For instance, what moral values and rules of behavior should modern society insist that people share?
(Survey page 9.) What rules indeed? The Economist makes plain what its concerns are when it goes on to ask: “In the name of protecting freedom of speech and religion, should they tolerate incitement to violence by Imams?” So now our basic freedoms need to be curtailed to keep migrants in line? I do not want to leave you with the incorrect impression. The writers of The Economist’s Survey of Migration argue that migration is both necessary and good. It just needs to be managed better. They even make some suggestions that have merit. But, for what may be the first time, they are pointing out some of the dangers. The analysis contained in The Economist’s survey is still deeply flawed. But that’s another, longer, letter! Peter Brimelow adds: I am personally amused to see The Economists subsection on the economics of immigration, although itself flawed, is headed A Modest Contribution On Balance, Host Countries Benefit Only Slightly From Immigration, Whereas Immigrants Benefit Hugely. This
