I think the numbers I posted make it pretty clear that the OP is not dealing with reality, maybe just hysteria. I'm actually glad he brought it up however, since the facts seem to clear things up pretty well. c
You got me all wrong, pal. I'm all for skilled immigration from every stripe and walk of life. I'm deadset opposed to importing parasites who live off the dole and are a net drain to the host. Surely, you can appreciate the rational behind that? And I believe in charity. But not sinking the ship so millions of deadbeats - who ought to have built their own economic ship of state - can ride our country into the ground. We both know wealth is created and destroyed, and the role Government plays in that. It's up to all these third-world hell-holes to institute free market reforms necessary to create wealth, so they can lift their own people up, like the West did here. It's not the taxpayers responsibility, or white mans guilt from a colonial past none of us had any hand in, to play Gandhi to the billions of people around the world. Even if we wanted to, it would bankrupt Europe and America in about a year. It's impossible. So lets get real about it. The more heavily taxed a country is to pay for all these goodie handouts that get funneled to parasites, the less people work, and worse off everyone becomes. Of course, that is, for the third worlders who live off the cheese we "owe" them....lol And if you're gonna argue the progressive shining star is the UK and Europe, we both know they're on the verge of getting flushed in a debt tsunami. So lets not kid ourselves on the economic rationality of bending over and giving away the kitchen sink to appease our guilt complex. Whereabouts are you originally from, if you don't mind me asking?
Well, Russian issues are a bit different and have a lot to do with the collapse of the public health infrastructure (as well as other social institutions) that occurred during the 90s. Moreover, Russia is actually the exact opposite of Japan in terms of immigration (a lot of it not altogether legal). Finally, as a result of the recovery and according to the latest data, Russian demographic collapse has now been arrested, if not yet reversed (I can dig up the data on this, if you like).
"Those in favor of cutting off all immigration fell into the sakoku (鎖国 camp, and those in favor of a less restrictive policy were on the side of kaikoku (開国 "open country"). Those in favor of sakoku argued that immigration (illegal or otherwise) would be detrimental to Japanese racial homogeneity and also dilute culture as well as promote crime. Kaikoku, on the other hand, wasn't necessarily in favor of immigration, but rather proponents acknowledged that illegal immigrants had arrived and were a viable part of the economy that must be addressed at the risk of eroding human rights further (conditions in factories were poor, and as illegal immigrants were on the periphery of society, they had no protection from the law).[citation needed] Ultimately, Japan passed the Immigration Control Act in 1990 which opened a side-door to ethnic Japanese (up to the third generation) living in other countries, allowing them to immigrate to Japan for the unspecified purpose of performing unskilled labor; Japan still does not issue visas to anyone but skilled workers. By adding this provisionâthey must be ethnic Japaneseâthe government had addressed the sakoku arguments by preserving racial homogeneity (despite the glaring cultural and linguistic differences), but also compromised with those in favor of kaikoku by allowing a legal loophole providing for immigrant unskilled labor. This caused a large influx of Japanese Brazilians, termed Dekasegi.[citation needed] As of now there has been a push to increase immigration due to the countries faltering economy.[1]"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_immigration
Yes, I do appreciate and, to some extent, agree with the strategy of picking the cream of the crop, which, incidentally, every nation is eager to pursue. However, it's, unfortunately, a bit more complicated than that, especially in formerly colonial nations, such as the UK or France. And no, far be it from me to argue in favor of any sort of a lofty social agenda. I am just saying that some countries, for historical reasons, don't have a lot of choice in the matter and it's not really about the guilt complex. As to heavily taxed countries, you know my views on that, I believe. It works for some societies and it doesn't work for others. I don't think it's correct to generalize. In answer to your question, I am originally Russian. Finally, I would like to be provocative again, if I may. Can I remind you of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? I guess you'd say it's all a thing of the past? "...Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Old Lady Liberty? That's when America had no social safety net. It was sink or swim. Now it's visa=welfare. Big difference. Russians are highly intelligent, educated, with a strong work ethic. It's their corrupt Government that's sucking the lifeblood outta that economy. Which is a real shame. The largest and most resource rich country in the world, pissed away by bad management. Familiar story. You know, I might have said this in not so many words, but you must be a high genius. Your English is impeccable. For a non-native speaker, with Russian being so different from the english language (what I've heard), that's really something...
Honestly the above is an ideal inconsistent with the welfare state. Stupidly trying to both will simply bankrupt us faster than an isolated welfare state. I prefer we forgo the welfare state in it's entirety and try to live the direction our founding fathers pointed us rather than follow the pied piper of destructive collectivism.
Do you even read opposing posts? I think I totally disproved the OP's premise with facts regarding the percentage of Muslims in many European countries, and Europe as a whole. Are you just plain against the billions of Muslims, or just liberals, or both? Hardly a Christian view, right? I have seen and heard many men of the Cloth preach comfort for the other religions, why not you? c
Thank you for the compliment, but I assure you, I am no genius. You just have to take a look at my recent PNL to see that . And yes, I suppose welcoming immigrants indiscriminately isn't really consistent with large amounts of social insurance. That's the moral of the story to me. My point is only that it's a lot more difficult for some countries, such as the UK and France, to deny immigration than others. Moreover, I think the UK has, on balance, done pretty well in terms of immigration. It's the local "indigenous" population that is a lot more guilty of exploiting the system for personal gain. As to Russia, it's a very interesting country. I actually quite hopeful.