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-ne...o-smoke-weed-we-still-gonna-get-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/files/Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity_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-paul-i-believe-in-national-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.