Because he’s not.
The harsh truth was delivered in an open letter to Fox News’s Bret Baier, who consdiers Kasich a center-right Republican politician, by Mike Snead, Dayton TEA Party President. It reflects his personal views.
Well done, sir.
Because he’s not.
The harsh truth was delivered in an open letter to Fox News’s Bret Baier, who consdiers Kasich a center-right Republican politician, by Mike Snead, Dayton TEA Party President. It reflects his personal views.
Well done, sir.
At Business Week, reporter James G. Neuger was really upset on Thursday that concerned politicians were raising the issue of protecting the public against radical Islamists in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Of course, he couldn’t resist chalking it up to bigotry — against “immigrants — especially those with veils, turbans and non-white skin.” Excerpts follow the jump.
Call the Ripley’s Believe It or Not people. Have smelling salts available. What follows will surely be one of the more unusual things you’ve seen or heard this year.
In the midst of his otherwise odious Silicon Valley race-hustling shakedown effort, Jesse Jackson said something that made sense — so much sense that the rest of the press, which usually hangs on every word of his nonsensical pronouncements, has virtually ignored it, and will probably continue to.
Earlier tonight, Curtis Houck at NewsBusters observed that the Tuesday evening network news shows failed to report on an opinion issued today by a federal judge in Western Pennsylvania in connection with President Obama’s illegal immigration-related executive actions last month.
Several blogs and center-right outlets noted Judge Arthur Schwab’s 38-page “Memorandum Opinion” this afternoon. Not that this excuses the networks, but a search at the Associated Press’s national site just before 8 p.m. on Schwab’s last name (unfortunately not saved) returned nothing relevant. But shortly after 8 p.m. a story with a time stamp of 5:08 p.m. with Schwab’s name finally showed up in the same search. Only the AP can explain how this could have happened.
Earlier today, according to several center-right and zero establishment press outlets thus far (based on an appropriate Google News search done just before 5 PM ET), White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that President Obama was only speaking “colloquially” when he told hecklers in an audience in Chicago last week that “I took action to change the law” in his November 20 announcement on immigration.
While it is indeed nice that the Associated Press did a fact check on President Obama’s Thursday night immigration address — an item P.J. Gladnick at NewsBusters covered on Saturday — it would have been even nicer if the wire service better described as the Administration’s Press had fact-checked Julie Pace’s and Josh Lederman’s awful Friday evening backgrounder on the speech.
The AP pair couldn’t even get through their first three paragraphs without distorting beyond repair their presentation of allegedly “soaring deportations.”
Demonstrating that serving as the Palace Guard for Dear Leader is a 24-7-365 enterprise, Zachary A. Goldfarb, policy editor at The Washington Post, somehow felt the need on Sunday morning to critique the Saturday Night Live opening skit which appeared two nights ago.
Twelve hours after the skit was first broadcast, Goldfarb, whose whose full archive going back to August indicates that he has not written a WaPo item for Sunday publication in the past four months, nitpicked a comedy skit for — oh the humanity! — failing to distinguish between an “Executive Order” and “executive action” (bolds are mine):
At CNN on Thursday night, Anderson Cooper asked former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who is now a contributor at the network, to square President Barack Obama’s Thursday night immigration announcement with past presidential statements that he didn’t have the power to do what he had just done.
In response to the email I received from you this afternoon:
Through a maze of statutes and regulations, aliens granted deferred action or parole in place will be eligible for many public benefits. This is true even though they are still illegal aliens. To summarize:
Aliens with parole for less than a year are eligible for Obamacare, Social Security, EITC, Unemployment, and Medicare (with sufficient authorized work history). Paroled aliens, whether for less than a year or greater, who are children and pregnant women are also eligible for health care benefits through Medicaid and SCHIP in states that have opted to cover them.
Aliens with parole for more than a year retain their eligibility for Obamacare, Social Security, EITC, Unemployment, and Medicare. If they are children or pregnant women, they are also eligible for health care benefits through Medicaid and SCHIP in states that have opted to cover them. Finally, because paroled aliens become qualified aliens after a year, paroled aliens become eligible for all federal public benefits after 6 years, including SCHIP and TANF.
Finally, aliens with deferred action are eligible for Obamacare, Social Security, EITC, Unemployment, Medicare (with sufficient authorized work history). If they are children and pregnant women, they are also eligible for health care benefits through Medicaid and SCHIP in states that have opted to cover them.
Even if this was a good idea — and it most emphatically isn’t, for reasons which would take up a book — a government running serious deficits as far as the eye can see and long-term unfunded liabilities approaching and perhaps by now exceeding $100 trillion can’t even begin to afford this.
Late Friday afternoon, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Republicans in Washington got their first taste of what they will likely see from the supposedly “objective” reporters at the Associated Press, aka the Administration’s Press, as they cover their relationship with President Obama and his White House apparatachiks during the next two years.
The headline at a story by Nedra Pickler and Erica Wener (“Immigration dispute erupts at White House lunch”) and that story’s first seven words (“A White House lunch aiming for cooperation”) are fundamentally dishonest and untrue, respectively. The article’s later text proves both of my contentions.
Their fear that they are is palpable.
The left’s behavior in the months leading up to this year’s midterm elections reveals far more than mere anxiety about their results.
There is real concern that they might be losing their grip on African-Americans, their most reliable constituency.
They should be worried. African-Americans who, more than any other group, were promised “hope and change” in 2008 have seen plenty of reasons to lose hope, because the changes seen during Barack Obama’s first six years have done them serious harm.
Democrats have gotten used to counting on well over 90 percent of blacks voting in their favor. If that figure had come down to even 75 percent in the 2012 presidential election with those abandoning ship voting for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama’s 3.5 million popular-vote margin would have vanished.
One activist recently lamented that blacks “think the president is a savior.” Well, that’s what many blacks believe they were promised. This lady clearly thought so six years ago:
The guess here is that the woman interviewed still has to worry about putting gas in her car. Even after the recent fall in prices, it’s still almost twice as much per gallon as it was in late 2008.
Actually, to my surprise and surely the left’s chagrin, my guess was right. It turns out that in July 2014, the once euphoric Peggy Joseph was very disappointed in what had since transpired:
“(The) mortgage got worse and gas prices got higher.”
“During that time, we needed a change. But a change for the better, not for the worse.”
“The man behind the curtain is not who we thought or expected him to be.”
The black community’s suffering is deeply baked into the economic numbers.
Black employment per the government’s Household Survey has increased by 1.4 million since the recession officially ended in June 2009. The good news ends there. Unfortunately, analysts at Sentier Research, working with Census Bureau data, tell us that during that same period, black household income fell sharply, and by far more than in any other ethnic group:
Looking at household wealth, “virtually no progress has been made” in narrowing racial disparities. On average, almost everyone is poorer, and those who were poor already with less to lose have been hardest hit.
Speaking of being poor, the African-American poverty rate in 2013 was 27.2 percent. That’s a 2.5-point increase since 2008, and 1.4 points since 2009. At 12.3 percent, the white poverty rate in 2013 was less than half that of blacks, and had fallen to where it was in 2009.
It has long since become obvious that the left can’t credibly argue that their policies have provided African-Americans any kind of tangible economic benefit. This has forced them to resort to the politics of perpetual outrage.
This explains why the race-baiting industry, with fundamentally dishonest establishment press assistance, tried — and spectacularly failed on substance — to make a national case out of Trayvon Martin. It explains why they have turned Ferguson, Missouri into a virtual urban battleground. That effort, primarily an attempt to railroad a cop who was by most accounts defending himself against his attacker instead of letting the attacker kill him, also appears to be on track to fail.
The need for perpetual outrage also explains why the Obama administration continues to litigate against requiring identification to vote and to cast anyone who dares oppose them as presumptively racist. If anything, identification requirements aren’t strong enough, given recent evidence that tens or even hundreds of thousands of non-citizens are illegally voting.
But the merits of their bogus attempts at prosecution or their legal arguments really don’t matter. Only fanning the outrage does.
By their actions, the left is betraying its belief that the only way to keep African-Americans in a failed economy marching in lockstep on the liberal plantation is to deliver a continuous stream of disinformation supposedly showing that the system is irretrievably stacked against them.
Just wait until the plantation’s inhabitants figure out that the people doing the stacking are the very people who pose as their best friends.
Most people believe that President Obama’s deferral of unilateral — and unconstitutional — executive action on immigration was done to avoid a serious backlash in the midterm elections. I believe that it was primarily a targeted decision.
Allowing the euphemism known as “a path to legal status for millions of undocumented workers” will suddenly create a tidal wave of competition for low-paying jobs at law-abiding employers. Disproportionately low-skilled African-Americans are already having a hard enough time finding jobs. A much fiercer fight for low-paying jobs will keep wages depressed. If the Obama administration were to somehow get its way and enact a $10.10 per hour minimum wage, that would only leave more disgruntled job seekers on the sidelines.
I believe that Obama’s immigration deferral was largely done to keep black voters on the plantation this time around, and to buy Democrats some time to figure out how to brainwash those they are shafting. As a result, the party will probably keep or win a few House, Senate and gubernatorial elections which are currently too close to call but would have become certain losses without the immigration deferral.
Once Obama opens the immigration floodgates, the chances of a serious backlash in the black community, which has already endured so much and received so little in return, are far from small.
I sense an historic opportunity here to open up African-Americans’ hearts and minds. Are sensible, free-market, compassionate conservatives up to the challenge?
It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Thursday afternoon (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.
Chief spokespersons for unrestricted immigration.
Immigration is the “climate change” of non-scientific political issues.
Proponents consider climate disruption — which I have for years preferred to call ”globaloney“ — to be “settled science.” No contrary evidence, such as the inconvenient fact that the planet hasn’t warmed and has perhaps even cooled for 19 years, can intrude on their computer model-driven fantasies. Some proponents, if they were to achieve the positions of power they covet, would jail so-called climate deniers faster than you can say “Climategate.”
The press shields ordinary people who have been slowly brainwashed into becoming globaloney sympathizers by decades of journalistic malfeasance from the movement’s virtual dominance by socialists and de facto Communists. Most of those in the polling pluralities who believe globaloney’s garbage are among those who would suffer the most economically if these wannabe tyrants ever get what they want.
Similarly, immigration advocates are utterly convinced that the overall benefit of granting amnesty to all who have come to this country illegally — committing what is still quaintly known as a crime the minute they cross the border — is a matter of settled political science. Mountains of evidence of the irrevocable harm such a move would cause fail to dent their illogic.
Most of those advocating amnesty also believe that whoever wants to come here for jobs related to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) should be allowed to do so. That many STEM trainees going through federal jobs programs are hitting brick walls when trying to find employment, and that some currently employed Americans about to be laid off have been forced to train their shadily placed outsourced H-1B visa-holding replacements, is irrelevant.
No institution has been more persistently stubborn and utterly impervious to reality in its unfettered immigration advocacy, accurately characterized as immigration uber alles, than the Wall Street Journal.
In July 1984, the Journal advocated a new Constitutional amendment. It would simply read: “There shall be open borders.” It repeated its plea for such an amendment four additional times during the rest of the decade. Even though events during the 30 years since the first such editorial appeared have moved the Journal’s position from barely defensible to astonishingly stupid, the paper has never officially backed away from it.
As an illegal-immigrant amnesty effort orchestrated by President George W. Bush and a Democrat-dominated Congress was underway in the summer of 2007, the Journal voluntarily published a video showing its white-dominated editorial board bashing anyone who opposed the effort as presumptively nativist and racist. These people genuinely thought this incredibly counterproductive video would help their cause, which fortunately went down in flames after the American people vocally, intensely and overwhelmingly objected.
In response to the wave of unaccompanied illegal-immigrant children pouring over our southern border during the past year — a flow which, oddly enough, has subsided temporarily in time for this year’s midterm elections — a July Journal editorial’s final paragraph was more worried about harm to their cause than anything else:
The larger tragedy of this episode is that it has done enormous and needless damage to the cause of immigration reform. The Obama Administration’s incompetence has again undermined its own agenda. But once the misery of the children is past, no one should think that illegal immigration can be stopped by more enforcement alone, by more Border Patrol agents or more harassment of American business. The way to reduce illegal immigration is by providing more work visas to enter—and leave—the U.S. legally.
The H-1B argument is an insult to every laid-off STEM worker in the country. As Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, said in a must-read floor speech on September 10:
… elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled.
… there is actually not a shortage but a surplus of Americans who have been trained in the STEM and IT fields and that this is why wages for these fields have not increased since 1999.
Well, there’s that, and the fact that dozens of tech companies secretly and illegally conspired to suppress their employees’ wages for five years.
The Journal has been beating the “we’ve tried enforcement, but it doesn’t work” drum for decades. The editorial cited earlier claimed in an earlier paragraph that “America’s southern border is already far more under control than it was for most of the last 20 years.”
This is perhaps the most dangerous falsehood this usually sane bunch has pushed over the years. James O’Keefe proved in a recent video that he could cross the border wearing an Osama bin Laden mask and walk several miles to Interstate 10 without even a hint of Border Patrol scrutiny. Mexican drug cartels have had functional control of areas on our side of the border — for at least four years. Earlier this month, according to several ranchers in Texas, effectively confirmed by Congressman Jason Chaffetz, “four people known with terror ties to the Middle East, were allegedly caught sneaking over our southern border into the United States.”
Megyn Kelly at Fox News, who interviewed Chaffetz on September 17, noted that “the GAO (Government Accountability Office) has estimated there’s only a six percent operational control of this border.” What would the Journal would say about a company which only achieved 6 percent of its revenue target during its most recent financial quarter? How would a member of its editorial Board react if their home security provider said that the perimeter around their house was six percent secure?
The economic arguments supposedly favoring amnesty are completely fictions. A nation already on the path to financial ruin cannot afford the raids on Social Security and other entitlement programs which would ensue. Low-wage American worker can’t afford the sudden influx of millions of amnestied competitors. The huge minimum-wage increase the Obama administration seeks wouldn’t solve that problem, but would instead create a permanently unemployed and under-employed underclass.
The Wall Street Journal’s unrelenting, decades-long advocacy is having its desired effect. Republicans in Washington, egged on by the misguided “reform” fanatics at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are showing serious signs of caving. Nothing short of national ruin looms.
This is from National Review, in full, reflecting a speech the Alabama senator gave Wednesday evening.
Sessions says many things I’ve been meaning to say in snips for months. Since they’re all in one place, do read the whole thing.
* * * * * * * * * *
Don’t Give the Masters of the Universe Their Amnesty
The Senate isn’t doing anything to stop Obama’s plans — thank the plutocrats.
By Jeff Sessions
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening about Senate Democrats’ refusal to support legislation to block the president’s proposed executive actions on immigration policy, and the interests supporting amnesty. Following is an adapted version of his remarks.
Earlier this week I spoke about the president’s promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.
The Senate Democratic conference has supported and enabled the president’s unlawful actions and blocked every effort to stop them. Not even one of our Democratic colleagues has backed the House legislation that would stop this planned executive amnesty or demanded that Senator Reid bring it up for a vote. Every Senate Democrat is therefore the president’s partner in his planned lawless acts.
Tonight I would like to talk about the influence of special interests on our nation’s immigration system. How did we get to the point where elected officials, activist groups, the ACLU, and global CEOs are openly working to deny American workers the immigration protections to which they are legally entitled? How did we get to the point where the Democratic party is prepared to nullify and wipe away the immigration laws of the United States of America?
Just yesterday Majority Leader Reid wrote in a tweet something that was shocking. He said: “Since House Republicans have failed to act on immigration, I know the President will. When he does, I hope he goes Real Big.”
Let this sink in for a moment. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions, and he is encouraging the president to ensure this amnesty includes as many people as possible. And the White House has acknowledged that 5 to 6 million is the number they are looking at.
Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to reject Mr. Reid’s statement? Has one Senate Democrat stepped forward to say: I support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives that would secure the border and block this executive amnesty? Have they ever said they support that? Have they ever said: I will do everything in my power to see that the House legislation gets a vote in the Senate so the American people can know what is going on? No. All we hear is silence.
This body is not run by one man. We don’t have a dictator in the great Senate. Every member has a vote. And the only way Senator Reid can succeed in blocking this Senate from voting to stop the president’s executive actions is for members to stop supporting him.
Every senator needs to stand up and represent their constituents — not big business, not the ACLU, not activist groups, not political interests, but the American interests, the workers’ interests. That is what we need to expect from them, and we don’t have but a few weeks, it looks like, to get it done.
In effect, the entire Senate Democratic conference has surrendered the jobs, wages, and livelihoods of their constituents to a group of special interests meeting in secret at the White House. They are surrendering them to executive actions that will foist on the nation what Congress has refused to pass and the American people have rejected. They are plotting at the White House to move forward with executive action no matter what the people think and no matter what Congress — through the people’s House — has decided.
Politico reports that “White House officials conducted more than 20 meetings in July and August with legal experts, immigration advocates and business leaders to gather ideas on what should be included in the order.”
So who are these so-called expert advocates and business leaders? They are not the law-enforcement officers; they are not our ICE officers; they are not our Border Patrol officers; they are not the American working man and woman; they are not unemployed Americans. They weren’t in the room. You can be sure of that. Their opinions weren’t sought.
No, White House officials are meeting with the world’s most powerful corporate and immigration lobbyists and activists who think border controls are for the little people. The administration is meeting with the elite, the cosmopolitan set, who scorn and mock the concerns of everyday Americans who are concerned about their schools, jobs, wages, communities, and hospitals. These great and powerful citizens of the world don’t care much about old-fashioned things like national boundaries, national sovereignty, and immigration control — let alone the constitutional separation of powers.
Well, don’t you get it? They believe they are always supposed to get whatever it is they want. They are used to that. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, one report says they have spent $1.5 billion since 2007 trying to pass their desired immigration bill — $1.5 billion. They tried and tried and tried to pass the bill through Congress, but the American people said: No, no, no. So they decided to just go to the president. They decide to go to President Obama, and they insist that he implement these measures through executive fiat. And Senate Democrats have apparently said: Well, that is just a wonderful idea. We support that. Just do it. Go big. But, Mr. President, wait a little bit. Wait until after the election. We don’t want the voters to hold us accountable for what you are doing. We want to pretend we in the Senate have nothing to do with it.
One of the groups that have joined the chorus of special interests demanding executive action on immigration is FWD.us, run by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He just turned 30, and I understand he is worth about $30 billion.
Mr. Zuckerberg has been very busy recently. One of his fellow billionaires, Mr. Carlos Slim — maybe the world’s richest man — invited Mr. Zuckerberg down to Mexico City to give a speech. What did Mr. Zuckerberg promote in his speech? Well, this is a report of it.
I guess I will first note that young Mr. Zuckerberg maybe doesn’t know there is a deep American tradition — a tradition in most developed nations — that you don’t go to a foreign capital to criticize your own government. I suppose he doesn’t know about that. They probably didn’t teach him about that when he was at one of the elite schools he attended.
This is what he said in Mexico City: “We have a strange immigration policy for a nation of immigrants. And it’s a policy unfit for today’s world.”
Well, the “masters of the universe” are very fond of open borders as long as these open borders don’t extend to their gated compounds and fenced-off estates.
I have another article from late last fall that was printed in Business Insider about Mr. Zuckerberg’s actions. The headline is “Mark Zuckerberg Just Spent More than $30 Million Buying 4 Neighboring Houses for Privacy.” The article says:
Mark Zuckerberg just made an unusual purchase. Well, four purchases. Facebook’s billionaire founder bought four homes surrounding his current home near Palo Alto,Mercury News Reports. The houses cost him more than $30 million, including one 2,600 square-foot home that cost $14 million. (His own home is twice as large at 5,000 square-feet and cost half as much.) Larry Page made a similar move a few years ago so he could build a 6,000-square-foot mansion. But Zuckerberg’s reason is different. He doesn’t want to live in excess, he just wants a little privacy.
That is a world the average American doesn’t live in.
So Mr. Zuckerberg — who has become the top spokesman for expanding the admission of foreign workers — championed the Senate immigration bill for which all of our Democratic colleagues voted. One of the things the bill did was double the supply of low-wage foreign workers brought into the United States for companies such as Facebook.
Many of us have heard for a long time the claim that there is a shortage of STEM and IT workers. This has been the central sales pitch used by those making demands for massive increases in foreign-worker programs across the board — programs that bring in workers for every sector in the U.S. economy. But we know otherwise from the nation’s leading academics, people who studied this issue and are professionals in it. I have a recent op-ed here from USA Today which reports that there is actually not a shortage but a surplus of Americans who have been trained in the STEM and IT fields and that this is why wages for these fields have not increased since 1999.
If you have a shortage of workers in a field such as information technology or science and mathematics, wages go up, do they not? If wages are not up, we don’t have a shortage.
So rich high-tech companies are using the H-1B visa program to keep wages down and to hire less expensive workers from abroad. Indeed, the same companies demanding more guest workers are laying off American workers in droves.
I would like to read some excerpts from that op-ed published in USA Today. The article was co-authored by five of the nation’s experts on labor markets and the guest-worker program. I think it tells a story that has not been refuted. We have partisans and advocates who have been claiming there is a shortage in these fields, but the experts say no. And since they have been speaking out on this issue, we have seen no real data that would dispute what they say in this article dated July 27, 2014.
Headline: “Bill Gates’ tech worker fantasy.” Sub-headline: “Silicon Valley has created an imaginary staffing shortage.”
Business executives and politicians endlessly complain that there is a “shortage” of qualified Americans and that the U.S. must admit more high-skilled guest workers to fill jobs in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math. This claim is echoed by everyone from President Obama and Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates.
Yet within the past month, two odd things occurred: Census reported that only one in four STEM degree holders is in a STEM job, and Microsoft announced plans to downsize its workforce by 18,000 jobs.
The five writers of this article — referring to themselves — go on to say:
None of us have been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry’s assertions of labor shortages.
The article was written by Ron Hira, Paula Stephan, Hal Salzman, Michael Teitelbaum, who has recently written a book on this subject, and Norm Matloff. These are labor-economics experts who have studied these issues for years. Many of them have testified before Congress. They say:
None of us have been able to find any credible evidence to support the IT industry’s assertions of labor shortages.
What a statement that is.
They go on to write — they all signed this article together — that:
If a shortage did exist, wages would be rising as companies try to attract scarce workers. Instead, legislation that expanded visas for IT personnel during the 1990s has kept average wages flat over the past 16 years. Indeed, guest workers have become the predominant source of new hires in these fields.
The “predominant source of new hires” in information-technology fields is guest-worker programs from abroad.
They go on to say:
Those supporting even greater expansion seem to have forgotten about the hundreds and thousands of American high-tech workers who are being shortchanged — by wages stuck at 1998 levels, by diminished career prospects and by repeated rounds of layoffs.
They go on to say:
There is an ample supply of American workers who are willing and qualified to fill high-skill jobs in this country. The only real disagreement is whether the supply is two or three times larger than the demand.
There is no doubt we have a surplus of IT workers. The question is whether the supply is two or three times as big as the number of job openings.
They go on to say:
Unfortunately, companies are exploiting the large existing flow of guest workers to deny American workers access to STEM careers and middle-class security that should come with them. Imagine, then, how many more Americans would be frozen out of the middle class if politicians and tech moguls succeeded in doubling or tripling the flow of guest workers into STEM occupations.
That is exactly what the bill before this Senate — the bill the House of Representatives rejected — would have done. It would have doubled the number of guest workers coming into America just to take jobs — coming in for the very purpose of taking a job that we need Americans to be taking.
The article goes on: “Another major, yet often overlooked, provision in the pending legislation” — that is the bill President Obama is pushing for, the Gang of Eight bill — “would grant automatic green cards to any foreign student who earns a graduate degree in a STEM field, based on assertions that foreign graduates of U.S. universities are routinely being forced to leave. Such claims are incompatible with the evidence that such graduates have many paths to stay and work, and indeed the ‘stay rates’ for visiting international students are very high and have shown no sign of decline. The most recent study finds that 92 percent of Chinese Ph.D. students stay in America to work after graduation.”
So there is this myth that we have thousands and thousands of students graduating from schools and being sent home. That is not accurate, according to the experts who study the data.
The article continues:
The tech industry’s promotion of expanded temporary visas (such as the H-1B) and green cards is driven by a desire for cheap, young and immobile labor. It is well documented that loopholes enable firms to legally pay H-1Bs below their market value and to continue the widespread age discrimination acknowledged by many in the tech industry.
I talked to a gentleman whom I knew a little bit who worked at a computer company. He is well into his 40s, maybe close to 50. I asked him what kind of security there is. He said, well, in the tech industry these companies go and fall. I said, what happens if you were to lose your job? He said, at my age, it would be very difficult.
The USA Today op-ed concludes by saying:
IT industry leaders have spent lavishly on lobbying to promote their STEM shortage claims among legislators. The only problem is that the evidence contradicts their self-interested claims.
So I would pose a question to Mr. Zuckerberg. I read in the news that Facebook is now worth more than $200 billion. Is that not enough money to hire American workers for a change? Your company now employs roughly 7,000 people. Let’s say you want to expand your workforce 10 percent, or hire another 700 workers. Are you claiming you can’t find 700 Americans who would take these jobs if you paid a good wage and decent benefits?
Let me just say one more thing: Facebook has 7,000 workers. Microsoft just laid off 18,000. Why doesn’t Mr. Zuckerberg call his friend Mr. Gates and say: Look, I have to hire a few hundred people; do you have any résumés you can send over here? Maybe I will not have to take somebody from a foreign country for a job an unemployed U.S. citizen might take.
There is this myth that we have surging employment in the high-tech industry.
As Byron York reported, Hewlett-Packard, a high-tech company, “laid off 29,000 employees in 2012” — 29,000. “In August of 2013, Cisco announced plans to lay off 4,000 workers in addition to the 8,000 cut in the last 2 years,” and Cisco was right in the White House this summer with a group of other companies demanding more workers from abroad. Cisco was signing a letter with a bunch of other companies: “United Technologies has announced 3,000 layoffs this year”; “American Express cut 5,400 jobs”; “Procter and Gamble announced 5,700 jobs cut in 2012”; “T-Mobile announced plans to lay off 2,250 employees in 2012.”
“According to a recent Reuters report,” York writes, overall “U.S. employers announced 50,000 layoffs in August of 2013, up 34 percent from the previous month, then up 57 percent through August 2012.”
There is no shortage of workers.
But FWD.us and other immigration lobbyists are working with the White House to extract executive orders from the president that provide them with the same financial benefits that were included in the Senate bill that was rejected by the House of Representatives. One proposal would increase by as much as 800,000 the number of foreign workers admitted for the explicit purpose of taking jobs in the United States.
A recent Associated Press article, entitled “Obama Weighs Broader Move on Legal Immigration” reports that “President Barack Obama is considering key changes in the nation’s immigration system requested by tech, industry and powerful interest groups.” Not by the American people was he being requested to do this, not by the national interest, but by “powerful interest groups” that are referred to here.
It goes on to say:
After recent White House meetings, top officials have compiled specific recommendations from business groups and other advocates.
“Other advocates.” Who are they? We know the ACLU has been there. We know La Raza has been meeting there on a regular basis. It goes on. The article says:
One of the more popular requests is a change in the way green cards are counted that would essentially free up some 800,000 additional visas the first year, advocates say. . . . Other requests would extend work permits to the spouses of all temporary H-1B skilled workers who have not been able to work.
But how about the fact that a single mom might like that job? An unemployed single mom or a single mom who has a job prospect that would pay $3 more than the job she is now working while trying to raise a family? Or an unemployed father? Maybe they would like those jobs first.
So these actions fall on the heels of previous executive action in which the president already acted unilaterally earlier this year to grant companies an additional 100,000 guest workers. He has already done that. In just the first year of this order, it adds 100,000 guest workers by providing work authorizations to the foreign spouses of temporary guest workers. It would increase the supply of guest workers by approximately 30,000 each year thereafter — this at a time when we have 58 million working-age Americans who are not working. Since 2009 the number of adults has increased by 13 million, while the number of people actually working has decreased by 7 million.
Median household income has dropped $2,300 since 2009. According to the National Employment Law Project, wages are down across all occupations.
A CBS report titled “Why American workers feel increasingly poor” writes of the NELP’s study:
Real median hourly wages have declined across low, middle and high income levels from 2009 to 2013, the study found. No matter if workers were in the lowest bracket ($8.84 to $10.85 an hour) or the highest ($31.40 to $86.34) median hourly wages declined when you take into account the impact of inflation.
It goes on: “Across all occupations, real median hourly wages slipped 3.4 percent since 2009. While even better-paid workers saw median hourly earnings erode, the worst hit segments were at the bottom” — the people who got hurt the most were at the bottom — “with declines in their wages of more than 4 percent.”
We have business CEOs, lobbyists, activists, immigration groups, and clever politicians who demand that we have to have even more workers brought into America even when we have a decline in wages and a decline in jobs. But what does the president do? His administration issues an executive order to provide foreign spouses — the citizens of other countries, not American citizens — with 100,000 jobs in the United States, precious jobs that many Americans would love to have. How many American spouses struggling to support their families would benefit from one of those jobs? How many single moms would benefit from a chance to earn a better paycheck?
Our Senate Democratic friends talk about paycheck fairness repeatedly. Yet they are supporting policies that take jobs and wages directly from American women by the millions.
Immigration policy is supposed to serve the national interest and the people of the United States, not the interests of a few activist CEOs and the politicians who are catering to them. We have had 40 years of mass immigration combined with falling wages, a shrinking workplace, and exploding welfare rolls. We know that, don’t we, friends and colleagues? It is time for a shift in emphasis. It is time to get our own people back to work, and our communities out of poverty, and our schools back on their feet.
Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas — who is probably the leading academic in this entire area and has been for many years — estimates that our current immigration rate results in an annual loss of more than $400 billion in wages for Americans competing with immigrant labor. Between 2000 and today the government issued nearly 30 million visas to temporary foreign workers and permanent immigrants, largely lower-skilled and lower-wage.
A recent Reuters poll showed that Americans wish to see record immigration reduced, not increased (as the Gang of Eight bill would have done), by a huge 3-to-1 margin.
Another poll from pollster Kellyanne Conway recently showed that 80 percent of Americans think companies should hire from among the existing unemployed rather than bringing in new workers from abroad to fill these jobs. Yet Senate Democrats have unanimously supported legislation to double the annual supply of labor brought into the United States. These workers would be brought in to take jobs in every field, occupation, and industry in America.
So what about the good, decent, and patriotic citizens of our country who fight our wars, who obey our laws, who follow our rules, and want a better future for their children? Should their needs not come first?
As National Review explained, we are “a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation.” We cannot put the parochial demands of a few powerful CEOs ahead of an entire nation’s hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
The basic social contract is that citizens agree to follow the law, pay their taxes, and devote their love and loyalty to their country, and in exchange the nation commits to preserve and protect and serve their interests, safeguard their freedom, and return to them in kind their first allegiance and loyalty.
The job of elected officials is to answer to the people who sent them to Washington — not to scorn them, not to demean them, not to mock them, and not to sell their jobs and dreams to the highest bidder.
I yield the floor.