Pages

Friday, June 6, 2014

The Bifactional Ruling Party Hates Native Americans

I understand why the Democrat party wants open borders. For them, the calculus is simple and straightforward: more migrants means more clients of government programs on whose behalf the Party may rent-seek; fewer per capita native Americans, especially those of European, particularly Anglo, extraction with quaint notions of liberty and limits on government to impede their agenda; a larger proportional share of residents who come to American shores with more friendly attitudes (i.e., more South American, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Continental European) toward big government; and, for some constituencies within the Democrat party, it further advances their objectives of ethno-nationalism. It's a machine politics quad-fecta. In short, open borders, mass migration, and / or amnesty equates to more Dem recruits.

The calculus for the Republican party, however, is far less self-reinforcing. In fact, it is at cross-purposes: One wing of the party is staunchly anti-amnesty; it recognizes the obviously detrimental economics of uncontrolled migration and amnesty and the hazard such policies pose to their eroding English inheritance of classically liberal politics, liberty, and small government. The other wing of the party is chiefed by Big Business and Big Ag interests attracted by the Republican party's relatively more laissez-faire attitude toward regulation and generalized opposition to taxes. Yet this wing also promotes large scale, if not unrestricted, migration to American shores to the demonstrably observable detriment to the detriment of the other wing of the party:
Tom Donohue, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president, just hurled a challenge to Republicans. If they don't pass amnesty for illegal aliens, they "shouldn't bother to run a candidate in 2016." Somebody probably told him that outrageous statement was a gaffe, which means the inconvenient revelation of an embarrassing viewpoint, so Donohue tried to pass off his threat as a joke. But it isn't funny; Donohue's big-business members want us to import more low-paid workers and they want them now, suggesting that this fall's lame-duck session of Congress would be a good time to implement this racket. And it is a racket. It's a carefully planned, well-financed scheme to use false arguments to import foreign workers who will keep wages depressed for American college graduates.

They argue that at least we must accept guest workers on H-1B visas because U.S. STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) graduates are in short supply.

We are even told we should welcome them because the foreign STEM graduates are the best and the brightest. That's false and also insulting. In the age of political correctness, American STEM graduates should be invited to cry discrimination and demand apologies. The United States already has more than twice as many workers with STEM degrees as there are STEM jobs. The Economic Policy Institute, the RAND Corporation, the Urban Institute and the National Research Council have all found no evidence that STEM workers are in short supply. There are more than 5,000,000 native-born Americans with STEM degrees working in non-STEM occupations, and an additional 1.2 million STEM graduates who are unemployed. There is absolutely no STEM worker shortage.

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has spent millions on expensive campaigns to get more H-1B visas. Bill Gates is another big advocate of bringing in more guest workers. Big businesses favor H-1B visa workers because they are cheaper; corporations can pay them less than American engineers. In addition, they are similar to indentured workers because their employers hold their work permits and can prevent the H-1B workers from quitting to take a better job from another employer. Big corporations not only pay H-1B workers less when they are hired, but use them to replace Americans over age 35 who expect promotions. H-1Bs have destroyed the opportunity of American STEM workers to move up and provide for their families.
There is no such thing as a shortage of STEM workers, farm workers, pilots, truckers, or whatever. There are no jobs Americans won't stoop to do; rather, there is a shortage of labor at the wages employers are offering to pay. Furthermore, no less a civil rights icon and left-wing hero than Cesar Chavez railed against illegal immigration, if for no other reason than it undermined the economic position of the migrant farm workers he sought to unionize. Although he later allowed his tribal Aztlanista tendencies to overshadow his more economically sound initial position, the fact that even a fellow such as he recognized the fact that migration of any sort broadens the labor pool and consequently puts downward pressure on wages testifies to the cold equations of open-bordersism and amnesty. Furthermore, amnesty and the push for H-1B visas attack both the low-skilled labor pool, but also mid- and high-skilled native Americans as well.

It should be clear by now that the Chamber of Commerce and Big Business and Big Ag executives are no friends to the native American worker, be he/she of the working middle class, working lower class, or lumpenproletariat. Unfortunately, on the national scale, the Chamber and Big Business tend to swing more weight in the GOP as a whole than the libertarian or "tea party" wing; this, coupled with the numerous pro-migration, pro-amnesty, pro-open borders political forces within the Democrat party, means that the centers of gravity in neither party is a friend to the American worker (even unions are abandoning native American labor in favor of migrant laborers) but works instead to undermine the native American worker's economic, social, and political position.

4 comments:

ray said...

Right EW both factions have betrayed the male American worker,and annihilated the middle class and father-led family.


When I was a kid, in the late Mesozoic, the Democrats were the party of middle and lower class working men/fathers. But they sold out to feminism, identity politics, greed, materialism.


The repubs/right were corrupted largely by mammon... 'chamber of commerce' values, as you put it. Both parties betrayed God, the nation, and particularly manhood. For the U.S. Right ever to be taken seriously again, it'd have to re-discover a whole buncha integrity and honor. I dunno maybe the Tooth Fairy can bring them some.

Aztlanista. Heh. cheers

Elusive Wapiti said...

I understand why Dem voters vote ton continue their bondage under Democrat patronage. It does, after all, fatten their wallet while also enhancing their ethno-nationalist power.

The part I don't get is how any single so-called conservative that is not a member of the 1% can in good conscience support any candidate that the Chamber supports. Amnesty is a political suicide pact for the Republican party overall and and economic and political one for conservative voters who give a fig for liberty and Western Civ.

You'd think the establishment GOP would learn from the drubbing that Romney received in 2012. He didn't have a "woman problem", or a "hispanic problem", or a "black problem"...none of those blocs would have supported him anyway. Not even if he unsexed himself, started campaigning in Spanish, and became blood brother to Al Sharpton. There was no way a rich white male was going to be competitive in any of those identity politic blocs.

What he did have was a white male problem...his policies were too slanted toward the elites, and failed to resonate with white working class males who are effectively homeless in American politics. And his lack of advocacy for issues that concern white men depressed WM turnout.

"For the U.S. Right ever to be taken seriously again, it'd have to re-discover a whole buncha integrity and honor."

The US right is going to have to sac up and stop throwing its support behind Wall Street candidates. They are not the Right's friend, and were the Right to reject them, they'll just as casually set up shop under the Dem tent, as many have done already.

MarkyMark said...

EW,

I didn't vote in 2012 because, from where I sat, there was little meaningful DIFFERENCE between Romney & Obama! Hell, Obama's people met with Romney's people when crafting Obamacare, and why not? Because Romney care was the template for Obamacare. As far as I was concerned, Romney was Obama with light skin. WTF should I vote if I'm not voting FOR someone or something?

MarkyMark

Elusive Wapiti said...

MM,

Some of the people in my social circle thought I was crazy for not seeing much difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, or Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama. Sure, there were stark differences on social wedge issues, but at the end of the day, both men get us to the same place, only at different speeds.

If the Repubs don't field someone significantly distinguishable from Mme. Climton in 2014, I'm afraid there's no point in going to the polls. And amnesty for criminal aliens (i.e., those here illegally) is one of my litmus tests.