Haley Barbour calls for massive immigration of workers

[Brian4Liberty]

Supply and demand.

Haley Barber was out today repeating the US Chamber of Commerce talking points like a good little elite corporatist spokesman. Both parties want massive immigration. The GOP wants cheap labor, the Dems wants cheap labor and votes.

In an economy where true unemployment is hitting all-time highs, and underemployment is commonplace, do we need to increase the supply of labor? And we shouldn't forget about the people who are no longer counted as unemployed; those who have "given up", those who are on government "assistance".

Instead of putting these people to work (which will help them in the long run), the establishment wants to import cheaper and more pliable workers. Keep those other people dependent on government. Destroy them with handouts, keep them poor, unmotivated and dis-spirited. Take away their self-esteem. Their expiration date has passed, time to import fresh workers.

Sure it may cost some money to pay for people to not do anything, but that money comes from the taxpayers and the Federal Reserve's printing press. The additional profits from cheaper labor go straight into the pockets of big corporate executives and Wall Street.

(Small businesses need not apply. You will be last in line for "legal" imported labor, and the visas run out quickly. The paperwork, restrictions, regulations and fees will probably make it cost prohibitive anyway. Give up and go to work for a big corporation, or go on welfare, your choice.)

Video link:

http://bcove.me/hklgkp93


Haley Barbour rejected on Thursday the idea that Republicans need to change their ideology after losing a second consecutive presidential race, but said the party should embrace immigration reform.

“We certainly don’t have to change ideology,” Barbour said on NBC’s “Today.” “Here’s the point: We ought to be for good policy. My old boss Ronald Reagan used to say, ‘At the end of the day good policy is good politics.’ And good policy on immigration in the United States is, we are in a global battle for capital and labor, and we need to have what is good economic policy for America on immigration because we do need labor. We not only need Ph.Ds in science and technology, we need skilled workers and we need unskilled workers. And we need to have an immigration policy that is good economic policy, and then — and then the politics will take care of itself.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83562.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer are on board too...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/graham-schumer-offer-immigration-plans-as-reform-becomes-hot-post-race-issue/


Graham, Schumer offer immigration plans, as reform becomes hot post-race issue

A top Democratic and a Republican lawmaker on Sunday each presented a similar plan for comprehensive immigration reform that would offer a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States...

In the aftermath of the election Tuesday, Republican leaders have begun examining ways to bring Hispanics into the party. They made up 10 percent of the electorate in 2012, compared to 9 percent in the 2008 presidential election cycle.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee told Fox News on Saturday that Chairman Reince Priebus has ordered a “full analysis” of the 2012 election cycle that will focus on why the party failed to connect with female, independent and younger voters, but more specifically Hispanics.
...
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/11/graham-schumer-offer-immigration-plans-as-reform-becomes-hot-post-race-issue/

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Are Democrats abandoning their labor union base? I would think so, they are mostly whites.

[Brian4Liberty]

Are Democrats abandoning their labor union base? I would think so, they are mostly whites.

Unions have essentially merged with government and given up on the private sector, as most Union workers are now government employees. So the Unions have the same motivation that the government bureaucracy does: bigger budgets, more government employees and voters who will support that agenda.

[Brian4Liberty]

Are Democrats abandoning their labor union base? I would think so, they are mostly whites.

Another thing to remember is that Unions benefit from excess labor. There is no need for Unions when each individual has value (ie. labor demand is greater than supply). One of the roles of Unions is to block new workers from replacing existing ones. When there are no masses of workers waiting to take jobs, there is no more need for Unions.

[matt0611]

Another thing to remember is that Unions benefit from excess labor. There is no need for Unions when each individual has value (ie. labor demand is greater than supply). One of the roles of Unions is to block new workers from replacing existing ones. When there are no masses of workers waiting to take jobs, there is no more need for Unions.

Do you mean unions are hurt from excess labor?

[BAllen]

This makes no sense. Why pay people not to work, then import more workers? Okay, you open borders people, explain the logic of this. Oh, wait! I know! More people=more consumers! Never mind the fact that it increases the need for roads, schools, etc., which in turn, increases taxes, and lazy, inefficient government workers, thereby negating any positive effects.

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you mean unions are hurt from excess labor?

No, they benefit. Demand for Unions is based on the existence of excess labor. No excess labor, no need for Unions.

Think about it in reverse. When there is a labor shortage, every person who wants a job can get one. Employers compete for employees, and employees are in a position to negotiate compensation that they find acceptable. Unions are not required to negotiate for people, and they are not needed to "protect" jobs.

[BAllen]

Right! Smaller labor pool=higher wages. This is why I oppose immigration.

[Origanalist]

No, they benefit. Demand for Unions is based on the existence of excess labor. No excess labor, no need for Unions.

Think about it in reverse. When there is a labor shortage, every person who wants a job can get one. Employers compete for employees, and employees are in a position to negotiate compensation that they find acceptable. Unions are not required to negotiate for people, and they are not needed to "protect" jobs.

Absolutely right.

[Anti Federalist]

And cue the "open borders - Free Trade" people in 3...2...1...

[Anti Federalist]

The elites and governing class want this because they know they are doomed without an influx of millions and millions of new cattle, of new sheep to be shorn, into their tax farm.

[Ender]

The country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy and the government not involved in business.

The secret is to have free trade, get rid of government regulations that drive companies overseas, and no entitlements.

[rprprs]

The country was never more prosperous than when immigration was easy and the government not involved in business.

The secret is to have free trade, get rid of government regulations that drive companies overseas, and no entitlements.

Ok, but when do we achieve this nirvana?
Porous borders are pretty much a current reality and amnesty looms.
Do you see an end to regulations or entitlements anywhere on the horizon?
What in the interim?

[Carson]

Is attacking the educated at an early age to make room for other countries to have room to export their over populations really what this was all about?

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us, as little children, with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called Family Planning. They pushed birth control pills. They stressed the importance of condoms. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

In the eighties they started stressing the importance of safe sex but the results are the same.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

My family line succeeded, at least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border, United States laws only apply to some malarkey, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face. It reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.


This should end about like this movie.

Idiocracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

It's got what plants crave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

[Brian4Liberty]

Is attacking the educated at an early age to make room for other countries to have room to export their over populations really what this was all about?

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us, as little children, with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called Family Planning. They pushed birth control pills. They stressed the importance of condoms. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

In the eighties they started stressing the importance of safe sex but the results are the same.
...
I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.


And don't forget the other lie: "don't worry women, you can have children in your forties, no problem! Go ahead and party till then!"

Yeah, the propaganda was "don't have children, there won't be room, food, housing or energy for them".

[BAllen]

Is attacking the educated at an early age to make room for other countries to have room to export their over populations really what this was all about?

Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us, as little children, with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called Family Planning. They pushed birth control pills. They stressed the importance of condoms. I think you and I now both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.

In the eighties they started stressing the importance of safe sex but the results are the same.

I am the result of two living cells. One from each of my parents. They are the result of two living cells, one from each of their parents. I wasn't just born. I am a continuation of life. I am a living thing that reaches back into time perhaps 400 million years and the result of billions of joining of pairs of cells. It is possible that if you were to follow my cells back to my parent’s cells and beyond that my family tree touches every living thing here on earth. That is if we limit ourselves to believing life was created here on earth. If it rained down from the immensity of the universe it could reach back into that immensity of time and space, and who knows what relationships and who knows what species.

My family line succeeded, at least until I came up against the Federal Government and their plan to control the population.

I have seen the Federal Government do little else to control the population.

The open border, United States laws only apply to some malarkey, is a serious slap in the face. No, not a slap in the face. It reaches well beyond that. Maybe back to the beginning of time and stretch to the bounds of the universe.


This should end about like this movie.

Idiocracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

It's got what plants crave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

Notice how they never targeted Africa, India, or Mexico. Only white countries were fed this load of crap. It's white genocide.

[Brian4Liberty]

Notice how they never targeted Africa, India, or Mexico. Only white countries were fed this load of crap. It's white genocide.

In all fairness, they did try, but it's hard to brainwash people who have no television or media...

[BAllen]

In all fairness, they did try, but it's hard to brainwash people who have no television or media...

I'm just pointing out their double standards. Like the environmentalists. Never a peep from them on China or India's pollution is there?

[silverhandorder]

Right! Smaller labor pool=higher wages. This is why I oppose immigration.

That means nothing. Some jobs will simply not exist. Sometimes raising the price eliminates demand for the good. In that case higher wages are not sustainable for the business and it folds. Where you would see this? Mostly in luxury goods that raise our standard of living. Less eat out places, less retails stores and etc.

[silverhandorder]

The elites and governing class want this because they know they are doomed without an influx of millions and millions of new cattle, of new sheep to be shorn, into their tax farm.

Only to a degree. They know the party will end for them because things will deteriorate so fast that population will not support them anymore. However your propositions is the same as starve the beast. Where are you going to find people who will take on this sacrifice? As long as immigration brings benefits to the country the elites will be able to keep it going. Same way as long as working brings you benefits you will keep paying taxes.

[BAllen]

That means nothing. Some jobs will simply not exist. Sometimes raising the price eliminates demand for the good. In that case higher wages are not sustainable for the business and it folds. Where you would see this? Mostly in luxury goods that raise our standard of living. Less eat out places, less retails stores and etc.

And that's a bad thing, how? Considering the alternative is more urban sprawl, congested highways, overcrowded schools, more pollution, more taxes, more regulation, less freedoms...........need I go on? Watch Roy Beck's video on immigration for an education.

[Carole]

All this is part of the plan to destroy the middle class and small businesses. Our manufacturing base is no longer larger enough to support an excess of workers. It used to be forty percent of the economy, but now is only ten percent of the economy is what I read recently.

[UMULAS]

I support this because it allows more open market.

-flame suit on-

Come at me mercantilists.

[BAllen]

I support this because it allows more open market.

-flame suit on-

Come at me mercantilists.

And more roads, school, fire, police, etc. which WILL result in more taxes, more government funding for welfare for these 'immigrants'. Who do you think will pay for this? YOU will through taxes.

[Feeding the Abscess]

And more roads, school, fire, police, etc. which WILL result in more taxes, more government funding for welfare for these 'immigrants'. Who do you think will pay for this? YOU will through taxes.

I'll pose the same question to you:

How else to enforce immigration controls than to hand the federal government massive authority, regulatory power, tax dollars, and manpower, and how will you prevent those new tools from being used for things other than immigration, let alone strictly from stopping people from coming in?

The answer to too much government is not growing the government.

[BAllen]

I'll pose the same question to you:

How else to enforce immigration controls than to hand the federal government massive authority, regulatory power, tax dollars, and manpower, and how will you prevent those new tools from being used for things other than immigration, let alone strictly from stopping people from coming in?

The answer to too much government is not growing the government.

End the welfare state for one thing. Check I.D.'s. Crack down on employers who hire illegals. Reduce the labor pool, and wages would increase naturally. Stop propping up the housing market, and prices would drop as there would be more available in the marketplace with less immigrants. These higher wage earners would then start buying houses, cars, etc. and things would expand at a natural rate. But, it's all a moot point, b/c the fact is that we DO have a welfare state, and they DO prop up the housing market.

[Feeding the Abscess]

End the welfare state for one thing.

Fine, but that won't curb immigration.


Check I.D.'s.

Oh, so you want a national ID, or the federal government to have access on all your information (de facto national ID)? No thanks.


Crack down on employers who hire illegals.

We're against regulations on businesses, except when we're for regulations on businesses. Furthermore, freedom of association much? Your argument is the same philosophical underpinning that brought us the CRA - you don't actually own your business if you can't hire your worker of choice.


Reduce the labor pool, and wages would increase naturally.

Or, instead of further stifling the market with your pet regulations, reduce government footprint and allow the market to work.


Stop propping up the housing market, and prices would drop as there would be more available in the marketplace with less immigrants

Prices would drop with less meddling in the marketplace, immigrants or no immigrants.


These higher wage earners would then start buying houses, cars, etc. and things would expand at a natural rate.

Strictly from deporting immigrants? No. Not even close. You need to read up on Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Immediately.


But, it's all a moot point, b/c the fact is that we DO have a welfare state, and they DO prop up the housing market.

And your prescriptions are, as I pointed out, a massive growth of federal government authority, regulatory power, tax dollars, and manpower.

[BAllen]

Fine, but that won't curb immigration.



Oh, so you want a national ID, or the federal government to have access on all your information (de facto national ID)? No thanks.



We're against regulations on businesses, except when we're for regulations on businesses. Furthermore, freedom of association much? Your argument is the same philosophical underpinning that brought us the CRA - you don't actually own your business if you can't hire your worker of choice.



Or, instead of further stifling the market with your pet regulations, reduce government footprint and allow the market to work.



Prices would drop with less meddling in the marketplace, immigrants or no immigrants.



Strictly from deporting immigrants? No. Not even close. You need to read up on Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Immediately.



And your prescriptions are, as I pointed out, a massive growth of federal government authority, regulatory power, tax dollars, and manpower.

Doesn't take much manpower to check an ID, does it?

[UMULAS]

I'll pose the same question to you:

How else to enforce immigration controls than to hand the federal government massive authority, regulatory power, tax dollars, and manpower, and how will you prevent those new tools from being used for things other than immigration, let alone strictly from stopping people from coming in?

The answer to too much government is not growing the government.

I believe that the federal government shouldn't decide but states themselves, yet they don't have the right to do that. And I don't believe in stopping or controlling immigration.

I agree with you: The government should be smaller, but I believe in allowing more immigration.

[UMULAS]

End the welfare state for one thing. Check I.D.'s. Crack down on employers who hire illegals. Reduce the labor pool, and wages would increase naturally. Stop propping up the housing market, and prices would drop as there would be more available in the marketplace with less immigrants. These higher wage earners would then start buying houses, cars, etc. and things would expand at a natural rate. But, it's all a moot point, b/c the fact is that we DO have a welfare state, and they DO prop up the housing market.

Check I.D.'s? NO THANKS

Crack down? Employees should have the right to hire anyone they feel like.

Reduce labor pool? I'm against mercantilism.

Housing market? Isn't more demand a good thing?


And more roads, school, fire, police, etc. which WILL result in more taxes, more government funding for welfare for these 'immigrants'. Who do you think will pay for this? YOU will through taxes.

I don't believe in privatizing entirely public schools, but immigrants that can come here legally will pay taxes for all the stuff you said. Also, immigrants don't receive welfare; I know for sure :D

Straw Man arguments for people who are con on immigration:

Mercantilism
National Security
Welfare
Taxes

Got any more?


Ballen, quit watching fox news.

[BAllen]

Check I.D.'s? NO THANKS

Crack down? Employees should have the right to hire anyone they feel like.

Reduce labor pool? I'm against mercantilism.

Housing market? Isn't more demand a good thing?



I don't believe in privatizing entirely public schools, but immigrants that can come here legally will pay taxes for all the stuff you said. Also, immigrants don't receive welfare; I know for sure :D

Straw Man arguments for people who are con on immigration:

Mercantilism
National Security
Welfare
Taxes

Got any more?


Ballen, quit watching fox news.

Yes, I have another one. Get an education, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSKNvvhKazM

[HOLLYWOOD]

Haley Barbour same old establishment criminals of the Lobbying sucking machine inside the DC beltway. Here's a light snack on what Barbour is about
Lobbying career
Barbour has been described as "one of Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.)'s all-time mega-lobbyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States)." He "was a wealthy K Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street) lobbyist for giant corporations such as RJ Reynolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJ_Reynolds), Philip Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_USA), Amgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amgen), Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft), United Health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Health), Southern Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company), and many others." In 1991, Barbour helped found the lobbying group now known as BGR Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BGR_Group&action=edit&redlink=1), a Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.)-based lobbying firm, with Ed Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Rogers_(lawyer)&action=edit&redlink=1), a lawyer who formerly worked in the George H. W. Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush_administration). In 1994, Lanny Griffith (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lanny_Griffith&action=edit&redlink=1) (also a former Bush administration appointee) joined the firm.
Barbour continues to "collect payments from BGR through a blind trust, which was recently valued at $3.3 million."

Race and integration
Barbour has faced considerable "in-state criticism for his approach to racial issues". Mississippi state Representative Willie Perkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willie_Perkins&action=edit&redlink=1) has "compared Barbour to the southern Democrats who preceded him", saying: "As far as I'm concerned, he has never done anything as a governor or a citizen to distinguish himself from the old Democrats who fought tooth and nail to preserve segregation."

Post-gubernatorial career
After leaving office as Governor, Barbour joined Butler Snow, a Jackson, Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi) law firm (together with his former Chief of Staff Paul Hurst); re-joined lobbying firm BGR Group;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Barbour