Judy, We’ve spoken about integration before. Yes, there are some that integrate, but if there are large segments who won’t, if they form themselves into enclaves and prey upon the weak, damage property and disrupt society, something has gone seriously wrong. I don’t say it is entirely their fault, but it is someone’s fault. I have read that idealistic European leaders sought these immigrants to some extent in order to make up the shortfall in entitlements due to dwindling populations, but this doesn’t seem to be working. I don’t live in Europe and must rely on newspaper articles, journalistic writings, etc., but whenever I’ve Googled these subjects to see if these writings are correct, I see photos of riots, people killed, cars were burned, etc. And in places like the Netherlands and Scandinavia the common people, people Jack Sprat worries about in other circumstances, rebelling against what they describe as an unwanted influx of immigrants. I have read that a large part of the problem is that a majority of the common people of Europe don’t want these immigrants moving into their nations. Why didn’t European leadership know that? Why force unwanted immigrants into a society that rejects them? I’m not saying it is right that these Europeans reject them merely that this is the case to a considerable extent. European leadership seems bent on solving this problem by making laws punishing the common people for not accepting these immigrants. Does that seem right to you? You asked what I meant by “Social Security shortfall.” Social Security was initially set up, if memory serves me, like an insurance policy. It was not intended to be an entitlement. Social Security Insurance, however, depended upon a growing population so that more people would be putting money into it than taking it out. All Western nations today are being faced with dwindling populations such that a time can be foreseen when there will not be enough money being paid into these insurance policies to pay the people who want to retire. The common fix has been to encourage immigration so that these immigrants can pay into the policy and thereby let old people continue to retire. I am suggesting that this expedient doesn’t seem to be working very well. Why not, I ask, make Social Security an entitlement and pay for it with tax money – instead of counting on immigrants to pay for it. Lawrence From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judith Evans Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:44 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hard core ideology (Lawrence) >>>>>>>>>> The West has no intention of giving it up so when it discovers that its population isn’t growing, it imports workers from elsewhere. That would work out if the imported workers fit the pattern we have in America, but in much of Europe they have been importing Islamic Fundamentalists who have no intention of integrating into European society. It would be better, in my opinion for these nations (and ours) to decide to pay for the Social Security shortfall as another entitlement. If foreign workers can’t or won’t integrate, it would be better for all concerned if they stayed in their own countries. <<<<<<<<<< I take it you mean "importing Muslims". Various European countries indeed imported Muslims (and others from former colonies) as "guest workers", whose chances of integrating were minimal. Though those programmes have faded, immigration restrictions have taken their place, and most Muslim entrants to EU countries, now, are asylum seekers or family members. "Integration", well, it depends what you mean. I could name some notably integrated British Muslims -- that is, notable Britons who are Muslim and whom I'd call integrated -- but I'm not sure there's much point. I don't know what you mean by "pay for the Social Security shortfall as another entitlement". Judy Evans, Cardiff