centers, most recently making medical appointments for veterans. But he lost that job in April, and since then hasn’t been able to find work — despite the Seattle area’s hot labor market. “I don’t believe the numbers reflect what’s really happening,” he said, waiting in a line hundreds of people long. “You want to see what’s really happening, go to the unemployment office and see how many people are there and how long they’ve been unemployed.” His wife, a regular Amazon shopper, told him about the job fair, he said. “She heard about it on the news and was like, ‘You need to go there.’ I said, ‘It’s going to be 100 degrees.’ She said, ‘You need to go there.’ She’s tired of me being around the house.” Some left disappointed. Maureen Schell gave up after several hours at the Fall River site, describing it as a publicity stunt and a “drive to get bodies in the door so they can cherry-pick the warehouse staff they want.” “It looks like they’re looking for young, healthy warehouse staff only,” said Schell, a 57-year-old searching for work that will put more money into her retirement. Amazon was also holding events at shipping sites in Ohio, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois and Indiana.

Here's the real problem with slashing immigration - CNBC News

Here's the real problem with slashing immigration

The RAISE Act proposes to slash immigration by nearly 50 percent.

The bill would radically reshape America's immigration system – for the worse.

The bill would slow American entrepreneurialism, dangerously alter our demographics and betray America's core value of diversity.

Deepak Chopra and Kabir Sehgal

Scott Mlyn | CNBC

There will be a flurry of flak hitting the new immigration policy endorsed by the White House. President Donald Trump announced yesterday that he supported legislation that would drastically slash legal immigration to the United States by up to fifty percent in the coming decade.

The bill known as the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and David Perdue (R-Georgia) would end the visa diversity lottery that allocates 50,000 visas each year, limit refugees to 50,000 per year, and institute a skill based formula for determining whether to allow immigrants to enter our country.

In sum, the bill would radically reshape America's immigration system – for the worse. The bill should be opposed for three reasons: it's bad for business, demographics, and our "melting pot" culture.

First, the bill would further slow American entrepreneurialism. The number of startups in America is at a forty-year low. Immigrants are inherent risk takers, having left behind the familiarity of their homeland for the possibility of success in the United States. America's workforce is 15 percent composed of immigrants, yet they make up about 25 percent of entrepreneurs, and they account for about 25 percent of patent filings.

Some 3.6 million workers are employed at Fortune 500 companies started by immigrants.These companies include Google, co-founded by Sergey Brin from Russia; eBay, founded by Pierre Omidyar from France; and even AT&T, founded by Alexander Graham Bell from Scotland.

These startup founders may never have passed this skill-based test that the RAISE Act mandates. Such a test would have a chilling effect on overall immigration, at a time when America needs more risk takers.

To be sure, a meritocratic system has appeal, and those who support the RAISE Act cite the fact that Canada and Australia already employ such a skill based system. But these countries already accept more than twice the number of immigrants than the United States, on a per capita basis. If a skill-based policy could become part of a compassionate immigration policy, that would be both rational and in keeping with America's moral idealism. But there's little chance of that in the current anti-immigration climate.

"Some 3.6 million workers are employed at Fortune 500 companies started by immigrants.These companies include Google, co-founded by Sergey Brin from Russia; eBay, founded by Pierre Omidyar from France; and even AT&T, founded by Alexander Graham Bell from Scotland."

Second, the bill would dangerously alter our demographics. In short, America needs more workers. With Baby Boomers entering retirement, immigrants will play "the primary role in the future growth of the working-age population," according to a Pew Research study.

Remarkably, almost 90 percent of the nation's population growth over the next fifty years will come from immigrants and their children. In order for us to remain competitive in the global economy, and to meet our obligations, we need a younger, more vibrant workforce. This bill would reduce the number of immigrants, just when we need them the most.

Third, the bill betrays America's core value of diversity. The immigration hawks defend their position by claiming to benefit blue-collar workers born in this country while portraying immigrants as a drag on the economy.

To keep these arguments afloat, a constant stream of distortion is needed, and when economists provide data showing the net economic impact of immigration is positive, immigration hawks fall back on the stereotype of drug dealers and rapists that Trump proclaimed the first day he declared his candidacy.

The bill chips away at America's historic role as a refuge for "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore," as it says on the Statue of Liberty. Demonizing the most oppressed is a shameful repudiation of American values - no surprise from this administration.

We are witnessing a familiar cycle in American history, where waves of anti-immigrant feeling overwhelm the basic fact that each of us is a descendant of immigrants. Our attitudes are schizoid, and yet looking back, no previous anti-immigrant outcry has added luster or honor to this country. The immigrant story is the American story.

Commentary by Deepak Chopra and Kabir Sehgal. Chopra is the founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing and a pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation. Sehgal is a New York Times bestselling author. He is a former vice president at JPMorgan Chase, multi-Grammy Award winner and U.S. Navy veteran. Chopra and Sehgal are co-creators (with Paul Avgerinos) of Home: Where Everyone Is Welcome, a book of thirty-four poems and album of twelve songs inspired by American immigrants.

Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half - New York Times

By PETER BAKERAUG. 2, 2017

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

WASHINGTON — President Trump embraced a proposal on Wednesday to slash legal immigration to the United States in half within a decade by sharply curtailing the ability of American citizens and legal residents to bring family members into the country.

The plan would enact the most far-reaching changes to the system of legal immigration in decades and represents the president’s latest effort to stem the flow of newcomers to the United States. Since taking office, he has barred many visitors from select Muslim-majority countries, limited the influx of refugees, increased immigration arrests and pressed to build a wall along the southern border.

In asking Congress to curb legal immigration, Mr. Trump intensified a debate about national identity, economic growth, worker fairness and American values that animated his campaign last year. Critics said the proposal would undercut the fundamental vision of the United States as a haven for the poor and huddled masses, while the president and his allies said the country had taken in too many low-skilled immigrants for too long to the detriment of American workers.

“This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens,” Mr. Trump said at a White House event alongside two Republican senators sponsoring the bill. “This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first.”

In throwing his weight behind a bill, Mr. Trump added one more long-odds priority to a legislative agenda already packed with them in the wake of the defeat of legislation to repeal and replace President Barack Obama’s health care program. The president has already vowed to overhaul the tax code and rebuild the nation’s roads, airports and other infrastructure.

Both Canada and Australia have legal immigration systems based on points for skills. Both systems are widely praised as being fair and...

expat 3 hours ago

Like the Polish construction workers who built Trump Tower, or the Dominicans and Haitians tending the lawn and cleaning rooms at Mar Lago?...

Kristine 3 hours ago

The religious right must be very upset with this new policy as it contradicts Jesus in every way. Perhaps they will change the golden rule...

But by endorsing legal immigration cuts, a move he has long supported, Mr. Trump returned to a theme that has defined his short political career and excites his conservative base at a time when his poll numbers continue to sink. Just 33 percent of Americans approved of his performance in the latest Quinnipiac University survey, the lowest rating of his presidency, and down from 40 percent a month ago.

Democrats and some Republicans quickly criticized the move. “Instead of catching criminals, Trump wants to tear apart communities and punish immigrant families that are making valuable contributions to our economy,” said Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “That’s not what America stands for.”

The bill, sponsored by Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, would institute a merit-based system to determine who is admitted to the country and granted legal residency green cards, favoring applicants based on skills, education and language ability rather than relations with people already here. The proposal revives an idea included in broader immigration legislation supported by President George W. Bush that died in 2007.

More than one million people are granted legal residency each year, and the proposal would reduce that by 41 percent in its first year and 50 percent by its 10th year, according to projections cited by its sponsors. The reductions would come largely from those brought in through family connections. The number of immigrants granted legal residency on the basis of job skills, about 140,000, would remain roughly the same.

Under the current system, most legal immigrants are admitted to the United States based on family ties. American citizens can sponsor spouses, parents and minor children for an unrestricted number of visas, while siblings and adult children are given preferences for a limited number of visas available to them. Legal permanent residents holding green cards can also sponsor spouses and children.

In 2014, 64 percent of immigrants admitted with legal residency were immediate relatives of American citizens or sponsored by family members. Just 15 percent entered through employment-based preferences, according to the Migration Policy Institute, an independent research organization. But that does not mean that those who came in on family ties were necessarily low skilled or uneducated.

The legislation would award points based on education, ability to speak English, high-paying job offers, age, record of achievement and entrepreneurial initiative. But while it would still allow spouses and minor children of Americans and legal residents to come in, it would eliminate preferences for other relatives, like siblings and adult children. The bill would create a renewable temporary visa for older-adult parents who come for caretaking purposes.

Stephen Miller Jousts With Reporters Over Immigration

Exchanges between the senior White House adviser and Glenn Thrush of The New York Times and Jim Acosta of CNN became combative at a news briefing on Wednesday. By THE NEW YORK TIMES on Publish Date August 2, 2017.

The legislation would limit refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 a year and eliminate a diversity visa lottery that the sponsors said does not promote diversity. The senators said their bill was meant to emulate systems in Canada and Australia.

The projections cited by the sponsors said legal immigration would decrease to 637,960 after a year and to 539,958 after a decade.

“Our current system does not work,” Mr. Perdue said. “It keeps America from being competitive and it does not meet the needs of our economy today.”

Mr. Cotton said low-skilled immigrants pushed down wages for those who worked with their hands. “For some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity,” he said. “I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans, and we need to change that.”

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, noted that agriculture and tourism were his state’s top two industries. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant work force,” he said. “Hotels, restaurants, golf courses and farmers,” he added, “will tell you this proposal to cut legal immigration in half would put their business in peril.”

Cutting legal immigration would make it harder for Mr. Trump to reach the stronger economic growth that he has promised. Bringing in more workers, especially during a time of low unemployment, increases the size of an economy. Critics said the plan would result in labor shortages, especially in lower-wage jobs that many Americans do not want.

The National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group, said the country was already facing a work force gap of 7.5 million jobs by 2020. “Cutting legal immigration for the sake of cutting immigration would cause irreparable harm to the American worker and their family,” said Ali Noorani, the group’s executive director.

Surveys show most Americans believe legal immigration benefits the country. In a Gallup poll in January, 41 percent of Americans were satisfied with the overall level of immigration, 11 percentage points higher than the year before and the highest since the question was first asked in 2001. Still, 53 percent of Americans remained dissatisfied.

The plan endorsed by Mr. Trump generated a fiery exchange at the White House briefing when Stephen Miller, the president’s policy adviser and a longtime advocate of immigration limits, defended the proposal. Pressed for statistics to back up claims that immigration was costing Americans jobs, he cited several studies that have been debated by experts.

“But let’s also use common sense here, folks,” Mr. Miller said. “At the end of the day, why do special interests want to bring in more low-skill workers?”

He rejected the argument that immigration policy should also be based on compassion. “Maybe it’s time we had compassion for American workers,” he said.

When a reporter read him some of the words from the Statue of Liberty — “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” — Mr. Miller dismissed them. “The poem that you’re referring to was added later,” he said. “It’s not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

He noted that in 1970, the United States allowed in only a third as many legal immigrants as it now does: “Was that violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty law of the land?”

Correction: August 2, 2017

An earlier version of this article misstated part of President Trump’s effort to stem the flow of immigrants into the United States. He has increased immigration arrests, not deportations.

'Bitcoin cash' potential limited, but a catalyst could be looming for it to take off - CNBC News

'Bitcoin cash' potential limited, but a catalyst could be looming for it to take off

'Bitcoin cash' may not have long-term potential, industry insiders told CNBC.

But if the promised upgrade to the core bitcoin network doesn't end up happening, this could be a boost for 'bitcoin Cash'.

It hit a high of just over $727 on Wednesday before more than halving to just over $310 in the space of a few hours.

Arjun Kharpal

A Bitcoin cryptocurrency souvenir coin.

"Bitcoin cash," the cryptocurrency created as a result of a split in the bitcoin blockchain, may not have long-term potential, industry insiders told CNBC, but a key event down the road could give it more backing.

To recap, the underlying bitcoin technology known as the blockchain underwent a "fork", meaning it split to create a new digital currency. This happened because the community disagreed on how to increase the capacity of the blockchain, which was struggling with record-high transaction times for bitcoin.

As a result of the split, "bitcoin cash" was created. And it has had a volatile start. It hit a high of just over $727 on Wednesday before more than halving to just over $310 in the space of a few hours, according to price tracking site Coinmarketcap.com.

Many experts said there would likely be some short-term trading activity, but have expressed doubt over the longer-term potential of "bitcoin cash".

"Over the longer term, Bcash's prospects are limited due to the relatively small size of the community maintaining its blockchain, developing its software and using the cryptocurrency," Aurelien Menant, founder and CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Gatecoin, told CNBC by email.

Meet Bitcoin Cash, the new digital currency that split Bitcoin in two Meet Bitcoin Cash, the new digital currency that split Bitcoin in two

Menant said Gatecoin would start supporting trade with "bitcoin cash". This is in contrast to Coinbase, the world's largest bitcoin exchange, which decided not to support the new cryptocurrency.

In a Tweet on Tuesday, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, said we "don't want to rush anything out," highlighting the uncertainty over "bitcoin cash's" future.

But the continuing debate over the underlying bitcoin technology continues. The fight was over how much to increase the block size of the blockchain.

To understand this, it's important to outline how transactions work. Transactions by users are gathered into "blocks" which is turned into a complex math solution. So-called miners, using high-powered computers work these solutions out to determine if the transaction is possible. Once other miners also check the puzzle is correct, the transactions are approved and the miners are rewarded in bitcoin.

Increasing the block size would boost transaction speeds. Some people wanted a solution that would dramatically increase the block size from its current 1 megabyte level. But the majority of the community have decided to increase the block size to 2 megabytes.

A full recap of what has happened can be found here. This 2MB increase is likely to come into effect in November, providing miners stick to their word and make the necessary software updates.

If this doesn't happen, then "bitcoin cash" could get a boost.

"If most miners decide that for economic reasons they prefer to mine larger blocks and commit more hashing power to Bcash, then it's likely more development work and user adoption would follow, and those conducting business with bitcoin may decide to adopt Bcash instead," Menant said.

"Yet for this to happen Bcash would need to prove that its technology can match the security features and reliability of bitcoin's software," he added, striking a note of caution.