did congressman flake of AZ support us..he has me worried [Archive]

View Full Version : did congressman flake of AZ support us..he has me worried

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 11:12 AM

http://flake.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=136413

Dont know about you but where is Congressman Flake of AZ gone to? As someone that has worked for decades in the industries he is commenting on, been involved in private equity, international trade, business development, etc...this seems like a real disconnect with reality and and seems like the AZ group needs an overhaul of their reps and senators, that we all know they do need anyway, if they are all getting friendly with the CFR.:mad:

Congressman Flake Praises Recommendations of Immigration Task Force
STAPLE Act Would Ease Restrictions on Visas for Skilled Workers

Washington, D.C., Jul 8 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised the recommendations of the Council on Foreign Affairs’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy.

The bipartisan task force recommended a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration policy in order to enhance national security, attract skilled workers, improve the U.S.’s international image, and uphold American values. Among the recommended reforms, the task force suggested that foreign students studying in the U.S. be allowed to stay and work in the country after earning advanced degrees.

“Unless we adjust our immigration policy to allowed foreign-born, U.S.-educated students to remain and work in the country after they’ve graduated, we’re going to continue to see our technology industry move overseas,” said Flake.

Congressman Flake has introduced the STAPLE Act (H.R. 1791), which would exempt from visa quotas foreign students who have earned a Ph.D. degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a U.S. university and have a job offer in the U.S.

YouTube - PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans to secure green cards fo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU)

YouTube - No Need for Cheap Foreign Labor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LXvGD5HgIg&NR=1)

Another great site that debunks the CFR model that Flake is shilling for on the real cause of high tech working going overseas is

borderequitytax.com

http://www.bordertaxequity.org/maps/index.html

This site shows that they have put in place one way free trade, or as Dr. Paul called it managed trade, to exploit the US and suck away its businesses. Only the US is foolish enough not to have symmetric and zero level border and embargo based policies. Such absolute advantages by the CFR lead congress is part of the slow bleed that is causing our economic meltdown and the destruction of the support base of the dollar.

jmlfod87

07-12-2009, 11:39 AM

STAPLE Act sounds good to me.

erowe1

07-12-2009, 11:40 AM

http://flake.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=136413

Dont know about your but where is Congressman Flake of AZ gone to?

Seems like the AZ group needs an overhaul if they are all getting friendly with the CFR.:mad:

I would never call Flake a "Ron Paul Republican." But I would say he's still one of the best (which really isn't saying much). He's one only 17 Congressmen who voted against all 5 bailout/stimulus bills of 2008-2009. And he's one of only 3 (along with RP and Duncan) with a 100 rating in the latest Freedom Index in the New American.

But he's not a noninterventionist. I'm sure he is much more in line with the CFR than RP is.

On the other hand, I personally wouldn't make as much out of the link you posted about his immigration policy as you apparently do. And I'm not exactly sure who you mean by "us." Ron Paul, after all is certainly not a protectionist. As for me, and many RP supporters I know, I don't think the illegal immigration problem is really an immigration problem at all. It's just a welfare problem. We should get rid of all quotas and limits on the number of people who can come here from any other country and open the borders almost completely (although I don't have a problem with excluding violent murders trying to escape the law, or known terrorists, or people who have a disease for which they ought to be quarantined). The only thing is, we can't have all these freebies in place so as to put up a sign to the rest of the 6 billion people in the world telling them they can come here and have our taxpayers pay for everything they need. We also shouldn't have any paperwork people are supposed to use to prove they belong here, including SS numbers. And we shouldn't place any requirements on employers telling them whom they can and can't hire.

AJ Antimony

07-12-2009, 11:55 AM

Like every member of the House except Ron Paul, Flake isn't Ron Paul. But it is true he's pretty close. I wouldn't let this bother you. Yeah, it's amnesty, and AZ Republicans hate amnesty, but he's just so good on other issues like fiscal policy.

Let's put it this way. With a House full of Jeff Flakes this country would be significantly freer and better. And if Flake ever wins promotion to Senator or Governor, either the Senate, or AZ, is much better off.

lynnf

07-12-2009, 12:27 PM

STAPLE Act sounds good to me.

you're sick.

...

as for Flake ever being with us on this issue, Numbers USA give him an overall
C for his career and a C for recent votes

check out the card here:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=AZ06&VIPID=928

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/images/cards/928.jpg

lynn

jmlfod87

07-12-2009, 01:24 PM

you're sick.

...

as for Flake ever being with us on this issue, Numbers USA give him an overall
C for his career and a C for recent votes

check out the card here:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=AZ06&VIPID=928

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/images/cards/928.jpg

lynn

I'm sick because I want more doctors in the country?

"Congressman Flake has introduced the STAPLE Act (H.R. 1791), which would exempt from visa quotas foreign students who have earned a Ph.D. degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a U.S. university and have a job offer in the U.S."

Yea, having more intelligent and educated people in the country is a bad idea.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 01:58 PM

I'm sick because I want more doctors in the country?

"Congressman Flake has introduced the STAPLE Act (H.R. 1791), which would exempt from visa quotas foreign students who have earned a Ph.D. degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a U.S. university and have a job offer in the U.S."

Yea, having more intelligent and educated people in the country is a bad idea.

oh my...so you prefer to support external parties to get funding by tax payers in state schools and to give them jobs..rather than focus on our internal education of our own citizens and having those jobs for them?

Definitely not what ron paul supported any time in the past i can remember...unless someone was doing a spin job on him.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:08 PM

I would never call Flake a "Ron Paul Republican." But I would say he's still one of the best (which really isn't saying much). He's one only 17 Congressmen who voted against all 5 bailout/stimulus bills of 2008-2009. And he's one of only 3 (along with RP and Duncan) with a 100 rating in the latest Freedom Index in the New American.

But he's not a noninterventionist. I'm sure he is much more in line with the CFR than RP is.

On the other hand, I personally wouldn't make as much out of the link you posted about his immigration policy as you apparently do. And I'm not exactly sure who you mean by "us." Ron Paul, after all is certainly not a protectionist. As for me, and many RP supporters I know, I don't think the illegal immigration problem is really an immigration problem at all. It's just a welfare problem. We should get rid of all quotas and limits on the number of people who can come here from any other country and open the borders almost completely (although I don't have a problem with excluding violent murders trying to escape the law, or known terrorists, or people who have a disease for which they ought to be quarantined). The only thing is, we can't have all these freebies in place so as to put up a sign to the rest of the 6 billion people in the world telling them they can come here and have our taxpayers pay for everything they need. We also shouldn't have any paperwork people are supposed to use to prove they belong here, including SS numbers. And we shouldn't place any requirements on employers telling them whom they can and can't hire.

Would be nice to stop fooling around with these guys. He seemed pretty slow to come aboard on initiatives we pushed such as 1207? Also i have heard he is not well liked in his own district but he has no challenger. Seems to be a sad norm across the country that we settle and have our standards far too low. So if someone votes with Paul's previous 2008 platform then they are allowed to go and move off the ranch and do what they like with our foregiveness sometimes since its again the the better of two evils arguement.

We really need to raise the bar and make these guys like flake take notice.

I cant think of anything the liberty movement is agreement on with the CFR...and we definitely need to make that clear with Flake and others.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:09 PM

jmlfod87

07-12-2009, 02:13 PM

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:21 PM

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:23 PM

Epic

07-12-2009, 02:28 PM

Wasn't OP talking about skilled workers?

We need more of those. No protectionism.

erowe1

07-12-2009, 02:38 PM

oh my...so you prefer to support external parties to get funding by tax payers in state schools and to give them jobs..rather than focus on our internal education of our own citizens and having those jobs for them?

Definitely not what ron paul supported any time in the past i can remember...unless someone was doing a spin job on him.

You mentioned two things here: spending tax dollars to educate foreigners, and them having jobs here.

You're right that we should spend tax dollars on educating them. But that's because we shouldn't spend tax dollars on educating anyone, citizen or not. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be free to come here.

As for jobs, it's on this point that you really shouldn't speak for RP or his supporters when you say "us," because Ron Paul, and people who believe in economic freedom, especially those of the Austrian school of economics, totally reject the idea that letting more foreigners come here results in fewer jobs for Americans. Provided we eliminate the welfare state (not just for foreigners, but for everyone), then their being here would only result in a better economy all the way around. We would have greater total productivity, more wealth as a nation, more jobs for everyone, and less money wasted on paying higher wages for work than a free market would permit.

Having the federal government intervene in the free transactions of people to buy from, sell to, work for, and hire, the people of their choice, regardless of where they were born will always make things worse, not better. There should be no papers to prove you have a right to work here, including Social Security numbers, no laws prohibiting employers from hiring so-called illegal immigrants, and no limits on the numbers of people who can come here from any country or having (as well as not having) any given job skills.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:41 PM

Wasn't OP talking about skilled workers?

We need more of those. No protectionism.

Yah..but sad to say we really dont need more skilled workers. We dont have jobs for the current skilled workers we have. Armies of PhD's have been layed off as is.

Just like we dont need more high priced houses, etc...the market must stabilize, else we are manipulating the market and helping the race to the bottom the CFR wants for us all to fall into.

The fiction the CFR publishes that if we dare change from their policies that it would be a protectionist policy. That sounds great just like we need stimulus plans or freeways through the middle of our country or whatever other scam for their causes.

Currently the reason things go overseas is because of protectionism of the other countries. Protectionism is one way right now. Very, very stupid way to do business.

Somehow...i dont understand how citizens have swallowed the kool aid the other way around. Except the media is owned by the CFR. We liberty people need to do our research and not be pulled into their lies.

It would be wonderful if the equity border tax kicked in and forced everyone to stop being protectionist around the world..but the CFR guys love carving us up and too many people dont work in these industries to know the truth. The people believe too much what they see from institutes and think tanks in washington, and hired guns.

And as someone that knows those industries, number of layoffs, facility closing, level of outsourceing to get around the opposing countries border taxes, to take advantage of ultimate cheap slave labor, and the numbers of PhD's graduating in the US currently that cant get jobs, etc..etc..

I have to put some sanity into the kool aid and say we are liberty folk and we can never shill for any CFR group idea ever.

t0rnado

07-12-2009, 02:43 PM

erowe1

07-12-2009, 02:45 PM

you're sick.

...

as for Flake ever being with us on this issue, Numbers USA give him an overall
C for his career and a C for recent votes

check out the card here:
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=AZ06&VIPID=928

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/images/cards/928.jpg

lynn

I'm not sure that Numbers USA is a good site to determine someone's Ron Paul bona fides, since Ron Paul himself only gets a B there. Meanwhile plenty of other big government establishment politicians get A's. In their descriptions of how they give out grades, Numbers USA explains how they base it entirely on how their votes would affect the numbers of immigrants who come here (with fewer always being better), rather than upholding economic freedom or constitutionality as the standards.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:46 PM

You mentioned two things here: spending tax dollars to educate foreigners, and them having jobs here.

You're right that we should spend tax dollars on educating them. But that's because we shouldn't spend tax dollars on educating anyone, citizen or not. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be free to come here.

As for jobs, it's on this point that you really shouldn't speak for RP or his supporters when you say "us," because Ron Paul, and people who believe in economic freedom, especially those of the Austrian school of economics, totally reject the idea that letting more foreigners come here results in fewer jobs for Americans. Provided we eliminate the welfare state (not just for foreigners, but for everyone), then their being here would only result in a better economy all the way around. We would have greater total productivity, more wealth as a nation, more jobs for everyone, and less money wasted on paying higher wages for work than a free market would permit.

Having the federal government intervene in the free transactions of people to buy from, sell to, work for, and hire, the people of their choice, regardless of where they were born will always make things worse, not better. There should be no papers to prove you have a right to work here, including Social Security numbers, no laws prohibiting employers from hiring so-called illegal immigrants, and no limits on the numbers of people who can come here from any country or having (as well as not having) any given job skills.

I think i addressed the differences we have in the next post..

erowe1

07-12-2009, 02:50 PM

Yah..but sad to say we really dont need more skilled workers. We dont have jobs for the current skilled workers we have. Armies of PhD's have been layed off as is.

You say this as if the number of jobs available is some kind of zero sum game, so that when one person comes here from another country and gets a job that's one less job available for another person. That's not what happens. If that were an accurate way to look at it, then you would maximize the number of jobs available to you by kicking every other person out of the country until you're the only one left. Of course doing so would not increase your job opportunities, it would decrease it to the point where your only possible job is to do everything your survival entails all by yourself without any possibility of dividing the labor among others in such a way as to make the most out of your respective comparative advantages.

Removing the artificial legal barriers that keep out foreign PhD's would not only increase the workforce, it would also increase the numbers of investors, consumers, and employers, with a total increase in productivity that would have a net effect of more good than harm and less total unemployment.

I see from your posts that the CFR is your major enemy here. And on that I agree. I don't advocate any central planning and federal management of immigration, nor any steps toward greater expansion of treaties and things like the NAU. So on the big picture I am diametrically opposed to them. But that doesn't mean I have to figure out a way to oppose every detail, even if that means going against my own free market convictions. My position is not so much that the federal government should manage immigration to result in more PhD's or fewer PhD's. It's that the federal government should neither impede nor promote the immigration of PhD's at all. I just happen to think that in so doing, we would probably have more that do come here. We should do nothing to prevent them.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:51 PM

This bill has nothing to do with funding anyone. You're assuming that they'll all go to tax payer funded colleges. The fact that someone happened to be born on the same piece of land as you doesn't make them any more qualified for a job than someone else.

It would be foolish to think that these parties will not go to state colleges.

Just not into NWO philosphy, open borders, managed trade, corporatism...and race to the bottom...communist china like approachs for our future that the CFR wants us to move to.

jmlfod87

07-12-2009, 02:53 PM

Why are our taxes supposed to go to foreigners...next you would tell me the fed is a good thing....

Anyone that spouts words like "so we can teach our dumb kids" is drinking way too much political Kool Aid.

taxes aren't supposed to go to anyone, i'm against taxes.

the point i am making is that if taxes are going to educate anyone it should go to educate the best, not the americans.

others have already pointed out the obvious: you are advocating protectionism, which is economically destructive.

if you care about the economy you shouldn't be worried about the nationality of the individual being educated, but by the quality of his/her mind.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 02:56 PM

You say this as if the number of jobs available is some kind of zero sum game, so that when one person come here from another country and gets a job that's one less job available for another person. That's not what happens. If that were an accurate way to look at it, then you would maximize the number of jobs available to you by kicking every other person out of the country until you're the only one left. Of course doing so would not increase your job opportunities, it would decrease it to the point where your only possible job is to do everything your survival entails all by yourself without any possibility of dividing the labor among others in such a way as to make the most out of your respective comparative advantages.

Removing the artificial legal barriers that keep out foreign PhD's would not only increase the workforce, it would also increase the numbers of investors, consumers, and employers, with a total increase in productivity that would have a net effect of more good than harm and less total unemployment.

That is not what i said, and numbers games is not the reality of people on the ground. Destruction of sectors, communities, our neighbors, etc.

As i said there are not jobs as is..so any arguement to bring in foreign citizens to prevent jobs from going overseas is pure fiction and only allows for manipulated markets that benefit CFR agendas.

Also if you are involved in private equity you would know that the first question they have today is how are you going to take the operation over seas...so again...where the theoritical arguement spoused by the CFR to help us here by bringing more people here is fiction.

erowe1

07-12-2009, 03:01 PM

That is not what i said, and numbers games is not the reality of people on the ground. Destruction of sectors, communities, our neighbors, etc.

As i said there are not jobs as is..so any arguement to bring in foreign citizens to prevent jobs from going overseas is pure fiction and only allows for manipulated markets that benefit CFR agendas.

Also if you are involved in private equity you would know that the first question they have today is how are you going to take the operation over seas...so again...where the theoritical arguement spoused by the CFR to help us here by bringing more people here is fiction.

I'm not quite sure what your position is.

Do you believe the federal government should impose limits on the number of people we allow to come work in this country (whether they be limits according to skill levels or national origin or whatever, any limits at all)? Or do you believe, as Ron Paul does, that the federal government should not do that?

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 03:05 PM

taxes aren't supposed to go to anyone, i'm against taxes.

the point i am making is that if taxes are going to educate anyone it should go to educate the best, not the americans.

others have already pointed out the obvious: you are advocating protectionism, which is economically destructive.

if you care about the economy you shouldn't be worried about the nationality of the individual being educated, but by the quality of his/her mind.

I dont get this...sounds inline with the FED thinking is what i am hearing.

So we should support the best banks in the world, the best countries in the world, ...it all sounds very inappropriate and very fascist and very pro CFR protectionist for all other countries in the world.

Take a look at the map at:

http://www.bordertaxequity.org/

When those VAT rates go to Zero and there are no more embargo's on shipping goods into the biggest protectionist countries, such as china, then things can be much more like the theories in books.

Until then the CFR is supporting a WW wide protectionst policy except for the US.

In terms of real immigation people want to come here and become citizens then get support then fine....that can be managed.

But people that just come here, can leave, have to have no alleagence to our country whatsoever...can act as connections to CFR policies and create a self fulfilling prophecy for the CFR's protectionist policy

As example of true protectionism that has been in place for some time with corporate and managed trade as ron paul has quote it accurately to be.

t0rnado

07-12-2009, 03:05 PM

It would be foolish to think that these parties will not go to state colleges.

Just not into NWO philosphy, open borders, managed trade, corporatism...and race to the bottom...communist china like approachs for our future that the CFR wants us to move to.

They would have already have had to earn a PhD at a US University, so they'd already be in the country. They wouldn't use tax payer money to go to state colleges to learn anything.

Your argument makes no sense at all. It would be the same as saying that we should ban all immigrants because it would be foolish to think that some of them won't be on welfare.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 03:22 PM

STAPLE Act sounds good to me.

Why then from your career experience makes you feel this makes sense.

What have you saw first person in these areas, or educationally, that would support the proganda by the CFR that this is necessary and that if we dont do this as Flake opines would make his statement in line with current facts in the market...

If you think he actually is being truthful and is correct in his statement based on some personal 1st person history i need to hear that versus theory.

“Unless we adjust our immigration policy to allowed foreign-born, U.S.-educated students to remain and work in the country after they’ve graduated, we’re going to continue to see our technology industry move overseas,”

idiom

07-12-2009, 03:25 PM

Most appropriate Political Last Name in ages.

Epic

07-12-2009, 03:33 PM

Yah..but sad to say we really dont need more skilled workers. We dont have jobs for the current skilled workers we have. Armies of PhD's have been layed off as is.

Sorry this is zero sum thinking that results in policies like trade protectionism and discouraging women from entering the workforce.

Look, the economy isn't zero sum. Productivity begets more productivity. Skilled workers can come in and create jobs, or they can work for other people, improving the productivity and thus profitibility of that company, and then more capital and savings is available for more people to do other things.

Let's grow the pie, not shrink it.

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 03:36 PM

Sorry this is zero sum thinking that results in policies like trade protectionism and discouraging women from entering the workforce.

Look, the economy isn't zero sum. Productivity begets more productivity. Skilled workers can come in and create jobs, or they can work for other people, improving the productivity and thus profitibility of that company, and then more capital and savings is available for more people to do other things.

Let's grow the pie, not shrink it.

Lol...what are you talking about?

We are already in a massive one way corporate trade protectionist model by the CFR design...

I guess if you dont understand that or the others shilling for their policies then there isnt anything to agree on...please educate yourself on these matters and what is actually happening to millions of people around the country.

jmlfod87

07-12-2009, 04:09 PM

I dont get this...sounds inline with the FED thinking is what i am hearing.

Precisely what does the free market theory of acquring the best labor have to do with monetary policy?

So we should support the best banks in the world, the best countries in the world, ...it all sounds very inappropriate and very fascist and very pro CFR protectionist for all other countries in the world.

Are you on drugs? Yes, we should support the soundest financial institutions in the world and the most prosperous economies in the world. What is fascist about free markets? You want to prohibit people from entering the country, that makes you the fascist, not me.

You clearly dont know the meaning of protectionism.

Take a look at the map at:

http://www.bordertaxequity.org/

When those VAT rates go to Zero and there are no more embargo's on shipping goods into the biggest protectionist countries, such as china, then things can be much more like the theories in books.

Until then the CFR is supporting a WW wide protectionst policy except for the US.

In terms of real immigation people want to come here and become citizens then get support then fine....that can be managed.

But people that just come here, can leave, have to have no alleagence to our country whatsoever...can act as connections to CFR policies and create a self fulfilling prophecy for the CFR's protectionist policy

As example of true protectionism that has been in place for some time with corporate and managed trade as ron paul has quote it accurately to be.

I dont care what allegiance someone has, I care what they can do with their labor. If they are highly intelligent productive individuals I want them working in my country to strengthen my economy. I am sane. The question is, are you?

scandinaviany3

07-12-2009, 04:21 PM

t0rnado

07-12-2009, 04:27 PM

heavenlyboy34

07-12-2009, 05:02 PM

OP-tho I'm not a fan of Flake or Congress in general, he has a rather reasonable position. Foreigners (statistically and in my own experience) are better students and better workers. I see no reason to prohibit educated, peaceful foreigners from living and assimilating here. (It's obvious domestic graduates have difficulty pulling their own weight and staying off the welfare roles) {If I might bring a bit anarchist philosophy into this-no State should be able to prohibit peaceful travel in the world. To do so would assume that the State's rights trump the peoples' and that the State owns land.}

I just wouldn't use legislation-I would remove laws and regulations that prevent foreigners from working here. Just my 2 cents.

LibertyEagle

07-12-2009, 05:32 PM

He's terrible, IMO, on illegal immigration, but he votes pretty darn well on most everything else. He was on the short list of the very few Congressman who received a 100% on the Freedom Index.

klamath

07-12-2009, 06:52 PM

I would vote for Flake in a heartbeat.

AJ Antimony

07-12-2009, 11:41 PM

There is always someone better we can elect...

I agree. I'm just saying to start in the most fucked up districts and leave the districts of Flake, Jones, and Duncan for last.

Imperial

07-12-2009, 11:44 PM

Flake had Libertarians run against him in 04 and 06, garnering between 20 and 30% of the vote each time. In 08 a Democrat ran against him who didn't crack 40%, but considering that no Dem had opposed for several years it could be worse.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 12:18 AM

If the CFR is for more immigration of skilled workers during GD II, it must be a good thing. Right?

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 09:17 AM

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 09:19 AM

They would have already have had to earn a PhD at a US University, so they'd already be in the country. They wouldn't use tax payer money to go to state colleges to learn anything.

Your argument makes no sense at all. It would be the same as saying that we should ban all immigrants because it would be foolish to think that some of them won't be on welfare.

this is way off track go back to the beginning post...

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 09:22 AM

specsaregood

07-13-2009, 09:29 AM

Just read up on the CFR...anything they are for we have to be against...they are the antithesis to our movement.

Yeah, I wonder if somebody in his district would be willing to give him a copy of "Shadows of Power". At least then he wouldn't be able to say he was uninformed about their agenda.

erowe1

07-13-2009, 09:31 AM

oh my you obviously didnt read the post and links and think about this and try to learn...very sad..good luck

You already replied to that exact same post 15 hours ago, and you came back now to reply again, and in 15 hours that's the best comeback you could think of?

I'm still waiting to find out what your position is. Do you think the federal government should limit the number of immigrants who can come here or do you agree with Ron Paul that they should not?

LibertyEagle

07-13-2009, 09:34 AM

{If I might bring a bit anarchist philosophy into this-no State should be able to prohibit peaceful travel in the world. To do so would assume that the State's rights trump the peoples' and that the State owns land.}

Travel is one thing; becoming citizens is quite another.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 09:43 AM

Yeah, I wonder if somebody in his district would be willing to give him a copy of "Shadows of Power". At least then he wouldn't be able to say he was uninformed about their agenda.

so was that a good book? Look on amazon...sounds like a perfect gift to send him with a statement on remove the staple act not attached...

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 09:44 AM

LibertyEagle

07-13-2009, 09:45 AM

taxes aren't supposed to go to anyone, i'm against taxes.
Agreed.

the point i am making is that if taxes are going to educate anyone it should go to educate the best, not the americans.

:eek:

You've got to be kidding. If the American people are being taxed to educate our youth, then that is exactly what it should be spent on.

This makes me wonder if you agree with what looks to be coming down the pike with regard to health care. That it will be largely spent on providing health care to foreigners, in their own country.

others have already pointed out the obvious: you are advocating protectionism, which is economically destructive.

if you care about the economy you shouldn't be worried about the nationality of the individual being educated, but by the quality of his/her mind.
If you are consistent, you'd stick with your first point. Or, at least take the stance that education should be handled at the state and local levels, or privatized.

Where else would you like to spend my money? Hell, let's buy every poor person in the world, a new home.

erowe1

07-13-2009, 09:53 AM

Please read the post and stop trying to hijack the post..thankyou...

I read the post and quoted it in its (very short) entirety in my reply. I'm still waiting for your answer to my simple yes or no question. Do you think the federal government impose limits on the numbers of people who can come here from other countries, or do you agree with Ron Paul that they shouldn't?

specsaregood

07-13-2009, 09:59 AM

so was that a good book? Look on amazon...sounds like a perfect gift to send him with a statement on remove the staple act not attached...

The book is excellent. It is an easy read, fully backed up with references and a great history lesson. I knew about the CFR before I read it and many of the supposed tinfoil hat conspiracies in regards to them. After reading it, any doubts about those conspiracies are gone, they are facts. The people in the CFR run this country for their own best interests.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 10:04 AM

I read the post and quoted it in its (very short) entirety in my reply. I'm still waiting for your answer to my simple yes or no question. Do you think the federal government impose limits on the numbers of people who can come here from other countries, or do you agree with Ron Paul that they shouldn't?

So the original post was:

1) Flakes shilling for CFR policy...didnt see any address by you on that
2) Flakes false fear statement on what has and will cause industry to move overseas..didnt see any address by you on that
3) evidence of massive abuse and manipulation of our markets by the highest levels of corporate and world elites---didnt see any comment on that
4) proof that the cause of offshoring has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the staple act suggests---saw no comment on that...

When you honestly read the post, research the facts and can come up with intelligent proof that you are going to be courteous on others ideas rather than calling american kids dumb, me insane or the like...then you deserve a response until then whoever you are hasnt proven you will do anything but cause chaos and hijack posts.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 10:06 AM

The book is excellent. It is an easy read, fully backed up with references and a great history lesson. I knew about the CFR before I read it and many of the supposed tinfoil hat conspiracies in regards to them. After reading it, any doubts about those conspiracies are gone, they are facts. The people in the CFR run this country for their own best interests.

yah i will definitely buy it...they guys are our number one problem...the hijack every good idea out there, twist it for the evil agenda and leave the world in chaos and they dont really even care...all about them.:eek:

erowe1

07-13-2009, 10:09 AM

So the original post was:

1) Flakes shilling for CFR policy...didnt see any address by you on that
2) Flakes false fear statement on what has and will cause industry to move overseas..didnt see any address by you on that
3) evidence of massive abuse and manipulation of our markets by the highest levels of corporate and world elites---didnt see any comment on that
4) proof that the cause of offshoring has absolutely nothing at all to do with what the staple act suggests---saw no comment on that...

When you honestly read the post, research the facts and can come up with intelligent proof that you are going to be courteous on others ideas rather than calling american kids dumb, me insane or the like...then you deserve a response until then whoever you are hasnt proven you will do anything but cause chaos and hijack posts.

Hold on. You might be confusing me with someone else. But I never called anyone names here, not you, nor American kids. And I told you I agree with you in opposing the CFR in its broader agendas. That doesn't mean that I have to find ways to oppose every little detail of everything they ever support. I still don't know what position you hold on the basic point at issue in this whole thread. Are you for the federal government limiting the number of people who come here or not?

Lord Xar

07-13-2009, 11:57 AM

Precisely what does the free market theory of acquring the best labor have to do with monetary policy?

Are you on drugs? Yes, we should support the soundest financial institutions in the world and the most prosperous economies in the world. What is fascist about free markets? You want to prohibit people from entering the country, that makes you the fascist, not me.

You clearly dont know the meaning of protectionism.

I dont care what allegiance someone has, I care what they can do with their labor. If they are highly intelligent productive individuals I want them working in my country to strengthen my economy. I am sane. The question is, are you?

Ok. Who is this guy? I certainly care about someone's allegiance. Why WOULD I INVEST in something, as a taxpayer, in which the thing I am investing in has NO interest in 'me' or 'america'.
I can only surmise that many of these "open border apologists", "free labour for everyone" types are actually NOT in the workforce else you'd see the real deal is.

The best way to see ones own economy flourish is to invest in it. That means labour too. Why import and invest in foreign workers, when you can do the same for your own?
This "globalistic" agenda - needs to end, and fast. And any opposition to it - labeled as "protectionist" needs to end.

Turning America into a service nation. Import all products, now import all workers. Turn Americans into chattel for the globalists.

I see alot of parallels in these policies to what is happening on the local level with illegal immigration, and the dispersement of funds. The resulting results on the labour market and education.

erowe1

07-13-2009, 12:26 PM

This "globalistic" agenda - needs to end, and fast. And any opposition to it - labeled as "protectionist" needs to end.

Nobody is using the label "protectionist" just for any and all opposition to a globalist agenda. At least I haven't seen it used that way. I oppose a globalist agenda. But I am not a protectionist. The same is true of Ron Paul. But some people who oppose a globalist agenda choose to employ protectionism in the way the fight it. What qualifies as protectionism? Any time you advocate using the force of government to get in the way of my right to employ whomever I want, regardless of their citizenship, or buy whatever I want, regardless of where it was made that's protectionism. If you advocate federal laws that limit the number of people who can come here from other countries so that you can save jobs for Americans, that's protectionism.

I'm not saying that you hold those positions. I can't tell from your comment if you do or not. But at the same time, I'm having trouble getting others here to be clear as to whether they do or not.

If you want to oppose using tax dollars to educate foreigners, then good. You should oppose that, as well as opposing using tax dollars to educate Americans. If you want to oppose welfare for foreigners, you should, as well as opposing welfare for Americans. If you want to oppose globalist treaties and super-national organizations that manage our trade, then good. You should oppose those, as well as any federal laws that manage our trade by trying to impede our abilities to buy cheap things made overseas, or relocate factories to other countries to hire cheap workers, or bring in workers from other places to hire for jobs here. These are the free market ideas that Ron Paul advocates. And these are, after all, the Ron Paul forums.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 02:09 PM

Do you think the federal government should limit the number of immigrants who can come here or do you agree with Ron Paul that they should not?

Ron Paul believes in limited immigration.

This interview with Ron Paul was done in Sept. 2007 (at the height of the housing bubble and cheerleader Larry Kudlow's "Goldilocks economy"). Things are desperately worse now, which would logically mean that Ron Paul would agree with a complete moratorium on immigration.

Supply and demand applies to labor too. Unemployment (and underemployment) is high, way higher than the government admits. More immigration at this point will only make things worse.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.
...
Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don’t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn’t pay their mortgage .There’re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can’t be separated from concern about illegals.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/070912_paul.htm

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 02:17 PM

So we should kick out all the smart foreigners so we can teach our dumb kids? Not what I consider conducive to a prosperous economy.

That is nothing more than false propaganda pushed by the likes of Bill Gates so that he can import cheap labor. There is no truth to this collectivist nonsense that American kids are "dumb". Brainwashed maybe, but not intrinsically dumb.

erowe1

07-13-2009, 02:44 PM

Ron Paul believes in limited immigration.

This interview with Ron Paul was done in Sept. 2007 (at the height of the housing bubble and cheerleader Larry Kudlow's "Goldilocks economy"). Things are desperately worse now, which would logically mean that Ron Paul would agree with a complete moratorium on immigration.

Supply and demand applies to labor too. Unemployment (and underemployment) is high, way higher than the government admits. More immigration at this point will only make things worse.

Nothing in what you copied and pasted shows that he advocates any limits on legal immigration nor does it say how he wants to limit it . It only mentions certain conditions where he would not limit it, without saying what he would do in other conditions. If he ever did say clearly advocating the federal government limiting legal immigration, would you please provide the link?

Edit: I also notice how you cut out parts in between what you copied to make it look like RP came closer to what you advocate than he really did.

erowe1

07-13-2009, 02:45 PM

That is nothing more than false propaganda pushed by the likes of Bill Gates so that he can import cheap labor. There is no truth to this collectivist nonsense that American kids are "dumb". Brainwashed maybe, but not intrinsically dumb.

Bill Gates should be able to hire anybody he wants at whatever wage both parties agree on, regardless of where they were born. The government has no right to intervene in that. It's between Bill Gates and his employees.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 03:01 PM

If he ever did say clearly advocating the federal government limiting legal immigration, would you please provide the link?

The excerpts I provided were clear enough for me as to where Ron Paul stands. Since you hold the opposite beliefs, I expect nothing would change your mind.

Edit: I also notice how you cut out parts in between what you copied to make it look like RP came closer to what you advocate than he really did.

Yes, I did cut out short quotes. The three dots indicate something was excluded between those two. I posted the parts that addressed the issue most directly.

If you insist, here's the whole article. Since I already posted the parts I thought were most relevant, no need to highlight them in the full article:

Ron Paul: “I Believe In National Sovereignty”.

Peter Brimelow writes: Congressman Ron Paul was small, bent, and serious to the point of humorlessness when we met with him in an office building foyer in New Hampshire last month. We asked him if he was enjoying himself and he looked at us as if he thought we’d gone mad. But lots of Americans, including many VDARE.COM readers, are enjoying Paul’s campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, not least because it raises real philosophical issues, notably the relationship between libertarianism and immigration. On the evidence of this interview, Paul is a paleolibertarian in the www.lewrockwell.com mode. He accepts the need for an institutional framework for liberty, notably the nation-state. He is intensely critical of illegal immigration and birthright citizenship. He is much less focused on legal immigration (although obviously intrigued by the idea of guestworkers) and not at all on the H1-b visa issue, although many of his supporters are software engineers. We also discussed gold and exchange rates because, after years laboring in the vineyard of financial journalism, I felt like it.

VDARE.COM does not endorse political candidates. Any other presidential candidate wishing to discuss philosophy with us is welcome to get in touch.

By Peter Brimelow

Please start by summarizing your position on immigration.

Well, I start off with saying that it’s a big problem. I don’t like to get involved with the Federal Government very much, but I do think it is a federal responsibility to protect our borders. This mess has come about for various reasons. One, the laws aren’t enforced. Another, the welfare state. We have a need for workers in this country because our welfare system literally encourages people not to work. Therefore, a lot of jobs go begging. This is an incentive for immigrants to come in and take those jobs.

It is compounded because of federal mandates on the states to provide free medical care—that’s literally bankrupting the hospitals in Texas—and free education.

So my main point is to get rid of incentives that cause people to break the law—entitlements as well as the promise of amnesty, citizenship.

I also want to revisit the whole idea of birthright citizenship. I don’t think many countries have that. I don’t think it was the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment. I personally think it could be fixed by legislation. But some people argue otherwise, so I’ve covered myself by introducing a constitutional amendment.

How would legislation work?

It would define citizenship. Individuals that just stepped over the border illegally would not be technically “under the jurisdiction of the United States”. [i.e. not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment] That’s illegal entry, so they don’t deserve this privilege.

What is your view on legal immigration?

I think it depends on our economy. If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.

I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.

But in the meantime, we want to stop the illegals. And that’s why I don’t think our border guards should be sent to Iraq, like we’ve done. I think we need more border guards. But to have the money and the personnel, we have to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Is the economy healthy enough right now?

No. I don’t think so. I think the economy is going downhill. People are feeling pinched—in the middle, much more pinched than the government is willing to admit. Their standard of living is going down. I saw a clip on TV the other day about somebody who was about to lose their house, they couldn’t pay their mortgage .There’re millions of people involved, people are very uncertain about this housing market. That can’t be separated from concern about illegals.

How many illegal immigrants do you think there are in the country now?

All I can go by is those predictions they put in the paper. It used to be 3-4 million, then it went to 7-8 million. Now it’s 11-12 million! Does anybody know?

Bear Stearns made an estimate about three years ago that there were 20 million in the country. [The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface, Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA January 3, 2005(PDF)] What would you do with them?

I think when you know where they are, and you know they’re illegal, they should be sent back. Especially if they’re caught in a crime.

I think you have to be realistic. I mean, having an army to go around the country to round them up and put them in trucks and haul them out, that’s not feasible. But certainly if they’re signing up for a benefit, they should be sent back home, instead of given the benefit.

You’d like to restore the presumption against being a public charge?

Right. Or if they’re caught in a criminal act—rather than sending them through the court system and spending all that money and then putting them up in prison, we can get them shipped out pretty fast. Unless they are a very violent criminal.

You have a long record of being a serious libertarian. You must have libertarians who are annoyed with you on this.

I imagine there are some, because there are some who are literally don’t believe in any borders! Totally free immigration! I’ve never taken that position.

Why not?

Because I believe in national sovereignty.

You think there’s a role for the nation-state?

Sure. Sure. Otherwise, the vacuum is filled with international government. We won’t have a national government, we’ll have a United Nations government—and we already do, we have a WTO [World Trade Organization] government. But the problems we’re talking about, I want them to be solved by the U.S. congress and the President. I don’t want the WTO settling this dispute.

I really haven’t had much grief from the hard-core libertarians. Some who might disagree with me are not very antagonistic because they know it’s a big problem and that the lack of the free market is compounding that problem.

Has your thinking on immigration changed over the years?

I try to understand it better. I think it is a difficult issue. There’s probably only one Republican running for the presidency right now who says “No more immigrants!” I don’t think America is like that at all. I don’t agree with that. But I don’t believe in illegal immigration. So in many ways, I’m pretty moderate and mainstream. I’m not radical either way. I don’t want to put tanks and shoot illegal immigrants as they come over, that’s one extreme. The other is totally open borders—just let them flow in.

What’s your understanding of what President Bush has been doing?

Oh, well, I don’t think he cares about national sovereignty. Not in a serious way. Today [VDARE.COM note: this interview took place August 21] he’s meeting with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada and they’re talking about promoting the North American Union.

You take that seriously?

Well, they’re meeting today!

If you look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s website, it says this is not an attempt to merge—

Well, that’s what they said about the European Union! No, I think it’s very real. We’ve already changes our laws directed by the WTO. And NAFTA rules overrule state and federal laws. So why should we listen to what they’re telling us?

Most people didn’t even know—matter of fact, I didn’t even know—about the meeting in April 2005 [VDARE.COM note: at which the SPP was first agreed]. But that was pretty specific. And there’s a little bit of funding here and there to fund a NAFTA highway.

Of course, they’d like to write us off as just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. But to me, conspiracy just means you’re just conspiring or planning. I conspire and plan all the time. And they conspire and plan all the time.

What would you make of the argument that in order to be in favor of free trade you ought to be in favor of free immigration?

Well, I guess there’s a little bit to that, but I don’t think it’s an absolute. Trade is different from people coming in, especially when they get benefits and when they come in illegally. I guess you can say it’s an ideal that you could work toward.

We’ve done pretty well with Canada over the years.

How do you mean?

Well, I’ve lived on the Canadian border—it’s almost like going into another American state. I think the racial component and the economic discrepancy south of the border make it much different living in Texas than living in Michigan.

The freer the people are, the healthier the economy, the more tolerant the people become and the more open the borders would become—like the Canadian border. But as our economy shrinks, people get more concerned about their well-being, they blame people for it. It’s a lot easier to blame poor people who come over the border than it is to blame Canadians from the north.

I think if we hadn’t gone in the wrong direction, it would have gotten even easier to go back and forth to Canada. But now it’s becoming more difficult.

I mean just think of it—what is it, 5,000 miles? Nobody can find the boundaries. I think it’s fantastic!

But the U.S. and Canada are two very similar societies.

Yeah, that’s a difference too. But if we didn’t keep drifting toward what Mexico is doing, becoming more socialistic, the problem would be lessened.

At the moment, legal immigration is largely driven by “family reunification”, which means that an immigrant who is here can sponsor a wide range of relatives. Is that something you want to take a look at?

Once again, I don’t see that it’s a great danger except under today’s circumstances.

Well, it’s the reason legal immigrant skill levels degrade over time. They’re not being selected on the basis of skills, they’re being selected on the basis of relationships.

I think we need to do both. It was a good principle to say that when immigrants come in, they’re on their own. They better have a sponsor. You either have a job or you have a family; you’re not going on the dole.

That’s not what happens now, of course.

No. It isn’t. That’s bad.

But you don’t have a proposal do deal with that right now.

Not specifically. I’m more interested in stopping illegal immigration, stopping subsidizing illegal immigration and trying to straighten up the economy.

What about Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court Ruling that the children of illegals have to be educated in public schools?

I don’t like that. I would remove all federal mandates. I would turn it back to the states.

What do you think of the H1-B program?

I’ve supported that because it’s legal. I know some people say they don’t follow the law….

The argument is that it’s a form of corporate subsidy—powerful interest groups have arranged to break down their workers’ wages by bringing in temporary workers.

Well, the market always works to put pressure on the businessman to spend the least amount of money to provide product. So what some may call a corporate subsidy is also a subsidy to the consumer. The consumer is the one protected in the free market. The object of labor is to push wages up as high as possible. The object of business is to get the most efficient labor at the best price. In the free market, that works out. But the problem is we have too much welfare and we have a currency that’s losing value.

If you’re President, various interest groups are going to come to you and say, there’s a shortage of nurses or teachers or (goodness!) possibly journalists; therefore we have to have these temporary work programs to bring in labor in this area. If the labor is organized, it’s going to say to you, look, the problem isn’t that there’s a shortage, the problem is business doesn’t want to pay higher wages. What will you do?

Well, whatever we do will be legal. Congress has to have a say, they have to pass a law, and the President has to decide to sign it or not.

And I would lean in the direction of saying, if there is indeed a shortage, and this is a legal process, this shouldn’t be threatening to us.

How would you determine that there was a shortage?

Well, I don’t think it would be easy but if there’s a need and immigrants can get a job, that means there’s a shortage. If there was no shortage, they wouldn’t have jobs. Obviously the companies can’t fill some of these jobs and they’re looking for people to fill them.

Well, the counter-argument is that they can’t fill them at the price that they’re offering.

That’s right, but the market has to set the price. Set the product and set the price of labor.

But the argument of the displaced software engineers is that the government is colluding with the business owners to break down the price by importing temporary workers.

I don’t think we should have minimum wages to protect the price of labor. I want the market to determine this. At the upper level as well.

It’s really a question of defining the rules, isn’t it? Is it fair for corporations to increase supply by bringing in temporary workers?

Which, means they’re going to fill a need for a certain time at a certain price, by people who have come here voluntarily. Otherwise, you have to be anti-immigrant and I don’t think our country is anti-immigrant. I think its anti-illegal immigrant. I think the problem you identify is occurring because we don’t have a healthy free market economy and we reward people for not getting training and becoming the type of individual who might get a job in a software company.

But the question is, whose interests are you going to go with? The interests of the worker or the interests of capital?

A free market always goes with the interests of the consumer. Never the businessman and never labor. Everybody’s a consumer, not everybody’s a businessman.

Milton Friedman once told me that it was not possible to have free immigration and the welfare state—not possible to combine the two. You agree with that?

Maybe I read that somewhere! Maybe that’s where I get my views! That’s what I’ve been arguing here.

But that applies equally to legal immigration, you see. Because the taxpayer subsidies to legal immigrants from the welfare state are very high.

Yes, it is definitely imperfect when you have the welfare state. That’s right. And corporations benefit from that too.

Which can be altered first: immigration or the welfare state?

Well, you work on both. The most important is the welfare state, but you can still beef up your borders and get rid of some incentives for illegals. The welfare state will disappear. But the odds are that it will disappear with a good deal of chaos because we’re going to have a financial crisis and maybe it’s already started. And then people are going to be struggling.

When our citizens see illegals using food stamps, they have to wait in line in the emergency rooms, they see illegals in our schools with bilingual education, then the resentment builds. And sometimes the resentment is out of proportion. It is my strong belief that if we had a truly free market, it would be so much healthier, that we would need a lot of people to come in and it could be done through temporary work programs. There wouldn’t be this resentment and irritation. But it should be done legally. It shouldn’t be done by rewarding anybody who breaks our laws.

I mean, the other people we like to blame for our problems is China. It’s all China’s fault! And yet we don’t save money and we become dependent on them buying our goods. We become dependent on cheap labor that is encouraged by our system. So it’s our economic climate and our lack of respect for our Constitution, our lack of respect and understanding of a free market that leads to our problems.

This is off-topic, but what do you think about China’s pegged exchange rate?

Well it would be better if it was just determined by the market. But it’s wrong for us to tell them what to do. Why should we badger them and say we want you to have a stronger yuan, which weakens our dollar.

Because that’s how a fixed exchange rate-Bretton Woods-type system works, isn’t it? You have to argue about exchange rates because there is no free market. To put it another way, how are you feeling about gold at the moment?

Gold? Well I think gold is real money, and I think ultimately real money wins out in the end. It too is being manipulated, just like all the other currencies.

You think the gold price is being manipulated?

By the central banks. When I first started watching gold in the 1950s and1960s, the central banks manipulated the gold price every single day. Because they dumped nearly 500 million ounces, two-thirds of our gold, at $35 an ounce, to try to pretend our dollar was stronger than it really was.

Now they do it in a more sophisticated manner. A lot of central banks have been involved in lending gold and moving it out of the market. I’m sure they’re involved in the futures market. You see these prices, when common sense would tell you—well, you know—why isn’t the price of gold going up? Then you see an announcement, oh, Italy’s dumping 800 tons of gold—

It seems to me this brings up a lot of liability issues. If the authorities are involved in surreptitious intervention, there’s lots of opportunity for insider trading.

Oh yeah, yeah—deceiving the public at the same time there are people making profits on this as well.

Nobody knows how much gold we have right now—whether they moved it or loaned it. Those are big issues we’re in the dark on. We’re in the dark on what our CIA does, we’re in the dark about monetary manipulators. And it would be probably interesting to know exactly what the President’s Working Group On Financial Markets says—what their conversations were with the central banks, what they said to China—because China has some similar interests to us. They don’t want the dollar to crash either! They have to say stuff publicly for their people, and we say stuff publicly for our people.

And the real manipulators are talking behind the scenes.

jmlfod87

07-13-2009, 03:03 PM

That is nothing more than false propaganda pushed by the likes of Bill Gates so that he can import cheap labor. There is no truth to this collectivist nonsense that American kids are "dumb". Brainwashed maybe, but not intrinsically dumb.

if our kids weren't dumb the foreigners wouldn't be able to get into the schools anyway and this legislation would be a non-issue. All this legislation protects are the foreigners that ARE more intelligent than Americans and can out compete Americans for doctorates. THOSE foreigners, Flake's amendment argues, SHOULD be allowed to stay in the country.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 03:08 PM

Bill Gates should be able to hire anybody he wants at whatever wage both parties agree on, regardless of where they were born. The government has no right to intervene in that. It's between Bill Gates and his employees.

In your opinion. As it stands, there are laws that address who he can hire to work here in the US. He violates and circumvents those laws (and puts out false propaganda to help him justify it). Once you have successfully lobbied to remove all government restrictions on Bill's hiring preferences and immigration law, then government will not interfere (not like they really hinder him today anyway).

jmlfod87

07-13-2009, 03:11 PM

"An unjust law is no law at all",-St Augustine

erowe1

07-13-2009, 03:11 PM

The excerpts I provided were clear enough for me as to where Ron Paul stands. Since you hold the opposite beliefs, I expect nothing would change your mind.

Yes, I did cut out short quotes. The three dots indicate something was excluded between those two. I posted the parts that addressed the issue most directly.

If you insist, here's the whole article. Since I already posted the parts I thought were most relevant, no need to highlight them in the full article:

Thanks for providing the whole article. It really doesn't say anything about how or whether RP advocates limiting legal immigration under any circumstances. The question where the interviewer asks him if the economy is healthy now is an obvious attempt to bait him into saying that the current circumstances warrant limits on immigration. And RP answers the question without taking that bait. He's very good at sticking to his free market guns in a way that doesn't push away all the protectionist support that there's no denying he has. It also presents the same perspective I have been giving here, which is that the immigration problem is not the result of too many foreigners coming here, it's the result of the welfare state. And RP repeatedly says that that's the problem that needs to be addressed. At any rate, I think if people want to see his views and see if this interview makes him look like an advocate of limits on legal immigration, then it's here for them to see and make up their own minds. Thanks for providing it.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 03:29 PM

if our kids weren't dumb the foreigners wouldn't be able to get into the schools anyway and this legislation would be a non-issue. All this legislation protects are the foreigners that ARE more intelligent than Americans and can out compete Americans for doctorates. THOSE foreigners, Flake's amendment argues, SHOULD be allowed to stay in the country.

Our kids aren't dumb!

And I don't believe that there is admission competition between foreign students and locals. Don't most schools have a certain allotment for foreign students? Intelligence has nothing to do with what level people stop their "official" education. Some even say that those who stay in school for doctorates (in many fields where it is not necessary) are either avoiding real work or aren't able to get a job.

I can tell you from personal experience doing hiring that foreign "skilled" workers are chosen for their cheap cost, not their qualifications, intelligence or ability.

jmlfod87

07-13-2009, 03:37 PM

Uhh, yes, because I school picks the students who are the cheapest? You're analgoy is deeply flawed.

Schools which base their applicants on merit WILL pick foreign students that are smarter than citizens. Not all Americans are dumb, but the ones being beat by foreigners for admission in american universities ARE dumber, or else they would be getting in.

Regardless of how schools judge applicants, college graduates of any nationality should be admitted into the country. Kicking intelligent educated people out is just stupid, there's no other word to describe it.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 03:41 PM

Uhh, yes, because I school picks the students who are the cheapest? You're analgoy is deeply flawed.

:confused:

t0rnado

07-13-2009, 03:58 PM

specsaregood

07-13-2009, 04:10 PM

That should end the debate on whether or not Flake and Ron Paul hold similar views on this issue.

I have no problem with the summary of this bill as shown in the OP.

What I do have a problem with is:

Washington, D.C., Jul 8 - Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised the recommendations of the Council on Foreign Affairs’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy.

Why is that even necessary? And if the CFR is supporting this, chances are there is much more to this proposed legislation that simply letting graduating foreign students stay in the country.

erowe1

07-13-2009, 04:15 PM

I have no problem with the summary of this bill as shown in the OP.

What I do have a problem with is:

Why is that even necessary? And if the CFR is supporting this, chances are there is much more to this proposed legislation that simply letting graduating foreign students stay in the country.

I agree on everything you just said.

Brian4Liberty

07-13-2009, 05:40 PM

I like how you're ignoring what I posted earlier:

Ron Paul voted YES on H.R.3736 which increased the number of temporary Visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65000 to 115000.

http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1998-460.htm

That should end the debate on whether or not Flake and Ron Paul hold similar views on this issue.

Not sure who you are addressing, but I'll respond.

The article I referenced where Ron Paul said that it depends on the economy was from Sept. 2007. The vote you are referencing was almost ten years earlier, in 1998. That was during two bubbles for tech people, the Y2K updates and the dot-com bubble. The argument could be made that due to those bubbles at that time, more temporary workers were justified. Times and demand for tech workers have changed dramatically since then. The tech sector collapsed long before the whole economy, and has not been in need of extra workers since the dot-com collapse. H1-Bs are primarily used for IT programmers.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 11:25 PM

Ron Paul voted YES on H.R.3736 which increased the number of temporary Visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65000 to 115000.

http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1998-460.htm

That should end the debate on whether or not Flake and Ron Paul hold similar views on this issue.

Sorry tornado...the discussion devolved to far to go back..sounds like this point people already addressed the issues of the 1998 legislation...the economy being in a boom and a massive need of employees was present back then. This was during the time in which students with 2 years in community college were being payed by banks 85k a year to do programming to prevent y2k problems...and the following IT and telecom bubbles that were inflated to keep this from crashing. Immediately after 911 the cliff of shutting down companies shoved enormous numbers of foreign workers back home. So much so that congested areas such as san jose i lived in the time had the interstates open up all of a sudden.

Ron's statements are clear since then that such policies are linked to economic balance as pointed out in later posts. Also suprising to even me Ron took a very hard stance on visa's for "terrorist" nation student visa's since then. Will have to see if Ron applies things with the staple act. As he did with the 2007 statements and others. One thing Ron is very wise to is when the CFR is doing something to go the other way.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 11:29 PM

Wasn't OP talking about skilled workers?

We need more of those. No protectionism.

if we dont want our market flooded with dollars to devalue our buying power.

Why would we want to bring in and flood out market with labor that devalues their buying power, manipulates markets, and puts many, many more people on welfare.

The markets and labor force needs to be driven from within...without external interventionism.

The rest of the world holds this protectionists, CFR attitude quite well...the result is an absolute advantage, not a comparitive one.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 11:34 PM

I support the best people getting into the best schools. If the foreigners are outperforming US citizens they should be getting into the schools so they can contribute most productively to our economy.

I dont support anyone getting funded by the taxpayers for education, but so long as you are going to have taxpayer funded education, it should be the best that get it.

So we should kick out all the smart foreigners so we can teach our dumb kids? Not what I consider conducive to a prosperous economy.

So when did we become the welfare program for the world.

They can educate their own citizens. There is no outperforming going on here...just no jobs for either side in the US. You cant contribute productivity when there arent jobs for the existing, very, very experienced PhD's already.

The money should always go to people that are citizens of the US if state or federal taxes are used...not into welfare especially to those that have no nationalistic interest in the US and instead have a globalistic interest.

again read the beginning post this was long, long ago debunked on TV, newspapers, but very credible and experiences people, not CFR members.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 11:40 PM

You mentioned two things here: spending tax dollars to educate foreigners, and them having jobs here.

You're right that we should spend tax dollars on educating them. But that's because we shouldn't spend tax dollars on educating anyone, citizen or not. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be free to come here.

As for jobs, it's on this point that you really shouldn't speak for RP or his supporters when you say "us," because Ron Paul, and people who believe in economic freedom, especially those of the Austrian school of economics, totally reject the idea that letting more foreigners come here results in fewer jobs for Americans. Provided we eliminate the welfare state (not just for foreigners, but for everyone), then their being here would only result in a better economy all the way around. We would have greater total productivity, more wealth as a nation, more jobs for everyone, and less money wasted on paying higher wages for work than a free market would permit.

Having the federal government intervene in the free transactions of people to buy from, sell to, work for, and hire, the people of their choice, regardless of where they were born will always make things worse, not better. There should be no papers to prove you have a right to work here, including Social Security numbers, no laws prohibiting employers from hiring so-called illegal immigrants, and no limits on the numbers of people who can come here from any country or having (as well as not having) any given job skills.

From what i am aware of there are elements that believe in this and others that see such matters as price fixing and market manipulation in nature. But those that push labor in this way always have to struggle through a tough debate. The problem is that are markets are driven by corporatism so the welfare state is always turned on and until this can be remedied...what you wisely hope for can never come to pass. The very opposite will happen unfortunately. The drivers of this philosophy are the CFR that prevent the model you suggest.

scandinaviany3

07-13-2009, 11:50 PM

You say this as if the number of jobs available is some kind of zero sum game, so that when one person comes here from another country and gets a job that's one less job available for another person. That's not what happens. If that were an accurate way to look at it, then you would maximize the number of jobs available to you by kicking every other person out of the country until you're the only one left. Of course doing so would not increase your job opportunities, it would decrease it to the point where your only possible job is to do everything your survival entails all by yourself without any possibility of dividing the labor among others in such a way as to make the most out of your respective comparative advantages.

Removing the artificial legal barriers that keep out foreign PhD's would not only increase the workforce, it would also increase the numbers of investors, consumers, and employers, with a total increase in productivity that would have a net effect of more good than harm and less total unemployment.

I see from your posts that the CFR is your major enemy here. And on that I agree. I don't advocate any central planning and federal management of immigration, nor any steps toward greater expansion of treaties and things like the NAU. So on the big picture I am diametrically opposed to them. But that doesn't mean I have to figure out a way to oppose every detail, even if that means going against my own free market convictions. My position is not so much that the federal government should manage immigration to result in more PhD's or fewer PhD's. It's that the federal government should neither impede nor promote the immigration of PhD's at all. I just happen to think that in so doing, we would probably have more that do come here. We should do nothing to prevent them.

Not sure i understand the wording in your first paragraph. Would be interested in hearing it reworded if you dont mind. So i can try to understand what you are saying.

But with respect to the 2nd paragraph I know philosophically this sounds good but from real world experience this is not what happens.

Usually a norm in these fields is that the work and investments always go to the foreign source and not the local. Given the absolute tax barriers of the other country and their hard embargo barriers there is not a real choice but to invest in the foreign nation over the US.

Glad to see you agree on the CFR as a common liberty enemy.

The issue really shouldnt be on PhD's..it should be on the economics of whether we can afford more non citizen parties in the US driving a welfare state or not.

We can not be the savior of the world...trying to do this will always mean our nations complete demise.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:05 AM

Hold on. You might be confusing me with someone else. But I never called anyone names here, not you, nor American kids. And I told you I agree with you in opposing the CFR in its broader agendas. That doesn't mean that I have to find ways to oppose every little detail of everything they ever support. I still don't know what position you hold on the basic point at issue in this whole thread. Are you for the federal government limiting the number of people who come here or not?

my apologies unfortunately we have too many people being trolls on the site with multiples accounts...

Actually the post wasnt about my viewpoint...but the four points i pointed out.

I would offer that given this post that i have learned that a lot of people really dont understand what is going on in the work force.

I took for granted that not everyone on here is linked into these fields to begin with.

In terms of my thoughts on the UNLIMITED PhD to citizenship backdoor into the US...is pure insanity and opens the door in THIS ECONOMY to provide massive welfare state creation, destroy the dollar, and to leave us totally unable to defend ourselves in the event that these parties leave our nation with secrets, knowledge and training instead of having the natural solution of nationalistic focus and getting our house in order as the focus.

Becoming a US citizen is a privilege not a right for everyone in the world to have. We are a republic not a charity...as such we will always have a process of limited naturalization...

Its not our job to be the police state, the welfare state, and put ourselves and our nation deeper into economic slavery for the sake of people that may or may not in large numbers have their allegance to strengthen our economy over there home nation, or follow keynesian vs austrian economics...

The rest of the world needs to get there own house in order and put these CFR guys underfoot...only then can there economic situations improve and enable only comparative advantage markets once again.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:12 AM

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:19 AM

You already replied to that exact same post 15 hours ago, and you came back now to reply again, and in 15 hours that's the best comeback you could think of?

I'm still waiting to find out what your position is. Do you think the federal government should limit the number of immigrants who can come here or do you agree with Ron Paul that they should not?

Sorry have a family to take care of...elections and campaign for liberty efforts to be involved in and work in some sleep in there.

Tried to respond to all the missing items.

Ron paul links economic conditions to immigration policy...he even noted that this has ticked of the liberaterians...

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:21 AM

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:23 AM

Ok. Who is this guy? I certainly care about someone's allegiance. Why WOULD I INVEST in something, as a taxpayer, in which the thing I am investing in has NO interest in 'me' or 'america'.
I can only surmise that many of these "open border apologists", "free labour for everyone" types are actually NOT in the workforce else you'd see the real deal is.

The best way to see ones own economy flourish is to invest in it. That means labour too. Why import and invest in foreign workers, when you can do the same for your own?
This "globalistic" agenda - needs to end, and fast. And any opposition to it - labeled as "protectionist" needs to end.

Turning America into a service nation. Import all products, now import all workers. Turn Americans into chattel for the globalists.

I see alot of parallels in these policies to what is happening on the local level with illegal immigration, and the dispersement of funds. The resulting results on the labour market and education.

That is exactly the type of downturn Rome went through and then it collapsed.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:30 AM

Nobody is using the label "protectionist" just for any and all opposition to a globalist agenda. At least I haven't seen it used that way. I oppose a globalist agenda. But I am not a protectionist. The same is true of Ron Paul. But some people who oppose a globalist agenda choose to employ protectionism in the way the fight it. What qualifies as protectionism? Any time you advocate using the force of government to get in the way of my right to employ whomever I want, regardless of their citizenship, or buy whatever I want, regardless of where it was made that's protectionism. If you advocate federal laws that limit the number of people who can come here from other countries so that you can save jobs for Americans, that's protectionism.

I'm not saying that you hold those positions. I can't tell from your comment if you do or not. But at the same time, I'm having trouble getting others here to be clear as to whether they do or not.

If you want to oppose using tax dollars to educate foreigners, then good. You should oppose that, as well as opposing using tax dollars to educate Americans. If you want to oppose welfare for foreigners, you should, as well as opposing welfare for Americans. If you want to oppose globalist treaties and super-national organizations that manage our trade, then good. You should oppose those, as well as any federal laws that manage our trade by trying to impede our abilities to buy cheap things made overseas, or relocate factories to other countries to hire cheap workers, or bring in workers from other places to hire for jobs here. These are the free market ideas that Ron Paul advocates. And these are, after all, the Ron Paul forums.

So do you believe the chinese have a protectionists system by your definitions?

Do you believe the VAT systems and GATT systems support massive protectionist policies for its members?

If a country has a massive absolute advantage do to these protectionist policies wouldnt that go against a free market model?

Would not the people supporting these systems cause the US markets to go under as they have always went under in any and all historic absolute advantage cases?

Would we not be absolute fools to participate in a system in which we give away charity and massive tax advantages, higher trade deficits and the results in printing more money, creating a larger DEBT to pay to the FED, the CFR and their buddies..

Just something to think about.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 12:35 AM

Bill Gates should be able to hire anybody he wants at whatever wage both parties agree on, regardless of where they were born. The government has no right to intervene in that. It's between Bill Gates and his employees.

Yeah if they are allowed to be in this country without an H1B they do...

But you see the constitution says the congress is to be over the naturalization processes of this country...

erowe1

07-14-2009, 08:50 AM

So do you believe the chinese have a protectionists system by your definitions?

Do you believe the VAT systems and GATT systems support massive protectionist policies for its members?

If a country has a massive absolute advantage do to these protectionist policies wouldnt that go against a free market model?

Would not the people supporting these systems cause the US markets to go under as they have always went under in any and all historic absolute advantage cases?

Would we not be absolute fools to participate in a system in which we give away charity and massive tax advantages, higher trade deficits and the results in printing more money, creating a larger DEBT to pay to the FED, the CFR and their buddies..

Just something to think about.

Yes. China, and many other countries have protectionist policies. Those policies hurt them and help the American consumer. They allow us to import goods from them more cheaply than the market would allow, and their own consumers foot the bill by paying higher prices themselves. The response our own government has to protectionism practiced by foreign countries ought to be exactly what Ron Paul advocates, which is nothing at all, neither helping China do that (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul338.html), nor hindering them (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul266.html).

erowe1

07-14-2009, 08:56 AM

Yeah if they are allowed to be in this country without an H1B they do...

But you see the constitution says the congress is to be over the naturalization processes of this country...

I'm not for total elimination of the concept of borders and legal naturalization. I'm just for opening it up to a great extreme. I think we are within our rights to keep out people who are violent criminals trying to flee other countries' law enforcement, as well as people we have reason to believe are coming here as terrorists, and people who we know to have contagious diseases that ought to be quarantined. But beyond those concerns that address our safety on such a basic level, there should be no government based limitations on people coming here from other countries. Congress should legislate those aspects of the naturalization process without any concern or thought whatsoever about protecting American jobs against foreign competition. They should see the job market as none of their business.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 09:21 AM

Yes. China, and many other countries have protectionist policies. Those policies hurt them and help the American consumer. They allow us to import goods from them more cheaply than the market would allow, and their own consumers foot the bill by paying higher prices themselves. The response our own government has to protectionism practiced by foreign countries ought to be exactly what Ron Paul advocates, which is nothing at all, neither helping China do that (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul338.html), nor hindering them (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul266.html).

What do you do for a living?

What your saying comes from textbook models not real life.

As long as there is no competition and only managed trade we are not in any text book model so the classical models do not apply.

The policies greatly help China in the current managed trade models...and hurt the consumers of our nation greatly as explained in the past post.

I hope you can understand this its a very basic truth known by people that work in these fields day to day.

Again with anyone on here book learned policies can all be hijacked, just like posts and you can think something is good from all classical models.

The problem is that anything can be put into a space or model, distorted and you are not dealing with the same situations.

Thus is the case with CFR distorted versions of free trade for instance, or protectionism.

One has to stop defending protectionist policies and claiming in this managed trade model they do good when they do the very opposite.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 09:25 AM

I'm not for total elimination of the concept of borders and legal naturalization. I'm just for opening it up to a great extreme. I think we are within our rights to keep out people who are violent criminals trying to flee other countries' law enforcement, as well as people we have reason to believe are coming here as terrorists, and people who we know to have contagious diseases that ought to be quarantined. But beyond those concerns that address our safety on such a basic level, there should be no government based limitations on people coming here from other countries. Congress should legislate those aspects of the naturalization process without any concern or thought whatsoever about protecting American jobs against foreign competition. They should see the job market as none of their business.

I am not for the welfare state, feeding the FED or CFR gang debt money, so i can not subscribe to unlimited immigration or fastrack like methods as the staple act enables.

erowe1

07-14-2009, 09:34 AM

I am not for the welfare state so i can not subscribe to unlimited immigration or fastrack like methods as the staple act enables.

Don't get me wrong, just because I oppose protectionism doesn't mean I advocate managed trade or giving immigrants (or citizens for that matter) welfare. But the way to address those problems is to pursue the elimination of managed trade agreements and welfare. We shouldn't take for granted that those things have to continue.

This is a general rule about all government caused problems (and there are many). The solutions the government will always try to push on us will always be new government based solutions. We must always reject those. The only real solutions are to get rid of the government actions that caused the problems to begin with.

As for what I do for a living, I used to be a civil engineer. But now I'm a graduate student in a specific area of ancient history. You are right that I learn a lot from books. I make no apologies for that.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 09:46 AM

Don't get me wrong, just because I oppose protectionism doesn't mean I advocate managed trade or giving immigrants (or citizens for that matter) welfare. But the way to address those problems is to pursue the elimination of managed trade agreements and welfare. We shouldn't take for granted that those things have to continue.

This is a general rule about all government caused problems (and there are many). The solutions the government will always try to push on us will always be new government based solutions. We must always reject those. The only real solutions are to get rid of the government actions that caused the problems to begin with.

As for what I do for a living, I used to be a civil engineer. But now I'm a graduate student in a specific area of ancient history. You are right that I learn a lot from books. I make no apologies for that.

Unfortunately one can not give ground and vote yes...or stand in line with CFR policy and not quickly realize that they have been duped and betrayed their ideals and their country.

Thus i applaud the just vote no answer at all times...until someone comes to the table with real contracts and real policies that are not managed by corporatistic soft fascism.

If you can not operate in non managed policies you cant have anything work...so one must counter with policies to make this happen.

Else fascism, oligarchies, or corporatism come our way very quickly...as they have been quickly happening in the world and US since GATT.

So can i ask why you stopped being a civil engineer?

Have to run...will read the responses later...

want to talk more on this though ...its very important that liberty people share on the ground intel and compare and question everything...arriving at truth that will enable us to lead our nation in the correct direction against the CFR opponents

erowe1

07-14-2009, 09:49 AM

So can i ask why you stopped being a civil engineer?

I did it for two years and realized I didn't enjoy it enough to spend my life at it. At the same time I had a growing interest in the Bible, so I started studying ancient Greek and Hebrew, which led me into questions about ancient Jewish and Christian literature and history, which is what I'm studying now, hopefully to become a professor.

scandinaviany3

07-14-2009, 09:58 AM

I did it for two years and realized I didn't enjoy it enough to spend my life at it. At the same time I had a growing interest in the Bible, so I started studying ancient Greek and Hebrew, which led me into questions about ancient Jewish and Christian literature and history, which is what I'm studying now, hopefully to become a professor.

Very cool..one should always follow ones calling and passions.

Have several friends that have done the same and we sponsor one friend in school for this purpose right now.

Anyway lets talk more want to share stories about what i have saw over the last 20 years in engineering, international business, trade policy, hiring practices, etc....it is truly mind boggling how we must open our eyes and truly see in this age...