Jobless push for visa reform (Bills in congress to fight L1 abuse)

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/story/0,10801,83888,00.html ^ | Patrick Thibodeau

[Mick2000]

AUGUST 11, 2003 ( COMPUTERWORLD ) - WASHINGTON -- The controversial L-1 and H-1B visas are under assault in Congress, in large part because of the activism of a group of laid-off Connecticut IT workers. Of the five bills that have been introduced this year to reform the two visa programs, three were written by Connecticut lawmakers.

"We've heard quite a bit from constituents in our district concerned about losing their jobs," said Lesley Sillaman, a spokeswoman for Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is seeking restrictions on L-1 visa use.

The group DeLauro has been working with, the Organization for the Rights of American Workers (TORAW) in Meriden, Conn., was formed less than a year ago. One of the group's founders, James Pace, a laid-off IT consultant, learned the ropes of activism in the early 1970s, when he fought the state's motorcycle helmet law. "It all comes down to backyard politics," said Pace.

Laid-off IT consultant James Pace is a leader in TORAW’s fight for L-1 and H-1B visa reform. Among other activities, TORAW attended an open forum meeting that Rep. Nancy Johnson held in her Connecticut district several months ago. Six TORAW members in the audience peppered Johnson with questions about the visa programs. "We took over the whole meeting," said Pace. Subsequent local newspaper coverage focused on offshore outsourcing.

On July 28, Johnson, a Republican, joined Democratic Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut in sponsoring the USA Jobs Protection Act to reform the visa laws.

[jpsb]

"Sorry to bother your troubled mind"

No problem, if you had one it would be troubled too.

[jpsb]

It is very telling that neocons see "working middle class types" as a fringe vote. Very telling.

Personally I think the GOP will lose the support of paleo types like me. The only thing that could get me to vote GOP again are SC appointments. And even that is iffy since 7 of the 9 are GOP and the SC is as activist as ever.

[Once-Ler]

I agree that 'rats have a more difficult coalition...Thank God. Where I will disagree is in the need for Republicans to hold the Paleos to the party. If a Paleo is disenfranchised and leaves and joins the Constitution party. The loss is one vote from Republicans and no gain to the 'rats. The danger for Republicans is trying to appease the far right. For every Paleo appeased, 2 or more centrist voters vote for a 'rat. In this case the Republicans lose 2 votes and the rats gain 2 votes. Even if it only cost 1 centrist vote to gain a far right vote it is still a loser strategery for the Republican party.

It is at this point that many Paleo switch topics from winning to "Well a party has to stand for something, " and then I say "you have to win to be able to stand and make a change" and the response is "Far right conservatives win races when the choice is made clear enough" and the dance of the circular argument continues.

I hope you are enjoying some air-conditioned comfort FITZ. It is hot in Wisconsin, I bet it is roasting in Texas.

[Once-Ler]

W is a neocon globalist, just like dad. My FR friends talked me into voting for W, "give him a chance" OK the GOP controls the house, the Senate and the white house and government is growing faster then under Clinton. The USA is losing 70,000 manurafacturing jobs a month, conpanies are out sourcing as fast as they can. Trade deficet is 500 billion, budget deficet is huge, etc, etc, etc.

How can you just ignore 9-11 and a recession. It seems reality never creeps into your thoughts at all. If Dubya was a globalist then we would not have pissed off the UN with Iraq, Kyoto, or the international court. Chirac, Schroeder, and Chretien would all be buddy buddy with Dubya. I know...I know...It's all an act to fool those of us who ain't as smart as you.

The GOP ain't what is claims to be.

Dubya promised tax cuts, steel tariffs, and prescription drug reform...BEFORE he was elected. Your FR friends must be the conspirators 'cause it wasn't Dubya trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Actually jpsb...I think you pulled the wool over your eyes long before the 2000 elections.

[Once-Ler]

It is very telling that neocons see "working middle class types" as a fringe vote.

You still haven't read my reply to you at post 63. I knew you were illiterate.
Bwa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

[JNB]

Look at where most of the GOP gains from the house and senate came from in the 94 election, it was from the South and rural/small city North. The people that switched their votes from Democratic downballot to GOP were not white collar professionals, who have in fact been drifting away from the GOP since the late 80s, but it was white southreners and in the north, the largely Catholic white working class. This was largely the group that supported Wallace in 68, and continued to vote heavily Democratic downballot untill 94. Again, without the "Wallace Democrats" the GOP would be a less than 2-1 minority in congress.

Also, you and Arnie are a VERY small minority among people who vote GOP who want immigration at continued high levels. 2/3 of Americans want immigration dramatically reduced, and my guess is that among GOP voters, that number is between 80%-90%.

[JNB]

The socially liberal "Centrist" voters have largely left the GOP anyways, and maybe some may come back to the GOP, but the days of the GOP dominating the suburban vote on the West Coast and Northeastern Corridor like they did from 68-88 are over.

Karl Rove himself estimated up to 4 million Conservative Christian voters simpily stayed home on election day in 2000. The GOP needs to know that a large portion of its base votes for them on social, not economics issues, and if somthing is not done on the issue of immigration and unfair trade, then the GOP is at severe risk not just at the level of president but downballot as well. The warm and fuzzy view of Republicanism that Limbaugh paints does not exist in the real world.

[JNB]

The socially liberal "Centrist" voters have largely left the GOP anyways, and maybe some may come back to the GOP, but the days of the GOP dominating the suburban vote on the West Coast and Northeastern Corridor like they did from 68-88 are over.

Karl Rove himself estimated up to 4 million Conservative Christian voters simpily stayed home on election day in 2000. The GOP needs to know that a large portion of its base votes for them on social, not economics issues, and if somthing is not done on the issue of immigration and unfair trade, then the GOP is at severe risk not just at the level of president but downballot as well. The warm and fuzzy view of Republicanism that Limbaugh paints does not exist in the real world.

[Once-Ler]

George Wallace renounced his segregationist views in 1982. You claim Wallace Democrats needed 14 years to think about it and finally switch to the Republican party...you may have a point...they are morons.

I believe you are correct that immigration controls have wide support of the majority of Americans but that support is only an inch deep. Even Campaign Finance Reform, and Assault Weapon Bans have had more momentum as a political issue. I have seen little interest in the issue by most of the D9, Dubya, and political commentators. Perhaps all the political pundits (except Novak and Buchanan) are just blind to the issue...or they could be part of the conspiracy...or you overestimate the desire to close the borders. I'm still going with the last conclusion.

If you ask people if there is too much violence or sex in hollywood movies, they say yes, but you better not misread that to mean there is support for censorship.

[Once-Ler]

The GOP needs to know that a large portion of its base votes for them on social, not economics issues, and if somthing is not done on the issue of immigration and unfair trade, then the GOP is at severe risk not just at the level of president but downballot as well.

Why? Show me an election where immigration has been a factor. Did opposing prop 187 hurt Davis/Bustamente or help Simon? Did supporting NAFTA stop congressman Richardson from being elected Governor of New Mexico. Where is the lesson that you say must be learned?

[JNB]

To many who view this thread, why is it Neo-Conservatives take such a snotty attitude? To Once-Ler, and Arnie and others, why in debate do you people have such arrogant snotty, insulting attitudes?

The fact is people who claim to be neo-conservatives are not well read beyond the WSJ editorial pages and a few books from favorite neo-con authors/idols, and more or less parrot talk radio hosts.

Saying the people that I term Wallace Democrats are morons does little to help your case. As for immigration, it is a big issue, just neither party wants to talk about it for fear of being branded racists, and the media does not bring up the issue at all, but I guess you trust the media. As for NAFTA, in a state like New Mexico that has little industry, it wasnt a factor, though in 94 it hurt the Democrats because Clinton was a big supporter of it and many Democratic voters either stayed home that year and also many socially conservative Democrats saw that there was no more reason to vote Democratic with Clinton supporting "free trade".

I suppose I could get into the fact why it took socically conservative Democrats 25 years to transition over to the GOP, get into factors such as the damage Watergate did to the GOP on the local level, lack of party organisation, Democrats having strong allies in the media and better control of the message, but hey, you have it all figured out, these voters were simpily "morons", and any explanation based on logic and fact would be wasted.

[FITZ]

I hope you are enjoying some air-conditioned comfort FITZ. It is hot in Wisconsin, I bet it is roasting in Texas.

Depends on what you call hot. Most Texans don't think it's hot until it reaches 110 degrees. 100 is nothing.

[FITZ]

For every Paleo appeased, 2 or more centrist voters vote for a 'rat. In this case the Republicans lose 2 votes and the rats gain 2 votes.

Lack of jobs could cause one Conservative vote, and 2 Centrist votes I think. What happens if a democrat claims they'll get the economy rolling and there would be jobs for Americans? Even if it's a lie, they could get votes. Clinton even ran on "It's the economy stupid" and strangely enough he won. Democrat voters tend to be very naive and gullible, they believed in his globalism, Third Way, and that he would make jobs for Americans. At least the Greens are smarter types and they knew Gore wasn't going to do anything for them.

[FITZ]

Also, you and Arnie are a VERY small minority among people who vote GOP who want immigration at continued high levels. 2/3 of Americans want immigration dramatically reduced, and my guess is that among GOP voters, that number is between 80%-90%.

Anyone who thinks immigration isn't important really needs to check out the career of Silvestre Reyes ---- Congressman. There is one reason and only one reason the guy got elected to Congress, he has an associates degree, his career was in border patrol where he was seen as tough on immigration. He is the one who put Operation Blockade and Operation Hold-the-Line into place, which made him very popular in his mostly hispanic district. He would not be elected to dog-catcher without this distinction.

[FITZ]

Did supporting NAFTA stop congressman Richardson from being elected Governor of New Mexico. Where is the lesson that you say must be learned?

The immigration issue won't help Bush --- not much with hispanics either. I don't know if you've followed Cesar Chavez --- who is considered a hero to many Chicanos --- but he was anti-immigration. The UFW were even on the border working with border patrol to stop immigration from Mexico ---many hispanics actually believe Bush is just helping the elites by keeping wages down --- their wages. It might not be fair --- but the democrats know how to play that issue on both sides. Maybe because they have the naive and gullible voters.

[Once-Ler]

To Once-Ler, and Arnie and others, why in debate do you people have such arrogant snotty, insulting attitudes?

In post 58 I posted a message to Arne. I thanked him for putting up an excellent defense against Paleo-cons while being outnumbered 8 to 1 on this thread.

Reread your post of 59 where you butt in and call me and Arne "as clueless as liberals when it comes to the real world." You also responded without even reading what Arne actually wrote. This was our first interaction with each other.

Let us read your latest bucket of bile...

The fact is people who claim to be neo-conservatives are not well read beyond the WSJ editorial pages and a few books from favorite neo-con authors/idols, and more or less parrot talk radio hosts.

Well at least I don't confuse a sentence that reads "Democrats don't like white guys" with a sentence that reads "Republicans don't like white guys." Let me tell you about yourself. You are well versed in the Turner Diaries and you like the way you look in brown shirts.

Now look into the mirror buddy. Why do you think harsh words and strong opinions are only unfair when it is aimed at you. Grow up.

[Once-Ler]

Lack of jobs could cause one Conservative vote, and 2 Centrist votes I think. What happens if a democrat claims they'll get the economy rolling and there would be jobs for Americans?

No doubt about it. The economy is going to be a major issue...Perhaps THE issue in 2004. The thing is, a President is often limited in what can be done about the economy. Dubya has done what he can IMO with the tax cuts. I believe that cutting government spending at this time would be damaging to the economy. The economy has already endured 9-11 and a mild recession ( yes, if one is unemployed it is NOT mild.) The WOT is also a drain but there is no getting around that IMO. Bubba ignored things like the USS Cole and embassy bombings and rode the economy to high approval numbers. With hindsight I think most Americans are happy Dubya will not. Economies go through cycles and our is being affected by a world wide recession. I'm no globalist but our trade depends on the economies of many other countries.

I hope the economy will be better in 2004. It may not be, but unless the economy is much worse I still believe Dubya will win re-election and the economy will eventually get better. If I thought the American dream was over I too might desire to protect what we have and conserve it only for Americans who live here today. I believe Americas best days are ahead.

Jobs are not going to be created in the manufacturing sector. We can't compete with slave labor and environmentally destructive manufacturing. That is the old economy. The new economy will be information and services...If I knew exactly where America's big winners, in the new economy, would be then I would be rich, because today anyone smart enough to recognize a great product can invest in it. Great products are being created everyday. They are being produced for pennies and sold in America and improving our standard of living. Food, water, cloths, and paper are all dirt cheap. I'm middle class but I've got lots of stuff. I'm paying off a modest house. I have 2 cars. several computers and cable internet. Lots of books and entertainment. I've got everything I need in life.

Think back 50 years ago. Many people didn't have cars, or phones, or dishwashers, or phonographs, indoor plumbing, microwave ovens, computers, wireless headphones, or pressed beef jerky.

Some things have not improved but I'm hard pressed to name one that is not culturally related and I could argue those as well.

I don't know how I'm going segue this back on topic now...I think Dubya has done what he can to help job growth, and he can certainly point out that the 'rats have offered nothing except obstruction. Right now I think any job lost...whether they employee was liberal or conservative...is likely to be a vote against Dubya or a vote that stays home at best. You are correct that jobs are a huge issue. I do not believe that Chris Dodd's Protectionist "USA Jobs Protection Act" will save jobs and they certainly will not create jobs. I'm sorry if this is longer than needed. If I had the time I would have edited it better. My wife is demanding my attention.

[Once-Ler]

I have of course heard of Cesar Chavez but I know very little about him. It is hardly surprising as a socialist he favored limiting the freedom America has to offer. I doubt that most Mexicans who escape to America are jaded enough to believe they are a pawns in Dubya's chess game. That really takes a generation of Malcolm-X another generation of Jesse Jackson and another generation of Louie Farrakhan to get to that "man be keeping me down," kind of attitude.

I don't doubt, however, you are correct that the rats will certainly stoop to anything.

I don't want to leave the impression that I think Dubya will gain votes through the immigration issue. I believe most Americans if asked will say they are for tighter immigration controls, but most of them don't care enough to change their vote one way or the other. I see no evidence that Dubya's pro-immigration stands will harm him. A commitment to expanding the H1B quota did not prevent candidate Bush from becoming President but a commitment to close the border and limit trade may have destroyed Buchanan's chances in 92, 96, and 2000. I have sited Davis and Richardson as examples of rats not hurt by Pro-trade/pro-immigration(They go hand in hand IMO) stances. I can also point to Rohm Emmanuel in Chicago.

[JNB]

Actually I think Arnies defense was quite poor, he provided little in the way of substance, much less facts, just rhetoric that one gets from, as I said, from the WSJ editorial pages. The thread was quite reasonable untill you and Arnie started to spew the venom, and my remark stands, neo-conservatives are as clueless about the real world as liberals are. Certainly my and others remarks were far more measured than the venom and you and Arnie have spewed on this thread.

Saying that Paleo-cons are losers, want govrenment handouts and the like, getting quite defensive does little to help your side of the arguement. As for the borwn shirt remark, please, should I invoke Goodwins law now about a thread being over with a unwarranted NAZI reference?

[Once-Ler]

should I invoke Goodwins law now about a thread being over with a unwarranted NAZI reference?

Do what ever you please JNB. This poorly read neo-con is done making you look like a sap. Your recent pitiful whinebaby response has made me see the error of my ways. You can have the last word I will not be commenting further to you on this thread.