America Needs a Better Policy on Immigration

[Tigermike 3,052]

March 4, 2006

America Needs a Better Policy on Immigration

By Edwin J. Feulner

Latin will never be a truly dead language -- at least not as long as "E pluribus unum" appears on our money. That's our national motto: "Out of many, one." We've always been willing to open our arms to immigrants and help them become Americans.

But the unity we once valued is unraveling.

In the past, new Americans were welcomed with a solemn ceremony that matched the commitment they were making to their adopted homeland. But today's new citizens have no such uplifting experience.

To qualify they need only pass a standardized, multiple-choice test, often given in their native tongue. In fact, they're not required to show much knowledge of English. If they can transcribe just one of two dictated sentences (correct spelling and punctuation don't count), that's enough to merit citizenship.

And the greater problem is that too many people don't even go that far. Millions of foreigners are living here today with no expectation of ever becoming citizens. They're illegal immigrants.

It's impossible to know exactly how many people are here illegally. But the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington-based research group, estimates the United States hosted 10.3 million illegal immigrants in 2004, up from an estimated 8.4 million four years earlier. That's an awful lot of people doing all they can to avoid the American melting pot.

Illegals aren't coming here to take in the scenery; they're coming to work. So the best place to fight illegal immigration is on the supply side.

Employers are already required to collect Social Security numbers from everyone they hire and to withhold state and federal taxes from everyone's wages. The federal government could start addressing the problem by cracking down on employers who hire illegals.

We also should make it easier for employers to fill vacancies legally, by starting a guest-worker program that uses private-sector expertise to supply documented workers. One way to do this is to allow job agencies, licensed by the government, to set up shop in foreign countries and issue worker visas to qualified applicants. Employers then could hire the pre-screened foreigners, confident that they're hiring legal workers.

We now have the technology to track guest workers while they're in the United States. Muslims traveling to Mecca for the Hajj have their retinas scanned on the way into Saudi Arabia and on the way out, so the Saudis know exactly who's in their country. Similarly, guest workers here could receive an ID card and be subject to a similar scan at any time, thus ensuring they don't overstay their welcome.

While implementing these measures, the United States should take steps to improve economies south of the border.

Workers flock to the United States because they think that, even as illegals, they can make more money here than if they were to remain at home. Sadly, they're usually right, which explains the virtual flood of humanity coming across our southern border.

But it's possible to change that. U.S. foreign policy should encourage Latin American countries to open their economies by selling off government-run industries and help their governments create a climate that respects individual rights.

Doing so would help countries such as Mexico create more jobs, something it desperately needs to do. On average, Mexico has created a mere 500,000 jobs in each of the last five years, not nearly enough to make a dent in its unemployment rate. If Mexico can improve its economy, though, people will have a reason to stay in their native land.

The United States is, and will remain, the land of opportunity. But we can't afford to tolerate an underground economy, populated by immigrants who are unwilling or unable to assimilate. By cracking down on illegal immigration in a smart way, we can continue our tradition of turning many into one.

Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D., is President of The Heritage Foundation.

Visit the Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...-3_4_06_EF.html

[otterinbham 0]

You know, commentators have been spewing this shrill nonsense since the republic began.

For instance, at the turn of the last century, people were worried about the huge influx of Germans into the country. This was during the Kaiser's aggressive expansion, and many thought that the immigrant German population would prove a Fifth Column (slightly anachronistic, since Fifth Column comes from World War II).

In fact, there were huge chunks of many major cities where you could only hear German spoken. My grandfather was a product of one of those neighborhoods. He did not know a word of English until he was six. Guess what? When he was eighty, he could recite long passages of Milton from memory.

Before the Germans, people worried about the Irish. After the Germans, people worried about the Italians, the Jews, the Eastern Europeans, and the Chinese. Guess what? All of those people have made our country better and richer than the Founding Fathers' wildest dreams, and enriched our institutions as well.

Quite frankly, I think the infllux of Hispanics into this country is a fine thing. Ask any contractor in Alabama...he wouldn't be able to find labor without them. Or any restrauteur. Our building maintenance company. In short, Hispanics work hard, without complaint, and do their level best to be good citizens. I just see them as the newest manifestation of the American Dream.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I for one totally agree with the article.

[Tigermike 3,052]

With all the talk the past several weeks about the ports deal, maybe some politicians will actually take the border situation seriously. It does not appear that either party wants to do much so they both sit back and wait for the other party to make a move. No one has a problem with immigrants making the move and assimilating into the country and culture legally. It is the people entering the country illegally that have to stop. If they are here illegally, they need to be found and sent back to wherever they came from.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

With all the talk the past several weeks about the ports deal, maybe some politicians will actually take the border situation seriously.  It does not appear that either party wants to do much so they both sit back and wait for the other party to make a move.  No one has a problem with immigrants making the move and assimilating into the country and culture legally.  It is the people entering the country illegally that have to stop.  If they are here illegally, they need to be found and sent back to wherever they came from.

223324[/snapback]

You got it!!!!!!

[Tigermike 3,052]

March 5, 2006

What the Senators Are Proposing on Immigration

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

SAN DIEGO -- In trying to get mileage out of the immigration debate, those fire-breathing House Republicans pretty much cornered the market on silliness, sideshows and sound bites.

I mean, besides tossing red meat to the mob, why propose something as outlandish as a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico border or denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants or turning local police into surrogate immigration agents?

Hopefully, the grown-ups in the Senate will do better when they take a stab at immigration reform in the next few weeks.

Already, senators deserve credit for tackling the thorniest issue of this entire debate: What to do with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants who are already in the United States? All three of the top bills in the Senate -- Cornyn/Kyl, McCain/Kennedy and the new draft legislation proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter -- offer some kind of solution.

Some of what the senators are proposing is workable and wise -- and some of it is just wishful thinking.

The Cornyn/Kyl bill falls into the second category. While most people who study this debate talk about the need to create incentives and disincentives -- carrots and sticks -- to lure illegal immigrants out of the shadows, this bill is more like sticks and stones. It cops out by simply decreeing that those here illegally must leave and return to their home countries, where they could then apply to re-enter the United States through a temporary worker program.

And what if people don't cooperate? What if they don't leave? And why would they, given that they have no incentive to do so?

Supporters of Cornyn/Kyl insist that people will feel compelled because we will have cracked down on employers to the point where the only people who will be able to find jobs are those who register through the government-sponsored guest worker program.

Speaking of wishful thinking.

Back in the real world, the McCain/Kennedy bill offers workers something tangible -- the chance to stay in the United States with permanent residency -- if they, in essence, acknowledge the crime of coming illegally by paying a $2,000 fine.

Amnesty is more of a problem than a solution. You often hear that allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States legally either ``rewards lawbreakers'' or encourages more illegal immigrants to come. But there's something that already does both of those things. It's jobs, and they're being offered like crazy by U.S. employers desperate to find workers to do, as President Bush often says, ``jobs that Americans won't do.'' A better argument against amnesty is that it cheapens the right to reside in the United States legally by granting the privilege en masse. It also lets individuals off the hook by absolving them of their personal responsibility to either come legally or take the steps necessary to become legal once they get here. That doesn't come easy, but nothing worth having does.

That leaves us with Specter's bill, over which the Judiciary Committee began haggling last week. Specter did something that neither the White House nor other members of Congress did, and that's clarify the difference between our approach to current workers and to future ones. In other words, between amnesty and guest workers. Though it may come as news to CNN's Lou Dobbs and others who hyperventilate over these issues, the terms aren't synonymous.

Specter wants to (1) create a temporary guest worker program that would allow hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to fill jobs in the United States for up to six years; and (2) allow millions of illegal immigrants who are already here to remain indefinitely, provided they register with the Department of Homeland Security, pay back taxes, abide by the law, and remain employed.

Here's the problem: While Specter's bill does give the hundreds of thousands of new guest workers the right to switch jobs and requires that participating employers pay the prevailing wage, he leaves the millions who are already here in the legal equivalent of suspended animation. They won't have legal residency, or even be on a path to one day achieve it, and so they'll be vulnerable to cheats and scoundrels. You know, the way they are now. So, whatever else you call the bill, I'm not sure it can be called reform.

The Specter bill is a good beginning. But, it needs amendments and there's still a long way to go.

After all, I said I didn't want government to simply turn illegal immigrants into citizens or legal residents. But, that doesn't mean I want them turned into prey.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...3_5_06_RNJ.html

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I copied this from the al.com political forum years ago.

THE IMMIGRANT FALLACY.

I am constantly horrified by all these arguments that Britain needs more immigrants because of the falling birth rate in the native British population. Who, I have to wonder, is responsible for all this fallacious-argument dependent, ridiculous and politically dangerous nonsense. To my mind, it all reads more like a high-level propaganda exercise for the condoning of mass immigrant trafficking to suit the cheap-labour hunters, than anything remotely resembling sensible policy-formulation. That's not the story we were all fed in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. All we ever seemed to hear about was how the world was desperately over-populated, and we women had "to do our bit" by keeping the birth rate down! Families of four or five children, or larger, we had to realise, had to become things of the past. We should stick to two children per couple - and no more- for that was what the future welfare of the world and the nation depended upon. Only selfish women, so we were told, had big "Victorian -style" families. In the demographic climate of modern times - we had to be content with keeping families small. We were told about the massive population increase in Victorian times, partly because of large families, but also because of a decline in the death rate, especially infant mortality and the general increase in length of life of individuals. Better hygiene, improved medical care, better housing, higher living standards, and far less malnutrition had brought that about. But in the mid-20th century, with the post-war "baby-boom" requiring a rapid expansion of schools and other services, a high birth-rate was a luxury we couldn’t afford any more (so we were told). This country, Britain, had paid the price of being successful, by becoming one the most densely populated in the world - and we had to watch what we were doing. It would become a nightmare finding jobs and housing for everyone in an over-rapidly expanding society. We heard constantly about the worldwide "Population Explosion". Everything from serious academic "professorial" studies, copycat newspaper and magazine articles, TV programmes, novels, films (Oliver Reed starred in one where people had to substitute dolls for children) and even jokes and cartoons followed this theme. Oh - the whole world was heading for disaster if we didn’t keep that birth rate down! We even heard disgusting claims that the world needed wars and terrible weapons of mass destruction, if only as a means of controlling population growth. But: Never Fear! Rescue-was-at-Hand! Birth Control was to be the Big Thing now, and we heard all about how socially and personally desirable The Pill, the IUCD, condoms, spermicides and other contraceptive methods, were. When we went to Maternity Hospital to have our first babies, we were barely back in our beds (never mind back on our feet), when we had advice on B.C. pushed on us, whether we had asked for it or not. Women, who had four or more children, could find themselves the butt of some rather unkind jokes: (esp. Catholic women). This was how we were constantly being brainwashed - and we swallowed the lot! Now that we women have been successful in getting the national birth rate down (because that’s what we were persuaded to do), we hear these offensive arguments spread around, that this means we "need" more and more immigrants. What Double-Talk nonsense is this? I must admit, that I was very brainwashed too. I might have happily enjoyed a larger family of four or five children, but I had no more than two - because it seemed more "socially responsible". Did we women only do that, to make room for somebody else’s over-population problem? Does no one remember how we all used to hear the following argument? i.e. about how, with rapidly developing technological advances, in the industrial and agricultural sections of the economy, the country no longer needed the huge armies of low-skilled labourers of yester-year. If countries in Asia, India and Africa had massive over-population problems - because human labour was almost the only affordable power-source readily available to them - then mass poverty, malnutrition, thinly spread resources, and subsistence-level living standards were the price they paid for that. We, in the modernised countries, were to think ourselves lucky that we were freed from the necessity of a high birth rate to provide our daily sustenance. So why have an expansionist birth rate? That (we were told) would be courting trouble. How would we ever be able to accommodate them all? Better, we were told, to have fewer babies brought up to a high, modern standard of living, than large families brought up in poverty. Does no-one remember now, how (as George Brown wrote in his memoirs) Hugh Dalton claimed in the post-war, late 1940s, that only thing that could solve Britain’s economic problems was for "half" the population to emigrate (to Canada, Australia, N.Z etc.)? How would Britain ever provide jobs, housing and public facilities for everybody if they didn’t? Does no-one remember how hundreds of thousands of British people were encouraged to believe that - if they had talent, ability and energy - then the best way to find good employment for themselves, was to go out and help build up Australia. Britain, so we were told, had far more "chicks" than she had "nest-space" for - and we’d never have either enough jobs or space for everybody. Emigrants, we heard, were people who headed out towards lower population density countries with plenty of open, undeveloped space to grow, and which possessed the potentially great resources to absorb them. Emigrants went out to take modern technologies to lesser-developed countries, and to help build new cities in the "new" lands. It didn’t make sense for masses of people to emigrate to "old" countries, which were already densely populated - cities bursting at the seams - with their own native population already in stiff competition with each other for available jobs and economic resources. It is useful here to analyse the different roles of the "Economic Migrants". They come in many different forms and styles, with totally different aims and attributes. 1: The Explorer/Pioneers. These are people who went out to relatively empty, unexplored "virgin" territory with little or no existing human habitation, but which they realised had the potentialities for development. They created farms, towns and economically productive communities out of nothing. To them, the idea of "making a new life for themselves" meant the adventure and the challenge of moving out of old-established, over-crowded societies and - through their own hard work - the thrill of building something which had never existed before. 2: The Developers. Close behind them came the developers. While they were not the originators of the new settlements, they were needed to provide the range of services necessary to help support new communities. How would the pioneers progress without their roads and their railway builders, and their ports and harbours? How would they sell their produce if no one developed either markets for them, or communications systems to keep trade running efficiently with the rest of the world? 3: The Essential Skills Bringers. New societies need their engineers, their bankers, their medical professionals, their business managers, their schoolteachers, and a host of other highly skilled services, which we simply take for, granted in an old-established nation. They are all needed to make new societies both socially and economically feasible. With progress and development, societies also need public service workers, policemen, and a legal profession to keep good order. 4: The Small Business Opportunists. They are neither pioneers nor developers nor bringers of essential skills; but they see an opportunity for a new market for themselves in the "convenience" trades - be it opening a tailor’s business or a barber’s, or running a hotel. It all helps new societies to urbanise and "round-out" more fully. They carry their own weight, make their own way, know how to make themselves useful, and expect no charity or favours from anyone. They are usually welcomed in a new society, as they help to make life smoother and more interesting. 5: The General Labourers: They tend to be drawn in by new businesses, esp., primary producers busily engaged in developing previously untapped resources in a newly-settled country, which are expanding faster than the already existing population can supply the extra labour needed. When America, Australia and other such countries were developing, they often shared the pioneering spirit of the original settlers, taking a pride in the adventure of building something new; and they were valued for it. They worked hard and lived hard. They will blend into a society and its economy where they are genuinely wanted and needed. 6: The Cheap Labour Importees. This category of migrants are, regrettably, the subject of a most ethically and morally distressing matter. They are often the most pathetic of people, who have often been fed misleading promises of "good" employment by unscrupulous transporters, operating in the ethically indecent business of trafficking cheap "coolie" labour. They serve the kind of businesses, which use them as a means of bypassing the paying of a decent living wage to workers in the established population of society. Tragically, they are usually exploited and abused by the businesses, which brought them in. The local population, who disdain the low pay and poor conditions they are given often despise them. It may well be, that the once-mighty, "King-Cotton" economy in the southern U.S.A. was created by imported, black slave labour; and it may well be, that much of the19th century American railroad network was built by cheap, Chinese "coolie-labour", specially imported for the purpose. That did not make it ethically justifiable. 7: The "Mavericks" and "Band-Wagon Riders". These are the opportunity-seeking hopefuls, who are almost the opposite of the pioneers. They only arrive on the scene after most of the hard pioneering work has been done, the cities have been built and the thriving urbanized society has been created. They bring no special useful skills, with no special assets to contribute, and were not specially wanted by anyone. They simply arrive "on spec", looking for any kind of income they can find anywhere. Typically, they tend to expect that, merely by arriving ashore and throwing themselves on top of the receptor society, the best of everything, employment and all good fortune should instantly land in their laps. Now, a rapidly expanding economy, in a "Settled-Developed" country, may well have some places for footloose, unskilled, "maverick" general labour, but - contrary to these migrant’s expectations - certainly not endless capacity for it. This kind of immigrant is usually discouraged by long-established nations (where they often arrive as illegal entrants) because of the danger to public and social order posed by large numbers of jobless, homeless, rootless, uninvited new arrivals roaming about, looking for whatever pickings they can find. They are not always welcome in newer "Settler-Developed" countries either, for similar reasons. Mass influxes of too many of their style are generally distrusted as bringers of trouble, for whom the urgent matter of finding a living comes before respect for the fragile peace and harmony which the settled population tried hard to create. As a group, they have the reputation of being none-too-fussy about whether or not their earnings are legal. They are unpopular with the police, who perceive them as having little respect for the authority and order of the established society. Never mind the fancy “Statue of Liberty” sympathy for “wretched refuse from a teeming shore“. Americans never forgave them for what they did to the New York crime-rate. 8. The “traffickees” In Britain and Europe today, of course, we know all about this category: much the same as the “mavericks“, but with an important difference - they didn’t come in on their own. Typically, they have been sold passages to the imaginary "Streets of Gold" (along with unreal, “rosy” expectations) and are smuggled in illegally by obscenely unscrupulous, organised, immigrant traffickers - for whom it is a highly-lucrative, multi-million-pound, international racket - and who led them to believe that other nations’ countries can be treated as Wide-Open Public International Property. The sad truth is that many traffickees have been deliberately lured by Trafficking Racketeers, with tales of ‘good’ earnings in Europe, and have either sold all their possessions, or borrowed heavily in their home countries (from the Traffickers themselves) to pay the Racketeers their exorbitant fees. Much of what they earn in Britain has to be paid back to local “agents“. Those who fail to pay back their “debts“, can meet with vicious beatings, or worse. Their main reason for coming is always the same: to claim a share of the resources and assets which have already been created by the established nation, by whatever methods they can use, whether they are wanted by the host nation or not. 9. The "City-Grabbers". This is another group which tend only to arrive after the cities and the social superstructure have already been created by other people's hard work. Unlike the 'mavericks', these Traffickees come in with the full intention of setting themselves up as organised, cohesive community, generally characterised by a shared ethnicity or common religion, which sets them apart from the settled population. To them beginning a 'new life. means taking possession of sections of existing cities, along with all their facilities, to facilitate their own ethnic-enclave building. They see nothing wrong in progressively pushing the previously-settled population out: they may even take a pride in it. They see it all as part of a grand design to secure their future, political importance: an achievement which announces their status as an ethnically-defined community. Typically, they want the best of everything the host society can provide, yet care only for furthering their own community's interests, even where these conflict with the interests of others. They have difficulty understanding why they are often greatly resented and distrusted by the rest of the population. The longer a nation has been established, the more they are disliked for the divided society they create. The old, historic, single-nation societies dislike them the most for the insulting way their encroachment challenges an indigenous nation’s control over their own homeland. The "City-Grabbers" fail to understand that what they see as the hostility of "racism", the native population sees as concern about incompatibility with the principle of single-nation sovereignty. What migrants see as unjustified “xenophobia“, the native established nation sees as a matter of justifiable, essential defence of their power, heritage, culture, national character, and the integrity of the nation against self-implanted alien power-blocs.

10. The Refugees. These could be any of the already-mentioned groups. When Emma Lazarus wrote her famous Statue of Liberty poem in 1883 [Ancient lands keep your storied pomp. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me!”], it was an expression of sympathy for the Russian Jews, suffering persecution at the time of the infamous pogroms. The ones who left for America, went with the aim of being economically self-reliant in an enormous country with space for them, amid huge natural resources. Nothing was put on a plate if they didn?t. Wartime refugees of the 1940s (not really economic migrants) meshed into the war-time/postwar economy and didn?t expect any pampering. But ?Refugees? have changed: they now come in as intentionally dependent on the host nation?s benevolence, and have become a new kind of economic migrant of expensively negative value. Now which of these kinds of economic migrant is the present government trying to claim that Britain, as a modern, sophisticated, highly-developed, over-crowded country, "needs"? The Explorer-Pioneers? No: Britain has been settled continuously for around 2000 years. Look at a road atlas of Britain: with cities running into each other, and the ?open? spaces between towns criss-crossed with roads, a country with less need of immigrant influxes, than Britain, is difficult to imagine. The Developers? No: it?s all been done, and all by the same, established indigenous nation. The Essential Skills-Bringers? No: we are a highly-educated nation, and have always been perfectly capable of providing our own. The Small-Business Opportunists? No: We have plenty of those of our own. The General Labourers? No: We have plenty of our own already. The Cheap Labour Importees? No! That would be highly unethical, immoral, and an insult to unemployed workers in our nation. The "Mavericks" and "Band-Wagon Riders" ? I certainly hope not! This is the group which nobody wants. No governments in their right mind, with any respect for the aims and ideals of good social order, peace, and a low crime rate, should ever want to encourage this kind. The ?Traffickees? ? No! The sad truth is that the more of this group who succeed in entering, the greater the success of horrendously evil, ?professional?, organised, immigrant- smuggling racketeers - who are every bit as evil as drugs traffickers. We have to keep them out to deny success to international gangsters. There are strong suspicions that huge sums earned from ?people-smuggling? could be funding international terrorism. The ?City-Grabbers?? No! We have too many already. The whole world has seen what happens to ethnically-fragmented countries, with their inter-ethnic power-struggles, civil disturbances, riots and violence. We need no more! The ?Refugees?. No: Britain has nothing in common with the USA of the 19th century, and has no spare space to absorb them. Even today, the World has changed a lot since the well-meaning 1951 UN ?Asylum? Convention. Migrants and organised, international traffickers have exploited it to the full as a means of circumventing immigration controls: it?s time to end its massive abuse. So what do we make of all this charlatan-dependent, sophistry-ridden rubbish about Britain "needing" more immigrants? In a country which is still struggling with unemployment problems, jobless and benefit-dependent families, and work-scarcity blackspots all over the country, it certainly doesn?t ring true. The truth is that Britain neither wants nor needs immigrants. Now I can understand employers taking in specialised-skills, hand-picked individuals from abroad on a short-term contract, turnover basis - but they don?t need to be life-long immigrants for that. We can take into account the fact that there is massive maldistribution of employment opportunities in the country, and that London (notoriously) hoards much more than its fair national share. We know that high housing costs in London can produce (localised) labour shortages, and that a great many people (e.g. teachers and nurses) in other areas are reluctant to move to London for jobs for housing-related reasons. (For it is much cheaper and easier to move out of London housing than into it). We know that far too many government ministers, who should know better, think that what is true of London is true of everywhere else. Yet, none of this justifies deliberately bringing in Economic Migrants from other countries, and it never will. How can it be more economic to bring in migrants from abroad than to use British labour outside London? Forget the story about our ?ageing? population: in our society, people are still young at 60, and fit and healthy at 70. Why does this government refuse to admit what most of the population already know? I.E that the Law of Diminishing Returns (of which some politicians have never heard) is every bit as valid for immigrants as it is for everything else. Remember that Law: a little brings benefits, but each additional amount brings proportionately less benefit than the last. Then you pass the zero-level of return, and increased inputs only do a great deal of damage. (One spoonful of medicine does you some good, three times the dose doesn?t do you three times as much good, too much and it?s counter-productive - you?re poisoned!) It is always easy to say that, the only people who really want more immigrants are the cheap-labour hunters to re-invent the cheap-labour society, the fee-hunting ?Asylum? lawyers, the immigrant traffickers, and the ethnic-enclave builders. There?s more to it than that. The trouble is, that those who want economic migrants are the ones who only see any country as a component of the massive international economy, dominated by multi-national trading and banking; and they don?t see why labour shouldn?t be freely moved from country to country, according to their requirements and preferences. Those who don?t want them, see countries as national homelands, created, developed and run by - and essentially for the benefit of - the established nation: i.e. people who share their historic, national identity and ancestral right to live there. People who value a united, internally peaceful, cohesive, reasonably law-abiding nation - which is strongly-bonded together by a common set of social values, a common culture, a pride in a shared heritage, pride in the moral authority of mutual aid and a strong sense of responsibility to each other -do not welcome mass influxes of immigrant labour. Preservation of these highly-valued concepts, social cohesion - that basic sense of affinity between members of the same nation, a harmonious, orderly society, and a belief in caring for the interests of their own nation first, are their main concerns. The Question is: Who?s going to win the Big Battle?