Immigration and Outsourcing: How to Pit Cheap Labor Against the American Middle Class
American Economic Alert ^ | Wednesday, May 24, 2006 | William R. Hawkins
Posted on 05/25/2006 11:02:05 PM EDT by A. Pole
I took a long road trip last week and was delighted to hear the unanimity among conservative radio hosts in favor of halting all illegal immigration on my car radio. They also denounced President George W. Bush’s TV address a few nights before offering "guest worker" status to millions who had entered the United States without permission. I had expected these views from Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, but was somewhat surprised by the strong language of Rush Limbaugh and Neal Boortz.
Limbaugh is a Republican Establishment icon, usually very supportive of President Bush. Yet he was praising a nation-wide grassroots conservative revolt against the GOP leadership. He said the revolt was spearheaded by city elections in Herndon, Virginia, just outside Washington, DC. On May 9, the incumbent mayor and most of the city council were replaced by candidates who opposed to the creation of a "day labor" site catering to illegal workers (and their illegal employers) that the defeated incumbents had funded. Only one of the council members who supported the site was re-elected. Limbaugh added other issues of concern to conservatives, such as failure to fight hard enough in Iraq and excessive domestic spending by a GOP-controlled Congress. But it is clear that immigration is what has the grassroots up in arms.
Neal Boortz was surprising for a different reason. He is a libertarian; an advocate of capitalism and minimal government. Most people of this ideology are for unrestricted migration, placing the desires of individual people and business firms ahead of national concerns and government policy. Yet, Boortz was extremely critical of the Senate, declaring, "By their actions our elected officials in Washington are sending us a rather strong message: We are not going to take any affirmative action to insure that the Mexican invasion across our southern border is brought to a halt. We must consider the possibility that these politicians want this invasion to continue because it serves their political needs. For the Democrats, this one is easy....to get those who were once illegal aliens, but by virtue of the amnesty program are illegal no more, to the polls to vote, presumably for Democrats. As for the Republicans? Well, there's always those heavy-duty contributors who benefit from the cheap labor offered by the invasion force."
He sounded just like Ingraham, who noted how "the business lobby [is] desperate to keep the flow of cheap labor coming into this country." Limbaugh denounced "country club Republicans." This line of criticism is not confirmed to radio. Back home on May 22, I was watching Fox News before heading to work. I was happy to hear "Fox & Friends" host E. D. Hill blame the Chamber of Commerce for lobbying on behalf of an "amnesty" in the Senate bill for employers who have hired illegal workers in violation of Federal law. They will not be subjected to fines or back taxes if their employees are eventually enrolled in a "guest worker" program (though the workers themselves will be).
In taking this stand, the Chamber of Commerce is siding with criminal firms against honest employers who have not hired illegals. When a business hires illegals, it is to gain a competitive "cheap labor" edge against other firms that obey the law and hire only Americans or legal immigrants. Most firms do not employ illegals. Even in those fields where illegals are thought to concentrate, such as construction, restaurants, agriculture, and cleaning services, they are still only a minority of the labor force. By taking the side of the illegal business sector, the Chamber is clearly favoring its growth at the expense of the rest of the economy.
And here is where the immigration issue comes into sync with another major economic issue that too many conservatives have been ignoring – the dangerous trends in international trade. In both cases, rogue corporations are pitting foreigners against Americans. Whether they bring foreign workers here, or send jobs to foreign workers overseas, these self-seeking firms are in alliance with foreign interests against American-based firms and their citizen-employees. Moving factories out of the United States is even more damaging to American society than hiring illegals, as the resulting enterprises are put completely out of reach.
The loss of millions of skilled industrial jobs, as well as managerial and technical positions, due to the de-industrialization of the American economy, sets the country up for the invasion by unskilled foreign migrants. As Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue testified to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship on May 26, 2005, "of the top 10 largest job growth occupations between 2002 and 2012, all but two require less than a bachelor’s degree. At the same time, six of the top 10 growth occupations require only short-term on-the-job training. Some of these top 10 occupations that only require short-term on the-job training include: retail salespersons, nursing aides, janitors and cleaners, waiters and waitresses, and combined food preparation and serving workers."
The skill level of the American labor force is being dumbed down by foreign outsourcing and trade deficits. In addition, we allow less educated illegal aliens to enter the country and compete for the low-level jobs that are all an economy hemmed in by overseas rivals can create. And when jobs skills are dumbed down, pay and living standards are also brought down. We are in fact importing poverty.
The invasion of foreign products has taken a larger toll on the U.S. economy and society than the invasion of illegal immigrants. Last year, the U.S. imported over $1.6 trillion worth of goods produced overseas. Foreign firms are responsible for much of this assault on American industry. But it is the political influence of nominally American firms that keeps Congress from taking action to secure the U.S. border against foreign economic rivals. The Chamber of Commerce represents these new "transnational" firms that no longer feel any allegiance to the United States and have joined forces with the alien onslaught by moving their operations overseas. These arrogant firms feel they are above the law and outside the bond of patriotism. Only strong government policy, based on the truly conservative (i.e., time-tested) doctrines of economic nationalism, can educate people like Donohue that being a "man without a country" is a ultimately a dead-end choice.
Thus the grassroots rebellion against political leaders who are in the pockets of the transnationals must prevail. If the United States is to survive as a powerful nation whose people are prosperous and whose economy can support their security and preeminent place in the world, then what happened in Herndon must happen in Washington. And with the expanded agenda needed to combat illegal foreign competition in all its forms
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1638515/posts
*** Much Need Humor in Truth Break
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
_______________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
