Skip to main content

An immigration question

I count myself among the conservatives who are concerned about the horde of immigrants illegally entering the U.S.

But something has been puzzling me.

Countries as varied as South Korea and Ireland have moved from third, or near-third world status to growth and prosperity in little more than a generation.

Ireland did it with a bold tax plan, cutting corporate taxes to 10%, and offering additional incentives that made rates really closer to zero, thereby setting off a wave of investments from big Pharma and virtually every tech company, including Lionbridge, Dell and Microsoft.

South Korea took a very different tack, raising huge protectionist barriers that are only gradually being reduced, and assisting the growth of the chaebols; resulting in ten or so world scale monsters like Samsung, Lucky Goldstar (LG) and Hyundai.

India, which had long shunned business and open markets as the activities of a lower class, is now embracing growth and experiencing an economic boom.

China, with its mind blowing free market communism (Lenin must be spinning in his grave faster than Sputnik) has grown 8-10% annually for a string of years now.

So, the puzzle is, what is wrong with Mexico? Why would a noticeable percentage of the population be willing to cross deserts and climb fences to escape? Since there are several success models to choose from, why haven't they found one? I had hopes that successful businessman Vicente Fox would make a difference, but he didn't.

Is the symbiotic relationship of the kleptocracy and the unions so powerful that the country is doomed to perpetual poverty?

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Reasons We Think America is On the Wrong Course

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday. He does a nice job at talk radio. But he was worked up because the CBS News Poll showed that 72% of Americans surveyed think the U.S. is on the wrong track. (When I went to CBS' site, it looks to me like the number is 69%, but that's an insignicant difference). Medved's view is that income for the poorest citizens are rising (recent government data), unemployment is low, stock market is high, no cold war, so why so pessimistic? Here are my answers: Several of our young men and women are being killed every day in a war that we are getting sick of. The deficit is some unimaginable, staggering number that my generation is imposing on my children. Social Security is bankrupt and both Congress and the Administration (both previous and current, and both Republican and Democratic) are unwilling to face the issue. There are virulent infectious agents in hospitals that are resistent to essentially all antibiotics, and the drug co...
2 comments
Read more

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President: The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river. Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast. There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now. And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or r...
10 comments
Read more

Romney/Thompson dream ticket?

The role of Fred Thompson in yesterday's SC primary is as murky as his next step. Did he divide the religious vote and thereby hand Huckabee a loss? Or would those votes, had he not been there, have gone elsewhere? My instinct is that more of those votes would have gone to Romney or McCain than to Huckabee. Fred comes across to me as the thinking person's conservative: thoughtful on positions, a sense of history, a Federalist, serious about the war on terror and prepared to take the long view on it. His addresses have content, not sound bites - which may, unfortunately, be a drawback in 2008. Mitt is quickly seizing the stage as the most knowledgeable in the field on economics, growth and job creation. With a war still consuming dozens of billions, it isn't clear that the race will be won on voters' views of candidates job creation prowess. However, he gives off as much energy as Fred seems to absorb - Mitt's electron shell could power Fred. So, Mitt may be drawi...
5 comments
Read more