What you're proposing would be a disaster. The extremely pro-free market The Economist (as are all the beloved businessmen you love) are vehemently against that because immigrants are vital to an economy. Especially in places like Europe with continually aging populations. If you start to cut off the immigrants the countries will begin aging at an increasing speed and the workforce will begin to shrink. You only need to look at Japan to prove this. They have an extremely small amount of immigrants, their population is aging at a ridiculously high rate, and their economy is stalling. Literally about all the economists watching Japan's economy are begging the Japanese government to find a way to entice immigrants to Japan. The fact that so many Republicans are both pro-free market and big business yet at the same time are against immigration is hilarious. Immigration is the best way to replenish a workforce when the country has low birth rates and a population that is living longer every generation.
Very true. Countries like Germany are in big trouble because of their demographic crises...
I also find it hilarious that people in favor of capitalism are against immigration. You don't think that big business SUPPORTS immigration? A cheap labor force to increase their profit margins? Really? Don't be stupid. It's the unions (oh no, socialism!!!) that tend to be against immigration -- just look at the United States. Congress basically outsourced immigration reform to big business and the unions because the logic was that if those two could work it out, the legislature could. I'm sick of this simplistic thinking that immigrants are parasites on a country's resources. It's not a one way street.
Considering how the financial system in the US near collapsed due to unregulated capitalism and how Spain's economy HAS collapsed because of the private sector, I doubt capitalism has been proven unsinkable either.
Also, with regards to the UK, these austerity policies are what got their economy into trouble in the first place. Their economy began to decline around the same time the US's did--the US adopted a stimulus policy (which was actually quite lower than what many economists were advocating) while the UK adopted austerity. Look at the results: the US has had a slow, but steady recovery while the UK has only continued a downward spiral.
This New Yorker article is a really good explanation:
In making his annual Autumn Statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday, George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was forced to admit that his government has failed to meet a series of targets it set for itself back in June of 2010, when it slashed the budgets of various government departments by up to thirty per cent. Back then, Osborne said that his austerity policies would cut his country’s budget deficit to zero within four years, enable Britain to begin relieving itself of its public debt, and generate healthy economic growth. None of these things have happened. Britain’s deficit remains stubbornly high, its people have been suffering through a double-dip recession, and many observers now expect the country to lose its “AAA” credit rating.
At every stage of the experiment, critics (myself included) have warned that Osborne’s austerity policies would prove self-defeating. Any decent economics textbook will tell you that, other things being equal, cutting government spending causes the economy’s overall output to fall, tax revenues to decrease, and spending on benefits to increase. Almost invariably, the end result is slower growth (or a recession) and high budget deficits. Osborne, relying on arguments about restoring the confidence of investors and businessmen that his forebears at the U.K. Treasury used during the early nineteen-thirties against Keynes, insisted (and continues to insist) otherwise, but he has been proven wrong.
Before the last election there, which took place in May, 2010, the U.K.’s economy appeared to be slowly recovering from the deep slump of 2008-09 that followed the housing bust and global financial crisis. Just like the Bush Administration (2008) and the Obama Administration (2009), Gordon Brown’s Labour government had introduced a fiscal stimulus to help turn the economy around. G.D.P. was growing at an annual rate of about 2.5 per cent. Once Osborne’s cuts in spending started to be felt, however, things changed dramatically. In the fourth quarter of 2010, growth turned negative and a double-dip recession began. So far, it has lasted two years. While G.D.P. did expand in the third quarter of this year, the Office of Budget Responsibility, an independent economic agency that Osborne set up, has said that it expects another decline in the current quarter. For 2013, the O.B.R. is forecasting G.D.P. growth of just 1.3 per cent. With the economy so weak, the O.B.R. says that the unemployment rate will tick up from eight per cent to 8.2 per cent next year.