Replies

I was reading about him in April 8th issue of The Economist. He both seems a man of conviction, wich I like, and maybe to much of a hot head. Suggesting bombing Mekka is of course propostourous, and would in all other countries result in that MP having to leave parliment.

But it is very strange for me, that illegal immigration is not an illegal act, like I seem to have been reading in many articles about these things. What does that mean? How can that not be illegal to be illegally in the country? And it surprises me also how much government help illegals can get because there is no national registry. But it is also one of the things I love about the US, this distrust of government and national registrations and such.

Other thing I find very strange is this nearly unhindered influx of unskilled immigration from latin america, but no proper system it seems of channeling this work force legally into the country. And at the same time educated or semi educated europeans and people from other parts of the world face severe hindrance in settling in the US.

I am not saying I wished it was more open, as f.e. my country, tiny Iceland (pop. 300000) can not afford to loose more people out of the country, but it yet seems strange that Icelanders and other europeans going to the US for education can not extend their stay even though they are from similar backround (culturally and such) as most Americans, are well educated and would propably assimilate fast, faster than I would like them to.

The US is an immigration country, the land of the free, God´s own country and I beliewe you should not stop being such an open society. But it is strange these double standards. It reminds me of how open europe has been to muslim immigrants, wich we have completely failed to assimilate.

And it is of course a fact that the more people from a single or similar bacground, the more difficult it is to assimilate individuals in that group. On the other hand are latinos much more culturally close to both Europe and the US and should thus be more compatible to our respective cultures and thus more likely to adapt into our societies.

I have a few questons to those that oppose immigration, like supporters of Tancredo. Are you against all immigration or just illegal one? Should there be a proper mechanism for people to be able to emigrate to the US, and should it be rather open or rather closed for immigration? Should everyone that immigrates to the US be on the path to Citizenship, or should there be a system for allowing f.e. unskilled workers temporarely into the country without, or mostly without the change for such a path?

Is it possible to crack down on illegal immigration without channeling the pressure of coming into the country, specially from your southern neighbours, into some kind of legal program that allows them to immigrate, weather temporarely or not?

And one final question, should one of the foundations of the immigrationnation that the US is, the birth-right citizenship be abolished like Tancredo wants, or maybe abolished for at least the ones participating in a temporary workers program?

Best wishes from Iceland, where immigration is also an issue, although we mostly have it under control,

Leifur