THANKSGIVING - Be grateful for what you are taking for granted.

A few days from now we will celebrate one of our favorite holidays, Thanksgiving. Contrary to popular belief this holiday, initiated in Plymouth Massachusetts in 1621 and not picked up again until President Lincoln made it a national holiday in 1863, is not just celebrated in the U.S. Many countries, including Italy, Brazil, Korea, Vietnam, India and China celebrate harvest. Canada remembers the arrival in 1578 of British explorer Arthur Frobisher who threw a meal for his crew when they, barely, made it to Canadian shores. The Netherlands celebrates in honor of the pilgrims leaving Leyden for the new world. Liberia celebrates American style, but without the turkey.

Many countries generalize popular gratitude. Our Thanksgiving dinners often feature a simple question: "What are you thankful for?" Even though we should expect this conversation, we are often still caught off base. Aside from family focused experiences and feelings we are grateful for, we might consider expressing gratitude for some of the so-called simple things we have in our lives.

If you have a roof over your head - Be thankful!

   In the U.S. more than 3.5 million people experience homelessness each year. This includes 2.5 million children, and 16% of homeless adults are veterans.

If you are having a great meal with family and friends, and if, by chance, you are serving one or more of the 52,000,000 turkeys consumed in our country each Thanksgiving day - Be grateful!

   805 Million people in the world are chronically under-nourished. 18,000 Children die every day from hunger and malnutrition.

If you have clean water and if you are able to enjoy hot showers - Be thankful!

   63 Million people (1 in 10) lack access to safe water. 2,000 Kids under the age of five  die each day from diseases related to contaminated water. That is 1 every 21 seconds! 1.8 Billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometer, but not in their house or yard, consume on average 20 liters per day. In the U.S. we use 600 liters a day, which is the highest in the world.

I am certain we can come up with many other experiences we take for granted, and which we could give some intellectual and emotional perspective. The point is that most of us are better off than a substantial number of people in the owrld. While recognizing that even in the U.S. 48 million citizens live below the poverty line - 16 million of which are childeren and 5 million seniors - almost all of us are taking things for granted many others can only dream of. We should be grateful for living where we are and for everything we take for granted. Due to the accident of birth or the ability to choose you are living in one of the most comfortable places in the world, whatever its faults and however much we bicker over how to distribute our resources. We are lucky. After all, the odds of being born American, according to a 2005 W.H.O. report, are only 5%. In fact, given what is involved in the reproductive process, the odds of you coming into the world at all are only about 1 in 400 trillion (Harvard study.)

Finally, certainly not last, we should be thankful for the bravery displayed by the men and women we sent into harm's way. They face danger every day. Many of them will spend the holidays away from their family in the various war zones we are still, and again, involved in. Some of them will pay the ultimate price defending all the things we are thankful for.

With that in mind I think we should all read and re-read the prayer Eleanor Roosevelt carried with her throughout Worl War II:

Dear Lord,

Lest I continue

My complacent way,

Help me to remember that somewhere,

Somehow out there

A man died for me today.

As long as there be war,

I then must

Ask and answer

Am I worth dying for?

Go look at yourself in a mirror and answer the question.

Happy Thanksgiving!

GOP CANDIDATES REBUKE DEMOCRATS FOR PARIS ATTACKS

It did not take long for GOP candidates to blame the Democrats for the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Several of these were illustrative of an ignorant mindset not worthy of intellectual discourse.

Carly Fiorina has an uncanny ability to manifest selective memory. Not only does she re-imagine her professional past at H.P., she also forgets that had George Bush et al not engaged Iraq and Sadam when they did, none of this might have happened. Sadam Hussein was an intolerant and cruel dictator. However, he would not have tolerated Isis. Removing him upended the balance of power in the region. We deliberately banned his mostly Sunny military professionals from continuing to operate. Most of them ended up fighting with Al Qaida and Isis when the Shiite forces filled the void. Fiorina's rant that she is "angry that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared victory in Iraq abandoning our hard-won gains...." which somehow made them responsible for "the murder, the mayhem, the danger,the tragedy that we see unfolding in Paris," is ignorant. George Bush prepped our exit from Iraq while still President. Her lack of understanding of historical context, and her inability to analyze facts, make her entirely unprepared to even run for the presidency. Ignorance is a curse. She should leave that garbage where it belongs, in her head.

Donald Trump's suggestion that the Paris attacks would have been a much different situation had the vistims been armed with guns, is outright stupid.

If this is the best the GOP can come up with we can only hope that our citizens wake up. We can not afford this level of degenerate thinking to rise to a leadership level in the country.

SHOULD WE CONSIDER ADOPTING A SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM?

This is the time of the year when many of us need to consider our health insurance options. Given the steep increases in premiums, this may also be when we re-confront the discussion about what kind of health insurance system our country should ultimately adopt. Since we are in the midst of a poliktical election cycle as well, the pundits argue publicly for and against the Affordable Care  Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), the desirability of adopting a single-payer healthcare system as prevalent in virtually all developed countries, or to stick with the market based private insurance system we supposedly have even under Obamacare.

Single-payer national health insurance, also known as "Medicare for all," is a system in which a single public or quasi public agency organizes healthcare financing, while the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medical necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive healthcare, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. In the 1950s U.S. health statistics were world class: Infant mortality among the lowest, life expectancy among the highest, and health care costs about average. One by one other nations - like Denmark, Sweden, Australia, the U.K., Canada and Taiwan - adopted national health programs. By the end of the 20th century the U.S. was the lone holdout for private, for profit health insurance. Its health statistics lagged behind dozens of countries, while costs soared to twice the average in other wealthy nations.

The U.S. spends 16% of GDP on health. This compares to 8.5% in the U.K. and Australia, and significantly less than 16% in most developed countries. Of eleven nations studied by the World Health Organization and the OECD the U.S. ranked lowest on accessibility, efficiency, and healthy lives outcomes (mortality related to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60.) A similar study done by the Commonwealth Fund in 2014 confirmed these conclusions.

Many countries have realized huge savings by evicting private insurers and eliminating the reams of expensive paperwork they require from doctors and hospitals. Aetna keeps 19 cents of every premium dollar for overhead and profit. U.S. hospitals devote 25.3% of total revenue to administration, which reflects the high cost of collecting patient co-payments and deductibles, and fighting with insurers. Obamacare will  direct an additional $850 billion in public funds to private insurers, and boost insurance overhead by $273.6 billion. Yet, it will leave 26 million citizens uninsured, and similar numbers with such skimpy coverage that a major illness will bankrupt them. By contrast, insurance overhead in single-payer systems takes only 1-2 percent. Proponents estimate (and argue) that moving to a single-payer system would save about $400 billion a year on paperwork and administration.

The controversy surrounding the single-payer system does not seem to focus on the desirability of achieving universal coverage, it is largely concerned with the means of getting there. Thus far the arguments have not changed much over time. Proponents suggest that the system provides universal coverage; diminishes the administrative load on healthcare professionals; significantly lowers cost; eliminates the need for insurance companies; and requires only one buyer which would improve efficiency while providing substantial negotiating power.

Those opposed retort that the system would be government controlled, effectively converting everyone in the system to government employees; would diminish the incentive to pursue research and development; force higher taxes with fewer benefits; contribute to drug abuse; and promote a rising demand for welfare.

This conversation ties into the ongoing dispute over raising the Medicare eligibillity age to help pay for the benefits most of us paid for during our working life. The trust funds paying into Social Security and Medicare are estimated to dry up by the early 1930s. One argument being floated is that raising the eligibility age will over time allow us to free up resources that could be used to achieve universal coverage along the lines of Switzerland's market based system (Avik Roy, Forbes, December 12, 2012). While these discussions continue, we might keep an eye on the outcome of a single-payer "ColoradoCare" proposal Colorado is placing on their 2016 ballot, which is designed to replace Obamacare with a new single-payer system (at a cost of $25 billion per year.)

Fareek Zakaria, a political centrist, journalist and author with a regular program on CNN, answers our opening question as follows: "There is absolutely no question that when we look at the ability to provide good healthcare at an affordable price, lower levels of massive inequality in healthcare outcomes or provisions,  a single government payer and multiple private providers is the answer."

While we may be tempted to add our two cents to the discussion, real change will require political courage, which Washington appears to be lacking. It is easier to express contempt for Obamacare than it is to come up with an alternative. In the mean time we just need to suck it up and pay the premiums, unless we are lucky and old enough to go on Medicare.

PURCHASE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FROM ABROAD? WHY NOT?

A few weeks ago drug company Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price of a toxoplasmosis drug, Diatrim, from $13.50 to $750 per tablet, an increase of 5,000 percent. This medication is used with other medications to treat a serious parasitic infection of the body, brain, or eye or to prevent toxoplasmosis infection in people with HIV. Turiing's CEO Martin Shkreli explained that the company needed to make a profit on the drug. The price increase meant that the annual cost of treatment for people who need this medication will be anywhere from $336,000 to $635,000 depending on the patient's weight. The uproar this news caused has led to renewed concern about meteoric price increases in the pharmaceutical industry, generating an aggressive dialogue among political candidates, while resurfacing the question why Americans should not purchase their medications from abroad - especially Canada - since the price for medications in most developed countries is significantly lower than in ours.

It is not difficult to understand why many are tempted to purchase their medications elsewhere. We pay the highest prices in the world for our prescription drugs. Take for example the popular acid reflux drug Nexicum. An insurer in the U.S. pays on average $215 per customer. In the Netherlands the same prescription costs $23. A 30 tablet supply of Abilify costs $711 at Walgreens, but only $200 in Canada. A 10 capsule dose of Tamiflu sells for $112 in the U.S., and less than $50 in Canada. The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, in a 2012 study, estimated that U.S. residents spend about $900 per year on prescription drugs, while the average Canadian spends $420, and Europeans spend on average $375.

During the 1990's travel agencies began organizing bus trips into Canada for seniors who wanted to purchase cheap brand-name drugs. These trips continue to be popular. It is technically illegal for individuals to importy drugs into the U.S. However, officials tend to use enforcement discretion and allow participants to bring in up to a 90-day supply of medication for personal use if they can provide documentation from their U.S. physician.

When I decided to research the viability of purchasing medications from abroad, I thought I would make the case for legalizing their importation. Given the vast differences of drug prices between us and the rest of the world this seemed logical. However, after digging into the subject matter it became clear to me that the issue is not that simple, and that falling in line with politicians who are shooting from the hip to effect legalization could generate troubling advice for people who react to cost alone. 

One reason for not allowing importation of prescription drugs is that the FDA won't be able to guarantee the safety of drugs coming in from a foreign country. This includes Canada. Drugs from foreign pharmacies are not subject to the agency's jurisdiction, could be mislabeled, counterfeit, or otherwise adulterated. Legality aside, bus tours taking passengers to brick and mortar pharmacies in Canada are pretty safe. However, these tours are only practical for residents of border states. The rest of us depend on web-based pharmacies, many of which are illegitimate, and often sell counterfeit drugs.In 2007 the FDA seized 9,600 websites and more than $41 million worth of illegal drugs worldwide. Many sites claimed to be Canadian. However, a sting operation discovered that only 15% of drugs claiming to be Canadian were actually from Canada. The remaining 85% came from 27 different countries. In 2011 the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy reviewed more than 8,300 online pharmacies. Just over 3 percent proved to be legitimate.

Anyone deciding to still take a chance on web-based pharmacies to save on the cost of prescriptions should access one of the following sites. They are designed to help insure that you are dealing with a legitimate online business:

VIPPS - the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Site.

CIPA - the Canadian International Pharmacy Association website.

PharmacyChecker

Any of these accredit online pharmacies, and PharmacyChecker also claims that their pharmacies offer drug prices that are up to 80% lower in price than those in U.S. pharmacies. In short, buyer beware. Know who you are dealing with.

Of course this still begs the question: Why do Americans pay two to six times more than the rest of the world for brand-name prescription drugs?

Other countries feature single payer nationalized healthcare systems. They contyrol pricing by negotiating as a single entity with pharmaceutical companies. Their governments essentially decide who can sell what at what price. In the U.S. companies negotiate with individual insurance companies, hospitals and private plans, resulting in an unregulated market driven pricing structure. Besides, by law the federal government-run Medicare system cannot negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry. If Medicare were allowed to negotiate directly, as one of the largest buyers of prescription drugs, it could potentially drive the prices of drugs down. The Veterans Administration has that ability, and within the V.A. system drug prices are 10% to 20% lower than elsewhere. Finally, pharmaceutical companies claim that the average cost of developing a new drug is about $1 billion. Since they are forced to sell at lower prices abroad, U.S. consumers pay higher prices to make up for reduced revenue from foreign sales.

Meanwhile all of us are well advised to do our homework, research the legitimacy of web-based pharmacies, recognize that there is a lot of fraud in the system and, perhaps, just contact several local pharmacies to find the best price.

"DEATH WITH DIGNITY" - What are we really talking about?

Last monday California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill X2-15, the "End of Life Option Act", into law, ending a 23 year effort to provide what proponents euphemistically refer to as a "death with dignity" option for California residents diagnosed as having less than 6 months to live. The intent of this legislation made the headlines when Brittany Maynard, inflicted with brain cancer and only months to live, moved to Oregon specifically to be allowed to take advantage of that state's Death with Dignity  Act and take her life peacefully with barbiturates.

Attempting to commit suicide was once a criminal act. It has been decriminalized for many decades in most jurisdictions. Assisted suicide remains a criminal act throughout the country except in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, and by next year California. Although both in the U.S. and most of Europe upwards of 75% of people polled expressed being in favor of some form of assisted suicide, the issue remains controversial and emotional. The controversy centers on legal, social, ethical, moral and relikgious points of contention related to suicide and murder. The question is whether there is a legal right for a terminally ill person to end his or her suffering without interference by the state or the convictions of others. In 1997 the U.S. Siupreme Court ruled that state laws against assisting suicide are not unconstitutional. However, it also held that patients have a right to aggressive treatment of pain and other symptoms even if the treatment hastens death.

Advocatess on both sides of the discussion frequently and mistakenly misidentify substantive components of the argument to make their points. All of us may have different opinions on the subject. However, it could help to clarify some of the substantive elements of that discussion, especially those referring to the most emotionally charged terms referring to the methods used to provide the end of life option - euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Euthanasia in Greek means "good death." This term normally implies an  intentional termination of life by an other at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die. The process distinguishes two forms of euthanasia - passive and active. Passive euthanasia is defined as hastening the death of a person by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course. This is generally performed on persons in a persistent vegetative state, terminally ill, or in a coma. Examples are turning off respirators, halting medications, or failure to resuscitate. This practice is often physician directed and, although technically illegal, quite common. Some people accept this approach because there is no need to articulate difficult moral choices. It has also been charged as hypocrisy since society is pretending to shun doctor-assisted suicide while condoning this form of euthanasia without safeguards.

Active euthanasia refers to causing the death of a person through a direct action in response to a request from that person. This method of suicide grabbed the headlines when Doctor Jack Kevorkian publically administered lethal medication to terminally ill Thomas Youk in Michiggan in 1998. Currently  this form of suicide is only legal in two countries: The Netherlands and Belgium. Belgium does not distinguish between passive and active forms of euthanasia.

Physician-assisted suicide, a term used by all states allowing this, is essentially a hybrid between passive and active euthanasia - also know as voluntary passive euthanasia. In this case a physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide to a person, allowing that individual to terminate his or her own life. This is a form of voluntary euthanasia, the preferred method authorized by the laws in place in this country. Physicians don't administer the drugs, and the laws mandate strict conditions to prevent abuse.

For critics of death with dignity laws the argument is moral and absolute. Deliberately ending a  human life is wrong, because life is sacred and the endurance of suffering confers its own dignity. For others, the legalization of doctor-assisted dying is the first step on a slippery slope where the vulnerable are threatened and where premature death becomes a cheap alternative to palliative care. These arguments resonate with a lot of people, and it is perhaps important to recognize that even in Europe only four countries allow the end of life option. Proponents argue however that suffering from a terminal illness with no hope of survival, and the prospect of increasingly intolerable agony, affects their quality of life and should allow them to terminate their lives gracefully.

Every year approximately 40,000 people commit suicide in our country, making suicide the nation's 10th leading cause of death. Each suicide costs society about $1 million in medical and lost work expenses and emotionally victimizes an average of 10 other people. Of all patients requesting information and medication allowing them to take advantage of assisted suicide laws 30% ultimately decide against it. One could argue that these laws could actually save some lives because their beneficiaries are forced to go through a more rational process.

Years ago two of my uncles committed suicide. One stepped in front of a train. The other straightened out a very windy road at 100 milers per hour. Their families were devastated. I also had an aunt who suffered from a horribly debilitating decease. She decided to end her life with her family present, allowing everyone to say their good-byes. She died with dignity.

Immigration could help offset potentially devastating birthrate deficiencies in developing countries

Two weeks ago the Wall Street Journal published an article by Nina Adam headlined "Migrants Offer Hope for German Workforce." In it she discusses that "Germany's population is shrinking and aging at one of the fastest rates in Western Europe, with ominous consequences for pensions, health care and future economic growth." Some analysts are estimating that Great Britain is on course to eclipse Germany as Europe's biggest economy by 2030, thanks in part to its large numbers of young, energetic immigrants.

This is an interesting angle about a topic many developed countries have been facing for some time. Not too long ago the world confronted a concern about high fertility rates and a rapidly growing population, culminating in the, now quiet, zero population movement. The tide has turned, and the worry now is about too few births and a falling population. Over 80 countries have fewer births than required to replace the number of individuals who die each year. Academics tell us that the total fertility rate (TFR), which equals the average number of children born to women over their lifetimes, needs to be at the replacement rate of 2.1. An estimated 48% of the world's populatioon lives in countries where women have children below the replacement rate. Europe and Asia lead the way. This is a significant concern. Retirement incomes, medical care and other social services are largely financed by taxes on the younger working population. Low birthrates eventually lead to fewer men and women of working age and a shrinking tax base. Aside from economic consequences, governments are concerned  about other future demographic shifts. Left unchecked, Russia's population, currently at 144 million, could go below 100 million by the year 2050. One demographer claims that in 1,000 years the Japanese could be extinct. Japan's TFR currently stands at 1.39. In 2012 Japanese toiletries company Unicharm reported that sales of its adult diapers slightly surpassed baby diapers for the first time.

There are a number of reasons why birthrates have been shrinking: Greater access to health care and education; more opportunities for young people, particularly women; enhanced income levels in developed economies, and government regulated birth control - like China's one child policy - are at the top of the list. Whatever the reasons, many countries are now faced with the dilemma on how to encourage higher, or at least replacement-level fertility rates.

Countries with seriously and moderately deficient TFRs, based on 2014 estimates, include: Italy - 1.42; Austria - 1.43; Germany -1.44; Spain - 1.48; China - 1.55; Russia - 1.61 and Denmark - 1.73. Many of these and other countries are openly promoting increasing fertility rates. Denmark has been running an ad campaign asking Danes to book a romantic city holiday and "Do it for Denmark!" Singapore, with an FTR of 0.7, promotes "National Night," a campaign to let "patriotism explode." The audio portion of the ad states: "I am a patriotic husband. You are my patriotic wife. Let's do our civic duty, and manufacture life. The birthrate ain't going to spike itself." Singapore spends $1.3 billion per year on trying to convince its citizens to get busy. Russia, in 2007, declared September 12 as the "Day of Conception," in the hopes that giving couples the day off to do their civic duty would result in a baby spike nine months later on Russia's National Day, June 12. Women who gave birth on National Day could win refrigerators, money, even cars. Without a lot of hoopla France actually managed to improve its TFR from 1.74 in 2002 to 2.08 in 2014, thanks to a variety of pro-natalist initiatives such as tax deductions for dependents and paid maternity leave financed through its national health insurance system .

The highly charged political discussion about immigration, both in the U.S. and Europe, would benefit from assessing the effects today's discussions will have on the not too distant future. Some of Germany's industries face severe labor shortages. During the second quarter of this year it had almost 1.1 million job vacancies. Without immigrants, economists warn, Germany could soon struggle to pay pensions and care for its elderly. About one-third of Germany's population will be older than 65 by 2060. By comparisson our own TFR hovers around a relatively healthier 1.99. Much of this has been attributed to a more robust influx of immigrants. Immigrants have an outsized role in U.S. economic output because they are disproportionately likely to be working and are concentrated among prime working ages. Despite being 13% of the population, immigrants provide 16% of the labor force. The share of immigrants who own small businesses, 18%, is higher than the comparable share among U.S. born workers.

A review of the predicament many developing countries find themselves in should give us pause. Barring other methods of enhancing, or even maintaining, our fertility rate, immigration appears to be one of the elements that could provide a revenue enhancing labor force that may help us prepare for the care of an imminently aging population. However, chances are that our political pundits won't be convinced to make that argument for us.

EUROPE'S MOMENT OF TRUTH - OR IS IT?

Aylan Kurdi might have been killed during the battle for Kobani between ISIS and the Pershmerga a year ago. However, he escaped with an estimated 400,000 refugees searching for a safer and more receptive place, only to be found floating face down in the Aegean Sea a little over a week ago. His father brought his body and that of his brother and mother back to be buried in his hometown, or whatever is left of it after 70% of the city was destroyed. And the world is asking: "What is Europe doing to remedy this refugee problem. After all, it is all taking place on its doorstep."

This begs the question of what the world was doing to help prevent the carnage leading to the tragic migration of desperate people literally running for their lives when the Syrian civil war broke out, and, relative to Europe, how is it alone going to cope with the overwhelming mass migration which, at this point, appears unstoppable.

Since the war broke out over 4 million residents of Syria have been uprooted, being barrel-bombed by their own government, killed by ISIS, and caught up in the cross-fire between competing factions - their lives and livelyhood uprooted forever. Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon absorbed the first waves of refugees. Turkey housed 2.1 million migrants, Jordan 1.4 million and Lebanon 1.2 million. These countries are saturated and underfunded. The World Food Program has had to cut one-third of refugees in these host countries from their voucher program . Lebanon and Jordan currently receive only $14 perperson per month to help feed these refugees.

Enter Europe as a logical destination of choice. Although generally known to be receptive to helping people in need, this choice comes with multiple probems.

Sheer mass - During all of 2014 265,000 migrants entered Europe. By July 31 of this year the number had already reached 326,000 people. Greece alone processed 35,000 during all of 2014. As of July of this year it has had to accommodate 350,000 refugees.

Distance - Although Europe looks close on anyone's map, Germany - a destination of choice - is 2,000 miles from Syria. Traffickers promise to take people there. However, the journey is not only long and expensive ($400 to $2,500 per person), it is dangerous. This year so far 2,600 migrants are known to have died crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe.

Processing - According to E.U. rules refugees need to register and apply for proper documentation in the country they land in when getting ashore. Given the geography, these countries are Greece and Italy, two countries attempting to cope with a five year debt crisis. They are the least economically viable alternatives for migrants desiring to move on to more stable Northern European countries.

Xenophobic nationalist movements - Most migrants don't want to register in countries they don't want to reside in. Many of them are intelligent professionals caught up in a civil war they did not ask for. They know what they want. Hence, Germany and more receptive European countries are the ones they aspire to. To get there they need to travel through countries not exactly excited to accommodate them. A typical route runs from Turkey to Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and north from there. Several of these countries harbor politically substantial movements with strong anti- Islam and anti-ethnic sentiments. Viktor Orban - Hungary's Prime Minister, the man some have dubbed the "Donald Trump of Europe," has stressed that he intends to defend Hungary's borders against the mostly Muslim migrants. He plans to construct a razor-wire fence along his country's border with Serbia. Other countries with significant nationalist elements are also calculating the anticipated political backlash when deciding to what extent to follow Angela Merkel's suggestion about sharing the burden of settling refugees.

Security - Many countries have suggested that this mass exodus contains significant security issues. Isis and other organizations could easily infiltrate the unprocessed masses with devastating effect for vulnerable targets.

Domestic immigration policies - The European Commission in Brussels is slated to compose an E.U.-wide response to the challenge. However, individual countries can, under E.U. rules, adopt their own immigration policies. Germany has committed to accept 800,000 refugees this year. France, the U.K. and Sweden have agreed to lower numbers.

The root cause of this problem lies with the civil war in Syria. The Europeans are not able to correct  this. World powers like the U.S., Russia, China, and perhaps Iran and Saudi Arabia need to get involved to settle Syria. In the mean time helping to process this mass movement will take some of the pressure off, and keep us more secure.