Posted on 04/01/2016 3:40:05 PM PDT by Kaslin
A cornerstone of Bernie Sanders’ populist campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is his steadfast opposition to international trade agreements that he, and many voters, fervently believe are undermining American workers. On this issue, he has drawn a sharp distinction between his positions and those of Hillary Clinton, who has supported and negotiated international trade pacts as First Lady, a U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State.
Commenting recently on the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, Sanders made it clear that this and other free trade policies come at great cost to American workers. “[TPP] follows failed trade deals with Mexico, China and other low-wage countries that have cost millions of jobs and shuttered tens of thousands of factories across the United States,” Sanders said.
Over his many years in public life, Sanders has consistently opposed trade deals that he believes result in the outsourcing of millions of American jobs to lower wage workers in other countries. It is fair to say that there are few more forceful advocates on behalf of American workers who lose their jobs because corporations outsource those jobs to other countries, especially if they are incentivized by international trade agreements.
However, if that exact same worker from another country shows up illegally in this country and fills the exact same job, displacing the exact same American worker, Sen. Sanders seemingly has no problem with that. In fact, he has promised that as president, he will do everything in his power (and a few things that might be beyond his constitutional authority) to protect that illegal immigrant.
Sanders’ campaign website promises that he will advocate for amnesty for virtually all illegal immigrants who are here, including an estimated 8 million who are currently filling American jobs. And, if Congress refuses to cooperate, Sanders promises to exceed President Obama’s use of executive authority (a constitutional issue to be decided by the Supreme Court in the coming weeks) and grant them all the right to remain and work in the United States.
But he doesn’t stop there. He would exercise (questionable) presidential power to allow illegal immigrants who, in his opinion, were “unjustly” deported from the United States to reenter. Sanders also pledges to vastly expand the admission of new legal immigrants (beyond current levels of about 1 million a year), all of whom will have to compete for what he has repeatedly asserted is an insufficient supply of jobs.
In all of the countless debates, media interviews, and town halls Sanders has conducted in every corner of this country since he announced his presidential bid, he has yet to be asked the most obvious question: Why is outsourcing American jobs bad, but insourcing foreign workers to do those jobs in this country good?
From the standpoint of the American worker who loses his job it makes little difference whether that jobs was outsourced to another country (abetted, or not, by free trade agreements), or whether that jobs was filled in this country by a worker who showed up here from another country. Moreover, for Sanders and many on the populist left, an American worker whose job was outsourced is someone to be championed as a victim of corporate greed. But an American worker who complains about losing his job to immigrant workers (legal or illegal) is someone to be disparaged as a xenophobe and a bigot.
The irony does not stop there. When an American job is outsourced to another country, American taxpayers must assume certain obligations toward the displaced American worker. They do not assume any (fiscal) obligations toward the worker who fills that job in another country. However, if that same foreign worker fills the job here, even if he does so illegally, Sanders and others on the populist left are adamant that we must provide for all the needs of that worker and his dependents, as well as those of the American worker he displaced.
Outsourcing jobs and insourcing workers are merely two sides of the same coin. From the perspective of the corporate interests that are engaged in undermining American workers both ways it amounts to the same ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ proposition that he rails against in every stump speech.
Can Sen. Sanders, or anyone who shares his seemingly contradictory views on trade and immigration, please explain why one practice is abhorrent, while the other must be fiercely defended, even though the impact on American workers is exactly the same?
More votes for him
Because he will be insourcing thugs and idiots that will vote for him
Can’t fix stupid.
You'd think, however, that even immigrants would get tired of seeing more and more immigrants competing for their jobs.
I keep wondering why Democrats are against U.S. companies moving their operations outside of the U.S.
For example, why should Mexicans have to leave their homes and families and travel a long and dangerous journey to take jobs away from Americans? That is just so mean spirited and cruel. Why not simply move American factories to Mexico so that Mexicans can take jobs away from Americans from the comfort and safety of their own homes?
Good question
Bernie wants to import *workers*? Oh,I get it...April Fools!
“You’d think, however, that even immigrants would get tired of seeing more and more immigrants competing for their jobs. “
Like those who think the muzzies will kill them last, illegals always think the drawbridge will be pulled up right after they’ve crossed the moat.
Why not just ask the, now old, fool why he thinks communism is better than capitalism. He’s been a commie for many years.
Insourced workers are largely not white Christians. And they are used to ineffective socialist banana republic governments...which is what the United States aspires to emulate.
When he first started campaigning he actually stated that illegals need to be kept out because they take jobs and benefits away from citizens. Hillary jumped on him for that so Bernie had to flip flop and has been keeping up with Hillary ever since on all the promises to illegals.
Good Question, but this is the idiot that wants Medicare for all, and a completely open border. in other words, Medicare for Americans. Central Americans and South Americans.
With all due respect to Sen. Sanders, low-information Sanders continues to be an excellent example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.
More specifically, regardless that the corrupt legislative and executive branches, along with the likewise corrupt media, want everybody to think that a POTUS can act unilaterally from Congress, the POTUS actually has no constitutional authority to do so. This is evidenced by the fact that Congress not only has the constitutional authority to override presidential vetoes, but it also has the power to impeach and remove lawless presidents like Obama from office.
The reason that the RINO-controlled Congress has been letting Obama get away with stealing legislative branch powers to make unconstitutional executive orders is the following. Last-term Obama is allowing Congress to use him as political pawn by letting him get away with stealing legislative branch powers so that he can do all of Congress’s unconstitutional legislative work for it. And by doing Congress’s dirty work for it, corrupt lawmakers can keep their voting records clean. And by keeping their voting records clean, lawmakers can fool low-information patriots into reelecting them.
Remember in November !
So if patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also stop corrupt presidents from stealing legislative branch powers.
In fact, note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices who likewise help to empower bad-apple presidents to do unconstitutional things.
Don’t you mean Medicaid? Medicare is for the elderly who are on Social Security and have paid in when they were working and are still paying in. Those that are on medicaid don’t have to pay a dime
Please don’t confuse Bernie with questions about economic policies. It might cause him to have a stroke trying to think.
On second thought, barrage the old commie bastard with a million questions and watch his head explode!
I want to see a future headline: Bernie Sanders: He Blowed Up Real Well”.
Do you really expect logical consistency from a liberal?
Absolutely not
Hold on a minute. I thought Bernie was going to give everything free to everyone—so what does it matter if people don’t have jobs? They’ll still get their stuff.
Never mind that without people working, there is no stuff for them. Because stuff is made by working people...
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.