Mike Lee Slams HR 1 ‘For the People Act’ — ‘As if Written in Hell by the Devil Himself’.

[Joe McCarthy]

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021...devil-himself/

“I disagree with every single word in H.R. 1, including the words ‘but,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the.’ Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. This is a bill as if written in hell by the devil himself,” Lee declared. “This takes all sorts of decisions the federal government has no business making. It takes them away from the states, makes them right here in Washington, D.C. by Congress, apparently in an effort to ensure an institutional revolutionary Democratic Party of sorts — one that can remain in power for many decades to come. It does this by taking away these decisions.”

“Elections in America have been conducted at the state and local level,” he continued. “They are completely flipping that principle on its head so that these things can be micromanaged from Washington. That’s wrong. That’s really wrong. It’s bad policy. As much as anything else, it’s wildly unconstitutional.”

True, and very good of you to say that Senator. Except for the unfortunate fact that this is coming from a guy who wants to import tons of visa holders and keep Americans unemployed. Notice he didn't say crap about the illegals flooding into the country.
This guy speaks with a forked tongue. One fork goes to his wallet and the other speaks to re-election. Utah needs to replace BOTH of their RINOs.

[Brian4Liberty]

From an issues perspective, this is two different issues, better for two different threads. If someone makes a good point, it's usually an opportunity to agree and emphasize. Ron Paul always took opportunities to have allies on specific issues. It by no means indicates, insinuates or infers agreement on any other issues.

And yes, HR1 was written in Hell, by one of the devil's favorite minions, Nancy Pelosi.

[ClaytonB]

DC is doing such a great job managing the nation's affairs, we should obviously have them tell us who will govern us run our elections for us...

[Joe McCarthy]

From an issues perspective, this is two different issues, better for two different threads. If someone makes a good point, it's usually an opportunity to agree and emphasize. Ron Paul always took opportunities to have allies on specific issues. It by no means indicates, insinuates or infers agreement on any other issues.

And yes, HR1 was written in Hell, by one of the devil's favorite minions, Nancy Pelosi.

Yes, that is true, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that every single one of those RINOs seem to have discovered their spines just now after they have realized that people hate them for going along with the fraudulent election. They did nothing to stop the steal, allowed the Dems to get away with it, and are now grandstanding about election fraud and free elections? Consequently, I don't trust any one of those slimy snakes. Not Lee when he talks about voter fraud. Not Lindsey when he talks about the border. Not the Turtle when he talks about stimulus checks.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, that is true, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that every single one of those RINOs seem to have discovered their spines just now after they have realized that people hate them for going along with the fraudulent election. They did nothing to stop the steal, allowed the Dems to get away with it, and are now grandstanding about election fraud and free elections? Consequently, I don't trust any one of those slimy snakes. Not Lee when he talks about voter fraud. Not Lindsey when he talks about the border. Not the Turtle when he talks about stimulus checks.

IMHO, I wouldn't call Mike Lee a RINO. He's a Constitutionalist, and one of the best in the Congress.

The one issue I don't agree with him and the beltway libertarians on is expanding immigration right now. But I wouldn't throw him under the bus based on one issue.

[Ender]

IMHO, I wouldn't call Mike Lee a RINO. He's a Constitutionalist, and one of the best in the Congress.

The one issue I don't agree with him and the beltway libertarians on is expanding immigration right now. But I wouldn't throw him under the bus based on one issue.

Exactly- Lee is one of the best. And, as far as immigration goes, if the Fed Gov would stay out of private business, stop welfare mania, & giving out free stuff, then that would also not be a problem.

[Anti Globalist]

HR 1 being signed by Biden will pretty much spell the end of fair elections.

[CaptUSA]

This will never pass Constitutional muster. Unfortunately, we may have another election before it can be challenged.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, that is true, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that every single one of those RINOs seem to have discovered their spines just now after they have realized that people hate them for going along with the fraudulent election. They did nothing to stop the steal, allowed the Dems to get away with it, and are now grandstanding about election fraud and free elections? Consequently, I don't trust any one of those slimy snakes. Not Lee when he talks about voter fraud. Not Lindsey when he talks about the border. Not the Turtle when he talks about stimulus checks.

You may be thinking of Senator Pat Toomey (R), who is on TV right now talking about how hard they have to fight against the insane Biden agenda, and how great it was a year ago. Talk about two faced. They depend on the public not remembering.

[Joe McCarthy]

You may be thinking of Senator Pat Toomey (R), who is on TV right now talking about how hard they have to fight against the insane Biden agenda, and how great it was a year ago. Talk about two faced. They depend on the public not remembering.

Toomey is one of the worst ones, and Lee might not be that bad, but I was certainly talking about Lee. His positions and statements are such that can never make me trust him, Constitutionalist or not.

What I'm referring to isn't anti-legal immigration, it's the fact that Mike Lee has been bought out by Google and has been working for years now to increase the number of H1-B visa holders from India (yes, just India) into the country. The sole purpose of this is to replace citizen tech workers.

Go a little further back and you will find that he said in 2016 that President Trump should quit the race because he's a bad person yada yada yada and voted for McMullin. Then, when Trump brought the travel ban for refugees from terrorist countries(which by the way, were all countries that Obama bombed), he said it's a "Muslim ban" and a "religious test" and I will never support it.

I will also ask you to remember how he blocked all Big Tech legislation. Do you remember that?

Before becoming a senator, Lee helped push a Utah law that critics said would have effectively banned Google’s largest revenue source, keyword advertising. In March 2011, Sen. Lee sent a strongly worded letter to the subcommittee’s chairman, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), expressing his “strong concerns” about Google’s “possible abuse of its predominant position” in Internet search. He called for “vigorous antitrust oversight and enforcement in this area.”

But when he became chairman of the Senate antitrust panel, his stance couldn’t be more different. He questioned the need for congressional antitrust investigations, complained about big fines imposed on Google, and defended the tech industry against Republican charges of liberal bias.

From "strong concerns about Google's...predominant position" to “Antitrust is not the answer”......Hmmmm

What changed was that A new analysis by the Google Transparency Project showed that Lee’s change of heart came after a lengthy, multifaceted campaign by Google and other big technology companies aimed at neutralizing Lee and his allies in the tea party movement. The company launched big projects in his home state and poured money into his 2016 reelection campaign, while Google and others in big tech hired away Lee’s staffers and allies.

Tech companies including Google, Facebook and Yahoo, as well as tech lobbyists and Utah-based software executives, also donated to Lee’s campaign. In all, he raised at least $73,600 from tech-affiliated donors on March 31, more than twice the amount he raised in Internet industry contributions during the previous six years, from 2009-2014 ($33,350).

And just like that, his promise to investigate the FTC’s meetings with Google vanished.

In 2018, he went to Tucker Carlson where Carlson asked him if Google and other Big Tech companies were censoring conservative speech and enforcing an ideological bias among its employees.
Lee disagreed with Carlson’s assessment that large tech companies were a threat to privacy. At one point in the interview, Lee told Carlson that "if you have an issue with Google, simply “use another search engine.”


Roughly two months after the interview, Eric Schmidt and Google’s general counsel Kent Walker contributed a total of $8,100 to Lee’s campaign.

I could go on and on, but here is one more:


In April, the senator again rose to the defense of big tech, this time during Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance before the Senate’s Commerce and Judiciary Committees to discuss data privacy and Russian disinformation.

“Isn’t there a significant free market incentive that a social media company, including yours, has, in order to safeguard the data of your users?” Lee asked Zuckerberg. “Don’t you have free market incentives in that respect?”

The implication was clear: No regulation was necessary.

A month after Lee’s softball questioning of Zuckerberg, Facebook announced it would build a $750 million data center in his state of Utah. The announcement followed an Amazon announcement a year earlier that it was building a new $200 million fulfillment center in Salt Lake County.

Throughout the remainder of 2018 and the first half of 2019, Lee became a more forceful advocate for big tech. In May 2018, he introduced legislation that would make it more difficult for the FTC to block mergers. Two months later, Lee complained that the European Commission’s $5 billion fine on Google for anticompetitive behavior had the “potential to undermine competition and innovation in the United States.”

In February 2019, Lee joined with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), introducing legislation supported by Google, Microsoft, and others to reform the way work-based visas and green cards are distributed. Then in March 2019, he appeared to back off his 2011 concerns about whether antitrust enforcement might be needed to protect consumer privacy.

As regards voter fraud, he could have stopped it before it started... accepting the electoral college vote without objection means every Republican is complicit in this destruction.

I guess my entire point is, he may be a Constitutionalist, but I can never trust or support Mr. I can't get enough H1B visas approved, or when he has blocked every single Big Tech legislation after being bought by Google and other tech companies.

Other than shipping jobs overseas and importing foreign labor and wide open borders, Senator Lee is really a good guy.

[Krugminator2]

True, and very good of you to say that Senator. Except for the unfortunate fact that this is coming from a guy who wants to import tons of visa holders and keep Americans unemployed. Notice he didn't say crap about the illegals flooding into the country.
s.

That might be a standard view among the toothless crystal meth addicts who married their sister down in the Confederacy but immigrants don't take jobs and create unemployment. There aren't a limited supply of jobs.

[TheCount]

Toomey is one of the worst ones, and Lee might not be that bad, but I was certainly talking about Lee. His positions and statements are such that can never make me trust him, Constitutionalist or not.

It reads like your problem is that he has principles.

[Contumacious]

From an issues perspective, this is two different issues, better for two different threads. If someone makes a good point, it's usually an opportunity to agree and emphasize. Ron Paul always took opportunities to have allies on specific issues. It by no means indicates, insinuates or infers agreement on any other issues.

And yes, HR1 was written in Hell, by one of the devil's favorite minions, Nancy Pelosi.

Indeed.

HR1 - the Democrats' Election Fraud R US Bill - Federalizes elections.

But SCOTUS has been intimidated into inaction

"The switch in time that saved nine" is the phrase, originally a quip by humorist Cal Tinney,[1] about what was perceived in 1937 as the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1937 case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[2] Conventional historical accounts portrayed the Court's majority opinion as a strategic political move to protect the Court's integrity and independence from President Franklin Roosevelt's court-reform bill (also known as the "court-packing plan"), which would have expanded the size of the bench up to 15 justices. "

.

[Joe McCarthy]

That might be a standard view among the toothless crystal meth addicts who married their sister down in the Confederacy but immigrants don't take jobs and create unemployment. There aren't a limited supply of jobs.

Ignoring your pitiful insults(which seems more like projection than anything), it is fine if you believe that. Many people like you are not so much conservative or even pro–free market as simply pro-business or pro short term growth at any price. And the policies of previous administrations of both parties have exacted quite a high price for the real but limited economic stimulus of cheap labor imported from abroad.

Immigration has been outpacing job growth in the U.S. for decades and is a contributing factor to unemployment, wage erosion, and declining labor force participation. Between 2000 and 2014, two new immigrants were admitted to the United States for every new job that was created by our economy. Between 2007 and 2015, all net new jobs created by the U.S. economy were filled by immigrants, legal and illegal.

During the ten-year period between 2005 and 2015, large-scale immigration swelled the ranks of working age adults by 25 million, while the number of people employed in the U.S. grew by just 7 million.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of American households fall outside the income range that defines them as middle class. This phenomenon is not just an economic one; it threatens long-term social stability in the United States.

There is no labor shortage in the United States. The U.S. labor force participation rate now stands at just 62.6% of the working age population. Among workers with less than a high school diploma, the participation rate is a mere 45.4%. For those with a high school degree, but no college participation rate is just 57%. That is the lowest it has been since the 1970s, before many women were fully integrated into the U.S. labor force. Some 90 million working age adults in the U.S. are not participating in the labor force. Even accounting for those who are remaining in school longer, or are stay-at-home parents by choice, there is still a huge untapped supply of workers in this country.

Lower skilled American workers have seen the sharpest declines in income. Since 1970, real income for the bottom 90% of workers in the U.S. has declined by 8%. Over the same period, the foreign born population has grown by 325%. While there are many factors that have contributed to this phenomenon, the influx of more than 50 million immigrants has skewed the law of supply and demand in favor of employers. The impact has been particularly hard on those in the bottom 20% of wage earners. Just between 2009 and 2014, they have experienced a 5.7% decline in wages.

Who benefits the most from mass immigration? One way to get a clue is to see who lobbies hardest for expanding immigration numbers and special visas, but opposes the enforcement of existing immigration laws. Big business and tech giants.

Clearly there are costs as well as benefits, and I'm arguing about the right balance.

[Joe McCarthy]

It reads like your problem is that he has principles.

Don't know where you got that from. My problem is precisely the opposite. That he has none. He flip-flops and doesn't stick to his ideals.

[Swordsmyth]

Ignoring your pitiful insults(which seems more like projection than anything), it is fine if you believe that. Many people like you are not so much conservative or even pro–free market as simply pro-business or pro short term growth at any price. And the policies of previous administrations of both parties have exacted quite a high price for the real but limited economic stimulus of cheap labor imported from abroad.

Immigration has been outpacing job growth in the U.S. for decades and is a contributing factor to unemployment, wage erosion, and declining labor force participation. Between 2000 and 2014, two new immigrants were admitted to the United States for every new job that was created by our economy. Between 2007 and 2015, all net new jobs created by the U.S. economy were filled by immigrants, legal and illegal.

During the ten-year period between 2005 and 2015, large-scale immigration swelled the ranks of working age adults by 25 million, while the number of people employed in the U.S. grew by just 7 million.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of American households fall outside the income range that defines them as middle class. This phenomenon is not just an economic one; it threatens long-term social stability in the United States.

There is no labor shortage in the United States. The U.S. labor force participation rate now stands at just 62.6% of the working age population. Among workers with less than a high school diploma, the participation rate is a mere 45.4%. For those with a high school degree, but no college participation rate is just 57%. That is the lowest it has been since the 1970s, before many women were fully integrated into the U.S. labor force. Some 90 million working age adults in the U.S. are not participating in the labor force. Even accounting for those who are remaining in school longer, or are stay-at-home parents by choice, there is still a huge untapped supply of workers in this country.

Lower skilled American workers have seen the sharpest declines in income. Since 1970, real income for the bottom 90% of workers in the U.S. has declined by 8%. Over the same period, the foreign born population has grown by 325%. While there are many factors that have contributed to this phenomenon, the influx of more than 50 million immigrants has skewed the law of supply and demand in favor of employers. The impact has been particularly hard on those in the bottom 20% of wage earners. Just between 2009 and 2014, they have experienced a 5.7% decline in wages.

Who benefits the most from mass immigration? One way to get a clue is to see who lobbies hardest for expanding immigration numbers and special visas, but opposes the enforcement of existing immigration laws. Big business and tech giants.

Clearly there are costs as well as benefits, and I'm arguing about the right balance.

And the immigrants destroy the culture and the politics of the country when they are allowed in numbers too great to assimilate.
Cash register libertarians are the handmaidens of global communism.

[Joe McCarthy]

And the immigrants destroy the culture and the politics of the country when they are allowed in numbers too great to assimilate.
Cash register libertarians are the handmaidens of global communism.

True. I personally believe that the economic impact of mass immigration is nothing compared to the cultural and social degeneration that mass immigration causes, which is, its dilution of our culture and the change it has caused in our electorate.

Put bluntly, we inherited a country founded on a set of British values—including the “Anglo-American liberties” enjoyed in every nation of the Anglo sphere. By importing large numbers of people every year from cultures that don’t share those values and failing to assimilate them, we endanger the very roots of American freedom, order, and prosperity. If a social engineer were consciously trying to end the American experiment, he could not come up with a more sure-fire method than this: import each year a million future voters and parents who believe in one or more of the following:

• Socialism and the massive redistribution of wealth
• The superiority of their religion to all others, and the duty of believers to wage jihad against the infidel
• Some anti-American nationalism or tribalism suffused with deep grudges against Anglo culture and the American government
• The assumption that government institutions will always be hopelessly corrupt
• Latino “familism”—the notion that it is a person’s duty to look out only for members of his immediate family, not the broader community—or the Middle Eastern loyalty system expressed in the Bedouin proverb: “I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my cousins against the world”
• The idea that wealth is always the fruit of inherited privilege and state-backed cronyism.

[TheCount]

Don't know where you got that from. My problem is precisely the opposite. That he has none. He flip-flops and doesn't stick to his ideals.

Which part do you see as a flip-flop?

[Joe McCarthy]

Which part do you see as a flip-flop?

I have written it above already. He complains, rightly so, about H.R. 1 and on the other hand, expands immigration levels and drafts bills with Kamala Harris to remove caps on green cards, allowing more and more future Democrat voters in the country. He talked a big game about vigorous anti-trust oversight and then made a 180 degree turn when Google and other tech companies bought him and started fundraising for him. It's no wonder that he wants to import more and more H1-B visa holders, the tech sector has been lobbying him for quite some time now. He's Big Tech's Trojan Horse in the Senate.

[Krugminator2]

Ignoring your pitiful insults(which seems more like projection than anything)

No projection. Supporting the Confederacy is morally depraved and I am making sure I am expressing that view.

it is fine if you believe that. Many people like you are not so much conservative or even pro–free market as simply pro-business or pro short term growth at any price.

Just pro-free market. There are unlimited jobs.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the majority of American households fall outside the income range that defines them as middle class.

There are fewer middle income earners because there are more opportunities to earn higher incomes than in the past not because lower income earner are worse off. The average person is better off in the US than at anytime in history. https://www.learnliberty.org/videos/...etting-poorer/

Middle income earners in the United States do very well. Lower middle income earners do very well. Much better than in Europe. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ppear-smaller/

I don't care even a little bit about the distribution of income other than to refute arguments about income distribution. The whole debate is rooted in envy and hatred for the most productive.

[CaptUSA]

I have written it above already. He complains, rightly so, about H.R. 1 and on the other hand, expands immigration levels and drafts bills with Kamala Harris to remove caps on green cards, allowing more and more future Democrat voters in the country. He talked a big game about vigorous anti-trust oversight and then made a 180 degree turn when Google and other tech companies bought him and started fundraising for him. It's no wonder that he wants to import more and more H1-B visa holders, the tech sector has been lobbying him for quite some time now. He's Big Tech's Trojan Horse in the Senate.

So, it's not really illegal immigration you see as the problem, then. It's all immigration?

You see, I don't think we need to import people that don't share American values to turn the political tide... I think we do that well enough on our own. Every one of these complaints apply to immigrants and native-born Americans alike:

• Socialism and the massive redistribution of wealth
• The superiority of their religion to all others, and the duty of believers to wage jihad against the infidel
• Some anti-American nationalism or tribalism suffused with deep grudges against Anglo culture and the American government
• The assumption that government institutions will always be hopelessly corrupt ---- I share this one myself!
• Latino “familism”—the notion that it is a person’s duty to look out only for members of his immediate family, not the broader community—or the Middle Eastern loyalty system expressed in the Bedouin proverb: “I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my cousins against the world”
• The idea that wealth is always the fruit of inherited privilege and state-backed cronyism.

[Joe McCarthy]

So, it's not really illegal immigration you see as the problem, then. It's all immigration?

No, I believe that illegal immigration is something we should have no tolerance for, but I didn't say I have a problem with legal immigration as such. I believe we have to FIX legal immigration.

If America wants a winning immigration program, we must change our legal immigration system to favor highly skilled workers who fit America. We must take those who fill specific needs for our country. This is nothing new. This is precisely how our Founders saw the issue. Further, favoring highly skilled workers over low-skill—or for that matter no-skill—workers will mean that new arrivals aren’t taking jobs from low-skill Americans, that our neediest fellow citizens aren’t getting bumped off the bottom rungs of the ladder to success.

What is the ultimate goal of any sane immigration policy? To strengthen America. Not to punish the weakest Americans. For example, I support The RAISE Act, introduced in 2016 by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, which would make an excellent start in that direction.

It would put an end to our current irrational system, dramatically reduce low-skilled immigration and revamp our system for skilled immigration. It would cut immigration by more than 40 percent immediately, and by half in a decade. It would end the diversity lottery and preferences for family members aside from spouses, minor children, and elderly parents in need of care. And it would put those seeking green cards on the basis of employment—140,000 of which would be available annually, the same number as today—through a new point system similar to those used in other developed countries.

[Joe McCarthy]

No projection. Supporting the Confederacy is morally depraved and I am making sure I am expressing that view.

Ha, and you got that I support the Confederacy from....where exactly? Sure, I respect the fact that they decided to secede and exercise their right to self-government instead of submitting to a leviathan, overbearing Federal Government, but that's not the point here.

There are fewer middle income earners because there are more opportunities to earn higher incomes than in the past not because lower income earner are worse off. The average person is better off in the US than at anytime in history.

No, that's not true. I already gave the data above. Pew reports too that working and middle class wages have been effectively flat for a generation: after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago. . . . What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.

Just as a massive gold-strike will lower the price of gold, a huge and sustained influx of low-skill labor will lower the price of labor.

When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.

Yes, having more workers and consumers in an economy results in some economic growth. I wouldn’t want to see zero immigration on the theory that this would raise the wages of everyone who is already here. But just because one extreme position is false, that doesn’t make the opposite crackpot view any truer. Just as in the moral life we seek the golden mean, in public policy we seek the optimal outcome—the “sweet spot” which offers the most net benefits to those who need it most, with minimal harm. Anyone who thinks that the immigration status quo that prevails in America today really embodies that optimum has a very skewed set of values.

[CaptUSA]

No, I believe that illegal immigration is something we should have no tolerance for, but I didn't say I have a problem with legal immigration as such. I believe we have to FIX legal immigration.

If America wants a winning immigration program, we must change our legal immigration system to favor highly skilled workers who fit America. We must take those who fill specific needs for our country. This is nothing new. This is precisely how our Founders saw the issue. Further, favoring highly skilled workers over low-skill—or for that matter no-skill—workers will mean that new arrivals aren’t taking jobs from low-skill Americans, that our neediest fellow citizens aren’t getting bumped off the bottom rungs of the ladder to success.

Ok, but here's the thing... It seems like you want government to decide what our country's specific needs are and then craft policy to fill those needs. I would MUCH rather the market decide that. Just make legal immigration easier and allow the market to determine which needs can be filled and can draw the right type of people.


I think we can all agree that government support programs need to be eliminated. But for everyone, not just immigrants.

[Joe McCarthy]

Ok, but here's the thing... It seems like you want government to decide what our country's specific needs are and then craft policy to fill those needs. I would MUCH rather the market decide that. Just make legal immigration easier and allow the market to determine which needs can be filled and can draw the right type of people.


I think we can all agree that government support programs need to be eliminated. But for everyone, not just immigrants.

In an ideal situation, I would agree with you 100% straight across the board. But that's the thing. The tech giants and Big business that benefit the most from mass migration have been lobbying lawmakers to allow unchecked illegal immigration to go on, while no one gives two $#@!s about securing the border. Consequently, we have an unprotected Southern border, which illegals are crossing in multitudes, and that is what leads to my resentment for lawmakers expanding immigration levels and removing green card caps while we have a border crisis right now. If the border could be secured and illegal immigration brought to a halt, I would have no problem at all with immigrants entering the country legally in a reasonable, controlled number.

And yes, government support programs need to be eliminated for everyone.

[devil21]

This will never pass Constitutional muster. Unfortunately, we may have another election before it can be challenged.

It just so happens that the USPS has a patented blockchain electronic voting system ready for just that occasion. Perhaps we can use the federal blockchain voting system to vote down the federal blockchain voting system?

And yes, HR1 was written in Hell, by one of the devil's favorite minions, Nancy Pelosi.

Hey now, I can't stand that woman or that bill. Stop blaming me for the bad things humans do.

[TheCount]

I have written it above already. He complains, rightly so, about H.R. 1 and on the other hand, expands immigration levels and drafts bills with Kamala Harris to remove caps on green cards, allowing more and more future Democrat voters in the country.

HR1 doesn't say anything about immigration. People applying for green cards have already immigrated and are already living in the country. H1-B programs have no connection to voting.

It's also fascinating that you just... assume that anyone immigrating is probably a future Democrat.

He talked a big game about vigorous anti-trust oversight and then made a 180 degree turn when Google and other tech companies bought him and started fundraising for him.

What does anti-trust oversight have to do with whether or not social media companies can moderate their content and ban their users as they wish?

You don't think it's possible that he simply believes that private companies should be able to make those decisions?



Again, seems like you don't like that he has principles. You want someone who is "on the team."

[TheCount]

We must take those who fill specific needs for our country.

...

Further, favoring highly skilled workers over low-skill—or for that matter no-skill—workers will mean that new arrivals aren’t taking jobs from low-skill Americans, that our neediest fellow citizens aren’t getting bumped off the bottom rungs of the ladder to success.

You mean... like the H1-B program?

Oh no, wait, you don't like that one. You don't say why, though, so we'll just have to guess at the reasons.

[TheCount]

In an ideal situation, I would agree with you 100% straight across the board. But that's the thing. The tech giants and Big business that benefit the most from mass migration have been lobbying lawmakers to allow unchecked illegal immigration to go on, while no one gives two $#@!s about securing the border. Consequently, we have an unprotected Southern border, which illegals are crossing in multitudes, and that is what leads to my resentment for lawmakers expanding immigration levels and removing green card caps while we have a border crisis right now. If the border could be secured and illegal immigration brought to a halt, I would have no problem at all with immigrants entering the country legally in a reasonable, controlled number.

Wouldn't making legal immigration easier, as @CaptUSA suggests, also reduce illegal immigration, as there'd be no reason to immigrate illegally?

[Brian4Liberty]

...
It would put an end to our current irrational system, dramatically reduce low-skilled immigration and revamp our system for skilled immigration. It would cut immigration by more than 40 percent immediately, and by half in a decade. It would end the diversity lottery and preferences for family members aside from spouses, minor children, and elderly parents in need of care. And it would put those seeking green cards on the basis of employment—140,000 of which would be available annually, the same number as today—through a new point system similar to those used in other developed countries.

I would add that one reason for the continuing “need” for imported low skilled immigration is the welfare state. Americans will not take a low wage, hard work job when they have easy alternatives, whether that is living in their parents house forever, being on welfare programs, or a combination of the two.

And there is a fallacy about alternatives and the destructive nature of welfare. There is a common meme that if welfare provides equivalent support as one would get from a job, the person will choose not to work, therefore welfare should pay a little less. My hypothesis is that welfare must pay much less than the lowest paying job. If it means not having to work, many (most?) people will take 50% less in welfare than working.

The children of low wage immigrants can fall into the welfare trap just as much as any American. This is why there is a continuous need for more low skilled immigration. A recent immigrant may be a hard worker, but that only lasts as long as they don't find a way to better their situation.

And their children will be raised in the coddling arms of the welfare state, where they either succeed on their own, or fall into the welfare trap. Either way, they won’t be low wage workers*.


* We need to make the distinction between low wage work and teenage work like McDonalds or Starbucks. Those were never meant to be permanent careers, or living wages. They are the kindergarten of work experience.