NOBEL MIX OF PEACE AND POLITICS

One of the persistently recurring themes throughout President Trump's first ten months of his second term in office was his shamelessly relentless pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. Even though the deadline to submit nominations of individuals and organizations for what the Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary History described as "the most prestigious prize in the world" was January 31, just a few days after the new administration assumed office, Mr. Trump never let up. Hardly a day went by during which he did not repeat the mantra that he was solving multiple wars, ultimately "eight in nine months," proclaiming: "that's never happened before." Numerous world leaders, eager to curry favor with him, dutifully and openly supported his claim. So, when on October 10 the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced it had awarded the honor to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado for promoting democratic rights for her country's people in opposition to President Nicolas Maduro, President Trump's allies considered the fact that he was not selected an anticlimactic snub. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung accused the committee of putting "politics over peace." Notwithstanding the overdue timeline and the relentless, continuously applied, political pressure which really rankled Mr. Trump's most passionate opponents who claimed that he was entirely unworthy of the award, Mr. Cheung actually did have a point. Dr. Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, inventor, engineer and businessman who became known for inventing dynamite. More than a few of his contemporaries were of the opinion that he became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before. He died from a stroke in December of 1896 at the age of 63. At that time his estate was valued at more than 31 million Swedish kronor, about $160 million in today's currency, 94% of which has since been used to fund the Nobel Prizes he established in his will. Nobel set up his prizes to ensure that his legacy would be one of benefiting humanity rather than of being remembered as the "merchant of death" for his invention of dynamite. Each year a number of Swedish institutions award the Nobel prizes for outstanding achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Literature and Physiology or Medicine. Oddly, the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Nobel may have been influenced by his admiration for Norwegian writers and peace activists, or by his conviction that Norway was a more peace oriented and democratic country than Sweden. His will did not provide a reason for awarding the Peace Prize in Norway. Unlike the scientific awards, which typically recognize objective empirical achievements, the Peace Prize inherently considers subjective qualifications, which makes it vulnerable to criticism. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person who during the previous year "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace conferences." However, Nobel's explicit mandate has repeatedly been ignored. The awarded prize frequently became a tool to encourage desired political transitions rather than actual peacemaking. The composition of the committee awarding it each year is determined by the Norwegian Parliament, which members reflect the political balance of Norway's legislature. Hence, national interests and the domestic political climate can influence the selection process. And, due to its political nature, the Nobel Peace Prize has been subject to numerous controversies. The prize has occasionally gone to war mongers and blood stained militarists. Henry Kissinger, architect of the secret carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, received the prize in 1973 for negotiating a ceasefire in the Vietnam war. His co-recipient, North Vietnamese diplomat Le Duc To, declined to accept his portion of the award. The backlash to their nomination was so intense that two committee members resigned. Yitzhak Rabin, who oversaw the "Break Their Bones " policy during the first Palestinian Intifada in early 1988, received the prize in 1994. He shared his award with Shimon Peres, father of Israel's nuclear arsenal, who was held responsible for the Qana massacre in Southern Lebanon that killed 106 civilians, and with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. As a confirmed ally of Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, Maria Machado has faced criticism for supporting Israel's bombing of Gaza and for denying that Israel's disproportionately overwhelming response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks amount to genocide. And then there is the arguably premature prize awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into his first term. While there is no official count, at least nine Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded that have been controversial. Examples of some that have been notably absent from the list of awardees are deserving people like Vaclav Havel, who led Czechoslovakia's "Velvet Revolution" and Mahatma Gandhi, who had a profound influence on the concept of non-violent resistance. So, Director Steven Cheung certainly has a point. However, this still raises the question of whether President Trump's record reflects the requisite criteria to merit receiving this award. The push to make Donald Trump the winner of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize already began within hours of the announcement of Venezuela's Machado's win this year. Despite his recent victory for brokering a Gaza ceasefire, his foreign policy featuring "peace through strength," the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, his threats to use military force against foreign territories like Panama and Greenland, ordering air strikes on Iran, or emboldening Israeli aggression in the Middle East, have betrayed his pledge to be a "peacemaker and unifier." Of course, none of this might stop the Nobel Committee from glossing over the traditional impediments to peace writ large. Perhaps it is time to redefine peace in terms of structural transformation and recommitting to the Prize's founding principles. Stop recognizing those who pursue peace not as a political strategy, and using power and military action, but as a principled mission rooted in justice, non-violence and human dignity. Theo Wierdsma

FRACTURED POLITICAL SPEECH NEEDS ATTENTION

President Donald Trump's recent struggle to pronounce the word "acetaminophen" during a press conference in which he advised pregnant women against using Tylenol, elicited mockery across social media. Acetaminophen is the primary ingredient in Tylenol, widely used for pain relief, which the administration alleges is connected to causing autism in children. It was not so much the content of the speech observers were reacting to, but to its inarticulate, embarrassing, rambling execution. Many Americans would probably also have difficulty pronouncing this word when they first see it. But most of us don't have a support staff to help us prepare for a speech to a national audience. We deserve to expect more. While it is not a formal requirement, there is a strong social expectation that U.S. presidents be fluent in English. Our office holder's use of language is a key tool for connecting with the public, conveying personality and projecting strength. His or her command of English, including all elements of grammar - speech, sentence structure, word order, - elements that work together to create meaningful and coherent sentences, is considered a critical part of their public persona and ability to communicate effectively with the American public and the international community. However, there is no constitutional or legal requirement concerning language proficiency for a president. Historically, many early presidents were multilingual due to their classical education or diplomatic roles abroad. That trend largely disappeared by the 20th century. The modern presidency, with its mass communication through media, places a much greater emphasis on a leader's perceived fluency in English Even though President Trump has openly considered himself to be "really smart" and a "stable genius," these are subjective qualifiers that are not always objectively measured, nor essential for capable communication. IQ tests, frequently referred to when discussing "genius," are not really useful for measuring someone's effectiveness. There are hundreds of different tests, with one study even identifying more than 200. Formats vary in their focus on specific cognitive abilities. A test used to determine a person's communication skills is the "Flesch-Kincaid" grade level formula which estimates the U.S. school grade level needed to understand a piece of text. It measures text complexity based on average sentence and word length used to insure content is understood by the intended audience. In other words, at what grade level does someone communicate with spectators or listeners. A historical review of an analysis, assessing the first 30,000 unscripted words spoken by the last 15 presidents from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that most presidential candidates speak at grade level 6 through 8. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, who were basically at an 11th grade level, made the top of the list. President Trump clocks in around mid 4th grade level, the worst since Harry Truman, who spoke at nearly a 6th grade level. Mr. Trump was judged to speak at the lowest grade level with the smallest vocabulary. Many Americans, 54%, can't read past 6th grade competency. Having said all this, it bears repeating that there is no constitutional requirement for a president to demonstrate proficiency in English or to practice effective communication skills. But it helps! Our executive branch of government is typically equipped with speech writers and policy experts whose task include translating complex policy into a clear message that reflects a president's unique speaking style and personality. This involves research, drafting, review and rehearsal. Taking advantage of this dedicated staff could prevent public embarrassment in the future. Theo Wierdsma

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS SHAPE GLOBAL TRAVEL

A few decades ago, a life-time friend of mine in The Netherlands, refused to consider visiting us in California as long as George Bush was in office. This rejection caught me unexpectedly off guard. However, in retrospect, at that time his mindset symbolized an emerging reaction to multiple adverse political factors affecting international travel into the U.S. At the time, his attitude prevailed among many potential international travelers. Foreign tourism to the U.S. was dramatically impacted by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The decline resulted from psychological factors, new security measures and restrictive visa policies. The perception that was created suggested that entry into the U.S. was difficult. Besides, the Iraq war, started in March of 2003, and the "Bush Doctrine," which held that the country would implement a policy of preemptive military strikes against nations known to be harboring terrorist organizations, further damaged the sense of international goodwill toward the U.S. Our travel industry's share of the global market dropped from a peak of 9.4% in 1992 to a low of 5.9% in 2004. This decline cost us billions of tourist dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. Since the Bush years, the political landscape has changed. However, history appears to be repeating itself. Globally, tourism contributes about 10% to the value of all goods and services produced (GDP), employing 1 in 10 people world-wide. In 2024, global tourism's direct contribution was estimated at $10.9 trillion. The sector generated a record breaking $2.6 trillion to the U.S. economy that same year. This amounted to about 8% of our GDP, supporting 20 million jobs and $585 billion in tax revenue. The tourism industry is indisputably a vital part of our economy, and foreign travel constitutes a significant slice of this. In early 2025, the "U.S. Travel Association" projected that foreign travel spending would increase to $200.8 billion this year. This would have amounted to a substantial growth of 9% over 2024. However, in May, noting a sharp and widespread drop in arrivals, the "World Travel and Tourism Council" radically revised this assessment, and projected that this level of spending would actually drop to $169 billion, 8% below 2024. In addition, the Council predicted that, out of 184 countries tracked, the U.S. would end up being the only one to experience a decline in international visitor spending. So, what happened? More than a dozen countries, from Canada to Europe to China, have published advisories about travel to the U.S.. Tariffs, immigration crack down, repeated jabs about the U.S. acquiring Canada and Greenland, visions of army units on the streets, fears of being questioned at the border, the requirement to choose either "male" or "female" on visa applications, specific risks for those identifying as LGBTQ+, the fall of the dollar against the Euro, and a significant increase in the perception of uncertainty about what might happen next, are some of the concerns expressed by potential visitors. The loss won't be felt by travel and tourism alone. It represents a direct blow to the overall U.S. economy, impacting communities, jobs and businesses from coast to coast. Canadian tourist traffic, traditionally representing 28% of the total number of international visitors has already experienced a 25% drop, seriously affecting business income in a number of northern states. Las Vegas, which is significantly dependent on international traffic, has seen 12% fewer visitors each month since May. And Washington D.C., a traditional draw for foreign visitors, so far logged 48 cancellations of large reservations and events, and expects many more. Industries relying on foreign tourists: hospitality, retail and transportation are bracing for continued declines. Every 1% drop in international visitor spending equals $1.8 billion in lost revenue for our economy. This means that we stand to lose more than $21 billion in travel related income this year. Those depending on the tourism industry for their livelihood are legitimately wondering when their sector of the economy might recover. The FIFA world cup scheduled for next year may help spark a renewed interest in the U.S. as a travel destination. However, a sustainable recovery will depend on political and policy changes. A shift in policy focus, particularly toward improving visa access and easing travel restrictions should help revive this vital slice of our economy. Until then, the country's tourism industry must grapple with the lasting effects of restrictive policies and uncertain political conditions. Theo Wierdsma

CHARLIE KIRK'S TRANSITION TO MARTYRDOM

Charlie Kirk's assassination on the Utah Valley University campus on September 10 forcefully reminded us of a macabre American ritual featuring the combination of gun violence and toxic politics. The right-wing political activist, founder of the youth organization "Turning Point USA" had not been elected to any political office. However, given his status as a prominent supporter of President Trump's MAGA movement he touched a chord of nearly biblical dimensions, to some degree resembling the response traditionally anticipated after the assassination of prominent political personalities. It is uniformly understood that, in civil society, regardless of political affiliation, deadly violence generated by political viewpoints, can never be tolerated or justified. But, as a country, we have periodically cycled through times of upheaval, discord and division which, unfortunately, have culminated in a spree of politically motivated killings. During the 1960s we witnessed the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. During the early part of this century we experienced deadly encounters and assassination attempts of former Representative Gaby Gifford, Representative Steve Scalise, Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband, an attempt on the lives of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, an arson fueled attempt on the life of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and family, and multiple attacks on, then candidate, Donald Trump. A significant difference between the toxic environment of the 1960s and today is the influence of social media. Its reach not only helps to amplify extreme viewpoints, it can also be used to positively prevent adverse responses. To his credit, President Trump's initial reaction to Charlie Kirk's unconscionable execution was commendable and presidential. He pointed out that "It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequences of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most despicable way possible." This could have been the beginning of an attempt at proactively calming an anticipated national response. However, he could not help putting his foot in his mouth. Before any motive for this abhorrent act was even apparent, he reverted to his established mantra, and continued by accusing "those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop now!" The president appeared unwilling to acknowledge that he was part of the problem. He routinely refers to his opponents as "vermin" that need to be rooted out. He calls judges "monsters," and identifies those who oppose his policies as "scum," radical left thugs that lie and cheat on elections, and will do anything to destroy America and the American Dream. He threatened to put Liz Cheney, "a radical war hawk," in front of a firing squad, shoot protesters "in the legs or something," and so on. In the mean time he spearheaded the public veneration of Charlie Kirk and "the American values for which he lived and died. While largely ignoring to acknowledge the recent threats, violent attacks and killing of Democrats. He similarly ignored the myriad of highly controversial hate filled viewpoints espoused by his "deceased" supporter. He ordered the American flag to continue to be flown at half staff past the remembrance of 9/11 "in honor of Charlie Kirk." He sent Vice President Vance to escort Kirk's remains from Utah to Arizona on Air Force 2. And he posthumously awarded Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our highest civilian award. Many conservatives view Kirk's death as a galvanizing force for years to come, an opportunity to supercharge the movement he started and to cement conservative Christian values into American life. Jackson Lahmeyer, a pastor in Oklahoma, founder of the "Pastors for Trump" network, contributed: "Charlie died for what he believed in, he died for something greater than just himself. The shooter's motive could have been political, religious or something else. Regardless, he was a martyr." Politically, leading figures on the far-right now feel empowered to call for a crackdown on their ideological opponents. Many call for the administration to "prosecute every single leftist organization." On the defensive, many others now fear that Mr. Trump and his allies will use Kirk's killing as a pretext to attack their political opponents, suppress liberal political activity and suspend democratic rights. Lilliana Mason, political science professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, is one of many who worry that to the extent that leaders are framing this assassination as something that needs to be retaliated against creates a huge opportunity for bad things to happen. "If the cycle of retaliatory violence gets started, it's really hard to stop it." Both sides in our polarized political world will need to lower the temperature of our agitated discourse or find an off ramp before it gets worse. Designating a "chosen one" and elevating him to "MAGA Sainthood" won't solve our perennial problem. Theo Wierdsma

RESHAPING THE FOCUS OF HISTORY

From the first day his administration assumed office this January, President Trump broke all records issuing executive orders. He generated 26 on his first day alone. These presidential directives covered a wide swath of topics, from sweeping changes in how the federal government works to signaling his intention to reshape how the country's stories are told. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, creators of Mr. Trump's blueprint "Project 2025," especially welcomed the new administration's push to influence history and culture, combating what it referred to as "the totalitarian cult identified as the great awokening." The president's "White House Executive Order" of March 27, titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" serves as a case in point. It calls for the removal of "divisive, race centered ideology" at the Smithsonian Institution, and instructs the Interior Secretary to revoke recent changes to landmarks and monuments if they are found to "perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history." It calls for "withholding federal money from programs related to diversity, equality and inclusion or promoting gender ideology," while it also mandates including a "patriotic" curriculum into K-12 education, accusing schools of indoctrinating children in anti-American ideologies. Jefferson Cowie, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at Vanderbilt University, suggests that Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" points to how he wants to portray history. The idea is that he "works on nostalgia for a golden age," that there is some version of America we need to get back to. This approach hints at an essential divide when interpreting the story of the United States: Is America a country striving to return to former glory, or a nation on a continuous arc of self improvement? The "Organization of American Historians," the largest professional society dedicated to U.S. history, warned that Trump's order to rewrite history to reflect a glorified narrative downplays or erases elements of American history - slavery, discrimination, division - while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups. Angela Diaz, Associate Professor of history at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana, observes that a large majority of Americans - for instance women, people of color, the impoverished - did not in fact flourish during the so-called golden era of the past. For many groups, a return to the past would mean "erasing a lot of the legal, economic, political, technological, and social progress that the country has made and calling all of this into question." It is, of course, not uncommon that in times of social and political upheaval political leaders seek to refocus the lens of history. History is replete with attempts at erasing unwanted philosophies, often by burning books and documents containing content controversial for the time and threatening established authority. These events took place as recently as the Nazi book burning organized by students during the 1930s and focused on purging literature representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. Even in our own country data shows that since 2021, more than 15,000 books have been banned from libraries across 43 states. Most of these feature characters or stories about people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and those dealing with race and racism. This does not mean that historical revisionism is somehow illegitimate. The reinterpretation of a historical account by challenging established views using new evidence, questions or perspectives is a legitimate process essential for historiography. However, distorting the past, deliberately misrepresenting historical events to serve ideological agendas or fit a particularly political viewpoint without scientific foundation is not. The perceptive works of social critic George Orwell illuminated how the control of history could lead us down a slippery slope towards autocracy. He astutely projected that: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The main character in his dystopian novel "1984", Winston Smith, who secretly rebels against the totalitarian regime of "Oceania" complaints pointedly: "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute to minute. Nothing exists except our endless present in which the party is always right." The Trump administration's push to rewrite American history is stirring up significant controversy, but what kind of lasting effect might it have? According to Vanderbilt's Cowie: "As long as the data is not lost, it all seems reversible. Essentially, since they are executive orders, they can be reversed by a new regime." Theo Wierdsma

GASLIGHTING THE EFFECTS OF TARIFFS

President Donald Trump continues to "gaslight" the country about the effects of his ever shifting tariff policies. Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation designed to intentionally mislead someone. When used over a considerable amount of time, we begin to doubt ourselves, believe an alternate truth, and we even start to wonder if we are losing our mind. President Trump's repetitive enunciation of his mantra that "billions of dollars are flowing into America" as a result of his policies, and his claim that tariffs will restore jobs and cut trade deficits, are attempts to manipulate public perception and downplay the negative economic effects of his tariff policies, and seem self serving and substantially without merit. Tariffs are taxes governments impose on imported goods. They are traditionally used to protect domestic industries by making foreign products more expensive, and encourage consumers to purchase locally manufactured commodities. However, if a country lacks competing merchandise, for instance coffee, these taxes only increase their costs without available alternatives. Besides, Mr. Trump's persistent declarations that foreign governments pay his tariffs is either naively or deliberately off the mark. U.S. importers, not foreign governments pay these tariffs. They generate the revenue for our government. The higher cost of imports create trade barriers which increase prices, which reduce the available quantity of goods and services for U.S. businesses and consumers. According to the largest and most complex financial institutions in the country, J.P. Morgan Chase, tariffs not only raise prices, they slow economic growth, cut profits, increase unemployment, worsen inequality, diminish productivity and increase global tensions. Aside from his, however naive misplaced pursuit of traditional trade objectives, President Trump has used tariffs as a tool to advance various policy goals. He threatened to use tariffs to influence countries on issues like immigration and deportation policies. For example, he linked tariffs on Colombian goods to that country accepting deported migrants; he threatened increased tariffs on Mexico and Canada to pressure them to curb the flow of migrants and fentanyl; and he issued a 50% tariff on Brazil because he was unhappy about that country's trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro. And there are other examples of this questionable use of economic policy. What is true is that tariffs are generating tens of billions of dollars each month. In July, the government collected nearly $30 billion, a 242% increase over the same month last year. However, this increase in revenue does NOT come foreign exporters, it is paid by domestic importers. Aside from threatening the continued viability of many small businesses that are unable to absorb the effects of these ill-advised policies, they will predictably end up significantly increasing annual expenses for the average American household. The Yale Budget Lab, a non-partisan policy research center which provides in-depth analyses of federal policy proposals for the American economy, estimates that this increase could be between $2,400 and $3,800 in 2025. Since current tariff policies seem to result overwhelmingly in higher prices for goods and services, we, at a minimum, ought to stop believing the propaganda coming out of the White House. In the mean time, let's tighten our belts. Theo Wierdsma

DEMONIZING IMMIGRANTS THREATENS OUR CORE VALUES

A foundational aspect of our national identity is the widely regarded notion that the United States is a nation of immigrants. While the country has also seen periods of restrictive immigration policies, our history is deeply intertwined with the movement of people from other nations. No other state has as large an immigrant population as does the United States. With the important exception of those descended from native peoples and/or enslaved Americans, few people in this country cannot trace at least part of their ancestry to an immigrant either recently or centuries ago. Today, almost 15% of our population is foreign born. Nevertheless, immigration has persistently remained one of the most contentious social and political issues in our history. The policies and activities initiated by the Trump administration serve as a case in point. Historically, from roughly 1607 to around 1830, immigration into this country began with colonial patterns shaped by diverse motivations, including religious freedom, economic opportunity, and the forced migration of Africans through the slave trade. Early settlers predominantly arrived from England, followed by waves of Germans, Scottish and Irish. The second wave of immigrants, of over 10 million people, arrived during the period dominated by the idea of "Manifest Destiny," the belief that the United States was destined to expand its territory and spread its political, social and economic influence across the North American continent. This idea fueled a westward expansion, which required a constant flow of reinforcements to expand, secure and defend the frontier. Immigrants filling this need consisted predominantly of Anglo protestants, later followed by Northern and Western Europeans. Around the mid 19th century, immigration was influenced by multiple foreign and domestic events. The potato famine suffered by Ireland, around 1846, brought almost one million new immigrants from that country. The California Gold Rush of 1849-1855 prompted an infusion of fortune seekers. And the Homestead Act, signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862 allowed any citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S., to claim 160 acres of surveyed government land, drew millions of settlers and shaped the demographics of the American West. The introduction of Irish Catholics challenged the dominance of native Protestants, spurring the rise of an anti Catholic "Know Nothing" movement in Massachusetts and elsewhere. During the 1860s and 1870s opposition to Chinese migrants culminated in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the entry and reentry of Chinese immigrants for more than 70 years. And the Immigration Act of 1924 added literacy tests and country specific quotas. The motivation behind these restrictive measures was mostly cultural, the fear that allowing foreign cultures would increasingly dilute and pollute the demographic make-up of the native population. However, much of cultural prejudice was converted to expressions of economic concerns, suggesting that new arrivals would give the native population disadvantageous competition. The "Immigration and Nationality Act" of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, eliminated the national origins quota system that had favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe. It opened the door for new immigrants seeking better economic opportunities and escaping political turmoil. As a consequence, over 70 million immigrants arrived in the U.S., 18 million from Mexico alone. Although not all stayed, and many were ultimately reclassified, by 2023 more than 48 million foreign born individuals lived in the U.S.. Not unexpected, the volatility of the issue has proven to be fertile political fodder for our elected representatives. The racist, draconian and selectively demonizing policies of the Trump administration, spearheaded by Stephen Miller, the president's Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, has been decisively one sided feeding into a manufactured anti-immigrant frenzy. Unsurprisingly, the administration has ignored the beneficial impact and positive contribution provided by adding new immigrants into our cultural mix. An often overlooked statistic is generated by the reality that our population is rapidly aging. This trend is driven by increased longevity and lower birth rates. By 2030, adults over 65 are expected to outnumber those under 18. This poses significant complications for the economy, health care and social security systems. The accepted population replacement level is 2.1 births per woman. And this would only result in zero population growth. Our current fertility rate is just 1.7%. Immigration can help rectify this situation. Foreign born women tend to have much higher birth rates than those born in the country. Immigrants, including those who are undocumented, help businesses fill positions vacated by retirees. Their taxes help fund the governmental social security programs upon which retirees depend. In their totality, in 2022, immigrants contributed $382.9 billion in taxes. Of this $59.4 billion came from the undocumented segment of this population. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.) Immigrants posses skills that are complimentary to those of natives, who end up specializing in jobs that have higher earnings prospects. They are also more mobile than U.S. born workers. They move to areas of relatively high labor demand. Besides, immigrant labor keeps prices low, while immigrant demand for goods and services stimulate growth in the economy. Moreover, the foreign born start new businesses at significantly higher rates than U.S. born individuals. The question remains: Are we a nation of immigrants, or should we be? History established the relevance of immigrants during the development and growth of our country. We actively recruited them when we needed help during our post colonial westward expansion, as a necessary supply of labor during the period of rapid industrialization, and as fieldworkers for our agricultural production. Besides, in the famous words of Emma Lazarus, inscribed on a plaque connected to the Statue of Liberty, we have taken in many of the millions of "tired and poor" refugees passing through Ellis Island, which, in many ways, cemented welcoming immigrants as one of our core values. Independent analyses convincingly established the significant net benefit immigrants contribute to our economy. While nativist expressions of discomfort with the influx of immigrants have surfaced periodically, the current administration's approach appears unnecessarily mindless and demonic in concept and execution. Immigrant contributions to our history and culture should be celebrated and revered, not trivialized and vilified. Theo Wierdsma