The Redhunter

I do not really consider the attempt by GWB a sincere attempt; he did not spell out any specifics and played his cards very close to his chest.

If he was sincere, then he should have specified details. I for one am all for privatizing social security BUT I do not want it to be a fee bonanza for Wall Street....which is what I feared in the case of GWB and privatizing.

Now with the situation being what it is in regards to Wall Street we have other issues to worry about.

Privatizing IS the solution to social security but maybe via infrastructure MLP's rather than the traditional stocks and bonds as seen by Wall Street.

But then again without integrity and a sense of doing the right thing how much of a future does our society really have?

I lived in Japan for several years, where the greying of the economy is maybe a generation in advance of the USA or Europe. Scary stuff.

Being an economic migrant myself, the answer seemed obvious. Immigration.

The developing world is full of talented, industrious people very keen to move to the North and start contributing to the economy there. Some countries, like Bangladesh, are even over-populated. The North will soon be full of old people who need health and nursing care, but with a shrinking indigenous work force.

Even now it's immigration that props up population growth in most of the industrialised world.

Accelerate!

Hi Mylne

The Europeans are trying immigration, and as they're discovering it works...in the short run. They're bringing in Muslims from various places, and for various reasons aren't assimilating and accepting Western values. The face of Europe is about to change dramatically as a result. Immigration is a tricky business.

I read your comments policy the other day. I must admit that this post more than any of yours I have read triggered some deep rage within me - made me want to start flaming your message boards. But I have bottled that rage and will confine myself to the following observations.

Demographic flows can be measured in a way that "Western-ness" can't. So it's possible to have a debate about demographics that remains in the sphere or the rational, whereas... Suffice it to say that societies which are relaxed about immigration do not need to worry about a demographic crunch.

Even though I live there, I don't recognise the Europe that you speak of with such authority. But of course there are many different Europes. Perhaps you have a broader view than me, or the objectivity that comes with distance.

I cannot imagine any test that you could devise to measure the "Western-ness" of my parents. If you could I'm not at all sure that they would pass it, even today. Still less when they first immigrated here. But they have worked here and paid their taxes and contributed to British pension schemes, and now their many children have grown up here and are doing the same.

I myself cannot observe the damage they are doing to my country's cultural fabric. Perhaps I too am part of that damage. But I get the feeling they would not be welcome in the Redhunter's USA, and that saddens me.

Mylne

The issue in Europe is pretty straightforward; there is a determined effort by Muslim leaders there to bring aspects of sharia law to Europe. See "Creeping Sharia," "Europe," and "Jihadism and the War of Ideas" under "Categories" at right for details. Sharia law is antithetical to all we in the West hold dear and must be resisted. The issue of "Western values" is a complex one, but essentially it includes accepting Western legal systems such as English Common Law or a version of the Napoleonic Code, our concepts of liberty, democracy (the two being not quite the same thing), and individual rights (as opposed to group rights).

Note that it is an issue of religion per se. Nor is it a racial or ethnic issue.

It is entirely up to the host nation as to whether it wants immigration. The number of immigrants allowed in is also the prerogative of the host nation. No one has a right to move into someone else's country.

In general, immigration should be a process of give and take between the two sides. Immigrants need to accept the host nation's legal system, language (though time must be granted to learn the latter), holidays, and general customs. They must take allegiance to their new nation and agree to serve in its armed forces if required. In return, the host nation has an obligation welcome the immigrants into their communities, to help them learn the native language, and help them start their new lives off on the right track. The host nation also picks up words, food, holidays, and some customs (though that last one is tricky) from the immigrants. So it is a two-way street, with obligations on both sides.

If done properly, both sides benefit from immigration. But it's the immigrants who want in, so most of the obligations are on them. People have no right to move into a country and start making demands on the host nation, as we are seeing in so much of Europe.