This election is about the First versus the Third World

I watched the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump last night, in the company of a few friends and fellow bloggers.  I wasn't wildly impressed by either candidate.  I'd score it a draw as far as its effect on the election is concerned.  I think most voters have already made up their minds by now.  Those that say they haven't won't find much in last night's debate to sway them, IMHO.

What did strike me was the contrast between the candidates' approaches to the rest of the world.  Donald Trump was emphatic about protecting American jobs and our national economy, if necessary by renegotiating international trade agreements, restricting immigration, etc.  Hillary Clinton was much more globalist in orientation, looking to admit more refugees, work together with other nations (whatever that means), and so on.  She basically saw the United States as just one nation among many, whereas Donald Trump saw it as the 'first among equals' with the right to put its own interests first.

I think that's the key to this election.  If you look at what's happening in Europe, with literally millions of refugees streaming into the continent from the Middle East and Africa, parts of it are rapidly taking on the character of the Third World from which they come - complete with Third World problems.  The ever-increasing sexual assaults on women?  That's the result of Third World attitudes, where women are possessions, first of their fathers, then of their husbands, and have little or no say in the way they're treated.  Third World men are treating First World women in the same way they treat their own women - and the First World is shocked and disgusted . . . but why?  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have understood that this was inevitable.  Merely admitting someone into First World borders doesn't wave a magic wand and transform their thinking and their attitudes.

In the same way, demands for benefits, welfare, etc. are stretching to the limit European social support structures and systems that were set up to deal primarily with the needs of local citizens.  No-one stopped to think that an influx of refugees would overwhelm them.  I'm not being racist when I observe that matters so simple as how to use a flush toilet are proving to be serious issues in certain nations and cities where Third World 'refugees' congregate.  These people have never had the opportunity to use such facilities before, and no-one in Europe could conceive of the need to teach adults how to use a modern toilet.  The result has been a sudden surge in broken, clogged and otherwise damaged sanitary facilities in the camps set up to house these people, and in the accommodation provided for them once they've made it through processing.  The European taxpayer is, of course, footing the bill for repairs.

This also ignores the fact that Europe is importing its own next generation of economic problems.  Unemployment among younger people in Europe is already extraordinarily high.  Spain reports a youth unemployment rate of 43.9% as of July this year.  Italy's at 39.2%, Greece is 47.7%, and France is 24.4%.  Germany, by contrast, has only 7.2% youth unemployment.  With nations already struggling to find jobs for their own younger people, how on earth are they going to offer employment to so many 'refugees'?  (Of course, they're mostly not 'refugees' at all.  They're economic migrants, using the fiction of being refugees to seek a better life elsewhere.  Unfortunately, they'll do so at the expense of the people of the countries they're overwhelming with their numbers.)

If Hillary Clinton becomes President, I think her policies - as expressed in her election materials, and during her comments last night - are almost guaranteed to bring more of the same problems to this country.  (They're already here, of course, in the millions of illegal aliens infesting our land;  but that problem is still manageable at present levels.  It won't be if the influx continues, and if the present infestation is not cut back drastically.)  Donald Trump, on the other hand, appears to be firmly against that, and wants to reserve American jobs for Americans.  I strongly support that perspective.  Sure, some immigration will be necessary.  I'm an immigrant myself, and I'm very grateful to this country for offering me the chance to make a fresh start and find a new home.  However, I brought with me skills that this country needed;  I entered legally;  and I've supported myself.  Illegal aliens don't do that.  Many come here with no skills at all.  They're a net drain on the economy, when you factor in health care and other support costs.  We can't afford that.  It's that simple.

The tide of economic migrants from the Third World to the First World is ever-increasing, because the populations of Third World countries have increased so drastically that they have no expectation of anything worthwhile if they stay there.  There will never be enough jobs, enough social support structures, enough housing, enough health care, to meet their needs:  so they're trying to move to a place that can offer them those things.  Unfortunately, by seeking to leech off the American or European taxpayer, they're imposing an impossible burden on us - one that's completely unsustainable.

That's what this election is all about.  If we allow Hillary Clinton's policies to prevail, the Third World will be all around us within a few years (it already is, in some parts of this country).  America will be dragged down - economically, socially, and in due course politically - to the level of most of South America.  If Donald Trump's policies prevail, the tide may yet be stemmed, and even, perhaps, reversed.  I'm not at all sure that Mr. Trump will make a good President;  but I am sure that in this area at least, the policies he's expressed are light years ahead of his opponent's.

Peter