This is an interesting defense for the redistribution of wealth. Do you mean it? Whether from one country to another or from one family to another. One of the most interesting things to me, as a "heathen", is how the Christian West ignores the Sermon on the Mount on these issues.
I won't presume to lecture you folks on it since it is your culture and not mine. However, if you ignore the boundaries of nations that were set up to define property, including jobs, then where do you draw the line? Since capitalism is built upon private property and the purpose of nations in that context is to protect that property from unfair labor and monopolistic practices, with as little government as can accomplish such things, then perhaps capitalism is not the way to go if you are advocating a Plain's Indian Buffalo Hunter "Migratory" approach to modern culture. I would remind you that no Europeans were happy with complete Nations of Indian People wandering across disputed land. Little is made about the economics of the Leather and retail business that went on between these migratory Nations and the rest of the country. The finest leather products, far superior to today's dry harsh products were developed and traded by these nations with the Eastern seaboard and the Nations of Europe. Buffalo blankets were once as common and far superior to flax and wool and they were not tanned and manufactured by Europeans. (I will not mention long fibre cotton since it was developed by the City folk of ancient pre-contact Mexico) Plains Shirts of the inner skin of Deer, Antelope, Elk and Buffalo were as thin as silk, finely decorated and as soft as human skin. Brain tanning makes leather like cloth but strong as the strongest cloths and more flexible. Even today you can tell the superiority between the fine craft of modern Indian people and the machine crafts from Taiwan and China even though these modern Indian examples are not anywhere near as fine as the examples of 100 to 150 year old leather work found in museums and private collections across America. This is to say nothing of the Alpaca wool products of the Navajos that were destroyed at Canyon De Chelly by the US Army in its scorched earth policy to break the Navajo industrial base that funded their resistance to the states of New Mexico and Arizona. You never hear any of this in the movies and the books speak of it too often biased by the professed "race" of the individual writing the book. For example, the great Navajo politician Manuelito is only spoken about in terms of being a military genius except the Navajo remember him for his fine Alpaca herds and the beautiful Peach Orchards blooming in the middle of the desert at Canyon de Chelly. Remember it was the American political Goldwater family who saw so little value in such things that they used to sell Navajo art blankets by the pound. (Goldwater recanted his sins and so today he is forgiven but we cannot forget what his family did to the genius of a people who mixed migration with settled farming in a hugely successful way. Today a single blanket can fetch thousands of dollars because the dumb capital venality no longer determines the value of such things. The Navajo were both settled on farms and were migratory as they still are today. But the US government and the European Americans are not happy about Indian's enjoyment of travel. The question in the middle of all of this is this: Aren't Europeans the least bit embarrassed to have wantonly destroyed the products, systems and aesthetics that they later give themselves permission to do as the most up to date methods of human living? Need I also mention the bathing clothing that we took the hit on for three hundred years before you folks discovered that you liked and admired the windows of "Victoria's Secret." http://www2.victoriassecret.com/collection/index.cfm?rfnbr=300&cgnbr=OSBRPTH GZZZ Wouldn't it make more sense to have Democratic Socialist Republics that are of a size that is both competitive and manageable with good laws that protect the wanderer from crime but still allow for individual limited private property? Perhaps land should be the primary property of the Nation such as was in the old Cherokee Nation where land existed basically in a "lease" situation for those who were able to stimulate the most good for the greatest number within the context of their business. I understand that Henry George advocated something similar a thousand years after the Cherokees had made it a holistic art form including genetics (clan systems to keep the genetics clean) and a political structure that was built to minimize the economic boom/bust cycles that modern capitalism has been unable to modify. That is the reason that ten years after a catastrophe nation wide (The Trail of Tears death march) the Cherokees had one of the finest educational systems in America with universal suffrage long before the "Whites" were doing such things. Our governmental theories are not the same as Democratic Socialist Republics since we include the family and the family's connection to an intermediary system (the seven Clans) within a lineage, public health, spiritual and political context however I pose the question within the Western Civilization's own forms in order to be able to pose the question at all. Ray Evans Harrell, resident questioner The Future of Work List. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:34 AM Subject: Migration > This week's Economist has a special survey on migration. The following is a > slightly shortened version of the first article-which serves as quite a > good introduction/summary of the whole survey. > > Keith Hudson > > >>>> > THE LONGEST JOURNEY > > by Frances Cairncross > > Freeing migration could enrich humanity even more than freeing trade. But > only if the social and political costs are contained > > > "WITH two friends I started a journey to Greece, the most horrendous of all > journeys. It had all the details of a nightmare: barefoot walking in rough > roads, risking death in the dark, police dogs hunting us, drinking water > from the rain pools in the road and a rude awakening at gunpoint from the > police under a bridge. My parents were terrified and decided that it would > be better to pay someone to hide me in the back of a car." > > This 16-year-old Albanian high-school drop-out, desperate to leave his > impoverished country for the nirvana of clearing tables in an Athens > restaurant, might equally well have been a Mexican heading for Texas or an > Algerian youngster sneaking into France. He had the misfortune to be born > on the wrong side of a line that now divides the world: the line between > those whose passports allow them to move and settle reasonably freely > across the richer world's borders, and those who can do so only hidden in > the back of a truck, and with forged papers. > > Tearing down that divide would be one of the fastest ways to boost global > economic growth. The gap between labour's rewards in the poor world and the > rich, even for something as menial as clearing tables, dwarfs the gap > between the prices of traded goods from different parts of the world. The > potential gains from liberalising migration therefore dwarf those from > removing barriers to world trade. But those gains can be made only at great > political cost. Countries rarely welcome strangers into their midst. > > Everywhere, international migration has shot up the list of political > concerns. The horror of September 11th has toughened America's approach to > immigrants, especially students from Muslim countries, and blocked the > agreement being negotiated with Mexico. In Europe, the far right has > flourished in elections in Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands. In > Australia, the plight of the Tampa and its human cargo made asylum a top > issue last year. > > Although many more immigrants arrive legally than hidden in trucks or > boats, voters fret that governments have lost control of who enters their > country. The result has been a string of measures to try to tighten and > enforce immigration rules. But however much governments clamp down, both > immigration and immigrants are here to stay. Powerful economic forces are > at work. It is impossible to separate the globalisation of trade and > capital from the global movement of people. Borders will leak; companies > will want to be able to move staff; and liberal democracies will balk at > introducing the draconian measures required to make controls truly > watertight. If the European Union admits ten new members, it will > eventually need to accept not just their goods but their workers too. > > Technology also aids migration. The fall in transport costs has made it > cheaper to risk a trip, and cheap international telephone calls allow > Bulgarians in Spain to tip off their cousins back home that there are > fruit-picking jobs available. The United States shares a long border with a > developing country; Europe is a bus-ride from the former Soviet block and a > boat-ride across the Mediterranean from the world's poorest continent. The > rich economies create millions of jobs that the underemployed young in the > poor world willingly fill. So demand and supply will constantly conspire to > undermine even the most determined restrictions on immigration. > > For would-be immigrants, the prize is huge. It may include a life free of > danger and an escape from ubiquitous corruption, or the hope of a chance > for their children. But mainly it comes in the form of an immense boost to > earnings potential. James Smith of Rand, a Californian think-tank, is > undertaking a longitudinal survey of recent immigrants to America. Those > who get the famous green card, allowing them to work and stay indefinitely, > are being asked what they earned before and after. "They gain on average > $20,000 a year, or $300,000 over a lifetime in net-present-value terms," he > reports. "Not many things you do in your life have such an effect." > > Such a prize explains not only why the potential gains from liberalising > immigration are so great. It explains, too, why so many people try so hard > to come-and why immigration is so difficult to control. The rewards to the > successful immigrant are often so large, and the penalties for failure so > devastating, that they create a huge temptation to take risks, to bend the > rules and to lie. That, inevitably, adds to the hostility felt by many > rich-world voters. > > This hostility is milder in the four countries-the United States, Canada, > Australia and New Zealand-that are built on immigration. On the whole, > their people accept that a well-managed flow of eager newcomers adds to > economic strength and cultural interest. When your ancestors arrived > penniless to better themselves, it is hard to object when others want to > follow. In Europe and Japan, immigration is new, or feels new, and > societies are older and less receptive to change. > > Even so, a growing number of European governments now accept that there is > an economic case for immigration. This striking change is apparent even in > Germany, which has recently been receiving more foreigners, relative to the > size of its population, than has America. Last year, a commission headed by > a leading politician, Rita Süssmuth, began its report with the > revolutionary words: "Germany needs immigrants." Recent legislation based > on the report (and hotly attacked by the opposition) streamlines entry > procedures. > > But there is a gulf between merely accepting the economic case and > delighting in the social transformation that immigrants create. Immigrants > bring new customs, new foods, new ideas, new ways of doing things. Does > that make towns more interesting or more threatening? They enhance baseball > and football teams, give a new twang to popular music and open new > businesses. Some immigrants transform drifting institutions, as Mexicans > have done with American Catholicism, according to Gregory Rodriguez, a > Latino journalist in Los Angeles. And some commit disproportionate numbers > of crimes. > > They also profoundly test a country's sense of itself, forcing people to > define what they value. That is especially true in Europe, where many > incomers are Muslims. America's 1.2m-1.5m or so Muslim immigrants tend to > be better educated and wealthier than Americans in general. Many are > Iranians, who fled extremist Islam. By contrast, some of the children of > Germany's Turks, Britain's Pakistanis and France's North Africans seem more > attracted to fundamentalism than their parents are. If Muslims take their > austere religion seriously, is that deplorable or admirable? If Islam > constrains women and attacks homosexuality, what are the boundaries to > freedom of speech and religion? Even societies that feel at ease with > change will find such questions hard. > > No but, maybe yes > > Immigration poses two main challenges for the rich world's governments. One > is how to manage the inflow of migrants; the other, how to integrate those > who are already there. > > Whom, for example, to allow in? Already, many governments have realised > that the market for top talent is global and competitive. Led by Canada and > Australia, they are redesigning migration policies not just to admit, but > actively to attract highly skilled immigrants. Germany, for instance, > tentatively introduced a green card of its own two years ago for > information-technology staff-only to find that a mere 12,000 of the > available 20,000 visas were taken up. "Given the higher wages and warmer > welcome, no Indians in their right minds would rather go to Germany than to > the United States," scoffs Susan Martin, an immigration expert at > Georgetown University in Washington, DC. > > Whereas the case for attracting the highly skilled is fast becoming > conventional wisdom, a thornier issue is what to do about the unskilled. > Because the difference in earnings is greatest in this sector, migration of > the unskilled delivers the largest global economic gains. Moreover, > wealthy, well-educated, ageing economies create lots of jobs for which > their own workers have little appetite. > > So immigrants tend to cluster at the upper and lower ends of the skill > spectrum. Immigrants either have university degrees or no high-school > education. Mr Smith's survey makes the point: among immigrants to America, > the proportion with a postgraduate education, at 21%, is almost three times > as high as in the native population; equally, the proportion with less than > nine years of schooling, at 20%, is more than three times as high as that > of the native-born (and probably higher still among illegal Mexican > immigrants). > > All this means that some immigrants do far better than others. The > unskilled are the problem. Research by George Borjas, a Harvard University > professor whose parents were unskilled Cuban immigrants, has drawn > attention to the fact that the unskilled account for a growing proportion > of America's foreign-born. (The same is probably true of Europe's.) > Newcomers without high-school education not only drag down the wages of the > poorest Americans (some of whom are themselves recent immigrants); their > children are also disproportionately likely to fail at school. > > These youngsters are there to stay. "The toothpaste is out of the tube," > says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Centre for Immigration > Studies, a think-tank in Washington, DC. And their numbers will grow. > Because the rich world's women spurn motherhood, immigrants give birth to > many of the rich world's babies. Foreign mothers account for one birth in > five in Switzerland and one in eight in Germany and Britain. If these > children grow up underprivileged and undereducated, they will create a new > underclass that may take many years to emerge from poverty. > > For Europe, immigration creates particular problems. Europe needs it even > more than the United States because the continent is ageing faster than any > other region. Immigration is not a permanent cure (immigrants grow old > too), but it will buy time. And migration can "grease the wheels" of > Europe's sclerotic labour markets, argues Tito Boeri in a report for the > Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti, published in July. However, thanks to the > generosity of Europe's welfare states, migration is also a sort of tax on > immobile labour. And the more immobile Europeans are-the older, the less > educated-the more xenophobic they are too. > > The barriers need to be dismantled with honesty and care. It is no accident > that they began to go up when universal suffrage was introduced. Poor > voters know that immigration threatens their living standards. And as long > as voters believe that immigration is out of control, they will oppose it. > Governments must persuade them that it is being managed in their interests. > This survey will suggest some ways in which that might be done. > >>>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -------------- > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
