Democrats and the business-first wing of the GOP are using friendly media to throw spears at the White House’s pending immigration-reform strategy, which calls for deep reductions in cheap-labor, wage-cutting immigration.
Trump’s popular proposals reportedly embrace the popular RAISE Act drafted by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and Georgia Sen. David Perdue, which raises wages by reducing the imported labor-supply. The plan may be announced by early next week, and likely offers Democrats a partial amnesty for some DACA illegals in exchange for a set of popular, pro-American reforms.
But any pro-American reform of the nation’s immigration will be strongly resisted by the Democratic party, which hopes chain-migration will provide them with a California-like domination of national politics.
Business groups also oppose immigration reform because it would force up wages and deprive them of some imported consumers.
According to Politico:
The White House proposal is being crafted by Stephen Miller, the administration’s top immigration adviser, and includes cutting legal immigration by half over the next decade, an idea that’s already been panned by lawmakers in both parties.
The principles would likely be a political non-starter for Democrats and infuriate Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who have negotiated with President Donald Trump on immigration and left a White House meeting last month indicating a solution was near. They could also divide Republicans, many of whom oppose cutting legal immigration …
“Handing Stephen Miller the pen on any DACA deal after the revolt from their base is the quickest way to blow it up,” said a senior Democratic Senate aide.
Many polls show that Americans want to welcome immigrants — but they also put a much higher priority protecting Americans from corporate exploitation of wage-cutting, cheap-labor immigration.
That generous, two-sided perspective was first highlighted by pollster Kellyanne Conway, who later used it to help Trump breach the Democratic Party’s famed but weak “Blue Wall” in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
That perspective was also pushed by Trump’s first Senate backer, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose top aide is now Trump’s immigration expert, Steve Miller.
Pro-immigration business groups, Democratic advocacy groups, and the established media, repeatedly highlight Americans’ pro-migration views — but they resolutely ignore Americans’ simultaneous and overwhelming support for immigration laws which help Americans.
In 2016, for example, Vox.Com distorted the results of its poll about Midwestern attitudes towards immigration, which showed massive bipartisan concern that cheap-labor immigration was hurting Americans and their communities. As Breitbart News reported in July 2016:
Donald Trump may be hoping to win the 2016 election by sweeping the Midwest states — and that’s the region which is most worried about losing jobs and wages to cheap-labor immigration, according to a new survey.
Midwest respondents are far more likely to agree with a statement saying that “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care” than were respondents in the South, West or Northeast, according to the July survey by Morning Consult and Vox.com.
In fact, lower-income and middle-income women in the Midwest showed the most concern about the inflow of cheap-labor immigration into their communities, contradicting progressives’ expectations about immigration and “angry white men.”
A similar September 2016 poll of 1,005 adults by Ipsos showed that the public strongly favors enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, even as they also want to be seen as pro-immigration. The poll showed that only about one-in-six Americans strongly opposed Trump’s campaign-trail policies towards immigrant labor, repatriations, sanctuary cities, Islamic migrants, employer oversight and his ground-breaking proposal to reduce legal immigration.
Trump’s labor and immigration policies were “strongly” backed by an average 32 percent of the respondents, and were “somewhat” supported by another 25 percent. That is an average support of almost 60 percent, versus strong opposition of just 15 percent. Roughly 10 percent did not answer the questions.
Americans’ desire to be seen as pro-immigrant, and as generous to migrants, also obscured their simultaneous desire to have the government enforce a pro-American policy.
For example, 23 percent of the poll’s respondents strongly opposed the cancellation of former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty for younger illegals, who are called ‘Dreamers” by Democratic advocates. When asked if they support or oppose “Ending the executive orders that protect people who were brought to the US illegally when they were children,” the respondents split down the middle. Twenty-three percent said they were strongly opposed, and 23 percent said they “strongly” support the proposal. Overall, 43 percent of Americans support an end to the amnesty, while 45 percent somewhat or strongly oppose ending the amnesty.
But when the same question was asked without any reference to “children,” the support for repatriations spikes and opposition crashes. Sixty-two percent support — and only 13 percent strongly oppose — “detaining or immediately deporting all people who enter the U.S. illegally.” That’s four-to-one support for enforcing immigration laws.
In fact, two academic surveys revealed that a majority of white voters hid their preference for a total halt to immigration.
The same two-sided perspective is also shared by minority voters, including African Americans and Latinos, who say they wish to help fellow minorities – but also worry about the impact of mass immigration on their neighborhoods, schools and children. In November 2016, Trump’s win was made possible by a lower-than-expected turnout of African-American voters, and a better-than-expected performance among Latino voters.
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Miller was a strong advocate of pro-American policies.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But business groups have used their political power to tilt the labor market in their favor, via the federal policy of importing 1 million consumers and workers each year. The government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals. Universities employ roughly 100,000 foreign guest workers.
That Washington-imposed economic policy of mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor, spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, 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 at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.
Americans tell pollsters that they strongly oppose amnesties and cheap-labor immigration, even as most Americans also want to favor legal immigrants, and many sympathize with illegals.
Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a growing percentage of the nation’s annual income is shifting to investors and away from employees. The business-funded Hamilton Project suggests that the shift is transferring $1 trillion per year from 160 million employees to the nation’s investors.