I think Hitchens' most important proposition is:
"a further declaration by Congress that in no circumstance will Muslim forces who have fought on our side, from the Kurds to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, find themselves friendless, unarmed, or abandoned."
I'd go even further. The U.S. should make it clear that it will never abandon an ally.
Credibility in that area's a little thin, Bruce.
The US's obligations are so wide ranging that competing interests are endemic.
Realpolitic, as practised by the States, is best illustrated by Dr. Kissinger's policies, and
let's not forget that the Kurds have already been down the abandonment road.
Heh...coincidently, Damian has a link in a couple of posts previous to this one, on exactly this issue of credibility.[External Link]
Posted at 2007-01-25 00:52:07 [PermaLink]"A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants..."
Oh yeah, that's a great suggestion.
To show what an absolute idiot Hitchens is (as if his cheerleading for the Iraq war/disaster isn't enough to reveal this): he raves about the danger (to what or whom?) of "islamofascism", then proposes nation-destroying immigration as a way to counter it; then after he condemns "one-way multiculturalism" (whatever that is), he suggests massive immigration of "qualified" (whatever that means) Indians. As if all those Indians will suddenly become English, American, Australian, Canadian, etc. And how is that not "one-way"?
Man oh man.
Suggestion: Don't allow so many posts to build up on your main page -- this makes it take an unnecessarily long time to load; somehow move them off the main page, e.g. to linked archive pages, sooner.
Suggestion: Enable HTML tags for comments.
Good posting...although I did read this a couple days ago at one of your competitors....
The ten points outlined are a very good start.
Hitchens invoked increased quotas for immigrants from India because those individuals are valuable and easier to integrate.
Our economy needs engineers, and if those engineers come from a country that is in direct competition with China, the up and comming rival,then their presence is all the more valuable. What's more, many jihadists in America are in the various faculties of engineering; it is their lair. With the introduction of Indian engineers, most of whom are NOT Muslim, we'll still enjoy all the expertise, but it'll be an expertise fraught with far fewer risks.
To be sure, there are Hindu fundamentalists....it's just that they are far fewer in number and any beefs they do have are regional rather than global in nature.
It is far more desirable to shift that highly educated manpower over here than it is to shift the work over there.
The reference to one-way multiculturalism applies specifically to demands islamists make on western society without any concessions on their part.
Hitchens proposes that any accommdations made to Islam in The West be reciprocated by concessions to religious and ethnic minorities in the Muslim world, minorities who are presently second class citizens and in danger of dying out altogether.
On this point I loved the way he savages Saudi Arabia, although I doubt many western countries would implement even a small part of what Hitch proposes. Too much money and too many contracts are at stake.
Having studied at university and worked with clients from India or East Africa (who had migrated from India), I would personally encourage immigration of qualified Indian people. The people I encountered valued education highly and embraced Western values, including capitalist ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Can't get enough of them. Indeed, a housemate who was doing a graduate chemistry degree at Cornell spent hours watching cable TV. By the end of the US Open, Prakash knew more about tennis and tennis history than I did. He loved hockey and by the end of the season was a hockey expert, although he lacked the background I had watching the Canadiens or Leafs every Saturday from the time Toronto beat Montreal in the final.... No doubt he'll never replicate that experience.
Posted at 2007-01-25 07:22:37 [PermaLink]Have to agree with Murray et al. Not all immigrants are created equal.
Indians are basically brown Jewish people with houses full of statues. They work hard, value education, don't go on welfare, speak English and don't generally blow stuff up. Great food. Don't parade semi-nude up and down the street once a year or shoot people on Yonge Street on Boxing Day.
Murray, I agree with everything you've said except for one point: in hockey Toronto NEVER beats Montréal.
Temporary setbacks, perhaps, but never a defeat.
"Credibility in that area's a little thin, Bruce."
Exactly. It's why I have little respect for Kissinger and the so-called "realists." And it's one reason it's so important now to keep faith with those who have fought on our side. You can't expect people to trust you if you abandon them when the chips are down.
Hmmm.. an Indian engineer in India costs about $5/hour. An Indian engineer living in Canada/US costs about $25/hour.
Why does the idea of bringing them here sound so antithetical to the usual right wing screed about raising minimum wage? You're doing nothing but adding cost to a service.
Why would a company who needed engineering work pay 5 times as much for it when the two hypothetical Indian engineers are equivalent? Long distance rates aren't that bad.
I'm missing point B on the path from A to C. Why is allowing Indian engineers to immigrate "so antithetical to the usual right wing screed about raising minimum wage?"
The usual argument against raising the minimum wage is that it prices marginal, unskilled workers out of the labor market.
Dara, your question is better put to the Indian engineer who wants to emigrate to Canada. The engineer would be much better off in relative financial terms to remain in India, assuming the work is available. Lots of software-based work is available. For example, I know at least one large Canadian bank sends software development work to India daily for overnight turnaround, in effect achieving 24-hour programming. This is economically efficient and much more economically effective in India than foreign aid. But not all engineering or other occupations can be done this way, so remote outsourcing will hardly determine immigration issues.
Posted at 2007-01-25 10:05:29 [PermaLink]A fair bit of engineering is sent overseas as well Murray. I know that a large automotive sector company had standing orders to outsource certain engineering tasks to India for all projects for cost savings.
The work that a foreign educated engineer will get is about the same as the stuff getting sent over to India, at least in states and provinces with picky professional engineering associations. It's just that their personal minimum wage goes up a factor of five when they're here.
Also ITAR puts them at a serious disadvantage for some projects. A coworker of mine was disallowed from a project that he was very qualified for and he was a Canadian citizen. The trouble was that he held a passport from a Middle Eastern country, not even on the watch list, and that was enough to disqualify him because the project only allowed for NATO country backgrounds.
Yes, I'm sure all those "qualified" Indians will be just as "Canadian" as all of those "Canadians" who had to be evacuated from Lebanon last year. (And how many of them were receiving money from Canadian taxpayers while residing in Lebanon?) If that absurd farce was not enough to raise outrage in Canadians (real ones) about what is happening to their country, and build a resolve to do something about it, than perhaps the situation is hopeless.
One problem with importing "qualified" immigrants is that via family/chain migration provisions of immigration law they bring a lot of 'unqualified' people with them, almost endlessly, either right away or eventually. Diane Francis writes:
"By 1997, immigrants comprised 18% of the country’s population as a whole, but accounted for 28% of people older than 65 years of age."
Does Canada's national demographic heritage as a majority white nation really mean so little that it is not worth preserving? People who want to change Canada so dramatically in this way ought to be forced to justify it other than by mouthing platitudes about "diversity", all the while filling the country with economic mercenaries to whom the nation of Canada -- its heritage -- means nothing; it's just a place with jobs and nicer roads where their elderly relatives can get free healthcare. And in any case, in a (so-called) democracy Canadians really ought to be given a choice about it, whereas now those who feel differently are shouted down (or the rhetorical equivalent of it) by being called "racists", "xenophobes", etc.