Heavy immigration restrictions are a necessary feature of European socialist government policy. To admit large numbers of dynamic individuals would only exacerbate already-high unemployment, as more individuals competed for an already limited number of jobs. Europe simply can’t grow enough small business jobs (the bulk of new job creation) to handle large-scale immigration. This inability to grow will become a vice around the throat as Europe’s low birthrate continues to result in an aging population whose heavily-subsidized pension schemes will require greater and greater amounts of government bail-out support. A secondary reason for immigration restrictions is to guarantee support for high welfare policies among all sections of European society and keep a lid on simmering xenophobic reaction to the (limited) stream of new arrivals.

“And, I haven?t noticed the US welcoming hoardes of poor, uneducated Sudanese or whatever, either.”

With an average per capita income of less than $200, most Sudanese find a plane ticket or smuggler’s berth to the U.S. hard to come by. Still, there are already brand-new Sudanese immigrant communities in the USA - bet you didn’t know that, did you? And you must have missed the millions of recent legal-but-poor immigrants to the U.S., as well as millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. The latter, while illegal, are here, they’re working, and they won’t be hunted down and sent home - both the President and the Democrats agree on that.

“Also, I?m not completely convinced by your argument that Americans, being the grandchildren of the adventurous, are somehow naturally more adventurous than Europeans, the grandchildren of the unadventurous. However, the rate scientists are claiming to find genes such as the alcoholic gene and the fat gene, maybe an adventurousness gene is on the cards.”

Nothing so scientifically improbable is being suggested. Without centuries of history weighing them down, third, fourth, or eight generation Americans still look with pride on a family history that took serious risks in moving to an unknown country and risking everything on their simple faith in themselves and their ability to achieve - this ethic is NOT obsolescent in America, but is still being taught in many American homes. Additionally, there is the continuing inflow of large numbers of dynamic newcomers who still risk retribution to themselves or their families, loss of property, food, shelter, even loss of their own lives in some cases (packed in a shipping container or crossing the desert) to come to America. This inflow, as it always has, continues to revive, motivate, and reinforce the American dream of ‘making it big’, of working hard and keeping what you earn, in order to better oneself and one’s family.

“To me, there are no differences between Americans and Europeans, immigrants or others. You find the same types of people in all societies.”

This is probably your biggest misconception. Yes Americans and Europeans are both humans, subject to the same weaknesses and faults as anyone. Yet fundamentally the two societies possess nearly polar-opposite political and personal philosophies, and this makes a tremendous difference in the foreign and domestic policies which find support. You also seriously underestimate the advantages of new immigration by hard working and motivated persons. The U.S. has consistently benefited from such inflow, and continues to do so.

“Which doesn?t mean that there are no European entrepreneurs or that all Americans are Entrepreneurs. Nor is it automatic that the more entreprenurial activity the better.”

No, but it is the cumulative amount of entrepreneurial activity that makes the difference in terms of total econonmic output of a nation. The result is that, in terms of job growth, Europe is far behind the U.S., and falling behind at a greater rate each year. It is pretty much inarguable that the more entrepreneurial activity and job growth, the better for a country. Of course, that entrepreneurial activity must be honestly gained, or it risks spoiling the apple of consumer faith and investment.

“And, the ?best? level of entreprenurial activity surely depends on the value you are measuring: maximising GDP might be different to minimising suicides, for example.”

Suicide rates aren’t much of a guide, they may occur from overwork, or persistent unemployment, or a variety of other factors. As opposed to a socialist outlook, I believe that most people are well enough equipped to make their own decisions about how much work is enough for them, how large a family they should have, etc. as opposed the government preemption of that choice with a one-size-fits-all approach.

Agreed that there may be honest differences in constructing rules for business activity. When that principle is abused, however, and the cumulative amount of government interference and income redistribution stifles a national, regional, or international economy, more people suffer in total than were ever assisted by such rules and redistributions in the first place.

As far as your predictions are concerned, I don’t really understand some of your bald statements. For example: “Europe has bought off its risk-intolerant working classes with a welfare state. But that?s only achieved by keeping new immigrants out…” The mental leap from having a welfare state means blocking immigration escapes my poor intellect. And, I haven’t noticed the US welcoming hoardes of poor, uneducated Sudanese or whatever, either.

Also, I’m not completely conviced by your argument that Americans, being the grandchildren of the adventurous, are somehow naturally more adventurous than Europeans, the grandchildren of the unadventurous. However, the rate scientists are claiming to find genes such as the alcoholic gene and the fat gene, maybe an adventurousness gene is on the cards.

To me, there are no differences between Americans and Europeans, immigrants or others. You find the same types of people in all societies. The different systems encourage and discourage different activity. The American system certainly encourages entreprenurial business activity more than the European. Which doesn’t mean that there are no European entrepreneurs or that all Americans are Entrepreneurs. Nor is it automatic that the more entreprenurial activity the better. And, the “best” level of entreprenurial activity surely depends on the value you are measuring: maximising GDP might be different to minimising suicides, for example.

So can America learn anything positive from Europe? Probably. And, vice versa? Probably.

BTW, remember Amadou Diallo? An Unarmed Man that was rilled with bullet by US Police. Rodney King, anyone? Martin Luther King? oh, I forgot those last two were not immigrants…

DSW

Too much gluhwein, Glen?

I don’t know what you’ve seen. But. before any non-Europeans get the wrong idea, many, many French soldiers are north Africans, and the non-African soldiers work with the others everyday. Similarly, people do, unfortunately get beaten up on the street in Germany, though less than in most countries, and you are no more likely to be beaten up if you skin colour in not white.

Being an immigrant in Europe can be unpleasant and hassles such as frequent papers checks discrimination in work does happen, unfortunately. However, it is wrong to give the impression that physical abuse is rampant.

Actually, I’m quite aware of European immigration, or rather the lack thereof, to Europe of the poor from non-European countries. It’s a pittance. The only reason demographics have shifted even a trifle from the past is due to Europe’s rapidly declining birthrate rather than any open-arm policy, in fact, both legal and illegal immigration is getting much tougher in Europe as a whole.

As far as people, “dying trying to get in” to Europe, I wholly agree, I’ve seen French soldiers throw Arabs off moving buses in Marseille, and Turks beaten up on the street in Germany. Very dangerous place, Europe, if you’re not European-looking. Desperation doesn’t mean numbers, though. Most poor people of the world desiring to emigrate still list the USA as their #1 choice.

Not that any of this refutes my prior comments on the differences between Europe and the USA, of course. It’s still the Risk Takers vs. Those That Stayed Behind, and most Americans, whether newly arrived or not, are not impressed by the European model. No one in the U.S.A. I know is working their butt off so that they can share their earnings with those who won’t get off theirs. But Rifkin isn’t worrying about this; he’ll pocket nearly all of his capitalist income from American progressives who rabidly buy his book, enjoy the benefits of lower American income taxes, then spend his summers in Europe. With their money!

DSW

Jeremy Rikin is a former ’60s radical who has been predicting a lot lately; the triumph of hydrogen power, the emergence of global animal rights, and now, the possibility that Americans may change their laissez-faire capitalist ways and love of money for the lure of vacation time, guaranteed minimum incomes, and a very hefty safety net.

His basic premise is that the “European” notion of valuing community over individual rights and liberties is more attractive to Americans in current times. This of course is not a new idea (”From those according to their ability…” “It takes a village..” etc.) But be that as it may, if Americans would only take a trip to Europe, he intimates, America would quickly change its ways and adopt socialist policies. And, also heavily implied, if the unwashed masses cannot see the truth, then it is up to those of us who’ve seen the European model to re-educate them.

Books like this thrive on the assumption that since many of us haven’t lived or visited the other side of the pond and seen the reality of 50 years of enervating European socialism, it must be wonderful. Arnold Schwarzenegger will give you an earful on the reality of it. Stressing the community over the individual will suck the creative juices out of any country or group of nations, every time. Yeah the opera is great and mass transit is cool, but just try finding a job with upward mobility. And if you do, you won’t keep what you earn!

But the real problem with the book is Rifkin’s failure to realize the the fundamental differences between Americans and Europeans. America IS different. Rifkin fails to notice that the USA is, as it has always been, a land of immigrant risk takers. We are the children and great-grand-children of the brave souls who took a chance while the ancestors of today’s Europe decided not to pursue the possibility of a better life. We still are risk takers, while Europe has bought off its risk-intolerant working classes with a welfare state. But that’s only achieved by keeping new immigrants out, and taxes and unemployment extremely high. So, in order to live the European dream, we presumably must also keep most new immigrants out, drastically curtail military spending (if only to afford the expenditures to come), and come to grips with the reality of higher taxes and prices for goods as the result of massive subsidies to unprofitable industries. Rifkin doesn’t mention the effects of all this on our nation.

Rifkin also conveniently fails to mention that once China’s manufacturing quality reaches that of European niche goods, the European protectionist dream is going to be a European nightmare. And if European political philosophy is superior, why aren’t new immigrants clamoring to go to Europe? No, they come to America. They don’t work 7 days a week as maintenance men, caterers, or shop owners for the chance to enrich some lardo on worker’s comp, or to subsidize a car assembler’s ‘right’ to make uncompetitive products at $100,000 a year. They come to enrich themselves, and keep what they earned. Those immigrants eventually become stakeholders in their own success, and in due course they begin to vote according to their own interests and the chance that their children can succeed.

Until the day we bar all new immigration by the poor and the discriminated, the American dream will always remain the same. Because even if an American has only a slim chance of ‘making it big’ in America, he still wants that chance.

Since welfare recipients received about 760 bucks for a single person, 1200 for a mother with one child..MONTHLY! and housing was often available at cheap rates whereas most Toronto inhabitants had to pay 600 to 700 for a 1-bedroom in a poor area; dental, drug, medical and other benefits were all available (the rest of the population had less benefits) ..you can imagine that many opted for the government option, immigrant women were advised to leave their “brutish” paternal husbands by lesbian welfare workers (my shot is at government institutions, not sexual orientation-though this example was not nice)and realized governmental “freedom” … 14 your old kids talked about restraining orders from parents on bus rides and the like…..

But it all changed, a conservative provincial government did the following: 1)dropped the welfare rates of singles to 480 bucks per month, ingeniously introduced workfare so that those on welfare would have to work some 24 hrs a week at rotten jobs(can’t remember the amount)to keep there welfare (the kicker was, that amount they could keep brought them to exactly the amount they made before with welfare, and the hours worked times the minimum wage equalled the full welfare rate of $760).. this brilliant trickery was never advertised
2) with friends from the federal government that deliberately stalled immigration cases, some 130,000 new immigrants and refugees came to Toronto each year, were able to lower the wage rates and inflation in Toronto, hurting of course the working poor……. well, the american economy booned and this shuffling of social ills actually worked out….

Anyway, welfare can breed complete malaise, especially if there are not enough good work opportunities for the population, and society is filled with weakened values or new people who do not know or share “old values”..and see injustice abouonding in their new environs..

But DO NOT GO TO EUROPE IF YOU CANNOT TAKE IT ANMY MORE ….their new multiculturalism is nothing more than Trudeau’s multiculturalism in Canada…a country that peacefully and willingly transforemed itself from 6.9% non-white(1987) to nearly 25% non-white today (my wife is black, don’t get all excited over that comment), I am just trying to show how peaceful Canada is, compared to Europe…and still, the French in Canada had their leaders who wanted “Kingship” in a new country..kind of like the enlightened leaders of Slovakia that urged independence from The Czechs…

Europe will not emerge glorius and multicultural ..it is full of parochial politicians, nationalism and it has its great leader, its great deceiver… France!
This beneficiary of American troops in two world wars and Bosnia, the country that sent Charles De Gaulle to Canada who said, “Vive le Quebec Libre” in the 60’s, trying to pry the French free from the English in an act of great ingratitude for our WWii support of this hero and our WW11 assistance, the country that sold out Algeria for its help in WW11, recent visitors to Cote D’Ivoire (actually, don’t know this story, they may well be justified here)and Vietnam, promotors of the opposition and any one else who might create terror and disorder in Iraq, friend of the stealer of Palestinian money-an absent wife no less, so that they may inveigle their way into the Arab hearts so that they may become glorious through oil wealth… sneaky traders with Saddam, looking for wealth against UN sanctions, shamelessly trying to worm bck into Iraq …always angling for glory and world esteem which it will never have…..because it lost th colonial wars at the exact wrong moment in history, and today hasn’t the courage to send even one brigade to join the insurgents and fight for its interests, the collapse of those without guns in Iraq, and a return of power to those with guns in Iraq…. it just chips away at its “friends’… and the memories of too many Germans, too many nationalistic Europeans from small countires….will never commit fully to any European power that has ulterior motives…Europe is alway too wary…….

You make many good points but I think you’re missing
something in the Wisconsin example.

Quote:

“The lazy people of Wisconsin who would much rather get a job
than spend a few hours sweeping the street are actually caught
in the poverty trap. The lazy would just sweep the streets
and collect the cheque.”

The point is that this is not what happened. RSN
spoke earlier of people wanting to get a job instead of
“working for peanuts.” But in fact a welfare check is
good money for a few hours a week sweeping streets. If
people were just lazy then it would have happened as you
said: they have swept the streets and collected the cheque.

Instead the welfare rolls dropped dramatically. Why?
Well part of it is there more to how the state of Wisconsin
changed its welfare policy than just this wanting people
to do this but, beyond that, I think has something to
say about human nature.

Somehow the idea of having to do a few hours of sweeping
the streets and the like was humiliating to many people
in a way that just receiving the welfare cheque wasn’t.
So they were motivated to get jobs even though these real
jobs entailed far more work and possibly even paid less
than the welfare check.

It’s kind of amazing really.

Of course as a precondition for such a scheme having
any chance of success, there have to be unfilled jobs
available.

Actually this ancedote about Wisconsin is a bit misleading.
There’s a lot more to american welfare reform. Megan
McArdle is recommending a book by Jason Pearle on the
subject:

“If you haven’t read Jason DeParle’s American Dream,
I urge you to do so. It’s simply outstanding. The book
follows three welfare mothers through the welfare reform
years. It gives you a gritty, and touching, picture of the
utter chaos of their lives; walks you through the policy
process that brought us welfare reform in the first place;
and shows you how welfare reform did, and didn’t, transform
the world of welfare mothers. I simply cannot recommend it
highly enough. If you’re even tangentially interested in
poverty and welfare policy, you must read this book. DeParle
is a liberal who opposed welfare reform, but he fearlessly
shows all the ways in which women on welfare screw up their
own lives, as well as the ways in which they’re buffeted by
a cruel and capricious fate.”

See http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005019.html