Health policy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 4

Health policy - Essay Example The funds will be used to develop an advanced genetic sequencing technology (Burton, 1). 70 million dollars, will be used by the national cancer institute, to develop a genome marker that will help in much more precise cancer treatment. Further 5million dollars will be allocated to the health record information management that will ensure that the data collected is stored safely and accessible to researchers. The physicians will also have access to the information to aid them in the management of patients. This initiative, will go long way in reducing the cost patient’s incur while undergoing treatment when empirical treatment is used. This too will prevent the patients from having to take a number of medication therapies that are not helpful to their conditions. I agree with the policy and the article since it will be of much help to the patients and the physicians as a whole. It will provide a guideline on the modality of treatment hence saving on time used to figure out the best method of treatment for a particular ailment Burton, Thomas M. "Obama to seek $215 million for precion-medicne." Wall Street Jounal (2015): 1. Document, Retrieved from

Corruption in the Teamsters Union Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3250 words

Corruption in the Teamsters Union - Essay Example (Myint, 2000), notes that the lack of Accountability, mingled with Economic Rent, here defined as a unique feature in a person which causes them to be at an ad vantage with the competitors, and Discretionary Powers, defined as the allowance for leaders to twist rules in their own way brings about corruption. Taking this in mind, most trade union members join the unions just their work rights insured. They hence don't give a keen thought to a leader's character as long as he or she is representing their rights well. Therefore, Trade Unions provide an even field for greedy men and women to propagate their activities without confrontation. Mismanagement and embezzlement of collective funds has led to the collapse of famous trade unions in several countries. This increasingly destructive vice has spurred an unprecedented input in research on the Causes, effects and cures of Corruption in Trade Unions. Surprisingly, the issues of corruption continue in increasing numbers. Nevertheless, we have a better knowledge and deeper understanding of the causes and effects of Corruption, not just in Trade Unions, but also in other agencies. For the sake of this paper, I will examine Corruption in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBP), otherwise called the Teamsters Union. The findings and recommendations will represent the possibilities in other Trade Unions. Background Information The IBP is the largest private sector labor union in the United States and Canada. It comprises of over 2 million blue-collar workers in the public service and private sectors. Unlike most Unions, the IBP divides into many strong smaller unions, with their own leadership structures and policies. The International Body acts only as a coordinating agent. IBP history dates back to the early 1900s, being a merger of two former Trade Unions. The Teamsters' National Union is the Foundation stone for the Union. It was established by truck drivers and deliverymen from Chicago who had defied the A merican Federation of Labor (AFL) attempts of creating a teamsters trade union. The Union later merged with Team Drivers' International Union (The Union formed by AFL), to form the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). The new group now registered as an affiliated group to the AFL. At its inception, the Teamster Union aimed at ensuring fare working conditions for the members. Its leadership structure has smaller subsidiary groups called Locals. The Locals elect their own leaders who then elect the national leaders. The initial membership consisted of deliverymen using horse drawn vehicles, until in the 1930s after Truck Drivers surpassed them. From the onset of the Union, its mandate has been representing the rights of truck drivers, service deliverymen and other similar job groups. The Union has a great bargaining power, fueled by its large membership as well as its capacity to hamper the transportation of important goods. It has always been important to the AFL, for a stri ke by its members would hamper the movement of products throughout the nation. Inasmuch as, the numbers were important in ensuring a good bargaining power, the same was also a brooding ground for corrupt leaders. Most of its leaders are notorious in soliciting for bribes from

History of US Immigration Law and Reform

History of US Immigration Law and Reform Alejandro Bojorquez is a Mexican citizen who has been waiting decades to be reunited with his family in this United States through issuance of a family-sponsored green card.   Alejandro’s father, Jesus Bojorquez, first filed a family sponsored green card petition for his son when Alejandro was only 14 years old (Gonzalez, 2013).   Alejandro is now 33 years old and he could still wait until 2018 before he receives his family sponsored green card due to the wait time for the visa category he is currently in.   This will make his wait for issuance of his green card twenty years, however, this length of time is not that uncommon.   Alejandro Bojorquez’s family is not alone.   Similar situations are being seen every day due to the current shortage of family-sponsored visas available.   In the past, the United States immigration system has made it a priority to have families kept together; however, due to shortage of family-sponsored visas available, the number of visa backlogs have rapidly increased, keeping families separated for many years.   Congress must reform the family immigration laws and the family visa process to start reuniting families again, before families become completely broken.   History of Immigration Laws Immigration laws in the United States date back to the early 18th Century.   During the 18th and early 19th Century, the United States welcomed free and open immigration and did not have concrete immigration laws put in place under legislation.   In the 1880’s, the number of immigrants immigrating to the United States was rising, and economic conditions were becoming worse.   Therefore, Congress implemented legislation and passed the General Immigration Act of 1882 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).     Ã‚   The General Immigration Act of 1882 placed a fifty cent head tax on each immigrant.   Additionally, this Act barred the entry of any immigrant presumed to be an idiot, lunatic, convict, or a public charge (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).   The first laws enacted that began prohibiting certain immigrants from coming to the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Alien Contract Labor Laws of 1885 and 1887 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).   These Acts were the first immigration laws that significantly placed a restriction on certain immigrants immigrating to the United States.   The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited entry of Chinese immigrant workers due to the belief that the Chinese immigrants were taking American citizen jobs, and the Alien Contact Labor Laws prohibited American employers from recruiting immigrant workers to work for lower wages than the American workers.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pursuant to the Immigrant Act of 1891, the United States federal government began the control, inspection, admitting, rejecting, and processing of all immigrants trying to be admitted into the United States (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012). Due to the need to have a single agency enforce and regulate the new immigration laws, the Act also created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration in the Treasury Department, also known as the Department of Commerce and Labor.   This name changed in 1895 to General of Immigration (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012) The Superintendent oversaw the United States Immigrant Inspectors who were stationed at the port of entry, Ellis Island.   Ellis Island was opened by the United States Immigration Service on January 2, 1982 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Naturalization Act of 1802 allowed any court of record to naturalize a new American citizen (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).  Ã‚   However, immigration laws began to change in the early 1900’s.   In 1906, Congress enacted the Basic Naturalization Act of 1906.   This Act was designed to add uniformity to the naturalization process. This Act also outlined the essential rules and regulations that governed the United States naturalization process for the majority of the 20th Century.     The 1906 Act created the Federal Naturalization Service. Accordingly, Congress placed the Federal Naturalization Service together with the Bureau of Immigration, which changed the name to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).  Ã‚     Ã‚   In the early 1900’s, the United States admitted more than 14.5 million immigrants (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).  Ã‚   The large amount immigrants being admitted began to raise concerns as to the type of immigrant they were due to many of the immigrants not being able to read or write.   Therefore, it was determined that there needed to be stronger immigration laws in place.   In 1917, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1917.   This Act required that immigrants being admitted into the United States be able to read and write in their native language (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).   This was a way to catch the undesirables from being admitted in to the United States.     However, large amounts of immigration slowed when World War I began.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   When World War I ended, mass immigration to the United States began again. Therefore, stricter immigration laws were put in place.   Immigration legislation of the Immigration Acts of 1921 and the Immigration Acts of 1924 placed a numerical limit on immigration for the first time in United States history (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012). Each nationality received a certain quota based on numbers in the United States census and was referred to as the national-origins quota system.   A visa was required to be admitted into the United States.   If immigrants tried to be admitted and did not have a valid visa, they were not admitted it. The Immigration Acts of 1921 and the Immigration Acts of 1924 severely restricted the amount of immigrants allowed to be admitted into the United States.   Immigrants from all over the world began to cross into the United States illegally. Congress needed to do something about the amount of illegal immigrants coming into the United States, therefore, they passed the Labor Appropriation Act of 1924 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).     This created the Border Patrol which secured the borders between inspection stations and on the coast. In 1952, Congress combined all of the previous immigration and naturalization regulations into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA).   This removed all of the racial barriers within immigration and naturalization and retained the national origins quotas (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).   However, civil rights activists viewed this Act as discriminatory as a quota system that placed a numerical limit on visas issued by national-origin was not equal treatment.   Ã‚   Consequently, in 1965, amendments were made to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which created the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).   This Act removed the earlier quota system that placed limits on the number of immigrants by their nationality.   Instead, the Act established a new preference system that was designed to reunite families and draw skilled immigrants to immigrate to the United States. The preference system was supposed to put all immigrants on the same footing while immigrating to the United States. The preference system, like the national-origin quota, places a limit to the number of immigration visas that were available each fiscal year.   Throughout the years, modifications have been made to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, however, the framework of this act remains still today.   The 1965 immigration policies are illogical.   Prior to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the only thing that stood between families being reunited, was the amount of time it took for first family member that immigrated to the United States to get a job and save money to send back for their relatives to immigrate.   However, the passage of 1965 INA eliminated that way of immigrating and instead created the family preference quota that places annual limits on the number of family visas that can be awarded each year by country of origin and family preference.   Currently, family-sponsored visas are the majority of visas given each year (Department of Homeland Security, 2017).   Thus, the equality, organization, and promptness of the entire visa process is vital.   Ironically though, the United States current policies lack all of them.  Ã‚   More recently, one of the most important immigration laws that has been put in place is the Immigration Act of 1990.   This act changed American immigration law as it allowed more immigrants to come to the United States each year.   Additionally, the 1990 Immigration Act began the yearly lottery of visas and it encouraged counties that do not have a strong presence in the United States to apply for a visa in the lottery (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2012).     The lottery system assigns visas to immigrants randomly.   Ã‚  Previous immigration laws did not allow immigrants from a certain nationality, origin or country to attain visas. The 1990 Immigration Act changed those immigration policies.  Ã‚   In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA 96) was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton.   This Act made immigrating and adjusting status in the United States very hard for immigrants and United States citizens.     Ã‚  The IIRIRA 96 made more immigrants, even legal immigrants, deportable and less immigrants legalizable (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1996).   The provisions in this Act increased penalties on immigrants who had violated the United States law in some way.   IIRIRA 96 needs to be reformed.  Ã‚  Ã‚   Prior to 1996, undocumented immigrants were able to obtain legal status if they had been in the United States for at least seven years and could show extreme hardship if they were to get deported. This was essentially the back door to gaining lawful status in the United States. After the passage of IIRIRA 96, the back door closed.   The only way for an undocumented immigrant to gain lawful presence with a green card was by having an immediate relative (United States spouse or child over 18 years) file a petition.   IIRIRA 96 defined unlawful presence.   This act has provisions that place a three-year ban on immigrants who were in the United States for more than six months (180 days) unlawfully, and a ten-year ban if the immigrant lived in the United States for more than one year unlawfully (8 U.S.C.A  § 1182, 2013).   In order to adjust the immigrant’s status, they would have to travel back to their country of origin to have the visa appointment.   This created tremendous difficulties for the families of undocumented immigrants whose immigrant spouse or parent had to leave the United States to apply for their visa.   Once the immigrant would leave the United States, they would trigger an unlawful presence ban.   Under United States law, the USCIS is permitted to waive the unlawful presence ban through filing for an I-601a provisional unlawful presence waiver (8 U.S.C.A  § 1182, 2013).   In order to file the waiver, the applicant needs to be able to demonstrate that denial of the waiver and their excessive time abroad would result in extreme hardship of the immigrant’s U.S. citizen spouse or parent. The problem with the I-601a provisional unlawful presence waiver is that it does not include guidance for how â€Å"extreme hardship† is defined. Therefore, many families were placed in the backlog and separated for many months to years because they did not provide enough extreme hardship. The lengthy separation caused emotional and financial hardship of families waiting for the waiver to be approved.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Prior to 2013, families were separated for many months to many years waiting for their visa and their I-601a provisional unlawful presence waiver to be approved.   Under the Obama Administration, President Obama made an executive order regarding the I-601a provisional unlawful presence waiver and decreasing the backlog (8 CFR 103, 2013).   Under his order, U.S. citizens were allowed to file their petition and an I-601a provisional waiver while continuing to reside in the United States.   Once both were approved, a visa appointment would be scheduled in the immigrant’s country of origin and a visa would be issued within weeks. Besides including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, it also included immediate relatives of legal permanent residents, work visa petitions, and diversity visa applicants.   These changes decreased the backlog and reunited relatives more prompt.  Ã‚  Ã‚   With the improvements of the I-601a under the Obama administration, it was hoped that there would be clarification and updated regulations to make clear what is considered to be extreme hardship and how it was defined.   However, that was not the case and it is still vital for DHS to propose regulations that will make extreme hardship more clear.   Regardless, the improvements that were made in the I-601a waiver was a huge step for immigration reform as it greatly reduces the amount of time family members are separated from those that they love the most.  Ã‚   Currently there are harmful anti-immigration laws that are damaging state economies.   Alabama and Arizona have both passed harsh anti-immigration laws to try to dismantle the amount of undocumented immigrants that are living in their states.   The idea of these laws was to make the everyday life of the undocumented immigrant so difficult that they would choose to go back to their country, however, the laws implemented did far worse damage.   For Arizona, the passing of The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, S.B. 1070, in 2010 was extreme. S.B. 1070 was the most comprehensive, strictest and most controversial anti-illegal immigration law put in place in the United States for a long time.   S.B. 1070 includes provisions which add penalties in relation to the enforcement of immigration law that include trespassing, harboring and transporting illegal immigrants, alien registration documents, employer sanctions, and human smuggling (Morse, 2011).  Ã‚   This law has been criticized most due to the encouragement of racial profiling of anyone who looked like a Mexican.   A boycott of Arizona began immediately after passing of this law, which cost Phoenix Arizona 141 million dollars in tourist and business in the first four months after passing the Act (Khan, N, 2015).      The Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, Alabama H.B. 56, of 2011 is an anti-illegal immigration law aimed to remove illegal immigrants from the state of Alabama.   This law turned out to be the strictest illegal immigration law in the nation’s history, even more strict than Arizona’s S.B. 1070, as it attempted to regulate every part of immigrants lives in the State of Alabama.   Areas regulated included interfering with immigrant children’s schooling, preventing immigrants from renting, entering contracts, and working, obstructing lawful access to public benefits, and require law enforcement to verify immigration status (ACLU, 2017).  Ã‚   Shortly after the passage of H.B. 56, the citizens of Alabama began to see that the law was causing more damage than good.   Particularly, it was harmful to Alabama’s agriculture industry.   Due to Alabama’s anti-immigration law, agriculture farmers lost a significant amount of income. Chad Smith, an Alabama tomato farmer, estimated that he would lose up to $300,000 a year due to lack of immigrant farm workers that were in Alabama (Baxter, 2012).   Additionally, the H.B. 56 is tearing families apart to the point that undocumented immigrants are facing the choice on whether to take their United States born children with them to their country of origin, or leave them behind to allow them to have a better future. Anti-immigration laws implemented in states have been proven not to work in both the example of Alabama’s H.B. 56 and Arizona’s S.B. 1070.   These laws legalized racial profiling, frightened immigrant children, and damaged both state’s economies.   Both of these laws should be either repealed, replaced or reformed with more effective laws that will not racial profile, tear families apart and deter immigrants from residing in those states and the United States. Petition for Lawful Presence The 2016 Current Population Survey (CPS) notes that there are currently more than 84.3 million, or 27 percent, of immigrants living in the United States, which include legal, illegal and their U.S. born children of immigrants (Zong & Batalova, 2017).   Each year, the United States admits more than one million legal permanent residents (Department of Homeland Security, 2017).   The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizations American citizens and legal permanent residents to immigrate their spouse, children (under the age of 21), or parents to the United States. The family visa process has three main steps.   The first step is for the petitioner to file an application.   The United States citizen or legal permanent resident relative needs to file a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and a Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status with the USCIS.   If the immigrant is an immediate relative of the United States citizen, the visa process can move forward.   However, if the immigrant is not an immediate relative, they will be put in the family visa backlog to wait for their priority date for visa issuance to become available.   Ã‚  It is often thought that once an immigrant’s Form I-130 is approved, the immigrant can be immediately admitted to the United States.   However, that is not the case.  Ã‚   The case of Bolvito v. Mukasey discusses the issue that once the Form I-130 is filed and approved by the USCIS, a visa is not automatically provided and approval does not automatically grant lawful status of the immigrant in the United States.   Instead, the approval of the Form I-130 only means that the immigrant is eligible to receive permission to enter the United States as long as they are not found to be excludable under another immigration law.     Ã‚  The approval of Form I-130 simply means that the immigrant is free to move to the next step. When the immigrant reaches their priority date, they can then move to the second step.   For immediate relatives, the second step comes within months after the Form I-130 is approved.   The second step is to determine if the immigrant can apply for their visa at the USCIS offices inside the United States, or a United States consulate in the immigrant’s country of origin.   If the immigrant was lawfully admitted, they will be able to apply for their visa at a USCIS office in the United States.   If the immigrant is unlawfully present, or are not currently present in the United States, the immigrant will have to apply for their visa in their country of origin, regardless of whether they are currently residing in the United States. The third step is when the visa is issued to the immigrant.   In order for a visa to be issued, the immigrant must prove that they are not admissible under 8 U.S.C.A Sec. 1182.   Immigration violations, crimes, mental disorders, unlawful presence, national security concerns, public charge, and infectious diseases are all grounds that may bar the immigrant from the United States for a period of time.     Ã‚  If the third step is a success, the immigrant will be admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.   If the third step is not successful, there are other hoops that need to be jumped through before the immigrant will be admitted into the United States.   Consequently, the immigrant will be placed in the backlog for months to years.     Ã‚   Current Backlog Most of the legal permanent residents the United States admits each year are immigrants that are already residing in the United States due to their current visa status or they are residing as undocumented immigrants.   Nearly two-thirds of them qualify as members of an American family that have already adjusted their status to legal permanent residents through a family-sponsored visa or they are currently waiting in the backlog for their family-sponsored visa to be issued (Department of Homeland Security, 2017).  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The backlog of family-sponsored visas begins with the number of visas that are allowed to be issued each fiscal year surpasses the amount of family-sponsored visas being applied for.   In 2015, 1,051,031 Lawful Permanent Residents were admitted to the United States (Department of Homeland Security, 2017).   However, out of the 1,051,031 legal permanent residents admitted, 44.03 % were immediate relatives of United States citizens and only 20.4 % of them were from the family sponsored preference categories (Department of Homeland Security, 2017).   The remaining visas went to the employment based visas, refugees, diversity, asylees, and other types of visas. As of November 1, 2016, 4,259,573 family-sponsored immigrants were still waiting in the backlog for their visa to become available (U.S. Department of State, 2016).  Ã‚   Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151(c) (2009) Worldwide level of immigration, the worldwide level of family-sponsored visas allowed to be given can be the maximum of 480,000 and is to be no less than 226,000 per fiscal year.   The variance in the maximum amount of visas allowed and the minimum amount of visas allowed to be issued each fiscal year is due to that certain immigrants are not subject to the worldwide numerical limitations.   Under current immigration law, there is currently not a limit set for the amount of immigrant visas that can be given to â€Å"immediate relatives† of United States citizens.   According to 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151(b)(2) (2009), â€Å"immediate relatives† is defined as the children, spouses, and parents of a citizen of the United States.   This means that spouses, children and parents of United States citizens do not have to worry about the numerical limitations and are able to get a visa issued to them right away, as long as they are not excludable. However, relatives to United States citizens and legal permanent residents who are not considered to be an â€Å"immediate relative† and apply for a family-sponsored green card are subject to the current numerical limitations of worldwide visas.   These relative immigrants have to wait in line and are placed in a backlog until their place in line is ready for a visa.   8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151(a)(2) (2009) places the annual numerical limits allowed per nation.   Currently, the total numerical limit for family-sponsored visas for relatives other than immediate relatives is 226,000 per fiscal year (8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151(a) 2009).     Ã‚   There is not only one line to wait in, there are multiple lines.   The lines are divided into family-sponsored preference categories that set limits depending on the exact relationship the petitioner has with the immigrant, age of the immigrant, and country of residence.   According to 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1154 (2014) – Procedure for granting immigrant status, the current family-sponsored preferences are as follows: First: (F1) unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; Second (F2A) spouses and children of legal permanent residents and (F2B) unmarried sons and daughters (21 years or age or older) of permanent residents; Third (F3) married sons and daughters or U.S. citizens; and Fourth (F4) brothers and sisters of adult U.S. citizens (U.S. Department of State, 2017).  Ã‚  Ã‚   According to 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1152 (2000) – Numerical limitations on individual foreign states, each country is only allowed to receive 7% of the worldwide immigrant visa level provided under 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151 (2009).   Some countries have a higher amount of visa applicants each year.   For example, China, Mexico, and the Philippines have a higher amount of applicants each year and most family preference categories force these visa applicants to wait two decades or more to have their visa approved.   As of April, 2017, the wait time for the first family-sponsored visa preference category for Mexico was 22 years.   The National Visa Center is currently processing visas for May 22, 1995 (U.S. Department of State, 2017).   Ã‚  Due to the numerical limitation for visas per country, visa applicants from countries with a high immigration demand (Mexico, China, and the Philippines) have to wait a long period of time for their visa to become available.  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   There are currently two different backlogs that family-sponsored visa applicants are placed into while waiting for a visa to be issued to them.   The first backlog is the administrative backlog, also referred to as the processing backlog (Vaughan, 2015).   The administrative backlog is given to visa applicants due to the lack of resources that are available from Congress to the specific agency handling the visa processing (Vaughan, 2015). Therefore, USCIS is not able to effectively manage the large volume of visa applications that comes in each year.   These applicants are put in queue until resources are made available. The administrative backlogs could easily be eliminated if the United States government would provide adequate resources to those agencies.   The second, and more grave backlog is the shortage of visa backlog.   The shortage of visa backlog begins with the annual number of visas available to be distributed each year.   Due to the current visa demand being higher than the 480,000 visas available to be issued each year pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151 (2009), family-sponsored visa applicants get placed in the backlog and have the possibility of waiting as long as twenty years or more for their visa to be issued.   Congress passing a comprehensive immigration reform that will meet the current visa demands and cut down on the current backlog, is the only solution. INA does not specifically state that immigrants who have visa applications pending cannot visit the United States to visit, however, in order to do so, they would have to qualify for a non-immigrant or employment visa (Cruz, 2010).   Both these visas require the immigrant to state that they have no immigrant intent.   If the immigrants fail to disclose their pending immigrant visa, they will risk being denied into the United States.   Thus, if immigrants are waiting for their visa to be issued in their country of origin, they typically they are not allowed to visit their family in the United States until they become a legal permanent resident.     Ã‚   A lot can happen while an immigrant waits in the backlog for their visa to be approved.   If they want to reunite with their family sooner, they may enter the United States illegally.   They also may choose to get married, and then a putting them in an even longer backlog (Cruz, 2010).   Moreover, the petitioning relative or the immigrant could die before the visa was issued.   Current United States immigration laws do not account for these circumstances.   Alejandro Bojorquez was put in the endless shortage of visa backlog when he was only 14 years old.   At that time, his father was a legal permanent resident.   As a permanent resident, his father petitioned for Alejandro and his mother to gain lawful entry to the United States through a family-sponsored visa petition on January 8, 1998 (priority date) (Gonzalez, 2013).   Nevertheless, Alejandro’s backlog increased when he attained the age of 21, as the United States government automatically moved him to the F2B category for unmarried adult children 21 years and older, and that line was much longer.   In January of 2013, Alejandro’s father became a naturalized United States citizen, and Alejandro was again moved into another family preference category.   This time, Alejandro was moved into the F1 category for unmarried adult children 21 years and older of United States Citizens.   Currently, for the FL preference category, the National Visa Center is processing priority dates of June 15, 1995 (U.S. Department of State, 2017).   Reform of current immigration laws is needed to eliminate loopholes like described above that keep family members apart for more time than initially required. Clearly, the timely family reunification process is not working well for U.S. Citizens or legal permanent residents and their immediate family members.   Currently, there are 423,373 adult children over the age of 21 still waiting in line for their visa and the priority date to come (U.S. Department of State, 2016).  Ã‚   Forcing families to be separated from each other for many years, while trying to gain lawful status in the United States, puts major emotional and financial strain on them.   Many immigrants find themselves facing either family reunification or keeping the life that they have set up in the United States.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Immigration Reform Immigrants come to the United States for the promise of freedom and the many opportunities the United States has to give.   However, current immigration laws keep families separated and the incoherent laws make it hard for immigrants to attain a visa.   Current immigration regulations and statutes in the United States need to be reformed on both the federal level and the state level.   The United States needs a comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants already residing in the country. There are social consequences for immigrant families who are waiting in the backlog for their visa to become available.   The undetermined time an immigrant family has to wait for their visa disrupts family relationships.   This is due to spouses and children residing in their country of origin for an uncertain period of time.   Children who are waiting for their family sponsored visa are often staying with grandparents and develop a sense of abandonment, which results in destructive behaviors (Cruz, 2010).   The immigrant’s opportunity to develop language, cultural, and economical ties to the United States are also delayed due to the undetermined wait for a visa to be issued.   Therefore, many immigrants waiting in the backlog immigrate to the United States illegally to ease these social consequences.   More than 6,000 immigrant children are arrested at the Mexican/United States border each year while attempting to reunite with their parents in the United States (Cruz, 2010).   Comprehensive immigration reform will eliminate the social consequences of the family visa backlog.      Currently there are 11 million undocumented immigrants residing in the United States (Cohn &Passel, 2016). Legalizing these undocumented immigrants would boost the economy and the federal and state tax revenue.   In 2010, the United States collected 11.2 billion dollars of tax revenue from undocumented immigrants.   This tax revenue is beneficial to both the federal government and individual states.      A comprehensive immigration reform that would legalize the current undocumented immigrants would benefit the United States economy and American workers. Employers need to have a legalized workforce.   Business owners from farm workers to hotel workers have worker lacking immigration status.   A compressive immigration reform would put all workers, Americans and immigrants, on a level playing field which would result in increased wages.   Higher wages would mean more consumers spending, and a huge benefit for the United States economy.   The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue in three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized (Hinojosa-Ojeda, 2010).  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Immigration reform would keep families together.   According to a 2011 study, more than 5,100 children were in foster care because their parents were undocumented and had either been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or deported (Cortez-Neavel, 2016).  Ã‚   ICE completed their own assessment in the years 2010 to 2012, which they recorded removing 204,810 parents of U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 (Cortez-Neavel, 2016).   Removing undocumented immigrants with United States citizen children only leaves more family on welfare.     Ã‚     The Trump administration plans to deport between two and three million undocumented workers (Cortez-Neavel, 2016).     If President Trumps words hold true, the children of the undocumented immigrants being deported will either go to a relative, if one was available, or be placed in foster care.  Ã‚   Comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalizing the undocumented immigrants is the only way to keep families together and these children out of foster care and off welfare.   Reforming of current immigration laws will also create more jobs.   According to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), one out of every ten immigrants owns a business and 620 out of 100,000 immigrants start a business each month (Fairlie, 2012).   This means that immigrants being admitted into the United States will be employing workers, paying taxes and contributing to the economy.   These immigrants will become strong members of a community and their societies.  Ã‚  Ã‚   A comprehensive immigration reform that encourages more high-skilled workers to be admitted to the United States will strengthen the economy, innovate and provide workforce stability throughout the country.   Opposition of Immigration Reform From research, it appears that some Americans seem to not favor the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. Many individuals who oppose immigration reform believe that all of the immigrants who are undocumented can simply go back to their country and get in line for a green card (Nowrasteh, 2016).   It is just not that easy.   For most of the undocumented immigrants in the United States, there is no line available to them as they do not have a family member in the United States who can petition for their legal entry.   Since there is no current amnesty in the United States and IIRIRA dismantled the grandfathered adjustment of status, undocumented immigrants either have the choice to stay in the United States and fear deportation, or go to a country that many do not even know.    The cost of immigration reform is a major concern of congress.   In 2013, the Heritage Foundation stated that immigration reform was estimated to cost the United States 6.3 billion dollars from start to finish (Harris, 2013).   The 6.3 billion dollars represents the total cost of immigration reform, which includes; revising the family visa process, border security, and creating a pathway for citizenship for the current undocumented workers in the United States (Harris, 2013).   However, that number does not even include the Trump Administrations proposed border wall.   The Department of Homeland Security estimated that the proposed border wall would cost the United States 21.6 billion dollars (Ainsley, 2017).   Congress needs to take into consideration the broad range of areas that the estimated cost of reform covers when determining if it costs too much.  Ã‚     Ã‚   What the estimated cost of reform fails to represent is what comprehensive immigration reform will do for the United States.   Due to the current broken family visa process, there are consequences which arise from the inability of families being able to reunite in a timely manner. A comprehensive reform of current immigration laws will allow for many families to be put back together.   Families lean on each other in time of need. They help each other raise the children, and help with the daily finances. When a family is waiting for one of their family members to be provided with their visa, they often have to apply for state aid as they cannot afford food, childcare, housing, and their everyday bills (Vaughan, 2015).   Eliminating the backlog will get families off of welfare. The Trump Administration has categorized undocumented immigrants as a threat to the American workers.   President Trump claims to be on the side of American workers and he vows to deport the undocumented workers that are taking jobs away from the white working class.   This argument resonates well with the white working class supporters who are struggling with poor jobs, low wages and unemployment. However, deportation of these immigrants is not the answer for the following reasons. First, there is not any documented proof that undocumented immigrants are taking the jobs of the white working class.   Undocumented immigrants rarely compete for employment against an American worker, immigrants compete against other immigrants (Nowrasteh, 2016).  Ã‚     Ã‚  Second, six states that account for 40 percent of the goods and services produced in the United States have the largest amount of undocumented workers, as undocumented workers often work as farm help, which is low wage employment (Nowrasteh, 2016).   If President Trump does as he has promised, there will be a shortage of farm workers and the employers will have to offer higher pay to get new employees.   The higher pay will be passed to consumers at the super market.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Those that oppose immigration reform believe that the United States needs tighter border security.   The Department of Homeland Security and Congress should tackle the problems at the border and they should provide Border Patrol with the means to protect the United States border adequately.   The Trump administration has signed executive orders directing federal agencies to being constructing a wall on the U.S./Mexico border and he has directed the Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement to enforce the laws of the United States strongly.   President Trumps words were hostile and all they did was seclude immigrant communities and families.   The immigrants will go back to the shadows and again fear the police.   The will not assimilate into American culture any longer as there will be no incentive Nowrasteh, 2016).   Those that oppose immigration reform believe that granting amnesty to the 11 million undocumented immigrants will create and encourage more illegal immigration to the United States.   This view is not true.   Actually, recent numbers show that the number of immigrants crossing the border illegally has decreased (Cohn & Passel, 2016).   Therefore, granting amnesty to the undocumented immigrants who currently have their life and family in the United States will in fact deter future illegal immigration and keep families together.   Amnesty is admission of that the immigration laws of the past are not working and they need to be reformed.   Importance of Immigration Reform to the Researcher Reforming the immigration process is important to the researcher due to the fact the researcher has been through the family visa process, stuck in the backlog, and the researcher has saw firsthand the effects current immigration laws have on families.   In 2010, the researcher was separated from her spouse for a period of 11 months waiting for her husband’s visa to be approved.   The researcher initially had to file a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative and Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status for her spouse, and because the researcher’s spouse was brought the United States as a teenager, her spouse needed to go to his country of origin, Mexico, to complete the visa process at the United States Consulate in Ciudad Juarez.   The researcher’s husband accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence.   While crossing the United States/Mexico border to go to his scheduled visa appointment in Ciudad Juarez, the researcher’s husband immediately triggered a ten-year ban created by IIRARA 96. The ten-year ban was able to be removed by filing a I-601a, provisional unlawful presence waiver. The researcher had to prove the hardship that she would face if she would have to live separate from her husband for ten years.   The process was a difficult one for the researcher, as she was not able to utilize legal counsel and prepared all the documents alone.     When filing the I-601a, the United States Consulate in Ciudad Juarez immediately backlogged the petition for lack of extreme hardship.  Ã‚     The researcher knows firsthand how difficult the current immigration laws are on both immigrants and United States citizens as she has gone through them.   Though there have been some decent changes to the immigration laws that directly affected the researcher and her family in 2010, a comprehensive immigration reform that eliminates that backlog and revises the family-sponsored visa process is still important to keep families together.   Congress needs to reform the family immigration process to being eliminating the backlog of other family preference categories besides the immediate relative category.   Children over 21 of U.S. Citizen or legal permanent residents are just important.   Importance of Immigration Reform to the Legal Profession There is no question that immigration reform is important to the legal profession.   With immigration reform, there will be improvements to our laws. Prior to the 20th century, there was not much need to immigration counsel.   However, when the federal government of the United States began enacting immigration laws and restrictions immigration lawyers evolved.   Ã‚  With the constantly changing laws, nearly all immigrants will need to use an immigration attorney to assist them with the increasing amount of new restrictions that affect immigration law.   Without adequate counsel, the United States fundamental concepts that revolve around fairness and equality become damaged.   According to 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1362 (2016). – Right to counsel, Immigrants are able to secure legal counsel in immigration proceedings, but â€Å"at no expense to the Government.†   Ã‚  It is vital for immigrants to have quality representation, as the type of representation an immigrant often has determines whether the immigrant will be able to be reunited with their family in a timely manner, given an employment visa, or is granted asylum.  Ã‚   Immigrants often are not fluent in the English language.   In order for immigrants to not be at a disadvantage in their immigration proceeding, it is necessary to have adequate counsel.  Ã‚   The United States is a nation of immigrants, however, since 9/11, immigration laws and immigration reform has become a heated political issue, mostly due to fear.   Current administration in the United States has been trying to reverse many of the immigration laws that allow refuges into the United States (The White House, 2017). Doing this has incited racism and fear throughout the United States.   The Trump administration has tried to place bans on certain immigrant nationalities, predominantly Muslim countries, from entering the United States (The White House, 2017).   This ban presented legal challenges, as the United States government cannot act arbitrarily with having supportive evidence to back up their reasoning.   Immigration reform is needed to amend immigration laws to prohibit the seclusion of certain immigrants from the United States.  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Conclusion For Alejandro Bojorquez, waiting for his visa priority date to be available has been long and difficult process.   Alejandro has been waiting in the backlog because the current immigration laws only provide a certain amount of visas to be allocated to each country.   The majority of the yearly visas allocated to family-sponsored immigrants go to spouses, minor children, and parents of United States citizens (immediate relatives), followed by spouses and children of legal permanent residents.  Ã‚   He has been waiting since he was 14 years old to be reunited with his parents.   Alejandro is like millions of other family-sponsored visas applicants whose priority date keeps getting pushed back due to the increased amount of family visas that are currently being applied for.   The hardship of separation is tough and he awaits the day he gets a call from his dad and he says â€Å"yeah, you made it† (Gonzalez, 2013). Alejandro Bojorquez is just one of the millions of examples of immigrants waiting to be reunited with their families.   Current immigration laws in the United States need to be updated due to the fact that they are set up to do more harm than good.   Congress needs to update the number of visas that allowed to be given each fiscal year, change the individuals that are considered to immediate relatives, and create a wait time that does not surpass five years.   It is for these reasons that the only conclusion that can be reached is that Congress needs to reform the current immigration laws.   If they do not, families are going to continue to be separated for many years.   Immigration reform is needed now.   References 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1151 (West 2009). 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1152 (West 2000). 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1153 (West 2006). 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1154 (West 2014). 8 U.S.C.A  § 1182 (West 2013). 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1255(a) (West 2016). 8 U.S.C.A.  § 1362 (West 2016).    ACLU. (2017).   PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF HB 56 â€Å"Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act†.   Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/analysis-hb-56-alabama-taxpayer-and-citizen-protection-act Ainsley, J. (2017).   Trump administration has found only $20 million in existing funds for wall.   Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-funds-idUSKBN1685SY American Immigration Counsel.   (2016).   How the United States Immigration System Works. Retrieved from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works Baxter, T. (2012).   Alabama’s Immigration Disaster.   Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2012/02/15/11117/alabamas-immigration-disaster/ Bolvito v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2008). Cohn, D. and Passel, J. (2016).   Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009.   Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/ Cortex-Neavel, B. (2016).   Left Behind:   Trump’s Immigration Plans Could Spur Uptick in Foster Care Numbers.   Retrieved from https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/featured/left-behind-trumps-immigration-plans-could-increase-children-of-deported-immigrants-in-foster-care/23525 Cruz, E. H. (2010). Because youre mine, I walk the line: The trials and tribulations of the family visa program.  Fordham Urban Law Journal, 38(1), 155-181.   Retrieved from  http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lib.kaplan.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=08c1257b-3ff8-4109-a355-8e1014a13e49%40sessionmgr4009&vid=2&hid=4211 Department of Homeland Security.   (2017). The U.S. Immigration System by the Numbers: 2015 Lawful Permanent Residents.   Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/visualization/2015 Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility. 81 Fed. Reg. 50244-01. (July 29, 2016). (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. Pts. 103, & 212) Fairlie, R. (2012).   Immigrant Entrepreneurs and Small Business Owners, and their Access to Financial Capital.   Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs396.pdf Gonzalez, D. (2013).   Millions of immigrants waiting for green cards.   Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/23/millions-of-immigrants-waiting-for-green-cards/2450461/ Guendelsberger, J. (1988). Implementing Family Unification Rights in American Immigration Law: Proposed Amendments.  San Diego Law Review., (2), 253.   Retrieved from  http://heinonline.org.lib.kaplan.edu/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/sanlr25&page=253&collection=journals   Hinojosa-Ojeda, R. (2010).   Raising the Floor for American Workers.   Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2010/01/07/7187/raising-the-floor-for-american-workers/ Khan, N. (2015). Five years after SB 1070, Arizona Immigrants Defy Climate of Intimidation. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/23/five-years-after-sb-1070-arizona-immigrants-defy-law.html Morse, A. (2011).   Arizona’s Immigration Enforcement Laws.   Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/analysis-of-arizonas-immigration-law.aspx Nowrasteh, A. (2016).   15 Common Arguments against Immigration, Addressed.   Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/15-common-arguments-against-immigration-addressed/ The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2017). Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States [ Press release]. Retrieved form https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (1996).   Pub. L. 104-208 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0-10948.html U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2012).   Overview of INS History. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/History%20and%20Genealogy/Our%20History/INS%20History/INSHistory.pdf U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2015).   Visa Availability and Priority Dates. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/visa-availability-and-priority-dates#Finding U.S. Department of State.   (2016). Annual report of immigrant visa applicants in the family-sponsored and employment-based preferences registered at the National Visa Center. Retrieved from https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/WaitingListItem.pdf U.S. Department of State.   (2017).   Visa Bulletin for April 2017. Retrieved from https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bulletin/2017/visa-bulletin-for-april-2017.html Vaughan, J. (2015).   Waiting List for Legal Immigrant Visas Keeps Growing.   Retrieved from http://cis.org/vaughan/waiting-list-legal-immigrant-visas-keeps-growing

The Economics of Despair :: essays research papers

Since the late 1970s, social science researchers, the media, private foundations, and policymakers have directed considerable attention to the labor market problems of young adults and their families. Most of this attention has focused on high school dropouts, the poor, minorities, and inner-city youth. But an equally troubling—and broader—problem has received comparatively less notice: the steep and sustained decline since 1973 in the real (inflation-adjusted) earnings of young men and women generally. Even adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, the labor market problems of young workers are disproportionately severe—they include higher than average unemployment and relatively low earnings when employed. This sustained drop in earnings has been especially dramatic for young adults with no postsecondary school education. Most proposed remedies have emphasized the quality of the labor supply. But improving education and training, while often worthwhile and necessary, is not by itself sufficient to raise earnings. If this downward trend, which has persisted through recession and recovery alike, is to be reversed, then policymakers and educators must address the demand side as well as the supply side. Raising young adult wages will require not only better academic performance, training, apprenticeships, and school-to-work programs, but also full-employment policies, changes in the configuration of jobs and careers, and larger young adult union membership. Prior to 1973, the annual and weekly earnings of both young adults and older workers had been improving markedly. Between 1967 (the year the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking weekly earnings of wage and salary workers) and 1973, the real median weekly earnings of 16- to 24-year-olds rose by approx i mately 8 percent. Since 1973, however, the ea rnings of young adults have fallen almost continuously. Between 1973 and 1979, the weekly earnings of young men working full time fell by 7 percent. Young men experienced a 19 percent decline in earnings (a real value of $72 per week) between 1979 and 1989. This decline cannot be attributed solely to business cycle contractions. About half of the 19 percent decline did take place during the recessionary period of 1979-1982. But between 1982 and 1989, a period of strong overall job growth, the weekly earnings of young men fell by another $33, or 9 percent. Earnings declined still more between 1989 and 1994, dropping yet another 9 percent. The result of all this decline? A young man under 25 years of age employed full time in 1994 earned 31 percent less per week than what his same-aged counterpart earned in 1973.

Keystone XL Pipeline: A Risky Venture Essay

Throughout history, The United States has been much reliant upon oil rich countries for liquid fuel necessities. Current economic conditions warrant a domestic alternative, since oil is currently referred to as ‘black gold’. In recent years, pipelines have become a substantial transportation factor for liquid fuels throughout Alaska and the lower 48 continental states. Promises by President Barack Obama have given Americans the hope that one day the United States can be energy independent. Currently this is not plausible, but many believe the Keystone XL pipeline could lessen the dependency of foreign oil and produce many needed jobs within the United States. Controversial matters have led a Presidential Permit for the project to be declined due to the project currently not being in the nation’s best interest. Many debates have taken place over this decision and politics have become a key focal point. Some claim it is due to special interest groups, others claim i t’s due to environmental matters. Regardless of the politics involved, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would be too  environmentally detrimental and costly to pursue. In 2005, the Keystone Pipeline System, labeled ‘Keystone XL’, was introduced by TransCanada following an expected production increase of crude oil from the Oil Sands region of Alberta, Canada (Parfomak, Pirog & Luther, 2013, p. 3). The expected cost of the Keystone XL pipeline would be set at seven billion dollars, with total distance of underground piping at 1,702 miles (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). The pipeline would connect Alberta, Canada to advanced refineries in the Gulf Coast of the United States (Parfomak et al. 2013, p.1). Since the proposed pipeline system would connect the United States with a foreign country, a Presidential Permit would be required to determine if the pipeline was in the nation’s best interest (Montopoli, 2012). In 2008, TransCanada applied for a permit to cross the international border with the proposed pipeline system and was subsequently denied due to the State Departments insufficient time for review and environmental issues with the proposal (2012). In 2012, TransCanada submitted a reconfigured proposal that would connect the pipeline from Alberta, Canada to an existing pipeline in Steel City, Nebraska. Again, this proposal was denied by the President with a response from the State Department that the pipeline was currently not in the nation’s best interest (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 2). Many legislative methods to support the pipeline were addressed by Congress that in turn would transfer approval authority, although none thus far have been successful (2013, p.3). President Barack Obama has been under public scrutiny for his decision in denying the permit by many respected members of government in favor of the pipeline. According to the Washington Post, Obama donor and billionaire Tom Snyder wrote an open letter stating that â€Å"Obama to reject pipeline or face backlash† (Bradley, 2013). Snyder, a self-proclaimed environmentalist has been linked to big oil by amassing a large portion of his fortune through investments in TransCanada’s competitor, Kinder Morgan (2013). Republicans, such as frontrunner Mitt Romney, went on record by saying â€Å"it shows a President who once again has put politics ahead of sound policy†, and â€Å"if Americans want to understand why unemployment in the United States has been  stuck above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression, decisions like this one are the place to begin† (Montopoli, 2012). Struggles for and against the pipeline by members of government and special interest groups have led this decision to be viewed as politically motivated. With that being said, evaluating individual pros and cons concerning the project are necessary in order to justify whether or not the project should move forward. Achieving energy independence is what President Obama stated that the United States is seeking to accomplish. To achieve this goal, the United States will be required to fulfill these necessities through domestic sources and renewable fuels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that by 2040, only 16 percent of U.S. energy will be generated by renewable fuels (Bradley, 2013). Although independence from renewable fuels may be too far off to determine, the Keystone XL Pipeline would create a substantial growth in domestic oil production (2013). Along with increased production comes construction and manufacturing jobs for an estimated 20,000 American workers (2013). Safety advantages from pipelines are also substantial compared to other modes of transporting oil. Low rates are achieved by a low loss and damage record, since weather conditions do not effect pipelines and mechanical failures are rare (Coyle, Novack, Gibson, & Bardi, 2011, p. 273). With piping being completely encased underground, the risk of terrorism and theft is also greatly reduced (2011, p. 273). Care is taken with the use of leak detection systems and aircraft monitoring, since environmental damage, lawsuits and product losses have been issues of the past (2011, p. 276). In 2011, The State Department conducted an environmental impact study noting that annual carbon emissions would increase by only one third of one percent (Bradley, 2013). The American Petroleum Institute also estimated that American and Canadian reserves could provide all of America’s liquid fuel needs within 12 years (2013). Of course this would depend on if current infrastructure could support the increase (2013). Those for the pipeline have argued their case by stating that the pipeline will also assist through stronger relations with neighboring Canada and provide direct access to Canadian crude oil (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 7). TransCanada themselves  noted that it would be in the nation’s best interest to reduce current dependency on foreign crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela in the Gulf by maintaining adequate crude oil supplies by pipeline for domestic refineries (2013, p. 20). Key issues from major crude oil exporters such as Mexico’s falling production since 2004 and Venezuela national oil company strike has also promoted TransCanada’s proposal (2013, p. 21). With Canada already being the number one import of crude oil in America, one would believe that furthering this relationship, along with lessoning the dependency on unreliable foreign oil would be a logical choice. While those who support the pipeline base their arguments on increasing the U.S. petroleum supply, creating additional jobs and other economic benefits, those who oppose the pipeline are mainly environmental organizations and community groups (2013, p. 18). Their concerns stem from environmental issues, such as toxins, spills, adverse greenhouse emissions and the unconventional and costly method of mining and refining tar sands oil (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 2). Tar sands extraction in Canada is already known for destroying Boreal forests and wetlands, creating high levels of greenhouse gas pollution and producing toxic waste dumps called ‘tailing ponds’ that currently cover around 65 miles (2011, p. 2). The destruction of the Boreal forest is killing many types of species and utilization of the Athabasca River for mining is harming humans as well (2011, p. 2). Tar sands extraction uses large amounts of water from the Athabasca River, and studies have shown that thirteen primary pollutants under the U.S. Clean Water Act, such as led, mercury and arsenic are being released into the river (2011, p. 2). Concerns with the Fort Chipewyan community downstream from the river include increased cancer rates, heart and lung disease, as well as asthma (2011, p. 2-3). Not only is the process more costly than extracting and refining crude oil, but tar sands oil also contains toxins such as bitumen (Swift, Casey-Lefkowitz, Shope, 2011, p. 3). Bitumen, or â€Å"DilBit† is a highly corrosive and acidic blend that contains volatile natural gas liquid condensate (2011, p. 3). Increased risk from the corrosive and volatile substance could pose significant risks of increased spills and ruptures that  could damage communities and fresh water supplies in America (2011, p. 3). Highlighted in the Keystone XL final Environmental Impact Study shows a primary environmental concern by TransCanada stating, â€Å"the greatest concern would be a spill in environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, flowing streams and rivers, shallow groundwater areas, areas near water intakes for drinking water or for commercial/industrial uses, and areas with populations of sensitive wildlife or plant species† (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 30). Higher operating temperatures and pressure is required to move the thick material through the piping, which could cause leak detection problems and safety issues due to the unstable blend (Swift et al. 2011, p. 3). In correlation, the Alberta pipeline has had approximately sixteen times as many spills than U.S. pipelines due to the corrosive issues of tar sands oil (2011, p. 3). In the first year of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline, there were fourteen spills (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 31). Although technological leak detection is considered to be efficient, many spills were reported by witnesses and went undetected by release detection equipment (2013, p. 31). Incidence like this have caused much concern over spills since DilBit is a heavy crude mixture that is much more difficult to clean up than regular crude oil (2013, p. 31). Heavy damage to waterways and air pollutant such as benzene caused by spills from the Keystone Pipeline and other pipelines have already incurred (Swift et al. 2011, p. 7). With the proposed pipeline plotted in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Ogallala Aquifer, a pipeline leak would have devastating effects, not to mention immense cleanup cost, time involved and irreparable harm to the environment and communities (Casey-Lefkowitz & Shope, 2011, p. 3). In addition to these possible affects, the creation of this pipeline would not lower the price of fuel to the consumer at the gas station, as fuel prices are based off the national and international market (Parfomak et al. 2013, p. 23). Only big oil would benefit from the pipeline, along with additional jobs to Americans, but would ultimately secure the continued destruction of the Earth. In a public forum in 2010, Secretary of State Clinton stated, â€Å"we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the [Persian] Gulf or dirty oil from  Canada †¦ until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet† (2013, p. 29). The real question is if this pipeline is in our nation’s best interest and the best interest of Mother Nature. Those who stand to make a profit off destroying the planet have voiced their opinions, but the President made the right decision politically and, in the long term, for America. To form a relationship with a company that will incur this type of damage would only encourage more detrimental acts in the future. Although Canadian companies will continue to mine this toxic DilBit and sell it to other markets, the nation should not lock itself into a long term relationship with toxic oil, or oil in general. As Secretar y of State mentioned, the United States is in need of focusing on clean renewable energy and green initiatives that will save the planet and generations of Americans to come. References Bradley, Jr., Robert. (2013). Keystone xl amounts to america’s pipeline vs. president obama’s cronies. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2013/08/20/keystone-xl-amounts-to-americas-pipeline-vs-president-obamas-cronies/ Casey-Lefkowitz, S., Shope, E. (2011). Say no to tar sands pipeline: Proposed keystone xl project would deliver dirty fuel at a high cost. Natural Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/land/files/TarSandsPipeline4pgr.pdf Coyle, J.J., Novack, R. A., Gibson, B.J., & Bardi, E. J. (2011). Transportation: A Supply Chain Perspective. 7th edition. South Western College Publishing. Montopoli, Brian. (2012). Obama denies keystone xl pipeline permit. CBSNews. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57361324-503544/obama-denies-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit/ Parfomak, P. W., Pirog, R., Luther, L., Vann, A. (2013). Keystone XL pipeline project: Key Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Researc h Service. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41668.pdf Swift, A., Casey-Lefkowitz, S., Shope, E. (2011). Tar sands pipeline safety risk. National Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/files/tarsandssafetyrisks.pdf

A Review of the Literature Essay

Introduction Because the focus on market orientation has steadily increased over the last decade, academicians and marketing managers have begun to debate the effectiveness of market orientation as a profit enhancing strategy. Researchers and marketing managers are attempting to measure the benefits and costs associated with the implementation of market orientation. For researches and managers, the key questions that surround market orientation are whether or not it increases performance, and if so, in which circumstances should market orientation be implemented. In order for market orientation to become a cornerstone of business practices in years to come, these questions must be answered. This review will focus on three articles which address these key questions: â€Å"Market Orientation and Company Performance: Empirical Evidence from UK Companies† by Greenley, G (1995), â€Å"Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences†, by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and â€Å"The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability† by Narver and Slater (1990). Summary of â€Å"The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability† by Narver & Slater (1990) In â€Å"The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability† (1990), Narver and Slater address the lack of empirical evidence surrounding the effectiveness of market orientation. They begin the article by stating: â€Å"market orientation is the very heart of modern marketing management and strategy ? yet to date, no one has developed a valid measure of it or assessed its influence on business performance? as a result, business practitioners have had no specific guidance as to what precisely a market orientation is and what its actual effect on business performance may be. † Their study attempts to develop a valid measure of market orientation and its effect on the profitability of the firm. Narver and Slater’s study is designed to test the hypothesis that there is a strong correlation between market orientation and profit levels for both commodity and non-commodity businesses. Narver and Slater  hypothesize that market orientation is a one dimensional construct consisting of three behavioral components: customer orientation, competitor orientation and inter-functional coordination. Additionally, they hypothesize that there are two decision criteria: a long term focus and a profit objective. Based on these criteria, Narver and Slater developed a questionnaire which was given to a sample group of 140 strategic business units in the same division of a major Western corporation. They then used statistical analysis to try to determine the correlation between the adoption of market orientation and the increase in profit and overall performance. In order to obtain accurate results, the researchers attempted to limit the influence of the other forces that impact a business’s profit margin; by doing this, they were able to isolate two key variables and find the relationship between them. Based on their data and analysis, Narver and Slater concluded that there is a monotonic relationship between profit and market orientation for the non-commodity business, whereas the relationship with commodity business was only apparent above the stated median in market orientation. Narver and Slater also concluded that market orientation is economical in all environments, and the question was finding the optimal level of market orientation. Critique of â€Å"The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability† by Narver & Slater (1990). Narver and Slater’s study is one of the first major empirical studies on the subject of market orientation and its impact on the firm’s profit. This ground-breaking study offers empirical validation to theories that were unproven prior to the study. However, based on the results of Narver and Slater’s study, there are still many questions that remain unanswered. I found that the most significant problem with the study is that their sample was taken from a single corporation, meaning that the data they used was limited to only one industry and one region. As Narver and Slater noted in their conclusion, a sample this limited means that their results can be influenced and skewed by many variables, including corporate culture and regional practices. It is also possible that their findings are industry-specific and do not pertain to other companies outside of foresting. However, in the article’s conclusion, Narver and Slater acknowledge these shortcomings and are eager for others in different regions to conduct further research in this field. Although the limited nature of the study makes it difficult to draw any large scale conclusions about the effectiveness of market orientation, Narver and Slater have created a useful model for an empirical study of market orientation which can now be applied to other industries and regions. The most interesting part of the study is not necessarily the results, but the fact that they were able to design the first successful empirical study. Another problem with the study is that Narver and Slater concluded that an equilibrium existed: the point at which the level of market orientation reaches a point at which its cost is equal to its benefit. At this point, any increase of market orientation would only be detrimental to the firm’s profit margin. Although the study states that the equilibrium is present, the authors offer no guidance on how marketing managers can identify this critical point. Further studies should be dedicated to answering this question in order to make market orientation a more effective strategy for businesses. Additionally, in the article’s conclusion, Narver and Slater neglected to discuss a very key finding which surfaced in their data. Their study revealed that market orientation can have a detrimental effect on a company’s overall performance when certain market forces and internal conditions apply. In my opinion, this finding was largely ignored in the conclusion in order to validate their original hypothesis: that market orientation has a positive impact on the performance of an organization. Although this finding was acknowledged in the article, I felt the conclusion was somewhat misleading with regard to the outcome of the study in this respect. Summary of â€Å"Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences†, by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) In â€Å"Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences† (1993) Jaworski and Kohli set out to empirically build upon Narver & Slater’s study. Jaworski and Kohli attempt to study the relationship between market orientation and its effect on numerous aspects of the firm. The authors lay out a series of 13 hypotheses which they attempt to prove within their study. The four hypotheses that dealt directly with the key questions noted in the introduction of this review are: A. â€Å"The greater the market orientation of an organization, the higher its business performance. † B. â€Å"The greater the market orientation, the greater the (1) esprit de corps and (2) organizational commitment of employees. † C. â€Å"The greater the market turbulence, the stronger the relationship between market orientation and business performance. † D. â€Å"The greater the competitive intensity, the stronger the relationship between market orientation and business performance. † The other nine hypotheses are related to the antecedents of market orientation, including management’s role on market orientation and the impact the organization’s structure and communication has on market orientation. Although these questions are important, I am primarily interested in Jaworski and Kohli’s conclusions on whether or not market orientation affects overall performance and profit/return on equity. Jaworski and Kohli set up two samples from which they derived their data. The first sample was made up of executives from 102 companies; the second sample was made up of 230 executives taken from the membership roster of the American Marketing Association. The authors gathered data via a questionnaire that was sent to participants by mail. Based on the data reviewed, Jaworski and Kohli concluded that market orientation is an important determinant of overall performance regardless of factors such as market turbulence, competitive intensity or technological turbulence. However in both samples, the authors found little correlation between market orientation and return on equity and market share. Jaworski and Kohli also found that the commitment of top management towards implementing market orientation is an important factor on the strategy’s overall performance, as are the levels of interdepartmental coordination and interdepartmental conflict. Critique of â€Å"Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences†, by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) Jaworski and Kohli’s study measures the value that market orientation creates for a business. In their introduction, the authors state their intentions quite clearly: â€Å"The purpose of this research is to address the voids in knowledge [in the Narver and Slater study]. † (Jaworski &Kohli 1993) In this study, Jaworski and Kohli build upon and answer many of the questions left unanswered in Narver and Slater (1990). In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of Jaworski and Kohli’s article is that they attempted to explain their study in an accessible manner by including a section that dealt with the implications of their findings for market managers. Unlike Narver and Slater, I felt that Jaworski and Kohli went to great lengths to try to answer the key questions that managers might have and attempted to lay down guidelines that managers could use in the implementation of market orientation. Jaworski and Kohli also realized the importance of one of the findings Narver and Slater neglected in their conclusion: that market orientation could be detrimental to a business in certain circumstances. Jaworski and Kohli explained the relationships between market orientation and certain environmental contexts including market turbulence and competitiveness. The aspect of the study that I found most interesting was Jaworski and Kohli’s discovery that there is neither an association between market orientation and return on equity nor a relationship between market orientation and market share. Although the two authors still concluded that market orientation was beneficial for overall performance, the finding that it does not help return on equity is very significant. Return on equity, for many firms, is the guiding factor in the decision-making process, especially for private equity groups and investment banking firms. Having worked for a private equity firm, where return on equity is the principal goal, I can confidently say these findings are a huge blow to the advocacy of market orientation. However, I would not feel comfortable ruling out market orientation based on one study; further research must be done on this topic. Additionally, I found one aspect of Jaworski and Kohli’s conclusion problematic: the authors concluded that market orientation had a direct relationship with overall performance, organizational commitment and esprit de corps, yet they stated that it did not influence return on equity and market share. This finding seems to be contradictory to common business beliefs, which would suggest that if market orientation had a positive impact on commitment, overall performance and esprit de corps, it would therefore have an impact on profit or return on equity. This finding is either misleading or it indicates that common beliefs regarding performance and employee motivation are incorrect. Summary of â€Å"Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies† by Greenley, G (1995) In the article â€Å"Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies† Greenley identifies a clear need for an  empirical study in the United Kingdom. As of 1995, no major empirical research had taken place anywhere but the United States. Greenley created his study based upon this research gap. His basic hypothesis, that market orientation is positively associated with performance, is taken from the aforementioned studies by Narver and Slater (1990) and Jaworski and Kohli (1993). Greenley also tested additional hypotheses from Narver and Slater’s 1990 study. The hypotheses Greenley tested dealt with the relationship between market orientation and cost, size of the company, market entry, customer power and competitive hostility in the market. Additionally, he tested hypotheses pertaining to market growth, turbulence and technological change. To obtain his data, Greenley used a slightly altered version of Narver and Slater’s 1990 questionnaire, adapted for UK business culture. The questionnaires were sent to 280 top level managers, mainly CEOs. Of those 280 questionnaires, he received 240 usable responses, which made up the data for his study. Based on the analysis he conducted, Greenley concluded that â€Å"market orientation does not have a direct affect on performance. † (Greenley 1995) He also concluded that with high levels of market turbulence, market orientation is negatively associated with return on equity, whereas with low levels of market turbulence, market orientation is positively associated with return on equity. Critique of â€Å"Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies† by Greenley, G (1995) Greenley’s study is the first major empirical study of market orientation in the UK, and quite surprisingly, his results were very different than the previous findings of studies conducted in the United States. Any reader of Greenley’s study â€Å"Market orientation and company performance† must immediately question whether or not business culture and practices in the UK are so different from their United States counterparts that one strategy empirically proven to work in the United States will be rendered ineffective in the UK. If Greenley’s results are accurate, multinational corporations using a centralized control method would have to rethink using market orientation. This, however, does not seem to be the case. Proctor and Gamble (P&G) appear to successfully implement global strategies, including market orientation, profitably. Therefore, I propose that Greenley’s inability to find a positive relationship between market orientation and performance is a result of a problem in his data collection process. As Greenley stated in his conclusion, his data was gathered during a recession, and therefore a manager’s thoughts on a long-term profit schemes such as market orientation might have been skewed. Also, Greenley obtained nearly 60 percent of his data from top level CEOs and Chairmen, a different sampling base than previous studies in the United States. For instance, Narver and Slater used CPUs and Jaworski and Kohli primarily used market managers for their samples. The difference in sample bases significantly impacts the results of Greenley’s study; typically, CEOs and top management, like those that Greenley questioned, are not as involved in the day-to-day implementation of market orientation and tend to be short-term profit oriented. Managers lower on the organization’s hierarchy, such as marketing managers, might have a more direct involvement with the implementation of market orientation. For future research, I think it would be more prudent to take a broader sample of managers at all levels, thereby eliminating any bias that can occur when only sampling a certain section of the managerial hierarchy. Another problem that I found in Greenley’s conclusion was the fact that he did not make the individual participants aware of the study’s purpose. Although he intended for this to be a tool for gathering accurate and unbiased data from participants, I believe this strategy actually had the opposite effect, given the timing of his article. During a recession, CEOs and Chairmen are attempting to regain short term profitability and/or attempting to scale down costs in order to survive until the recession ends. At such a time, market orientation would not be a viable option and it is unlikely that the top management Greenley questioned would consider it a useful strategy. Therefore, the data collected by Greenley during this period would have little or no relevance for the measurement of the effectiveness of market orientation outside of a recession. Conclusion All three of the articles discussed deal with the task of empirically studying the relationship between market orientation and its effects on businesses. Narver and Slater produced the first major study in this field and their research became a significant starting point for future studies. Narver and Slater’s article stated that they found a direct relationship between marketing orientation and performance; however, the study also brought to light many holes in their research and aspects of this relationship which needed further study. Jaworski and Kohli’s 1993 study attempted to answer some of the key questions that arose from Narver and Slater’s article. The questions Jaworski and Kohli addressed included why some organizations are more market oriented then others and whether or not the linkage between market orientation and business performance depend on the environmental context. The Greenley study in 1995 was the first major study done outside the United States. Greenley followed Narver and Slater’s model in his attempt to empirically study market orientation in the United Kingdom. While his methods were the same, Greenley’s research produced very different results than that of Narver and Slater, and only agreed with some of Jaworski and Kohli’s conclusions. In my opinion, Greenley’s research only added to the confusion that surrounds the study of market orientation; the differences in his results can be attributed to many factors, including gaps in previous research, differences between the United States and the UK, or differences in the economy at the time of the studies. The ambiguous results of this study confirm the need for more research in order to answer the key question of market orientation’s relationship with performance and profit. Therefore, after reading and critically reviewing the above articles, my conclusion is that further empirical research must be done in order for there to be any confidence in the use of market orientation as a performance-enhancing strategy. A multi-national study or the study of multiple multinational companies would provide valuable insight into whether market orientation is exclusively suited to companies operating in the United States or if its implementation in different countries can also be profitable. Further research must also be done in order to affirm or refute Jaworski and Kohli’s claim that market orientation has no positive relationship with market share and return on equity. I believe that if Jaworski and Kohli’s claim is true, managers, especially those operating publically traded companies, will inevitably need to rethink the use of market orientation within their corporations. List of References Greenley, G. (1995). Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. British Journal of Management, 6:1-13. Jaworski, B. and Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(July): 53-70. Narver, J. and Slater, S. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing 54(October): 20-35.

Katmai Volcano essays

Katmai Volcano essays The Katmai cluster is a 25-kilometer-long line of volcanoes along the Alaska Peninsula 450 kilometers southwest of Anchorage, including (from northeast to southwest) Snowy Mountain, Mount Griggs, Mount Katmai, Trident Volcano, Novarupta volcano, Mount Mageik, Mount Martin, and Alagogshak volcano. All but Alagogshak have erupted within the last 6,000 years, often explosively, to produce lava flows, domes, and widespread tephra deposits. No fewer than 15 eruptive episodes have originated from the Katmai cluster within the last 10,000 years, each lasting days to tens of years and all of which could have produced ash clouds. Novarupta, a new vent in 1912, produced the worlds largest eruption of the 20th century and sent ash around the globe. During that great eruption, nearby Mount Katmai collapsed, destroying its summit peaks and leaving behind a 2.5-kilometer-wide caldera, now filled with a 250-meter-deep lake. More recently, a new vent on Trident produced lava flows and ash plumes for at least 20 years, lasting from 1953 to 1974. Postglacial eruptions, vigorous fumaroles on Griggs, Trident, Mageik, and Martin, and continuing seismicity are good evidence of the potentially active state of the entire Katmai cluster. Any eruption of these volcanoes could affect air traffic, both overhead and on the ground, with severity of the ash-cloud hazard depending on the size of the eruption. An explosive eruption like that of Novarupta, 1912, could affect air traffic all over the North Pacific, Alaska, Canada, and the conterminous United States. Such an eruption might interrupt and inconvenience national an d international commerce, perhaps for months, but Alaskan commerce would be temporarily devastated. The volcanoes near Novarupta form a 25-km-long line of contiguous stratovolcanoes on the drain-age divide of the Alaska Peninsula, 450 km southwest of Anchorage (population 260,283 ), 250 km southwest of Homer (population 4,000 ...

buy custom Best Practices for Students with ADHD essay

buy custom Best Practices for Students with ADHD essay Recommendations for Future Practice Academic success is mostly a function of behavior in the school environment and other environments such as home environment. It is, therefore, important to treat each case individually and make recommendations based on specific cases. This research focused on the academic success of ADHD students and the interventions done in the past. The researcher encountered problems and limitations and came up with recommendations for future research areas as outlined in the section above. This section discusses possible practices that can be employed in future research in an attempt to resolve the issues and limitations of this study. The recommendations for future research are as follows: It is recommended that future research should take into consideration the level of cognitive development of students. The researcher acknowledges that past research described in this paper did not consider the intelligence quotient (IQ) of the subjects. Past research has made the assumption that learning ineffectiveness for ADHD is performance rather than an aptitude problem (DuPaul White, 2004). Therefore, special assessment should be carried out among students and subjects to determine their academic ability and their cognitive ability. Future research should seek to identify how cognitive ability affects the academic achievement of the students. They should also seek to find out the different levels of intelligence quotient of the students with ADHD as compared to normal students. It is recommended that future practice should consider behavior in other environments (DuPaul White, 2004). Past research has shown that academic ability is a function of behavior. The research has also shown that behavior varies with environment and the intensity of reinforcement. It is important to note hat behavior and environment interfere with each other. This means that school-based intervention programs will only succeed if other environment intervention programs, like home and social environments, are implemented concurrently. In the future, researchers should study how reinforcement of behaviour in other environments affects the school-based intervention program. They should also seek to provide recommendations on how behavior reinforcements in all environments should be performed to make the school-based intervention successful. Future practice of the research should allow involvement of parents in the school-based intervention program. Future research should also endeavor to give parents intervention tools to reinforce the school-based intervention program. It is recommended that future researchers should consider other types of ADHD in their research (DuPaul White, 2004). There are three types of ADHD namely ADHD with inattentiveness as the predominant symptom, ADHD with hyperactive impulsive behavior being predominant, and ADHD with a high degree of all behaviors being present. Future research should seek to identify and group their subjects according to the types of ADHD. This is because the intervention measures taken on the students do not seek similar outcomes for the different types of ADHD. Future research should identify their subjects weaknesses in academic achievement based on their behavior type. They should also seek to come up with intervention measures tailored to meet the specific problems of each type of ADHD as opposed to measures that address ADHD as a singular behavior. It is also recommended that future researchers should identify the secondary implications of the intervention program especially where medication intervention is concerned (DuPaul White, 2004). Researchers should not only focus their attention on results related to acaademic achievement, but should also focus on the implications of their intervention measures on other areas of life of the subject. Behavior intervention may affect their neurological balance, thus causing subjects to experience headaches or other behavioral symptoms such as withdrawal. Researchers should document their overall findings and well-being of the subject not just in academics abut also in social relationships and health. Furthermore, it is recommended that future researchers should widen their research to deal with intervention measures of reinforcing positive attributes of the subjects. The fact that ADHD students have learning complications does not mean they do not have other talents and abilities (Mehl-Madrona, 2001). Future research should seek to identify talents of their subjects and base their intervention program on the them. ADHD students should be encouraged to develop their talents and to use their abilities in dealing with their academic performance. Researchers should find out how talents and abilities of their subjects affect their learning abilities. Researchers should also seek to identify how reinforcement and encouragement of their talents can influence their learning abilities. Finally, future researchers should encompass physical intervention measures in the school-based program research. ADHD students experience hyperactivity disorder, thus it is difficult for them to stay in one place for a long time (Mehl-Madrona, 2001). This inevitably reflects on the level of their academic achievements. For this reason it is important for researchers to enlarge their studies to include measures of dealing with physical movement aspect. Future research should endeavor to identify the implications of physical activity on the learning ability of the subjects. They should seek to identify how physical activity stimulates cognitive ability and behavior reinforcement. Buy custom Best Practices for Students with ADHD essay