We have enough troubles of our own with uneccessary immigration and movement of people to worry ourselves with India, which provides us with taxi drivers who can't find their around, while they are telling us that they are really engineers or IT experts.

The most efficient form of birth control is affluence. I read (by some obscure reckoning), that fifty four percent of the world population falls into the category of middle class.
Could we be heading in the right direction?

We are also lead to believe, that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing.
So, can we now extrapolate simply that the problem of overpopulation is the fault of the poor.

I also observe, we now wish to "respectfully" euthanise ourselves in the West. Maybe we could extend the service to the worlds poor!

Hear, hear and well said Dan. Anyone even remotely economically literate know that deliberately improving the lot of the less well off, the poor and downtrodden, improves the wealth creation opportuniies of all those further up the food chain or euphemistically the socio-economic ladder.

And seen in operation as China employed that as a deliberate, extremely pragmatic stratergy, to move over a billion folk out of endemic generational, enduring poverty.

To the ppoinnt they are now, arguably, our largest trading partner an second largest economy in the world, all happening as we went from being the third wealthiest economy in the world and down now below number thirty and just a tad aove a few of the better performing banana republics!
Alan B.

I think you got it wrong from your first sentence, Seral Sarker, and then you based the rest of your article on it's false premise.

Identity conflicts have been going on a lot longer than "decades now." Human beings are tribal and territorial. Always have been, always will be. It is part of the human condition. It is programmed in our DNA.

The population of Earth has doubled in the last fifty years. Many countries are hideously overpopulated and those countries are generally absolute economic basket cases. The desire for people from these over populated sheethole nations to move to other less populated and economically stable countries is becoming an overwhelming problem. We now have on our TV screens pictures of human waves of people fleeing their countries en masse and demanding to be admitted to other people's countries.

The countries these people wish to move into are mainly those ruled by the Europeans. But as your own article points out, they are even moving into other third world countries where living conditions are better. Of course, when European people object to this in their own countries, they are called "racists" by those among them who consider their own self image as moral puritans to be more important than the collective welfare of their own people.

But when non European minorities do exactly the same thing, protect their own territories and their own cultures from people of other countries with diametrically opposed cultural values, who would swamp them with sheer numbers, nobody calls them racists. I notice you did not call the Assamese racists for defending their own territory from endless immigration.

Oh, and thanks for blaming the white race British for all the problems in Assam today. It's OK. Us whites are used to people of other minority cultures blaming us for everything that ever went wrong in their own countries and suburbs, then calling us "racists." It is the default position for everybody who needs a scapegoat.

To Alon B

You mean when even the Socialists became smart enough to figure out that collective control of the economy was counter productive? And they embraced the western economic way of doing things while still keeping total political control?

After 50 years of screwing everything up, condemning their people to poverty and starvation, the Chinese socialists moderated their policies to conform to the free market. And you can't see that this proves that the right wing free market world was right all along? And lets not forget that it is easy to become technologically advanced and prosperous when you have a government that sees nothing wrong with stealing every creative persons copyright.

The yanks nailed it, when they said that they would always be ahead of the ruskies and the Chinese. Because they have to discover it, invent it, create it, and manufacture it, before the ruskies and the Chinese can steal it.

Your position is pure virtue signalling. "I am for the poor and you are for the rich, therefore, I am therefore better than you."

If you ever had the wit to see past your own slogans, you could realise that of 47 countries which tried big government socialism, which promised equality and free everything, all of them failed. It is better being a poor person in a free market country run by right wingers, than a socialist country run by socialists. Ask the Cubans and Venezuelans.

But socialists will always pop up because there will always be poor people dumb enough to fall for the pitch of free money. And if there are not, well we will just import more of them from other countries. Best of all, the people giving away the free money are not giving away there own money. Oh no. They just look for golden geese and squeeze them until they honk and fly away