Sydney: It seems that Government is way too big. There are plenty of Departments that could either improve their efficiency, or be removed altogether. Alternatively, there are clearly some Departments that should be administered by the States. There is also duplication at the moment, such as in the welfare system where both States and the Federal Government seem to be doing the same thing. Either the States need to be responsible, or the Federal Government should be. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Should Puerto Rico be required to make English its only official language if it becomes the 51st state?
Michigan: We have enough states with problems now. Why would we want another one?
Sydney: Of course it should, if English is the official language of the United States as well. In reality I don’t think it would make a lot of difference to Puerto Ricans if they became the 51st State. It seems they are pretty much a defacto State anyway. I’m sure that if English was made the only official language life would go on as normal. It’s not as if the U.S military is going to force everyone to speak English. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Should the U.S. grant amnesty to illegal aliens without requiring specific steps for them to learn English as a prerequisite for legalization?
Michigan: I don’t think we can grant a mass amnesty to all illegal aliens in the U.S. We may consider amnesty to aliens who have been here for a certain amount of time, own property, are employed, and speak English. We actually need these people in some of our businesses. We are all concerned that they are not being taxed and that they are a burden on our health and school systems. Give them work visas, get them on the tax train, and make them buy insurance. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Should employers have the right to require employees to speak English on the job?
RMC: Absolutely. It’s a pretty simple question. If I hire an employee, I should be able to set the rules for my business workplace. You want the paycheck, you play by my rules. If you don’t like it, suck it up or quit. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Should English be made the official language of the United States?
Sydney: I thought English was the official language of the United States. I think it would make sense because it is the main language spoken here, even if so many other languages are spoken as well. I think it would encourage immigrants to learn English which would make it easier for them to integrate into the wider community. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Is China a strategic partner, a strategic competitor, or an enemy of the United States? Are they an economic threat or a military threat?
Michigan: China is too busy building factories and infrastructure to worry about such things as world peace keeping, nuclear weapons, or a world class military. We need China and they need us. I think that China may have the best economy in the world today. So yes, they are an economic threat. As far as a military threat, they can have anything they want, but they are content to set back and watch us spend our money. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Should the U.S. continue pursuing the six-party talks with North Korea? If not, what policy would be more effective?
Cartwright: Unlike Iran whose leaders are religious fanatics, I think North Korea is engaging in economic extortion. It doesn’t hurt to keep talking to them and giving a little of what they want each time if it keeps them contained and keeps their programme in check. However, if Kim Jong-un is going to be aggressive with the nuclear arms or take a different approach than his father, I think we would have to reassess the benefits of the talks. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: What’s your assessment of the United Nations. Should we cut off funding? Is the creation of a Palestinian state in the best interests of U.S. security concerns?
RMC: I think the United Nations started out as a good organization conceptually, but it has failed the world at every turn. They haven’t really accomplished very much of anything on the world stage in the way of stopping genocide, abuses of people by dictators and despots, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc. And now that the U.S. has left Iraq, where are the peacekeepers in their little blue helmets? And when Iran ultimately obtains nuclear weapons capabilities, it will just be another vast failure of the United Nations. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: Should the U.S. have policies pursuing democracy in the Middle East?
RMC: The spread of democracy is a noble ambition. Peoples have a right to live in freedom, without oppression, and with certain basic rights. There are a lot of places in the Middle East that have never known democracy in recorded history. To suddenly thrust democracy upon these peoples is a little presumptuous and dangerous. They don’t know how to suddenly handle their freedoms. The new democracy is fragile and susceptible to infiltration by hostile or subversive forces. Continue reading
Symposium 2011: How do we prevent Iran from infiltrating the new Iraqi government now that U.S. troops have left the country and prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?
RMC: Without a continued military presence in Iraq there’s no way to ensure that Iran doesn’t meddle in Iraq’s affairs. The troop presence in Iraq was a powerful counterbalance to Iran and its desire to dominate the Middle East. While we effectively trained the Iraqi military and police, we don’t know their ability to fend off Iranian influence. And honestly, if Iran wanted to march into Iraq and take over, they probably could. Continue reading
Thinking Outside The Boxe 