Posted on 02/04/2006 4:38:34 AM PST by Tyche
Making a strong pitch for America to stay competitive in the face of emerging economies such as India and China, President George W Bush has urged the Congress to raise the number of H-1B visas that allow companies to hire foreign workers for scientific and high tech jobs.
"Congress needs to understand that nations like India, China, Japan, Korea and Canada all offer tax incentives that are permanent. In other words, we live in a competitive world. We want to be the leader in this world," Bush said in a speech in Minnesota on Thursday.
To fill vacant jobs in the US, Bush urged the Congress to lift current limit on H-1B visas that allow foreign workers to get jobs in the United States. The Congress in 2005 capped at 65,000 the number of H-1B visas, a third of the 195,000 allowed during the technology boom.
"I think it's a mistake not to encourage more really bright folks who can fill the jobs that are having trouble being filled here in America, to limit their number. So I call upon Congress to be realistic and reasonable and raise that cap," Bush said, but did not say by how much he wanted the limit lifted.
He said that one part of the agenda to stay competitive was to study math and science, a theme he touched on in his State of the Union Address on Tuesday.
"It's one thing to research, but if you don't have somebody in that lab, well… And so I got some ideas for the Congress to consider. The first is to emphasize math and science early, and to make sure that the courses are rigorous enough that our children can compete globally," Bush said in a speech at the 3M Corporation.
He said there are more high-tech jobs in America today than people available to fill them. "So what do we do about that? And the reason it's important -- and the American citizen has got to understand it's important -- is if we don't do something about how to fill those high-tech jobs here, they'll go somewhere else where somebody can do the job."
"There are some who say, we can't worry about competition. It doesn't matter, it's here. It's a real aspect of the world in which we live," he said.
"And so one way to deal with this problem, and probably the most effective way, is to recognize that there's a lot of bright engineers and chemists and physicists from other lands that are either educated here, or received an education elsewhere but want to work here. And they come here under a programme called H1B visas," Bush said.
He said America should not fear competition. "It's important for us not to lose our confidence in changing times. It's important for us not to fear competition but welcome it."
Senior administration officials noted that the number of H-1B visas has fallen to 65,000 which in their estimation was 'too low' and that it was imperative 'to bump that up.'
". . . some of reports have called for increases of 10,000; others between 20,000 and 40,000. So there is a number of options on the table to be considered. But we'll work with Congress on that," said Claude Allen, assistant to the President for domestic policy.
You didn't answer the question. Some want naturalization, some just want to work here for 4-5 years they leave (just as others want to come here for school, etc). You can split your answer among them if it makes a difference, since the distinction is yours. How many highly skilled law abiding immigrants do you want, and is it greater than zero? <p.
I agree. Nothing is permanent!
Yes I did answer the question. You just left out a very critical piece of it.
I think this is why FairTax is necessary. But it may be too late...
Exactly so! I don't recall saying anything contrary to that but perhaps I did by inference for which I apologize.
The road to destruction I have spoken of is that of not carrying out our responsibilities as citizens and nothing more.
"free traders" are implementing global socialism with your 'system'. My post said nothing socialistic.Its a funny trick how "free traders" always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.
The economy is not a problem. The Dems might have run on it instead of the war back in 2002, when we actually had a recession, but that is long past and there is nothing there anymore. Pols just can't adjust to economic realities and talk about real issues, their spin machines must allege crap about the economy because their entire ideological structures are built around their crackpot economic prescriptions.
As for immigration, that is a real political issue, but not because it has any massive economic impact or is ruining the economy. We have an assimilation problem with Mexican immigrants and a law enforcement problem, and we ought to deal with both, forcefully. Which has nothing to do with highly skilled and desired legal immigrants for all over the world, who want to come here to work (not loaf), and present no such problems. By all means, hold Congress's feet to the fire over enforcement and welfare eligibility and English, I'm with you 100%.
When you try to turn those things into opposition to *all* immigration, when you try to make it some economic idea that any immigration impoverishes us, you are just wrong, and we part company. Legal immigration of skilled and willing workers helps our economy. It built our economy from nothing to the envy of the world. We do not need to kill that goose, to deal with the border problem.
Where have you seen any reference to "WTO" in anything I have posted here?
It is NEVER EVER "to late and enactment of the FairTax into law would be an excellent first step along the path to repairing the damage leftist infiltrators have done to our country.
To answer your question, anyone who uses the word "all" starts getting into funny business if you ask me.
Here is an ideal situation according to me:
These are in no order...
1. America has fundamental trade reform. Meaning, ultimately we start with our top 10 trade partners and we start to hash out real free trade going BOTH directions. That in essence eliminates tarriffs and by agreement undue government interference.
Take the current standards we play by and up them. Set a goal to eliminate 20% of the systematic BS between us and a given trade partner over each 2 year period. Hence our trade agreements will be ongoing, evolving, and improving over time.
This will ultimately eliminate tarriffs for those countries who are willing to play ball and draw close to us.
For those who are half done or wrought out of convienience I say put tarriffs on them. Put them on an increasing tarriff schedule until they negotiate. Of course there should be common sense applied because things don't happen overnight... but none the less for those that fall halfway in between true Free Trade and the 'whatevers'...ie those that are lukewarm in opening to us....tax them out of existence until they negotiate and give us the stuff we want.
On one hand we will be expanding our network of true blue effective Free Trade Agreements but on the other we will be cutting the leeches off of our economy.
I would say within 10 years we could end up with true bi-directional Free Trade with 30 countries or more, all done by law in both countries. All this lukewarm crap has to walk.
2. On income taxes and that jive the Fair Tax doesn't sound too bad. All the April filing and stuff like that is archaic. You got deductions for this or that etc etc. We need a more fair and more efficient model.
I don't know how the Fair Tax thing works in minute detail but those who in the end need tax refunds will then apply on an as needed basis. IE those who are dirt poor, et al...
Thats my answer.
The only serious threat to the world economy right now, is security related fears to oil supply due to the war and especially Iran's pursuit of nukes. Longer term we have grand strategy issues with China and Russia, and political issues domestically with our own left, especially its remaining cultural and educational influence. I say remaining because politically and intellectually we are kicking their tails.
The main reason why Democrats are doomed to lose is because they abandoned the previous New Deal platform and replaced it it with atheism, abortion and "gay marriage". Otherwise they would be winning by landslides like FDR did. On issues like globalism, open borders and "free" trade they do not differ from Republicans.
Under my above mentioned plan it truly will step on some toes. Some companies will truly be taxed out of doing business with some countries. They will not at all like it and will scream 'protectionist' to everyone involved.
In the end we will funnel our money into those countries that funnell their money to us. Everyone has a fair shake.
Its truly working smarter not just harder.
Pretty much anyone can get an FTA under the system, but they have to abide by it, and we mean business.
We could wind up with 50 FTA agreements...or more... it just depends on how far the others want to go to be a part of it.
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.