Talvez esse seja o problema: colocar no mesmo nível dois países radicalmente diferentes em suas posturas internacionais...
'Incomoda o Brasil agir sem pedir licença'
Entrevista Celso Amorim
Eliane Oliveira
O Globo, 25/12/2009
Ministro do Exterior brasileiro critica Washington sobre Honduras e Colômbia, e defende diálogo com Irã
Ainda festejando a repercussão da participação do Brasil na conferência de Copenhague, o ministro do Exterior, Celso Amorim, diz faltar franqueza na relação entre EUA e América Latina, e declara não se dar por satisfeito com as garantias de Washington de que o uso de bases na Colômbia, por tropas americanas, será restrito a este país. Queixa-se da demora dos EUA em pressionar Honduras. Sobre a relação com o Irã, afirma não crer em problemas com os EUA, dizendo que incomoda a certos setores o Brasil agir sem pedir licença. A reunião sobre o Tratado de Não Proliferação de Armas Nucleares no ano que vem, frisa, será um teste para saber se as potências atômicas terão moral para cobrar dos outros.
O GLOBO: Afinal, incomodou ou não os EUA a visita do presidente do Irã, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ao Brasil?
Celso Amorim: Não creio. O próprio presidente Barack Obama enviou uma carta pedindo para intercedermos.
Mas como intercedermos sem o diálogo? Pode ser que algum setor nos Estados Unidos, ou algum setor daqui, tenha ficado incomodado.
Conversei com a secretária de Estado, Hillary Clinton, e não senti de sua parte qualquer malestar.É muito incômodo que o Brasil faça as coisas sem pedir licença.Foi assim com a Síria e com a Líbia.Se o Brasil age por sua própria iniciativa, incomoda os intermediários da dependência.
O presidente Lula diz acreditar que o programa nuclear do Irã terá uso pacífico, mas também argumenta que EUA e Rússia não têm autoridade moral para criticar o Irã, porque possuem arsenal nuclear. Isso é uma defesa implícita do direito dos iranianos a armas nucleares?
Amorim: O Tratado de Não Proliferação Nuclear (TNP) é muito claro em seu artigo 6o: estabelece que um dos objetivos é o desarmamento das potências nucleares. Os países não nucleares se comprometem a não ter armamento nuclear e os nucleares se comprometem a se desarmar. Durante anos e anos só assistimos ênfase no aspecto da não-proliferação e pouquíssimo desarmamento. Agora, o presidente Obama, pela primeira vez em muitos anos, tem voltado a falar, até de maneira retoricamente mais forte, na eliminação total das armas nucleares, ou num mundo livre de armas nucleares, embora o horizonte seja longínquo. É preciso que ocorram passos concretos. A próxima conferência no TNP, em abril ou maio, em Nova York, será um teste para sabermos se as potências nucleares estão também dispostas a se desarmar. Se não se desarmam, não têm moral para cobrar dos outros. O Brasil adotou sua posição de não ter armas nucleares.
E especificamente no caso do Irã?
Amorim: Na medida em que temos alguma chance, procuramos ajudar a encontrar um caminho que favoreça o diálogo. O Brasil tem um bom diálogo com os Estados Unidos e o Irã.
O assessor para assuntos internacionais do presidente Lula, Marco Aurélio Garcia, disse que há" uma certa decepção" e um sabor de "frustração" com o governo Obama na América Latina.Qual a sua avaliação deste primeiro ano de Obama?
Amorim: Ainda está um pouco cedo para avaliar o primeiro ano. Falta um mês. De repente, há alguma evolução.
Muitas coisas sequer chegam ao presidente Obama. Em alguns casos, deveria haver mais transparência.
São exemplos as bases militares na Colômbia e Honduras, quando houve demora em se fazer pressão sobre os golpistas. Mas, de forma geral, não vejo interposição entre as posições americana e brasileira.
No caso de Honduras, por que não há a mesma intransigência na defesa da democracia como um valor essencial em Cuba e no Irã?
Amorim: O Irã é um caso totalmente à parte. Bem ou mal tem eleições, ações distintas, posições distintas e várias forças sociais. Se você pega a lista de aliados dos EUA, há países questionáveis onde são usadas até bases militares. Veja se há eleições, veja os direitos da mulher. Nas relações internacionais você não pode ficar escolhendo. No caso de Honduras, houve um golpe de Estado, com militares tirando o presidente com o cano de espingarda na cabeça.
Nós, da América Latina, somos corretamente traumatizados com esse tipo de situação. Honduras assinou a carta da OEA (Organização dos Estados Americanos), tem obrigações que o Irã não tem conosco.Houve uma posição unânime da OEA condenando o golpe.
Houve críticas ao Brasil por ter abrigado o presidente deposto de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, na embaixada brasileira em Tegucigalpa.
Amorim: Ao Brasil, que está dando proteção a Zelaya, não cabia qualquer tentativa de negociação. Zelaya chegou a nossa embaixada sem ter sido previamente convidado, mas chegou lá como presidente legítimo.
A proteção foi reconhecida por todos. Sua chegada à embaixada acabou criando as condições para o diálogo, embora não tenha saído o resultado que esperávamos.
O acordo militar entre EUA e Colômbia gerou uma forte crise entre colombianos e venezuelanos. O Brasil intermediaria um entendimento?
Amorim: Para intermediar, é preciso que haja desejo dos dois lados.
Infelizmente, não estou percebendo esse desejo. Cada um tem lá suas razões e aponta lá seus motivos. No momento em que houver disposição, o Brasil está pronto a ajudar.
A carta enviada pelo governo dos EUA aos ministros da Defesa da América do Sul dando garantias de que o acordo se limitaria ao território colombiano satisfez o Brasil?
Amorim: Na verdade, Hillary Clinton enviou duas cartas. Isso significa que está errada a interpretação de que os EUA não deram importância às reclamações dos vizinhos. Porém, é claro que, mesmo que se dê todas as garantias, sempre há algum incômodo.A própria Colômbia também deu garantias formais. Mas não posso dizer que estou satisfeito. Se seu vizinho chegar amanhã e acumular um arsenal, você continuará preocupado.Este é um assunto que não morreu, as conversas terão que continuar.
Esse episódio contribuiu para arranhar as relações com os americanos?
Amorim: É preciso mais franqueza na relação entre EUA e América Latina e Caribe. Devo dizer que, às vezes, os altos escalões do governo americano não tomam conhecimento de certos fatos, como as bases na Colômbia e a Quarta Frota. É como se tivessem seguido processos mais ou menos automáticos.
O Brasil é visto como aliado dos EUA no Oriente Médio?
Amorim: Somos aliados no sentido de querermos a paz. E somos aliados no sentido que somos interlocutores com vários dos principais atores da região.
Como o senhor avalia a falta de acordo na conferência da ONU sobre o clima, em Copenhague?
Amorim: Demos um passo importante.Foi criado um novo grupo, o Basic (Brasil, África do Sul, Índia e China), que protagonizou uma negociação decisiva com os Estados Unidos.É uma mudança de poder.
O papel de mediador-chave nas negociações do clima pode ajudar o Brasil a conquistar uma cadeira permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU?
Amorim: Isso será uma consequência.Se a carta da ONU estivesse sendo escrita hoje, o Brasil seria membro e talvez outros países não fossem. Estou tranquilo a esse respeito.
Existe perspectiva de um acordo na próxima reunião sobre o clima, no México?
Amorim: Confio muito na opinião pública e na consciência mundial. O esforço que foi feito na conferência fará com que, daqui para a frente, não possa haver mais recuos, apenas avanços. O Brasil, por exemplo, não só colocou metas ambiciosas, como disse que vai poder contribuir para ajudar os outros. China e Índia também avançaram, não como queríamos, mas avançaram.
E quanto aos EUA?
Amorim: Acho que os EUA terão que avançar mais no futuro. O passo que eles deram foi modesto, mas se você comparar com o governo anterior, que não queria fazer nada, melhorou.A pressão vai aumentar.
Qual a importância do Brasil nesse processo de negociação?
Amorim: O Brasil serviu como balizador, para mostrar que uma posição muito rígida por parte dos países emergentes não teria legitimidade.
Ao mesmo tempo, colocou-se do lado deles para negociar adequadamente com os ricos e os EUA.
A América Latina se dividiu radicalmente nas negociações de Copenhague.Como o senhor vê a posição de Bolívia e Venezuela que, embora alegassem divergências políticas, estariam apenas defendendo seus interesses como produtores de combustíveis fósseis?
Amorim: É um dilema que os organismos multilaterais têm de enfrentar, pois negociar o tempo todo entre mais de 190 países não dá. Por outro lado, quando se faz um grupo negociador, alguns sempre ficam de fora e isso gera ressentimento.Esse é um aspecto que cada vez mais a ONU terá que levar em conta. A era dessas resoluções todas por consenso já está meio superada.
Quais os próximos passos?
Amorim: Até 31 de janeiro, os países têm que listar suas metas e as nações em desenvolvimento, suas ações que terão como resultado a redução das emissões.
sexta-feira, 25 de dezembro de 2009
1620) EUA: sua forca está na imigracao (e na liberdade...)
Resumo de matéria publicada no número corrente da Economist. Mais abaixo a matéria original, completa (mas sem as fotos, que podem ser vistas no link do artigo publicado).
Por que os imigrantes preferem os EUA?
The Economist, 25/12/2009
Quando o sul-coreano Joshua Lee chegou aos Estados Unidos, sua primeira impressão foi o excesso de riqueza. A comida era abundante, a energia barata e as casas enormes. No entanto, este não é o motivo que o fez adotar o país como seu novo lar. Para Lee e outros milhões de imigrantes, os Estados Unidos são uma nação que permite que se viva de acordo com sua própria cultura enquanto se adota aspectos interessantes da cultura nativa.
Nos Estados Unidos é possível para os seus 38 milhões de imigrantes, bem acima da média para países desenvolvidos, arranjarem seu nicho sem dificuldades. Enquanto em outros países as leis costumam ser as mesmas independente do estado, nos Estados Unidos, os 50 estados que formam o país tem legislações que podem ser radicalmente diferentes. Assim, um imigrante britânico entusiasta de caça à raposas, prática banida em toda Grã-Bretanha, pode praticar seu esporte à vontade em diversos estados norte-americanos.
Ou seja, os cidadãos norte-americanos podem escolher sob quais leis desejam viver. O imigrante que não quiser pagar altos impostos pode viver no Texas. Quem desejar boas escolas pode ir para Portland. Os mais conservadores, que não desejam álcool ou sexo em excesso, podem viver no estado de Utah.
Liberdade intelectual também é incentivada, com milhares de institutos organizados para defender os mais diferentes pontos de vista. Apesar do senso comum, o país não é intolerante com pessoas de outras religiões. Cristão e judeus muitas vezes decidem migrar para os Estados Unidos porque sabem que não vão sofrer preconceito ou perseguição como acontece no Oriente Médio, por exemplo.
O resultado é que o país atrai talentos de outras nações. Políticos norte-americanos, no entanto, não parecem ver o lado bom da imigração. Eles acreditam que o país está perdendo sua capacidade de absorver pessoas de outros países, o que provavelmente não é verdade. As reclamações são antigas. Benjamin Franklin já dizia que o país nunca conseguiria assimilar os imigrantes alemães. Hoje, os Estados Unidos contam com 50 milhões de descendentes de alemães, sendo que quase nenhum fala a língua da velha pátria.
Em nossa opinão (The Economist)
A resposta a essa indagação poderia ser dada com uma palavra: liberdade. O imigrante tem a liberdade de continuar usando sua própria língua, de praticar a religião que quiser e de trabalhar e empreender. É em busca disso que vêm os imigrantes.
===========
Going to America
A Ponzi scheme that works
The Economist, Dec 17th 2009
ANNANDALE, VIRGINIA AND DALLAS, TEXAS
The greatest strength of America is that people want to live there
AT ONE of the many Korean restaurants in Annandale, Virginia, a waitress cracks a raw egg into a sizzling tofu-and-oyster stew. Tables buckle under heaps of chili-, garlic- and cabbage-themed side dishes. Every customer is of Korean origin. Is this a sign that Korean immigrants are failing to assimilate in America?
Far from it. A mother addresses her college-age daughter in Korean; the daughter replies in English. A muscular man with a buzz cut reads a Korean newspaper; his T-shirt proclaims, in English: “Support our Troops”.
Across the highway, in a building that houses several Korean businesses, Joshua Lee sits on a sofa and explains why he likes living in America. He grew up poor: his father was a day labourer. He did his military service on an American base in Seoul, where he polished his English and learned to like hot dogs. He moved to America in 1990, when he was 27, to study theology in Kentucky. He painted houses to support himself.
He met his wife, a Korean-American, and moved to northern Virginia, home to a hefty cluster of Korean-Americans. Eventually, he found a job writing for a Korean-language newspaper about Korean-American issues.
When he arrived, Mr Lee was astonished by how rich nearly everyone was. He recalls his first dinner with Americans: the huge bowls and immense portions. He was startled to see lights left on in empty rooms. He is still impressed: “The roads are so wide, the cars so big, the houses so large—everything is abundant,” he says.
Yet this is not why he came, and it is not why he stayed and became a citizen. For Mr Lee, America is a land that offers “the chance to be whatever you want to be”. More prosaically, it is a place where nearly any immigrant can find a niche.
Mr Lee’s niche is an agreeable one. His suburb has safe streets, spacious backyards and good schools. He eats Korean food every day, but not for every meal. He attends a Baptist church where services are in Korean, but the Sunday-school classes are in English. He retains what he loves about his native culture—the work ethic, language, spicy cabbage—while shrugging off the rest.
For example, he never liked the way his neighbours in Korea stuck their noses into each other’s business. Everyone knew how you were doing in school. You could not get a good job without connections. There was constant social pressure not to lose face. When Mr Lee went back to visit, he remembers slipping into the old straitjacket. He wanted to pop out to the corner shop, but realised he would have to put on a smart shirt and trousers, despite the intense humidity. What would the neighbours think if they saw him in shorts and flip-flops? In America, no one cares.
In Korea, he says, to express an unusual opinion is to court isolation. In America, you can say what you think. To relax, Mr Lee listens to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, two combative right-wing pundits. “Maybe you don’t like these people, but I really [do],” he says.
Three hundred million niches
Because America is so big and diverse, immigrants have an incredible array of choices. The proportion of Americans who are foreign-born, at 13%, is higher than the rich-country average of 8.4%. In absolute terms, the gulf is much wider. America’s foreign-born population of 38m is nearly four times larger than those of Russia or Germany, the nearest contenders. It dwarfs the number of migrants in Japan (below 2m) or China (under 1m). The recession has dramatically slowed the influx of immigrants and prompted quite a few to move back to Mexico. But the economy will eventually recover and the influx will resume.
No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin in America
Nearly all Americans are descended from people who came from somewhere else in the past couple of centuries. And the variety of countries from which immigrants come—roughly all of them, and usually in significant numbers—is unmatched. No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin somewhere in America. In fact, he is probably spoilt for choice. If he wants to live in a suburb, eat Korean food and listen to fire-and-brimstone sermons in Korean, he can do so in northern Virginia. If he prefers an urban and secular Korean lifestyle, he can try Boston or San Francisco. If he craves Ethiopian food, Amharic radio and lots of gay clubs, Washington, DC, may suit him. And so on.
You can find welcoming clusters of ethnic minorities in other rich countries, but not nearly as many. In a European country, if you want Korean food and a particular denomination of Korean church, you might find it in the capital but you will struggle in the suburbs. In America, it is easier to find just the niche you want: Polish or Vietnamese, metropolitan or exurban, gay or straight, Episcopalian or Muslim, or any combination of the above.
You have a choice of weather and landscape, from snowy Alaska to baking Texas, from the mountains of Colorado to the forests of Maine. Northern Virginia, where Mr Lee lives, has the same climate as his homeland: winter is freezing, summer is muggy, autumn is delightful and spring brings cascades of cherry blossoms.
A place where hunters are not hounded
Consider another example. Dennis Downing, an Englishman, moved to America for the fox-hunting. A professional huntsman, he cares for the hounds that hunt the fox during a traditional hunt. (Everyone else is merely there for the ride.) He has done this all his working life.
In 1997 Britain elected a government that promised a vote on banning the sport and Mr Downing, seeing the writing on the wall, left the next year. (Fox-hunting was eventually banned in 2004.) After three years with a hunt in Alabama, he moved to Virginia, where English-style fox-hunting has been popular since George Washington’s day. He now works with the Blue Ridge Hunt and lives in the beautiful Shenandoah valley. He likes the weather, the space and the freedom to hunt.
That freedom is secure. America has 50 states with 50 sets of laws. Virginia will never ban hunting, but even if it did, there are 49 other states that won’t. In America, people with unusual hobbies are generally left alone. And power is so devolved that you can more or less choose which rules you want to live under.
If you like low taxes and the death penalty, try Texas. For good public schools and subsidised cycle paths, try Portland, Oregon. Even within states, the rules vary widely. Bath County, Kentucky is dry. Next-door Bourbon County, as the name implies, is not. Nearby Montgomery County is in between: a “moist” county where the sale of alcohol is banned except in one city. Liberal foreign students let it all hang out at Berkeley; those from traditional backgrounds may prefer a campus where there is no peer pressure to drink or fornicate, such as Brigham Young in Utah.
People move for a variety of reasons. Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, cites two. People come to America, he says, either because they yearn for freedom or because they are fleeing something. That something could be a civil war, or it could be a culture that irks them. In Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s case, it was both.
She was born in Somalia. As a young girl she was circumcised. “I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat,” she recalls. Her grandmother taught her to expect men to be violent. If attacked, she told her to duck behind the man, reach up inside his sarong, grab his testicles and crush them.
Ms Hirsi Ali grew up strong-willed. She fled from Somalia’s civil war, and then from an arranged marriage. She sought asylum in the Netherlands, a country that she found shockingly nice. The policemen were polite and helpful, instead of demanding bribes with menaces. The government gave refugees room and board. “Where did they get the money from?” she wondered, “Why didn’t it run out?”
She quickly learned Dutch and found work as an interpreter. In this job, she visited shelters for battered women, where she noticed that nearly all the victims were Muslims. These women seldom pressed charges against their violent husbands. The social workers would ask: “Do you have family here? Can they help you?” The women would reply: “But they support my husband, of course!” This infuriated Ms Hirsi Ali: “I knew that many Dutch women were abused, too. But their community and their family didn’t approve of it.”
She began to campaign against domestic violence. She became a member of parliament, and won a dangerous kind of fame as an ex-Muslim apostate. With a Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, she made a short film about what she saw as the oppression of women under Islam. An outraged fanatic murdered van Gogh and stabbed into his chest a letter to Ms Hirsi Ali, promising to kill her, too. So she moved to America, where she is not famous. She keeps sensibly quiet about where she lives, but she can travel and shop without the constant fear of death.
Speaking in Dallas, she praises the intellectual freedom in America. In the Netherlands, she says, think-tanks are typically subsidised by the government and tied to a political party. This makes them timid, she believes. If an idea sounds too controversial, they shy away from it. For example, she had a theory that government-funded Muslim schools in the Netherlands were fostering self-segregation, and asked if they should be closed. No one wanted to listen, she says; her colleagues feared appearing racist.
In America swarms of privately funded think-tanks represent almost any view you can imagine. Their response to hard questions is more serious, she says. People ask if your hypothesis is true, and then suggest ways to raise the money to find out. In America, Ms Hirsi Ali found the funds to set up a foundation to study violence against Muslim women. No one has a clue how common this is in America. She means to find out.
She admits that before visiting America she had a negative view of the country. Listening to her Dutch friends, she assumed that Americans were fat, loutish, naive and sexually repressed. “But then I came here and found it was all false,” she smiles.
Outsiders sometimes assume that it is hard to be an outspoken atheist in a devout country such as America. Ms Hirsi Ali thinks it is easy. Many Christians ask if she is a believer. When she replies no, she says “they don’t try to kill me. They say they’ll pray for me”.
Besides Somalia and the Netherlands, Ms Hirsi Ali has lived in Ethiopia, Kenya and Saudi Arabia. Of all these places, she considers America to be the easiest place to assimilate. She has her niche, hanging out with “nerdy academics” and eating Japanese food. Unlike Mr Lee, she is more or less divorced from her native culture. But that works just fine in America. “I’m surprised how fast complete strangers will invite you into their houses,” she says. Asked what she dislikes about her new home, she mentions that the air-conditioning is too cold.
A magnet for talent
Migration matters. Economic growth depends on productivity, and the most productive people are often the most mobile. A quarter of America’s engineering and technology firms founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder, according to Vivek Wadhwa of Harvard Law School. A quarter of international patent applications filed from America were the work of foreign nationals. And such measures ignore the children of immigrants. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is the stepson of a man who fled Cuba at the age of 15 and arrived without even a high-school diploma.
Richard Florida, the author of such books as “The Flight of the Creative Class” and “Who’s Your City?”, argues that countries and regions and cities are engaged in a global battle for talent. The most creative people can live more or less where they want. They tend to pick places that offer not only material comfort but also the stimulation of being surrounded by other creative types.
This makes life more fun. It also fosters technological progress. When clever people cluster, they can bounce ideas off each other. This is why rents are so high in Manhattan. Robert Lucas, a Nobel economics laureate, argues that the clustering of talent is the primary driver of economic growth.
So a country’s economic prospects depend in large measure on whether it is a place where people want to be. Desirable destinations draw talented and industrious migrants. Less desirable ones suffer a brain drain. Desirability is tricky to measure, however.
People cannot vote freely with their feet. No rich country allows unlimited immigration, and the rules vary a lot, so it is impossible to know which country is the most attractive to the largest number of people. But there are reasons to believe that America ranks at or near the top.
Mr Florida and Irene Tinagli of Carnegie Mellon University compiled a “Global Creativity Index”, which tries to capture countries’ ability to harness talent for “innovation...and long-run prosperity”. The index combines measures of talent, technology and tolerance. America comes fourth, behind Sweden, Japan and Finland. You could quarrel with the methodology. America comes top on certain measures, such as patents per head and college degrees, but it is deemed less tolerant than other countries in the top ten. This is because the index rewards “modern, secular” values and penalises Americans for being religious and nationalistic.
This is a mistake. Some religious countries are indeed intolerant, but America is not one of them, as Ms Hirsi Ali attests. And for many talented people, such as Mr Lee, America’s vibrant and varied religious scene makes the country more attractive, not less.
Michael Fix of the Migration Policy Institute, a think-tank, observes that religion has a strong effect on who comes to America. For example, although Muslims slightly outnumber Christians in Nigeria, Nigerian immigrants to America are 92% Christian and only 5% Muslim. Christians are about a quarter of the South Korean population, but four-fifths of Korean immigrants in America are Christian. Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are mostly Muslim, but a hefty 28% are Christian and 10% are Jewish.
Christians and Jews are drawn to America in part because they know it is an easy place to be Christian or Jewish. They don’t face persecution, as they might in the Middle East. Nor do they face derision, as they might in more aggressively secular parts of Europe. Also, churches create networks. Migrants typically go where they already know people, and often make contact through a church.
It is also a mistake to rate Americans as less tolerant because they are nationalistic. Americans may have an annoyingly high opinion of their country, but theirs is an inclusive nationalism. Most believe that anyone can become American. Almost nobody in Japan thinks that anyone can become Japanese, yet Japan is rated more “tolerant” than America. This is absurd.
Fear of foreigners
Not everyone thinks that immigration makes America stronger. Most of the Republicans who ran for president in 2008 promised a tough line on the illegal sort. Tom Tancredo, the angriest of them, describes America’s porous borders as a “mortal danger”, though he is the grandson of immigrants from Italy. Pat Buchanan, another former presidential candidate, wrote a book subtitled: “The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America”.
Some worry about illegal immigration because they favour the rule of law. “When there are people in Mexico City waiting in line and paying their fees and doing everything right, and they are having to wait for years, and then other folks are coming in without waiting in line—that’s not fair,” said Barack Obama in October. But many Americans also think that too many legal immigrants are admitted.
Some fear that open borders make it easier for terrorists to sneak in. Others worry that immigrants overload schools and hospitals, or drag down the wages of the native-born. Environmentalists fret that immigration drives population growth, which aggravates urban sprawl, pollution and global warming.
The argument that stirs the hottest passions, however, is cultural. The late Samuel Huntington, a Harvard academic, argued that Hispanic immigrants, because they are so numerous, will not assimilate. Rather, they threaten to “divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures and two languages” and “[reject] the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream”.
Some look at the great multi-ethnic experiment and see a society on the brink of breakdown
Mark Krikorian, the author of “The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal”, points out that modern immigrants can call home every day. This, he says, means they are less likely to give up their old ties and become American. He complains that the American elite no longer thinks American culture is worth preserving, and therefore no longer insists that immigrants imbibe it. He also predicts that mass immigration from poor countries is incompatible with the welfare state—too many newcomers will bankrupt it.
Some outsiders look at America’s great multi-ethnic experiment and see a society teetering on the brink of violent breakdown. “White America is in decline,” writes Gary Younge, a left-wing British journalist. He adds: “Never having considered the unearned privilege of being white and American, all they can see are things being taken away from them. Never having considered solidarity with blacks and Latinos, they see them not as potential allies but as perpetual enemies.”
Nearly all this gloom is misplaced. It is possible that unskilled immigrants hurt the wages of unskilled locals. George Borjas, a Harvard economist, estimates that native workers’ wages decline by 3% or 4% for every 10% increase in immigrants with similar skills. But others, such as David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, have found little or no impact. Gianmarco Ottaviano of the University of Bologna and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, find that nearly 90% of native-born American workers actually enjoy higher wages because of immigration. Many immigrants bring new skills and ideas, spend money, pay taxes and employ natives.
Mass immigration may be hard to combine with a generous welfare state, but this argument applies more to Europe than to America. In America it is hard for an able-bodied adult male to do anything more than subsist on welfare. So immigrants work, which means they are seldom much of a drain on the public purse, and they have no choice but to assimilate. People who work together need to get on with each other, so they generally do.
Because immigrants have to work, America does not have ghettos full of permanently jobless and alienated young immigrants, as in France, for example. This is perhaps why, although America has a high murder rate—three times that of Britain—its immigrants rarely riot. They are too busy earning a living. America has not in recent years seen anything like the immigrant riots that torched the Paris suburbs in 2005. The closest parallel, the Los Angeles riots of 1992, sprang from the unique grievances of the one large ethnic group whose ancestors did not voluntarily migrate to America: African-Americans.
Some of America’s talk-show hosts are quite vicious, but no openly xenophobic politician can attract the kind of support that France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen did in 2002, or that Austria’s Jörg Haider did before he got drunk and killed himself in a car crash. Political rhetoric in America is often heated but almost never leads to violence. Ms Hirsi Ali recalls watching the vice-presidential debate on the television last year with friends in New York. Her Democratic friends thought Sarah Palin was ghastly. Her Republican friends were equally appalled by Joe Biden. Tempers rose so high during the election campaign that Ms Hirsi Ali thought the country might come to blows. But then polling day passed, and the tension was gone. She saw her Republican and Democrat friends eating cupcakes together. Americans get passionate about politics, she observes, but the next day they get on with their lives.
As Mr Krikorian concedes, the fear that new immigrants are disagreeably different is not new. In 17th-century Massachusetts, one group of English Protestants (the Puritans) banished another group of English Protestants (the Quakers) and even hanged some of those who returned. Benjamin Franklin doubted that German immigrants would ever assimilate. “Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements?” he asked, adding that they “will never adopt our Language or Customs”. Today, there are 50m German-Americans, hardly any of whom speak German. Indeed, they have intermingled and intermarried so much that they are barely noticeable as a separate group.
The doomsayers about immigration have always been wrong before. It is a fair bet that they are wrong now. America has lost none of its capacity to absorb newcomers. A recent survey by Public Agenda, a polling group, asked immigrants in America how long it took them to feel comfortable and “part of the community”. Some 77% said it took less than five years. Only 5% said they had never felt that they fitted in. In contrast 58% of people of Turkish descent in Germany say that they feel unwelcome, and 78% do not feel that Angela Merkel is their chancellor.
America is a uniquely attractive place to live: a lifestyle superpower. But it cannot afford to be complacent, for three reasons. First, other places, such as Australia, Canada and parts of Western Europe, have started to compete for footloose talent. Second, rising powers such as India and China are hanging on to more of their home-grown brains. There is even a sizeable reverse brain drain, as people of Indian or Chinese origin return to their homes. But neither India nor China attracts many completely foreign migrants who wish to “become” Indian or Chinese.
Third, since September 11th 2001 the American immigration process has become more security-conscious, which is to say, slower and more humiliating. Even applicants with jobs lined up can wait years for their papers. Many grow discouraged and either stay at home or try their luck somewhere less fortress-like.
A bigger welcome mat needed
President Obama promises immigration reform: stricter border controls but also a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally. George Bush promised the same thing, but Congress blocked him. Mr Obama has his work cut out to avoid that fate; and although he is the son of a Kenyan Harvard student, he has done little to make the system less cumbersome for skilled migrants.
“The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time”
The stakes are high. Immigration keeps America young, strong and growing. “The populations of Europe, Russia and Japan are declining, and those of China and India are levelling off. The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time,” predicts Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, a think-tank. By 2050, there could be 500m Americans; by 2100, a billion. That means America could remain the pre-eminent nation for longer than many people expect. “Relying on the import of money, workers, and brains,” writes Mr Lind, America is “a Ponzi scheme that works.”
Por que os imigrantes preferem os EUA?
The Economist, 25/12/2009
Quando o sul-coreano Joshua Lee chegou aos Estados Unidos, sua primeira impressão foi o excesso de riqueza. A comida era abundante, a energia barata e as casas enormes. No entanto, este não é o motivo que o fez adotar o país como seu novo lar. Para Lee e outros milhões de imigrantes, os Estados Unidos são uma nação que permite que se viva de acordo com sua própria cultura enquanto se adota aspectos interessantes da cultura nativa.
Nos Estados Unidos é possível para os seus 38 milhões de imigrantes, bem acima da média para países desenvolvidos, arranjarem seu nicho sem dificuldades. Enquanto em outros países as leis costumam ser as mesmas independente do estado, nos Estados Unidos, os 50 estados que formam o país tem legislações que podem ser radicalmente diferentes. Assim, um imigrante britânico entusiasta de caça à raposas, prática banida em toda Grã-Bretanha, pode praticar seu esporte à vontade em diversos estados norte-americanos.
Ou seja, os cidadãos norte-americanos podem escolher sob quais leis desejam viver. O imigrante que não quiser pagar altos impostos pode viver no Texas. Quem desejar boas escolas pode ir para Portland. Os mais conservadores, que não desejam álcool ou sexo em excesso, podem viver no estado de Utah.
Liberdade intelectual também é incentivada, com milhares de institutos organizados para defender os mais diferentes pontos de vista. Apesar do senso comum, o país não é intolerante com pessoas de outras religiões. Cristão e judeus muitas vezes decidem migrar para os Estados Unidos porque sabem que não vão sofrer preconceito ou perseguição como acontece no Oriente Médio, por exemplo.
O resultado é que o país atrai talentos de outras nações. Políticos norte-americanos, no entanto, não parecem ver o lado bom da imigração. Eles acreditam que o país está perdendo sua capacidade de absorver pessoas de outros países, o que provavelmente não é verdade. As reclamações são antigas. Benjamin Franklin já dizia que o país nunca conseguiria assimilar os imigrantes alemães. Hoje, os Estados Unidos contam com 50 milhões de descendentes de alemães, sendo que quase nenhum fala a língua da velha pátria.
Em nossa opinão (The Economist)
A resposta a essa indagação poderia ser dada com uma palavra: liberdade. O imigrante tem a liberdade de continuar usando sua própria língua, de praticar a religião que quiser e de trabalhar e empreender. É em busca disso que vêm os imigrantes.
===========
Going to America
A Ponzi scheme that works
The Economist, Dec 17th 2009
ANNANDALE, VIRGINIA AND DALLAS, TEXAS
The greatest strength of America is that people want to live there
AT ONE of the many Korean restaurants in Annandale, Virginia, a waitress cracks a raw egg into a sizzling tofu-and-oyster stew. Tables buckle under heaps of chili-, garlic- and cabbage-themed side dishes. Every customer is of Korean origin. Is this a sign that Korean immigrants are failing to assimilate in America?
Far from it. A mother addresses her college-age daughter in Korean; the daughter replies in English. A muscular man with a buzz cut reads a Korean newspaper; his T-shirt proclaims, in English: “Support our Troops”.
Across the highway, in a building that houses several Korean businesses, Joshua Lee sits on a sofa and explains why he likes living in America. He grew up poor: his father was a day labourer. He did his military service on an American base in Seoul, where he polished his English and learned to like hot dogs. He moved to America in 1990, when he was 27, to study theology in Kentucky. He painted houses to support himself.
He met his wife, a Korean-American, and moved to northern Virginia, home to a hefty cluster of Korean-Americans. Eventually, he found a job writing for a Korean-language newspaper about Korean-American issues.
When he arrived, Mr Lee was astonished by how rich nearly everyone was. He recalls his first dinner with Americans: the huge bowls and immense portions. He was startled to see lights left on in empty rooms. He is still impressed: “The roads are so wide, the cars so big, the houses so large—everything is abundant,” he says.
Yet this is not why he came, and it is not why he stayed and became a citizen. For Mr Lee, America is a land that offers “the chance to be whatever you want to be”. More prosaically, it is a place where nearly any immigrant can find a niche.
Mr Lee’s niche is an agreeable one. His suburb has safe streets, spacious backyards and good schools. He eats Korean food every day, but not for every meal. He attends a Baptist church where services are in Korean, but the Sunday-school classes are in English. He retains what he loves about his native culture—the work ethic, language, spicy cabbage—while shrugging off the rest.
For example, he never liked the way his neighbours in Korea stuck their noses into each other’s business. Everyone knew how you were doing in school. You could not get a good job without connections. There was constant social pressure not to lose face. When Mr Lee went back to visit, he remembers slipping into the old straitjacket. He wanted to pop out to the corner shop, but realised he would have to put on a smart shirt and trousers, despite the intense humidity. What would the neighbours think if they saw him in shorts and flip-flops? In America, no one cares.
In Korea, he says, to express an unusual opinion is to court isolation. In America, you can say what you think. To relax, Mr Lee listens to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, two combative right-wing pundits. “Maybe you don’t like these people, but I really [do],” he says.
Three hundred million niches
Because America is so big and diverse, immigrants have an incredible array of choices. The proportion of Americans who are foreign-born, at 13%, is higher than the rich-country average of 8.4%. In absolute terms, the gulf is much wider. America’s foreign-born population of 38m is nearly four times larger than those of Russia or Germany, the nearest contenders. It dwarfs the number of migrants in Japan (below 2m) or China (under 1m). The recession has dramatically slowed the influx of immigrants and prompted quite a few to move back to Mexico. But the economy will eventually recover and the influx will resume.
No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin in America
Nearly all Americans are descended from people who came from somewhere else in the past couple of centuries. And the variety of countries from which immigrants come—roughly all of them, and usually in significant numbers—is unmatched. No matter where an immigrant hails from, he can find a cluster of his ethnic kin somewhere in America. In fact, he is probably spoilt for choice. If he wants to live in a suburb, eat Korean food and listen to fire-and-brimstone sermons in Korean, he can do so in northern Virginia. If he prefers an urban and secular Korean lifestyle, he can try Boston or San Francisco. If he craves Ethiopian food, Amharic radio and lots of gay clubs, Washington, DC, may suit him. And so on.
You can find welcoming clusters of ethnic minorities in other rich countries, but not nearly as many. In a European country, if you want Korean food and a particular denomination of Korean church, you might find it in the capital but you will struggle in the suburbs. In America, it is easier to find just the niche you want: Polish or Vietnamese, metropolitan or exurban, gay or straight, Episcopalian or Muslim, or any combination of the above.
You have a choice of weather and landscape, from snowy Alaska to baking Texas, from the mountains of Colorado to the forests of Maine. Northern Virginia, where Mr Lee lives, has the same climate as his homeland: winter is freezing, summer is muggy, autumn is delightful and spring brings cascades of cherry blossoms.
A place where hunters are not hounded
Consider another example. Dennis Downing, an Englishman, moved to America for the fox-hunting. A professional huntsman, he cares for the hounds that hunt the fox during a traditional hunt. (Everyone else is merely there for the ride.) He has done this all his working life.
In 1997 Britain elected a government that promised a vote on banning the sport and Mr Downing, seeing the writing on the wall, left the next year. (Fox-hunting was eventually banned in 2004.) After three years with a hunt in Alabama, he moved to Virginia, where English-style fox-hunting has been popular since George Washington’s day. He now works with the Blue Ridge Hunt and lives in the beautiful Shenandoah valley. He likes the weather, the space and the freedom to hunt.
That freedom is secure. America has 50 states with 50 sets of laws. Virginia will never ban hunting, but even if it did, there are 49 other states that won’t. In America, people with unusual hobbies are generally left alone. And power is so devolved that you can more or less choose which rules you want to live under.
If you like low taxes and the death penalty, try Texas. For good public schools and subsidised cycle paths, try Portland, Oregon. Even within states, the rules vary widely. Bath County, Kentucky is dry. Next-door Bourbon County, as the name implies, is not. Nearby Montgomery County is in between: a “moist” county where the sale of alcohol is banned except in one city. Liberal foreign students let it all hang out at Berkeley; those from traditional backgrounds may prefer a campus where there is no peer pressure to drink or fornicate, such as Brigham Young in Utah.
People move for a variety of reasons. Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, cites two. People come to America, he says, either because they yearn for freedom or because they are fleeing something. That something could be a civil war, or it could be a culture that irks them. In Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s case, it was both.
She was born in Somalia. As a young girl she was circumcised. “I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat,” she recalls. Her grandmother taught her to expect men to be violent. If attacked, she told her to duck behind the man, reach up inside his sarong, grab his testicles and crush them.
Ms Hirsi Ali grew up strong-willed. She fled from Somalia’s civil war, and then from an arranged marriage. She sought asylum in the Netherlands, a country that she found shockingly nice. The policemen were polite and helpful, instead of demanding bribes with menaces. The government gave refugees room and board. “Where did they get the money from?” she wondered, “Why didn’t it run out?”
She quickly learned Dutch and found work as an interpreter. In this job, she visited shelters for battered women, where she noticed that nearly all the victims were Muslims. These women seldom pressed charges against their violent husbands. The social workers would ask: “Do you have family here? Can they help you?” The women would reply: “But they support my husband, of course!” This infuriated Ms Hirsi Ali: “I knew that many Dutch women were abused, too. But their community and their family didn’t approve of it.”
She began to campaign against domestic violence. She became a member of parliament, and won a dangerous kind of fame as an ex-Muslim apostate. With a Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, she made a short film about what she saw as the oppression of women under Islam. An outraged fanatic murdered van Gogh and stabbed into his chest a letter to Ms Hirsi Ali, promising to kill her, too. So she moved to America, where she is not famous. She keeps sensibly quiet about where she lives, but she can travel and shop without the constant fear of death.
Speaking in Dallas, she praises the intellectual freedom in America. In the Netherlands, she says, think-tanks are typically subsidised by the government and tied to a political party. This makes them timid, she believes. If an idea sounds too controversial, they shy away from it. For example, she had a theory that government-funded Muslim schools in the Netherlands were fostering self-segregation, and asked if they should be closed. No one wanted to listen, she says; her colleagues feared appearing racist.
In America swarms of privately funded think-tanks represent almost any view you can imagine. Their response to hard questions is more serious, she says. People ask if your hypothesis is true, and then suggest ways to raise the money to find out. In America, Ms Hirsi Ali found the funds to set up a foundation to study violence against Muslim women. No one has a clue how common this is in America. She means to find out.
She admits that before visiting America she had a negative view of the country. Listening to her Dutch friends, she assumed that Americans were fat, loutish, naive and sexually repressed. “But then I came here and found it was all false,” she smiles.
Outsiders sometimes assume that it is hard to be an outspoken atheist in a devout country such as America. Ms Hirsi Ali thinks it is easy. Many Christians ask if she is a believer. When she replies no, she says “they don’t try to kill me. They say they’ll pray for me”.
Besides Somalia and the Netherlands, Ms Hirsi Ali has lived in Ethiopia, Kenya and Saudi Arabia. Of all these places, she considers America to be the easiest place to assimilate. She has her niche, hanging out with “nerdy academics” and eating Japanese food. Unlike Mr Lee, she is more or less divorced from her native culture. But that works just fine in America. “I’m surprised how fast complete strangers will invite you into their houses,” she says. Asked what she dislikes about her new home, she mentions that the air-conditioning is too cold.
A magnet for talent
Migration matters. Economic growth depends on productivity, and the most productive people are often the most mobile. A quarter of America’s engineering and technology firms founded between 1995 and 2005 had an immigrant founder, according to Vivek Wadhwa of Harvard Law School. A quarter of international patent applications filed from America were the work of foreign nationals. And such measures ignore the children of immigrants. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is the stepson of a man who fled Cuba at the age of 15 and arrived without even a high-school diploma.
Richard Florida, the author of such books as “The Flight of the Creative Class” and “Who’s Your City?”, argues that countries and regions and cities are engaged in a global battle for talent. The most creative people can live more or less where they want. They tend to pick places that offer not only material comfort but also the stimulation of being surrounded by other creative types.
This makes life more fun. It also fosters technological progress. When clever people cluster, they can bounce ideas off each other. This is why rents are so high in Manhattan. Robert Lucas, a Nobel economics laureate, argues that the clustering of talent is the primary driver of economic growth.
So a country’s economic prospects depend in large measure on whether it is a place where people want to be. Desirable destinations draw talented and industrious migrants. Less desirable ones suffer a brain drain. Desirability is tricky to measure, however.
People cannot vote freely with their feet. No rich country allows unlimited immigration, and the rules vary a lot, so it is impossible to know which country is the most attractive to the largest number of people. But there are reasons to believe that America ranks at or near the top.
Mr Florida and Irene Tinagli of Carnegie Mellon University compiled a “Global Creativity Index”, which tries to capture countries’ ability to harness talent for “innovation...and long-run prosperity”. The index combines measures of talent, technology and tolerance. America comes fourth, behind Sweden, Japan and Finland. You could quarrel with the methodology. America comes top on certain measures, such as patents per head and college degrees, but it is deemed less tolerant than other countries in the top ten. This is because the index rewards “modern, secular” values and penalises Americans for being religious and nationalistic.
This is a mistake. Some religious countries are indeed intolerant, but America is not one of them, as Ms Hirsi Ali attests. And for many talented people, such as Mr Lee, America’s vibrant and varied religious scene makes the country more attractive, not less.
Michael Fix of the Migration Policy Institute, a think-tank, observes that religion has a strong effect on who comes to America. For example, although Muslims slightly outnumber Christians in Nigeria, Nigerian immigrants to America are 92% Christian and only 5% Muslim. Christians are about a quarter of the South Korean population, but four-fifths of Korean immigrants in America are Christian. Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are mostly Muslim, but a hefty 28% are Christian and 10% are Jewish.
Christians and Jews are drawn to America in part because they know it is an easy place to be Christian or Jewish. They don’t face persecution, as they might in the Middle East. Nor do they face derision, as they might in more aggressively secular parts of Europe. Also, churches create networks. Migrants typically go where they already know people, and often make contact through a church.
It is also a mistake to rate Americans as less tolerant because they are nationalistic. Americans may have an annoyingly high opinion of their country, but theirs is an inclusive nationalism. Most believe that anyone can become American. Almost nobody in Japan thinks that anyone can become Japanese, yet Japan is rated more “tolerant” than America. This is absurd.
Fear of foreigners
Not everyone thinks that immigration makes America stronger. Most of the Republicans who ran for president in 2008 promised a tough line on the illegal sort. Tom Tancredo, the angriest of them, describes America’s porous borders as a “mortal danger”, though he is the grandson of immigrants from Italy. Pat Buchanan, another former presidential candidate, wrote a book subtitled: “The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America”.
Some worry about illegal immigration because they favour the rule of law. “When there are people in Mexico City waiting in line and paying their fees and doing everything right, and they are having to wait for years, and then other folks are coming in without waiting in line—that’s not fair,” said Barack Obama in October. But many Americans also think that too many legal immigrants are admitted.
Some fear that open borders make it easier for terrorists to sneak in. Others worry that immigrants overload schools and hospitals, or drag down the wages of the native-born. Environmentalists fret that immigration drives population growth, which aggravates urban sprawl, pollution and global warming.
The argument that stirs the hottest passions, however, is cultural. The late Samuel Huntington, a Harvard academic, argued that Hispanic immigrants, because they are so numerous, will not assimilate. Rather, they threaten to “divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures and two languages” and “[reject] the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream”.
Some look at the great multi-ethnic experiment and see a society on the brink of breakdown
Mark Krikorian, the author of “The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal”, points out that modern immigrants can call home every day. This, he says, means they are less likely to give up their old ties and become American. He complains that the American elite no longer thinks American culture is worth preserving, and therefore no longer insists that immigrants imbibe it. He also predicts that mass immigration from poor countries is incompatible with the welfare state—too many newcomers will bankrupt it.
Some outsiders look at America’s great multi-ethnic experiment and see a society teetering on the brink of violent breakdown. “White America is in decline,” writes Gary Younge, a left-wing British journalist. He adds: “Never having considered the unearned privilege of being white and American, all they can see are things being taken away from them. Never having considered solidarity with blacks and Latinos, they see them not as potential allies but as perpetual enemies.”
Nearly all this gloom is misplaced. It is possible that unskilled immigrants hurt the wages of unskilled locals. George Borjas, a Harvard economist, estimates that native workers’ wages decline by 3% or 4% for every 10% increase in immigrants with similar skills. But others, such as David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, have found little or no impact. Gianmarco Ottaviano of the University of Bologna and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, find that nearly 90% of native-born American workers actually enjoy higher wages because of immigration. Many immigrants bring new skills and ideas, spend money, pay taxes and employ natives.
Mass immigration may be hard to combine with a generous welfare state, but this argument applies more to Europe than to America. In America it is hard for an able-bodied adult male to do anything more than subsist on welfare. So immigrants work, which means they are seldom much of a drain on the public purse, and they have no choice but to assimilate. People who work together need to get on with each other, so they generally do.
Because immigrants have to work, America does not have ghettos full of permanently jobless and alienated young immigrants, as in France, for example. This is perhaps why, although America has a high murder rate—three times that of Britain—its immigrants rarely riot. They are too busy earning a living. America has not in recent years seen anything like the immigrant riots that torched the Paris suburbs in 2005. The closest parallel, the Los Angeles riots of 1992, sprang from the unique grievances of the one large ethnic group whose ancestors did not voluntarily migrate to America: African-Americans.
Some of America’s talk-show hosts are quite vicious, but no openly xenophobic politician can attract the kind of support that France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen did in 2002, or that Austria’s Jörg Haider did before he got drunk and killed himself in a car crash. Political rhetoric in America is often heated but almost never leads to violence. Ms Hirsi Ali recalls watching the vice-presidential debate on the television last year with friends in New York. Her Democratic friends thought Sarah Palin was ghastly. Her Republican friends were equally appalled by Joe Biden. Tempers rose so high during the election campaign that Ms Hirsi Ali thought the country might come to blows. But then polling day passed, and the tension was gone. She saw her Republican and Democrat friends eating cupcakes together. Americans get passionate about politics, she observes, but the next day they get on with their lives.
As Mr Krikorian concedes, the fear that new immigrants are disagreeably different is not new. In 17th-century Massachusetts, one group of English Protestants (the Puritans) banished another group of English Protestants (the Quakers) and even hanged some of those who returned. Benjamin Franklin doubted that German immigrants would ever assimilate. “Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements?” he asked, adding that they “will never adopt our Language or Customs”. Today, there are 50m German-Americans, hardly any of whom speak German. Indeed, they have intermingled and intermarried so much that they are barely noticeable as a separate group.
The doomsayers about immigration have always been wrong before. It is a fair bet that they are wrong now. America has lost none of its capacity to absorb newcomers. A recent survey by Public Agenda, a polling group, asked immigrants in America how long it took them to feel comfortable and “part of the community”. Some 77% said it took less than five years. Only 5% said they had never felt that they fitted in. In contrast 58% of people of Turkish descent in Germany say that they feel unwelcome, and 78% do not feel that Angela Merkel is their chancellor.
America is a uniquely attractive place to live: a lifestyle superpower. But it cannot afford to be complacent, for three reasons. First, other places, such as Australia, Canada and parts of Western Europe, have started to compete for footloose talent. Second, rising powers such as India and China are hanging on to more of their home-grown brains. There is even a sizeable reverse brain drain, as people of Indian or Chinese origin return to their homes. But neither India nor China attracts many completely foreign migrants who wish to “become” Indian or Chinese.
Third, since September 11th 2001 the American immigration process has become more security-conscious, which is to say, slower and more humiliating. Even applicants with jobs lined up can wait years for their papers. Many grow discouraged and either stay at home or try their luck somewhere less fortress-like.
A bigger welcome mat needed
President Obama promises immigration reform: stricter border controls but also a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally. George Bush promised the same thing, but Congress blocked him. Mr Obama has his work cut out to avoid that fate; and although he is the son of a Kenyan Harvard student, he has done little to make the system less cumbersome for skilled migrants.
“The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time”
The stakes are high. Immigration keeps America young, strong and growing. “The populations of Europe, Russia and Japan are declining, and those of China and India are levelling off. The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time,” predicts Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, a think-tank. By 2050, there could be 500m Americans; by 2100, a billion. That means America could remain the pre-eminent nation for longer than many people expect. “Relying on the import of money, workers, and brains,” writes Mr Lind, America is “a Ponzi scheme that works.”
1619) O brasileiro é obcecado por concursos públicos?
Infelizmente sim, obsessivamente sim. Isso ainda vai afundar o Brasil. Querem apostar?
Esperem mais dez anos: o funcionalismo vai consumir 15% (ou mais) dos orçamentos públicos, condenando a taxa de investímentos públicos (já pífia, atualmente) a permanecer em níveis irrisórios pelo futuro previsível...
O Estado é um ogro insaciável, que consome todos os recursos da Nação, um vampiro sedento que suga toda a seiva do setor produtivo.
Infelizmente, essa tendência não vai ser revertida any time soon...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
O brasileiro é obcecado por concursos públicos?
Fábio Terra Teixeira
Site Opinião e Notícia, 25/12/2009
A foto acima mostra a multidão de cariocas que se mobilizou para participar de um concurso para gari da Comlurb, no dia sete de outubro de 2009. A empresa estatal contabilizou 104,4 mil inscrições. Quem passar terá direito a um emprego de R$ 900 mensais. Os números apresentados levam a crer que se tratam de pessoas sem perspectiva profissional, ou que precisam de dinheiro. Mas em levantamento feito pela Comlurb, 1.026 candidatos tinham nível superior e 45 eram doutorandos. Por que tanta vontade de se ter um emprego público?
De acordo com o professor de economia da Universidade Federal Fluminense Fernando Mattos a resposta passa por dois pontos antigos: a estabilidade no emprego e a perspectiva de crescimento profissional. “O que se tem de novo é que o Estado brasileiro está se aparelhando melhor, o que é positivo. O objetivo é dar um atendimento melhor para a população”, afirma Mattos, responsável por uma pesquisa sobre o aumento no número de concursados.
O aumento é inegável. De acordo com o vice-presidente do Instituto Liberal, Roberto Fendt, o governo Lula, entre dezembro de 2002 e setembro de 2009, aumentou o efetivo de funcionários públicos (excluindo Forças Armadas) em 177 mil. O número pode parecer pequeno, mas vale lembrar que ele se refere apenas aos funcionários federais. O concurso da Comlurb, que é estadual, oferecia 1,4 mil vagas. “Só no Executivo são 104 mil. A minha opinião é que caberia explicar o porquê de tantas pessoas. Com o emprego de tecnologia nós deveríamos diminuir e não aumentar o número de funcionários.”
Fendt acredita que a contratação em massa está atraindo os melhores cérebros para o serviço público, enquanto eles poderiam estar empreendendo no setor privado — que é mais eficiente para produzir riqueza. O problema passa pelo alto salário oferecido pelo governo. De acordo com Fendt, a diferença entre setor privado e público é gritante. A União paga um salário médio de R$ 6,8 mil para seus funcionários, enquanto o salário médio do setor privado é de R$ 1,3 mil.
Mais que atrair os melhores cérebros, os concursos muitas vezes os colocam em cargos abaixo de seu nível profissional. Segundo Mattos, esse comportamento pode acontecer, mas tem diminuído. “No setor privado os empregos aumentaram bastante durante o governo Lula, mas ainda existe uma demanda que não é atendida”. Fendt, no entanto, acredita que existe um cálculo por parte dos concursados. “Do ponto de vista da pessoa, é um bom negócio. Assim que ela coloca o pé dentro do setor público ela pode fazer um concurso interno, entrar é que é importante.”
O peso do setor público no Brasil é grande. Um em cada cinco cidadãos com carteira assinada trabalha para o estado. O custo para manter estes funcionários responde por boa parte da alta carga de impostos que os brasileiros precisam pagar. Fica a pergunta: é saudável uma economia de funcionários públicos?
Caro leitor,
O setor público deve ter salários mais altos que o privado?
A estabilidade no emprego é boa para a economia?
Em sua opinião, o crescimento no número de empregos públicos é sustentável?
1618) O novo Mister Doom: prometendo calotes "soberanos"...
A matéria já tem alguns dias, mas vale postá-la, pois os efeitos estão à nossa frente.
Ou seja, vem calote por aí, e de governos (federais, estaduais, municipais, whoever...).
Nada como antecipar desenvolvimentos desagradáveis: assim, ninguém vai poder alegar que não foi avisado...
Vamos esperar a publicação do novo livro de Ken Rogoff: "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly."
Sovereign Debt Defaults Likely Over Next Several Years, Says Rogoff
Heesun Wee - Investing, Recession, Banking
Posted Dec 09, 2009
Global markets tumbled overnight amid fresh concerns about the global economy, and more specifically, the prospect of sovereign debt defaults.
Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook for Spain's debt grade as the country's finances worsened. A day earlier, Fitch cut Greece's long-term debt to BBB+ from A minus, marking the first time in a decade the country has seen its rating pushed below an A grade. (Click here for the full story.)
The news doesn't come as a surprise to our guest Ken Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. As Dubai's recent debt crisis shows, more sovereign debt defaults will be likely over the next several years, he says.
The International Monetary Fund will try to prevent any global economic crisis in the near term says Rogoff, a former IMF chief economist. But, longer-term, difficult decisions remain about how to tackle mounting debt among G8 nations. "We can barely have the political will to raise taxes to pay our own debts," which means less money to pay for bailouts of other creditors, he predicts.
"In a couple of years as U.S. debt explodes, as German debt explodes, and they're all going to be pushing difficult levels, they're really going to start thinking. 'Hmm. Do we really want to cast this safety net?' We've got to scale back," says Rogoff, also co-author of a new book, "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly." The book outlines how periods of boom and bust are marked by bouts of overspending and mounting debt, whether by consumers, banks or governments -- just like the current crisis.
Should American taxpayers be worried? Financial crises in Asia during the late 1990s and in Latin America during the '80s largely were regional affairs but higher U.S. inflation is almost a certainty.
Rogoff, however, is more certain about the future of California, a state strapped by rising expenses and falling tax revenues. They'll be on the brink of default repeatedly, Rogoff says.
======
OK, estão todos avisados (quem tiver bônus espanhol, ou da California, melhor se desfazer agora, antes que vire poeira...)
Ou seja, vem calote por aí, e de governos (federais, estaduais, municipais, whoever...).
Nada como antecipar desenvolvimentos desagradáveis: assim, ninguém vai poder alegar que não foi avisado...
Vamos esperar a publicação do novo livro de Ken Rogoff: "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly."
Sovereign Debt Defaults Likely Over Next Several Years, Says Rogoff
Heesun Wee - Investing, Recession, Banking
Posted Dec 09, 2009
Global markets tumbled overnight amid fresh concerns about the global economy, and more specifically, the prospect of sovereign debt defaults.
Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook for Spain's debt grade as the country's finances worsened. A day earlier, Fitch cut Greece's long-term debt to BBB+ from A minus, marking the first time in a decade the country has seen its rating pushed below an A grade. (Click here for the full story.)
The news doesn't come as a surprise to our guest Ken Rogoff, professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University. As Dubai's recent debt crisis shows, more sovereign debt defaults will be likely over the next several years, he says.
The International Monetary Fund will try to prevent any global economic crisis in the near term says Rogoff, a former IMF chief economist. But, longer-term, difficult decisions remain about how to tackle mounting debt among G8 nations. "We can barely have the political will to raise taxes to pay our own debts," which means less money to pay for bailouts of other creditors, he predicts.
"In a couple of years as U.S. debt explodes, as German debt explodes, and they're all going to be pushing difficult levels, they're really going to start thinking. 'Hmm. Do we really want to cast this safety net?' We've got to scale back," says Rogoff, also co-author of a new book, "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly." The book outlines how periods of boom and bust are marked by bouts of overspending and mounting debt, whether by consumers, banks or governments -- just like the current crisis.
Should American taxpayers be worried? Financial crises in Asia during the late 1990s and in Latin America during the '80s largely were regional affairs but higher U.S. inflation is almost a certainty.
Rogoff, however, is more certain about the future of California, a state strapped by rising expenses and falling tax revenues. They'll be on the brink of default repeatedly, Rogoff says.
======
OK, estão todos avisados (quem tiver bônus espanhol, ou da California, melhor se desfazer agora, antes que vire poeira...)
1616) Investindo em vento
Não exatamente: apenas mapeando as regiões mais ventosas do Brasil, para fins de instalação de geradores eólicos.
Não, não vou cobrar nada dos interessados pela consultoria desinteressada...
1615) EUA - como criar uma nova bolha imobiliária...
...fazendo justamente isso que o governo americano está fazendo, ou seja, dando dinheiro para o setor.
E depois dizem que foram as "forças cegas do mercado" que criam as bolhas financeiras.
Não, quem cria as bolhas são os governos, ao atuarem de modo absolutamente irresponsável, impedindo os mercados de precificar corretamente os ativos de risco.
Capitalismo protegido pelo Estado não é capitalismo, é um negócio de família, como a Cosa Nostra...
U.S. promises unlimited financial assistance to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 25, 2009; A01
The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress.
The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama's current term.
But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009.
The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.
The administration faced a congressionally mandated deadline of Dec. 31 to increase the amount of aid it could provide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together have already received $111 billion in assistance.
Treasury said Thursday that its decision did not mean the firms would need $200 billion or more apiece, but that it instead was seeking to assure markets that the government would stand behind the companies. In a statement, Treasury said the move "should leave no uncertainty about the Treasury's commitment to support these firms as they continue to play a vital role in the housing market during this current crisis."
By promising to keep the companies solvent, the government can maintain its sweeping power over the housing market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a central role in Obama administration policies to keep mortgage interest rates low, restructure unaffordable mortgages, stop foreclosures and funnel money to housing programs around the country.
The Bush administration took over the firms in September 2008 as the financial crisis entered its most severe phase and promised $200 billion to keep the companies solvent. The Obama administration later doubled that figure.
While the ultimate cost of the bailouts is unknown, the administration estimated earlier this year it would cost $171 billion, and some officials said they expect it could rise further. Analysts have said it could be much higher. The cost will depend in part on how aggressively the administration continues to use the firms to stimulate the housing market because these steps could curtail profitability.
Under the terms of the latest decision, the administration's open-ended commitment will expire in 2012. Then, the firms will only be allowed to receive the balance of the $400 billion remaining today -- about $290 billion.
The administration is set to release broad principles in February for reforming the companies. Many experts predict that the government will have no choice but to hold on indefinitely to many of the companies' most troubled assets -- mortgage investments made during the housing bubble to less-than-worthy borrowers.
But an administration official said it could take several years to resolve the future of the companies, especially if Congress isn't keen to take up the politically charged issue during the 2010 midterm election year, and if the government wants to preserve the ability to influence the housing market. The companies together own or insure the majority of home loans, and no viable private system exists that could replace them.
Even as the administration has broadened its commitment to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it said it would wind down mortgage-assistance programs, including one that bought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mortgage investments.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have long been targets for Republicans, who say they are evidence of how government support for the housing market contributed to the financial crisis.
"The Obama administration's decision to write a blank check with taxpayer dollars for the continued bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is appalling," said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "Not only is this a continued bailout of failed entities that need to be privatized to protect the taxpayer, the timing of the announcement is clearly designed to try and sneak the bailout by the taxpayers."
On Thursday, federal officials defended the administration's new bailout authority and the compensation packages. They said the pay was necessary to retain talented executives who can oversee the companies' vast mortgage holdings.
Fannie Mae chief executive Michael J. Williams and Freddie Mac chief executive Charles E. Haldeman each will receive a $900,000 base salary. The rest of their compensation will be in incentive payments and bonuses dependent on whether they stay with the companies and achieve business targets. The compensation of other top executives will follow a similar formula.
While the pay is significantly more than what Fannie and Freddie executives received a year ago, the packages are less than what top company officials got before the government takeover. Only five executives at each firm will be eligible to receive more than $500,000 in salary.
"The management of these companies involves responsibility for $2 to $3 trillion of mortgage assets," said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the chief regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "It is critical to the taxpayers' financial interests that these assets be carefully managed in a difficult environment to minimize taxpayer losses."
E depois dizem que foram as "forças cegas do mercado" que criam as bolhas financeiras.
Não, quem cria as bolhas são os governos, ao atuarem de modo absolutamente irresponsável, impedindo os mercados de precificar corretamente os ativos de risco.
Capitalismo protegido pelo Estado não é capitalismo, é um negócio de família, como a Cosa Nostra...
U.S. promises unlimited financial assistance to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 25, 2009; A01
The Obama administration pledged Thursday to provide unlimited financial assistance to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an eleventh-hour move that allows the government to exceed the current $400 billion cap on emergency aid without seeking permission from a bailout-weary Congress.
The Christmas Eve announcement by the Treasury Department means that it can continue to run the companies, which were seized last year, as arms of the government for the rest of President Obama's current term.
But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009.
The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.
The administration faced a congressionally mandated deadline of Dec. 31 to increase the amount of aid it could provide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together have already received $111 billion in assistance.
Treasury said Thursday that its decision did not mean the firms would need $200 billion or more apiece, but that it instead was seeking to assure markets that the government would stand behind the companies. In a statement, Treasury said the move "should leave no uncertainty about the Treasury's commitment to support these firms as they continue to play a vital role in the housing market during this current crisis."
By promising to keep the companies solvent, the government can maintain its sweeping power over the housing market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a central role in Obama administration policies to keep mortgage interest rates low, restructure unaffordable mortgages, stop foreclosures and funnel money to housing programs around the country.
The Bush administration took over the firms in September 2008 as the financial crisis entered its most severe phase and promised $200 billion to keep the companies solvent. The Obama administration later doubled that figure.
While the ultimate cost of the bailouts is unknown, the administration estimated earlier this year it would cost $171 billion, and some officials said they expect it could rise further. Analysts have said it could be much higher. The cost will depend in part on how aggressively the administration continues to use the firms to stimulate the housing market because these steps could curtail profitability.
Under the terms of the latest decision, the administration's open-ended commitment will expire in 2012. Then, the firms will only be allowed to receive the balance of the $400 billion remaining today -- about $290 billion.
The administration is set to release broad principles in February for reforming the companies. Many experts predict that the government will have no choice but to hold on indefinitely to many of the companies' most troubled assets -- mortgage investments made during the housing bubble to less-than-worthy borrowers.
But an administration official said it could take several years to resolve the future of the companies, especially if Congress isn't keen to take up the politically charged issue during the 2010 midterm election year, and if the government wants to preserve the ability to influence the housing market. The companies together own or insure the majority of home loans, and no viable private system exists that could replace them.
Even as the administration has broadened its commitment to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it said it would wind down mortgage-assistance programs, including one that bought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mortgage investments.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have long been targets for Republicans, who say they are evidence of how government support for the housing market contributed to the financial crisis.
"The Obama administration's decision to write a blank check with taxpayer dollars for the continued bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is appalling," said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a member of the House Financial Services subcommittee that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "Not only is this a continued bailout of failed entities that need to be privatized to protect the taxpayer, the timing of the announcement is clearly designed to try and sneak the bailout by the taxpayers."
On Thursday, federal officials defended the administration's new bailout authority and the compensation packages. They said the pay was necessary to retain talented executives who can oversee the companies' vast mortgage holdings.
Fannie Mae chief executive Michael J. Williams and Freddie Mac chief executive Charles E. Haldeman each will receive a $900,000 base salary. The rest of their compensation will be in incentive payments and bonuses dependent on whether they stay with the companies and achieve business targets. The compensation of other top executives will follow a similar formula.
While the pay is significantly more than what Fannie and Freddie executives received a year ago, the packages are less than what top company officials got before the government takeover. Only five executives at each firm will be eligible to receive more than $500,000 in salary.
"The management of these companies involves responsibility for $2 to $3 trillion of mortgage assets," said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the chief regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "It is critical to the taxpayers' financial interests that these assets be carefully managed in a difficult environment to minimize taxpayer losses."
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)
Postagem em destaque
Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
Rewriting the Rules of Foreign Aid: Geopolitics, Power, and the New Diplomacy In the world of international relations, foreign aid is not si...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Israel Products in India: Check the Complete list of Israeli Brands! Several Israeli companies have established themselves in the Indian m...
-
Países de Maior Acesso aos textos PRA em Academia.edu (apenas os superiores a 100 acessos) Compilação Paulo Roberto de Almeida (15/12/2025) ...
-
Mais uma listagem de antigos trabalhos sobre paz e segurança, em vista deste debate próximo: 17h30 – Evento online – transmissão ao vivo no...
-
Reproduzo novamente uma postagem minha de 2020, quando foi publicado o livro de Dennys Xavier sobre Thomas Sowell quarta-feira, 4 de março... -
Uma postagem antiga, mas ainda relevante, sobretudo tendo em vista o debate na próxima quinta-feira, 18/12, 17:30hs, com André Magnelli: 17...
-
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
