Perils of Immigration

In October of 2010, Octoberfest was interrupted when the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel declared that the idea of having foreigners immigrate to German and thereafter take their place in a society of many cultures co-existing peacefully... had been doomed from the start. As William Falk, writing in The Week [1], has said:

"It was once the great dream of Western liberal culture: a stewpot of different religions, races, and ethnicities, harmoniously blended, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel has pronounced the dream dead. Multiculturism, she said, 'had failed, utterly failed.' Merkel is a respected world leader, not a nationalistic xenophobe, so her emphatic finality is all the more startling. But many Germans and many Europeans share her pessimism. The continent is recoiling from an influx of immigrants, especially those from Muslim lands. The French and the Belgians have banned burqas; the Swiss, the construction of minarets. Anti-Islamic movements are gaining momentum in italy, Britain, the Netherlands, and even Sweden.

"To dismiss these tensions as mere intolerance is, I think, naive. The boundaries between cultures are eroding, due to widespread immigration, economic interdependence, and the Internet, forcing modern societies into an uncomfortable paradox. We believe that every cultural group, religion, and nation has the right to self-determination. But we also hold as a bedrock principle that every human being is born with inalienable rights -- including the 50 percent of us who are women. Is it our business to free Muslim women from their shrouds and subservience, to bring a half to female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East? Do we have the right to object to China's insistence that democracy and human rights do not apply there? Genteel tolerance alone will not resolve these questions. The collision of values has begun. How that conflict plays out will determine the shape of the next half-century." [emphasis added]

On the one hand, for some time now it has become obvious to the governments of the United States and such European nations as England, France, Germany, Italy, et al... that in order to maintain a population of workers sufficient to provide the tax base to support the aging native populations of these countries, that a major immigration of workers was not only highly desirable... but it was also a bit of a necessity. It's called demographics... particularly the demographics of societies tending toward Socialism. In such cases, ultimately someone has to work in order to fund the many so-called entitlements of welfare (personal, corporate, and political).

Actually, the demographics are worse in other European countries than they are in Germany, where unemployment is a serious problem even among native Germans. According to Stratfor [2], for example,

"Germany is relatively unencumbered by expenditures on youths and the elderly, two non-economically productive groups. This is because the bulge of Germany’s population is in the most productive working age cohort of around 35 to 55 years old. Germany will remain in this prime demographic position at least for this decade."

The problem for Germany is thus a short term unemployment problem, followed by a long tern problem when the big bulge of demographics gets older and starts thinking about retirement. Meanwhile in most of the other European countries, the bulge is already threatening to burst.

Traditionally, there has always been the really nifty fringe benefit that immigrants from countries which have a substantially lower standard of living (as compared to the US and Western Europe... and however they might define "standard of living")... such immigrants might be willing to work and live at a lower standard of living, and in effect accept far less than minimum wage. In fact, host companies often prefer individuals who are uneducated, untrained, and who -- very importantly -- have minimal resources and/or alternative opportunities... or, for that matter, expectations. Under these circumstances, these latest additions to the work force can take on all of the jobs that the prospering nations' natives either don't want, find undesirable as an indicator of status, or choose to avoid because there's so little incentive in doing "grunt work" when one has a subservient class to do such undesirable jobs.

However... it may appear all-too-apparent that when people are given the option of retiring (at any age) with pensions, health care benefits, food stamps, special housing, discounted tickets to Disneyland, and/or special audiences with Barney the Dinosaur (and/or Oprah Winfrey)... as opposed to the alternative of working at low-paying and/or dismal employment... many such people do the... perhaps not entirely unexpected... and choose the contents behind door (option) number one. In some respects, the choice of not working and still reveling in the benefits has become all the rage.

In point of fact, such choices have been made by many immigrants, those who had originally been invited to fill the void of needed workers... and who were -- perhaps inadvertently -- afforded an easy opportunity to obtain citizenship in their new home away from home (and with all of its fringe benefits, i.e., improved standard of living). These same immigrants have declined the opportunity to actually work and produce goods and services that would otherwise ensure the economic viability of their adopted societies... societies that have become increasingly Socialistic at the expense of the young, the workers, and of course, the immigrants.

In a manner of speaking, outsourcing is a painless form of pseudo-immigration. The United States and other First World Nations, for example, have been living off the workers (and the products and services provided by such people in other countries) for a very long time now. Tennis shoes are being and have been produced by people earning $1/day, while the First World citizens benefit from the very latest technological marvels in really nifty computers, I-phones, I-pads, I-thinks, I-sex-on-demand-pods, and so forth and so on. All of these are, of course, produced by people living in an environmental nightmare / sweat culture and earning just enough to pack up and head back to the farm where a $1/day is prime pay and where an astute saver can now live very high on the hog after only a few years of hardship pay.

But, sad to say, food, maintenance, door-to-door deliveries, local construction, and many other products and services are simply not viable for outsourcing and its long-distance nature. Worse yet, outsourcing and the like do not lend themselves to the most important aspect of worker contributions... that of specifically paying taxes to any government that has serious obligations to its retiring and oft-times sickly natives. The problem with a phone call center in India... where seldom a discouraging word is spoken... or at least one that might be in a recognizable form of English... is that these people are not paying taxes to the nations that have outsourced the work. They are not funding our socialistic system.

What is needed are immigrants on the spot in these nations... where the work is at hand. And ideally, these immigrants will ask for nothing more than work conditions superior to those in their home country... certainly not expect to be treated like the natives of the country where they are contributing their efforts. Just the opportunity for gainful employment, where substantial portions of wages can be sent home is often considered enough... not to mention extraordinarily generous on the part of the host country... who just happens to be profiting a bit themselves.

For example, what is sorely needed in the United States is for immigrants to aid substantially in making the Social Security system economically viable. The "Baby Boom Generation" had come of age in recent years... and the numbers of workers to support the retirees has simply failed to keep up with the demand for benefits. For a retirement age of 65, for example, the worker/retiree ratio has gone from 49.5 (1 million eligible retirees; 49.5 million workers) in 1941 to 3.4 (payers/payees) in 2010.

[One might note, parenthetically, that Social Security is the short-hand version of "the federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program," enacted in 1935. One might also note some of the classic tales of the system, whereby:

The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92. [ibid]

This may sound a bit like a Ponzi Scheme... perhaps because it is? However, the theoretical ability of the US government to raise taxes to fund later investors at least implies that the promised benefits are not entirely illusory. It is admittedly robbing Peter to pay Paul... but at least someone has the legal authority to rob Peter... and on this astounding technicality, arguments are made that Social Security in the US is not a Ponzi Scheme. On the other hand, the continual degradation of the SS scheme still has virtually all of the attributes of a Ponzi nature.

Still... we need not worry... the system is slowly but inevitably eradicating itself by paying far fewer and lesser benefits, year after year. This is especially true when one adds in the 1965 amendment which added the exceptionally trust-busting expense of Medicare, and again in 2009 when yet more health care legislation added even more liabilities and "entitlements". The odds are reasonably good that Social Security will be history by 2020.

Obviously, the solution from the Social Security (somewhat slanted) viewpoint, was that a notable increase in the worker population (and with the hopeful, but wholly unrealistic expectation that the workers would later return to their own country... and thus not avail themselves of Social Security benefits), would in fact solve the problem and cause an apparent increase in the worker/retiree ratio.

But alas... this is not how it has worked out. Immigration -- instead of filing some giant void -- has instead, resulted in immigrants that have learned how to make their own views known... and, more importantly, how they might be able to influence the direction of governments in their host nations... the latter primarily in order to benefit themselves even more. The fact that citizenship has been offered in various forms from all such host nations, makes things even better for the immigrants. They would thus find themselves on the road to retiree benefits, in many cases, without doing the complete worker bit first.

But the problem is even more serious. Such an improvement in the condition of the immigrants might not pose an insurmountable problem, if in fact these new citizens and would-be citizens integrated into the societies of the host nations. In other words, if the immigrants took on roughly the same mind sets and paradigms of the natives, then everything would be just fine. They would then be coming to do their part... and in turn ultimately (according to the local dream of free enterprise) benefit themselves in the long term.

However, for reasons never fully explained in most cases, the flood of immigrants into nations needing workers, has been remarkably faith-based in recent decades. That is to say, the immigrants have been devout followers of a religion that in many respects differed markedly, or even conflicted with the secular or religious nature of the host nation's natives. In the USA, for example, the vast numbers of immigrants from Mexico are Roman Catholics... which is often notably distinct from the predominant secular and protestant nature of the United States. The US, however, has always been pretty good at practicing tolerance of all of its many religions... such that there is actual compatibility between Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, Greek orthodox, Shintu, pagans, agnostics, atheists, secularists, Scientologists, and Sects of the Terminally Bewildered... among others. In general, it can be said that the United States has never seen a religious war at any level above that of a village's temporary intolerance.

Furthermore, if the new Hispanic arrivals in the US have any concerns, they should happily note that the current Supreme Court of the United States has six Catholics and three Jews sitting on the bench. The six are almost half of the total of 13 Catholics (out of 110) to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

(Perhaps there's a trend here.)

In any case... thus far... there have been no insane, religiously motivated, blatant demonstrations of any religion being forced upon any of the citizens of the United States.

So far.

Okay, maybe a few subtle demonstrations of religious intolerance (and/or sheer stupidity) -- as well as serious gender discrimination -- from the likes of Scalia (father of nine) and/or Thomas (father of... good lord, who knows how many?)... but there has been thus far... nothing... really... blatant (i.e., involving armed conflict). (Scalia and Thomas, like Cheney, probably don't know how to shoot straight, anyway.)

Possible Correction: Time notes that Scalia often goes duck-hunting with former Vice-President Cheney; the latter who, by the way, benefited from this friendship when his own case went before the Supreme Court. However, Cheney, while essentially drunk, did manage to shoot one of his other duck-hunting buddies... so, perhaps, Scalia's aim is still up for question.

Twitter Note on Scalia: "Yes, we'll hear the Anna Nicole Smith case. If gold-digging is outlawed, only outlaws will fuck rich old farts. Come on, bitches. I'm 74." (At least there might be a sense of humor lurking in the "old fart" somewhere in the rain forest of his mind.) Also... “Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. ‘If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,’ he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, ‘you have legislatures.’ According to Time, Scalia was arguing that "the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination."

Meanwhile, on the immigration front, there are recent innovations in possibly making said immigrants even more welcome in the US. For example, there is the recent introduction of the DREAM Act.

Of course, this particular proposed legislation was almost certainly introduced as an unconscionable attempt to solicit votes in the upcoming Mid-Term Elections... and in accordance with doctrine, was summarily shoved aside by the opposition... despite its being cleverly attached to the annual Department of Defense Funding bill. The fact that the Defense bill typically passes easily with bipartisan support is unlikely to persuade anyone to actually assume the DREAM act will be passed during this particular millennium. The fact that the language of this particular act might actually turn out to be an intelligent concept... wherein military service or the attainment of higher education could lead to easy citizenship... should not be construed to garner any Republican votes.

[Curiously, the act was directed at those very same immigrants we've been talking about... and yet the general consensus is that the DREAM act will be passed when hell freezes over. (But then again, Ronald Reagan said the same thing about dealing with Communism... until he did. Meanwhile, the argument that this was an early case of a Republican President's attempt to deny any hint of global warming, is probably not a good argument.]

Specifically...

"The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act would allow unauthorized immigrants under the age of 35 to apply for legal permanent resident status on a conditional basis if they came to the United States before they turned 16, have lived in the United States for at least the past five years and have obtained a U.S. high school diploma or GED. They would then be able to move from conditional to permanent status if they complete at least two years of college or military service and maintain "good moral character," which is not precisely defined.

"While its chances for passage are slight, the fight over the DREAM Act promises to provide a proxy for a the long-simmering debate over immigration that Congress has managed to avoid, and a chance for partisans on both sides to rally their base in advance of midterm elections in which turnout may prove decisive.

"The DREAM Act has the active backing of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops." [emphasis added]

The latter is a Big Surprise! Guess which religion the vast majority of illegal immigrants have?

Europe

In Europe, on the other hand, the immigrant of choice beginning fifty years ago were Moslems. Germans, for example, tended to prefer Turks (with whom they had some common characteristics -- mostly notably former (and/or current) ambitions to take over the world). Meanwhile, France had a greater allegiance to Muslims from Algeria (a former "French colony"), and England, having been notably more imperialistic, tended to allow Muslims from just about any other country, carte blanche into Merrie-Olde England.

A fairly moderate view of the situation has been published by the Telegraph in England. The general drift of this article is that politicians are violating their duty to talk about cultural concerns as the population of Europe becomes more and more Muslim... to the point of a majority in coming decades.

Another interpretation of the resulting State of Affairs can be gleamed from someone previously mentioned in the bit about Racism and Culturism. The title is Islam in Europe.

One might assume that... just possibly... this is a one-sided view. And of course, that particular assumption is very likely to be accurate. Still... one might also consider the numbers... that is to say, the relevant Muslim Demographics.

I know. From this particular viewpoint, things look rather bleak... at least for the native-born.

For those who didn’t bother to watch the video, suffice it to say that the natives populations of many European countries (and the United States) have a comparatively low birthrate, while Muslims (and to a lesser extent, Mexicans in the US) have a very high birth rate. Therefore, it’s just a matter of time before the Muslims, for example, will be democratically controlling such countries as Germany, England, Spain, Italy, Greece, and France... and where thereafter they would be able to forget all of this democratic nonsense. We will also ignore, for the moment, the idea that France (and/or Greece) just might need controlling, or that the coming Mexican control of the US Southwest does not necessarily imply a Catholic control of the United States. But the problem in certain countries of Europe does seem rather more horrific. There is clearly the threat of numerous cultures on a suicidal decline.

The Week [1] has also weighed in with numerous viewpoints, from Germany, for example, being in a "frenzy over Muslims", "Muslims are bad, and more immigration is pointless", "Muslim immigrants are parasites who are outbreeding Germans and will dominate the country within a few generations," and "Muslims only come to mooch off [the German] generous welfare benefits." Similarly, and obviously, "Muslim immigrants have failed to integrate into" German society, many immigrants refuse to fit in, and in fact, "want to bring their own culture along, forcing their women to cover their heads and faces, choosing husbands for their daughters." Meanwhile, the rest of Europe is enjoying the German debate "with a mixture of satisfaction and schadenfreude" [a German word for 'happiness at the misfortune of others']. In effect, all of Europe seems to be gloating that "reliable, rational Germany has succumbed to Islamophoiic hysteria." Clearly, there's a few problems in the European Theater.

Nevertheless... and in the interests of fair play... one should consider the logic of the arguments in the video on Moslem Demographics... which some of you did not watch... beginning with the assumptions:

“According to research, in order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family.” Furthermore, a “rate of 1.3... is impossible to reverse, because it would take 80 - 100 years to correct itself, and there is no economic model that can sustain a culture during that time.”

Okay... the video presentation is certainly dramatic (and possibly effective), but it does not, for example, reference the research on which it is basing its conclusions. (This might be a relatively unimportant fact, but one should always check any and all claims of “according to research.”)

But far more importantly, it should be clear that a low fertility rate does not necessarily reduce a culture... but only implies that there will be fewer members or a lower population of said culture. For example, a culture of ten million is not necessarily less than a culture of fifteen million. In fact, such a reduction in population is not necessarily bad... and may in fact be highly desirable. The claim that “as the population shrinks, so does the culture”, is in fact not a statement that should necessarily concern us. It's just not true. A lower population rate might actually yield a much higher level of culture for all concerned. However...

This latter suggestion is partially contingent upon the fact that there are no other cultures striving to take the place of the culture which has the lower fertility rate... in effect, one or more other, competing cultures invading the real estate of the low fertility rate culture. There is also the very real problem that the economic model of the so-called declining culture may in fact depend upon other cultures just in order to maintain itself.

Aye... there’s the problem. When England, Germany or France, for example, decided that the key to keeping their socialistic structures in place... i.e., pay the pensions, unemployment and health benefits for their aging populations... they needed more workers to pay into the system. They chose to import Muslims... a few at first, but increasingly more and more. The Muslims, however, did not necessarily like this arrangement... although the unemployment and health benefits may have appealed to them, the idea of just being the workers, supporting some old geezers of another culture... these facts may quite possibly have not appealed to the immigrants.

In the United States, there is something of the same problem where Social Security has found the declining population of workers to be a serious problem as well. There were also a lot of jobs that the Americans didn’t want to undertake; so various enterprises of the USA began importing Mexicans... even if the government had not given such imports the official seal of approval. And of course, the Mexicans had a higher birthrate than the non-Mexican Norte Americanos (the latter whose fertility rate is currently ~1.6). There was also a significant increase in the number of Muslims living in the US, but compared to Europe, the trend was not quite as intense. [And for purposes of gentility, we will totally ignore the last word as potentially a pun! Shame on those who don't ignore it.]

The overall effect of all of this USA form of immigration is that the total rate of population increase in America has reached the magical 2.11 replacement rate. Yea! (Yea?) The more relevant question is what precisely is being replaced by the magical 2.11... and just how might that change American culture?

On the one hand, the United States may not be as worried about immigration as the traditional Europeans. Mexicans, after all, are predominantly Catholic, and modern day Catholics (as opposed to years past) just don’t seem quite as scary as Muslims. But in Germany, et al... the Muslims have a distinctly different religion... particularly the more orthodox believers in Islam. In Germany, for example, “the Islamization of Europe is in full swing...” and for the Germans, it’s downright scary. For example

http://www.pi-news.org/2010/03/eurabia-the-planned-islamization-of-europe/

[Note also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMipzYNUHb8].

Based on these descriptions, Europeans do indeed appear to have a right to be terrified... especially of the orthodox, fanatical Imams of Islam... the latter who see world conquest and the subjugation of all humans in accordance with the constraints of Shari’a Law. And worse yet, this may be destined to be the case... just as soon as the Muslims believe that they have the upper hand.

However...

What of the argument that when so-called moderate Muslims, or for that matter the members of any other creed or ethnic background... when they begin living in the West and enjoying its many freedoms... wouldn't they, thereafter, will be far less inclined to support the orthodox point of view?

Such an argument assumes “the melting pot” theory, where, for example, the countless immigrants into the United States in its long history have long since become Americanized to some degree... at least enough to fit into American society and thereafter cease to war against different ethnic groups. Many such ethnic groups may indeed have their own neighborhoods, churches, and other associations in the United States where their languages and cultures have flourished. But these immigrants still learned English and practiced tolerance of most of the others... at least in recent years. (We’ll forget about the “Irish problem” of not so many years back.) In general, the melting pot has been GREAT for tolerance, live and let live, and let's all love one another... even if it didn't work on the Muslims living in the US who initiated the 9/11 attacks.

Unfortunately, the typical, non-Muslim German, for example, sees the Muslims living in Germany today as immigrants who are intentionally and adamantly refusing to learn to speak German, nor in general, to integrate into German culture in any manner. They are in fact often importing their brides from Turkey and other Islamic countries... while also marrying minors... despite such marriages being verboten -- forbidden -- in Germany. These Turks are also not finishing school, and instead are beginning to demonstrate their power by blocking streets during their prayer sessions. The latter is also happening in France and even Moscow. For example:

http://bigpeace.com/stzu/2010/09/02/cbn-islamization-of-paris-a-warning-to-the-west/

http://www.pi-news.net/2010/09/massenbeten-in-moskau/

Furthermore, from the average German’s point of view,

“Germany already has a huge national debt, while, immigration costs millions of Euros every year, but doesn’t pay anything in return. There are five million unemployed Germans. Germany doesn’t need any unemployed Muslims. Germany's social systems are collapsing already, but still the government imports more Muslims.

"Germany doesn’t have serious immigration laws like the US, Canada or Australia (and even they have problems already). Any idiot can come to Germany to get their social money. And even worse, get money for their families and 1-5 wives, the latter who stay in Turkey, all the while, getting social money from Germany. Germany is supporting whole families in Turkey. At the same time, the Germans who work and pay taxes become fewer... especially educated people, who rather than keep paying, are simply leaving Germany."

Gee... that doesn't sound too good. Sounds instead a bit like a powder keg being primed.

Also keep in mind that when Muslim immigrants to any Western country maintain a greater loyalty to their home Islamic nation, then one has to consider whether or not any alleged "Moderate Muslims" exists... or more importantly, have any political influence... in such Islamic nations. Unfortunately, the answer may already be well promulgated... as in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, where in 1990 45 of the 57 members of The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) voted to establish a counter-declaration to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the Cairo version failed to guarantee freedom of other religions, and was "accused of asserting the superiority of men over women." Yeah... big surprise.

The OIC, by the way, "is an international organization with a permanent delegation to the United Nations, with 57 member states. These States decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts and speak with one voice to safeguard the interest and ensure the progress and well-being of their peoples and those of other Muslims in the world over."

Clearly, the mainstream consensus of nearly 80% of the Islamic nations is to rather ignore any slight hesitations by Moderate Muslims to be... well... moderate. Or at least influence their respective governments. And if the moderates have insufficient political clout to make any guarantees, then their effectiveness at being moderate is highly questionable. The alleged existence of the "moderate Muslim" becomes pretty much a mute point. Moderation is unlikely to be the watch word of such nations.

As for the many possible powder kegs... that sort of thing comes under the heading of Holy War.

______________________

References:

[1] The Week, October 29, 2010, page 7 and 17.

[2] "Germany's Short-term Economic Success and Long-term Roadblocks", Stratfor, October 21, 2010.

The Milgram Effect

Freedom of Religion        Holy War        The Rules of Holy War

Racism and Culturalism         Multiculturalism

Free Speech         The (9) Supremes         The Halls of SCOTUS

An American Third Party         A Third Party That Knows How to Party