How The Other Continent Lives

Douglas Massey writing in the new Miller-McCune magazine says that if we want people to stop coming here from Mexico then we need to do for Mexico what the EU did for Spain as that country was brought into the European Union -- full economic integration complete with generous payments and other assistance aimed at upgrading the poorer country's institutions.

An alternative immigration model from Europe -- the long Finnish-Russian border where "enforcement first" plus bad weather seems to keep the immigrants out across a sharp economic gradient -- is profiled by Elna Nykänen in Monocle, though you need to subscribe to read the article. Long story short, Finland invests a lot in its border patrol (they don't, after all, have global power projection ambitions), Finland's high level of homogeny makes Russian illegal immigrants stand out in tiny border towns, and if you try to cross the border too far from an official border crossing you find yourself truly in the middle of nowhere with no roads and many wolves.

Comments

I've long thought we need something like what Massey advocates -- what I've thought of as a "Marshall Plan for Mexico."

If you think of "economic opportunity in the United States" as a good, a commodity that people want, it's no surprise that we've been largely ineffectual in stopping illegal immigration. All our various enforcement efforts are doing is raising the cost of that highly inelastic good. And as any economist can tell you, raising the price of an inelastic good does relatively little to affect the quantity demanded.

What is needed is an economic substitute. If Mexicans can substitute away from "economic opportunity in the United States" and toward "economic opportunity in Mexico," we'll see the number of illegal immigrants plummet. Because who wants to go look for a job thousands of miles from home in a foreign land where you're a scapegoat who doesn't speak the language if there's a job right at home?

Posted by Jason F | April 14, 2008 10:39 AM

You shouldn't have mentioned wolves. Mark Krikorian will get ideas.

Posted by Marshall | April 14, 2008 10:47 AM

The EU did the same thing in Ireland; the transformation is amazing.

Posted by Tighe | April 14, 2008 10:50 AM

Actually, quite a few people living on the Russian side of Finnish border speak a dialect of Finnish, Karelian, so they could blend OK. Crossing the border in winter should be easy for folks who love cross country skying.

So either Russian/Soviet border patrols were doing a better job, or Finns made good effort to discourage the employment of illegal immigrants. (It is also possible that quite a few Karelians did cross the border and Finns quietly accepted them )

Posted by piotrb | April 14, 2008 10:56 AM

full economic integration complete with generous payments and other assistance aimed at upgrading the poorer country's institutions

And also full political integration.

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 10:57 AM

Mexico also has a tremendous amount of economic potential, so this may well be an investment that would pay off in the long run even holding aside the immigration issue.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 10:59 AM

and if you try to cross the border too far from an official border crossing you find yourself truly in the middle of nowhere with no roads and many wolves

Also, isn't this already the case for the Mexico-US border? Maybe not the wolves, but it is plenty dangerous to cross the border out in the middle of the desert - say the Cabeza Prieta NWR.

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 11:04 AM

And also full political integration.

Feature, not bug.

Posted by Christmas | April 14, 2008 11:05 AM

I agree with the Marshall Plan for Mexico idea, though implementation is such a tricky issue. I am generally against direct aid, so how do we help Mexico develop a vibrant economy without making them aid dependent? Such a tough question. Though it think it amusing that those who oppose illegal immigration generally don't support the massive aid to Mexico that is required to stem the flow of immigrants.

Posted by freddiemac | April 14, 2008 11:07 AM

full economic integration complete with generous payments and other assistance aimed at upgrading the poorer country's institutions

And also full political integration.

Spain's still a separate country, Al, you dope. It's not "fully politically integrated" with any other country just because it's joined the EU.

Posted by ajay | April 14, 2008 11:12 AM

Structural funds to Mexico would certainly be a good idea.

Having said that, I think that this article makes certain assumptions which I don't think are valid.

The reason why Americans are anti-Mexican immigration is not because they are getting Spanish-descended, fair looking, english-speaking Mexicans. It's because they are getting the Mexicans of Indian ancestry, who usually have very low educational level and few english speaking skills.

Going back to Spain, the clearest parallel involving Spain and immigration is Moroccan and other Maghrebi migrants in Spain. These migrants usually look different from Spaniards, speak a different language and (even worse) practice a religion which is seen with suspicion by Spaniards. The parallels with the U.S.'s treatment of Mexicans is quite striking....

I recently went to Mexico for the first time in 24 years, and I was shocked at how Americanized the place has become (though I will admit that I only visited the DF). When I went to Mexico in the early-to-mid 80s (twice, 1982 and 1984), Anti-Americanism and quasi-autarchy was the ideologicaly standard of the land.

Finally, this article also focuses mainly on otwo factors as to why Spain properly integrated into Europe (i.e., structural funds and labor mobility). However, there is a huge difference between Spain in the 1970s (and Ireland in the 1970s and Poland in the 90s/00s) and Mexico in the 90s and today: literacy and a high educational level.

It is important to keep this in mind, because it's a lot easier to integrate a country with a higher educational level than one without it.

Posted by JRVJ | April 14, 2008 11:14 AM

freddiemac,

The more or less obvious answer to that question is just more economic integration, because its proximity to the huge U.S. consumer market is bound to make Mexico an economic success as long as nothing is standing in the way of that happening. In that sense NAFTA was a decent start insofar as it lowered tariffs, but the U.S. still subsidizes way too many industries (e.g., corn, to the point cheap American corn was driving Mexican corn out of the market, when it should be the other way around). And eventually a common currency could make a lot of sense.

The slightly less obvious answer is that Mexico would benefit greatly from increased investment in education and infrastructure, and those are the sorts of investments which could indirectly be best for the United States as well. So if one was going to provide direct aid, I'd suggest something like education grants/loans and perhaps also joint infrastructure projects (integrated highways, railways, port systems, and so on) where the U.S. pays a share proportionate to its likely share of the economic benefits as opposed to its share of direct usage.

By the way, you are right that all this scares the dickens out of some of the same people who also feel threatened by Mexican immigrants, even though all this would likely slow down immigration from Mexico. The basic problem appears to be that some people believe this is all a zero-sum game, so if something is good for Mexico, it must be bad for the United States.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 11:31 AM

But I thought we needed to renegotiate NAFTA so we can take jobs back from Mexico? I'm so confused.

Posted by right | April 14, 2008 11:32 AM

Feature, not bug.

For whom?

Posted by Al | April 14, 2008 11:57 AM

I can see this idea going over great outside bloggertown. Tax U.S. citizens to pay for massive education and infrastructure improvements in Mexico when the U.S. infrastructure and education system is starved for funds. Another political winner from the democratic think tanks.

Posted by Helter | April 14, 2008 11:59 AM

Hey Matt, here's a quiz question for you: which party has come out strongly against further trade deals that would accomplish your goal? In particular, which two candidates for President have come out strongly against such integration?

For extra credit, what set of advocated trade and tax policies, if enacted, closely mirror what Herbert Hoover did back in 1931-32?

Posted by James Robertson | April 14, 2008 12:06 PM

Massey's definitely on the right track. We don't have a problem with Mexicans, we have a problem with Mexico. Spain and Ireland took advantage of EU aid, but perhaps even more important than the aid was what they had to do to get it in terms of funding education, infrastructure, etc., and especially in terms of transparency.

As Al suggests, the problem is in the corrupt Mexican bureaucracy much of which survives from the fairly recent days when it was still the longest-lived single party state in the world.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 14, 2008 12:09 PM

Sure, it would have been awfully nice if the free-traders had pitched an economic union with Canada and Mexico that involved deeply subsidizing Mexican development and explained why they thought this was in our best interest. I'm not sure I would have supported such a deal, but at least it would have been worthy of serious debate.

Unfortunately, they checked the box for pie-in-the-sky marketing of "free trade agreements", claiming magical benefits for rich and poor alike in all countries, while doing nothing to address the structural economic problems in Mexico, the labor black market in the US, or the job displacements in all 3 NAFTA nations.

I don't think progressives should be opposed to free trade on principle. But we should always be anti-bullshit. And this Colombia deal is a good opportunity to finally, belatedly draw the line.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 14, 2008 12:24 PM

the problem is in the corrupt Mexican bureaucracy much of which survives from the fairly recent days when it was still the longest-lived single party state in the world.

Which presumably means you wanted AMLO and the PRD to win the last elections, no?

Funny, because I didn't see much from the GOP (or the Democrats, for that matter) to suggest they'd prefer a government in Mexico City that OH NOES! might be on speaking terms with Hugo Chavez rather than one which deals with the working-class poor by hoping they go north of the border.

(Believe it or not, Mexico was not created as a Spanish-language Vegas to indulge the vices of Americans.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 14, 2008 12:48 PM

I'm horribly confused. I thought there was no push for a NAU? But, now it's being promoted here as a possible option. I guess someone got an email or something!

As for Massey, I have trouble considering him to be an American:

[A report he authored says] Americans should abandon traditional national sovereignty as a sacrifice to libertarian principles of "free trade", including trafficking in cheap labor. Massey says the United States should "abandon its illusions" and "accept the reality, the necessity, of North American integration."

Posted by TLB | April 14, 2008 12:50 PM

Re Matthew's comment "if we want people to stop coming here from Mexico then we need to do for Mexico what the EU did for Spain as that country was brought into the European Union -- full economic integration complete with generous payments and other assistance aimed at upgrading the poorer country's institutions."
-------------
AC-130 Spectre gunships are a LOT cheaper --see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130. They can turn a horde of 10,000 people into fish chum in about 15 seconds.

Of course, that would hinder the progress of Hillary Clinton's NAFTA -- would stop all those Mexican billionaires from coming here and opening up corporations to give all of our poor people jobs.

Posted by Don Williams | April 14, 2008 1:27 PM

A few problems with this. The first is that Spaniards aren't Mexicans. The average IQ of Spaniards is 99 versus 87 for Mexicans. It's easier to economically integrate populations with similar intelligence levels, as was the case with Spain and the rest of Europe. Mexican-Americans have failed even after several generations in this country to assimilate to educational or economic norms here.

The second problem with this is that money isn't what Mexico (a relatively rich country and an exporter of oil and other natural resources) needs most -- it needs effective, accountable, and non-corrupt government, and that's something that no amount of American money can provide.

The third problem with this is that integrating Spain into the EU didn't end the EU's problem of unskilled immigrants; now illegals from Africa pile into rickety boats and sail to Spain, where they are attracted by the EU's generous welfare benefits.

It's also worth noting that Spain is going through a real estate bust right now that's as bad or worse than ours, no doubt caused by Republican policies.

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 1:59 PM

With all the slanging of the Mexican 'longest lasting single party state', it's worth remembering that that party had its virtues. The Institutional Revolutionary Party did in fact grow out of a genuine social revolution, and was intended to be a mass party that integrated the interests of the poor and the rich, the right and the left. They were pretty socialist in the 1930s and carried out a sweeping and extensive land reform that seriously improved the lives of Mexican farmers. Of course they became more a party of established elites in their later years, and fell far short of needed social reforms, and by the 1990s were pretty thoroughly neoliberal. Still for all that they were never as contemptuous of the poor as many of the full-blooded right-wing oligarchies elsewhere in Latin America. This is probably why Mexico unlike so many other countries never had a serious armed guerrilla threat from the left.

It's worth remembering the PRD sells itself as a 'return' to the 'original' PRI of the '30s.

Posted by Hector | April 14, 2008 2:34 PM

Helter,

Sure, all this is probably politically unfeasible.

That said, there is no reason it has to be either/or: you can better fund education and infrastructure in the U.S. as well, and in fact with infrastructure in particular it may make sense to do some projects together with our immediate neighbors. And again, a good first step before even getting to these things would be just eliminating a lot of subsidies--although I guess that is not politically feasible either.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 2:50 PM

"A few problems with this. The first is that Spaniards aren't Mexicans. The average IQ of Spaniards is 99 versus 87 for Mexicans."

I'm all for for using IQ as a discriminating metric providing it eliminates from commenting on this blog those moderately above-average (who are notorious at overestimating their intellectual competency)...such as Fred.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | April 14, 2008 2:58 PM

Hector,

Mexico does have a leftwing guerrilla movement in Chiapas, the EZLN. And Chile's rightwing dictatorship (prior to allowing a peaceful transition to democracy) established the economic reforms and institutions that have enabled Chile's economy to outperform Mexico's on a per-capita basis, despite Mexico's natural advantages (proximity to the U.S., oil, etc.).

Keith M Ellis, feel free to provide an example of me overestimating my intellectual competency.

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 3:15 PM

Fred: It's also worth noting that Spain is going through a real estate bust right now that's as bad or worse than ours, no doubt caused by Republican policies.

The Spanish were and are cementheads of the first order, with an unsustainable level of growth based on construction. Getting too focused on a particular industry is to forget that its rationale is to meet the needs of other segments of the economy. There just weren't enough Brits to keep the Spanish boom going.

Posted by cmholm | April 14, 2008 3:18 PM

Fred your a dumbass

Posted by ART | April 14, 2008 3:22 PM

"There just weren't enough Brits to keep the Spanish boom going."

Or Germans.

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 3:22 PM

Fred your a dumbass

Posted by ART | April 14, 2008 3:23 PM

"Fred your a dumbass"

What an elegant refutation. Touché

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 3:26 PM

I hate to stick my hand in the piles of poo that are Fred's comment to pull out the worthwhile comment, but I'd rather rather have Mexican government be more responsive to its citizens than enact some sort of Marshall plan. The good news is that the Mexican government, with its now-competitive elections, is making progress in that front. You can see with its struggles with narcoterrorists that it still needs to make progress. Of course, I'd also like to see American government be more responsive to its citizens.

As a side note, since nobody commented about Finland yet, one difference between Finland/Russia and the other border policy examples is that Russia invaded and took land from Finland during WW2.

Posted by American Citizen | April 14, 2008 3:40 PM

The Finnish social democracy is one of the great success stories of the last 100 years. As I wrote in 2007:

We are constantly told that the long border and large disparity in income between the U.S. and Mexico makes it absolutely impossible for America to enforce its immigration laws.

And yet it is almost never mentioned that a not terribly dissimilar frontier exists within Europe: the 833 mile border between Finland (which has a higher per capita income than Germany, France, or Britain) and corrupt and dysfunctional Russia—the Mexico of Europe.

While America's per capita GDP is 4.1 times Mexico's, Finland's is 2.7 times Russia's.

Even though Finland has the kind of Nordic welfare state that attracts immigrants (for example, 12 percent of neighboring Sweden's population is foreign-born), it still has one of the lowest percentages of immigrants of any Western European country: only two percent of its 5.2 million residents.

And a substantial fraction of Finland's immigrants consist of spouses of Finns, Finnish-speaking citizens of Russia (there are pockets of Finnish-speakers throughout the forests of northern Russia), Estonians, whose Uralic language is closest to Finnish, and Swedes (Swedish is the second official language). Third World immigrants make up less than one percent of the population.

This hasn't exactly hurt Finland. The World Economic Forum's poll of 11,000 global business leaders ranks Finland as possessing the second-most competitive economy in the world. (The U.S. is sixth.)

Transparency International finds Finland tied with Iceland and New Zealand for the honor of being the least corrupt country on Earth. (The U.S. is merely tied for 20th.)

In 2005, the Washington Post sent two reporters to Finland for several weeks to find out why Finland has "the world's best educational system, produces such talented musicians and architects, and has more cell phones per capita than Japan and America."

Sitting here in my pajamas in California, I could have saved the Washington Post all the expense. The most important reason why Finland is so Finlandy is because it is full of Finns.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070319_diversity.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 4:07 PM

The WSJ, apparently short of story ideas, also had a recent article attempting to explain the success of Finland's educational system.

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 4:14 PM

What Mexico needs is straight out of the progressive playbook:

- Anti-trust enforcement.

- Higher taxes on the rich.

- More investment in public schools and honest government.

It's ridiculous that the world's richest man lives in Mexico, where the GDP is an order of magnitude smaller than the U.S.'s: telecom monopolist Carlos Slim. When Mexico's land line company was privatized in the early 1990s, he snapped it up and now charges extremely high prices that keep phones unaffordable for millions of Mexicans. It's estimated that monopolies cut one percentage point per year off the Mexican economic growth rate, which adds up, due to the power of compound interest, to a vast shortfall over the decades.

http://vdare.com/sailer/070708_slim.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 4:23 PM

What Mexico needs is straight out of the progressive playbook:

- Anti-trust enforcement.

- Higher taxes on the rich.

- More investment in public schools and honest government.

It's ridiculous that the world's richest man lives in Mexico, where the GDP is an order of magnitude smaller than the U.S.'s: telecom monopolist Carlos Slim. When Mexico's land line company was privatized in the early 1990s, he snapped it up and now charges extremely high prices that keep phones unaffordable for millions of Mexicans. It's estimated that monopolies cut one percentage point per year off the Mexican economic growth rate, which adds up, due to the power of compound interest, to a vast shortfall over the decades.

http://vdare.com/sailer/070708_slim.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 4:26 PM

American progressives could also push for affirmative action in Mexico, since discrimination against the darker-skinned individuals holds down vast numbers of people. As President Fox's foreign minister Jorge Castaneda wrote in The Atlantic in 1995:

"But the inequality is not simply economic; it is also social. A government undersecretary (one level down from the top echelon of public service) earned in 1994 (prior to devaluation) approximately $180,000 after taxes, excluding health insurance and perquisites but including all sorts of bonuses, premiums, and expense accounts -- almost twice what his U.S. counterpart earned before taxes. His chauffeur (provided by the government, of course) made about $7,500 a year. The official addresses the employee with the familiar "tu," while the latter must speak to the former with the respectful "usted." The official and his peers in the business and intellectual elites of the nation tend to be white (there are exceptions, but they are becoming scarcer), well educated, and well traveled abroad. They send their two children to private schools, removed from the world of the employee. The employee and his peers tend to be mestizo, many are barely literate, and they have four or five children, most of whom will be able to attend school only through the fifth grade."

The blond Castaneda, by the way, is a perfect example of the Mexican elite. His Soviet mother was a translator for Stalin's regime at the UN when she met Castandeda's father, Mexico's ambassador to the UN.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97feb/mexico/castaned.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 4:34 PM

The key to Spain's boom was construction of retirement homes in sunny Spain for Northern Europeans. Sunny Mexico, with its cheap labor, would be an ideal retirement destination for American Baby Boomers, but instead we imported millions of Mexican illegal immigrants to build more needless housing in the U.S.

There has been some construction of American retirement housing in Mexico, but Mexico's opaque anti-gringo property laws (which allowed, for example, the dispossession of 300 American homeowners in Baja in 2000 without compensation) have slowed this natural development.

Also, Mexico's leftwing party has constantly been cheated out of power -- definitely in 1988, possibly in 2006, and arguably in 1994 and 2000 -- so nobody knows what the (justifiably) angry left will do regarding Americans' property rights in Mexico when it finally gets power. A period of leftwing rule in Mexico that respects foreigners' property rights would do much to relieve anxiety, but we won't have a chance to see that until 2012 at the earliest.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 4:55 PM

Mexico does have a leftwing guerrilla movement in Chiapas, the EZLN.

Uh-huh.

Though it's fun to see Old Fart Fred trying to act as if his opinions are more sophisticated than 'MEXICANS SURE ARE DUMB'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 14, 2008 5:23 PM

"Though it's fun to see Old Fart Fred trying to act as if his opinions are more sophisticated than 'MEXICANS SURE ARE DUMB'."

Just as it's fun to see Pseudomonas act as if his comments are more sophisticated than 'FRED IS AN OLD FART'.

Actually, it would be more fun if he had something intelligent to add to this discussion. No such luck though.

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 5:34 PM

In general, you'll notice that among progressives knowing anything about Mexico or Mexicans is considered in poor taste.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 5:55 PM

I have to say that Monocle sounds like the sort of magazine which would be read by a ... what is the phrase ... "trust fund scumbag".

Did you start reading it to bait Petey?

Posted by otto | April 14, 2008 5:58 PM

A little late to the party, but...

So either Russian/Soviet border patrols were doing a better job, or Finns made good effort to discourage the employment of illegal immigrants. (It is also possible that quite a few Karelians did cross the border and Finns quietly accepted them )

The world's worst "congestion" problem is likely on the roads between Finland and Russia. Imagine 50 miles of trucks a few feet apart waiting for their chance to brave the Russian border Nazis who don't care how many days people have to wait for their turn. (Not kidding.)

A couple of years ago the Finnish border guard went on strike. There was nothing else on our side of the border except notes telling people that there are no border formalities, anyone is free to come and go. Nothing really notable happened, since the Russians are so paranoid that they did all the work of the missing Finnish border guards.

During Soviet times, the Russians put a lot of pressure on Finland to return defectors, so that had no chance of developing into an immigration issue. Of course, that would've been the time when Finland would've mostly welcomed border jumpers, so often "tracking down" defectors as agreed with the USSR meant "finding" them in Sweden. Not even Finns from the other side who'd easily blend in could hide. Funnily, enforcement worked for us when nobody except the far left wanted it and it's not working for the Americans when everybody except the far left wants it.

Unless you can make the Mexicans as eager to hold on to their citizens as the Russians are, there isn't much to learn from this for you. Or perhaps you could tie Mexican border enforcement to economic incentives, eg. agree to an aid package for border regions that would get an automatic yearly deduction based on the numbers of illegals detained in the US?

Posted by jaakkeli | April 14, 2008 6:38 PM

Re: "The good news is that the Mexican government, with its now-competitive elections, is making progress in that front."

Are you kidding? Mexico's last election was stolen. Their current president is a conservative who is turning Mexico into a police state--at the request of our government, of course. Google Plan Mexico, also known as The Merida Plan. And do you have any idea what a catastrophe NAFTA has been for Mexico?

Why can't we just leave Latin America alone?!Stop imposing trade plans that impoverish them, and stop meddling in their elections.

Posted by Helen | April 14, 2008 7:48 PM

"Mr. President, we must not allow... a Predator Gap!"

I think we've hit on the solution to whatever problem our porous border is supposed to be, with that bit about the wolves in Finland keeping out the Russian "whitebacks" who would otherwise brave the snow drifts to cross the border. What we need along the Rio Grande is not some inanimate barrier -- we need scarier predators!

Or not. How many illegal immigrants have been eaten by wolves or frozen in snow drifts along the Finnish border, compared to how many illegals who have died of thirst and exposure trying to cross our border badlands? I would be surprised if our border doesn't maintain the higher theshhold of terror. Yet still they come. The fact that they do should tell us that whatever problem it is supposed to be that people want to get into this country, the solution doesn't lie in more terror and coercion. We've already pretty well maxed out on that.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | April 14, 2008 10:24 PM

Hello? I'm cold and there are wolves after me.

Posted by Grandpa Simpson | April 14, 2008 10:57 PM

Anybody with any brains knows how you handle wolves or any predator.

The solution is similar to the movie "Throw Momma From the Train"...

You take either your youngest kid or your oldest parent and throw him in the path of the predator while you run the other way. If there are more predators, start working your way through the family until only you are left.

If there's still a predator after you, you didn't breed well enough and you deserve to die.

This is called "Nature eliminating the stupid."

Otherwise known as "evolution."

Oh, wait, the right wing trolls don't believe in evolution.

My bad. Never mind.

But the same idea applies to cops at any border. Cops are just predators in suits with guns instead of teeth.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 11:24 PM

"Oh, wait, the right wing trolls don't believe in evolution."

We right wing trolls do believe in evolution; you are the ones who think evolution somehow came to a complete stop just before humans migrated out of Africa -- otherwise, you wouldn't refuse to believe that there are any average differences in capabilities between different races today. You are liberal creationists. You believe in evolution from the neck down.

Posted by Juan | April 14, 2008 11:36 PM

The last known time the wolves ate a person in Finland was over a century ago, but that's because people really avoid hanging out alone at night in places where they might run into wolves. Some gulag escapees trying to get to Finland have likely been eaten by wolves without anyone knowing.

The wolves kill dogs, cats and reindeer all the time, which makes them a rather hot political issue for some. The rural people want them dead, the Brussels liberals think we need more. One day some clueless urban liberal snob is going to suggest that the rural people "cling to their guns" because they're "bitter" and his party will be finished.

Posted by jaakkeli | April 15, 2008 8:08 AM