Rand can win nomination by going after H1b visas & illegal immigration

[erowe1]

I've stated before that I am a nationalist. I believe in the US as a nation that does not import foreign workers at the expense of US workers.

We already have the O1 visa for people like Albert Einstein and Tesla. We don't need any other visas, US citizens can learn how to code.

And how do you think employers are supposed to know who is and isn't a citizen so they can know if they can hire them?

[whoisjohngalt]

What does it have to do with anything?

Last time I checked, the U.S. was a nation. A nation is composed of citizens.

There is no point in being a citizen of the U.S. if the employment process for IT jobs discriminates against you.

Why don't we just join with India and become Amerindia. That way we can do away with any pesky laws that get in the way of hiring any foreigners from India. Better yet, just make the US open to anyone in the world! But when we apply to work in their countries, we won't be given the same opportunity.

You are barking up the wrong tree. We believe in a free market economy here, not a protectionist one.
What's next? You tell us how beneficial massive import tariffs would be? Or should we force Americans to only hire Americans and buy American goods?

I take it you are not a fan of Austrian economics?

Oh I know, why don't we just give any American who applies for a job but loses out to a H1B candidate a job digging ditches on the roadside with a spoon!

[trojansc82]

In your make believe Utopia?

No

Here in reality?

Yes

[AuH20]

I've stated before that I am a nationalist. I believe in the US as a nation that does not import foreign workers at the expense of US workers.

We already have the O1 visa for people like Albert Einstein and Tesla. We don't need any other visas, US citizens can learn how to code.

I think the issue here is paying for domestics TO NOT WORK. Case in point.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...-paid_11202013

While workers out there are preaching morality at people like me living on welfare, can you really blame us?

I get to sit home… I get to go visit my friends all day… I even get to smoke weed…

Me and people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid.

Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month… and it’s gonna be on time… and we get subsidized housing… we even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas… Why should I work?

Ya’ll get the benefit of saying “oh, look at me, I’m a better person,” but when ya’ll sit at home behind ya’lls I’m a better person… we the ones gettin’ paid!

So can you really blame us?

It shrinks the labor pool. We don't need third worlders to pick crops and clean toilets with such a high non-participation rate.

[trojansc82]

You are barking up the wrong tree. We believe in a free market economy here, not a protectionist one.
What's next? You tell us how beneficial massive import tariffs would be? Or should we force Americans to only hire Americans and buy American goods?

I take it you are not a fan of Austrian economics?

Oh I know, why don't we just give any American who applies for a job but loses out to a H1B candidate a job digging ditches on the roadside with a spoon!

I'm a fan of citizens being part of a free economy. If the world was entirely open where you could find a job easily without visas, then yes I would be for it.

Some countries are rigging the system. For example, Japan exports 120 cars for every car they import. To me it's not fair, they are being protectionist. However, it benefits them.

[AuH20]

You are barking up the wrong tree. We believe in a free market economy here, not a protectionist one.
What's next? You tell us how beneficial massive import tariffs would be? Or should we force Americans to only hire Americans and buy American goods?

I take it you are not a fan of Austrian economics?

Oh I know, why don't we just give any American who applies for a job but loses out to a H1B candidate a job digging ditches on the roadside with a spoon!

With the robust welfare state extracting capital, it's not really a free market economy. We're just shifting costs from one party to another.

[erowe1]

However, it benefits them.

No it doesn't, it hurts them more than it hurts anyone else. It seems like you're saying that because some other countries behave stupidly, we should too.

[whoisjohngalt]

I'm a fan of citizens being part of a free economy. If the world was entirely open where you could find a job easily without visas, then yes I would be for it.

Some countries are rigging the system. For example, Japan exports 120 cars for every car they import. To me it's not fair, they are being protectionist. However, it benefits them.

Funny you should mention Japan. https://mises.org/sites/default/file...osperity_2.pdf

"The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas
or other protectionist restraints is to forget
about political boundaries. Political boundaries of
nations may be important for other reasons, but
they have no economic meaning whatever.
Suppose, for example, that each of the United
States were a separate nation. Then we would
hear a lot of protectionist bellyaching that we are
now fortunately spared. Think of the howls by
high-priced New York or Rhode Island textile
manufacturers who would then be complaining
about the “unfair,” “cheap labor” competition
from various low-type “foreigners” from
Tennessee or North Carolina, or vice versa."

[whoisjohngalt]

Trojan, he's talking about you!:

"If we think about it, it is clear that a call by
New York firms for a tariff against North Carolina
is a pure ripoff of New York (as well as North
Carolina) consumers, a naked grab for coerced
special privilege by less efficient business firms. If
the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists
would then be able to use the trappings of
patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage
and get away with their looting the consumers
of their own region."

You call yourself a nationalist, but you're really a protectionist. No I won't sacrifice the benefit provided to me and millions of other consumers because you are unable to compete with the H1B applicants.

[T.hill]

I've stated before that I am a nationalist. I believe in the US as a nation that does not import foreign workers at the expense of US workers.

We already have the O1 visa for people like Albert Einstein and Tesla. We don't need any other visas, US citizens can learn how to code.

You're also assuming that amount of jobs in an economy is fixed, when in reality this is not the case. When imported labor replaces local workers in a certain industry, then localized labor will be pushed to other areas of the economy, just as when automation replaces labor in general. There will always be a need for labor somewhere, because human wants are infinite relative to the means to satisfy them, as long as people want or need things there will be entrepreneurs attempting to profit off of them. Needs and wants always create a profit opportunity, which entrepreneurs will always try to take advantage of, and of course entrepreneurs need to employ factors of production to produce these wants and needs, labor being one of them.

When more producers economize by employing more efficient factors of production to produce their goods, then more money and resources are freed up to consumers to buy other things. When consumers have more money to buy other things, then demand increases for other goods and services, which subsequently increases production in those areas where demand has increased. When production output increases more factors of production are needed to satisfy the new increase in demand. Thus, more people are hired.

[Brian4Liberty]

You are barking up the wrong tree. We believe in a free market economy here, not a protectionist one.

And you are speaking for yourself, not others, and certainly not "we".

Ron Paul, who inspired this forum, believed in national sovereignty and did not believe in unrestricted immigration.

"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

Q: 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?

Ron Paul: 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.

Q: What is your view on legal immigration?

Ron Paul: 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.
...
Q: 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.
...
http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-pa...al-sovereignty

[Brian4Liberty]

You're also assuming that amount of jobs in an economy is fixed, when in reality this is not the case.

Correct. The number of jobs can decrease. It often happens during a recession.

[AuH20]

And you are speaking for yourself, not others, and certainly not "we".

Ron Paul, who inspired this forum, believed in national sovereignty and did not believe in unrestricted immigration.

And he was against birthright citizenship as well. Ron Paul certainly didn't want to kick them all out (which is impractical with all the incentives), but he knew that citizenship was not a realistic, long term option.

[erowe1]

And he was against birthright citizenship as well. Ron Paul certainly didn't want to kick them all out (which is impractical with all the incentives), but he knew that citizenship was not a realistic, long term option.

I definitely agree with that.

Best case scenario: we get rid of everybody's citizenship.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand needs funding from Silicon Valley so I doubt he puts the brakes on H1B visas.

That is certainly part of it. One of the problems with our "representative" government is that only rich and powerful people actually have access to our elected officials. American oligarchs such as Bill Gates have pushed this propaganda talking point about "Americans are dumb and uneducated, we need these superior foreign workers". It has been pushed so much that many people believe and repeat it without question. Repeat the lie long enough, and it is viewed as fact.

Rand has no doubt talked to many people higher up in high tech and at the US Chamber of Commerce. They probably all give the same opinion. How would Rand know the truth?

For an analogy, look at law enforcement abuse in this county. If the only people giving you information on the overall situation, and specific incidents was the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and the PR/lobbyist people, what would you think? Even those people themselves are often misinformed, and always engaging in CYA.

Who really knows? The people abused, and the lowest level cops are the ones who know. But either no one listens, or there is a code of silence. If you take all of your information from the Chief of Police and the gaggle of uniformed officials that stand in front of the cameras during press conferences, you will never know the truth. You will probably believe and repeat the lies, and base your positions on those lies.

[whoisjohngalt]

And you are speaking for yourself, not others, and certainly not "we".

Ron Paul, who inspired this forum, believed in national sovereignty and did not believe in unrestricted immigration.

Ron Paul's previous record on H1Bs...

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
Vote to pass a bill to increase the number of temporary visas granted to highly skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 by the year 2000.
Reference: Bill introduced by Smith, R-TX.; Bill HR 3736 ; vote number 1998-460 on Sep 24, 1998


I haven't seen anyone here advocating for them to get citizenship so nice straw man.

[whoisjohngalt]

So the position of the anti-H1B people here seems to be that if an American performs better and/or is cheaper, they are willing to complete, but if it's a non-American citizen, Uncle Sam should step in to protect them?

How completely disingenuous to pretend like the Pauls would support such an absurd concept. Ron and Rand have both made it quite clear as did the philosophers that inspired them, that the welfare state is the reason we must be wary of rampant immigration. Show me evidence they ever once approached immigration from a protectionist standpoint. Go on, I'll wait.

That would be just peachy if the government did everything possible to prevent me from ever being out of work, but as any libertarian worth their salt knows, it can only be done at the expense of many others.

We want cheaper workers because it means cheaper goods for us. Your inability to compete with foreign workers does not make a persuasive argument.

[Brian4Liberty]

I haven't seen anyone here advocating for them to get citizenship so nice straw man.

LOL. What? Where did I say anything about citizenship? You accuse me of creating a straw man by creating one yourself?

[Brian4Liberty]

How completely disingenuous to pretend like the Pauls would support such an absurd concept. Ron and Rand have both made it quite clear as did the philosophers that inspired them, that the welfare state is the reason we must be wary of rampant immigration. Show me evidence they ever once approached immigration from a protectionist standpoint. Go on, I'll wait.

Did you miss the quote from Ron? He said it depends upon the health of the economy. That would take into account the unemployment rate. If you want to call that protectionist, good for you.

Q: What is your view on legal immigration?

Ron Paul: 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.
...
Q: 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.

[whoisjohngalt]

LOL. What? Where did I say anything about citizenship? You accuse me of creating a straw man by creating one yourself?

My bad, that was AuH20 that brought up citizenship. Yet you did create a straw man, still. You implied someone here was arguing for unrestricted immigration. No one advocated that as far as I can tell.

And Trojan is straight up admitting his issue is that the foreign workers displace the American workers because they are willing to do the same job for less, as if that's a persuasive argument when it's a huge benefit to me, the consumer.

And I am speaking for the vast majority of the forums when I say we favor a free market, not protectionist economy. That is inherent to libertarianism.

The government should have mandated that all citizens use pagers when cell phones made them obsolete because think about all those poor pager makers, distributors, sales people that lost their jobs. It's called creative destruction. I did a little searching for similar threads, and it's pretty obvious there is a very small minority advocating a position that they will never get 90% of the people here to adopt or even seriously consider.

[erowe1]

You implied someone here was arguing for unrestricted immigration. No one advocated that as far as I can tell.

I do.

[Brian4Liberty]

Back to the point of the OP...

Rand has an opportunity to take the nomination by going after the corrupt H1B visa program and illegal immigration.

He can still be for the H1B visa program, but reduce its size and scope. There are literally hundreds of thousands of American workers that are jobless due to this system. Additionally, he can show how if we reduce immigration the salaries will go up for low skill labor.

This may not be a popular theme on these forums, but it's reality. He could easily over take Walker and Cruz right now if he chooses to. Cruz is for creating an unlimited number of H1B visas, which would in essence allow any individual from India with a C.S. degree to work in the states.

You are most likely correct. If Rand were to take up the position that no increase in immigration rate is warranted right now, he would not only be the only candidate with that position, 93% of Americans might agree with him on it:

Gallup Poll: Only SEVEN PERCENT Of Americans Want More Immigration

[whoisjohngalt]

Back to the point of the OP...



You are most likely correct. If Rand were to take up the position that no increase in immigration is warranted right now, he would not only be the only candidate with that position, 93% of Americans might agree with him on it:

Gallup Poll: Only SEVEN PERCENT Of Americans Want More Immigration

Uhh, you do realize that your link is a survey about immigration levels, not immigration or immigrants. According to that poll 64% want the current rate of immigration to go up or stay the same. Well this is embarrassing...

And if you actually looked at the underlying poll you could have seen the trend. Confirmation bias at it's finest.

"In a follow-up question that queried Americans who are dissatisfied with the current levels of immigration, the majority -- 39% of U.S. adults in total -- said they would like to see the level of immigration decrease. This ranks among the lowest level of Americans who are dissatisfied and express a desire for less immigration since Gallup began asking the question in 2001, even if it is nominally higher than last year's 35%. The share of Americans who are dissatisfied and want more immigration (7%) was unchanged from 2014."

Lastly, no one is thinking about H1B immigration when they answer this question. Is that really what you are suggesting?

[Brian4Liberty]

Uhh, you do realize that your link is a survey about immigration levels, not immigration or immigrants.

Yes, and I added "rate" to my above post to make it more clear for you.

According to that poll 64% want the current rate of immigration to go up or stay the same. Well this is embarrassing...

[Updated.] Article was confusing as to the numbers. Modified, and agreed to number:

33% satisfied + 14% dissatisfied but want current levels to stay the same + 7% dissatisfied and want current levels to increase = 54%

From the Gallup summary:

60% dissatisfied with current level of immigration; 33% satisfied

The share of Americans who are dissatisfied and want more immigration (7%) was unchanged from 2014.

...

Lastly, no one is thinking about H1B immigration when they answer this question.

And where did you pull that assumption from?

[Brian4Liberty]

And I would add that "stay the same" does not mean increase it as most lobbyists, pundits and politicians are calling for in the near future.

[Krugminator2]

Did you miss the quote from Ron? He said it depends upon the health of the economy. That would take into account the unemployment rate. If you want to call that protectionist, good for you.

I know this is a contentious issue where both sides feel strongly. I am firmly in free market in labor camp.

Ron Paul was on both sides of this issue, so you either side can find quotes to justify their viewpoint. When he faced voters and reelection, he voted for things like the border fence and did interviews with VDare. Starting in 2011, he changed pretty dramatically. Here is what one of the anti-immigration ratings sites said about him.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...n-grade-f.html

[Brian4Liberty]

I know this is a contentious issue where both sides feel strongly. I am firmly in free market in labor camp.

Ron Paul was on both sides of this issue, so you either side can find quotes to justify their viewpoint. When he faced voters and reelection, he voted for things like the border fence and did interviews with VDare. Starting in 2011, he changed pretty dramatically. Here is what one of the anti-immigration ratings sites said about him.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...n-grade-f.html

Interesting. So their contention is that Ron was good based upon his actions, but took a position they did not like in this book. Wonder who wrote that section of the book?

The biggest problem with Rep. Paul's (R-Texas) latest comments on immigration is that they are NOT just some ad hoc thoughts tossed off carelessly at some speaking event. These are engraved in a brand new book.
...
If you look up Rep. Paul's immigration grade for his congressional actions, you will find a much better report. He earns a 'B' grade over his career.

[whoisjohngalt]

Yes, and I added "rate" to my above post to make it more clear for you.



What are you talking about? From the poll, 33% are satisfied with current level. 7% want more. Add those together and you get 40% who want the immigration rate "to go up or stay the same", not 64%. It is embarrassing, for you.

Are you Zippyjuan? You are using his tactics.

From the Gallup summary:
...

And where did you pull that assumption from?

Reading comprehension skillz a little lacking, friend?

"In total, 60 percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the current levels of immigration to the United States. 33 percent said they were satisfied with current levels.

But among those who are dissatisfied with current immigration levels, 39 percent said they want less immigration, 14 percent say they want current levels to say the same, but only 7 percent say they want immigration levels to increase."

33% satisfied + 14% dissatisfied but want current levels to stay the same + 7% dissatisfied and want current levels to increase = 54%

If you add the 39% who want less immigration, you get to the 93% who had an opinion with 7% expressing no opinion. Maybe it helps that I looked at the actual poll since Daily Caller incorrectly said "among those were satisfied" when those %s applied to the whole surveyed population. As I pointed out the actual poll also shows a clear trend that the number of people who want less immigration is rapidly decreasing.

It's getting a lot more embarrassing for you now that you tried to correct me and were wrong to do so. I'd be careful with your sources next time.

[whoisjohngalt]

Interesting. So their contention is that Ron was good based upon his actions, but took a position they did not like in this book. Wonder who wrote that section of the book?

I guess the same ghost writer wrote this policy paper as well and again takes credit for what he wrote on immigration in Liberty Defined and stands by it: http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-03/ro...-police-state/

Man you think he wouldn't let the same ghostwriter keep writing all this stuff he disagrees with after the newsletters, eh?

"As I noted in my most recent book, Liberty Defined, much of our immigration problems would be eliminated were the federal government to simply return to sound money practices and end the welfare incentive for individuals to come to the US illegally. Afterward, what remains of the problem would mostly be solved with a far more generous and flexible guest worker program. Whatever the case, turning the US into a police state in order to fight a hyped up illegal immigration “crisis” is a bad deal for us all."

[Krugminator2]

Interesting. So their contention is that Ron was good based upon his actions, but took a position they did not like in this book. Wonder who wrote that section of the book?

I am pretty certain Tom Woods was the ghostwriter for his book on the Fed and one other book. I would say there is a better than 70% chance Rockwell or Woods co-wrote Liberty Defined.