Finally, a Republican says what I have been saying since the first Bush attempt at Amnesty in 2006.
“I understand that when the mainstream media covers immigration, it doesn’t often see it as an economic issue, but, I can tell you for millions — of Americans at home watching this, it is a very personal economic issue. And, I will say the politics of it will be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande. Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press.” – Ted Cruz, 11/10/2015
Exactly thus. And apparently, it went over well the audience.
He didn’t take it as far as he could have; the desire of Big Donor interests to replace American workers with cheap foreign labor is bad for America, but it shows that, on some level, Cruz gets it in a way that Jeb and Marco “American workers just can’t cut it” Rubio, and even Donald Trump, don’t. (Yes, I am aware that Ted Cruz pushed for an expansion of the Cheap Foreign Labor {H-1} program; he owes us a big mea culpa on that).
Connecting their policies to the effect of their policies on people is something Republicans suck at. Democrats have it easy, they just promise to give people free stuff, which is easy to understand. Republicans have a much harder job of connecting policy to result.
But, it is a start.
Update: Jeb Bush, on the other hand, rather than speaking to the real economic concerns of Americans, blathers on about how deporting illegal immigrants is just mean. Maybe because no one in the Bush family is in danger of losing a job or a college slot to someone occupying the country illegally.
I’m pretty sure Trump and Cruz both understand what the implications of unfettered open borders, continued wage suppression and cheap human capital means to the bloated salaries of line and staff positions within corporate America, let alone preferential tax treatment given to the wealthiest investors in hedge funds. No more socialized losses for commercial and investment banks.
http://www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-didnt-end-unlawful-immigration-1950s-more-visas-did
Facts are stubborn things, Donald and Ted.
Enforcement may not end people jumping the Rio Grande, but when you start fining the crap out of company using their labor; they will self-immigrate they way they did out of Alabama. Tyson Chicken suddenly needed a ton of worker after Bama made their laws stricter. The line of low income black, brown, and white workers stretched around the block. You don’t go after the people, Paul- you go after the money that makes the people come.
BTW, someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t CATO a think tank that espouses completely open borders. Sorry big libertarians, but this is where me and y’all part ways. If you believe in property, then you must also believe in state sovereignty. If you want open border BIG L’s, then get rid of the welfare state first. Big L’s opinion on this is as utopian as liberals.
I am currently reading Michelle Malkin’s new book on the abuse of American workers via work visas (and visa-for-sale programs).
It’s well-documented and it will produce incandescent rage in anyone who has to swim in the private labor markets.
The graft and corruption are staggering and totally bipartisan. The bastards on both sides come right out and say it’s all about the money. The “do-gooder” tech moguls like Zuckerberg are nothing more than greedy robber-barons able to manipulate their image and public perception. The idea that Obama (or Bush) is a tribune of the downtrodden is one of the Great Lies.
I’m starting to wonder if our system can be salvaged.
http://www.amazon.com/Sold-Out-Billionaires-Bipartisan-Crapweasels/dp/1501115944/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447285292&sr=1-1&keywords=michelle+malkin
I realize that my experiences have been limited due to being in school until recently, but from my observation, most of the people who identify as “libertarian” whom I have talked to are actually something else. Usually it goes something like, “Well, I’m actually (insert political philosophy here), but I identify as Libertarian because I want to be a special little snowflake.”
Most of the “libertarians” whom I’ve talked to support the abolition of national borders are closer to anarchists- they don’t like the idea of any guiding body keeping people in line, and assume that everybody will just behave voluntarily.