Why the H-1B Visa Racket Should Be Abolished, Not Reformed

[PierzStyx]

Closed borders is Socialism. The only libertarian position on national borders is that they must be open.

Bernie Sanders, the avowed Socialist Progressive agrees with closed borders. He has repeatedly said that America needs to "secure the borders" and that the government needs to "protect American jobs." In fact, other than opposing mass deportations -something even Ron Paul opposes and is again another unlibertarian program- Sanders sounds more or less like Donald Trump.

Sanders’ opposition to the 2007 immigration reform bill and his rhetoric about the effect of immigrant labor on American workers have dismayed immigration activists and liberal allies in the past. He has expressed concern repeatedly over the years that guest workers in the United States depress wages and squeeze Americans out of their jobs.

Sanders opposed comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 on the grounds that it would expand the number of guest workers in the United States. It included a measure that would allow 200,000 guest workers to stay in the country for two years on temporary visas. The bill was widely supported by immigrant rights groups and would have put the undocumented on a path to citizenship.

“If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive waged down even lower than they are now,” Sanders said in a television interview in June 2007.

Joining Sanders in opposing the 2007 bill was the AFL-CIO, the largest coalition of labor unions in the country—as well as staunchly conservative members of Congress like King and advocates like Beck.

..."It does not make a lot of sense to me to bring hundreds of thousands of those workers into this country to work for minimum wage and compete with Americans kids," Sanders said in 2013.

http://time.com/4170591/bernie-sanders-immigration-conservatives/

Why, that sounds like he even shares Trump's opinion on H-1B visas.

So, you see, Bernie Sanders OPPOSES opening the borders and believes in economic protectionism through big government border regulation. Why? Because he is a Socialist and those programs are Socialist too.

So, in short, those on these forums who want closed borders agree with Bernie Sanders and are supporting a Socialist position. The opposition position, the free market position, the one that allows all forms of capital to be freely exchanged between nations, is open borders.

And no one is talking about utopia. But liberty is certainly better than centralized tyranny, the free market is better than socialist regulation and intrusive big government programs. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

 

[helmuth_hubener]

So, in short, those on these forums who want closed borders agree with Bernie Sanders and are supporting a Socialist position.

I'll bet Bernie Sanders eats sandwiches, too! With meat! Anyone here who's not a vegan is a huge, total Socialist!

 

[Danke]

I'll bet Bernie Sanders eats sandwiches, too! With meat! Anyone here who's not a vegan is a huge, total Socialist!

I bet socialists believe in self defense too!

 

[Superfluous Man]

100% agree with ending H1B and all other Visas.

Just let people come and go without any paperwork.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I'll bet Bernie Sanders eats sandwiches, too! With meat! Anyone here who's not a vegan is a huge, total Socialist!

But eating sandwiches with meat isn't part of socialism. Limiting immigration is.

 

[PierzStyx]

I'll bet Bernie Sanders eats sandwiches, too! With meat! Anyone here who's not a vegan is a huge, total Socialist!

You're correct. I mislabeled things. Socialists are internationalists. It is the National Socialist variety that favors big government economic protectionist programs to limit the free market exchange of capital, both goods and people.

If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and shits like a duck, then its a duck.

So, keep quacking.

 

[Occam's Banana]

But eating sandwiches with meat isn't part of socialism. Limiting immigration is.

Even if support for limiting immigration is a part of socialism, it is not valid to identify someone as a socialist because he supports limiting immigration.

To do so is an example of the formal logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Even if support for limiting immigration is a part of socialism, it is not valid to identify someone as a socialist because he supports limiting immigration.

To do so is an example of the formal logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent."

But that's too complex. It must be black and white. Up or down. Yes or no. On or off. If you support immigration, you are an international socialist. If you don't support immigration, you are a national socialist.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

From the article:

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belongs to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit—at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

This is a restating of the old saying that "if the welfare state disappears, then immigration can be open". There was a time when that was not controversial in "libertarian" circles.

To avoid the heated topic of "muh roads", let's look at a government-less analogy to illustrate the point trying to be made.

Image a religious organization, which usually implies a certain amount of voluntary socialism. How much an individual contributes will vary (as an aside, it's an eye-opening experience to see who "donates" and how much).

So this group of people, say your grandparent's generation, form together in this religious congregation. They need a place to gather, so through donations and sweat equity, they buy some property, and build their building. They slowly grow, and decide they will build a bigger and more dramatic building. They push for members to contribute even more for a larger structure. Through your parent's generation, the building is paid off, and it has the perfect capacity for this socialist organization, which has grown at an organic rate.

All of a sudden, a lot of new people join. What "right"' do they have to this existing organization's property and capacity? What if they demand that the land and building be sold, so that they can have a down payment on an even bigger building that also contains a full-blown K-12 school? Once again, the existing members are pushed for even more donations (taxes) and will bear the majority of the new burdon, as the massive amount of new-comers have no money. But as new members, they instantly have a say in the management and use of existing property and equity.

Thus the dilemma. A rush of new members now exceeds the existing capacity, and they have new desires for this socialist organization. The old members must increase their payments, and at the same time, their say is reduced, and things are being forced down their throats. And this is a voluntary organization. How much worse is this in a non-voluntary situation?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

But that's too complex. It must be black and white. Up or down. Yes or no. On or off. If you support immigration, you are an international socialist. If you don't support immigration, you are a national socialist.

The knack for simplification is also why the leftist mind is able to sustain so much more zeal and fervor. Am I fighting blackest evil, yes or no? Then should I be willing to go bomb this campus building for my cause, yes or no? It's a great strength. Right-side philosophies like conservatism and libertarianism are much more nuanced and complex, not so black and white, and so it's hard to get people to mobilize for it and to whip up fervor.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Sorry but the stupidity of this article hurts my neurons. This part in particular.

So while public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes; belongs to taxpayers; is to be managed for their benefit—at least one million additional immigrants a year, including recipients of the H-1B visa, are allowed the free use of taxpayer-supported infrastructure and amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools, and welfare.

Ummm....H1B visa holders pay taxes. Many of them pay more taxes than the average native born American. And most of them send their kids to private schools because, frankly, American public schools suck. I can see complaining about immigrants using welfare or the public school system. But complaining about immigrants using "muh roads?" Seriously?

Okay. Substitute "tourist" for "H1B visa holders." It would be wrong to give tourists food stamps. But should you keep tourists off the roads? If they are driving, they buy gas and pay gas taxes. If they are paying someone else to drive, like an Uber driver, the person they hired is buying gas and paying gas taxes. Maybe you can make the argument that tourists are using "welfare" when they use public transportation so....ban tourism?

Really, anti immigrant conservatives are as bad as statist liberals. Once in a family law class the teacher brought up "octomom" (the lady that had 8 kids at once.) Most of the class was like "Oh....that's so terrible! That should be banned!" Mind you everyone was all for any type of "alternative" family. Two guys or two gals? Perfect. Family having 8 kids? Terrible! Their reasoning "They are using up our precious resources." I was like "But what if they aren't on welfare?" One particularly angry witch droned "I used to work in a public school and I saw how all these kids come in and they use this and that." so I said "And if the kids are home schooled?" She was like "They use our electricity!" So I countered "And if they are off grid?" Then she shut up.

I'm seeing the same thing with the anti immigrant crowd. Sure, I don't want people coming here and getting on welfare. But getting on our roads? Are you freaking kidding me?

Oh, AND THE ARTICLE FLAT OUT LIED BY STATING THAT H1B VISA PARTICIPANTS GET WELFARE!

Stupid article. Worst I have ever read on the subject.

Well, the article could be better written, and welfare was inappropriately added to a laundry list. But she did clarify in the next paragraph:

Moreover, chain migration or family unification means every H-1B visa recruit is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—will pay his way.

So her point is that an H1-B visa holder, although holding a job, on the day that they arrive they will have paid no taxes at all, but will be able to take advantage of an existing socialist society, including it's infrastructure. Additionally, chain immigration will result in people without jobs. It's worth noting that the H1-B system is a gateway to achieving citizenship, at which point, a former H1-B visa holder will be eligible to receive public assistance, and a certain percentage probably will, especially if they are replaced after ten years by a younger, fresher, less expensive H1-B holder.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Paul Ryan Expands H-2B Blue-Collar Outsourcing Program for 2017
by Neil Munro - 1 May 2017

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s new 2017 budget allows the Department of Homeland Security to import at least 20,000 extra foreign blue-collar workers for seasonal jobs in the United States, instead of requiring companies to recruit, train, and pay marginalized Americans.

The bipartisan congressional language creates a headache for Trump and his deputies because it flips the politically difficult problem from Congress to the Department of Homeland Security of deciding whether to provide extra wage-cutting H-2B contract workers to companies or else to improve job opportunities for Trump’s blue-collar voters.

The new rule is opposed by pro-American groups, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform. According to FAIR’s Robert Law:

Increasing the number of low skilled foreign workers through a massive government funding bill is Washington at its worst. This is a clear betrayal of blue collar Americans who were hit the hardest by the Obama economy. Even after Trump’s victory, Congress is more interested in rewarding the business lobby’s thirst for cheap workers than getting their unemployed constituents back in the work force.​

The new rule helps business groups offset rising pressure for wage increases, just 18 months before the mid-term elections when voters will vet the success or not of Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” policies.

The H-2B language was hidden deep in the draft 2017 supplemental budget — which is to face House and Senate votes this week — and it surprised opponents of the legislation. In December 2016, Ryan had agreed to trim the program when the partial 2017 budget deal was announced just one month after blue-collar voters backed Donald Trump’s campaign promise of a low-immigration, high-wage national economic policy.
...
The program means companies don’t have to pay a premium to hire Americans for seasonal overtime work that leaves them unemployed in winter, and it also reduces pressure on the companies to recruit and train youths and marginalized Americans, including millions of Americans who have fallen out of the workforce. The imported workers are also paid at rates that are lower than needed to attract Americans to those jobs — which also means that the companies can pay lower wages to their full-time American workers.
...
The new 2017 rule may allow far more visas to be given out because the RWE program was also used under George W. Bush to import 130,000 foreign workers in 2007. If that 2007 number sets the 2017 limit, then, then the DHS will be able to triple the program to almost 200,000 foreign workers.
...
The H-2B program is backed by many politicians, notably Sen. Thom Tillis, a GOP Senator from North Carolina, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch.
...
The annual inflow of 1 million contract workers is in addition to the annual inflow of 1 million legal immigrants. Every year, these two million new arrivals compete with the 4 million young Americans who enter the workforce each year, forcing down wages, driving up unemployment and transferring roughly $500 billion from employees to employers and investors. Several million working-age men have been pushed out the workforce by declining wages, say economists.
...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ds-h-2b-blue-collar-outsourcing-program-2017/

Whether or not one supports these programs, the outrage here is that it was hidden in a supplementary budget bill. Nothing like a huge omnibus to bury special interest cronyism.

The additional irony is that at the same time as they do things like this, there are lamentations about unemployment and minimum wage. Politically, they are playing both ends. People march in the streets for increased wages and more immigration, as if the law of supply and demand can somehow be eliminated via "living wage" legislation.

 

[specsaregood]

We used to consume Basmati rice; but I decided to MAGA and now we only purchase and consume Texmati rice. Just doing my part, every little bit helps.

 

[oyarde]

We used to consume Basmati rice; but I decided to MAGA and now we only purchase and consume Texmati rice. Just doing my part, every little bit helps.

I only eat rice at chinese places . I dunno where they get it .

 

[oyarde]

I just figured all this rice came from Louisiana or something ?

 

[oyarde]

I like eating ducks I have shot in rice fields but I eat muh duck without rice .

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The knack for simplification is also why the leftist mind is able to sustain so much more zeal and fervor. Am I fighting blackest evil, yes or no? Then should I be willing to go bomb this campus building for my cause, yes or no? It's a great strength. Right-side philosophies like conservatism and libertarianism are much more nuanced and complex, not so black and white, and so it's hard to get people to mobilize for it and to whip up fervor.

If you keep it simple, then you don't even have to connect any two of these black and white issues. Higher wages via legislation is good, anybody opposed is evil. More immigration is good, anyone opposed is evil. The direct supply and demand connection between the two issues be damned.

And don't bring up the Federal Reserve or monetary inflation. The Fed needs to be independent!

 

[timosman]

If you keep it simple, then you don't even have to connect any two of these black and white issues. Higher wages via legislation is good, anybody opposed is evil. More immigration is good, anyone opposed is evil. The direct supply and demand connection between the two issues be damned.

And don't bring up the Federal Reserve or monetary inflation. The Fed needs to be independent!

Independence is something you can not afford.

 

[TheCount]

The knack for simplification is also why the leftist mind is able to sustain so much more zeal and fervor.

This from the guy who abandoned one thread on tax cuts to create a new thread on tax cuts because the original was too complicated and he wanted to simplify.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This from the guy who abandoned one thread on tax cuts to create a new thread on tax cuts because the original was too complicated and he wanted to simplify.

Madison 320 already had a thread. YOU are the one who created a new thread.

YOU are the guy who attempts to derail threads, but then gets butt hurt when his derailing thread doesn't go the way he likes. Same guy who complains about me, but now complains about somebody for simply disagreeing with him and viewing an issue a different way.