| |
| Theory |
|
Immigration and ImmigrantsWhat do we call the people who emigrate? What do we call the people who remain, of whom a certain percentage can't get away? Immigrants in Europe can't become part of the mainstream in the respective countries because the culture of the countries refuses to admit outsiders.You are an American, Canadian or Australia by dint of personal determination. You are French, Argentinean etc. by birth. Hence the continuing ethnic heritage devotion in the United States, Canada and Australia -- I'm Italian or I'm Greek or I'm Nigerian, a person might say. In these three countries and to a lesser extant England, you can be accepted as a hyphenated person, but in the rest of the world you are either or are not. You can't be hyphenated, in Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. Hyphenation is not allowed culturally and often legally, hence the constant rebellions based on religions, cultures, ethnicity; the whole issues of volatile minorities. Then they move to America and no problem The Jewish Diamond dealer in New York City taking a cab driven by a Palestinian Arab, conversing in imperfect English, at peace, thanking their lucky stars that they are American. This is not normal or accepted in any other countries, where foreigners are indeed that: foreign. People immigrate to the United States because they can not acheive what they want to achieve back in their native countries. The cultures of those counrtries inhibits or prohibits all efforts at creating a bette rlife, by which ever parameter indiividuals perceive. This, to prevent more immigration requires change of culture back home. The economic haves have adopted cultural imperatives to create wealth. The economic have nots have retained cultural operations that promote poverty. While political democracy is tied to economic democracy, in a direct correlation, most of the world does not believe this. Though there is plenty of evidence. Mostly in the form of free countries having more wealth, more so-democracies have more wealth. But the wealth does not come from merely having elections. Wealth is predicated on the development of systems of law and commerce that have nothing to do with elections, except that only democratic states have these systems of law and commerce. It is often said, well, Argentina or Columbia or Malaysia are democracies, after all they have elections. But if all the people can vote for are statists/socialists who work hard at preventing the instillation of wealth producing systems of law and commerce than what is the point of the elections? Cuba has elections, too. Big deal. All the elections in Mexico will not bring to power anyone who seems serious about correcting that nation's troubles, but instead focuses on people who blame the United States for all their troubles. They are socialists, whether they use the actual name or not, because they believe that the state should own the primary means of production of natural resources becuase all the land and the natural resources belong to the people, and the government represents the people. What really happens is unrelenting corruption and theft of the national wealth. American would be perfectly happy for everyone else to become like America -- thus eliminating war, distress and more immigration under negative circumstances. But the rest of the world is seemingly dedicated to the prospect of ignoring the reality that is in front of them. Obviously, whatever the United States and Canada are doing is working to create the most powerful and richest nations on earth. Why wouldn't the rest of the world emulate us as fully and as quickly as they could? Mostly becuase they are beholden to Socialist thought and the Divine Right of States. Within culture, politics and economics, socialist theory is still so prevalent across the world, because socialism is merely modern words applied to the ancient system of the Divine Rights of Kings. Where the state knows all for the good of the people. Individualism is suspect because it necessarilty diminshes the all encompassing rhetoric of The People. Simplistic demagoguery is easier than complex individualism. It is easy to say that food, health care, clothing and shelter are the Rights of Man -- but it is much harder to say that individuals are capable of creating their own. The state can provide for everyone only by denying everyone the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. "The State will own the national oil company for the good of the people," is perhaps the biggest farce perpatrated on mankind. There is this belief oil is such an important commodity that mere individuals have no right to own it. Especially corporations from America. The fear of lack of control is one of the biggest hindrances to individualism. These cultures are so imbued with the idea that anything less than total conformity to a national/ethnic culture is dangerous to the very existence of that nation/ethnic group that individuals who stray are actually against the People. The continued Marxian belief that rich countries require the existence of poor countries, which just isn't true at all. Moving wealth from rich countries to poor backwards cultures will not result in better conditions in the poor places, because the structural ideas for wealth creation and retention aren't present. Mexico nationalized the oil industry decades ago, and has made billions upon billions of dollars -- a huge transfer of wealth from a rich coutnry to a poor country -- and where is the money? Or where is the products of the money? Mexico is still poor. The United States has granted billions of dollars to countries in an effort to help them, and what happens to the money? It lines the bank vaults of the Switzerlands of the world. |