Almost every House Democrat voted on Thursday to reward Indian H-1B visa workers by offering the huge prize of citizenship to their adult children in exchange for their parents taking Fortune 500 jobs from American graduates.
If approved by the Senate, the giveaway legislation will make it easier for Fortune 500 companies — and their many subcontractors — to fill corporate jobs with more Indian visa workers instead of American professionals.
Many corporations use the H-1B visa program to dangle the prize of citizenship before cheap and compliant Indian graduates when recruiting for jobs that would otherwise go to skilled, underused , innovative, and outspoken American professionals. This replacement process spikes the stock bonuses of C-suite executives but undermines the companies’ ability to innovate amid growing foreign competition.
The existing visa worker system has brought at least 1.5 million foreign contract workers into coastal-based jobs at many Fortune 500 companies.
This huge inflow of foreign workers drains investment from GOP-majority Midwest and Southern towns and it demotes millions of the ambitious sons and daughters of American parents. The giveaway legislation benefits the visa workers and their foreign-born children but provides no compensation to Americans or their communities.
The chain migration giveaway also threatens the jobs of GOP members. Naturalized Indian immigrants are one of the most pro-Democratic voting blocs, partly because they feel little pressure to give up their ancient caste culture to better integrate into U.S. society.
All but three of the 218 Democrats voted for the chain migration giveaway.
This lockstep Democratic support for corporate outsourcing may be risky. A July 5-7 poll of 849 registered voters by Siena College showed that Democrats have the support of 57 percent of white college graduates . That group — and their children — are most impacted by the expanded giveaway of benefits to foreign contract workers. The clear opposition by the GOP leadership gives the GOP an opportunity to reduce that crucial Democratic advantage — if the GOP leaders are willing to anger their national corporate donors in the Fortune 500.
The giveaway bill is marketed as a humanitarian benefit to roughly 200,000 older children of visa workers from India. Each year, the federal government offers 140,000 green cards to visa workers and their families. But the huge surge of Indians into Americans’ jobs has created a massive backlog in the giveaway process. The backlog ensures that some of the Indian workers’ children age out of the legal process as they turn 21. This lifts the age limit, so allowing the adult children of visa workers to potentially benefit from their parents’ job offer. Jenks said:
It is ridiculous that people who come here on a [parents’] temporary [work] visa believe they have a right to stay permanently. They have decided, unilaterally, that it doesn’t matter what the law says, it doesn’t matter what rational expectations might be — they are entitled to remain in the United States indefinitely.
“Congress has a responsibility to American citizens,” said Jenks. “To ignore the needs of Americans and ignore the cost to Americans, and to instead grant special favors to the foreigners, is ludicrous,” she added.
These adult children are good for campaign P.R., especially because few reporters show any skepticism, or even recognize that the children’s taxpayer-funded education in the United States makes them valuable hires in their homeland. Much of the stealth campaign for the expansion included personalized arguments during face-to-face lobbying of legislators in their home districts, usually by the visa workers, Indian doctors, and their children
Advocates for the giveaway campaign also added the adult children of non-Indian E-2 visa holders. The E-2 visas allow some foreigners to stay in the United States while they are running a business.
The corporate giveaway was backed by some GOP leaders. The yes voters included Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), a former lobbyist who now runs the GOP’s 2022 campaign committee; Tom Cole, the pro-outsourcing top Republican member of the rules committee, and Rep. John Katko (R-NY), the top Republican on the homeland security committee.
The giveaway was also backed by anti-Trump Republicans, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), and Rep. Peter Meijer (R-MI).
Many of the GOP supporters have influential groups of Indian visa workers in or near their district. This group includes Herrea-Beutler and Rep. Marianette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), the leading GOP sponsor of the legislation with Deborah Ross (D-NC). “Today the House passed my amendment which will protect over 200,000 documented dreamers,” Miller-Meeks said in a tweet. “These dreamers grew up in the United States and call this place home. Sadly, due to a broken immigration system, many of them are forced to leave.”
The MyVisaJobs.com site sketches out the number of H-1B in each state — North Carolina, for example . Those numbers show perhaps one-quarter of the resident population of white-collar outsourcing workers, such as H-1Bs, L-1s, J-1s, H4EADs, TNs, B-1/B-2s, and OPTs. That white-collar inflow does not include the inflow of legal immigrants and the semi-legal inflow across the southern border.
Like many other Americans, Miller-Meeks’ Iowa constituents lose local white-collar jobs — and wage increases — because of the visa workers.
But they also lose possible jobs, wealth, and status because the federal migration economic policy sends myriad new workers, renters, and consumers to coastal investors in their coastal states. The population pipelines minimize pressure on coastal-based investors to hire people and serve consumers in distant Midwestern states.
Many other Midwest Republicans also voted for the bill that diverts wealth and investment from their districts. They included Jim Baird (R-IN), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI), Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (D-OH), Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH), Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH), Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO).
In contrast, the many coastal Democrats who voted for the giveaway strengthened the federal incentives that enrich home-state investors and landlords. Their support for the surge of wage-cutting and rent-boosting visa workers also hurts their districts’ American employees and renters.
Pro-migration Republicans backed the giveaway, even though the bill benefits visa workers, not immigrants. They included orchard owner Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Rep. Jaime Herrea-Beutler (R-WA), and Rep. David Valadao (RCA). Other supporters of the corporate giveaway include Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).
Many of the GOP yes voters are expected to be gone after the 2022 election. They included Cheney, Kinzinger, Upton, Katko, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and Rodney Davis (R-IL), In addition, Newhouse, Meijer, and Herrera Beutler face tough primary races.
The GOP’s rising number of pro-migration Latino representatives mostly voted for the corporate giveaway to the Indian white-collar workers that take jobs from American Latino graduates . They include Rep. Mayra Flores of Texas, Rep. Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Tony Gonzalez (R-TX), Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Mike Garcia (R-CA), and Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL),
Business-first Republicans also backed the giveaway. They included Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Rep. Patrick Fitzgerald (R-PA), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Rep. Young Kim (R-CA), and Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA).
Democrats padded the final result –277 yeas to 150 nays — by combining Miller-Meeks’ giveaway amendment into a difficult-to-resist “en bloc” mega-amendment of almost 140 different amendments. The bloc of amendments included roughly 21 amendments proposed by Republicans, including:
[Andy] Barr (R-KY) – Amendment No. 468 – Requires the Secretary of State to report on Chinese support to Russia with respect to its unprovoked invasion of and full-scale war against Ukraine
Cammack, Kat (R-FL) – Amendment No. 479 – Requires a report on the feasibility of establishing a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Preclearance Facility on Taiwan
[Dan] Crenshaw (R-TX) – Amendment No. 498 – Requires Sec. of State reporting on what is needed to provide access to free and uncensored media in the Chinese market
[Virginia] Foxx (R-NC) – Amendment No. 512 – Creates an Inspector General for the Office of Management and Budget to bring transparency and accountability to the agency
[Claudia] Tenney (R-NY) – Amendment No. 422 – Restricts the ability of covered entities (owned, directed, controlled, financed, or influenced directly or indirectly by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the CCP, or the Chinese military) from using federal funds from engaging, entering into, and awarding public works contracts
Barr, Tenney, and Foxx voted for the en bloc amendment, but Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) voted no.
The Democratic leaders buried their giveaway in an en bloc amendment to help protect their members from the voter opposition to the giveaway, said Jenks. “Any member of Congress who voted for this can say “Oh, no, I didn’t vote for it because of that [giveaway] amendment. I voted for it because of X, Y, or Z amendment,” she said.
“Some of the Republicans didn’t even know the amendment was in there, and they voted for it to get something completely different, and now they’re like, ‘Oh, crap, I voted for that,'” Jenks added.
Extraction Migration
Since at least 1990, the D.C. establishment has extracted tens of millions of legal and illegal migrants — and temporary visa workers — from poor countries to serve as workers, consumers, and renters for various U.S. investors and CEOs.
This federal economic policy of Extraction Migration has skewed the free market in the United States by inflating the labor supply for the benefit of employers.
The inflationary policy makes it difficult for ordinary Americans to get married , advance in their careers , raise families , or buy homes .
Extraction migration has also slowed innovation and shrunk Americans’ productivity , partly because it allows employers to boost stock prices by using cheap stoop labor instead of productivity-boosting technology .
Migration undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional wealth gaps between the Democrats’ big coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states. The flood of cheap labor tilts the economy towards low-productivity jobs and has shoved at least ten million American men out of the labor force.
An economy built on extraction migration also drains Americans’ political clout over elites, alienates young people, and radicalizes Americans’ democratic civic culture because it allows wealthy elites to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society.
The economic policy is backed by progressives who wish to transform the U.S. from a society governed by European-origin civic culture into a progressive-directed empire of competitive, resentful identity groups. “We’re trying to become the first multiracial, multi-ethnic superpower in the world,” Rep. Rohit Khanna (D-CA) told the New York Times in March 2022. “It will be an extraordinary achievement … we will ultimately triumph,” he boasted.
The progressives’ colonialism-like economic strategy kills many migrants. It exploits poor foreigners and splits foreign families as it extracts human-resource wealth from poor home countries to serve wealthy U.S. investors. This migration policy also minimizes shareholder pressure on U.S. companies to build up beneficial and complementary trade with people in poor countries.
Business-backed migration advocates hide this extraction migration economic policy behind a wide variety of noble-sounding explanations and theatrical border security programs. For example, progressives claim that the U.S. is a “Nation of Immigrants ,” that migration is good for migrants , and that the state must renew itself by replacing populations.
The polls show the public wants to welcome some immigration — but they also show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.
The opposition is growing , anti-establishment , multiracial , cross-sex , non-racist , class-based , bipartisan , rational , persistent , and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe to one another.
House Democrats — aided by some Republicans — are using the pending 2023 defense bill to subordinate the careers of U.S. professionals to the interests of investors and Fortune 500 executives.
The proposed amendment to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act would allow “any alien” with a claimed Ph.D. in science to apply for a green card from the Secretary of Homeland Security, a position Alejandro Mayorkas currently holds.
The amendment sets the bar for migrants so low that it provides green cards to an unlimited number of Indian, Chinese, and other foreigners who earn degrees in their home-country universities. Foreigners who get U.S. degrees from a lower-tier “historically Black college or [minority-serving] university” in the United States would also be allowed to get green cards.
The amendment would also expand an existing law that allows U.S. CEOs to hire foreign graduates with dangled promises of green cards. That law is now used by executives to reward roughly 70,000 foreign graduates for taking jobs from U.S. professionals.
The three-cornered amendment would allow government officials to flood the labor market and so suppress salaries for American professionals. It would even make it more difficult for the professionals’ children to get places in good universities .
“This is the kind of [skilled immigration plan], that when reported [by the media] as the supporters are framing it, sounds plausible enough,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies. But, he added:
There is literally no way that it would be limited. It just cannot happen. Over and over and over again, we’ve seen immigration proposals that sound plausible on their face end up being perverted … There’ll be a guy who has a PhD in economics and [officials will] say, “Well, this is a STEM field, so okay. “And then there’ll be a PhD in home economics, and they’ll say, “Well, okay, you too.” There’s no way they’ll limit it.
The Democrat party is increasingly reliant on votes from white-collar professionals, yet it keeps trying to outsource their jobs to migrants, said Kevin Lynn, founder of U.S. Tech Workers :
What they’re signaling is there is no place for professionals in the Democratic Party … They’re literally voting the professionals out of the party [coalition] and replacing them with [visa workers and] immigrants that can’t vote.
The outsourcing amendment is being pushed by Democrat Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Jim Langevin (D-RI), and by Republican Reps. John Curtis (R-UT) and Peter Meijer (R-MI).
Lofgren represents the investors in Silicon Valley who use visa workers to spike the stock value of their companies.
Meijer is an heir of the wealthy Meijer fortune. He is facing a stiff primary challenge this year after already voting for a 2021 plan to massively increase the inflow of cheap blue-collar migrants into jobs held by American residents of rural districts. That cheap-labor policy impoverishes rural districts because the migrants earn little and buy much less in local shops and communities.
The Democrat-run Committee on Rules will decide Tuesday afternoon whether or not to allow the amendment — and other migration-related amendments — to stay in the bill. If they keep the Lofgren measure, it will pressure all Democrats to publicly vote on the House floor against the core economic and civic interests of their professional-class voters.
The committee is chaired by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), and it includes several pro-migration Democrats, such as Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC), and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO).
Ross, for example, has drafted an amendment that would further reward Indian graduates who take outsourced jobs from her home-district American college-graduate voters. The reward would consist of guaranteed, no-cost green cards for their Indian-born children. That government-delivered reward is hugely valuable for Indians, so it serves as a hidden subsidy for the CEOs who cheap Indian graduates for jobs that can be done by American professionals in Ross’ own district. Her giveaway amendment is backed by Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA). and GOP Rep. Brian Patrick (R-PA).
Another amendment would offer green cards to any Russian with master’s degrees in science and technology. That amendment is being pushed by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), whose district includes part of Silicon Valley.
The GOP minority on the rules committee is led by pro-migration Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) but also includes Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) .
The Lofgren-Meijer amendment comes as West Coast investors are lobbying Congress to expand the inflow of foreign graduates for jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. professionals.
One of the leading investors is Eric Schmidt, the former chairman of Google. He is now an investor who wants to maximize his supply of cheap, controllable, skilled labor. In 2013, he helped form the secretive FWD.us lobby group which consists of wealthy West Coast investors , such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.
In 2015, Schmidt called for the government to import more consumers for Google’s advertisers.
In 2020, Schmidt demanded the importation of “Top Tier ” talent to help U.S. companies outpace China’s government-aided companies, many of which rely on Chinese-born, U.S.-trained workers. However, the visa-worker programs cited by Schmidt are mostly used by CEOs to displace American professionals with inexperienced, cheap, and controllable foreign graduates from very low-grade Indian universities.
In 2022, Schmidt pushed the claim that an uncapped inflow of foreign graduates is needed for national security jobs, such as cyber-security or for manufacturing computer chips. That plan was added to an anti-China technology bill by Democratic leaders in the House, but it has been rejected by GOP Senators — principally, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) — partly because the Schmidt plan would sideline many professionals in their Midwestern states.
This July, Schmidt is pushing two new claims via the London-based Financial Times.
The first claim is that the foreign scientists will help launch a new industry in the United States:
Eric Schmidt , former CEO of Google, became one of the wealthiest people in the US by specialising in software engineering. Yet, if he was starting out again today, Schmidt says he would not be targeting bits and bytes alone. The 67-year-old thinks the next big thing is the “bioeconomy”, not the internet.
…
One [problem] is the science has advanced more slowly than many hoped. Another is government regulation. There’s a more fundamental problem too: whereas a couple of teenage computer nerds can build an internet company out of a garage, creating a bioscience business requires lots of expertise, specialised talent, manufacturing-plant capacity and time. These are not things that the US venture capital industry that funded the tech revolution is widely used to handling.
However, there is no shortage of trained U.S. college graduates with Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) degrees. A 2021 study by the Census Bureau reported that most work in non-tech jobs:
The vast majority (62%) of college-educated workers who majored in a STEM [science, technology, engineering and math] field were employed in non-STEM fields such as non-STEM management, law, education, social work, accounting or counseling. In addition, 10% of STEM college graduates worked in STEM-related occupations such as health care.
The path to STEM jobs for [American] non-STEM majors was narrow. Only a few STEM-related majors (7%) and non-STEM majors (6%) ultimately ended up in STEM occupations.
“Between 1982 and 2011, American universities awarded 800,000 Ph.D. degrees in science and engineering,” Lynn told Breitbart News, adding:
But there were only 100,000 tenured job openings. This tells you there is a surplus of advanced STEM degree holders in the U.S. As a result, approximately one-in-five STEM Ph.D.s work in non-STEM, non-academic fields. The joblessness rate among STEM Ph.D.s is only going to increase if immigration provisions ensure that anyone with a STEM degree could come to the United States and get pushed to the front of the line
But many U.S. technology graduates are pushed out of jobs by CEOs’ preference for visa workers.
CEOs prefer visa workers because their low salaries maximize stock prices and bonuses. For example, a Brookings study said President Donald Trump’s temporary 2020 curbs on visa workers cut $100 billion from the Fortune 500’s stock value.
But those salary cuts caused by the employment of at least 1.5 million visa workers in the United States radiate into many other professional sectors. “Most college graduates have actually seen their real incomes stagnate or even decline” since 2000, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in April 2022.
Executives also prefer visa workers because the foreign graduates cannot emulate the ability of U.S. professionals to form their own innovative companies that spur competition in the tech sector. The visa workers cannot even quit — not even complain about work hours or abuse — because they need the CEOs to approve green-card applications. “It’s imperative for policy-makers to understand that foreign STEM PhD holders will not spur innovation,” said a June 9 letter by U.S. Tech Workers. “Instead, they’ll keep innovation within the range of the status quo.”
The executives also use the visa workers to subordinate demands by U.S. professionals that some company revenues be allocated to public priorities, such as basic research, information security, crisis reliability, and compliance with federal laws. Unsurprisingly, companies that subordinate U.S. professionals tend to have more public disasters — for example, Intel , Boeing , Theranos, and Ernst & Young .
Faced with these congressional rejections, Schmidt and his lobbyists are also dangling the promise of high-tech jobs to skeptical Midwestern Senators. He told the July 6 Financial Times :
“It’s the new industrial age applied to the rural parts of America,” he told me, noting that unlike current tech innovation “these jobs are not in Silicon Valley and they’re not in the north-east… they’re in… the Republican States. They’re in the states with an awful lot of farming.” He hopes that the fact that these rural, agricultural states tend to be red not blue gives his pitch bipartisan appeal, since it will get Republican politicians involved.
But top Democrats aligned with President Joe Biden’s East Coast network openly oppose the displacement of U.S. graduates. For example, Commerce Secretary Gine Raimondo again spoke out fended off the pro-migration push in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd., “With respect to immigration, you know, that’s an issue for Congress to take up,” she said on July 10.
Schmidt and his fellow investors prefer to import foreign workers than to hire foreign graduates in their home countries, regardless of the damage to U.S. professionals. In general, U.S. operations are less threatened by technology theft, local rivals, security failures, and government regulations.
Thes white-collar migration amendments are more nails “in the coffin of the professionals in the United States,” said Lynn.
Legislators and corporate lobbyists are “stripping out that bottom rung [in the career ladder] and preventing Americans from having careers in STEM,” he said.
“They know this is going on, but the financial opportunities are just too great to not take advantage,” Lynn said, adding, “they’re not rewarded by market share and productivity — they’re rewarded by earnings per share.”
Extraction Migration
Since at least 1990, the D.C. establishment has extracted tens of millions of migrants and visa workers from poor countries to serve as legal or illegal workers, temporary workers, consumers, and renters for various U.S. investors and CEOs .
This federal economic policy of Extraction Migration has skewed the free market in the United States by inflating the labor supply for the benefit of employers.
The inflationary policy hurts ordinary Americans because makes it difficult for them to get married , advance in their careers , raise families , or buy homes .
Extraction migration has also slowed innovation and shrunk Americans’ productivity , partly because it allows employers to boost stock prices by using cheap stoop labor instead of productivity-boosting technology . Migration undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional wealth gaps between the Democrats’ big coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states. The flood of cheap labor tilts the economy towards low-productivity jobs and has shoved at least ten million American men out of the labor force.
VIDEO
Immigration is a political winner for the GOP because more Republicans care about it more strongly than do Democrats, says an academic who has made a career studying manipulated polls.
“Democratic voters who support immigration simply do not see the issue as important as do the predominantly Republican voters who oppose it … [so GOP] opponents remain more politically influential than supporters,” said a July 14 op-ed in the Washington Post .
people who agree to participate in surveys tend to be more liberal and more ideologically extreme than the general population. People’s refusal to participate in public opinion surveys has only increased over the past decades. As a result, recent polls may be overestimating increases in pro-immigration views.
However, Kustov’s cautious op-ed sidelined questions about why voters rationally oppose migration.
In fact, he even suggests that the record death toll of migrants at the border should encourage Americans to admit more migrants.
More likely, the rising toll of deaths , drugs, rapes , and economic damage is expected to sharpen public opposition to the federal government’s lethal economic policy of sneaking and smuggling more migrants through the nation’s deserts, immigration laws, mountains, and highways. In recent press conferences, GOP leaders have tried to shame Democrats — and their voters — for helping to create such mayhem.
The civic pressure may influence some of the Democrats who adopted pro-migration views to claim moral superiority over Americans who oppose migration, or merely to comply with social pressure they feel from their Democratic peers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a rally for immigration provisions to be included in the Build Back Better Act outside the U.S. Capitol December 7, 2021 in Washington, DC. Progressive Democrats are urging the Senate to include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in the Build Back Better Act. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty)
But Kustov also ignores the role of political donors .
Many national and local business donors are happy to pay legislators to boost the open and covert supply of legal and illegal migrant workers, consumers, and renters to businesses around the nation.
Both GOP-aligned and Democratic-aligned business donors keep pushing proposals to expand migration, so deterring GOP leaders from using their vote to actually reduce the damaging migration.
Donor pressure does push political nominees to adopt positions that are unpopular among their voters, say a 2020 study , “Donors Primary Elections, and Polarization in the United States.”
“Republican nominees’ ideologies appear to correspond only with those of their donors, not with either their primary constituency or their district at large,” the study’s author wrote in a July 12 op-ed for the Washington Post, adding:
Republican donors appear unwilling to back more moderate candidates who might be more viable in the general election. No matter how Republican or how competitive a district is, Republican nominees’ ideologies are strongly related to those of Republican donors.
Democrats seem to be aware that their donors are pushing them to adopt unpopular positions on migration.
For example, Democratic leaders and influential members quietly backed business-backed amendments that would allow Fortune 500 executives to replace many Democratic-voting graduates with cheaper foreign workers.
But those graduates are increasingly vital for Democratic turnout on election day.
The result, so far, is that Democrats have found ways to quietly support the donors’ agenda — but also ensure the agenda quietly dies in complex congressional negotiations , usually without any political fingerprints.
Similarly, many GOP legislators loudly promise to block illegal migration but stay quiet as agency officials smuggle in more migrant workers, consumers, and renters. That two-sided policy was dominant in the GOP before 2016, so allowing Donald Trump to win the nomination with a promise of a border wall and strict enforcement.
Extraction Migration
Since at least 1990, the D.C. establishment has extracted tens of millions of legal and illegal migrants — and temporary visa workers — from poor countries to serve as workers, consumers, and renters for various U.S. investors and CEOs.
This federal economic policy of Extraction Migration has skewed the free market in the United States by inflating the labor supply for the benefit of employers.
The polls show the public wants to welcome some immigration — but they also show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and to the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.
The opposition is growing , anti-establishment , multiracial , cross-sex , non-racist , class-based , bipartisan , rational , persistent , and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe to one another.
Alexander Kustov, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, continued:
Even though more Americans are telling pollsters [such as Gallup] that they support immigration, lawmakers hesitate to tackle immigration policy in ways that would make it easier to enter the United States. My research suggests that they’re right to be cautious. Americans who oppose immigration are far more engaged and active on the issue than are immigration supporters.
In fact, given the increased national attention to immigration over the past decades, the number of people who actively oppose immigration has actually increased.
Kustov’s peer-reviewed study says :
during the time of high contextual salience of immigration in 2016, the numbers were approximately 2% [pro-migration] vs 12% [anti-migration] of all respondents indicating a very large public opinion skew in favor of the anti-immigration cause … [Also,] compared to pro-immigration voters, anti-immigration voters care more about immigration in particular–not politics in general.
This shift against immigration is likely also obscured by poor polls, Kostuv wrote in the Washington Post :
https://globalistbarackobama.blogspot.com/2022/07/sociopath-gamer-lawyer-barack-obama-i.html
“Then we suffered the rattling election of Barack Obama, whose active membership in a white-, Jewish-, and America-hating church was well known to the electorate. His close personal relationship with the likes of his adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan was no secret. Obama was open about his goals. He told us he was out to "fundamentally transform America" and the world.” ALAN BERGSTEIN
“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder (CONSIDERED BY JUDICIAL WATCH AS ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT A.G.s IN AMERICAN HISTORY) has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
What no one will say, but I will, is that the ObamaGate /MuellerGate /SpyGate scandal is an ongoing plot to restore Barack Obama to the Presidency. Before heads explode let me explain.
"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by President Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal." RICK HAYES
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for
incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that
administration (JOE BIDEN WAS OFF SUCKING OFF
BANKSTERS AND BRIBES)." PATRICIA McCARTHY
But soon enough, the reality of Barack Obama’s un popularity, the reality of the criminal abuse by his administration in trying to frame and otherwise take down President Trump, and the reality of a booming economy helping all Americans, would take the air out of her balloon. “Bring Back Barack” is not a winning campaign theme. And if a tweet or two happened to get under her skin, the result could be ugly.
The main objective of “political animals” like Obama and the Clintons is to get elected; it’s not to fix a broken America, nor to protect her. There are people who govern and there are people who campaign; Obama and the Clintons are the latter. Just look at the huge Republican electoral gains under Obama and the Clintons. It’s amazing that Democrats who still care about their party still support the very people who have brought it down.
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years. MATTHEW VADUM
No comments:
Post a Comment