SHAME INDEED
There have been two, unrelated subjects on which I've been a bit of a broken record on this blog, over the last few years.
They both have to do with short-sighted policies pursued for narrow goals that have far greater negative implications for the country longer-term. The subjects in question Immigration and Broadband.
Today, there were two separate editorials that echo my sentiments on these two critical subjects, laying out the issues more articulately than perhaps I've been able to manage thus far.
First up, is this New York Times editorial titled "Ain't that America". In particular, the piece nails how radio talk shows, blogs, and personalities like Lou Dobbs, have inflamed the situation implicitly for their own relative ratings advantage.
Second is this heart-felt piece by Walter Mossberg titled "Free my Phone". Although Walt is railing against our situation on the wireless broadband front, the reality is pretty dire on the wired side as well.
Both pieces are worth reading, regardless of which side of these issues you come out on.
Although both issues are totally unrelated, the one thing they have in common is how important they are for the long-term economic well-being of the United States.
The immigration issue is extremely important, but it is a tough nut to crack. The US is not alone in trying to find ways to deal sensibly with it - Europe is in a very similar position, yet it has fewer opportunities for population expansion and employment, yet responds similarly to the US.
The broad issues are:
1. How many immigrants can the US beneficially absorb?
2. Who should be first in a quota system.
3. What legal benefits and restrictions need to be applied and for how long.
4. How to deal with "cheaters".
Some policies could be changed e.g. the family unification idea. This allows one immigrant to eventually bring in the rest of his/her family. Arguably every family member should be a treated as a separate immigrant.
We should acknowledge that some laborers are only here for work, but border restrictions make them de facto immigrants. Better just to offer work visas and travel freedoms.
One paradox is that Republicans are so anti-immigrant. Arguably a party that believes in minimal government support and free markets should encourage immigration as a no-cost, market clearing mechanism for labor. Traditional Republicans probably still do, but this is antithetical to the "family values" wing.
One question. In a world of increasingly free capital flows, why is labor treated so differently?
Posted by: alex tolley | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 11:43 AM