the Chinese nation-state actively aids ethnic Chinese over those who are not. Now that’s just uncalled for, and not at all how we do things in the West. You don’t see Dutch troops aiding the Afrikaners, do you? At least not while there’s still a single Moroccan in the Maghreb. Perhaps The Economist can explain that modern European states, contra Chinese doctrine, exist to advance the welfare of non-Europeans. You have to actually be a Westerner before Western governments will despise you. So really East and West are equally particular about their people.
Nation-states are uncomplicated concepts. Which is why such a formidable disinformation apparatus is necessary to obfuscate them. States are the political and administrative expressions of their nations. Countries are the geographic boundaries of each. A state exists to advance the interests of a nation and protect the integrity of its habitat. The florid language of founding charters exist more as testaments to authors’ vanity than actual pledges of allegiance to abstractions.
For instance, saying America was founded for “freedom” means precisely nothing in practice, though it persists as irresistible boob-bait. Of course we all prefer abundant freedom for ourselves, though very little for those who wish to harm or take from us. This is native to the human condition, and thus adds very little in describing the functions of government for any particular state.
Ask a freedom advocate in good political standing if that includes the liberty to associate or…
View original post 1,305 more words
I have been a reader and subscriber to this magazine for more than twenty years, appreciating both the thorough, fact based analysis of many of the subjects presented and the high quality of the prose.
That is why I am particularly dismayed by your reporting in general concerning the issue of immigration into Europe where you constantly promote the idea that apparently any form of immigration is good for the host countries.
As a well integrated immigrant myself (Ireland to France when I was 18), it’s an idea that I was not intrinsically hostile to but my experience in recent years in France, Belgium the Netherlands and Germany now has me worried that by promoting this idea, you are actively promoting the destruction of most of what is presently good about Europe.
Based on this I suggest that rather than continuing promoting the idea that the sort of immigration we are presently experiencing in Europe is good, without providing any fact based analysis to support it, you do one of your generally excellent in-depth studies on the subject.
Leaving aside the humanitarian dimension of the issue, here is a, non-exhaustive, list of the questions I suggest this study should address:
1.Average socio-economic profiles of the immigrants who are presently pouring into Europe (Age, gender, education…) bearing in mind that most come from countries where mean number of years of education vary between 4 and 6 compared to 12 – 13 for European kids? See http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI
2. Employment rates for such immigrants after 2 years, 5 years , 10 years etc.. and the nature of the employment ie. earning enough to pay taxes or still taking more out of the system than they are putting in?
3. Same questions for 2nd generation immigrants by ethnic origin?
4. Why we even need such immigration when we already have huge levels of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, in most European countries?
5. Average “integration costs” for such immigrants (free housing, language courses, professional training, health care, living expenses….) ?
6. Average numbers of family members brought in later under family reunification rules?
7. Impact on public finances (and deficits) of this immigration?
8. Ability of our existing welfare states to cope ( financial and human resources) with the ever increasing demands that are being placed on them?
9. Potential impact of creeping islamisation on generally secular, tolerant and open societies?
10. Percentage of crimes (both violent and non-violent) committed by 1st and 2nd generated immigrants?
11. Security costs of keeping immigrant communities under surveillance due to high risk of Islamic terrorism, crime etc..?
When I see clear and positive answers to these questions which, BTW our politicians should also be asking, I will be far more receptive towards the arguments for allowing mass immigration to continue. For now, unfortunately, I see it mostly as an unmitigated disaster which is going to get far worse before it gets better leading to a continuing increase in extremism on all sides.
So, when do we get a properly researched in-depth article on the subject?
‘Dear [WHATSYURFACE] MP
As one of the majority of 17 million British people who voted for us to exit the European Union, I expect you to carry out those instructions. This includes the provisions, as stated during the campaign, for an Australian-style points system for immigrants arriving into this country. If you are unwilling to carry out this democratic mandate, I will happily dedicate myself to supporting the most viable Leave candidate in this constituency between now and the next election.
Thank you for your time.