RI's mission is a unique combo of watchdog, advocate, and expert advisor toward the humanitarian system and the political actors who shape it.
Doing that credibly requires independence from those big players - so RI doesn't take funding from governments or the UN.
That mission is more important than ever. The last decade has seen a major erosion in political support for core asylum and refugee norms.
The US and EU in particular have built numerous workarounds to avoid fulfilling their commitments to protect people displaced by crisis.
RI holds governments and political actors to account through reports like these - calling out bad behavior without fear or favor. refugeesinternational.org/reports/2022/2…
RI also works to hold the humanitarian aid system accountable - in particular by calling out how the system skews toward the interests of big aid agencies rather than frontline local groups. refugeesinternational.org/reports/2022/9…
But RI doesn't just write reports - it translates that analysis in concrete political action and policy change. One of the coolest parts of this work is the @RefugeeAdvcyLab, which drives pro-refugee policies at the state/local levels in the US. refugeeadvocacylab.org
Because RI doesn't take government or UN funding, all of this vital work depends on private giving.
The reality is that this usage of Title 42 was a baldly political misuse of the authority by successive administrations, and had nothing to do with actual public health impact. The court is right to call them out on that.
If they want to simply suspend asylum processing at the border, then the administration should own up to that. That would be an awful thing to do, and they don't want to propose it.
But that's the practical effect and express intent of keeping Title 42 in place.
“Make as much $$ as you can in order to give it away” presumes that billionaires rather than democratic governments should be the ones to allocate funds for existential public goods.
That also doesn’t seem like a terribly enduring foundation for “long term” macro goals. If you think colonizing Mars or addressing other catastrophic risks is existentially vital, why on earth would you leave that to the whims of billionaires rather than a governance priority?
Core problem is this: there's no real evidence for lab origin, but due to China's obfuscation, it can't be definitively refuted either. So it become a sort of Rorschach test that hinges on your priors.
If your priors interpret the fact pattern thru a political lens, you may lean lab leak. Especially if you have a political preference for that outcome.
Trump admin did this repeatedly despite no real evidence. And nothing materially new has emerged since.
Incidentally, when I rejoined government in early 2021, I requested a detailed intel briefing on everything we knew on COVID origins - just to make sure there wasn't in fact something compelling that hadn't been publicly disclosed.
As a @Calvin_Uni alum, this story is heartbreaking. What I loved about the school was precisely the willingness to faithfully question dogma - a dynamic that this story captures so so well. Alas that ethos seems to be eroding if not collapsing.
Tension around faith, science, and culture has a long history at the school. Long before Joe Kuilema there was Howard Van Till, who had the temerity to argue that Christians should affirm evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_J.…
The fact that Van Till’s work was ultimately accepted by the school, while Kuilema was forced out, is a sad sign of decline. And, I dare say, of insecurity by forces that sense they are losing the larger cultural battle here.
Germany's current per capita death rate - even though elevated, remains distinctly lower than here in the US.
And their cumulative per capita death rate is *far* lower than ours in the US - largely because they acted much more vigorously to contain their spring surge, and avoid a summer surge entirely (they had a flat summer; we just kept on rising).