Quick question – what publication wrote this yesterday: “[T]he Senate bill and House principles offer no protection for the wages and employment status of existing workers. This fact, often overlooked by critics of comprehensive reform, is its greatest weakness.”
If you guessed Mother Jones, you’d be wrong. Instead, the Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost lays out the economic case against amnesty.
“The economic case is that reform will increase economic growth, and indeed it will. CBO estimates that the Rubio bill would boost gross domestic product by 3.3 percent between 2013 and 2023. The GOP, however, should not support growth for its own sake, but rather as the best way to generate broad-based prosperity.” […]
“This points to the tensions in the strategic alliance between the right and business. Conservatives are pro-business because they believe that, in general, business is good for everybody. If business presents a plan that hurts a significant swath of the country for its own advantage—such as the Senate bill—conservatives should oppose it. Indeed, they should do so loudly and forthrightly, for their biggest electoral liability is the widespread conviction that the GOP stands with big business instead of with the average person.” [emphasis added].
7 Comments
Karl,
\Quick question – what publication wrote this yesterday: “[T]he Senate bill and House principles offer no protection for the wages and employment status of existing workers. This fact, often overlooked by critics of comprehensive reform, is its greatest weakness.”…
THE ANSWER is simple and it requires no PhD nor education…….since the beginnings it created the USA and the American Dream…you stop that we cease to exist…..but again everything changes..make NO MISTAKE….no immigration reform no power in the future…….
Another person stuck in the cliches of the 19th century. Hello? It’s 2014, not 1893. You are right about one thing, “everything changes”. Globalization has indeed rewritten the rules. When a US company can set up a “call center” in Asia for less than it costs to set one up here, something impossible even 25 years ago, those jobs are lost to the American worker. Your support for “reform” means a mass influx of foreign workers for jobs we DON”T HAVE to begin with.
I Alawys Have Far More Respect
For professionals that TOTALLY change their opinions time to time based on the recent facts of of our overpopulated dismal economy…..its the ones that don’t change after 100-200 years I fear Leland.
“Growth for it’s own sake” is not a desirable goal. It’s the thinking behind what is portrayed as the “India miracle”, which is no miracle at all. It’s GDP based on rapid population growth, pure and simple. Naturally “growth” will occur but the question is, does the average Indian benefit. And the answer is no, because their GDP per capita, in other words per person, is dismal, close to the bottom of the list of all nations.
A story from the Tribune Washington Bureau claims “many of whom [Latinos] largely abandoned the party in the 2012 presidential election”. Hello? To “abandon” something you have to be a part of it to begin with. As has been amply shown, including the 32% vote in 2008 for John McCain, who has been pro amnesty for decades, Latinos vote on other issues. Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty, GOP Senator Alan Simpson sponsored it in the Senate, and it got Bush Sr. 31% of the vote in 1988. Stop the spin.
If the GOP wants to be a viable party, they have to appeal to the half of the electorate they go out of their way to alienate. There is no good reason to oppose insurance coverage for birth control. In fact, it’s true conservatism. Cheaper to pay for birth control than welfare for unwanted children.
Yes Karl
I even read a BOLD FACE LIE on amnesty rejection on MSM yesterday…..only by the FAR RIGHT CONSEVATIVES…..when we know the “jig is up” and most of the Dem/Rep voters are against amnesty. The polls have already proven it.
The only thing the amnesty supporters have to continue ruining the American economy with more overpopulation is fabrications and attempted brainwashing. Thank God it doesn’t work anymore.
Oh, yes, it does still work softwareengineer. It’s utterly dismaying the number of people in the good ole’ USA who purport to believe that amnesty is in the best interest of the people. Unfortunately, most of them have a name such as Menendez, Gonzalez, Labrador, etc. Why they want to hurt their “own” people the most is a total mystery to this old Southwesterner. Most of my friends (and I have a good many) with Spanish surnames say they are for amnesty. When I try to show them how the importation of illegal aliens, in particular, hurts “their” people, they just shake their heads in disbelief.
It would be great if we could get them to stand up and loudly support the following of the law enacted by our Congress and signed into law by some American President. But, barring that, if they would quietly leave their support at the border, it would be helpful.
Your Blog Especially Applies to IAs for Chain Migration IMO
I agree with you there. One of my best friends is Latina and has been a LEGAL CITIZEN since age 19….she TOTALLY AGREES WITH NO AMNESTY and she’s Democrat too….but wants a life in America for her and her kids. Even FAIR has a LARGE Latino group VOCAL AGAINST AMNESTY.
Don’t put all your Latino eggs in one basket….the general population polls for all Americans make it clear….we’re against amnesty. Latinos also don’t consider immigration that important in the polls too, FAIR has reported recently.