Posted on 04/25/2015 5:07:58 AM PDT by Kaslin
“In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying — the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that's based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I've talked to folks, I've talked to Senator Sessions and others out there — but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.” – Scott Walker
It doesn’t matter if your ancestors came over on the Mayflower or if you became a citizen yesterday. An American citizen is an American citizen is an American citizen. However, there’s a world of difference between an American citizen and a foreigner. We owe American citizens a lot. We owe foreigners very little.
With that in mind, the first question that should asked when it comes to our legal immigration policy is, “Is this policy good for the Americans that are already here?”
According to Gallup, 39% of Americans want less immigration and only 7% want more, so to the larger plurality of Americans, what Scott Walker said is just common sense. However, among the political class, Walker’s comments set off a firestorm because so many of them have stopped taking what’s good for the American people into account when they consider immigration.
We already have limits on immigration, but the only thing that we ever seem to discuss is whether to raise them. That’s certainly not because the current massive level of immigration is helping the middle class.
Wages of America's middle class have dropped below 1970s levels as immigration has surged 325 percent, according to a new congressional report that questions claims that native Americans are economically helped by greater immigration.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report studied immigration and middle class income from 1945-2013 and found that as immigration slowed between 1945 and 1970, American incomes increased.
...In the report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the CRS reported that the foreign-born population of the United States surged 324.5 percent, from 9,740,000 to 41,348,066, from 1970 to 2013.
And as that happened, incomes of the bottom 90 percent dropped 7.9 percent in 2013 dollars, from an average of $33,621 to $30,980.
As a matter of fact, an awful lot of Americans are being put out of work by LEGAL immigration.
While jobs are always being created and lost, and the number of workers rises and falls with the economy, a new analysis of government data shows that all of the net gain in employment over the last 13 years has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal). From the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2013, the number of natives working actually fell by 1.3 million while the overall size of the working-age (16 to 65) native population increased by 16.4 million. Over the same time period, the number of immigrants working (legal and illegal) increased by 5.3 million. In addition to the decline in the number of natives working, there has been a broad decline in the percentage holding a job that began before the 2007 recession. This decline has impacted natives of almost every age, race, gender, and education level.
Theoretically, massive amounts of immigration may be good for America, but it sure hasn’t worked out that way in practice – and no wonder. One of the most basic principles of economics is supply and demand. If you increase the supply of workers, at a minimum, salaries and benefits drop because of the competition. If you increase the supply until there are more workers than jobs, then some people don’t work at all. That’s exactly what has happened in America over the past few decades.
That doesn’t mean immigration it bad, it’s just a little like water. It’s a necessity a glass at a time, but when it comes at you in a tidal wave the size of the Empire State Building, it can do a lot of damage. What’s wrong with acknowledging that obvious fact?
Yes, immigration has helped America overall. Yes, we should continue to allow immigration. In fact, there might even be certain professions where we want to INCREASE legal immigration. For example, unless we get a Republican in the White House who agrees to repeal and replace Obamacare (Helpful hint: Don’t vote for a candidate who won’t pledge to do this), then we’re going to need a lot more foreign born doctors to replace all the American docs leaving the profession. Moreover, I’d like to see us make the process quicker, easier & cheaper for LEGAL immigrants who we allow into our country. They want to obey our laws and try to do the right thing, so why are we making it so hard on them when we’re bending over backwards to reward lawbreaking illegals? However, when so many Americans are out of work, what’s wrong with cutting back on legal immigration for a while to allow more of our current American citizens to get back in the work force? Just as it would make sense to INCREASE the number of legal immigrants coming into the country if we had a shortage of workers, it makes sense to DECREASE the number of legal immigrants coming into our country when almost 93 million Americans are out of the labor force. That’s not “anti-immigrant” in any way, shape or form, it’s putting Americans first; something that far too many politicians & plutocrats who’ve put greed above the good our country have ceased to do.
As Mark Levin said, “We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of citizens.” It’s time that our immigration policy took that into account and put Americans first.
Walker has to figure out where his positions stop spinning first.
Is it? Most of republican elites try spinning a fairy tale that Hispanics, for example, are natural Republicans despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They tell us not to worry about the unending importation of groups that vote at least 60% Democrat every time, or they tell us to worry, but say all will be fine if we all just surrender unconditionally on immigration policy.
I like Cruz on most issues, but he is a liberal on legal immigration. In the end that will matter more than anything else when the electorate is comprised of too many who will never consider voting conservative.
Saying this is the wrong place/time to use it to further your agenda against Cruz.
Legislatures make the laws on immigration. Not presidents.
Splitting the ticket on this is on a lot of agendas. Just look around.
I do and will continue to donate money and time to Cruz.
/johnny
My only agenda regarding Cruz is to point out the truth that he is liberal when it comes to legal immigration. We already admit over a million legal immigrants each year, most of them natural Democrats, yet Cruz wants to increase those current levels. To be fair, he wants a completely unneeded massive 500% increase in H1B visas, and one could argue that group is less likely to be future Democrats than all of those coming via family reunification visas, Diversity Lottery visas, refugee visas, aslyum visas, etc. But why is Cruz fine with such large numbers from those very pro-Democrat groups? Why not support a reduction in those?
I’m not sure what the point is on legislatures versus the executive in making law. The difference is clear, but Cruz currently is a legislator. In that role he cast a good vote against the terrible Gang of Eight bill, but during the debate over it he also voted against an amendment from Senator Sessions to cap legal immigration at an absurly high and generous level. He explained his vote by saying he wants to increase legal immigration.
And if Cruz ever does become President, then he would have a big part to play in the fate of any legislation. If a bill made it to him that would not grant amnesty, but would massively increase legal immigration, would he sign it into law? I bet he would, thus hastening the demographic destruction of conservatism. If a bill reducing legal immigration made it to his desk, would he sign or veto it? I bet he’d veto it.
I don’t want this to be a thing where any criticism of Cruz is taken as total opposition to him. Other than legal immigration, I like Cruz. If Cruz is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. It’s just that even if he is elected President I don’t think he’ll do anything to slow or halt the immigration-driven demographic shift of the nation towards the left.
Yep. Your agenda is showing.
Doesn't matter. I'm willing to admit that I have an agenda, and I'm supporting Cruz with money so that the media and the GOP-E and people like you don't get to decide who the conservative candidate is.
Get used to it.
I'm supporting Cruz with time and money NOW. Not later after someone else is the candidate.
Now, when it matters, and I have a say.
/johnny
Tiny and inconsequential you say? That’s how you describe Cruz’ support of unending, pro-Democrat, mass immigration? That’s how you describe his support for dramatically increasing this influx?
Just as Reagan couldn’t win California today, at some point a Cruz like politician won’t be able to win Texas. Well, it’s not exactly apples to apples, since whites in Texas are conservative and vote overwhelmingly for the GOP, while the same is not true of Calif whites. But thanks to the mass immigration that Cruz supports, eventually 70% of whites in Texas won’t be enough to guarantee victory.
I mean, what do you think is going to happen if we keep importing millions of natural Democrats each decade?
Legal immigration isn't decided by one man, ever.
And you know that.
Yep. You have an agenda.
I'll keep sending Cruz money so that idiots don't choose the conservative candidate.
/johnny
What you’re saying about one man deciding something makes no sense. That’s obvioulsy true that one man can’t decide an issue, unless we’re talking about Obama and his executive amnesty that is. But people have positions. By your logic, if I can’t criticize Cruz for being liberal on legal immigration because he can’t control it anyway, then why can we praise him for being good on the Second Amendment? He doesn’t control that either. As a Senator, he has one voice and one vote. On the Gang of Eight bill, he used his voice forcefully against the bill and voted against the bill. But in debate over the bill he also used his voice and vote to strike against not even reducing legal immigration, but simply capping it at very high level. It wasn’t high enough for him!
There is no confusion about legal and illegal immigration. Cruz has been good on the latter, though surely a man as smart as he is knows that legalization without citizenship would not be able to stand. But on the former, Cruz is quite liberal.
As far as an agenda goes, I really don’t understand this whole hero worship. Is Cruz infallible to you? Is he perfect? Is he beyond criticism?
And I ask you again, what do you think is going to happen if we continue a legal immigration policy that imports millions each decade, the majority of which are natural Democrats?
Some people get locked in on a tiny little hobby horse and miss the big picture.
I'll keep sending cash.
/johnny
We have a Barbara Jordan “populist” contingent stinking up FR now, using legal immigration as a weapon against Ted Cruz over his H1B1 stance taken completely out of context. UN- FReepin’ believable. BARBARA JORDAN!! Are Walker supporters that damned desperate that they need to cling to a socialist?
And a lot of conflating knowing what one wants with 'hero worship' lol.
If people are going to vote for whoever winds up the candidate, it's my job to help make sure the GOP-E and the media don't get to choose that candidate.
I do know who I want to vote for.
/johnny
If you don’t want to go back and forth anymore that’s fine, but if you’re going to respond, then why not respond to specific points or questions?
This thread is about legal immigration. So a focus on that issue here is logical. And anyway, legal immigration is not some little hobby horse of an issue or concern. It shapes the nation’s demography, and what is more important than that?
And you have no answer to question about the long term consequences of mass legal immigration. That’s good in one sense, because it suggests that you accept the reality of immigrant community preference for the Democrats. But again, what do you think is going to happen? What will happen in Texas when 70% of the white vote can no longer carry the day for Republicans? Do you think Cruz is a transformative figure who will convince immigrant communities to turn away from their support for big government Democrat policies?
Illegal immigration has a much larger role to play in the election.
41% of 'hispanics'... what a word... voted for Cruz when he ran for the Senate.
I think Texas is doing ok.
And you don't get to make rules for other people. You need to figure that out.
I'll keep sending money to the guy I think needs to be the candidate.
You may be able to vote for whoever the media and GOP-E select, but I'm not, and won't.
/johnny
WAlker’s stance on American workers gets a boost.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Assimilation.
It’s what immigrants must do.
It’s what the left doesn’t WANT them to do.
They must become Americans. They must adopt our culture.
The left wants hyperimmigration in order to dilute our culture instead of preserve it.
Thanks for the ping.
I didn’t realize I was trying to make rules. I was just requesting responses to specific points, to which you’ve sort of done, so thank you.
Cruz may have won 40% of Hispanics in 2012, but he won the race because of his overwhelming share of the white vote. There is no denying that. If it were up to Hispanics in Texas, Cruz wouldn’t be a Senator today. Cruz can go on about Hispanics being natural conservatives because of work ethic, but they don’t vote that way, and they don’t take conservative views on most of the big issues when polled on them.
Republican dominance in Texas has come from the realignment of the state’s conservative white population. This is why Texas hasn’t gone the way of California; it’s not because Texas Hispanics are a little less Democrat than their California counterparts, but rather because Texas whites are a lot more conservative than whites in California.
But this won’t hold forever. If the GOP can hold onto 70+% of the white vote in Texas then they’ll avoid a California-like collapse into near irrelevance, but eventually 70% of whites won’t be enough guarantee victory. It definitely won’t be able to deliver landslide victories that the GOP has become accustomed to in Texas for too much longer.
These pro-Democrat demographic shifts are largely driven by the excessively high levels of legal immigration, year after year, decade after decade, that Cruz supports.
I don’t know which will play a bigger role in the election in the end - illegal or legal immigration, but ideally both would be big considerations. If Cruz (or Bush, or Christie, or Rubio) is the nominee, then it will probably be a rhetorical war between him and Hillary to see who can wax most poetic about how much they love legal immigration, with no consideration at all given to the idea that there can be too much of it. Cruz may think his calls for increasing legal immigration will give him an edge with immigrant groups, but Hillary could just match him on that, and then the issue is neutralized with Hispanics and Asians and those two groups just go back to their default pro-Democrat position.
And when it comes to illegal immigration, all will say they oppose amnesty, some will say there should be a path to citizenship, some will say no to a path to citizenship, and none of them will call for most illegal aliens to back to their country of origin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.