Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Immigration Debate: Encourage Economic Opportunity in Mexico!

After further thought, I have come to realize that the United States is dealing with symptoms of a larger problem. The root of the immigration problem that the United States is having with illegal immigration, specifically from Mexico, are the economic and political problems in Mexico. If there were more economic opportunity in Mexico, I doubt if there would be the mass illegal immigration problem with illegal entry across the U.S./ Mexican board from Mexico to the United States. It seems clear that most of the illegal immigrants coming from Mexico are fleeing for economic reasons, principally to work and economic upward mobility.

The United States government should encourage the Mexican government to expand their economy to include better opportunities for their citizens. I have to conclude that the U.S. will continue to have a significant illegal immigration problem, as it relates to Mexico, until the Mexican government improves and expands it’s economy to provide better economic opportunities for the citizen, and until the political system is reformed to be more responsive to it’s citizens.

In the U.S., we need to control our board and enforce an orderly immigration system, where we account for the orderly entry and exit of the country. Additionally, we can not, and should not, incentivise poor political and economic policies promoted by the Mexican government. In fact, to reiterate, we want to encourage stronger economic policies and a more responsive political system. At the same time we do wish to discourage the violation of our immigration laws.

Now that we are at the crisis stage, we need to come up with a comprehensive answer to the current state of affairs, with over 11,000,000 illegal, undocumented immigrants in the country. I would suggest a staggered system providing a path to legal residency to long-time illegal immigrants, and deportation of recent violators. To reiterate, long-term illegal immigration should be provide a mechanism to become legal residence, and recent arrivals should be deported.

I know it may be controversial to say, but I think that immigrants, who have entered the country illegally, should be able to stay if they have been in the country for a prolonged period of time. If an immigrants, who has entered the country illegally, or who has entered legally on a tourist visa, and has not committed a felonious crime in America, or their country of origin, then they should be able to go thru a background check, pay a fine for the illegal entry into the country and be able to apply for a legal residency status. If after going through a background check, they have found to have committed a felonious crime in America, or their country of origin, then they should due jail time here, then deported. The jail time here, in the United States, before deportation, would be so that they do not escape punishment for being an illegal immigrant who has committed a felony.

Those people, i.e. illegal immigrants, should be encouraged to come in for a background check and receive a legal residency ID card. If they are validated as a law abiding resident, then, also, they will be subject to resident taxes, laws and regulations. This would be a tremendous benefit for America and the immigrant community in America, as well as other American citizens and society at large.

Opinion, by Warren Thompson

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Do Corporations Get Away With Murder?

Literally, do corporations get away with murder as a cost of doing business? In the analysis between the cost to make a product more safe, or their employee's work environment more safe, do corporation make the cost-benefit-analysis that it is cheaper to pay the cost of a customer's, or employee's, death versus pay the additional cost to make their products more safe, or their employee's work environment safer, thereby getting away with murder?

If the answer to this questions is "yes", then shouldn't there be more criminal investigations, and charges, when a customer of a company's product, or employee of a company, dies from using that company's product, or employee who dies on the job? In my opinion, there is a case for pre-meditation, thereby a charge of pre-meditated murder by the company, or corporation.

If a company, or corporation, makes the choice, of life or death, based on their cost-benefit-analysis, and chosing the less costly, more profitable decision of not paying more for safety, then that is a case for pre-meditated murder. A person's life, or death, should never be at the end of any company's, or corporation's, decision whether to pay for additional safe of their product, or their employee's work environment.

My question (s) to you is: What is your opinion regarding this questions? Also, do you think corporations, currently, make these calculations when it comes to the sell of a product to customers, or involving their employee's work environment?

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Milton Friedman Was Wrong!

When you open-up the business marketplace, totally eliminating government regulations intented to govern the rules of said marketplace, you not only clear the way for unfettered capitalism, and the legitimate entreprenuers and businessmen, but you also open the marketplace to criminals and scoundrels, and the unethical profiteer and quick-buck artist.

If you look at any instance in history, whether it be Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Poland, Russia and even in the United States, the results is the same. There is always the occurrence of widespread criminal activity, and always the resulting financial distortions from minor to catastrophic. It's like opening the hen house to the foxes and trusting that their best instincts will keep them from ravaging the hen house.

As wrongfully implied by Mr. Friedman's thesis, if *the pursuit of wealth and power is unbridled, injustice often results. The human mind is readily able to justify it's own selfishness and lack of consideration for others. The powerful find many reasons to ignore the interests of the weak.

Milton Friedman was naive to the fact that the lure of significant potential profits are not only to the honest entreprenuer and businessman, but the same lure for significant potential profits are extended to the quick-buck artist and profiteer, who is willing to operate unethically to secure unearned profits, this creates the potential for significant marketplace distortions. The potential is great for a break in the compact between the honest businessperson and the trusting customer.

My answer, and response, to the naivete of Milton Friedman's free market thesis is that any fair marketplace has to have strong common-sense governing regulations, codified by law, providing ethical rules covering the conduct in the market place. Without strong common-sense regulations governing the fair practices in the marketplace the door is left open for significant distortions in the marketplace due to the breaking of that most sacred of compacts between the honest capitalist and the honest trusting customer. The punishment is always, as demonstrated by history, distortions in the marketplace ranging from minor to catastrophic.

*Taken from "Critical Thinking, by Richard W. Paul (page 20)".