In a way, I believe the First World, i.e. America, is finally experiencing what the Third World has experienced for years that is the “de-nationalization” of your industries as a result of globalization and the world economy. Similarly, First World countries are experiencing the same backlash that some Third World countries went through in the Sixties and Seventies which led to the nationalization of some industries, a protectionist trade policy, and economic disasters in Latin America and Africa. Notably, the countries which increased their economic contacts with the outside, prospered, e.g. Asian countries. Simply put, globalization forces your country and especially your industries to compete effectively. It pressures your government to improve foundational elemets for development, such as education, infrasture, and efficient trade. The reason why the U.S. is losing out in some areas as a result of globalization is partially due to our lackluster performance in “foundational elements” and our opting to support industries that are no longer economically feasible or efficient for us to sustain. Of course, there may be some national security concerns which trump economic efficiency concerns, and therefore, we should continue to support those industries–like defense, agriculture, etc.. However, where there are no national security concerns, economically inefficient industries should be left to wither. We can produce cheap plastic toys better than China but is it really economically efficient for us to? We can pay American citizens to pick strawberries at $10 an hour but do we need to, if there are Mexican citizens willing to pick those berries at $1 an hour? Why don’t we focus on producing jobs that pay $10 an hour or more for Americans rather than squabbling over strawberries and who should pick them? This is where I believe the President’s immigration policy makes sense. Just my two cents, great blog Matt. =)