Despite all the opinions, I sense an underlying agreement among all posters that yes, certain changes are inevitable and most of us want to travel to as many spots as we can before national identities are completely blurred by Starbucks and communications.

The particular agents of change, the necessity of same, and the desirable response---that's a different story. Not much common ground there. But ... it's the differences that are so very interesting.

If I can ask this question without being totally pounced upon, why are there as many Starbucks in London as in Dallas, but not in Paris or Rome? I assume that Starbucks studies the market carefully before entering a city. What made London willing to embrace Starbucks when other cities have not?

Oooh!! ooooh! I can answer the Starbucks question without pouncing! :) Although I'm still bruised from prior comments...but the ones recently have been the substance for great thought!

I lived in Seattle...yes, Starbucks CENTRAL! Being from the Southeast originally I was not prepared for the effect dismal skies and drizzle have on your personality and willingness to get up out of bed! England has a very similar climate, although I do believe the clouds blow more quickly than just settle and sit like they do in the Puget Sound area. The sunshine goes a long way in making one happy and needing less caffeine for pep (although a nice iced tea goes a long way...we'd prefer our caffeine cold to hot here)...maybe areas where natural Vitamin D absorption is lacking has higher Starbucks per capita...that's my take anyhow!

Tara

Meaning to point out that more Londoners are not used to the dreary weather factor and need that punch...others around the country have adjusted well with hot tea.
Tara

Thanks for the explication, hanl. One can only hope that over time your friends' successes become more commonplace among the Frenchmen of North African extraction, and that the crisis of last October and November is never repeated.

Ira wrote:

"Just like happened in the US. All them furriners come over - Irish, Italians, Jews - and they elected that Roosevelt feller, and he raised the minum wage to 25 cts a HOUR, when you could hire a nigra for only 75 cts a day.

And labor unions

And confixatory taxes - espeshully the death tax.

And did I mention all them Jews taken over the country? and them blacks behaven as if they was white?

and them Messicans now taken jobs from white, god-fearin, christian Amurricans

and all of the 7-11 are owned by Koreans

and all the motels are owned by Pakis

and they won't let us have the Ten Commandments at the court house, but they let furriners take a drivers test in a furrin langwitch

and all a them little embreeos what they wants to murder

the whole country has gone to H**l."

LOL! That's a great comedic tone. However, you immediately reduced me to "intolerant white redneck" status, even after I presented a valid train of thought. You should try logical argument.

That's one thing I've noticed about socialists...they reduce anyone taking a contrarian stance as ignoramuses...as if expressing apprehensiveness towards the benefits of illegal immigration is a sure sign of ignorance. And they think of themselves as "empathizers". Pfft...

Hi ff,

>LOL! That's a great comedic tone.

Thank you

>However, you immediately reduced me to "intolerant white redneck" status,....

Please note that I was responding to the remark, not the person.

>That's one thing I've noticed about socialists...

Egad, sir. I hope that you aren't calling me a Socialist. :)

>...as if expressing apprehensiveness towards the benefits of illegal immigration is a sure sign of ignorance.

I do not hold that illegal immigration is a good thing.

However, here in the US, where about 1/4 of the current immigrants are illegal, there has arisen a great cry over the terrible illegals coming from Mexico and other points South who are taking jobs away from Americans, who are sopping up welfare dollars, and overworking our health care system.

It just ain't true.

Here in my corner of GA we have lots of short, brown-skinned guys who work construction and landscaping jobs. They work hard, live 4 to a room in cheap motels and send their money home.

They are here because they need the money and we need the labor.

((I))

And here in my corner of California it is true! Journeymen in the building trades are feeling the pinch and salaries are declining because employers can pay less.

ERs are closing because they're going broke treating illegals who pay nothing.

Schools are crowded and teachers overworked, compensating for non-English speakers whose parents refuse to follow the rules.

Of course we're a country of immigrants, but when our grandparents came there was a world of difference in how they got here and criteria they had to follow to do it.

Justifying illegal astounds me. It's breaking the law no matter how you slice it. The pluses are far outweighed by the minuses.

"Journeymen in the building trades are feeling the pinch and salaries are declining because employers can pay less...."

Undoubtedly and here's what I bet is ALSO happening:

The stockholders of any companies who have managed to reduce costs by "paying less" are absolutely delighted.

Companies are doing this all over the place except they call it "outsourcing" to residents of other countries.

But that's all beside the point I suppose....so far the only "answer" i have read here involves building walls and keeping people out.

OK..do it and then hope your next door neighbor's kid will cut your grass or clean your house....of course, you may have to pay them more but we know that MONEY has absolutely nothing to do with any of this don't we?

Getting back to the original context of the topic, I think Europe should tightly control immigration, legal and illegal. Put up walls, setup harsher laws, invest in less developed countries...do anything that will safeguard the continent from poor, unskilled immigration. This sounds cold, I know. But, IMO, it's absolutely necessary. I'm all for the highly skilled immigrant scheme the UK is using. They're attracting top talent from all over the world, and this seems to me like the ideal immigration plan. I don't care if you may think of me as racist or bigotted...which I'm not...but, in my view, Europe is far too valuable a socio-economic system to endanger destabilizing it through mass illegal unskilled immigration. The contributions of Europe in all aspectes of life have been MASSIVE. Any such region with extremely high output should be protected at all costs, for everyone's benefit.

The fact of the matter is that you have to live with immigration. It is pretty well unstoppable unless you are going to have a Berlin type wall at the border and shoot people.

I don't think anyone wants that. Because the US is conflicted over this issue, we have the mishmosh we have. Please remember that without immigrants, we would be hard pressed to find people to take entry level jobs without benefits--not to mention the immigrant who currently is responsible for cleaning your home.

Hi ff,

>...safeguard the continent from poor, unskilled immigration.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So who will do the work that poor, unskilled people do - unemployed college grads?

You might also want to keep in mind how many of those poor, unskilled immigrants are Europeans.

((I))

I think small countries like Holland is especially challenged when they have to absorb so many immigrants so rapidly no matter when they come from. It's the overwhelming speed and large numbers that will create a problem. Holland has a generous social support system and it's quickly becoming unaffordable.

I can empathize with the Dutch people who proudly identify themselves as a tolerant nation. The bloody murder of their film regisseur Van Gogh (great grandson of the artist) by a fanatic group of immigrants however made them feel that their freedom of speech is threatened by a foreign religion.

Their census prediction is that by 2010 the number of immigrants would reach 50% of the total population. I think there would be great concerns in the US if our population is to become 50 % muslim in such a short time.

Something like that will never be tolerated in small rich muslim countries (like Brunei for example) because their government are too smart to have an open immigration policy.

Excuse my poor grammar: small countries like Holland ARE.

In light of all the events in the Middle East and their global impact, I've been watching many programs on the Islam Channel (which isn't available in the U.S. but they hope to be broadcasting there soon). Kind of like the Muslim version of the Trinity channel or the 700 club. It's been quite interesting and eye opening. Listening to the call-in shows, you hear a very deep support for Hezbollah and Hamas from European, particularly British, Muslims. Along with a fervent wish for society, including Western Europe, to be governed by "sharia" law/codes. The advertisements are interesting as well.
http://www.islamchannel.tv/

Very interesting: when a person is converting to Islam, which may be done with no formal ceremony, <font color="red">&quot;A Christian should also say: I bear witness that Jesus is the slave and Messenger of Allaah.&quot; </font>

This statement was in red on the website; it has been copied as printed.

Interesting.

Do you think that Christians would think that Jesus is superior to Allah? If so, then what's the difference in outlook on that particular point of supremecy?

As usual, poor Dukey, you've missed the point by a mile. :(

BTilke, you might be interested in a book I am reading...very eye-opening. It is entitled, While Europe Slept, written by Bruce Bawer. Here's his bio: http://www.brucebawer.com/biog.htm. Since you have lived in Europe for awhile, it would be interesting to see if you have seen things in a similar way.