[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= peacedove] There has been debate for years in Western countries such as the US and Canada about immigration. Many citizens of Western countries say that it is bad because it causes many problems.<br /> <br /> However, immigration is the key to Canada's success. Look at the labor situation. Right now, Canada like other Western countries has a huge labor shortage. Another factor is with the babyboomers. We need people to fill jobs once they retire. Furthermore, we need more workers in order to pay for social programs. There will be nothing left in the CPP for the next generation. We need more young people to pay for these programs.<br /> <br /> We also need to balance out the age pyramid. Right now, we have an upside down pyramid scam by the government. The high cost of living is making it difficult for families to have kids. Also, there is so much red tape in the immigration system that is preventing young people from coming into the country. We need more young people.<br /> <br /> As for the high unemployment rate in Western countries, the reason is simple. It is the welfare system. Many people do not want to work and decide to go on welfare. If people want less immigration, they should stop having abortions and start having more kids. They should also get off welfare and find work before someone else takes it away.<br /> <br /> Harjit Gill<br /> Winnipeg[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> If I recall correctly, you posted something like this a while ago. I agree that abortions should be reduced and that people should have more kids. This said, although there are many retiring and the population pramid is upside down, Canada is in no danger of disappearing anytime soon. Liberalism simply dictates we have to "grow, grow". This said, we do lack YOUNG people certainly.<br /> <br /> This being said, the United States and Canada are complaining not just about immigration rates but the source, over 80% non-traditional. Don't believe for a second that our government has no agenda and actually needs 300,000 newcomers a year. European countries like France and Germany have WAY over 10% unemplyment yet doors are barred to these people for potential immigration.<br /> <br /> The high cost of living is a problem I agree, but I disagree that immigration is a ket to anything, let along our success. The problem is for many reasons people aren't having enough kids. Immigrant age too and adopt western birth rates after the 1st generation. Canada used to be a country of 21 million so I wouldn't worry about the total population, just the age of the population.<br /> <br /> I agree some people are lazy but I think the issue is really one of wanting to be paid properly. The cheap drive out the good and the demanding. Illegal and legal immigrants are often cheaper labour. I doubt there is a shortage of unemplyed Canadians, business simply wants eager foreigners they don't have to pay to train.

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] <br /> I agree that abortions should be reduced and that people should have more kids. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> If I recall correctly from my biology classes, only women can have kids and abortions. <br /> It is also mostly women who after a break up will end up living in single parent households, affecting one Canadian child in five. More than half of those single parents households raise their families on incomes below what is considered to be the poverty cut-off point by Statistics Canada. <br /> <br /> Throwing more money at Canadian couples will not diminish the number of divorces and family break-ups, while reducing access to abortions will only help increasing the number of undesired children. <br /> <br /> If any of you want more « white » Canadian children, the only way for it to happen would be to cancel liberal education for all Canadian women. Many studies have come to the conclusion that the higher the education of its women population, the lower the birthrate. Maybe men should start wondering what women « learn » in order to come to this decision about childbearing and parenting. <br /> <br /> To blame Canada’s high cost of living for fewer children is a totally wrong assumption. Canada is one of those few places where its citizens enjoy an excellent quality of life in comparison to other less fortunate nations. It is not the high cost of living that is at cause but Canadians' wish to enjoy a high standard of living. Ask many young couples what they wish for more, a home cinema system or a third child....I’d bet my money on the former. <br /> <br /> Getting back to the subject at hand. If we wish to retain that high quality and standard of living we Canadians have come to take for granted, immigration is the key and the answer to Canadians low birthrate. <br />

[badsector]

There are pros and cons to immigration.<br /> <br /> Some immigration is necessary to maintain population growth and immigrants do contribute a lot to Canada. Immigrants are consumers and this is a consumer economy. They also bring good skills, education, work ethics, etc. Some of them come here with money, making this country richer. Foreign cultures make Canadian culture richer and more diverse. Our cusine would be really boring without Greek, Chinese, Indian, etc. Diversity at the workplace makes the company stronger. Different backgrounds, ideas and ways of thinking add value.<br /> <br /> However, there is a hidden agenda: polarization. They divide us so we won't be able to stand up united. 300,000 Asians a year is 3 million in 10 years, 30 million in 100 years, plus their children, etc. Soon enough, they will be a majority and will they respect our rights as much as we respect theirs? The future will answer this question. They are used to a much lower standard of living and willing to work for much less, so they lower wages for all of us. They also change the landscape. I lived in Toronto for 17 years. My area was almost 100% anglo Canadian. Now it's almost 100% black and East Indian. When my kid went to daycare, he was one of only 2 white kids there. Unfortunately, crime also took off. 17 years ago it was very safe area. When we moved out a few years ago, druggies and arrests in front of our house were a common site. It's a real shame. Go ahead, accuse me of racism, however truth remains truth.<br /> <br /> Regarding that population growth argument, it's low in Canada because they made having kids prohibitively expensive. Even immigrants, who normally have many kids, quickly adopt to 1 or 2 kids per family, because it's extremely hard to have more. You have to be rich to afford daycare for 2 kids! Daycare for 2 costs as much as an average full time salary! It's ridiculous! Eventually we joined the modern age and started putting in public daycare. Harper is going to cancel it. Go back to the dark ages, Canada.<br /> <br /> Regarding the argument about labour shortage: <b>it's a complete rubbish!</b> Please people, don't fall for this. Our "official" unemployment is 6-7%, our real one is well over 10%. There is no labour shortage in Canada. The term "labour shortage" is a code, which actually means "shortage of cheap labour". They use the excuse to bring in people who work for scraps and don't want to organize. In the US companies fire American workers to replace them with H1B guest workers and many corporations are adopting the policy of not hiring Americans. You can fully expect the same from teh Harper government. No, there is no labour shortage in North America. It's all lies.

[Mr.Can-Euro]

I believe Canada should stick with its controlled immigration policy allowing a fixed number of immigrants per year. And having more children will not the solve the world's overpopulation problem. Death rate has decreased in all countries, more so in industrialised wealthy countries. Families should only be having 2 or 3 children. However, families who want children should have at least 2 to 3 children so population can remain somewhat constant. Poor nations probably won't see a decrease in birth and death rates until they become more developed. We need to control immigration in Canada and have low birth rates so the Earth so the Earth's population can increase slowly as opposed to a large, unstable boom.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE]Throwing more money at Canadian couples will not diminish the number of divorces and family break-ups, while reducing access to abortions will only help increasing the number of undesired children. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Please don't get me wrong Michou, I was not suggesting money is the solution, though it does seem to be true that you can pay people to have an extra kid or two in Europe, though that is often not enough. In Quebec only the rural areas responded to the money offered. I agree this is a bandaid solution. As for the term "unwanted children", there is a 7 year waiting list for adopted children if they are children born to European parents.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]If any of you want more « white » Canadian children, the only way for it to happen would be to cancel liberal education for all Canadian women. Many studies have come to the conclusion that the higher the education of its women population, the lower the birthrate. Maybe men should start wondering what women « learn » in order to come to this decision about childbearing and parenting. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I agree that some women get excessive education, but I fail to see how keeping women ignorant is the answer. Though it does delay the next generation, women having kids in the mid twenties would after education would probably be okay in some cases, much better than in their 30s as they currently often do.<br /> <br /> There are probably hundreds of factors--at least dozens, and the largest are not education but urbanization as opposed to the old agricultural society, rendering the need for labour in the family zero as there is no farm work to be done and no cheap food around. Also, secularism as opposed to Christianity didn't help--Quebec has really been killed by the Quiet revolution that decimated the province demographically. Not to mention access to birth control, acceptace of divorce, abortion and other practices in society.<br /> <br /> As you mentioned white kids, 45 years of individualist, multicultural and multiracial liberalism has made people self-centred, and made them forget about group goals. Liberal education policies are more than education for women, they are a value system and have de-sexed women. Educating women about this would help as much as keeping women ignorant. Which is hard to do these days. Information is readily available.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]To blame Canada’s high cost of living for fewer children is a totally wrong assumption. Canada is one of those few places where its citizens enjoy an excellent quality of life in comparison to other less fortunate nations. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is true but in cities like Toronto cost of living is a real factor trust me. Young couples can often barely afford to live even with both people working. How can you pay thousands a year for kids if you can barely pay the rent? + with women working there is no time anyway.<br /> <br /> As I mentioned, kids are now a financial burden, whereas they used to be a benefit economically. In fact, the high birth rates of French women helepd the French in rural Quebec stave off assimilation, but now Quebec is simply depopulating while talking laughably about independence although their real threats are immigration from inappropriate sources and a low birth rate.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]It is not the high cost of living that is at cause but Canadians' wish to enjoy a high standard of living. Ask many young couples what they wish for more, a home cinema system or a third child....I’d bet my money on the former.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Money is part of it, but not all. The wish for material goods is a factor, but so is the fact children are out of fashion after feminist programming. Urban societies are also breeding grounds for bread and circuses, and laziness. It was actually much easier to save money in the 1960s for the average person, and yet the birth rate had yet to fall to the current level. Consumer goods are a distraction.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]Getting back to the subject at hand. If we wish to retain that high quality and standard of living we Canadians have come to take for granted, immigration is the key and the answer to Canadians low birthrate.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> There is no correlation between immigration rates and our stnadrd of living. Immigratns compete for jobs and through family reunification add a tremendous burden to our health care and welfare systems....they cannot possibly make for this with contrubtions to pensions as most newcomers are already retired relatives of immigrants. <br /> <br /> Our standard of living is high in some ways, but we work long hours and have insourced cheap labour and outsources many jobs.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= badsector] There are pros and cons to immigration.<br /> <br /> Some immigration is necessary to maintain population growth and immigrants do contribute a lot to Canada. Immigrants are consumers and this is a consumer economy. They also bring good skills, education, work ethics, etc. Some of them come here with money, making this country richer. Foreign cultures make Canadian culture richer and more diverse. Our cusine would be really boring without Greek, Chinese, Indian, etc. Diversity at the workplace makes the company stronger. Different backgrounds, ideas and ways of thinking add value.<br /> <br /> However, there is a hidden agenda: polarization. They divide us so we won't be able to stand up united. 300,000 Asians a year is 3 million in 10 years, 30 million in 100 years, plus their children, etc. Soon enough, they will be a majority and will they respect our rights as much as we respect theirs? The future will answer this question. They are used to a much lower standard of living and willing to work for much less, so they lower wages for all of us. They also change the landscape. I lived in Toronto for 17 years. My area was almost 100% anglo Canadian. Now it's almost 100% black and East Indian. When my kid went to daycare, he was one of only 2 white kids there. Unfortunately, crime also took off. 17 years ago it was very safe area. When we moved out a few years ago, druggies and arrests in front of our house were a common site. It's a real shame. Go ahead, accuse me of racism, however truth remains truth.<br /> <br /> Regarding that population growth argument, it's low in Canada because they made having kids prohibitively expensive. Even immigrants, who normally have many kids, quickly adopt to 1 or 2 kids per family, because it's extremely hard to have more. You have to be rich to afford daycare for 2 kids! Daycare for 2 costs as much as an average full time salary! It's ridiculous! Eventually we joined the modern age and started putting in public daycare. Harper is going to cancel it. Go back to the dark ages, Canada.<br /> <br /> Regarding the argument about labour shortage: <b>it's a complete rubbish!</b> Please people, don't fall for this. Our "official" unemployment is 6-7%, our real one is well over 10%. There is no labour shortage in Canada. The term "labour shortage" is a code, which actually means "shortage of cheap labour". They use the excuse to bring in people who work for scraps and don't want to organize. In the US companies fire American workers to replace them with H1B guest workers and many corporations are adopting the policy of not hiring Americans. You can fully expect the same from teh Harper government. No, there is no labour shortage in North America. It's all lies.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I would argue that daycare isn't the solution--restoring the one-salary formula and reviving the family is. A stay at home mother is much cheaper than daycare.<br /> <br /> I like your critique of the crime assorted with immigration and your mention of cheap kabour motivations, but you are very flippant and minimize the impact of the displacement of English Canada. In any non-European country, the earth would shake over the destruction of our heritage. Replacing one race with another is genocide if it is taken far enough.<br /> <br /> You also mention that immigration makes us "richer", but immigration actually costs us 22 billion a year, while bringing us 2 billion.<br /> <br /> I find it distressing you think our culture is so boring that you think we need foreign restaurants to enrich us--modern society ruined the notion of english culture for some reason.<br /> <br /> One the one hand, your arguments are very critical and concise, but you contradict yourself by making vague statements about how foreign cultures enrich workplaces, bring ideas. There is nothing third world countries can teach us except how to fail. Adding inferior cultures is not enrichment.<br /> <br /> Also, you mention something to the effect of "how will the Chinese treat us when they are the majority?" The fact people treat that so lightly is insane. They'd try to kill us off.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Mr.Can-Euro] I believe Canada should stick with its controlled immigration policy allowing a fixed number of immigrants per year. And having more children will not the solve the world's overpopulation problem. Death rate has decreased in all countries, more so in industrialised wealthy countries. Families should only be having 2 or 3 children. However, families who want children should have at least 2 to 3 children so population can remain somewhat constant. Poor nations probably won't see a decrease in birth and death rates until they become more developed. We need to control immigration in Canada and have low birth rates so the Earth so the Earth's population can increase slowly as opposed to a large, unstable boom.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Why? Yes the death rate has decreased because the west was stupid enough to enrich the thrid world with aid and medical technology, making their population explode.<br /> <br /> 2 o 3 kids would be a big improvement on the 1.3 we ar ecurrently having, but why should the talented of the world limit their growth? Why should we want the third world to become more developed at our expense? The strong have no reason to limit their growth to "save the earth". The earth doesn't need saving. We should have as many kids as reasonably possible and expand so the strong run the world and not the plentiful weak.<br /> <br /> Why accept any immigrants at all if we can be self-sufficient? No one wants or needs them if they can be avoided, no offence intended.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= badsector] There are pros and cons to immigration.<br /> <br /> Some immigration is necessary to maintain population growth and immigrants do contribute a lot to Canada. Immigrants are consumers and this is a consumer economy. They also bring good skills, education, work ethics, etc. Some of them come here with money, making this country richer. Foreign cultures make Canadian culture richer and more diverse. Our cusine would be really boring without Greek, Chinese, Indian, etc. Diversity at the workplace makes the company stronger. Different backgrounds, ideas and ways of thinking add value.<br /> <br /> However, there is a hidden agenda: polarization. They divide us so we won't be able to stand up united. 300,000 Asians a year is 3 million in 10 years, 30 million in 100 years, plus their children, etc. Soon enough, they will be a majority and will they respect our rights as much as we respect theirs? The future will answer this question. They are used to a much lower standard of living and willing to work for much less, so they lower wages for all of us. They also change the landscape. I lived in Toronto for 17 years. My area was almost 100% anglo Canadian. Now it's almost 100% black and East Indian. When my kid went to daycare, he was one of only 2 white kids there. Unfortunately, crime also took off. 17 years ago it was very safe area. When we moved out a few years ago, druggies and arrests in front of our house were a common site. It's a real shame. Go ahead, accuse me of racism, however truth remains truth.<br /> <br /> Regarding that population growth argument, it's low in Canada because they made having kids prohibitively expensive. Even immigrants, who normally have many kids, quickly adopt to 1 or 2 kids per family, because it's extremely hard to have more. You have to be rich to afford daycare for 2 kids! Daycare for 2 costs as much as an average full time salary! It's ridiculous! Eventually we joined the modern age and started putting in public daycare. Harper is going to cancel it. Go back to the dark ages, Canada.<br /> <br /> Regarding the argument about labour shortage: <b>it's a complete rubbish!</b> Please people, don't fall for this. Our "official" unemployment is 6-7%, our real one is well over 10%. There is no labour shortage in Canada. The term "labour shortage" is a code, which actually means "shortage of cheap labour". They use the excuse to bring in people who work for scraps and don't want to organize. In the US companies fire American workers to replace them with H1B guest workers and many corporations are adopting the policy of not hiring Americans. You can fully expect the same from teh Harper government. No, there is no labour shortage in North America. It's all lies.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Many Canadians disagree with the concept of significant levels of immigration at all. Why not become self-sufficient instead?

[Innes]

When we deal with immigration we tend to ignore the philosophy behind it and that is the corporate principle of "growth." Under that theory there cannot be stablization or even decline without characterizing it as negative in the economic sense. In many cases it is positive because it allows a population to adjust to its environment. Immigration has become an ideological principle rather than one that is considered in a rational manner.<br /> <br /> Anyone who tries to debate the issue by saying that our immigration policies may not be in the best interests of either the Canadian public or the immigrants is characterized as anti-immigrant or racist because immigration is a principle of establisment fundamentalism.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Innes] When we deal with immigration we tend to ignore the philosophy behind it and that is the corporate principle of "growth." Under that theory there cannot be stablization or even decline without characterizing it as negative in the economic sense. In many cases it is positive because it allows a population to adjust to its environment. Immigration has become an ideological principle rather than one that is considered in a rational manner.<br /> <br /> Anyone who tries to debate the issue by saying that our immigration policies may not be in the best interests of either the Canadian public or the immigrants is characterized as anti-immigrant or racist because immigration is a principle of establisment fundamentalism.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Amen. It's pretty hard to say it better than that. Although I personally bet there are dozens of reasons for immigration, any cultural agenda is quite possibly trumped by pure economic ideology and greed.<br /> <br /> While some growth CAN be good, and a modest, well-managed immigration system COULD benefit Canada, I don't think the lives of Canadians are anything more than bar graphs on the chart of some CEO.....some of us wish that life could be more. <br /> <br /> Liberal dogma is the same tripe that believes paving over Canada's best farmland for urban sprawl in Southern Ontario is "good for the GDP"....and the illegal immmigrants who build the houses. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

[Perturbed]

October 29, 2003<br /> <br /> The New York Times Says Japan Needs Immigrants. The Japanese Politely Disagree<br /> By Jared Taylor<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Japan’s post-World War II forty-year economic growth surge without immigration has always been an embarrassment to the immigration enthusiasts. In 1990, the then-Designated Enthusiast Economist Julian Simon was reduced to admitting: "How Japan gets along I don't know. But we may have to recognize that some countries are sui generis." [Click here for Peter Brimelow’s answer: technological innovation.]<br /> <br /> More recently, Japan’s growth has slowed, although it still compares reasonably to Western Europe. But immigration enthusiasts are coming up with a new argument: with its falling birth rate and aging population, Japan will soon run out of workers.<br /> <br /> The United Nations, which is staffed largely with Third-Worlders, loves to publish reports about how the West is withering away and can save itself only with immigration from, of course, the Third-World. Japan is another rich country the UN wants to help repopulate. If current trends continue, it says, there will be only 90 million Japanese by 2050. The Japanese government says the correct figure is about 103 million, but no one doubts the long-term trend is down. There will be fewer Japanese and more old people.<br /> <br /> The New York Times recently carried a typically condescending article telling us that the question is "whether this country remains an economic powerhouse or its population shrivels and the slow fade of the Japanese economy turns into a rout." Quoting a UN study, the Times claimed Japan needs 17 million new immigrants by 2050 in order to "restore demographic equilibrium." The Japanese, suggested the article, will have to get over their dislike of foreigners and become multicultural - just like America! ["Insular Japan Needs, but Resists, Immigration," By HOWARD W. FRENCH, July 24, 2003]<br /> <br /> Does Japan face a crisis? The current population is 126.6 million, the highest it has ever been, and is still slowly rising—about a tenth of a percent last year. In 2002 there were 1,152,000 births, so the Japanese are not exactly vanishing. Still, the average Japanese woman is now having only an estimated 1.3 children in her lifetime, so barring more births or immigration the population will eventually shrink.<br /> <br /> The average Japanese reaction: "So what?" Japan is about the size of California but with the equivalent of nearly half the population of the United States crammed into it. A drop from today's 127 million to 100 million or even 75 million would make for a more comfortable number. <br /> <br /> And even 75 million would be more than the current populations of Britain or France. The Swedes don't sit around feeling sorry for themselves because there are only nine million of them.<br /> <br /> The alleged problem is not simply in the numbers, but in the age distribution—the prospect of lots of old people having to depend on a small labor force for their pensions. But this is not so daunting for Japan as for some other countries. Japanese have the quaint idea that the primary social support organization is the family. Their retirement programs are not as generous as in Europe, and require a smaller work force. For decades, Japanese have had high savings rates for just this reason: they look to their own resources. Although we Americans fancy ourselves "rugged individualists," we are more dependent than Japanese on government handouts.<br /> <br /> Moreover, Japanese are healthier and live longer than we do, and more every year are working past retirement age. Japanese companies have begun to institutionalize a system of immediately rehiring their retired employees as contract workers at fewer hours and lower salaries. The company benefits from their experience and the employees stay active and in the workforce.<br /> <br /> And there are many other things Japanese can do if labor really gets tight. Even with falling birth rates, more Japanese women stay home with children than in the West, and some of them could work. The agriculture and retail distribution sectors are still notoriously overmanned and could be rationalized. As a long-term measure, the government could directly subsidize child-bearing as some European governments do. This has not been very effective in Europe, but Japanese are more group-oriented than Europeans, and might respond to a serious more-babies-for-the-fatherland campaign. <br /> <br /> But open the country to Turks and Bangladeshis? Never!<br /> <br /> Most Japanese are determined to find solutions that do not involve importing foreigners because they are deeply attached to their ancient, subtle culture. They believe that only native-born Japanese can understand or maintain it. <br /> <br /> This conviction goes back centuries. In 1635, the Shogunate passed laws forbidding overseas travel, and cut off virtually all contact with the outside world. Japan might have stayed locked up tight as an oyster if Commodore Matthew Perry had not forcibly opened it in 1853. The Japanese remain convinced they are a unique, homogenous people with an island-nation mentality, unfathomable to outsiders.<br /> <br /> Some years ago in Tokyo I recall leafing through a book whose title would be translated as "The Japanese Brain." It claimed the brains of Japanese process sounds and language differently from those of Europeans. I also recall a serious work on evolution called "From the Fossil Apes to the Japanese." <br /> <br /> This almost biological sense of uniqueness has many consequences. Before the Second World War, Japan ruled Korea and Taiwan, and brought over a number of colonial subjects to work in Japan. Today, the second- and third-generation descendents of these workers—who speak fluent Japanese and are physically indistinguishable from Japanese—are not Japanese citizens. They are snubbed socially and have a hard time getting jobs. (This population must be borne in mind when considering the official count of immigrants at one percent of the population: one third to a half of those are Asians who were born in Japan, and speak Japanese as their first language.)<br /> <br /> Japanese do not dislike foreigners—they sell cars and cameras to them very cheerfully—but they prefer familiar company. Apartment ads often say "no foreigners," and silence may settle on the neighborhood bar if outlanders walk in.<br /> <br /> Public bath houses on the northern island of Hokkaido were in the news last year because they wouldn't let in foreigners. There was a stink about discrimination, and pro forma pledges of reform. The fact is, when Japanese take their clothes off for a soak, they'd rather be among their own kind.<br /> <br /> So far as I know, it has never been reported in the press, but many of Japan's legal houses of prostitution are off-limits to non-Japanese, too. Maybe disappointed customers are too embarrassed to protest, but "soap lands," as they are called, have bouncers—often dressed in tuxedos—who make sure the girls do not have to grapple with uncouth foreigners. <br /> <br /> Japanese who visit the United States are appalled by what they find here: ethnic politics, bilingual education, ballot papers in Chinese, racial preferences, interpreters in hospitals and courtrooms, jail-house race riots, foreign criminal gangs, etc. They wonder if millions of aging American whites can really count on blacks and browns to pay for their retirement. They have seen diversity in action, and they want none of it.<br /> <br /> Of course, the profit motive ensures they are getting some of it. As in all rich countries, there are menial jobs natives “don't want.” Even with a limping economy, Japan is paradise compared to the rest of Asia. Millions would love to come, and just like Mexicans, they are willing to pay traffickers to get them into a country that works. Construction companies put illegal Africans and Middle-Easterners on the job at night and less obtrusive Asians during the day. The police are always breaking up sweatshops and fining employers.<br /> <br /> The mostly Chinese networks that sprang up to handle the human traffic have branched out. Japan, which for generations considered itself the safest place on earth, is in the middle of a crime wave. From 1998 to 2002, robbery was up 104 percent, car theft 75 percent, purse snatching 48 percent, and burglary 42 percent. A general index of six serious crimes was up 75 percent. Japanese now even have surveillance cameras and neighborhood crime watches.<br /> <br /> The politically incorrect Japanese are not shy about who's to blame. The media routinely run stories like "Number of Foreigners Arrested Jumps 13 Percent." In an interview earlier this year, Deputy Director of the National Police Agency Shinichiro Kuwahara said:<br /> <br /> "Chinese criminals are making a fool of the Japanese criminal-judicial system. Even if they get arrested, they only get suspended sentences for the first offense and get deported. Then they come back with a forged passport and commit the same crime. Even if they get convicted, they can endure one or two years in prison, and in the meantime the money is transferred and their relatives build gorgeous houses with it."[Crime Rattles Japanese Calm, Attracting Politicians' Notice, September 6, 2003, New York Times, By Norimitsu Onishi]<br /> <br /> Many American newspapers are notoriously too squeamish to describe crime suspects as black or Hispanic. But the Japanese media routinely report that the robber "looked Iranian or Iraqi" or "spoke broken Japanese with a Chinese accent."<br /> <br /> Japan is a tightly-run country that does not yet have a broad underworld of legal and semi-legal aliens into which foreigners can disappear. If the authorities wanted to, they could clean up the immigrant problem. But deporting illegal aliens is (as usual) a matter of balancing growing public anger with industry's demand for cheap labor. <br /> <br /> Nor is Japan entirely free of the let's-all-hold hands sentimentality of Western liberals. Lefty academics write earnest editorials about globalization, and the need for Japanese to open their hearts to foreigners. There are even a few fledgling advocacy groups for immigrants that try to make sure illegals get their wages before they are deported.<br /> <br /> But perhaps the recent episode to best capture the Japanese mood was Mitsuo Fukumura's brush earlier this year with globalization. Mr. Fukumura is the mayor of a city on the island of Kyushu, close to South Korea. He preaches closer ties with Korea, and wanted to capitalize on what he thought was the goodwill generated by the joint Japanese-Korean-sponsored Soccer World cup of 2002. He proposed that Korean tourists be allowed into Japan without visas if they come through Kyushu.<br /> <br /> The result was a huge anti-Korean, anti-foreigner backlash, with protestors swamping the local government. Not only do Mr. Fukumara's constituents not want more Koreans, many of them don't want any foreigners in Kyushu. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fukumura's "Gateway to Asia" plan sank without a bubble.<br /> <br /> Although such sentiments have been run out of respectable society in America, the Japanese actually like their country the way it is. They intend to keep Japan for the Japanese.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.vdare.com/taylor/japan.htm">here</a>