Redstate

Over 75% of the people in France haven't completely lost their sense of civic responsibility to vote. Can anybody tell me the last time in the USA that over 75% of the eligible voters actually voted? My hearty congratulations to Sarkozy and Vive La France!

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

James,

I have to say...that by your grouping the illegal immigrants in the U.S. as just a low cost labor force essential to our Economy, you miss a very big point.

You said: " Most of these immigrants have no jobs due to discrimination or a lack of skills, they live off the social programs, and are heavily concentrated in and around the large cities. "

And my response to that is: 86, count 'em, 86 Hospitals in Southern California have closed due to the assault on their Emergency Room services by illegal immigrants. If that doesn't qualify as an example of "live off the social programs", then I don't know what is!

I have to admit I am pretty unfamiliar with the Health Care system of California, could you provide some links to some info about the impact of immigrants on Hospitals. I was under the impression that most illegals avoided hospital care because it could become a venue for deportation.

That said American social programs are in almost no way comparable to the French. They have socialized medicine for the entire country, free education through the lycee programs. Guaranteed welfare for all citizens, the banlieus were actually built int he 70's with the express purpose of housing millions of poor immigrants. Compared to their far ranging benefits American social programs are anemic to say the least. Which is not to say that we should be increasing our social programs to keep pace, but more to just point out that the French are quite a far ways to the left of us, and their social programs take a heavy toll on the nations economy.

I think that Sarkozy will probably begin rolling back quite a few of these programs in the next couple of years. I think the first one slated to go is a set of workers rights. The student riots in the spring of 2006 were associated with attempts to make it easier for employers to fire people under the age of 30. Sarkozy was one of the prime supporters of that measure and it will no doubt be back in some form or another. Ultimately I think the success of his presidency will hinge on how the French react to his scale backs of their social programs. At the very least I hope he is successful in reinvigorating their economy.

James and sturner,

I just read that article/posting on one of the blogs just the other day - I'll find the links for you and post here when I can figure out which one I read it on! LOL I should have it here for you soon.

James and sturner,

Here's the link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/26/170334.shtml

The section of the article that had caught my eye was:

"Many California hospitals cannot afford to absorb costs and many are forced to close due to financial mandates for treating illegal immigrants. As recently reported, 84 California hospitals are closing their doors forever. Hospital closure degrades health care to all in the community and results in job losses."

Hope that helps!

It is a common misunderstanding that the French have socialized medicine for the entire country. In fact, last I studied this (which has been a year or two so I could be wrong), the French medical system is one of the best ones outside of the United States specifically because it is not socialized. They have (or had) a form of socialized insurance wherein the government gives you a few options (depending on your particular position) and pays for, I think, 75% of the premimums. This works well for many reasons (doctors still have incentive, etc.), but one of the best ways is that illegals are not able to take advantage of it. Especially compared to the failure that is Canadian or English socialized medicine, the French model is brilliant. Little known fact: Hawaii actually modeled their state system after the French health care system precisely because it has been successful.

Also, Le Pen only ever won second place. And that only because the left was divided between about a dozen different parties. Thanks to their electoral system, Le Pen happened to get the second highest (by only about .5% more than Jospin, who was the Socialist and his support was divided among the previously mentioned dozen parties). Chirac won the second election with over 80% of the vote. Le Pen never 'almost won' anything. He made it into the second round by a fluke and never stood a snowball's chance in Paris in the middle of August.

Vive La France!

I would be interested in seeing information regarding this as well. I'm not too familiar with California these days, but would be interested to see the problems they are having in the health care sector with illegal immigration.

Hello,

There are plenty of "low cost" workers living on welfare checks, receiving free education and medicine attention, all of it at taxpayers' expense. Their children born here are automatically US citizens despite their parents breaking the law by entering America illegally. They despise our culture and demands us to give due respect to their culture. They are crying out that Southwest America really belongs to them and Mexico, because in their view, it was stolen away by America. Never mind the fact it was won fair and square in US-Mexico War.

So, with all due respect, at least Irish, Socts, Germans, Italians, etc. came here legally and that's an important distinction. The majority of "low cost" workers don't do that, and in my mind, why should we let them break the law all the time? It is sure a strange way of saying America is a law-abiding nation, but doesn't mind such immigrants coming here illegally!

If it were up to me, I'd put a large and thick concrete wall along the border with plenty of combat patrols with orders to open fire on anybody trying to enter America illegally.

Besides, you're mistaken that Le Penn "almost" won the election, he didn't win anything, what he won was getting a higher percentage of votes and an opportunity to voice his platform nationally.

As for Sarkozy, I don't know much about him, but from what I've seen so far in French politics, he's a miracle waiting to happen for France. What France needs badly is a dose of common sense, and hopefully Sarkozy can provide that.

Dan

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

"So, with all due respect, at least Irish, Socts, Germans, Italians, etc. came here legally and that's an important distinction. The majority of "low cost" workers don't do that, and in my mind, why should we let them break the law all the time? It is sure a strange way of saying America is a law-abiding nation, but doesn't mind such immigrants coming here illegally!"

Well considering that all that was required to become a citizen if you were a white man in the 1,800's was to have lived here for two years I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that everyone here immigrated "legally." In fact many of our nations founding fathers were probably never even presented with immigration papers of any kind with the possible exception of those who were in a position to be taxed.

At any rate it is not possible for illegal aliens to receive welfare unless they have a child here, a so called "anchor baby." Whom by virtue of the land of birth is in fact a US Citizen and no longer an illegal alien. I don't really want to get off on an immigration debate, but I have to ask what would happen to the South West construction industry if it were actually feasible to halt the flow of immigrant workers. The housing bubble already appears to be the single most important economic threat in the next 10 years, and as far as I can tell increasing the cost of labor would not do much to help it.

So slavery (or pseudo-slavery aka illegal immigration labor) is a good thing, huh? The "backbone" of our nation?

So they live with 5-6 guys to a 1-bedroom apartment and send the money back to a nation that refuses to take care of it's own problems. So they bring down the wages of the working stiffs already here and in many cases simply run them out of business. And don't even get me started on the costs of welfare programs and health care.

But I guess that's OK if you're a greedy business owner.

I'm not saying ALL business owners are greedy, but if you can't compete in the free market LEGALLY (which means hiring LEGAL employees) then perhaps you shouldn't be in business!

www.scottbomb.com

You've won back some of my respect.

www.scottbomb.com

"So slavery (or pseudo-slavery aka illegal immigration labor) is a good thing, huh? The "backbone" of our nation?"

I don't think it's a necessarily good thing, but a brief look at our nations immigrant groups shows that basically all of us went through the same thing. Lots of hard labor for little to no pay for a generation or two. A growing sense of awareness in the nation that this social group is either a problem or to be pitied. A series of laws targeting said ethnic group, and eventual acceptance into the fabric of America.

This is also the argument that economists use to disparage WTO agreements requiring higher levels of environmental and labor laws from third world nations. To get to a place of higher quality living you have to muck around for a while in the sewage of life.

You did say slavery, wage and actual. It wasn't our constitution and system of government, it wasn't the traders and entrepreneurs, the middle class, the opportunity and upward mobility, the craftsmen, farmers, and tradesmen, the innovators and inventors, the expansive and cheap land available, and with all said and considered, the greater degree of freedom, political and economic in this country than the countries people migrated from.

No, it was slavery.

Have a good night James.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

You fail to appreciate the difference between massive immigration in the past and the present. In the various stages of U.S. history where we had an influx of cheap labor, we had no welfare state, and the the impact on the U.S. taxpayer was nominal. Today, immigration costs tens of billions more, in government spending, without corresponding increases in tax revenues. If an increased welfare state is a burden on our overall economy, why is cheap labor so wonderful?

As a federal state, the true costs of uncontrolled immigration can be hidden temporarily, but sooner or later, either the states or national government will have to raise taxes on somebody to pay for it. Can we just borrow the 10 to 20,000 bucks per head per year that it costs?

France is a much smaller country with a bigger welfare system, has less of a "work ethic," and is less adaptable to assimilation and integration. So the issue is bigger. But, the day is coming for the U.S.

Il est nécessaire que vous votez pour F. Thompson, n'est pas?

(It's been a while, so that may be wrong, but you get the idea...)

Wealth Weekly

Mais je ne suis pas certain comment Thompson est relié aux élections françaises. Mais vous avez un bon travail avec le français !

C'est vrai....Il semble que M. Thompson est un candidat des grands idees comme M. Sarkozy. Mais M. Sarkozy est aussi un administrateur. Je ne suis pas certain que le meme chose est vrai de M. Thompson.

M. Sarkozy travaillait dur pour trois annees a etablir la machinerie qui a donne son parti son success. Nous avons besoin d'un personne des idees et un personne des details. Les deux sont egalement important. Je ne suis pas certain que ce personne est Fred. C'est possible que j'ai tort. On verra bien!

I promise not to do that again, but that was fun! I too am very happy with France's election results. I heard Sarkozy speak on Charlie Rose and was very impressed. He seems like a good choice.

I, too, make no promises on the French. If anyone cares for a translation, I'll write this comment in English :)

The problem with republicans is that Americans tend to lean further to the right (at least fiscally) than the republicans in Washington. If there's no difference between Republican spending and democrat spending, then democrats are going to win. Fiscal conservatism wins. That needs to be focus #1 for the republican nominee in 2008. If they run their campaign by HARSHLY criticizing the federal government as a whole for their spending habits, then they (we) win. If the nominee doesn't do that, the dems will win.

the democrats will always win when it comes to big government because they will offer more entitlements to the people

....pandering. Nobody has perfected the art of pandering more completely and successfully than the modern day descendants of the Roman Emperor Nero's Party of Bread and Circuses, the Democratic Party. Nothing resembling honor, hard work, personal responsibility, traditional values or sacrifice in their platforms, the unveiling of which more closely resembles Christmas morning at the Rockefeller's or the Bill Gates' or the Warren Buffets' homesteads. The "What's in it for Me Generation" has arrived at the feeding trough fully trained in Pavlovian style, salivating, looking for theirs.

The problem with republicans is that Americans tend to lean further to the right (at least fiscally) than the republicans in Washington.

Maybe on the macro level, this is true. Overall, people say that they want better spending of their tax dollrs. But most people that send their representatives to Congress won't complain at all if they get more money back to pursue individual districts' pet projects.

Shoot, even in everyday life most Americans don't really save like they used to. I think the government is in fact a reflection of American spending. Don't get me wrong--I would love it if we were more fiscal as a culture here in America, I'm just not sure we're near that place yet.