I previously had an understanding that migrant workers have an increase in income when moving to a new country, I also understood some of the benefits migrant workers can have on the country they move to. For instance, the document mentions that as migrant workers get jobs in their new country, native-workers stray away from those jobs and begin working higher paying jobs. It is somewhat easy to understand if you hear that migrant workers are taking jobs why native workers would be fearful they will be out of work, however the whole story is not there. Migrant workers are getting jobs - not taking them - and in the wake of this native-workers gravitate away from these specific jobs, gaining in the process. I appreciate the wording in this document, "The gains for immigrants do not come at the expense of the host countries." This is helps paint the picture that there are gains to be achieved by everyone. It appears a large sum of people have not seen the evidence that migrant workers are not the only ones who benefit in the destination country, making it easier to be opposed to the idea rather than accepting it as the mutually beneficial act it is.

I have recently become interested in examining the relationship between the US and Russia without the influences of the media. I find it interesting the document concludes there was no direct interference from Russia on the tallying of votes. My understanding after reading this document and having various discussions on the matter is that Russia intended to create unrest among the American people. A few of the other comments on this document mention the involvement of Russia in other country's elections, which I was unaware of. I find this alarming, it makes me question if there is another goal in mind among the Russian government that will come of the election involvement. If there is another goal that would be achieved by gaining knowledge of election processes of other countries, what could that mean for future elections in the US?

I am not particularly familiar with US activity in space, however this was informative. The unfamiliarity of space and this idea of military space power has me quite curious about how this will be done in practice. To me, the document seemed somewhat vague on specific methods of achieving military space power. It appears the US wants to maintain an advantage in space and be prepared for environment. I believe this is something we should be making a plan for, especially considering there are several states that do not share our democratic values are our major competitors in space warfare. The document also mentions this opens up a new line of cooperation with US allies. I am hopeful that this will lead to stronger alliances and establishing space as a peaceful zone through cooperation among multiple states.

I am not particularly knowledgable on the Arctic region. I had not thought about how vital it would be to defense. I find it interesting that we have as much military power in the region as we do. However, after reading this I have a new perspective and it makes quite a bit of sense to have our air force in the Arctic. This appears to be an intriguing area to research. I also am interested in the portion that mentions great power activity in the Arctic. The strategy mentions China not being an Arctic region. As we discussed with the set of documents pertaining to China, China's military is growing closer to the capacity of the US military. With China not having direct access to the Arctic, could our access give us an advantage?

My knowledge of the relationship between Hong Kong and the PRC is quite limited, so I am enjoying these readings as a learning experience. I find I am a little surprised at the level of autonomy Hong Kong seems to have. I assumed there would be more of an influence from the PRC on Hong Kong. Based on what I have read it appears Hong Kong has specific policies that are leading it in the direction of forming a strong democratic state. As @Roy Rashke pointed out there are a few policies that are quite similar to core US policies, for instance the concept of property rights. I was also a bit surprised to learn that there is essentially no hand from the PRC in Hong Kong's finances. I am excited to continue learning.

Powerful states around the world are constantly improving their military capabilities. The US military is focusing on new threats and improving to overcome such, China is doing the same. However, with the mention of the US as major competitor to China there is reason to be worrisome. I am sure we have all seen the rise of the PRC and that it is becoming a top global competitor in many aspects. With that being said, it is not ideal that the China is seemingly closing the gap between our military capabilities. Like @Roy Rashke it would be a global disaster if tensions between China and the US increased to warfare, especially if we are nearly equal in several aspects of warfare. The increasing nuclear stockpile China is planning with their goal of becoming more active with foreign policy is not a situation the US wants to be in.

I am not particularly familiar with ASEAN, nevertheless this was an interesting read. Correct me if I am wrong, but from my understanding it appears the charter was not in force until several decades after the association was originally established. If my understanding is correct it is impressive that 10 states were able to maintain a relationship for so long without a formal charter. Although, based on the discussion it does not appear to be especially unified. It appears that the members of ASEAN would have a better chance at becoming a larger global influence if they were able to cooperate with each other and look back at the goals they established in the charter as well as utilizing what other charters are finding to be successful for maintaining peace. As a few of my colleagues pointed out, NATO and ASEAN have many similarities in their goals (specifically promoting stability and peace in their region). Since the United Nations was founded prior to both of these regional associations it appears to be an easy starting point for establishing one's own charter considering the member states overlap. Due to the overlap, ASEAN member states must adhere to the UN charter (similar to NATO) leading to the similarities we see between the two charters.

From today's document, it appears the member states of NATO are attempting to continuously improve upon their methods. It seems that they are taking a look at which strategies have turned successful and which have not. I think it is beneficial (as I am sure most others would) to review what has been done and what could use improvement and I think NATO is trying to do just that. While it is good that on paper NATO is showing self reflection, I am not sure it is exactly being properly carried out. On paper NATO seems to be making improvements and establishing more effective ways to combat crises, however is the execution of involvement proving to be more beneficial?

NATO is very solidified in its values and purposes. The member states of NATO have such a variety of connections throughout the world and bringing together these states provides a strong and dedicated organization to work toward international peace and security.

Technology has become an important part of international relations itself and it is important to be up to date and anticipatory of new trends and developments. There are new ways now to be vulnerable because of the cybersphere and we need to be diligent when addressing cyber threats as it could pose a threat to our infrastructure. I find it interesting that when technology is discussed in this document it is mentioned that there are some things that cannot be done through technology. We are seeing this in a very real way in our current circumstance. It has become difficult to maintain strong relationships with even our peers which shows very clearly that we cannot rely on technology for some of the most important aspects of maintaining our allies and our presence in the world. This document is from 2017 and to me seems slightly ahead of its time by recognizing that technology has its limitations and there are many things that require face-to-face interaction.