Before starting this essay, I have to acknowledge a recent development touching one of the main points, i.e., Ukraine refugees to the US. The White House has announced it intends to accommodate 100,000 refugees and provide $1B in humanitarian assistance for the 3.6 million (and climbing) displaced Ukrainians who have fled their country. Previously I had heard only minor accommodations like Ukrainians in the US on expiring visas, that Ukrainian/Americans able and willing to sponsor family or others among war refugees weren't getting responses to their hosting requests. I don't know know enough specifics to evaluate the proposal, but we are talking about less than 3% of refugees taken in by one of the world's most populous, prosperous nations and certainly one which bears some moral responsibility by meddling in internal policies, including the 2014 "Revolution of Dignity" and its aftermath.
I believe that liberty and a free market require an open immigration construct, a traditional American policy (with some ugly exceptions like the Chinese Exclusion Act) until the WWI era, which saw the introduction of a quota system, eventually fleshed out and signed into law by President Coolidge almost a century ago. (I generally like Coolidge, but this is an exception.) Much of this was based on labor protectionism (fear of immigrant wage competition). The Dems, as they focused on their emerging union constituency, seized on labor protectionism, even rejecting the Bracero (foreign worker) program from the Eisenhower Administration. The Republicans took the lead on immigration reform under Reagan and George W. Bush. It's true that the Dems took a more nuanced pro-Dreamer (foreign-born undocumented children) standpoint under Obama, but make no mistake: it was no accident that Obama became known as Deporter-in-Chief. While Trump made his "Wall" his signature issue, Biden has promoted pro-union prevailing wage policies and demonized employers for hiring undocumented workers; given his southern border issues, I don't see him wanting to cede the labor protectionist argument to Trump-era Republicans, and that includes things like liberalized refugee policies.
Second, I've been clearly concerned about the neo-con/pro-interventionist bipartisan majority on Capitol Hill which seems to think Biden's measured support on Ukraine military aid sympathetic to Zelensky's plea for a no-fly zone and handing over the 23 Polish MiG's, the latter points which Biden justifiably worries could widen the war to include the US/NATO. We libertarians oppose entanglements like NATO, which has expanded in the aftermath of the USSR's collapse, which Russia has opposed, made even more sensitive given Ukraine's border with Russia. (We had similar concerns during the Cuban missile crisis.) We see the Ukraine/Russia conflict in the context of a regional issue; America's involvement through NATO is morally hazardous; European countries need to step up to local leadership and responsibility, resources and not have undue reliance on the American military. Similarly, America cannot be held hostage to provocative member actions on the periphery of NATO member countries.
Third. I have issues with the dubious deployment of economic sanctions and Biden's provocative handling of relations with Russia. I'm fond of quoting Mallery's "when goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will". Trade is a win-win situation; Biden doesn't understand sanctions are a double-edged sword, they historically haven't been effective at changing policy (e.g., the embargo on Cuba provided Communist leadership with a scapegoat to distract Cubans from failed socialist policy), and they often hurt the wrong people, consumers with no influence over public policy. Moreover, they are ultimately ineffective: commodities are fungible. Russia's energy resources will find a buyer, even if not in the open market and/or Russia may be charged a transaction fee. It becomes more of a shell game; for example, China might buy Saudi oil and exchange it for Russian oil. (You can see this type of arrangement in other contexts. For example, Donor A might support Planned Parenthood's routine women's health services but not abortions; Donor B, an abortion advocate, may support all his donation being used for abortions.) I personally don't agree with American companies with some presence in Russia, not related to Putin's war effort, shuttering facilities, throwing innocent Russian workers out od work, creating shortages for innocent Russian consumers. Note that these steps aren't necessarily required by public policy; I don't know the specifics of banned or limited transactions, tariffs, etc. But it's very easy to see how hostile government or company restrictions could exacerbate anti-American sentiments.
Biden's amateurish diplomatic approach may play to his Russiaphobic base, but I find it counterproductive. Biden seems obsessed with isolating and confronting Putin, e.g., naming him a war criminal, throwing Russia out of the G20, suggesting opening a large military base near Russia, etc. I do not have unrealistic expectations of Putin. I worry that trying to back someone into a corner may result in negative, unexpected consequences, and I feel the US should provide Russia with a face-saving opportunity to end the war and occupation. After all, the Soviets eventually understood Afghanistan was a mistake.
