Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbyist says President Donald Trump’s 2016 voters will stick with him “100 percent” in 2020 if he signs amnesty legislation backed by the Koch business group.
“Polling and common sense dictates this to be true,” said a tweet from Todd Schulte, director of the FWD.US lobbying group, which is trying to preserve the federal policy of importing more than 1 million new consumers and workers each year. He continued:
People think the President is gonna see a bunch of people vote for a Dem or Howard Schultz if he signs a border and daca deal? This is not a real thing, just a scare tactic.
Schulte did not refer to the more likely result of a Trump-signed, Koch-backed amnesty bill: A sharp drop in enthusiasm and turnout for Trump in 2020.
That turnout slump likely would be seen among the blue-collar Americans hit by illegal migration and among the white-collar Americans who are slammed by U.S. companies’ employment of roughly 1.5 million college-educated, temporary visa workers.
Schulte’s FWD was created by Zuckerberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and a variety of investors to promote amnesty and cheap labor. The group backed the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty which would have allowed an unlimited inflow of foreign graduates and has waged an expensive campaign against Trump’s 2016 campaign and his Inauguration Day “Hire American” promise.
Schulte’s tweet was also intended to defend former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who claimed on Fox News that Trump’s base would support a bill which combined a “DACA” amnesty with some wall-construction money.
Gingrich’s statement was slammed by author Ann Coulter and also by Mickey Kaus, who is a left-of-center, pro-American immigration reformer. Kaus Tweeted:
Newt wasn’t saying ignore Coulter, Trump’s base’ll be fine with no wall. He was saying ignore Coulter, Trump’s base’ll be fine with Koch/Kushner deal to LEGALIZE DREAMERS. Not so sure about that! (‘You voted Trump, you got amnesty!’)
In his Fox News interview on January 28, Gingrich backed an amnesty for illegals who crossed the border as children — dubbed “dreamers” by lobbyists and a friendly media. He endorsed an amnesty even though their numbers may exceed 3 million, even though an amnesty would eventually provide their illegal-immigrant parents with legal residency, and even though few would ever vote for GOP candidates.
Gingrich said:
I very much want to see [White House officials] take care of the dreamers as a part of this package, and I know, talking to [GOP Sen.] Lindsey Graham and others, there’s real interest in the Senate on a bipartisan basis to get a deal that takes care of the dreamers, takes care of the southern border, meets the President’s needs and gets signed … Is he going to veto a bill that includes [an amnesty]? I don’t think so.
…
He should not pay any attention to Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter has never run for office, she does not know anything about how you put a [congressional] majority together. She’s off here in some fantasy land where she gets to be noisy which helps her sell books.
The fact is, the President’s base is with the President … If he goes to them and says “I’ve got this done for the wall, I’ve got this done to protect America, I’m doing these good things you believe in,” the base is going to say “Fine.” Eighty percent of the country believes he ought to find legal ways for people who came here as children to become legal in a way that is not necessarily a path to citizenship, but certainly a path to a job. Sometimes, you have got to say to your base “Hey, if you are really my base you’ve got to stick with me.”
However, the public is sharply opposed to a wall-for-amnesty deal. Breitbart News reported January 28:
The latest Monmouth University Poll reveals that about 88 percent of voters said they oppose efforts to tie an amnesty for illegal aliens to border wall funding. Instead, voters said the issues should be dealt with separately.
More than 80 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of swing-voters, and even 95 percent of Democrats said they oppose an amnesty-for-border wall deal.
Non-college educated white voters, the base of President Trump’s support, massively oppose the amnesty-for-wall deal by about 88 percent. All voters without a college degree oppose the plan by about 89 percent, as well as 92 percent of minority voters.
Coulter — who has slammed Trump for failing to win much wall funding – quickly made fun of Gingrich’s claims by portraying him as a Trump sycophant:
The same day, Schulte jumped in to defend Gingrich from Kaus and Coulter:
“People think the President is gonna see a bunch of people vote for a Dem or Howard Schultz if he signs a border and daca deal? This is not a real thing, just a scare tactic,” said Schulte.
Schulte is a Democrat who uses his Twitter account to boost Democratic candidates, dismiss GOP candidates and jeer at immigration reformers such as Coulter.
In late January, Schulte stepped up his efforts to marginalize Coulter, Kaus and other advocates of Trump’s “Hire American” policy which has successfully pushed up wages for Americans. He tweeted:
Schulte’s FWD.us backs the establishment’s economic policy of using legal and illegal migration to boost economic growth.
But that policy also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors by flooding the market with cheap white collar and blue collar foreign labor.
That annual flood of roughly one million legal immigrants — as well as visa workers and illegal immigrants — spikes profits and Wall Street values by shrinking salaries for 150 million blue-collar and white-collar employees, and especially wages for the four million young Americans who join the labor force each year.
The cheap labor policy widens wealth gaps, reduces high tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
Immigration also steers investment and wealth away from towns in Heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations who prefer to live in coastal cities. In turn, that coastal investment flow drives up coastal real estate prices and pushes poor U.S. Americans, including Latinos and blacks, out of prosperous cities such as Berkeley and Oakland.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.