Posted on 02/09/2016 2:07:28 PM PST by ConservingFreedom
I first met Sen. Marco Rubio at a Republican fundraiser in 2014 where he was the featured speaker.
"Hi, my name is Mark Thies", I said. "I'm an Engineering Professor at Clemson."
"Engineers!", he said. "Boy, we sure need a lot more of them, don't we!"
I shook my head in wonder at his comment. Indeed, if you get your news from the mainstream media you might think there's a big shortage of students in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The truth, however, is quite different. For example, Clemson's engineering enrollment has reached almost 5,300 students - an 80 percent increase since 2008! In my 30 years of teaching, I've never seen classes so large - and so many bright students! Equally compelling data are stagnant STEM wages, with increases averaging a tiny 0.4 percent per year from 2000-2012 (cis.org/no-stem-shortage). In 2013, PBS ran a story called "The Bogus High-Tech Worker Shortage: How Guest Workers Lower US Wages". And last week in his blog, Professor Norm Matloff at University of California-Davis pointed out that computer science starting salaries went up a microscopic 0.06 percent last year.
But if Rubio has his way, prospects for our STEM students will be getting substantially worse. That's because of a bill he is co-sponsoring in the Senate: S. 153, the Immigration and Innovation (I-Squared) Act. If passed, S. 153 would be a game changer — a bill that should scare the heck out of parents paying for a STEM education for their kids. Let's look at how I-Squared will make it even harder for Americans to get good-paying jobs.
Work visas called H-1B visas are granted to foreign workers who have a bachelor's or higher degree in a wide range of areas. S. 153 would increase the number of H-1B visas from 65,000 up to 245,000. Contrary to popular belief, there are no worker protections to prevent companies from firing American workers, replacing them with H-1B's, and even forcing them to train their replacements (e.g., Disney). As pointed out in Trump's on-line immigration plan, 87 percent of current H-1B holders are paid wages in the bottom third. Imagine what a quadrupling of these visas will do to wages! So this is all about cheap labor - not about top talent.
But the worst aspect of the bill is the provision to give international students a lifetime work visa (a green card) for obtaining any advanced STEM degree. Thus, future immigration policy will be dictated by how many students decide to come to America and obtain/buy a STEM degree/green card and byhow many Universities set up/expand their STEM programs both to educate these students and to help their own bottom line.
I can understand why corporations want legislation such as I-Squared so as to flood the labor market and thus lower STEM wages, but what I can't understand is politicians such as Rubio who continually advance legislation that provides jobs for others at the expense of our own citizens, whom we pay dearly to educate. Rubio was originally elected by the tea party, but this bill shows him now to be totally in the pocket of corporate donors. His second attempt to destroy the job prospects of America's STEM students (his first attempt was in the now infamous "Gang of Eight" bill in 2013) earns him an "F" in my class anytime.
Seems to me Cruz was a big supporter too.
H-1b kill it!
"Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions Roll Out Antidote To Broken H-1B Program: American Jobs First Act" - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3371276/posts
Amend the H-1B visa program to fulfill its original purpose: Work with Congress to pass reform legislation for the H-1B visa program that will:
“s between laying off a worker and bringing in any H-1B foreign workers”
The back door to avoiding this is to simply open reqs in India.
Two years ago, Intel had a secret layoff of 1000 USA workers.
Two weeks later it opened up reqs for 1000 people in India.
A first level manager let this out of the bag.
She was then demoted.
Yes.
Do you know who’s trying to stop this?
Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz.
one not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHlGlNwsQb0
They’re co-sponsoring legislation to suspend all H-1B visas.
I know you don’t want to admit it, but Ted’s on the right side of that.
Too bad for you Trumpkins.
He used to be. When people started doing the things that companies like Disney are doing, Cruz changed his mind.
Not until he started running for President.
In 2012, Cruz publicly campaigned for an increase of foreign workers for Texas farms and ranches.
In 2013, Cruz submitted a Senate amendment to increase H-1B visas by 500%.
Most importantly, Cruz has never called for a reduction in LEGAL immigration, which is currently 1.1 million per year. Most of those folks have limited skills and limited education. They crush the wage scale for home grown Americans wherever they live.
I just asked (Freedom Caucus member) Congressman Mo Brooks about that specifically this morning on a local radio show.
He declared that Cruz did that amendment for the purpose of introducing a 'poison pill' to kill off the broader amnesty bill involved.
It was the Congressman's opinion that only Cruz has the complete package for immigration policy among all GOP candidates for Pres...
> Trump - would deport, build fence, but then allow many back in.
> Rubio - while indicating that his Gang of 8 measure was a 'mistake', has never renounced the position.
I completely agree that Cruz says that now.
But, there is one problem.
Ted Cruz forgot to mention his “poison pill” strategy until two years later - AFTER he began running for president.
So, if you and Mo Brooks are claiming that Ted Cruz has had a change of heart about his immigration policy, well, I agree.
If you are claiming that Ted Cruz has ALWAYS supported that same policy, that is incorrect.
By the way, are you and Mo Brooks aware of the fact that Ted Cruz helped George W. Bush write Bush's immigration policy in 1999-2000?
That would be the same George W. Bush who tried to shove the Bush-McCain Amnesty down our throats in 2005-2006.
To my knowledge, Ted Cruz wrote nothing and said nothing - for or against - the Bush-McCain Amnesty.
Since the Bush-McCain Amnesty was the most intensely controversial domestic policy issue during Bush's eight year presidency, I find Cruz's silence very strange.
Bottom Line - I think Ted Cruz is, and always has been, a George W. Bush Republican on the immigration issue. And, I think Cruz will betray us on immigration, just like George W. Bush did.
And, just so you know - I have never supported Trump, and I will not vote for Trump, because I do not believe in Trump's sudden Conservative “conversion.”
Just curious. Who do you support? I have the same misgivings about Trump, and his actions in Iowa only reinforced them.
I can’t comment on Cruz’s intentions...Brooks says that sabotaging the bill was the intent all along; but no, I don’t have his word on the subject.
My original choice was Santorum, because he was the only national candidate who supported a reduction in LEGAL immigration, which, in my opinion, is an existential political threat to American Conservatives.
If Cruz is nominated, I will vote for Cruz, because I do believe he is a Conservative on every other issue I care about.
I also feel that Rubio is a genuine Conservative on most issues, but his Gang of Eight Amnesty betrayal was so shocking and so flagrant I do not think I can vote for him.
I have very pleasant memories of a “Conservative” John Kasich during the 1994 “Gingrich Revolution.” But, Kasich, like Gingrich, has been moving steadily Left for the last 20 years. I would need to study Kasich’s record as Ohio governor, and also study his record during his last few terms in Congress, before I make a decision about voting for him.
Except for immigration, I would be willing to accept Jeb Bush as my “painful compromise” candidate, even though he is center-left on just about everything. But his immigration policy is so deranged and so destructive, I don't think I could vote for him in the general election.
We are at the point where the US has to consider cultural preservation to be a priority, and the importation of enclaves of foreign people who are not assimilating into our culture is a problem.
Without that assimilation, we will be beset by expensive and tedious special interests consuming resources to remain foreign communities within our borders.
I don't mind people retaining a healthy sense of their roots and most cultural aspects of that, however, the aspects which go against our way of life (our Constitutional Republic, language, and other unifying factors) cannot be permitted to gain serious sway.
Past assimilated immigrant populations have contributed to the American culture, not replaced it.
Controlling our borders should be the focus of national security assets at home and that needs to be done.
Those who are here in violation of our laws need to be sent home.
We don't have enough jobs for Americans now, and that is going to kill us economically.
We don't need to add to our labor force unless we are discussing additions of exceptional skill.
One of the chief reasons manufacturing is diminished is an overzealous EPA, and that agency should be reined in or eliminated. Other agencies and rules can and should be either downsized or eliminated, (including obamacare) and regulations and tax code simplified to foster industrial development at home. The divestment of land or leasing of resources by the Federal Government should increase. Continuing to take land off tax rolls and place it off limits is not sustainable.
Many resources have a use by date--trees age and die, for instance, and the harvesting and use of those resources keeps them viable.
Other resources will be needed to feed manufacturing or power it.
Let the States make the rules for their individual environmental needs.
I am a social and fiscal conservative, believe we need to be militarily strong as a deterrent/defense, and also believe we need to quit using our military to effect social change elsewhere.
I do not believe the military is a place for social experimentation. It has to work, first time, every time, or Americans will die unnecessarily. Stick with what worked, but keep our people and their weapons cutting edge.
Social programs have become the great teat, but even worse, are so heavily involved in picking winners (and losers) that the government needs to back off. You have to climb to need a safety net, and too many are still seated on the ground.
Trillions have been poured down that rathole, and we only have more of the same problem.
We should push the boundaries of known space, and especially encourage private ventures to do so.
While we can protect Americans and American interests, using our military to impose freedom on others is not an effective nor intelligent use of that resource.
While I want candidates aligned with those and other beliefs I hold dear, including stopping the slaughter of the unborn and the end of Federal impositions of standards for the sacrament of marriage, I also want a candidate with the moral courage to do what is right over what is politically expedient. I want someone I can believe will stand by the standards above, and who will leave my RKBA alone or enhance my ability to practice that right, not seek additional infringements.
Credibly, I can only think of one candidate, and even then I am not certain. I lean toward Cruz.
Thanks for your response, Alan.
Immigration has been my number one issue at Free Republic for the last 12 years.
Cruz’s “poison pill” claim, two years after the fact, makes no sense to me.
Every well informed person in the country knew exactly why the Democrats wanted the 2013 Gang of Eight Amnesty - 12 million new Democrat voters!
Can you recall any Republican congressman or Conservative pundit who made a reference to Cruz’s “poison pill” before 2015? I can’t.
And the original Bill had massive support in the Senate, 70 votes, as I recall, so I don’t even understand what the purpose of the “poison pill” was.
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.