States of Confusion

When it came to media coverage of the US Presidential election, back in the country of my birth, it actually received as much attention as one of our own national elections. Though we had no control over the outcome, we knew it would affect all our lives. Indeed in all but name we were witnessing the election of a World President, because as the sole remaining Superpower, what America says ultimately goes. Whilst it is true individual countries, or groups of countries, can stand up against America briefly, if the United States decides that something is opposed to its national interest, and utilizes its full economic and military weight, then successful resistance is simply not feasible.

Little surprise that the US President is frequently referred to as "the most powerful man on earth". However there is a problem with this perception. When it comes to international diplomacy, such as treaty negotiations, the US President is probably the weakest person around the table. Whilst most other leaders of countries come with a clear mandate from their electorate and the authority to negotiate, this is not true of the US President. He has no authority to agree to anything. Everything he says must be confirmed by Congress and therefore he cannot make any binding commitments. Whilst some other countries, eg Eire, have similar requirements that their parliament must ratify treaties, their electoral process is less likely to produce a parliament actively opposed to their leader than the US one. Perhaps because the President does not require approval for opposition to a treaty, or to refuse to sign one, American leaders are sometimes perceived as being more confrontational, than conciliatory, when it comes to negotiations.

Though the rest of the world believes that there is a single cohesive coherent country here, the reality is startlingly different. It was founded as a coalition of independent states, and whilst, in some ways, the power of the federal government has grown over the years, the states retain considerable power. Most foreigners are surprised over many aspects of life which remain under the control of states.

For example there has been considerable controversy lately about Arizona's immigration legislation and Texas's rewriting of its educational curriculum. To take the second of these, as the first I have discussed previously, whilst there is a US Education Department their role is limited to research and enforcing specific federal policies, as their website says:

Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels. So, if you have a question about a policy or issue, you may want to check with the relevant organization in your state or school district.

It certainly surprised me that there was no central curriculum but that individual states devised their own applying their own focus and biases. It was also unexpected to find that some states, such as Texas, also required classes in their state history. I am not sure why this unnerved me. I was an active local historian back in my original country and I do certainly believe people should learn about historical events in their area of residence. However it just appeared too inward-looking at a time when most Americans are woefully under-informed about world history and geography.

The reality is that while most of the world expects coherence from the United States, this is limited to international policy and that in reality it is highly disparate and there are substantial differences in laws between states. For example, if we look at a single issue, age of consent (for sexual intercourse), there is no consistency. Depending on individual circumstances, any age between 12 and 18 (inclusive) is potentially legal for sex in the USA somewhere. Members of the US military may normally have sex from 16 onwards but there are some situations where they could be liable for prosecution. Now, and I am not a lawyer, so this is an interpretation, not absolute fact - Two 16 year olds could legally have sex on a military base even in a state which had a higher age of consent, because on military property military rather than state laws apply. However if one of the 16 year olds, engaging in intercourse, is a civilian resident of that state and the sex takes place in a hotel, where the military does not have jurisdiction then there is the potential for the soldier to face a statutory rape charge where the state age of consent is greater than 16. Some states, for instance Florida, allow a modified age of consent where the two participants are of similar age (normally within 4 years) and under these circumstances it would be legal. However two 16 year old civilians could legally engage in sex, even in a state with a higher age of consent, such as Idaho, if they had been legally married in a state which permitted marriage at 16, such as Georgia. Under these circumstances the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution would kick in, requiring that states recognize and honor legally-binding contracts made in other states. It looks to me like a confusing mess and even while most consensual sexual acts are unlikely to attract the attention of the authorities the potential danger remains. Indeed it seems that most US teen road movies should probably include a scene where birth certificates and local legislation is checked before they passionately fall into each other's arms.

To an outsider, this complexity seems unnecessary and counter-productive. Whilst its difficult to imagine states ever being willing to give up their rights to determine most matters, the consequence is a superfluous level of complexity, which benefits only lawyers, when it comes to most matters of regulation in the US. What real sense does it make for Hawaii and Arizona to be the only US states which do not practice Daylight Saving Time (DST)? Whilst I accept the benefit for them is limited, couldn't they make the sacrifice for the sake of uniformity? In some situations where public safety is involved diversity can be dangerous.

For example in the area of seat belt legislation. Whilst there are rare situations where a seat-belt can cause increased difficulty or injury, in the vast majority of cases, it saves lives and so would seem to be desirable. Yet again we find a difference in practice in the states. In 30 states the wearing of a seat-belt is mandatory for the driver and not doing so can lead to prosecution, in 19 further states it is an offense but will only be prosecuted if some other traffic offense is also committed and one state has no law about seat belts at all. Though even the 30 states do not all have the same rules when it comes to back seat passengers also wearing a seat belt.

States rights are important and having access to different options is a benefit for inhabitants in America. It is desirable that people be able to choose a taxation level and a legislative touch, whether lighter or more prescriptive, which suits their personal tastes. Freedom always has an attached price tag though and when the cost is measured in lives it is too high. Seat belt legislation is a good illustration of this. Whether to wear a seat belt or not might be seen as a matter of personal choice, particularly if one is in the back seat. However when that choice impacts, quite literally, others it should not be for a single person to decide. An unrestrained back-seat passenger during a collision will often strike the seat in front of them with such momentum that they dramatically increase the damage to the person in that seat, in many cases severely reducing their survival chances and in some situations causing their death. Whilst many Americans have a fear about federal intrusion, I have seen no evidence that states are any less bureaucratic or inefficient than the federal government. Sometimes we need to be willing to recognize that we are part of a wider society and give up individual rights for the greater good. States need to be willing to do this as much as citizens.

The Tebbit Test

A large proportion of Britain's Asian population fail to pass the cricket test. Which side do they cheer for? It's an interesting test. Are you still harking back to where you came from or where you are? - Norman Tebbit

This loyalty test for immigrants was proposed by UK Cabinet Minister Norman Tebbit in an interview with the Los Angeles Times back in 1990. Tebbit was not a man for whom there were shades of grey. For him there is pretty much only one acceptable option - an immigrant cheering for their new country. Anything else would be considered disloyalty and reflect an unwillingness to fully integrate oneself. I am not sure though the issue is as simple as Tebbit makes it sound.

Now its not exactly the best test for me as I am hardly an active sports fan. Cruel and unnatural punishments are banned here and am hoping that includes watching Cricket. Lately though, I have been giving his test some thought after learning that the USA will be playing against my former country of residence in the soccer World Cup.

Whilst I know that I will have no difficulty hoping for a USA victory. It isn’t as simple as Tebbit made it sound, supporting one team isn’t a rejection of the other, nor of old values or beliefs. Should the country of my birth win, then I can still be elated by a good performance on their part. Soccer is big there, and it is a long time since they had any real success. Hence I can appreciate the joy victory would bring to many people. Equally because the US is not regarded as a major soccer-playing nation, losing to us will be a significant blow to their psyche and a cause of much depression.

Yet at the same time I can hope for the USA to win, reveling in an understanding of what a victory would mean for the popularity of what is actually very much a minority sport in the United States. My original country pretty much expects to win, viewing it as a relatively easy match. Whereas any USA victories in the competition will be unexpected and as such a source of great delight here. The fact is that America revels in success, and a sport can do much to raise its profile simply by winning. When the US beat the mighty Spain in a soccer match last year, suddenly I found people with no previous interest in the sport were talking about it.

Based on pure logic then it seems that a USA victory will do the greater good and I do tend to be a person guided by argument and reason. However this also makes it difficult for me to fully accept the concept of cheering for the USA as my home country - as legally, it is not. Though, those I communicate with, outside the US, view me as an American, I regard myself as "a person currently legally resident in the USA" which is my official status. I have one more immigration obstacle to overcome, later in the year, to prove that my marriage is genuine so as to be granted (permanent) permanent resident status rather than the (temporary) permanent resident status I still have. Whilst it is a real marriage and I should be approved, it is difficult not to look out the window and think that this could soon all be taken away.

I am also by nature a workaholic. Work defined and drove me previously. Here I have currently been unsuccessful finding work. Now I realize it is not personal. This is a very difficult time for the economy and a lot of people are unemployed. I don't have a work record here, my qualifications and the organizations in my resume are all unknown over here. Hiring me would be a leap in the dark for an employer. However despite knowing that, it still feels like a lack of acceptance. People cannot expect you to enthusiastically cheer for a country that is keeping you at arms length.

The Tebbit test is based on a straightforward assumption which does not reflect the full complexity of life as an immigrant. Immigration is a gradual process of acclimatization. Like all relationships that with a country changes and deepens over time. Supporting the USA in sport is a conscious decision but sport is about emotion not logic. The individual members of the USA team are unknowns .. just names .. and it is difficult to feel passion for people you have no background for. It is not fair to expect me not to feel excitement at a goal scored by people who I have grown up with, and whose careers I have followed over many years, even when they are the opposition.

Having made a decision to live here, the USA are my team and the country has my support, whether in sport or war. However the emotional ties to the country are still developing.

Cult of Stupidity

In no other nation on Earth is there the same celebration of ignorance as in the USA. On continental Europe there is an aspiration amongst most people that you talk to, to improve themselves, to better their education and enhance their possibilities. Where someone is ignorant of a fact there is embarassment. In the US however those who study are seen as geeks or nerds, the unpopular kids who no one wants to be. Here an academic credit may be earned not just through study but other tasks such as helping a school with its fundraising. A television presenter with a degree pretends not to understand terms like "double whammy" because it is perceived as bringing her more in touch with her audience. In the US it is perfectly acceptable for a Senator to say that he hasn't read something which he is condemning, even if that is a piece of proposed legislation and it would seem reasonable to think it was his job to read it.

My concerns with the effects of this attitude are typified by the song, Have You Forgotten?. The whole Iraq/Afghanistan war and the War on Terror is a complex situation here grossly oversimplified. After 9/11 there was enormous sympathy for the USA across the rest of the planet, France's Le Monde newspaper famously declared "We are all Americans now" reflecting the sense of universal humanity and grief which was felt. Yes there were a few who produced anti-American banners and celebrated but they were generally as typical of their countries as those in the US who believe the President is controlled from Mars.

By its subsequent actions the US squandered all this good will. Many people opposed the Iraq and Afghan wars not because they had forgotten about 9/11 or didn't care but because the response was not going to be effective.

Politicians love buzz words and catch phrases. The "War on Terror" is a fine example of a meme which has emotional appeal but no practical meaning. You cannot declare war on abstract concepts. You can only declare war on a specific enemy with specific goals which are achievable. Now that may seem an academic distinction but if you do not have a specific achievable goal what you will be doing is pouring billions of dollars into a never ending conflict. Al-Qaeda is a many tentacled beast, not so much a single organization but a loose coalition of numerous subversive groups all with their own agendas. It is never going to be defeated militarily because as long as there is the alienation which drove people into extreme measures in the first place, for each terrorist cut down another will take his place. Indeed each Abu Ghraib photo provides a better recruiting tool for the terrorists than any number of speeches by Bin Laden.

Though no US politician will ever dare say it, there is only one way that peace will come with the Islamic terrorists and that is through dialog. Right now its unthinkable, and many would see it as an insult to the 9/11 dead, but there are many just as unlikely examples. Sein Fein is now part of the government of Ireland but was the political wing of, and very closely allied to, the outlawed terrorist Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). Some who are now Ministers in government were almost certainly on the governing council of a terrorist organization. Ian Paisley long time leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was such a fierce critic and enemy of Sein Fein he wouldn't allow himself to be present in the same building as one of its spokesmen, but he forced himself to make peace and work with Sein Fein to form a government when the people of Northern Ireland elected both parties to power. The number killed during the period of the Troubles in Northern Ireland actually exceeds the 9/11 death toll though of course these died over many years rather than on a single day. However the effect on families, the sons and daughters deprived of parents etc, the hatred towards those who caused their deaths, is no less intense. Nelson Mandela, almost universally hailed now as a man of peace and reconciliation was convicted as a terrorist by the government of South Africa. In his own words:

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.

Now I don't disagree with Worley that there are things worth fighting for and being willing to stand up for what you believe in is a long-running theme in country music. However the Coward of the County did at least have the right targets.

Saddam Hussein was not a nice man. He was the latest in a long line of oppressive rulers originally supported and even trained by the US who subsequently turned against them, a list which includes General Noreiga. Saddam oppressed his people, was cruel and brutal and certainly deserved to the toppled. However Turkey which the US cultivated, since it needed a Muslim ally, is guilty of not-disimiliar human rights abuses. Now if the US wanted to take the World Policeman role, removing evil dictators, I would not necessarily be opposed, however it would have to do it consistently and there is a very isolationist strand in US politics which could never accept this. Invading Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. America may well have had unfinished business with Saddam but he was not a supporter of al-Qaeda and indeed the organization was not even present in Iraq until after the American invasion. In contrast al-Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan though of the two conflicts this one received the least resources and troops.

Ironically the ultimate failure of the War on Terror was not a surprise to many people in America. There were experts in the middle east in American Universities who forecast correctly the many problems that would be faced and the likely negative consequences. However the Cult of Stupidity which didn't want to analyse the real issues challenged every dissenting voice as un-American and unpatriotic. The United States was founded on the concept of Freedom. The Framers of the Constitution went out of their way to build in safeguards against state control and tyranny. Challenging your government is probably the most American thing that someone can do. Yet the freedom of Universities to debate these issues in an informed way came under considerable pressure from those who styled themselves as patriots. Professor Brian Foley set out in some detail many of the issues involved in the American invasion of Iraq and why education was the best way to prevent it happening again.

Recently someone sent me an email regarding a stamp being issued by the US Post Office which celebrates the Islamic Festival of Eid. The email urged me to protest at this stating it was an insult to those who died in 9/11. More details of the stamp and some of the falsehoods in the emails about it are to be found at Snopes.com. I find these emails and the attitudes of those behind them extremely depressing. One of the great strengths of the US has always been its ability to be the universal melting pot, welcoming immigrants and integrating its culture with theirs. In my experience Muslims in Europe tell you they are Muslim first and their loyalty to their country of residence is definitely second. Muslims here normally tell you that they are Americans first and foremost and proud of their country. It is that difference in attitude which has helped keep America safe. Until the Fort Hood shootings, which occurred long after the invasion of Iraq and may well have been a consequence, all the major acts of Islamic terorism in the US were perpetrated by imported radicals. For example the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian and Richard Reid (The Shoe Bomber) was British. American Muslims were generally not receptive to extremist propaganda because they knew what the reality of their country was and felt they were treated with respect.

Islam is a legitimate religion the vast majority of whose adherents are peaceful. Some of its attitudes and beliefs are challenging for Westerners to take, but it needs to be recognized as being where Christianity was 600 years ago, back when devout priests wore hair shirts and whipped themselves. Those who are sent off to die in its name are also victims; the victims of evil imams who manipulate the text of their holy book in order to achieve their goals and persuade others to die to enact their prejudices. Overcoming the instinct of self preservation is not a quick process, it requires the recognition of a vulnerability, the slow exploitation of that, carefully feeding propaganda over an extended period to the point to persuade a person to sign up for an extreme cause. Once motivated usually by anger and fear, the victim is sent for training, actually a period of extended isolation where wholly under the control and influence of the extremists they are fed a wholly distorted picture of the West, of its actions, motivations and threat, with no outside sources available to challenge it. In this way the trainers exploit the innocence and ignorance of their victims. Finally they are convinced that killing themselves in this cause is their holy duty and the only way they can protect their families and the values of their religion. It is one of the ironies that the American people and the suicide terrorists who are prepared to attack them are actually probably in equal ignorance of each other.

The Muslim festival Eid simply marks the end of Ramadan and a period of fasting. It is thus a time of spirituality including values like forgiveness and generosity, with the giving of gifts. It has nothing to do with celebrating terrorism. The stamp which caused so much controversy is just another in an already established pattern of recognizing religious festivals across the world.

A cold-hearted killer is a cold-hearted killer, whether they claim some religious justification for their actions or not. It would be more accurate to refer to the September 11 perpetrators as "terrorists who were Muslim" rather than "Muslim terrorists" just as the IRA could be called "terrorists who were Christian". The vast majority of Muslims around the world condemned the events of September 11th. Most American Muslims would be as horrified by a stamp honoring its perpetrators as those who sent these ridiculous emails. The stamp is simply respecting another culture. However all those who believed the emails and didn't bother to do any research of the facts before sending it on, actually helped the terrorists, making Muslims feel separate and disrespected. The xenophobic over-reaction which the emails marked showed the very worst of America and the very side which the extremists love to portray.

It is easy to be led down the path of gut reaction to events but we must let the head rule the heart. I respect both the US troops and those like Darryl Worley who go out to support and entertain them. It is the gift of all soldiers to us though that they do not question. They go where we tell them and do what we ask of them. We owe it to them to chose conflicts wisely so those that do have to lay down their lives do it for a worthwhile cause.

Obama and the Hawaii Birth Certificate Question

A great deal of time and energy has been devoted to the question of President Obama's birth certificate and whether or not he was indeed born in the USA. One question however remains - why?

You may think the answer is obvious, the US Constitution states clearly

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Therefore according to US law only someone born within the USA can be President. This was probably a very sensible precaution in the 1700s. The Republic was recently established and still faced a lot of opposition. There is probably no force on this planet more devious or ruthless than the British nobility and it seemed likely that they would not accept defeat in war lightly. Indeed that they would do something to undermine the new regime was a serious threat and hence taking steps to limit spies and infiltrators was a wise move.

The question however remains why that provision is still in place today. The Framers of the Constitution were not opposed to those who became Citizens after being born elsewhere, otherwise why include that clause "At the time of the adoption of this Constitution"? There is a technical difficulty in that everyone in the US at that time was officially born as the subject of a foreign power and this provision therefore permitted its immediate adoption and execution rather than having to wait 35 years for a person eligible to become President to be born and reach the required age. However I think it was more than that, the Framers were concise and precise with language. If they wanted to they could have limited eligibility to only those born within the geographical area of what was to become the United States but they did not. Anyone who was a Citizen of the US was eligible to stand for President at the time the Constitution was formally adopted regardless of where they were born.

When you think about it, any person meeting that qualification had already proven their loyalty. They had adopted America as their home country and had been involved in a conflict with a foreign power to win independence. It seems only right they should be permitted to stand for the Presidency. Yet everyone who entered the US after that date or became a Citizen must be viewed with a certain caution and suspicion. There was a possibility of foreign agents usurping the political process and it was prudent to prevent this happening. Does such provision really need to be in place today though?

The Queen of England has surrendered a large amount of foreign territory during her reign, much of it peaceably. It is inconceivable that Britain would now seek to gain political control of the US and reverse independence. The UK is a staunch ally of the US during all recent conflicts including Afghanistan and Iraq. However when it comes to size and influence the UK is now very much the junior partner. No one could imagine it taking the US back either militarily or by political interference. Even if in 1787 the UK had the resources to fund a network of spies and infiltrators it no longer does being in the midst of an economic melt down. When the former Chief Secretary to its Treasury wrote there was no money.. he was only partially joking. So the UK is no threat. The US is no longer a new country, it is the only surviving Superpower, unrivalled across the planet, a shining beacon of democracy .. except when it comes to choosing its leader.

If in a couple of years time, I take the Citizenship examination and finally the oath, I will be pledging myself mind and soul to my new country, I will be giving myself wholly to America. However America will not be giving itself to me. I will always be a second class citizen with one key right denied me compared to those who were born here. Now I have no desire to be President but this denial irks me because of its symbolic importance more than its practical effect. It sends a message to the rest of the world that America is still afraid of them. That Americans can never wholly accept and be at peace with someone who was not born there.

Arizona

This isn't a blog about immigration, it is the blog of someone who is an immigrant. However with immigration currently a major issue thanks to the recent passing of legislation in Arizona I would be remiss if I ignored the topic.

In truth I don't know fully how I feel about the Arizona decision. I recognize they have a problem and they feel this is a solution. I want to believe that caring thoughtful people have gathered all the data that is unavailable to me and have made a careful and reasoned determination that this is the best of all possible solutions. What however I fear is this is simply politicians responding to a popular bandwagon for electoral gain.

Leadership is a heavy responsibility and sometimes it is necessary to rise above the frenzied howls of the mob. Yes politicians in a democracy have a duty to listen to concerns but they also must also apply their judgement.

When politicians make rapid responses to serious problems as a result of the outrage of the masses the outcome is the worst of legislation. The UK Dangerous Dogs Act is an excellent example of this. It was created after public horror at a number of high-profile cases of children being attacked by dogs in their homes. Whilst this was horrific it was a small problem and whilst legislation was undoubtedly appropriate what happened was that it was rushed through ignoring all the highly valid concerns which were raised. Hence numerous entirely innocent and placid family pets were slaughtered as a result for no other reason than they happened to belong to a breed targeted by the act. Moreover large amounts of court time and resources were wasted with judges having to determine whether crossbreeds contained significant percentages of the banned breeds.

My fear is that the Arizona legislation falls into the same category. I am here legally and after spending many thousands of dollars and dealing with a mass of paperwork to get to the USA. I have no natural sympathy for the illegal immigrant.

Existing US legislation requires us to keep our green cards on us at all times though I did run into a slight problem with my wife refusing to let me carry the card during sex. I am not sure how Homeland Security/USCIS feels about this but the fact it is even an issue reflects how powerless we immigrants can feel. I am reasonably intelligent and erudite yet when it comes to facing up to Homeland Security I turn into a quivering lump of jello. I clearly remember watching the Tom Hanks comedy movie, Terminal, and registering fear every time the black uniforms of Homeland Security staff came on the screen. It isn't that I have been treated badly by them. In my experience they are caring and thorough professionals who do a difficult job very well but the relative difference in the power levels between them and me is terrifying. When you know someone can stop you entering the country or have you deported, it is very difficult not to feel fear. When thinking of the difference between the two power levels in the relationship I am reminded of flies and boys in the Thomas Hardy quotation.

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport

It is not that Homeland Security toy with us in this way, but simply the terror that they could.

There is therefore already legislation in place which requires immigrants to keep and produce documentation of their status. The only thing that I can see that the Arizona legislation adds to it is the ability to challenge people based solely on suspicion of their status. It is one thing to require those who have been stopped by law enforcement on reasonable grounds of some other crime in progress to show whether or not they are in the country legally, it is another entirely to stop people because you believe they might not be.

I am an immigrant. I am white and have a degree. I am here legally but passing me on the street you wouldn't know that. I probably wouldn't raise any suspicions at all under most circumstances and that is my concern with this legislation. All "suspicion" based laws are flawed because they open up the opportunity for personal prejudices and even where this is not the case in practice, there is always the fear that it is - something which is almost impossible to disprove. Hence it leads to a feeling of distrust between some parts of society and the police. Hence such legislation is divisive. A good example of this are the Sus Laws of the UK in the 1970s which were widely blamed for causing popular unrest.

My fear is that the Arizona legislation will do the same. It is only a few months since an incident with a Harvard professor and a police officer, in which the President got involved, which arose from a perception of racial profiling. If a middle-class, highly educated and well paid black man can be so distrustful of law professionals and concerned about racial profiling, how much more intense can the fear be amongst the more vulnerable and low-paid members of society?

Me? An Immigrant?

It has been over two years since I arrived in the US and I still find it difficult to accept the concept of me as an immigrant.

We are not immigrants. They are those other people .. the ones who come from outside to take our jobs and wreck our way of life. Every time I think back to political discussions of immigration it was always portrayed as a problem. The statistics were about the numbers incoming, never about those leaving. Immigrants were always a threat and never an opportunity.

Let me begin by saying that I absolutely recognize and support the right of any country to control immigration. There are two main issues, the first is budgetary, there is an administrative overhead and an increased demand on services caused by immigration. The second is political, it is only natural that large numbers of newcomers with different culture will make the native population feel uneasy. One of the most sensitive treatments of this is depicted in Tony Harrison's poem V.

House after house FOR SALE where we'd played cricket
with white roses cut from flour-sacks on our caps,
with stumps chalked on the coal-grate for our wicket,
and every one bought now by 'coloured chaps',

dad's most liberal label as he felt
squeezed by the unfamiliar, and fear
of foreign food and faces, when he smelt
curry in the shop where he'd bought beer.

I have always supported immigration. At a simple biological level it renews the gene pool but more than that it brings in different outlooks, traditions and skills. It offers all of us the chance to learn from each other and to fuse disparate components into a single united whole. I understand why some people fear immigrants but believe they are wrong. Anything new will always bring some level of disruption but we should not fear chaos. The shaking up of established order is not necessarily negative. It can prevent stagnation and offer opportunity for renewal. Once viewed as wholly destructive, scientists are increasingly realizing that phenomena such as floods and forest fires are often a natural mechanism to offer diversity and fresh growth ... it may arise from destruction but the outcome can be very desirable. We all like order and routine and so when something new appears it is natural to be wary if it threatens change to our existing way of life. We should not however fear the new but be prepared to embrace it. The joy of life is that it is constantly in a state of change.

If You Don't Like It .. Go Home

It's a straightforward statement and one that I expect to be hearing a lot in response to my posts. Hence before this blog gets underway, it is one that I would like to address.

This IS my home. I made a conscious choice in coming here and went through no small amount of work to supply all the documentation needed by US immigration. I did however choose a person not a country - as I wrote in my original petition submission: if my beloved were on Mars I would have applied there but she was in the USA.

Do not however assume though that I dislike the USA or its people. I have always been a huge fan of many aspects of US culture and strongly admire the American respect for freedom, its people's open and straightforward approach and the "can do" attitude which it cultivates.

There is no such thing though as the perfect society and it should not be thought of as ungrateful or disloyal to make observations where changes might be made. This is a dialog and I want to hear your views just as I hope you are interested in listening to mine. There will doubt be many occasions where I will disagree with readers but no one has anything to fear from constructive discussion even if sometimes it exposes us to a position that contradicts our own.

My wife recently wrote two sentences on a "friend's" Facebook page in response to a diatribe he posted about immigrants' use of the English language, or lack of it. Her reply was short and courteous but disagreed with him. Needless to say he deleted it. The only comments he allowed were those who applauded his position. I have no problems in calling that person a bigot. Not, I hasten to add because he and I disagree but because he has no interest in a conversation. The only reason he posts is so others can flatter his ego and praise him. His views are set in stone and he allows no possibility for changing them in response to points others might make.

I am here to learn, to benefit from the different life experience of others, and I hope you are too.