Jayne, Heather and Stevie,

I'm self sufficient and wouldn't be retiring from my trannie life, so can you campaign on my behalf and I will see you when I get over there.  You can all come and stay with me and we'll have a big party!

In the meantime, thank you for making English more user friendly.  I'm beginning to get the hang of it myself now.

Lisa

That is unusual, Stevie.  I know a number of people at work who have come back to do consulting work after retirement because they found that they didn't have enough money after they retired.  I even know one person who retired and then came back as a regular employee about two years later.

I don't have any problem with people who are self sufficient coming to the U.S. to retire.  If the policies of our government prevent this, then the policies should change.  Why would we want to keep out someone who wants to bring money into the country?  That seems rather stupid.

-------------------------------

Getting back to the issue of a single world government, a lot of problems will have to be solved before that can happen.  People throughout the world will have to accept and embrace the full diversity of humanity and will have to accept all basic human rights and freedoms.  I don't see that happening any time soon.  Throughout the Islamic world, public opinion is firmly against allowing religious freedom.  The same attitude seems to exist in much of the southeastern United States.  In China and much of Southeast Asia, brutal dictatorships and sham democracies dominate the scene.  Africa is full of corrupt dictatorships and chaos.  These situations are unlikely to improve much in my lifetime or even in hundreds of years.  Therefore, the nation state will persist and we must, to protect ourselves, be very careful in our dealings with these countries.

Heather H.

As long as immigrants come to the USA legally and learn English, I welcome them. Otherwise, I don't want them.


Stevie--

I'm with you on this one. I also agree with you, Heather, thatpeople should advance above the low-paying jobs they are likely to get when they first enter, and"Illegal immigration should be fought vigorously, with serious criminal penalties for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. We cannot afford to allow everyone to enter; we simply don't have room." In short--something needs to be done. I am not sure that I agree with you about the highly educated people coming in, however.

I guess there's a part of me that wonders if they are so smart...why take a job nobody else will have? I'm not talking the fast food, lame entry level type stuff that  kids won't touch anymore. I am talking the high end, got to have an advanced degree, brain surgeon/rocket scientist stuff. Are we not capable of prducing our own highly educated people?

If so...where are they?
If not...why the h*ll not?

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Lisa, dear:

If you move here, you won't be able to retire.

Americans can't even afford to retire, and we've lived here all our lives! ;D

As for who corrupted the language...Don't blame us for the problems; we just fixed it up so it's user-friendly...!

Luv 'n good natured hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Just to add a diferent slant to the discussion.  I would love to retire to America but I cannot get a visa for a period greater than 6 months.  I am self sufficient and would be aiding the economy spending my money there.  So why can't I enter?

Britain is the USAs greatest allie and we gave you our language - even though you have corrupted it since!  Only joking!

Lisa

This issue is somewhat related to the overpopulation issue.  Many poor countries have too many people who cannot make a living.  Naturally, moving to an industrialized country can appear to be a good option, but how many of these people can the industrialized countries handle?

Like it or not, the United States and other developed countries depend on these immigrants as a source of cheap labor.  In California, for example, there is a substantial underground economy based on the labor of illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants fill many jobs.  If not for these immigrants, much work would not get done.  However, the numbers of people wanting to come in are greater than our economy can absorb.  If we let all of them in, the economy will suffer.

I prefer a balanced approach.  Immigration should be allowed only to the extent determined necessary for the economy.  Anyone who enters legally must be able to contribute to the economy.  Illegal immigration should be fought vigorously, with serious criminal penalties for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.  We cannot afford to allow everyone to enter; we simply don't have room.  Immigrants must put a strong priority on learning the language and customs of their new home so that they can advance above the low-paying jobs they are likely to get when they first enter.

Here are some special cases.  Legitimate political refugees must be admitted, but no one country should be forced to do more than its share.  These refugees should find work and contribute to the economy just like any other immigrant, unless their length of stay is short.  Another special case is highly educated people.  These people have a great potential to contribute to their new country, but they may also compete for work with citizens of the country.  These people should be encouraged to move in when the citizens of the country are not filling all of the available positions.  In the U.S., there is a program to allow educated professionals to enter the country if sponsored by an employer.  There are problems with it.  It is difficult for these people to switch jobs, so they are essentially held captive by their employers.  Often, they are paid lower wages and forced to work longer hours.  These restrictions must be removed so that they do not appear to employers to be a better option than hiring a citizen or permanent resident.  Finally, we are in an age of terrorism.  While it may seem unfair, prospective immigrants from countries known to harbor terrorist groups must be scrutinized more closely than others.

What does everyone else think about immigration?  I would be especially interested to hear the views of the Europeans and hear about their unique problems with this issue.

Heather H.

At present, the nation states still exist and they are responsible for their own citizens.  I agree that we may be headed towards a situation in which the world is more united, but that is rather far off at this point.  Right now, there are great disparities among the nation states - an inherently unstable situation.  Naturally, those which are more developed want to hang on to their status.  Perhaps educating foreign students can reduce this disparity and reduce instability in the long run - if the foreign students return to their countries and help to develop them, rather than remaining in the countries where they are educated.  Of course, we risk educating people from countries which may later prove to be enemies, so we need to be careful.  As long as nation states exist, we must be concerned about these issues.  I don't think this approach is short-term, since the nation states, while they may become fewer in number, will likely continue to exist for hundreds of years.

Heather H.

She could come live in eastern north carolina and have a whole new respect for a version of the english language.
                         

I didn't know all y'all spoke English in thet there part of Nor'Caralinar!

**giggles**

Think it's bad there...talk to a Texan. Talk about think enough to cut with a knife....

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

I would probably be considered to be part of that "highly educated" class - I have a Master's degree in electrical engineering.  When I was in school, I met numerous people from foreign countries.  It was difficult for the electrical engineering department to attract Americans into graduate school, and foreign students filled spaces which would otherwise be empty.  I agree that we should educate our own citizens, but that goes to the heart of the education problem in our country.  Our colleges and universities are among the best in the world, but our primary and secondary education are mediocre at best.  Thus, Americans arrive in college poorly prepared to take on difficult subjects.  The foreign students often enter college better prepared, except for English skills in many cases.

We also need to do a better job of attracting Americans into the high-tech fields.  Improving working conditions on the job (which are often quite dreadful) would go a long way.  We need to strengthen labor laws to better protect salaried professionals.  At present, we need many people of foreign origins to fill positions and keep the economy running, but that should be seen as a short-term solution.  We must work towards a goal of bringing our own citizens into these careers.

Heather H.

She could come live in eastern north carolina and have a whole new respect for a version of the english language.
                          kelly

I live in South Florida and it seems to be a hub of Immigration. I have seen some good things that have come from it but the overall effect outweighs the good. The cost is tremendous, when you factor in welfare, health, education,and the misc cost ( bilingual education, translators among others) It becomes more than the state can bear. This inturn lowers the services to citizens and legal aliens. I have seen cases where aliens can get health care but citizens are turned away. Especially in these times, our countries security becomes a factor. I have heard reports that there are over 8 million illegal aliens in this country. That is a huge security risk. The US has 40,000 troops in South Korea protecting their boarder, it is way past due to bring them home so they can protect our boarders. I personally hold the INS totally responible for 9-11. I think it is time to close the gates until we can get the influx under control.

Immigration.

Bring in highly skilled professionals some of you have said...

Err No. The US and UK do this. There are currently over 30,000 IT workers from outside the EU in the UK via a visa scheme, and many many more via Inter Company Transfers. Then multiply this up through Electronics and other Engineering sectors.
Meanwhile every week thousands of UK/EU nationals get made redundant. Why so the large Consultancy firms can replace them with cheaper labour.
Special tax laws have also been passed to make it nigh on impossible for you to work for yourself (so no competing against your old employer). These same policies have been enacted in the US and Oz too, and very nearly in Germany.

Unsurprisingly, in the US (who have had the H1B scheme for ages), the number of IT graduates leaving Uni these days, is half what it was in the mid 80s (and just think how big IT is now compared to back then).

You'll never get US guys to study Science & Technology now, too many have seen their parents or their mates' parents loose their jobs to visa workers or ageism.

In all these sectors there are no skills shortages, just a reluctance to pay a decent wage. You don't want to employ a guy with a mortgage and kids, hire a college leaver instead, or better still a visa worker.

So you pay tax to keep the laid off workers, while their old employers pay less NI (Social Tax) on their cheaper workforce. A huge hidden subsidy.

Think about it, how many old Computer Programmers do you know ?

OK I have a vested interest - I am an old Programmer... and will be out of work next week.
And yes, I wont get a penny in help from the state, while I look for work.

The only 'skills shortages' are in Washington and Westminster.

Hehhee

I welcome all immigrants to Finland as long as they learn finnish.
Most of them really seem to do that. Admirable

hugs

Laura

'ere!

World government won't happen anytime soon. It will probably take thousands of years, if it happens at all. If the situation were right, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole world operate the way the USA operates now, with a federal system. Constitutionally recognized local governments administer local laws, and various levels of government exist between that and world government. In the USA, we don't have to worry about Nebraska attacking Vermont, etc., and states don't even need to defend their border against one another. We're united under a common authority (that of the people through the Constitution) which every citizens, state, and the federal government recognize.

However, we got where we are because our people were more or less on the same page when we founded this country, and even so, things still haven't been easy. We've had Western expansion, slavery, civil rights movements, world wars, wars with the American Indian tribes, and a civil war. A lot of people want to think the USA is evil because of the negative things that have happened in our past, but this is the modern country that tried to force human beings to live together under self-rule and actually pulled it off. Consider how far we advanced in our first two hundred years. Around the world, slavery was common place, females were second class citizens (at best), social class systems made economic mobility impossible, imperialism and colonization were the order of the day, and life generally sucked.  We came from that period, so we started off with the same faults the rest of the world had. In a very short time, we got rid of slavery, recognized females as full citizens, brought industrialism and technology to the world, and set an example for other nations.

Compared to where we will be in Sarah's 1500 years (at our current pace), we (the USA) are still a very uncivilized society. However, compared to where we were in 1776, the USA is Utopia today. Unfortunately, many countries today are still where we were 200 years ago, culturally, socially, economically, and technologically, if they are even that far advanced. Because of our unique situation in history, we've never had a dictatorship as a nation, and we've never known anything but democracy, as a federal republic. That has allowed us to grow up faster than other countries, and that's why we came out of nowhere to be the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

Fortunately, we are just civilized enough to be the first nation with this much power that did not want to conquer the world, and we could've done it more easily than any other nation before us. We want to exist as one nation in the world, as each of our states is one part of our country. I'm not talking about world government, but peaceful coexistence with other civilized sovereign nations, who aren't hell-bent on conquering each other. There are still some aggressive nations out there, which means there will still be wars, but most nations do want to move forward and live in relative peace.

What we have to remember as the oldest child of democracy (if I may call us that), is that the other children are still much younger and immature. Until they catch up to us and share our appreciation for democracy and human rights, world government can't even be a consideration. Besides, we still have some growing up to do ourselves.

The 50 states in the USA are all peers, as far as being culturally on the same page. If that were not the case, our country wouldn't be stable. Our civil war represented the time in our history when we were the most divided, and we were fortunate to survive that era. In order for world government to exist, we'll all have to be on the same page, or pretty close to it. That's why I think it might take thousands of years.  There's no way we American citizens will allow citizens in third world nations to have votes in determining our way of life. Likewise, we shouldn't expect them to want our values imposed on them. We're at very different stages of development.  As Douglas Adams illustrated in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the three phases of civilization are survival, inquiry, and sophistication, and they can be characterized by the questions 1) How can we eat?, 2)  Why do we eat?, and 3) Where shall we have lunch? Until all nations are in the sophistication phase, we won't be able to agree on a world constitution.

What might happen is that, over centuries, groups of countries will form, which some of you girls have already mentioned seems to be a pattern in history. The USA is already a collection of 50 smaller states, and Europe could be location of the next major union. Economically, Europe is taking the first step, which never would've occurred to anyone 40 years ago. Perhaps a central European government could exist within the next couple of centuries. Eventually, perhaps Africa, Arabia, the Orient, etc. will spawn similar unions and those groups might come together to form the basis of the first world government.  Then again, maybe the many sovereign nations will individually decide to join something like the UN, but with authority.  Personally, I think the gradual groupings, slowly reducing the number of sovereign nations seems more likely, but as I said, it's a daydream at this point.

Don't pay any attention... I'm just thinking out loud again.

I just had to add this: my father makes more money now that he's retired than he did before, so the dream is still alive.

The UK has long been seen as a soft touch for immigrants. Unfortunately,this is often to the detriment of it's own people.The benefits and welfare system are becoming overloaded,and our elderly and low-paid citizens are suffering as a result.I live in a low-pay,high cost part of the country,and many people I know,myself included,are trapped in an almost hand-to-mouth existence.I realise this is not completely the fault of immigration,we have few locally,but I believe it to be a contributory factor.

I have no objection to genuine cases,refugees etc.provided they learn the language and laws,and pull their weight.Yes,I agree with Stevie! Otherwise,no thanks,we have enough problems without adding more.

I read once that in Canada,an immigrant was only allowed in and to take a job if there was no Canadian suitable or available to do so.I don't if it is/was true,or still holds, but it sounds like a good idea,in principle.

Skilled and professional people can nearly always be placed,perhaps with a crash course in the language? (I have been attended by a doctor,undoubtedly qualified,but communication was hard.Some improvised signing helped!). I don't like the sound of the sponsorship scheme.Buy the skills,by all means,but not the person.
Further down the scale,when someone on benefit starts to bring in,by right,their immediate family,then parents et al,you have to draw a line.

Less money could be better spent educating those in poorer countries how to live within their means,and if that has to include birth control,so be it.China please note,that does not mean killing or abandoning girls at birth.

I feel that the UK takes more than it's fair share,partly because of our more relaxed rules,partly because many already have English as their second language,so it is the easiest place to go.There are also some 'colonials' who have the right to come.

Trouble is,we are only a small,overcrowded island,and could soon sink under the weight.
We need to keep things in proportion and perspective. Enough is enough.No more please.

Sue.  

As long as immigrants come to the USA legally and learn English, I welcome them. Otherwise, I don't want them. Tennessee has a serious problem with illegal immigrants because our idiotic legislature changed the laws and made it too easy to get a driver's license here. You don't have to prove anything or even speak English, which made our state a heaven for felons (illegal aliens).

LOL

Sorry Heather

I have to take issue with you on one point
but that should be seen as a short-term solution.  We must work towards a goal of bringing our own citizens into these careers.


I think your approach is short-term as well. The whole history of humanity shows us that "countries", or what people think of as countries, grow larger and become fewer. I don't just mean countries as we have known them for the last 100 years or so. The UN currently recognises 200+ countries, go back 1500 years and the UK probably had the equivalent of those 200 "countries" in terms of local war lords and the economic power they wielded (Nowadays, of course, we call them Football Clubs ;D).

So where will we be in another 1500 years or even 100 years? Well, in my view we are moving inexhorably towards world government and the diminishment of nation states. They'll probably still exist but only so that we can have the World Cup rather than the Champions League (Sorry, football joke there). In my view that's generally a good thing because nations foster "us and them" and it's always "us" that's at war with "them" (or vice-versa if you're Bush or Blair). I know civil wars exist and they can be bloodier and more disruptive but they are much fewer.

So, back to the point, if you share that vision then the concept of "our own citizens" is short-term. Educate those who want to be educated and when the balance is drawn in the ledger of the education system it will be in surplus.

Sarah

Oh, I think we have enough sense not to vote for pro-world government maniacs.

Hi Girls

Sorry to leave this thread for so long, but now that the move has settled down we can get back to it.

All the discussions about world government have omitted one factor; corporate power. The economic power of the multi-nationals is huge and transcends national borders. I'm sure we've all seen national governments scrambling to attract huge inward investment, or respond to the threats of "moving production elsewhere".

The point I'm making is that Corporations are starting to exert significant economic power that is outside the ability of individual nations to control, even the US. We are recognising that nations have to act in concert to defend some of our common interests. The League of Nations and the UN are, somewhat pathetic, examples of World Government. Perhaps, more significantly, the World Trade Organisation is an organ of "World Government". Interestingly it seems to be Bin Laden's prime target.

We already have a European Government. It is the Council Of Ministers. It agrees laws which all member states enact.

Now, none of these "governments" are quite what we think of in national terms, nor are they democratic, but they do make laws for their constituents.

As to when? Well I think sooner rather than later. Amongst other things history shows us that the pace of change is accelerating. I worry about that because things can't keep accelerating so perhaps we will ultimately implode and a new dark age follow. Another topic perhaps.

Stevie

There's hope for you yet, if you are a disciple of the great Adams (Douglas not Henry).

Don't panic

Sarah

Stevie

I always like to read the last page first.

"consumers are more powerful", that's just a myth put about by the large corporations. Unquestionably 1 million people acting in concert is an awesome force, but when does it actually happen? apart from conscription that is

Sarah

Alice
Denise

We've always been a multi-cultural society.

There's a Saxon up the street, he's really a miserable git; those Jutes across the road, up all hours partying; and what about the Vikings, roaring up and down the street on their motorcycles, chopping people's heads off; and what can you say about those bloody Normans.

Whatever else we are we are a product of multi-culturalism, long may it continue I say.

Sarah

Nice flame icon (flamicon?), Jayne.

Sarah, I didn't think anyone read my posts far enough to get to the Adams reference. LOL

Corporations might be powerful, but consumers are more powerful, assuming they are aware of their own power. Corporations, like governmnets, can't do anything that the people don't allow them to do. We have to be active and aware, both as citizens and consumers. At the absolute minimum, we should exercise the power we have at the polls and the cash registers.

P.S. Thanks for all the fish.

Sarah, I don't think you give consumers enough credit (cute play on words, huh?).

Also, who owns most corporations (in the USA, anyway)? We the people, through our investments and retirement funds. In addition to refusing to buy their products, we can dump their stocks anytime we want.

To answer you question (with my opinion), I do think consumers act together, but not always as a conscious decision. Individually, we each decide what to do, and if a given corporation does something unpopular enough, then enough individuals will have similar reactions to produce the same effect as though they had consciously acted together. However, if the consumers decide not to "punish" corporations, that's their choice. It's the same relationship we see between voters and politicians. If voters and consumers are apathetic, then apathy rules the day. In a free society, we get what we ask for, good or bad.