MEXICAN IMMIGRATION

Mexicans, and other immigrants, come to the US because they can earn more more money here than they can in their home country. If they could make significantly more in their home country than they do now, far fewer would want to sneak across the border.

Would it be worth one billion dollars to the US to stop most of the Mexican migration? It almost certainly would. Arizona alone spends more than that every year. Money would be saved in several ways. A fence would not be needed or could be much smaller than likely at present. Fewer border guards would be needed. Jailing and then repatriating the immigrants would be greatly reduced. Medical expenses and the costs of educating the migrant children would be reduced.

But just handing out cash to poor Mexicans is not the answer. Instead, the US government (or a private group) should put up one billion dollars to set up a Mexican Enterprise Corp. The Mexican Enterprise Corp. would in effect be a scaling up of the micro-finance system that won its initiator a Nobel Prize.

Once the corporation was set up, it would begin operations by advertising for 1000 Mexican entrepreneurs. Each approved entrepreneur would be guaranteed a grant of up to one million dollars if he/she fulfilled certain conditions. The entrepreneur would have to form a business enterprise (preferably manufacturing) that would employ as many people as reasonable and would manufacture products only for Mexicans. The output would initially be prohibited from export. Only Mexicans would be allowed to work in the enterprises, and any foreign help or management would serve without pay. Further, the enterprises would be scattered throughout Mexico, and every section or town or city would have one or a few enterprises. None would be allowed to locate in Mexico City.

The Mexican government would have to pass trade laws to protect the new enterprises from cheap imports. This is the way the US developed its industrial base in the 19th century; Mexico can do the same in the 21st.

Once the enterprises got going, they would naturally invigorate the local economy and cause new local supply companies to spring up. The jobs created by the enterprises and the supporting companies would immediately begin to cut down on the number of Mexicans wanting to immigrate to the US,

With fewer Mexicans crossing the border, a reasonable guest worker program could be set up for crop harvesting. Wages would certainly be somewhat higher than they are now but that is not a bad thing.

The whole project could be started with just a billion dollars. Trying to do it for much less would probably doom it to failure or have an effect so marginal as probably not to be worthwhile. The US government could finance it but would probably lace it with enough bureaucracy to make it self-defeating. A better source of funding would be for a philanthropist such as Warren Buffet to put up the billion. Alternatively, a group of philanthropists or foundations could easily fund the project. In this way it could be kept lean, smart, and flexible enough to solve the many problems and glitches that would be sure to arise. If an enterprise becomes successful, it can start paying taxes, part of which can be paid to the originating corporation. The original funders of the project would not be paid back anything unless the project collapses in the early stages.

The enterprises would be monitored carefully and any sign of corruption would be quickly investigated, and would be grounds for changing the management of the enterprise or terminating it. Most of the initial products made by the enterprises would probably be simple--farm tools, clothing, school supplies, etc. Ownership of the enterprise would be shared between the entrepreneur and the workers.

The effect on Mexican migration to the US
would probably be felt within the first year, as a few enterprises begin hiring workers to build new factories or to renovate existing structures. Many new roads would be necessary and many would need to be upgraded.

A project of this type might have a life of ten or twenty years. Eventually it would either die or morph into something else.

Too Many Primaries Too Soon

It appears that various state Democratic parties are all set to select up to 59% of all delegates to the 2008 presidential nominating convention on Super Tuesday, Feb 5, 2007. And the Republicans still have time to join them.

They are doing this because they want to have as big an influence as possible on the presidential nominating process.

And what will be the effects of this “election before the election”? One obvious effect will be that candidates will have to declare their intention to run early in the process, and that tends to work against long-shot late comers.

Also, candidates will not be able to campaign much in every state so they are likely to concentrate time, money and personal appearances on states with lots of delegates, like California (370) and New York (232). Instead of spending time in the smaller states, like Montana (15) and Delaware (15), they are likely to just spend money.

So instead of opening up the nominating process and making it more democratic, Super Tuesday pushes it even more in the direction of big money and fat cat sponsors.

Furthermore, the primaries are being held far too early in the nominating process. Voters won’t know much about the candidates and many voters are likely to not vote at all. Again, this shifts the advantage toward big money and fat cats. The primaries should be held no sooner than one month before the nominating conventions. This is true also of Iowa and New Hampshire. Allowing these two small states to have the influence on the nominating process they have now is just as bad as going to Super Tuesday.

It’s probably too late to do anything about the 2008 election because of all the bureaucracy and inertia involved, but one alternative should be explored. This is the possibility of holding a national primary on the internet. Some organization such as the Democratic Party or Move On would sponsor the primary and would invite all who are interested to sign up. At sign-up time, the potential voter would be issued an identification number. When the vote takes place, which could cover an extended period, only those who had an ID number (which could be verified) would be allowed to vote. If the Democrats and the Republicans coordinated their ID systems, extensive crossover voting could be avoided.