wrote:
...
The only plus of the EU, here, is that having these immigration hassles
as a state-level decision enables sensible states (Ireland, the UK,
Sweden, ...) to have much saner immigration policies, while, in the US,
...
Could I say that my own country Great Nritain is admitttting Poles and
other Easterners on a non restrictive basis. The British economy is
You could say it, but it would duplicate what I just wrote (and you
quoted, and I'm re-quoting:-) by listing the UK (which presumably means
the same as "Great Nritain", although I must admit not being familiar
with any country which spells its name that way:-) among the "sensible
states" with "much saner immigration policies".
benefiiting. The french evonomy isn't. Anyway the pot calling the
kettle black is not going to solver henispheric problems.
Who said anything about _solving_? I'm just disputing the claim that
mobility of labor *IS* (as opposed to "should be") working in the EU: it
isn't (though it should be) due to the resistance of big continental
countries (Italy and Germany as well as France) -- the only plus is that
sensible countries get to follow more sensible policies... which, as I
said, unfortunately does not apply in the US: Federal power is too
strong here, so sensible states may still have to toe the line no matter
what _their_ voters think. E.g.,
http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2...pendent/news/9
..txt: "New Jerseyans by a two-to-one margin favor legalizing
undocumented immigrants who have worked in the United States for at
least two years ... 69 percent of Democrats surveyed supporting
legalization for immigrants already here, compared to 62 percent of
Republicans";
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15071773.htm: "53
percent of Californians and 50 percent of voters said they favor a path
to citizenship for illegal immigrants. About 34 percent of adults in the
state, and 35 percent of voters, oppose the plan" -- it's hardly a
partisan issue here, more of a generational one, "Among residents 18 to
34 years old, 68 percent said they support the idea, and 19 percent said
they oppose it. But among residents 55 and older, 41 percent said they
favor allowing illegal immigrants to gain legal status, with 46 percent
opposed".
But, of course, US reactionaries only CLAIM to support "states' rights"
when some states want to deviate from federal norms in a direction that
the right-wing LIKES -- they show their true colors when states want to
vary in a direction they hate, as already shown, e.g., in their reaction
against all states choosing to allow medical use of cannabis.
Since when did America take a lead from France?. France is no friend of
Britain's, or Mexico's.
I believe America "took a lead from France" a bit over 230 years ago,
when they rebelled against you guys and managed to secede with some
minor help from a French expeditionary force (Lafayette is still
remembered rather fondly around here because of that); after that, the
rapport between the USA and France has gone through a lot of ups and
downs (for example, the Statue of Liberty was a gift to the US from
France during one of the ups) -- just like the rapport between the USA
and the UK, after all, albeit the peaks and throughs came usually at
different times. I'm not sure what this (albeit fascinating) historical
discussion may have to do with the debate, mind you, but I always find
historical analysis fascinating as an end in itself, anyway
.
As for friendship between countries, I'm not sure how to measure it; I
do know that France is the 11th largest supplier, 14th largest customer,
and 7th largest investor (FDI) in Mexico, for example
(
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/cou...o_435/france-a
nd-mexico_3114/economic-relations_3683.html) while France's ties with
the UK are much closer (3rd biggest customer, 5th biggest supplier, 3rd
largest investor for FDI...). But do close economic ties mean
"friendship"...?
Alex