It is a question of country of birth, and ones mother country. If an American husband and wife live all their lives in America, then give birth to a child in say England, the child will be given an English birth certificate, recording the place and date of birth. But that child is still considered American, and will have dual nationality upon it's return to America.

My brother and his wife spent 7 years in Spain running a small business, and their 3 children were all born out there, but they now have dual nationality, as both parents for generations came from English stock. They are as English as anyone else, they just happened to be born somewhere else. Most official forms recognise that by asking for Nationality plus place of birth.

Doesn't that depend on the legal doctrine that is in place. Like in America you automatically gain American citizenship the moment you are born on American soil. And isn't it that for example Mexicans that illegally moved into the US, have a baby the baby automatically gains full American citizenship but not Mexican citizenship? Which makes it so hard to send back parents who are not American but who have a child who is American (aren't they called grappling hook babies or something?)

But England isn't really a country. It is more like a neighbourhood, by North American standards.

In terms of area, some might see it like that, England is 50,000 sq miles, Texas is 258,000 sq miles. London is 671 sq miles, New York city is 468 sq miles.

You should have compared to;

Greater Los Angeles Area, 33,954 square miles, population ~13 million.

Wales - 8,022 square miles, population ~3 million

The main problem in Mexico is capitalism run wild. Yes, there is a lot of money in Mexico, but it is controlled by a very very small group of people. The government is run by the old money families, for the benefit of the old money families. The majority live in third world conditions, that is why they are trying to get out.

The wealth inequality has also lead to high violence levels. A few centuries ago wealth inequality like this lead to revolutions, today it leads to organized crime. If you are not a member of one of the old money families, the easiest way to make more than a minimum wage in Mexico is to get involved in drug dealing. In the final analysis much of the drug money in Mexico comes from the US, so the illegal immigrant issue is perhaps nature's way of getting the US to pay for the problem they have helped create.

Mexico is a preview for the rest of the western world of what they could become if their wealth and (more importantly) the opportunity inequality issues are not addressed in a timely fashion.

---

An intelligent observation Bill, and thank you for the info. There are many countries like Mexico, where the divide between the haves and the have nots is getting wider. Sometimes it is poverty, other times education/IQ, other times political. It is happening the whole world over unfortunately, including I have to sadly say the UK.

Watch this!

I posted it in the other thread as well, but I think this is kinda important for people to realize.

Magnitsky List

Wonder why the Administration was against it? Somebody having their fingers in the pie?

---

Michiel, that video has been posted so many times in here, I don't believe anybody is going to view it again. And besides, it's rather dated. And besides, the method to reduce income inequality boils down to two perspectives.

1. Forcibly take from the rich and give to the poor by an active government of men (***) who are just as faulty as the ones they are taking from or

2. Give the poor as much opportunity to rise up to the working class and compete fairly to knock down the complacent big businesses by A) simplifying the rules so as many people as possible understand them and B) quit rewarding failure.

Our current ruling class (by the way, are part of the rich class in that tired video) are bleeding the working class (the geese who are laying the golden eggs) in the name of supporting the fast growing dependant class.

More government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Ah great, someone beat me spreading this information. You are right, it is a pretty old video. Still, I find its contents shocking and as far as I'm aware, nothing has been done to address this.

As for 'simplifying the rules' and 'stop rewarding failure' you realize that under that exact same motto the US government has allowed this income gap to be created in the first place.

Given the things you have stated here and in the other thread, I'm going to assume that you are unaware of the policy of 'trickle down economics' which is exactly what you are promoting and what the US government has been doing for the past few decades. It essentially means spending as much money on helping rich people (the supposed 'job creators') be more successful through tax breaks and what not. The idea behind it is that if you rich people are successful, their business grows and they can hire more people thus improving employment rates and making everyone richer.

The result? Economic bubbles, a financial sector that is unhealthy and unstable, and a massive wealth movement from the middle class towards the upper class (the '1%'), outsourcing, rising poverty rates, and overall economic instability. Economic instability that will eventually result in social unrest. The whole occupy wall street was but a small vanguard of what is still to come if nothing changes.

Another dull subject. :-(

Cheers.

Lol...;)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Well, now you have highlighted one of the worlds biggest scams. i.e Mexicans that infiltrate over the border, then deliberately have a child to ensure that they don't get sent back.

Biggest scams? More like biggest racist stereotype. I'd like to see some data on that. I am quite sure there are far bigger scams.

Mexico has one of the world's largest economies, it is the tenth largest oil producer in the world, the largest silver producer in the world and is considered both a regional power and middle power.

Then perhaps someone could explain why so many Mexicans don't want to live there in their own country. The whole place has been a PITA since 1821.

War on drugs.

---

Reality Internet Personality

1. Forcibly take from the rich and give to the poor by an active government of men (***) who are just as faulty as the ones they are taking from

Yep, fO shO. The Government are Greater and Better Thieves than...

by an active government of men

yO seen hOw many wOmens are in Hustler's Gubment?

The DEM/Libs Have wOn. The Pukes can have The WH, HOR, and Senate and It Would Not Matter. DEM/Libbin' is DA POWWA.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

"Less government" = Somalia today.

Be careful what you wish for. Or to be more precise, be careful about applying simple solutions to complex problems.

I agree with "stop rewarding failure." Let the banks and GM go bust. We need to add "stop rewarding the rich for being rich" and "stop penalizing the poor for being poor".

---

simple solutions

"stop rewarding the rich for being rich" and "stop penalizing the poor for being poor".

So, Complex Problems can Be Solved by quoting "Simple Statements".

Right, Broheim, Righto. Absolutely Absolute. B/W. fO shO

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The Western world is a capitalist society, therefore there will always be haves and have nots. Some haves will have worked hard and earned it, some will not have done. Some have nots have brought it on themselves, some haven't. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need looks good on paper, but Communism and its variants have been shown not to work in practice.

Surely the middle way here is to provide everyone with a basic standard of living to avoid poverty, whilst providing a system where those that choose to work harder or longer can directly benefit from their labours. If your neighbour complains you have a newer car than him you simply say, If you worked the overtime I do so could you, your choice. But I expect it's too simplistic to work.

The thing was that back in the initial decades following WW2 the difference between the have's and the have not's wasn't that big. Sure, there was a small elite of millionaires and billionaires. But the majority of people lived quite comfortably in the middle class, with an income that afforded them to buy a house, a car and some luxury goods. But today that has changed. Today, the middle class is dead or dying. Especially in the United States, the middle class of today is only marginally better off than the lower class. The vast majority of the wealth lies with the top 1% percent. 1% of the American population owns nearly all the stocks. 1% owns more than half of the countries GDP. And this is a really bad thing, because capitalism depends on a strong and healthy middle class to survive. Its the middle class that does most of the consuming and its the middle class that therefor keeps the economy running. 1% of the people cannot possibly consume enough to keep the economy running. And generally what they consume remains within that 1%. Look, if a middle class guy buys a car, he buys a middle class car. If a millionaire buys a car, he doesn't just buy a car, he buys a Ferrari. And if he buys a watch he doesn't buy a Casio watch, he buys a Rolex. And if he buys a suit, he buys an Armani suit. That money keeps circulating within a very confined environment of high end retailers, while middle class money generally circulates in a much wider environment of middle class retailers, thus benefiting a much larger part of the economy.

This is actually what caused the economic crisis. Because the middle class did not have a pay rise since the 1980's the elites have tried to find other ways to ensure that middle class consumption remained stable. So what did they do? Well since they got a lot of money to spare, they essentially loaned out parts of their wealth. Credit cards, 'cheap' loans, etc. That kept the middle class spending money and consuming thus keeping the economy running. But all they did was create a bubble, which burst in 2008 when someone finally realized that all this time the majority of people were actually above their means.

The solution is problematic though. If one tiny fraction owns the majority of wealth, in an economic environment where economic growth is relatively sparse, how do you strengthen the middle class without forced wealth redistribution? How can you make sure that millionaires give up a substantial chunk of their wealth and how do you make sure that chunk of wealth flows back towards the 99%? Well, the answer is probably 'you don't'. The elites control the top and as a result the top will not take the measures that are required because that would hurt their own interest. Not to mention that they have managed to convince a substantial part of the population in America that being poor and disenfranchised is something to be proud off. That working 2-3 service industry jobs just to pay for rent and food is a good thing. That having no access to healthcare is great. That not being able to afford college or exit college with tens of thousands of dollars in debt is how its supposed to work.

+1

What a breath of fresh air.

---

Though this is appropriate, from the Washington post.

Now that was about to be given an excellent rating. However, you still fail to grasp that others do as you do and also, believe it or not, take some of your excellent suggestions onboard and act on them.

What destroyed your post was this: -

At least I make some effort to change it rather than just moan about it.

Unless you know 100% that the moaners are doing just that, how about refraining from destroying what are considered to be damned excellent replies by leaving that crap out of them?

---

:) too much hands-on experience and always hated office politics, prefer getting the job done and move to the next, has tended to colour my judgement sometimes.
I still say the best solution is to get all the ***************** & *********** and either send them to a war zone or give them to me to meet my favourite giant...

..he stands 7.62 metres tall.

---

The well known Pareto Principle or 80-20 rule states that 80% of a country's wealth is owned by 20% of the population. There is of course an elite 1% or 2% but I wouldn't say they own half the country, at least not in the UK.

Again, I direct you to that 'tired' video I posted on the previous page. Though I'd say that 80-20 rule is far from sustainable in the long run as this too sort of excludes a viable middle class.

What you do is to bolster the Middle Class that is the grass roots of a country, by :-

• Not taxing them out of existence, and making it worthwhile to work hard and get on, and to have a pride in improving themselves.
  
  
• You stop all this silly nonsense of Councils refusing planning permission for a new housing development unless 25% are "affordable homes" which in plain English means one parent families with feral kids.
  
  
• You put an end to a welfare dependant society that we have become, by withdrawing benefits from those that WON'T work except for basic necessities.
  
  
• You cap all this unlimited Immigration draining society values, whilst allowing for service industry jobs that have to be maintained.
  
  
• You stop the compensation culture we inherited from the USA, where unscrupulous lawyers are allowed to advertise "no win no fee" which encourages frivolous claims as in "I slipped on a grape and sprained my ankle". Tough you should have looked where you were going.
  

I fear that most of those solutions are just the standard drivel that the elites come up with to distract people from the real issues. I mean sure, tax breaks for the middle class are not a bad idea, but that is ignoring the real issue, namely that the middle class did not have a pay rise since the early 1980's. Of course, real pay increased, but only so much to offset inflation. In the meantime, the elites have seen their income skyrocket since the 80's through a combination of tax breaks as well as just giving themselves bigger bonuses and bigger salaries every year.

Aside from that, the whole idea that we have created an 'entitlement society' where poor people are just seen as 'lazy' is a myth created by such wonderful people like Thatcher, Reagan and Murdoch and his little media empire. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people hates living on welfare, especially if they have worked their entire lives. In and individualistic society such as ours, being dependent on others for food and housing is considered by most welfare recipients as shameful and deeply hurts their pride and the way they evaluate their own self worth. Why do you think that mental illnesses such as depression occur most often to people who are unemployed, poor or on welfare? Furthermore, the language we use against poor people is dangerous. We have allowed ourselves to be dumbed down by these right wing talking heads to the point where everything we do is valued only in terms of economic worth. Poor people are disgusting losers because they don't have much money or do not contribute enough to the economy. People who study the humanities and social sciences and as a result have a harder time find a job are idiots for not picking a study with better job prospects. But almost no one stops and wonders whatever happened to all the other ways to evaluate someones worth. There used to be a dozen of other ways in which we evaluated the actions of ourselves and others.

Immigration is again one of those issues that have been blown way out of proportion. Immigration does not hurt your societies values, nor does it represent the danger that certain media outlets have you believe. In general, immigration only benefits a country. In economic terms it has increased the GDP of the UK, since immigrants tend to do the jobs British people don't feel like doing or are overqualified to do, so immigrants fill in the job gaps. In non economic terms, immigrants greatly contribute to society itself in all kinds of ways. Religious diversity is a good thing. Cultural diversity translates itself positively in a whole range of ways, from foreign cuisine to different styles of fashion to different forms of artistic expression. Having a overwhelmingly monoculture is bland, boring and inevitably results in stagnation and later on decline. On top of that, its physically impossible to achieve such a thing in this globalizing world.

Finally the compensation culture or the planning commission not giving out enough building permits are not problems that hurt the middle class in such a significant way. At best they are annoyances.

Most of your post is about the USA, even though you have a Netherlands flag in your avatar. I can't make too many comments about America as I don't live there, and don't have any in depth knowledge of the problems they face. What I do know is that I have seen my country's standards of life go downhill the last 20 years and I don't like it one bit. At least I make some effort to change it rather than just moan about it.

The US and the UK have followed a similar devastating economic policy. The result are a similar unequal distribution of wealth (the gini coefficient for the US and the UK is awfully similar). And sure, I'm Dutch, but that does not prevent me from reading about the US or the UK. And most of what I've written here is based on the ideas and arguments from Tony Judt. I strongly suggest you read his book 'Ill fares the land'. Its a very interesting read.

According to a 2002 book, "Who owns Britain" two-thirds of Britain is owned by 0.36% of the population.

Some of them;
the Duke of Buccleuch, with his 240,000 acres;
the Duke of Northumberland, who owns 131,000 acres;
the Duke of Westminster, with 129,000 acres taking in much of Belgravia, as well as the centre of Liverpool.

Edit] Daily Mail - Look who owns Britain (2010)

"For the rich the pursuit of land is as important as it’s ever been. They receive subsidies and most of their assets are held in trust, avoiding inheritance tax."

Nothing new there then.....

---