One of the most heated topics of debate in today's political arena is that of immigration. Someone is talking about how we should secure the border better, and some politician is making an empty promise about a border fence, simply to speak to the "heart" of the American.
And yet out of all the things I have found time to write about, I have not written much about immigration. So, I want this to be a blog where I post my views on immigration.
One reason I have not written much of it is because the issue is really complicated. I have a theoretical mind, and theories only go so far in the case of immigration. It's similar to the War in Iraq, in which I can have principled ideas on the matter, but it is just too hard to hold to one definite opinion. But I will speak of the libertarian and conservative viewpoints on immigration. Since we can't ever figure out what liberals believe, I'll leave their contradicting viewpoints to the side for most of this blog.
The general libertarian point of view on immigration is very loose and lenient to immigrants. Have a very open border - don't be authoritarian about your controls. Why assume any and every immigrant is a terrorist or criminal? Why not assume them as good until they prove otherwise, as is generally done for the born & bread Americans?
In some ways I see their points, but I do not hold completely to this libertarian principle. The libertarian idea of personal liberty, which I strongly believe in, is here, but I do believe a government should protect its people and their Rights. One of the chief ways to do this is to have a secure border, and have some sort of knowledge of who is coming into the country from abroad. Before starting wars, before "fixing" the economy, the government should have some sort of security on our borders.
However I do not completely hold the mainstream conservative point of view either. Although I do want some sort of security on the border, I get the idea that some conservatives take the issue too far. Most immigrants come here for a better lifestyle. They do not ruin the economy, but actually provide it with more competition, which is better for the economy. History has shown that nations despising immigrants do not last, and nations that are welcome to immigration and diverse culture have the most success and the greatest legacy.
Conservatives wouldn't admit it, but I believe that often they believe that loving America means having negative even racial feelings toward immigrants. Immigration is how we came here, and it is how the blacks came here a little while after.
I do want immigrants to respect our country and her laws. I certainly want them to abide by the laws, and if they do not, then they should be prosecuted like the rest of us. I want them to pay taxes. I would rather see them learn English well than for the rest of us to have to learn Spanish. But some things should be out of the government's hand. I understand that Mexicans who come here may still have some sort of Mexican pride. As long as they do not pledge loyalty to Mexico while living as an American citizen, I do not think it is the government's business or even my business if they own a Mexican flag, any more than it is the government's business that I own a Confederate flag. Sometimes conservatives take the issue a bit too far. While I am all for some sort of control on immigration, it may be better for the control to be smaller and the paper work easier, so that that way we would know who wants to come here and not pay the taxes, and who is willing to pay the taxes.
So the bottom line to my "principled" approach would be that we should treat immigrants as American citizens, once they become citizens. We should make sure they abide by our laws, pay the appropriate taxes, and make sure in time of war they do not pledge loyalty elsewhere. In many ways, this side of the immigration battle is not being fought by our leaders who become so compassionate as to give out extra money for immigrants, on top of many who do not pay taxes. However at the same time, we should be loving, respectable, and honorable to them. We should grant any good-hearted immigrant citizenship, and not judge them by their skin. We should not scare them away with a big border fence or by putting too many people on the border (not to mentions spending a lot of money). We should not control their wages as if they hurt the economy, when in reality, the provide great help to a struggling economy. They should be treated as humans and Americans, nothing more, nothing less.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Do American's Exploit Foreigners Through Labor?
The following is a paper I wrote for economics class this year.
Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”
Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.
The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.
It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.
People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.
Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.
Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.
The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.
Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.
Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.
So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.
Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.
In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.
Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.
However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”
Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.
The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.
It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.
People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.
Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.
Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.
The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.
Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.
Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.
So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.
Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.
In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.
Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.
However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Role of the Church
In some ways I hate doing a blog like this - separating Christianity out by its specific denominations. I do desire the unity within the Church universal. But I do believe that there are some cases in which we can use this "legal" approach to ultimately try to bring unity.
I write this in dealing with the role of the church in part of salvation, relationship with God, and the worship of God. I will say that I believe, as a general rule, that Roman Catholics often over-emphasize the role of the church and under-emphasize the role of the personal relationship with God, while many Protestants undershoot the role of the church, focusing primarily on the personal aspect of salvation.
But both are very important, and asking which is more important or which comes first is like asking what comes first out of the chicken or the egg (except I believe that the chicken did!). The church is the Bride of Chris our heir, thus like the individual Christian's mother. We know that Mother's come before their offspring. However where would the church be without the individual Christian?
I do not believe that membership in a church assures salvation. I do not believe that a Baptism assures salvation. I do not believe that one must go to Mass to keep salvation, nor do I believe one must do what the church says to escape purgatory. I do not believe the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Pope or of Mary, although I do not judge them on such doctrines either. I do understand that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who look to a personal faith in Jesus as their only way of salvation, not Popes or the Virgin Mary.
I believe that often Protestants do not look highly enough of the church. While I do not believe we should have a Pope, I do believe there should be some form of church government. While I do not believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped or prayed to, I believe many Protestants shy away from anything to do with Mary, when she is a very important figure of Christianity. I also believe that Communion is often looked down upon in many Protestant churches. I believe that having real bread and real wine each week in worship service is very important. It is where we have a meal with God, where we are reminded of His grace, and where He is reminded (for lack of a better word) of His covenant with us.
Many Protestant's look at private prayer, personal piety, etc., as the chief end of their salvation. Church attendance, baptism, etc., only help show off or at best amplify the personal relationship. But once again, both the personal relationship with God, and the corporate relationship with God must go together. They should be ever flowing. A prayer closes should lead to corporate worship, which should lead back to a prayer closet.
Jesus is the only interceder in our salvation. We need no Priest, Pope, parent, Pastor, Mass, etc. to obtain salvation. Only Jesus' personal grace. But at the same time, we take part in the blessings of salvation through the church; we fully worship God through the church; we amplify our relationship with God through the church; we spread the Gospel through the church; and we renew our covenant with God through the church. I alone am not the Bride of Christ, but the church Catholic (in the sense of 'universal') is the Bride of Christ. The Church Catholic (again, universal, not strictly Roman) should be important to us. So I encourage Roman Catholic's and Protestant's to look at themselves, examine their view of the church and of a personal relationship with God, and see the two as ever-flowing. Perhaps then we can strive for union in the One Body of Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
April 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I write this in dealing with the role of the church in part of salvation, relationship with God, and the worship of God. I will say that I believe, as a general rule, that Roman Catholics often over-emphasize the role of the church and under-emphasize the role of the personal relationship with God, while many Protestants undershoot the role of the church, focusing primarily on the personal aspect of salvation.
But both are very important, and asking which is more important or which comes first is like asking what comes first out of the chicken or the egg (except I believe that the chicken did!). The church is the Bride of Chris our heir, thus like the individual Christian's mother. We know that Mother's come before their offspring. However where would the church be without the individual Christian?
I do not believe that membership in a church assures salvation. I do not believe that a Baptism assures salvation. I do not believe that one must go to Mass to keep salvation, nor do I believe one must do what the church says to escape purgatory. I do not believe the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Pope or of Mary, although I do not judge them on such doctrines either. I do understand that there are plenty of Roman Catholics who look to a personal faith in Jesus as their only way of salvation, not Popes or the Virgin Mary.
I believe that often Protestants do not look highly enough of the church. While I do not believe we should have a Pope, I do believe there should be some form of church government. While I do not believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped or prayed to, I believe many Protestants shy away from anything to do with Mary, when she is a very important figure of Christianity. I also believe that Communion is often looked down upon in many Protestant churches. I believe that having real bread and real wine each week in worship service is very important. It is where we have a meal with God, where we are reminded of His grace, and where He is reminded (for lack of a better word) of His covenant with us.
Many Protestant's look at private prayer, personal piety, etc., as the chief end of their salvation. Church attendance, baptism, etc., only help show off or at best amplify the personal relationship. But once again, both the personal relationship with God, and the corporate relationship with God must go together. They should be ever flowing. A prayer closes should lead to corporate worship, which should lead back to a prayer closet.
Jesus is the only interceder in our salvation. We need no Priest, Pope, parent, Pastor, Mass, etc. to obtain salvation. Only Jesus' personal grace. But at the same time, we take part in the blessings of salvation through the church; we fully worship God through the church; we amplify our relationship with God through the church; we spread the Gospel through the church; and we renew our covenant with God through the church. I alone am not the Bride of Christ, but the church Catholic (in the sense of 'universal') is the Bride of Christ. The Church Catholic (again, universal, not strictly Roman) should be important to us. So I encourage Roman Catholic's and Protestant's to look at themselves, examine their view of the church and of a personal relationship with God, and see the two as ever-flowing. Perhaps then we can strive for union in the One Body of Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
April 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
