Recently I wrote about how permitting freer immigration may be beneficial to rich and poor countries alike. A recent study by the National Venture Capital Association seems to confirm that the rich countries, at least, are enriched by the presence of immigrants. The study found that, since 1990, immigrants founded one of every four public, venture capital-backed companies in the U.S. In the technology arena, the number climbs to 40%. Immigrants helped found such icons as Intel, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, Google and eBay. These and other companies have created hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in wealth. Can anyone seriously argue that the US would be better off if these companies had not been created? Policy makers would do well to take a careful, unbiased look at studies like this when they attempt to determine the limits to set on immigration.

The UN's Human Development Index provide some food for thought. The index combines measures of material wealth, schooling and human longevity to rank the nations of the world in terms of the extent to which they promote human development. The winner? Norway. Niger finished last.

George Bush is in Hanoi today for the APEC Summit. Earlier this week the US Congress embarrassed him by refusing to pass legislation granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Viet Nam which is about to accede to the WTO. Of course, Republicans and Democrats are arguing over whose fault this legislative failure is but this raises the much larger issue of how free trade and globalization effect developing countries. I was in Seattle during the WTO riots several years ago. I saw the people marching in turtle costumes (presumably to indicate that they thought the WTO was bad for turtles) and others carrying signs suggesting that citizens of the developing countries opposed freer trade. I don't know about the turtles but I do believe that, by and large, relatively free trade is better for the poor than highly protective trade regimes. Lower tariffs force developing country producers to be more efficient and produce higher quality goods. There can be a period of transition when some such producers may be harmed by foreign competition. This, in turn, can cause the loss of some jobs. However, the jobs created by the foreign investment generally far exceed the losses. I certainly recognize that some of the foreign investors have employed abusive labor practices. These have to be stopped. But I do not believe that the only way to stop such abuses is to eliminate free trade.

Based on personal experience in Cambodia, I can almost guarantee that most people with jobs in the garment factories there will say that they are much better off with those jobs than they were before. Do those need workers need protection and representation? Certainly. But forcing the factories to shut down in the name of protecting workers is definitely not the answer.

In reality, when labor unions and others in the US oppose free trade agreements they do not have the best interests of workers in poor countries in mind. I believe their sole interest is in protecting their own jobs. Those jobs are worth protecting. But retraining and additional education is how we should protect and improve those jobs. Sacrificing the jobs of workers in poor countries is not.

Ironically, the US will in violation of WTO requirements if it fails to approve PNTR for Viet Nam. I very rarely agree with the Bush Administration on anything. But this time, I do.