Vote in Congress Tues. or Wed to stop Mexican trucks

[ag]

You're ignoring one of the most basic principles of economics: the invisible hand.

Sorry, though I agree w/ your point (globalization is, indeed, good for most of us, and, of course, not only for the rich), you are wrong about basic economics.  The modern formalization of the "invisible hand" hypothesis is what economists call the First Welfare Theorem.  It says that if you free the markets do their job, and if all people do the best for themselves, the resultant outcome will be Pareto Efficient. Even if you take it that all the assumptions of the theorem hold (and they are non-trivial), the rub is in the meaning of Pareto Efficiency.

A situation is efficient in the Pareto sense if it is impossible to improve anyone's wellbeing without hurting somebody else. That's all: essentially, resources are not wasted, not used inefficiently. However, in principle, it may not be inefficient to give everything in the world to me and make everybody else work for me for the subsistence wage (if makin one person free of my command makes me unhappier, that is).  Pareto efficiency says nothing about equality, nor does it say anything about everybody being happy. It could well be that 99% of the people are happier under the Pareto inefficient state of affairs then they'd be under an efficient one (in fact, democracy routinely contradicts efficiency, as the theory says it should).

I am saying all this not to contradict your main point, but, rather, to defend it. Bad argument in favor is worse than none at all.

Anyway, the situation we have here is very different. A very small but vocal group (mainly, actually, not even workers, but union bureaucrats) stands to gain from blocking a policy that would benefit an overwhelming majority of residents of both countries.  But as they are vocal, and as they are not averse to playing up the worst xenophobic and racist fears of the society, they win.

[angus]

OK - I've heard about this, but haven't seen details - so can somebod summarize for me UNBIASEDLY what the amendment would do?

as with all bills in the congress, if you're interested then turn off the television and get away from the talking heads and radio jockeys and read the text.  This one's especially short.  Here's the text that went from the house, as approved, to the senate committee:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110a5qv1Q::

"what will it do?"  So you think any of these posters has a crystal ball?  If they do, it's no more shiny and polished than yours.  Just use your imagination. 

imho, it'll do more harm than good, for both great nations.

[StateBoiler]

My state's 2 Republican senators split on the issue. Elizabeth Dole voted for it and Richard Burr voted against it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK - I've heard about this, but haven't seen details - so can somebod summarize for me UNBIASEDLY what the amendment would do?

as with all bills in the congress, if you're interested then turn off the television and get away from the talking heads and radio jockeys and read the text.  This one's especially short.  Here's the text that went from the house, as approved, to the senate committee:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110a5qv1Q::

"what will it do?"  So you think any of these posters has a crystal ball?  If they do, it's no more shiny and polished than yours.  Just use your imagination. 

imho, it'll do more harm than good, for both great nations.

Bad link

And I'm asking just what the bill would mean for Americans - not how the SC could interpret it in a court case.

[ag]

OK - I've heard about this, but haven't seen details - so can somebod summarize for me UNBIASEDLY what the amendment would do?

Haven't read the ammendment, but, if it is blocking what it purports to block, it means blocking a provision of NAFTA under which deliveries of goods accross the national borders can be done without unloading from truck to truck, with the same truck and the same driver continuing from the initial point to the destination (this has long been the case between Canada and the U.S., but not w/ Mexico, though, of course, private Mexican cars can enter and leave the U.S.).  

The provision is already 5 years delayed, as the U.S. was trying to figure out how to implement it. There were several court cases, but, eventually the courts ruled that no U.S. laws are violated and the regulations are adequate.  Finally, the first few trucks crossed from Mexico north (and from the U.S. south) last Monday.  Until now, the usual process was as follows: a truck would travel from an interior point in Mexico (or the U.S.) to the border, but would only be allowed accross the border into a special terminal within a few miles of the border, where it would be offloaded, and a domestic carrier would take over. As the logistics of the loading/unloading process in the border area was sometimes difficult, a lot of the carriers chose to, actually first unload in their own depot the cargo from a long-distance (and expensive) truck to a short-haul rickety ancient truck (that would only have to make it accross the border to the U.S. and then wait there) in order not to have the good trucks spend time in all sort of formalities (thus, paradoxically, the old regulation meant that it would be the worst Mexican trucks that would enter the U.S.). Overall, it is a non-negligible cost imposed on cross-border shippers (and, in the end, on the consumers), and the delay has been widely resented in Mexico.

Under the current regulation, of course, the trucks have to be inspected in both countries, pass all the standard technical tests they'd need to circulate (including those required by the U.S. law - though, of course, the exact procedure and timing might be somewhat different, as they are not certified by any state, but rather, I believe, by the feds), the drivers have to be individually approved and speak both English and Spanish (I suspect some teamster leaders think this gives an unfair advantage to Latino truck drivers in the U.S., as they become more valuable for the American shippers),  each trucking company has to be approved and get the licence, etc., etc.  Of course, certain U.S. regulations (such as work permits and the minimal wage laws) would remain unapplicable (for instance, as the Mexicans are employed by Mexican companies and are not paid in the U.S., the U.S. labor law would not be entirely applicable - though, of course, all the U.S. safety regulations will be enforced while in the U.S., etc.).  At this point we are talking about smthgh like 2 Mexican carriers approved (a few U.S. carriers have also be approved to go South) , though, of course, things should grow in time.

[MarkWarner08]

You're ignoring one of the most basic principles of economics: the invisible hand.

Sorry, though I agree w/ your point (globalization is, indeed, good for most of us, and, of course, not only for the rich), you are wrong about basic economics.  The modern formalization of the "invisible hand" hypothesis is what economists call the First Welfare Theorem.  It says that if you free the markets do their job, and if all people do the best for themselves, the resultant outcome will be Pareto Efficient. Even if you take it that all the assumptions of the theorem hold (and they are non-trivial), the rub is in the meaning of Pareto Efficiency.

A situation is efficient in the Pareto sense if it is impossible to improve anyone's wellbeing without hurting somebody else. That's all: essentially, resources are not wasted, not used inefficiently. However, in principle, it may not be inefficient to give everything in the world to me and make everybody else work for me for the subsistence wage (if makin one person free of my command makes me unhappier, that is).  Pareto efficiency says nothing about equality, nor does it say anything about everybody being happy. It could well be that 99% of the people are happier under the Pareto inefficient state of affairs then they'd be under an efficient one (in fact, democracy routinely contradicts efficiency, as the theory says it should).

I am saying all this not to contradict your main point, but, rather, to defend it. Bad argument in favor is worse than none at all.

Anyway, the situation we have here is very different. A very small but vocal group (mainly, actually, not even workers, but union bureaucrats) stands to gain from blocking a policy that would benefit an overwhelming majority of residents of both countries.  But as they are vocal, and as they are not averse to playing up the worst xenophobic and racist fears of the society, they win.

I was referring to the general sense of the benefits of the private sector and cutting corporate taxes; I didn’t mean to imply a perfect competition world, which, alas,  an non-existent area of study for microeconomics.   If you look at it literally, there are no sectors of the economy that adhere to prefect competition (which includes multiple firms selling an identical product), even  soybean and corn farmers have found ways to differentiate their products. Since there are few industries which don’t sell goods or services to governments, and there are zero industries in which all the companies sell the same product,  Pareto and Smith cannot prove their views in a real market environment. So, obviously, I wasn’t implying that we send some economists out to Peoria and instruct them to give 100 kids at 100 lemonade stands the same ingredients to produce the same product, in order to test this theory.
The dearth of “economic profit,” which leaves the ATC paid off and nothing else, shows why perfect competition is a non-starter.

I was attempting to use an early tenant of economics to prove a larger point about why globalization is good, soaking the rich soaks everyone, and why populism should could back to the graveyard of irrelevant ideologies.

[ag]

But the result was a very weak argument. Hey, the most faithful follower of Adam Smith (at least, methodologically) was Karl Marx - and you aren't going to cite him, are you?

[angus]

Bad link

And I'm asking just what the bill would mean for Americans - not how the SC could interpret it in a court case.

sorry, tried to cut and paste.  anyway I was only trying to link to hr1773 as referred to the senate, which may not be exactly what you want.  (amendments can be tricky.  things like "a new playground in my neighborhood that costs five point seven million dollars" get amended to things like "tank and armament upgrades" and since I haven't read the very latest version I can't say exactly what we're in for.)  But the bill, as sent to the senate from the house is simple.  It grants authority to drive to "not more than 100 motor carriers domiciled in Mexico to operate beyond US municipalities."   It goes on to impose penalties and make recommendations.  The effect, of course, is not known except to the clarivoyant.  But you can make an educated guess as much as the next guy.  As of now, most trucks--and yes I do see, in my travels on US interstate highways Oaxaca licence plates, and Nuevo Leon licence plates, and Tampaulipas licence plates--will have to unload their wares at the border onto US-licenced trucks.  And since US truck drivers make about four times as much money as Mexican truckers you will see an increase in the cost of goods.  And that's just the goods that make it.  You cannot expect that bananas, for example, will survive the loading and unloading at Nogales and Ciudad Juarez.  Hell, I can't expect a banana to last more than about 3 days before becoming brown and soft.  I'd say the bill is a wonderful deal if you are in a trucker's union.  I'm not.  I'm a consumer and tariffs and protectionism generally eats into my pocketbook.  I suspect it'll eat into yours as well.  As I understand Price Theory, you will see an upward shift in the supply curve for all goods and services transiting from Mexico and points south of Mexico into the US.  This will necessarily mean a shift in the equilibrium price and quantity of those goods and services, and it will result in a higher equilibrium price and a lower equilibrium quantity.  The latter of which will also hurt the average Mexican, since his or her job will, in no small measure, depend on the habits and diet of the average gringo.

[MarkWarner08]

But the result was a very weak argument. Hey, the most faithful follower of Adam Smith (at least, methodologically) was Karl Marx - and you aren't going to cite him, are you?

I appreciate your critique. I used Marx as a rhetorical tool because he personifies a philosophy that is counter to capitalism. Yes, we both know that the truth is gray, not black and white, so I apologize if I used generalizations to make an otherwise valid point.

[ag]

Actually, if you've seen an Oaxaca licence plate on a U.S. highway before Monday, it was not a commercial shipment.  I guess, nothing can prevent me from hiring a Mexican truck, load it with my household stuff and drive to New York.  Probably, a small businessman in Guadalajara would be allowed to get his own wares in his own truck to a customer in San Francisco (conditional on paying the customs duties). But no Mexican commercial shippers were authorized to operate north of the border (and no American shippers could go South). The new regulation would enforce the status quo as of late last week - at the cost of explicitly tearing up an important NAFTA provision (that was supposed to have come into force 5 years ago).

[ag]

But the result was a very weak argument. Hey, the most faithful follower of Adam Smith (at least, methodologically) was Karl Marx - and you aren't going to cite him, are you?

I appreciate your critique. I used Marx as a rhetorical tool because he personifies a philosophy that is counter to capitalism. Yes, we both know that the truth is gray, not black and white, so I apologize if I used generalizations to make an otherwise valid point.

Oh, the world is complicated indeed. But here your conclusion may have been valid - your point was not.

[angus]

Actually, if you've seen an Oaxaca licence plate on a U.S. highway before Monday, it was not a commercial shipment. 

well, it's not like I take a pad and pencil with me and take notes.  For future reference, when I say "I regularly see New York licence plates" or "I see Oaxaca license plates" I'm taking a bit of poetic license.  Pardon the pun.  My memories sometimes run together.  It may be that the only Oaxaca license plates I've seen were on the trips I've made to Oaxaca, and those license plates were usually stapled or duct-taped to older-model japanese pickups, often burdened down and loaded down to about twice the intended capacity with what looked like enormous pineapples but were actually agave plant hearts on their way to becoming mezcal.  But yeah, I do sometimes see mexican lisence plates on big trucks on US interstates over the years.  Not in profusion, but they're there.  Then again they may have been privately hired, as you suggest.  No, I can't think of any time I'd ever seen, for example, a J.B.Hunt truck with Mexican license plates, but as I said, I wasn't taking notes.  According to you, then, the law then has no effect other than psychological.  I still say that such laws will increase the price of imported mexican goods and generally will only benefits truckers and the unions buying their votes and selling them to candidates.  Either it has no effect, as you suggest, or it has a deleterious effect to the people on both sides of the border.

[ag]

No, the impact will not just be psychological. Finally, after 5 year hiatus, they've approved the crossborder traffic. Without the law the goods would become cheaper, the short-haul crossborder trucks will be sent to scrap (as they should be), and the trade between the countries will become much more fluid.  With the law it will stay as before: waste and belching polution on the border.

And, of course, you are right about the general damage that these things do.  Longterm, actually, even to the truckers themselves (the more goods are transported accross the border, the better it will be for the truckers eventually). The only people to gain here are union leaders, who need a cause to excite the union members to stay in power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the US federal minimum wage applied, and the trucks were subject to all American safety and environmental regulations, I'd say let every Mexican truck driver be able to drive in America. But what we have is an uneven field.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Wouldn't the bill also cut down on illegals sneaking over?

[??????????]

I agree 150% with StateBoiler.

[opebo]

You're ignoring one of the most basic principles of economics: the invisible hand. I don't mean to be pedantic here, but to understand the way business works, you should try to examine what Adam Smith was theorizing. The invisible hand theory asserts that when a businessman seeks to make money for himself (the raw motive of capitalism is profit and the enrichment of the leisure class), even if he cares little for his workers, he's actually improving society. This is because companies hire workers, pay taxes -- even if the companies themselves don't pay taxes, their workers do -- and create a ripple effect that benefits other companies in service sectors like retail and restaurants.

I'm not ignoring the force that is so comically called the 'invisible hand', Markwarner.  Rather, I am recognizing its true nature - the 'invisible hand' is the mechanism of force by which, through ostensibly 'private' actions, the State enslaves the worker for the benefit of the elite.   Do you suggest that the slaveowner was benefiting the slave?  (some do suggest that)  Well, the current situation is precisely the same, just with the lines of force disguised by doublespeak concepts like 'private property' - the nature of the use of force becomes 'invisible' as you say.

Simply put, he who does not toil (with a good deal of alacrity and servility, and in 'competition' with his fellow serfs) for the elite will be killed or jailed.  How is this different from slavery? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the benefits to the rich do not 'help all of society', markWarner.  You are swallowing the most absurd propaganda around, and by doing so licking the boots of your masters.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

I was thinking a 10-20 year process of rapid modernization(Something in between PR or MS for the pre-annexation goal would be the target)/infrastructure building(including linking US-mexican infrastructure)/harmonizing mexico's laws with US norms. Immediente annexation would be epic fail beyond belief for the reasons you say.

You are willing to spend that much money to make it work? Ok, let me tell you: it would be a lot cheaper (and much more efficient and realistic) to develop NAFTA in EU style (in fact, that's exactly what EU is about). Still, it would, probably, take more than 20 years, but the economies would, likely, converge eventually.

But one thing for sure, even after 10 years of pumping Mexico w/ cash through its nose you wouldn't be able to make the 7-dollar/hour minimal wage work there (hint: Spain has been in the EU for over 20 years now, and 1000 euro/month wage is still considered decent there; and Spain is RICH compared to Portugal).  And if you insist on keeping protectionist barriers (like the truck nonsense) up until that happens, it won't happen  even after a 100 years of the same: you could transfer 10% of US GDP in direct handouts to Mexicans until fifty years past the Last Judgement, and it still won't do much good if you insist on "protecting the domestic workers" in the meantime.

The best thing that can be done for Mexico is letting the countries trade (pressure to harmonize laws is fine - in fact, essential to make that work; but "harmonization" does not mean imposing every single piece of U.S. regulation that Mexico can't possibly afford). 

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

[Angelique 71]

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
James J. Johnston
President 


As you may have already heard, there are indications that the U.S. DOT will be formally implementing its crossborder trucking pilot program with Mexico as early as next Thursday, September 6.  At this point, no one beyond the White House, top brass at the DOT and their friends in the Mexican government knows exactly when this will happen or how they will try to justify their actions.  The DOT knows that they are going against the will of the American people and Congress as well as venturing into blatantly illegal territory.  As such, we again find ourselves in the midst of much speculation and struggling to separate fact from fiction as our own government has not yet provided any formal notices or official statements to clue the public into their timing or specific intentions. 

What we do know is that yesterday an official from the U.S. Department of Justice tipped off a lawyer that DOT was planning to start the pilot program on September 1 (the target date has apparently now been pushed back to September 6).  This lawyer is associated with the coalition of organizations that we have been leading in opposition of opening the border to Mexico-domiciled trucks.  Some of the members of that coalition opted to file an emergency injunction to stop the pilot program though they did not yet have documentation to directly prove DOT’s intentions.  Though our name is not on that legal action, it is a move we certainly support.

We also know that the Mexican government published a notice today indicating that they would be moving forward with their part of the pilot program (allowing U.S. carriers to go south) as early as tomorrow.  This is consistent with statements that the Mexican government has been making for the past few months despite the efforts that have been made north of the border by the U.S. Congress to put the brakes on the pilot program and ultimately strip all funding for it.

Rest assured that OOIDA is doing everything that we possibly can to stop the DOT.  We are fighting a unique and historic battle in that we and our coalition have won several significant victories on Capitol Hill and yet the Administration continues to roll forward in defiance of Congress, the American people and the laws of our land.  Instead of implementing and abiding by the laws that have been written by Congress, the executive branch of our government is clearly ignoring their Constitutional responsibilities and limitations.

As soon as DOT moves in an official fashion to start the pilot program by issuing a public notice or formal statement, OOIDA will be filing a legal challenge to put an immediate stop to their efforts.  As you may know, many strong and valid efforts in the courts have been tossed out on technicalities and procedural missteps.  We do not want to miss out on an opportunity to stop the crossborder program by jumping the gun with a less than solid legal challenge.

OOIDA will also continue our efforts on Capitol Hill to reign in the DOT.  In addition to what we have been able to achieve there already we have initiated other legislative efforts. I ask that as a member of OOIDA and as a citizen of the United States, you also do all that you can to help put a stop to the crossborder program. 

Please call and fax your elected representatives in Washington, especially your U.S. Senators.  They need to hear from you as soon as possible and continue to hear from you until they are truly working on your behalf.  I also ask that you encourage your family, friends and acquaintances to contact their lawmakers.  Operators at the U.S. Capitol Switchboard (202- 224-3121) can connect you to the offices of your elected officials.  If you are not sure who your Representative or Senators are, the operators will ask for your zip code and put you through to their offices.  You are also welcome to call the Association at 800-444-5791, we will be happy to look up telephone and fax numbers for you.

Please know that your Association is working hard on your behalf and please do what you can to help.  I do not have to tell you what is riding on our efforts to stop DOT or what the short and long term implications are if we fail.

With sincere appreciation,

 

Jim Johnston, President
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 NW OOIDA Drive • PO Box 1000 • Grain Valley, Missouri 64029 • Tel: (816) 229-5791 • Fax: (816) 427-4468 


this is an excerpt from ooida.com, a group that fights for the rights of American Truckers

[ag]

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

One word: EU. You must be a big fan of it (I am, actually).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

One word: EU. You must be a big fan of it (I am, actually).

Not really. The EU is a club of social democracies which are slowly arabizing.

[ag]

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

One word: EU. You must be a big fan of it (I am, actually).

Not really. The EU is a club of social democracies which are slowly arabizing.

Remarkably, you know even less about EU than about Mexico

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Compare the birthrates of native born euros and their arab immigrants. Also note how the governments of EU nations keep knucking into islamic demands in the name of PC. I hope I'm wrong but what I'm seeing from the signs doesn'tl ookgodo.

[ag]

Compare the birthrates of native born euros and their arab immigrants. Also note how the governments of EU nations keep knucking into islamic demands in the name of PC. I hope I'm wrong but what I'm seeing from the signs doesn'tl ookgodo.

You are wrong, entirely wrong on everything.

1. To begin with, there aren't that many migrants - Europe remains overwhelmingly white, and it would take migration wave of many times the present magnitude to change that.

2. Secondly, there aren't that many "Arab" migrants (not that I find the latter at all objectionable in any respect - perhaps, because I've actually seen them).  In Spain (the case I know best) there are several Catholic migrants for every Muslim: even though there is a common frontier w/ Morocco, the 500 thousand resident Moroccans in Spain barely make 1/8 of the total number of migrants, wheareas the overwhelming majority of the rest is Christian.

2. As you should know from the U.S. experience, there is such a thing called assimilation. Migrants from all countries tend to assimilate in a few generations (though the truth does get obscurred by the fact that it is far easier to observe the unassimilated hardcore minority than the assimilated majority, especially when the racial differences are slight, as they are around the Mediterranean).  Consequently, many of the kids of the first generation migrants will be pretty European (French, Spanish, etc.) in outlook, and among the third generation their ethnic origin will be overwhelmingly a very secondary part of self-identification (if it will be part of it at all).  In Europe it might mean that the temple which these people choose not to attend is a mosque, and not a church, but do you really care which temple they don't go to? There is no reason to believe otherwise - in fact, every single piece of evidence we have leads to this conclusion.

4.  The main difference between Europe and the U.S. is not that Europe is somehow "more accomodating", but that it is far more xenophobic and far less accomodating than the U.S.  The reason it may seem that Europe "succumbs to demands" is that it frequently picks up the fights on matters that would not be controversial at all in the U.S. (the headscarf, the mosque construction, etc.).  True enough, sometimes not to give ground on important thing (that, as I said, would not be even matters of discussion in the U.S.), European governments make ridiculous symbolic concessions.  But on everything that truly matters, Europe is far, far more resistant to migrant demands than they would believe appropriate even in Idaho. To the extent that the recent migration wave has started changing attitudes, it is making Europe look and feel a bit more like the U.S.  Unless you feel that U.S. has gone to dogs some 150 years ago (and never recovered), I don't see your point at all.

To conclude, Americans frequently get misled by the Europeans in this respect. What in the U.S. would have been absolutely normal and has been practiced for generations does, sometimes, seem a dangerous decay to a certain type of European xenophobes. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Compare the birthrates of native born euros and their arab immigrants. Also note how the governments of EU nations keep knucking into islamic demands in the name of PC. I hope I'm wrong but what I'm seeing from the signs doesn'tl ookgodo.

You are wrong, entirely wrong on everything.

1. To begin with, there aren't that many migrants - Europe remains overwhelmingly white, and it would take migration wave of many times the present magnitude to change that.

2. Secondly, there aren't that many "Arab" migrants (not that I find the latter at all objectionable in any respect - perhaps, because I've actually seen them).  In Spain (the case I know best) there are several Catholic migrants for every Muslim: even though there is a common frontier w/ Morocco, the 500 thousand resident Moroccans in Spain barely make 1/8 of the total number of migrants, wheareas the overwhelming majority of the rest is Christian.

2. As you should know from the U.S. experience, there is such a thing called assimilation. Migrants from all countries tend to assimilate in a few generations (though the truth does get obscurred by the fact that it is far easier to observe the unassimilated hardcore minority than the assimilated majority, especially when the racial differences are slight, as they are around the Mediterranean).  Consequently, many of the kids of the first generation migrants will be pretty European (French, Spanish, etc.) in outlook, and among the third generation their ethnic origin will be overwhelmingly a very secondary part of self-identification (if it will be part of it at all).  In Europe it might mean that the temple which these people choose not to attend is a mosque, and not a church, but do you really care which temple they don't go to? There is no reason to believe otherwise - in fact, every single piece of evidence we have leads to this conclusion.

4.  The main difference between Europe and the U.S. is not that Europe is somehow "more accomodating", but that it is far more xenophobic and far less accomodating than the U.S.  The reason it may seem that Europe "succumbs to demands" is that it frequently picks up the fights on matters that would not be controversial at all in the U.S. (the headscarf, the mosque construction, etc.).  True enough, sometimes not to give ground on important thing (that, as I said, would not be even matters of discussion in the U.S.), European governments make ridiculous symbolic concessions.  But on everything that truly matters, Europe is far, far more resistant to migrant demands than they would believe appropriate even in Idaho. To the extent that the recent migration wave has started changing attitudes, it is making Europe look and feel a bit more like the U.S.  Unless you feel that U.S. has gone to dogs some 150 years ago (and never recovered), I don't see your point at all.

To conclude, Americans frequently get misled by the Europeans in this respect. What in the U.S. would have been absolutely normal and has been practiced for generations does, sometimes, seem a dangerous decay to a certain type of European xenophobes. 

Shhh.. ag don't tell them the truth, they won't have anything left to bash liberalism over - thus the need the fabricate "the Muslim invasion".