Authored by Denes Albert via ReMix News,

Aid to non-EU migrants will be subject to a five-year residency requirement…

An ad-hoc committee of the French legislature came to a compromise regarding the country’s new immigration bill, which the right hailed as an “ideological victory.”

Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, welcomed the agreement and announced that her MPs would vote in favor of the bill.

“We are celebrating an ideological breakthrough, an ideological victory for the National Alliance, as this law now enshrines the national priority of giving French citizens an advantage over foreigners in our country in access to certain social benefits,” said Le Pen.

The bill’s key elements are a five-year residence requirement before non-EU migrants can receive state welfare aid — or 30 months if they are employed. It also contains provisions that dual nationals who have committed a crime in France can lose their citizenship and be repatriated.

The law also features migration quotas, and makes it more difficult for the children of immigrants to become French citizens.

After the French Senate rejected the government’s original watered-down proposal last week, a joint committee of the two houses debated the issue for four days.

Eventually, last night, the assembly passed the bill, which many analysts say is a cornerstone of Macron’s second term in office, which began last May.

“Today, strict measures are necessary,” Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin said after the vote in the lower house.

“It’s not by holding your nose in central Paris that you can fix the problems of the French in the rest of the country.”

Meanwhile, right-wing parties, whose more stringent proposals have been incorporated into the bill, are celebrating the vote as their own victory. The left has described the proposals as “radical.”

Éric Ciotti, leader of the center-right Republicans, said “This is our text” and indicated that the group would vote in favor.

But Socialist leader Boris Vallaud, in agreement with other left-wing forces, condemned “a great moment of shame.”

…

Read more here…

Authored by Lt. General (ret.) Keith Kellogg and Dan Negrea via The National Interest,

Far from abandoning Ukraine, a second Trump administration would lift restrictions on Ukrainian military aid in order to force a peace settlement…

Donald Trump has vowed that in a second presidential term, he would end the war in Ukraine “in twenty-four hours.” Mainstream analysts have dismissed the president’s statements as hyperbole, but there is a strong possibility that Trump will be back in the Oval Office in just over a year’s time. Foreign policy experts, therefore, should take the former President’s statements seriously and assess how a Trump administration might deal with the largest conflict in Europe since World War II.

Let us start by recognizing that Biden’s Ukraine strategy leaves much room for improvement. His weaknesses encouraged Putin to launch the invasion in the first place. Biden’s own Supreme Allied Commander in Europe assessed that Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan led to Putin’s decision to re-attack Ukraine. Biden’s feeble attempts at “integrated deterrence,” threatening sanctions and aid to Ukraine, failed in their intended purpose of deterring Putin’s aggression. 

Putin invaded Ukraine under both Obama and Biden, but he did not attack while Trump was president. Trump has stated that the Russia-Ukraine war would “never have happened” under his watch.

Following Putin’s invasion, Biden pursued an overly cautious wartime strategy. Instead of clearly defining a goal of victory, Biden vowed to help Ukraine “as long as it takes.” But this only raises the question: as long as it takes to do what? Biden should have provided Ukraine with the weapons it needed to win quickly, but instead, he was afraid of potential Russian “escalation” and provided a cautious IV-drip of arms. Biden opposed providing many major weapons systems, like tanks, aircraft, and long-range artillery before changing his mind. The result is that Ukraine has had enough weapons to fight but not enough to win.

Biden’s revealed wartime strategy was to spend billions of dollars only to produce a bloody and inconclusive stalemate.

In contrast, based exclusively on his public statements, one can divine a very different Trump doctrine for Ukraine. He has argued that he would use his personal relationship with Zelenskyy and Putin to negotiate a settlement to the conflict “in one day.” The one-day timeframe may be overly ambitious as neither Putin nor Zelenskyy has expressed an interest in a negotiated settlement. Both sides appear to believe that they can still prevail on the battlefield.

But Trump’s proposed approach could change that calculation. Trump said, “I would tell Putin, if you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give him a lot. We’re going to give [Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to.”

Trump’s past actions make that threat credible. While in office, Trump showed that he was willing to push boundaries, lifting Obama-era restrictions on the rules of engagement in the fight against ISIS and killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. If Putin refuses to negotiate, Trump might very well remove the Biden-eras constraints on arms transfers and give Ukraine the weapons it needs to win, including long-range weapons to strike within Crimea and Russia. If faced with the prospect of a costly military defeat, Putin may very well prefer negotiations. 

To bring Kyiv to the table, Trump said, “I would tell Zelenskyy, ‘no more.’ You got to make a deal.” Ukraine can only sustain the war effort due to large-scale Western support, and the prospect of losing aid would be a strong inducement to negotiation.

A ceasefire along the current lines and subsequent negotiations would preserve a sovereign, democratic Ukraine anchored in the West and capable of defending itself. Kyiv would maintain its internationally-recognized claims to sovereignty over all of Ukraine. A halt to hostilities would also facilitate the provision of reliable security guarantees, including possible NATO and EU membership, to deter Russia from resuming the conflict. While less satisfying than (what increasingly appears to be an unachievable) total military victory, this outcome would represent a strategic defeat for Russia and a strengthening of American national security and the Western alliance.

Some Republicans argue that the Ukraine conflict is a European matter of no consequence to the United States. Strategically, as his public comments reinforce, Trump disagrees. He sees ending the war as a major foreign policy issue—one that he plans to accomplish on day one.

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire,

Young Republican voters overwhelmingly want Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee in 2024, and they only disagree on whether he should choose Tucker Carlson or Vivek Ramaswamy as his running mate, according to a straw poll of participants who attended Turning Point Action’s annual AmericaFest.

Obtained exclusively by RealClearPolitics, the results provide a snapshot of the youth vote just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The online poll was conducted by Turning Point Action Dec. 17-18 and surveyed 1,113 attendees at the TPUSA conference in Phoenix, Ariz.

The results show Trump as the clear favorite with 82.6% of respondents choosing the former president as their first choice. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second with 7.6%, while Vivek Ramaswamy followed closely in third with 5.8%. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who has garnered national media attention and a recent bump in momentum, finished fifth.

Barely more than 1%, or 12 voters, at the Trump-friendly event said they preferred Haley compared to the 2.5% who remained “undecided.”

The topline results are not surprising given that the founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, remains an ardent ally of the former president and previously served as the CEO of Students for Trump. But the survey sheds light on a question currently dominating Trump world.

When asked whom Trump should choose as his vice president if he wins the nomination, 35%, a plurality, settled on former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Another 25.7%, meanwhile, preferred Ramaswamy. Both men made headlines with their remarks at the conference.

Ramaswamy responded from the main stage to criticism from CNN host Van Jones, who called him a demagogue earlier this month. “Just shut the f–k up,” the businessman-turned-politician said to applause. For his part, Carlson downplayed the idea of entering politics himself.

“It’s like the weather,” the pundit replied when asked about joining the ticket with Trump. “I can’t control it,” Carlson said after floating Ramaswamy instead for VP. “I don’t think I’d be that great at that.”

On the eve of the primary, the results reflect the policy appetites of the right-leaning youth. Attendees ranked border security and “deporting Biden-era illegal immigrants” as their top priority ahead of “election integrity” and “defunding the deep state,” which ranked second and third. Meanwhile, ending diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from the government, which has been a calling card of the DeSantis campaign, ranked as their lowest priority.

Mirroring a larger shift on the right, the survey also shows a youth vote increasingly skeptical of foreign aid to Ukraine but largely supportive of Israel’s war with Hamas. A clear majority, 55.4%, backed giving lethal aid to Tel Aviv, less than 1% supported sending the same to Kyiv, and 39.4% responded that the United States shouldn’t provide such supplies to either Israel or Ukraine.

Congress generally earns poor approval ratings, but the young Republicans seemed to like newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson, with 57% either somewhat or strongly approving of his job performance. They were somewhat split, meanwhile, on whether the House should have expelled former New York Rep. George Santos, who made numerous false representations about himself during the previous election.

While 32% approved of the Santos expulsion, 47% disapproved of the history-making move which had only occurred five times previously.

The same week that the House approved an impeachment inquiry of President Biden, 49.6% said that they supported removing him from office. Another 24.3% reported that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas should be impeached, while 15.2% wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland gone.

As both parties court the youth vote, the survey found that young Republicans in the Turning Point orbit are unsatisfied with RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. An overwhelming 87% said that she should step down, and 56% reported that her departure would make them “more likely” to donate to the party. Charlie Kirk supported Harmeet Dhillon in her unsuccessful challenge of McDaniel earlier this year.

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors asked the Florida judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents trial to approve a written jury questionnaire ahead of an in-person selection process, given the high profile of the case.

In a Dec. 19 motion to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, special prosecutor Jack Smith’s office said, “Because the pre-trial publicity surrounding this case is substantial, the Government recommends a thorough jury selection process, including a written questionnaire completed by potential jurors before in-person voir dire.”

The jury questionnaire would form part of a comprehensive jury selection process that prosecutors seek to expedite the selection process by identifying uncontested strikes for cause and hardship before in-person voir dire, a process in which potential jurors are screened to determine their impartiality.

Citing the high profile of the case, Mr. Smith’s office also argues that using a jury questionnaire in addition to in-person voir dire will safeguard President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair and efficient jury selection process. The motion suggests that a questionnaire will streamline the process by allowing the parties and the court to conduct informed individual questioning of a narrowed pool of potential jurors.

“A written questionnaire, used as part of a comprehensive voir dire process, is a potent tool to sift out potential jury bias in cases where there has been substantial media attention,” Mr. Smith’s office said in the filing.

The motion, noting the 10-week lead time needed in other cases, seeks a Feb. 2, 2024, deadline for the parties to submit a proposed jury questionnaire to Judge Cannon and highlight any disagreement points.

Prosecutors push for this date, noting that there might not be enough time to undertake this process before the May 20, 2024 trial date should they wait to start the process after the March 1, 2024, scheduling conference.

However, Judge Cannon cast doubt on the May 20 trial date in a prior order in November, which pushed back key pre-trial deadlines. The order also noted that the trial’s start date would be “considered at a scheduling conference” in March.

In their filing on Tuesday, prosecutors said that accomplishing the juror questionnaire “requires enough time beforehand to allow for meaningful conferral among the parties and for the Court to consider and resolve disputes.” Furthermore, “Time may also be required to print questionnaires and conduct other processing,” the motion added.

As an alternative to mailing the questionnaires, Mr. Smith’s office suggested that potential jurors could be summoned to the courthouse, acknowledging that this process would also require a lead time for the court to prepare ahead of the May trial date.

Trump Legal Team Opposes Motion

President Trump’s legal team opposes the motion on the grounds that “the relief sought is premature and would not be an economical use of the parties’ time before the court has ruled on discovery demands or other motions,” according to the filing by Mr. Smith’s office.

In June, the former president was indicted on federal charges in Florida of improperly storing sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, according to a sweeping felony indictment.

President Trump entered a plea of not guilty in the case. He has consistently asserted that the case is part of an effort by Democrats to undermine his political prospects, given the significant lead he maintains in presidential primary polls.

The former president also faces charges by Mr. Smith’s office in Washington related to his post-election efforts to challenge the process and results of the 2020 election. He faces similar state charges in Georgia.

He also faces civil fraud charges in New York related to business records toward the end of the 2016 campaign. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges brought by a Democratic attorney general whom he has accused of bias against him.

President Trump has similarly accused the judge presiding over the New York civil case, Arthur Engoron, and his chief law clerk of political bias against him. Judge Engoron has already ruled that the defendants are liable, and the trial is meant to determine penalties and resolve other legal issues in the lawsuit.

The good ole’ days of using dating apps for free appear to be long gone.

Now, such apps are “borderline unusable” without paying up for features, according to a new report by CNBC, which says that users are paying hundreds of dollars a month to use to services. 

“When you’re serious about looking for a relationship, you’re going to put your money where your mouth is,” 38 year old Channing Muller told CNBC. She had signed up for paid versions of sites like Hinge and The League. 

Nikita Sherbina, a software company owner in Phoenix, told CNBC she was spending about $250 monthly on Hinge, Bumble, and Tinder for two years, often cutting back on other expenses like groceries.

A Pew Research Center study indicates that 35% of Americans who have used dating websites or apps have at some point paid for these services, the report says. Morgan Stanley research earlier this year showed that the average subscriber spends about $19 monthly on dating apps.

Some of the prices for apps like The League can run far higher. CNBC wrote that The League offers a VIP membership priced at $999 per week or $2,499 monthly. This premium option gives members the ability to connect with potential matches in various cities, access new profiles before others, and use a specialized concierge service designed to enhance their dating success.

In September, Tinder introduced a high-tier subscription at $499 per month for its most active users, while Hinge has also launched a membership plan costing $600 a month, the report noted. 

Blaine Anderson, a men’s dating coach in Austin, Texas, told CNBC: “The days of venture capital-subsidized swiping are over. [Companies] want to monetize the services they provide to eager singles.”

“There’s a group of users who are eager to use our premium features,” added  AJ Balance, Grindr chief product officer. 

However, the apps have seen some slowdown in usage. “The apps are pulling from the same dating pool, and so [users] are seeing the same people, matching with the same people and not finding anyone new,” Kathryn Coduto, an assistant professor at Boston University who studies internet behavior told CNBC. “This leads to a feeling of frustration and the question of like, ‘What’s the point?’”

She noted that the idea of paying for love isn’t that ‘new’, either. “People have paid for things like personal ads, speed-dating experiences, dating and relationship coaches and matchmakers,” she said. 

That means their revenue can take a hit, just like other companies, as the economy slows. Match Group during a recent earnings call, for example, acknowledged economic challenges like student loan payments and credit card delinquencies as potential threats to its revenue. 

Authored by Samantha Flom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) small business lending rule will remain in effect after President Joe Biden vetoed a joint resolution of disapproval that would have repealed the measure.

The rule in question requires lenders to annually collect and report to the CFPB certain credit application data from the small business owners they lend to, including personal demographics such as race, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The rule, which took effect in August, also enables the creation of a publicly accessible database of small business credit applications.

Republicans have criticized the rule as a move to make the lending process more “woke.”

But in issuing his Dec. 19 veto, President Biden defended the rule, holding that it would increase transparency in small business lending and allow lenders and organizations to better meet the needs of small businesses.

“This Republican-led resolution would hinder the government’s ability to conduct oversight of abusive and predatory lenders, make it harder for 33 million small businesses across the country to assess lending opportunities and access capital, and make it more difficult for lenders and community groups to address the most acute gaps in capital access for minority- and women-owned businesses,” he wrote.

“By hampering efforts to promote transparency and accountability in small business lending, Republicans are siding with big banks and corporations over the needs of small business owners. Small businesses are the engines of our economy, and my administration will not support policies that hurt their ability to thrive and grow.”

‘None of Their Business’

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) led the charge to repeal the rule as the joint resolution’s sponsor, slamming the new demographic reporting requirements as intrusive on the Senate floor.

“The bank has to ask the small businessperson if that person is a lesbian. The bank has to ask the small businessperson if that person is gay,” he noted on Oct. 18, rattling off examples.

“It is none of their business—none of their business—what a private American does with another private, adult American in the privacy of their bedroom.”

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) has also expressed concern that the lending rule would impose a substantial burden on both small banks and small businesses to collect and report the required information.

According to a recent NFIB survey, 67 percent of the organization’s members use a small or regional financial institution for their credit needs and 17 percent use a medium-sized institution.

“Small banks and credit unions, like all small businesses, don’t have as many employees dedicated to compliance and paperwork as large banks do,” the organization noted in an Oct. 18 letter to members of the U.S. Senate. “The rule will disproportionately affect small banks and has the potential to affect the access to credit of their small business customers.”

A veto override would require two-thirds majority votes in both chambers, an unlikely outcome given that Mr. Kennedy’s resolution passed both the House and Senate with slim majorities.