July unemployment came in at 10.2 percent, still above the 10 percent high in the 2007-2009 recession. Now more than ever, post-pandemic and social unrest, every effort should be made to create and keep jobs for Americans across all professions to ensure that our country rights itself. That includes those professions that are, mistakenly, perceived to be recession-proof.
Media coverage in recent few months has bemoaned that some doctors on visas might have to leave the U.S., or not be allowed to enter the country with pandemic travel restrictions. But there’s been scant attention paid to the thousands of recent American graduates of medical schools who remain unlicensed, and thus unable to practice medicine. Why? One factor is that U.S. taxpayer-funded medical residencies have gone to doctors from other countries – more than 4,200 just this year – those that media is so concerned about.
At the same time – as doctors and nurses work 12-hour shifts, nearly dropping from exhaustion and with no pandemic end in sight – there is another long-ignored conversation. That is the prolonged U.S. doctor “shortage.” That we would have a doctor shortage when we have thousands of newly minted doctors not working is certainly confusing. An obvious solution to what’s being consistently reported as too few doctors is to put our own talented, dedicated doctors to work and to eagerly recruit and encourage others to enter medicine, rather than pilfer, hijack and steal the physicians from other nations.
We as a nation hold the embarrassing 52nd spot in the world in our doctor-to-patient ratio, far behind dozens of other nations, including some developing countries. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Andorra outrank America. Cuba, with 8.19 doctors per 1,000 patients, has the highest doctor/patient ratio and contrasts to our 2.59 doctors per 1,000 patients.
We cannot continue to invest taxpayer and other dollars in training doctors only to then push them aside, effectively saying, “Although you thought you had reasonable, fair and equitable expectations when you graduated from medical school, you were wrong. Fooled you! We increasingly prefer foreign nationals to the greatest extent possible.” It’s completely unsustainable, as has been our approach in other areas, including technology.
In the last decade, more than 36,000 non-U.S. citizen students and graduates of international medical schools have been granted U.S. residencies (remember, they’re taxpayer-funded), and in each of the last ten years, the number has gone up, from 2,721 to 4,222 this year. All this is happening as our U.S. citizen doctors may be left driving Uber, with eight years of education that doesn’t easily transfer to another profession, and perhaps as much as half a million dollars in student loan debt.
By every ethical and moral standard, we are violating our social contract with our own citizens. It is nothing less than immoral and unethical to have medical students – students accepted into highly competitive schools – rise to meet brutal academic requirements and, in most cases, take on a huge debt load for their educations, all in the hopes of serving others, only to be shut out of the whole system. “Sorry! We’ve decided to hire the doctors from other countries instead.”
This is a most brutal and unacknowledged form of discrimination.
The powerful American Medical Association, which has lobbied for more H-1B and J-1 visas to bring in foreign doctors, has a lot of explaining to do, as does the Association of American Medical Colleges. Ditto our elected officials in the House and Senate.
For the last two months, the roiling immigration debate has centered around President Trump’s Executive Orders that slowed some legal migration and suspended until the end of 2020 most employment-based visas. During the period, President Trump scored a major victory over H-1B globalists when he forced Tennessee Valley Authority executives to turn back their outsourcing commitment that would cost high-skilled American workers their jobs.
Meantime, however, down on the still-porous Southwest border, illegal immigration – the contentious issue that propelled President Trump into the White House in 2016 – is worsening. Since April, and despite President Trump’s efforts to curb illegal immigration in light of the coronavirus pandemic, unlawful entry arrests have, according to Customs and Border Protection, soared 237 percent.
In March, pursuant to the urging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, border officials turned back migrants including those who claimed asylum. For more than 90 percent of the migrants, the normal timeline for returning unlawful border crossers dropped from a period of several weeks to a mere hour and a half. The White House relied on the Public Health Safety Act’s Title 42 that permits temporarily barring the entry of persons into the United States “when doing so is required in the interest of the public health.”
In his compelling documentary, “They Come to America: the Politics of Immigration,” filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch, in interviews with experts, gives an overview of the challenges that decades-long ineffective methods of slowing illegal entry present to the nation. Among them are drug smuggling, national security, environmental degradation and population growth.
But Lynch also focuses on illegal immigration as a labor variable that is especially harmful to low-skilled U.S. workers who have less than a college education. CBP acting Commissioner Mark A. Morgan acknowledged that, during the spring-time, surge jobs are illegal immigration’s biggest pull factor. Morgan said that “Single adult Mexican nationals, who are generally seeking economic opportunities, accounted for almost 80 percent of the encounters.” Based on the latest available federal statistics, Pew Researchestimated that 8 million illegal immigrants are in the labor force, mostly employed in agriculture but also in sectors that would present hiring possibilities for America’s under-employed like construction, hospitality, business services and manufacturing.
While there’s been much fanfare, both positive and negative, about President Trump’s “big beautiful wall,” Lynch makes clear that no structure can protect the nation’s waterways from illegal entrants. As an example, Lynch cites the CBP’s Miami sector that’s assigned to cover Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The Miami sector consists of approximately 187,000 square miles and has 1,203 miles of Florida’s coastal borders along the Atlantic and Gulf shores. In his statement, Morgan advocated for President Trump’s wall. But as Lynch pointed out, a wall is meaningless with such a vast expanse of unprotected shores and waterways that migrant smugglers can easily penetrate. At the time Lynch’s documentary went into production, a mere 111 CBP agents, and only two with boats, were assigned to the Miami sector.
President Trump’s wall-blustering is empty talk. Even if a wall were erected, the effect of deterring illegal immigration would be, at best, minor, and a flat zero for water arrivals. While talking about migrants in search of “economic opportunities,” Morgan missed a chance to promote E-Verify which, since the program confirms individuals’ lawful authorization to work, is a proven illegal immigration deterrent.
U.S. ineptitude at immigration enforcement is known to prospective migrants worldwide. Lynch’s documentary featured a local CBS broadcaster who reported that the Miami sector alone had apprehended aliens from 64 nations.
Labor Day will mark the official kickoff for the 2020 presidential campaign. Voters will be subjected to a nearly unbearable torrent of speeches that promise more jobs for Americans. But just as reporters asked Democratic primary candidates if they supported open borders and Medicare for illegal immigrants, President Trump and challenger Joe Biden should face an equally probing question: Would you, if elected, demand that Congress pass mandatory E-Verify?
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
When President Trump signed his Executive Order that banned federal contractors from hiring foreign-born H-1B visa holders, an historic moment occurred in the three-decade long effort to protect American workers’ jobs. The president’s order will require all federal agencies to complete an internal audit to assess whether they’re in compliance with the requirement that such agencies only hire U.S. citizens.
To add muscle to his Executive Order, President Trump promised “to take firm disciplinary action” against federally affiliated Tennessee Valley Authority officials who had abused the visa. The president fired two TVA Board of Directors’ members, chairman James Thompson and Richard Howorth, and asked the BOD to dismiss Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Lyash who has a compensation package totaling more than $8M annually. If the BOD doesn’t fire Lyash, America’s highest paid federal employee, the president promised that the White House would.
For the first time in recent memory, American workers were present at a White House jobs-related press conference. U.S. tech workers and Kevin Lynn, the founder of the nonprofit U.S. Tech Workers (USTW) that represents them, were among President Trump’s invitees. USTW had aired an ad that brought to President Trump’s attention the firing and outsourcing of skilled U.S. employees’ jobs, and the replacement of these workers with H-1Bs after the dismissed Americans had to endure the humiliating experience of training their less-adept replacements. President Trump described the TVA process, a model that hundreds of other major corporations have adopted over the last 30 years, as a “disastrous and heartless decision” which rubs salt into their [the U.S. workers] very open wounds.”
Many factors have contributed to the rampant displacement of U.S. workers, mostly in tech-related jobs, but also in marketing, accounting and financial analysis. Chemists, medical doctors, biologists, teachers, therapists, surveyors and architects have all been impacted by the H-1B visa. In short, these job categories and jobs represent white-collar opportunities that U.S. college graduates aspire to. Instead, too many of those jobs are unfairly awarded to less-costly foreign nationals.
The H-1B visa lobby is deep-pocketed and influential. Among the more vocal are Immigration Voice which coordinates with Compete America, a coalition whose nearly 40 powerful members include entities like Amazon, American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Association of American Universities that lists as its collaborators Brown, Dartmouth, Carnegie Mellon, Duke, Harvard and Stanford, as well as 57 other colleges you may hope your children are fortunate enough to attend, but are likely pre-disposed to denying their admission. The AAU also names Deloitte, Ernst and Young, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and PayPal as favoring international students and workers ahead of Americans.
Unchecked American worker displacement wouldn’t have happened without a mostly complicit establishment media which has ignored the collective negative effects that H-1B displacement has had on U.S. workers. Nationwide, an estimated 600,000 H-1Bs are currently employed. Taken in its totality over the last three decades, the loss of millions of American jobs whose workers’ ages range from early-30s to early middle-age is an unspeakable tragedy. Workers who once spent their entire careers with a single employer are left jobless, and with few opportunities to find employment in a labor market that favors H-1B workers. The displaced workers are left to fend for themselves to pay for mortgages, college tuitions and other routine household expenses.
President Trump’s TVA smackdown is heartening, not only to the TVA workers, but other Americans ensnared in the vicious web of the H-1B. The president must go further, and extend his June Executive Order that paused H-1B and other employment-based visa entries until the end of 2020. By extending his visa pause through 2021, President Trump can tangibly evaluate how dependent – if at all – the U.S. is on foreign labor. Educated guess: President Trump will learn that no imported labor is necessary; America will get along just fine with its own skilled workers.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Californians – or at least some Californians – are fighting back against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s dysfunctional leadership. The nonpartisan California Patriot Coalition has gathered more than 80,000 voters’ signatures in a petition to recall Newsom.
The coalition inarguably cites a $54 billion budget deficit, a soaring “crime rate, unaffordable housing, rampant homelessness, failing schools, and irresponsible spending” as the causes that motivate it to remove Newsom. Among Newsom’s questionable spending is a dodgy $1 billion deal with a Chinese manufacturer for masks. The group also points to Newsom’s “encroachment” on citizens’ First Amendment rights.
Beyond those offenses, Newsom has violated several federal immigration laws related to harboring illegal immigrants and facilitating their presence. When Newsom confirmed that, through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, his administration is providing millions of dollars in economic relief to California businesses that don’t otherwise qualify for federal aid, including those owned by illegal aliens, he’s breaking 8 U.S. Code § 1324, and is subject to fines and/or a prison sentence.
The coalition’s journey will be uphill every step of the way. To succeed, the Recall Newsom effort must collect 1,495,709 signatures by November 17, a total that represents 12 percent of the 12.5 million votes that put Newsom into office. Two previous efforts to remove Newsom failed. The first netted a mere 281,917 signatures while the second recall Newsom attempt disbanded once it became clear that the necessary signature totals wouldn’t be reached. In 2018, Newsom was elected California’s 40th governor with 61.9 percent of the vote.
Nevertheless, the coalition’s mission could be successful if several pivotal variables fall into place. First, gathering the required signatures over the next four months is challenging, but achievable. Unquestionably, the elitist, multimillionaire Newsom’s indifference to California’s steep financial and societal decline has disgusted many more than the million and a half residents whose signatures are required.
The California Department of State shows that as of January 3, the state has 20.4 million registered voters, 45 percent Democratic, 24 percent Republican, and 26 percent that didn’t identify a party affiliation. Doing the rough math, the 45 percent Democratic registered voters translates into 9.1 million potential signatories. Writing as a California native, I have every confidence that at least half of the 9.1 million registered Democrats are sickened by the state’s sanctuary status, harboring aliens, homeless encampments, feces-littered streets, rat-infested buildings, looting, arson and other crimes now commonly committed from Crescent City to the north and in San Diego to the south.
Nevertheless, the daunting task remains. Since 1911, 51 recall attempts have been mounted, and only one, the 2003 Recall Gray Davis campaign, succeeded. The California Patriots organization should study the game plan that led to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s elevation from muscleman and action movie hero to California’s Republican governor.
The Recall Gray Davis campaign began when then-U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, Congress’ richest man with an estimated net worth during his tenure of $768 million, donated $2 million to Rescue California to gather signatures. Issa hoped to be California’s next governor. But Schwarzenegger shattered Issa’s dreams when he entered the recall race. Issa dropped out, and Schwarzenegger’s candidacy also doomed Davis.
Looking back, the reasons Davis was recalled are chicken feed compared to Newsom’s dereliction of duty. In 2003, voters charged Davis with mishandling the state’s electricity crisis and were angry about increased automotive registration fees, small potatoes when weighed against Newsom turning a blind eye to the state’s complete ruination. Today, no one calls California the “Golden State.”
No high-profile candidate like Schwarzenegger has emerged as a potential Newsom replacement. But the gubernatorial field is open to U.S. citizens and registered California voters. The Davis election attracted 135 candidates, and only the Bay Area and Los Angeles County voted no on Davis’ recall. Somewhere among the 10 million-plus Republicans and Independents a qualified gubernatorial candidate awaits. Governing California is a filthy but prestigious job that a determined individual should undertake to save California from complete devastation.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Trump Immigration Order Sends Big Tech into Advocacy Overdrive
By Joe Guzzardi
Big Tech has never pushed harder for cheap labor for the rich and powerful than it’s done in the last few weeks. The latest available data show that, from 2005 to 2018, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft laid out an aggregate $582 million to protect their collective interests on a range of topics that include protecting the inflow of employment-based visas, specifically the H-1B.
Immediately after President Trump’s June Executive Order that would suspend certain visa categories, including the H-1B, Big Tech went apoplectic. False narratives abounded, among them that restricting the H-1B visa would set back “America’s economic success,” stifle “America’s attractiveness to global, high-skilled talent” and prevent “the best and the brightest global talent” from contributing to the nation’s economic recovery. Big Tech threatened that “now is not the time to cut our nation off from the world’s talent or create uncertainty and anxiety….”
For decades, cheap labor champions have hawked the same tedious tripe. The truth is the exact opposite: the H-1B visa has displaced millions of skilled U.S. tech workers, and kept millions more American college graduates unemployed in the profession of their choice. Back in 2016, an unlikely source confirmed that U.S. grads are plentiful, but that – alas – they’re costlier than imported labor. Then-Infosys Chief Executive Officer Vishal Sikka admitted that the U.S. tech employment pool is abundant. He said, “There are enough universities, enough ability to hire, enough ability to teach…”
Big Tech is also solidly behind deferred action for childhood arrivals, another corporate favorite that contributes to the Silicon Valley labor pool. DACAs qualify for employment authorization documents, and many among the 700,000 eligible DACAs are in the workforce.
Meanwhile, as Big Tech scorns President Trump for his “dangerous” Executive Order, it’s simultaneously laying off or furloughing thousands of its current employees. The obvious contradiction: if, as Big Tech insists, it needs new employees so desperately, it should hold on to its existing workers who are already on the job, know their duties and don’t have immigration issues. But that’s not Big Tech’s end game. Instead, Big Tech wants what Congress has always provided – younger, cheaper, overseas workers.
In May, research from the liberal Economic Policy Institute found that 60 percent of H-1B positions that the Department of Labor certifies are assigned wage levels “well below the occupation’s local median wage.” The H-1B’s program regulations permit DOL to assign the lower wage levels but also provide authority to change the levels upward. Yet DOL has left the lower wage levels unchanged. EPI estimates, perhaps conservatively, that half a million H-1Bs are employed in the U.S. The majority of them work for the usual suspects – Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, Google, Apple and Facebook. EPI recommends that DOL require and enforce above-median wages for H-1B workers to ensure that companies will use the immigration program as intended – to complement American workers – instead of using the visa to fill entry-level positions at a deep discount, and thereby enable U.S. tech workers’ displacement.
Nothing – not 9/11, not the 2008 Great Recession and not COVID-19 – keeps Congress from promoting more H-1B visas. This means the inevitable dismissal of U.S. tech workers. Two key congressional positions that oversee proposed immigration legislation, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, are held by H-1B advocates, Lindsey Graham and Jerry Nadler, respectively.
At the same time, the wealth of Big Tech barons is stratospheric. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index ranks Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, as the world’s richest man; his estimated net worth is $189 billion. Every 11.5 seconds, Bezos earns the annual salary of his lowest paid, minimum wage worker. Microsoft founder Bill Gates is behind Bezos, with a net worth is $118 billion. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg ranks fourth with $93 billion net worth, and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer rounds out the top five with a $76 billion net worth.
The British have a saying that applies to the self-serving congressional and corporate elitists whose efforts have taken away jobs from Americans, and given them to foreign nationals: “I’m alright, Jack.” Congress has its power, and Big Tech tycoons have their wealth – they’re alright. But, U.S. workers are left to fend for themselves.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Trump Immigration Order Sends Big Tech into Advocacy Overdrive Trump Immigration Order
You hear it every four years: “This upcoming election is the most important one of our lives!” But what we’re going to face this November isn’t an election—it’s another epic battle in an ongoing fight to preserve our God-given rights, our freedoms, and everything else that makes America great.
War is being waged against the nation. But not by an enemy territory. The horrifying reality is that this attempted destruction of life as we know it is coming from our own elected officials. Their intent is to ruin this nation from the inside out. We have never seen anything like the past five months of oppression. Personally, I did not even know it was possible for legislature to impose these types of restrictions anywhere, let alone in a first-world country in the 21st century. If you’re alarmed by what you’re experiencing, good. It means you’re paying attention. Now pay attention on Nov. 3. People are focused on Trump and Biden, and anyone who knows me knows that there is nothing I could ever want more than for Trump and Pence to win a second term. But what many don’t realize is that your local candidates in your congressional, senatorial, and state representative districts have much more to do with your personal lives than the president. These are the people speaking for you and making decisions for you. You need to find out who they are and what they stand for.
If you’re still not convinced that the liberal agenda is being foisted upon unsuspecting members of society, or you believe it can’t affect you directly, check out one of the latest and particularly disturbing brainchildren currently being birthed by members of the Left. A Satanic temple is coming to Marple. This is not a joke. I wish it were. I brought this to our fifth district congressional candidate, Dasha Pruett’s attention a couple days ago and I know you will find it as unsettling as both she and I did. Fifth district residents, this specifically impacts YOU, and you know the incumbent, Mary Gay Scanlon, is not going to lift a finger to put a stop to it. According to a Patch article I came across giving the details of this project, it states that DelCo residents “shouldn’t be alarmed” and that the focus is an “altruistic, charitable” mission. A man named Joseph Rose, who founded Satanic DelCo back in February, is proposing its development. Yes, there actually is an organization called Satanic DelCo, and if you’re a Delaware County resident who didn’t know about this, I am truly sorry to be the one to inform you.
None of this makes any sense at all. Explain to me how a person can perform acts of altruism or charity in the name of Satan. And if a person truly is interested in giving back to their community, why would they even consider seeking an opportunity to do so from a Satanic temple? Why not a food pantry, an animal shelter, or a crisis pregnancy center? Something is off about this.
This is the kind of lunacy being promoted, and our job for the next three and a half months is to unify against it. It is no longer Republicans against Democrats. It’s logic and reason against senselessness. It’s people who care about the community around them against people who want to serve themselves at the expense of others.
Democrats, I’d like to address you directly here. Seeing as Dasha will need at least some of you currently living in her district to vote for her in order to unseat Mary Gay Scanlon, I’d like to take a minute to reach out to you and ask you to consider something: What if there had never been any such thing as political party? I know it sounds absurd; bear with me for one minute. What if political candidates ran with no label attached? Imagine that there are no such things as Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians, Green Party, or even Independents. I know there’s no way this could be a reality, but if none of us had the option of voting based on party, on a certain set of values put in place by an establishment, you wouldn’t be able to fill in a bubble on a ballot and just assume that candidate holds the same beliefs as you based on the letter next to the person’s name. People are drawn to what is familiar to them, to whatever reflects aspects of themselves. It’s instinctual. Of course you vote for your party’s candidates, that’s who you identify with. But if neither you nor the candidates belonged to any party, you wouldn’t automatically agree with any of them. You’d have to first examine the ideas each candidate is espousing in order to determine who aligns with you. You would have to pay close attention to see which candidate’s platform sounds most likely to benefit their constituency—which includes YOU.
If there were no such thing as party affiliation, and you heard some of the candidates saying it would be a good idea to defund or even abolish police, kill full-term fetuses, release prisoners convicted of sexual offenses and other violent crimes under the guise of preventing them from catching a virus, allow men into women’s restrooms and boys on girls’ sports teams, delete the past two hundred forty-four years of history…you wouldn’t think this person was fit to function in society, let alone hold public office. Some of them even feel the American flag is a hate symbol, and now a Satanic temple is coming to YOUR county…claiming to be doing acts of goodwill and kindness? Few people, when thinking critically, would vote for individuals championing these philosophies. And yet, this is the modern-day Democratic platform. The fact that these principles are attached to a major political party is the only thing legitimizing the irrationality.
So yes, fifth district Democrats, I am specifically asking you to vote for a Republican candidate. Again, imagine that Dasha does not belong to any political party, and neither do you. Let’s just look at her as an individual. As somebody who actually knows her, I can vouch that you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more personally invested in their congressional race. She’snot your average political candidate. She’s not a politician at all. She’s someone who already suffered through communism in the USSR and has taken it upon herself to prevent that type of government system from being instated here. It’s an interesting coincidence—or maybe it isn’t a coincidence at all—that certain events occurred simultaneously with Dasha’s campaign. She knew there were people running on a socialist platform, sure. Bernie Sanders. AOC. But neither she nor anyone else would have predicted that we’d be seeing the very aspects of socialism she has given warnings about, such as government overreach, civil unrest, removal of rights, and erasure of history, begin unfolding just a month after she filed. It’s terrifying, but will ultimately work in her favor—due to the current state of affairs, it could not be more self-evident how badly we need a person with her unique background and perspective in the House of Representatives. So in November, let’s not think about party at all. Let’s instead support and vote for individual candidates who advocate for law and order, rights and freedoms, common sense, empathy, and most importantly, love.
Ed. Note: Yes, Satanic DelCo is real and attributes to itself sweet-sounding values like: One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason. Why not just call itself Christian? Because Satan is a liar and SatanicDelco isn’t interested in acting with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason. Satan is Hebrew for “One who plots against another.”Look at the roots and understanding will be found.Any group that names itself for Satan is by definition untrustworthy.The only way to make sense of what goes on in the world is to look at the Cross. It’s put high on our churches and worn around necks and is truly a sign of compassion and empathy. Why is that? It certainly wasn’t meant to be. It’s a horrific instrument of torture. It was the most evil thing ever built by man. You can say it was inspired by Satan. Now, though, it merely mocks him and reveals him as the loser he is. Satan isn’t to be feared. Be bold in calling out his lies and telling the truth.
Satan In Pennsylvania 5th District Satan In Pennsylvania 5th District Satan In Pennsylvania 5th District
It’s no secret that more women than ever are running for U.S. Congress this year—four hundred ninety, at least, breaking 2018’s record of four hundred seventy-six. But are any of them as cool as Dasha Pruett? I can’t imagine so.
Dasha Pruett
If you really want to see the American dream personified, look no further than PA’s 5th district GOP nominee. Having emigrated from the USSR, Dasha has a love and appreciation for the United States of America that is deeper than a lot of natural-born citizens, because many of the things we own and use every day, the freedoms we have always had, are all things she had to spend the first ten years of her life without. Her story—escaping a tyrannical government and starting a new life here in the States—is the precise vision on which our beautiful nation was founded. She knows better than anyone the perils of government overreach and knows how fortunate we are to live in a country where we have the rights that we do. I know she will be a fantastic role model as well as public servant for her constituents. People like Dasha are what make America great, and now she is running with the intention of keeping it that way.
I also know she is going to be scrutinized for the next four months—she already has been, but it will intensify as Election Day draws nearer, not to mention after she takes office. Every time I see a Republican woman running for a seat, I can’t really help but think of Sarah Palin and how she was decimated in 2008. I was twelve then—exactly half my life ago—and still haven’t forgotten it. That was the first time I really became aware of how much criticism Republican women take in comparison to other demographics of people seeking public office; let’s not even mention what Melania Trump has been subjected to since before our president was even inaugurated.
I wish I could build a wall of protection around Dasha, but seeing as that’s not one of my options, I’d like to say this: despite my proclivity to idolize each year’s GOP candidates, in reality I know they are just regular human beings. They bleed, sweat, and cry like any of us. Please keep this in mind before you go launching personal attacks. Even if you disagree with a person’s views, consider the tremendous amount of effort it takes to run for office. Take into account how much selflessness, strength, inner resolve it takes for a candidate to rearrange everything, sacrifice most aspects of their current lifestyle, take time away from their families, put themselves in the public eye, have doors slammed in their faces, and expose themselves to so much potential disparagement in the interest of improving their communities. It’s easy for anyone to sit around home and complain about the way things are, talk about what they wish would change, but she’s one of the people who got off their sofa and is actually trying to do something about it. I know politics are dirty by nature, just wish people would look at the human side of it. Before you say something, think about how there is a whole life, personality, and family attached to the name on that ballot. I know everyone dislikes members of the opposing party, but please try to look at her as an individual—Dasha isn’t just your congressional candidate, she is somebody’s mother and somebody’s daughter, somebody’s wife and somebody’s friend.
I cannot overemphasize how desperately we need people with a genuine appreciation for this country in the U.S. House of Representatives. Incumbent Mary Gay Scanlon cares nothing for the USA and apparently is pretty open about that fact. Did anyone see what she posted on Independence Day? A photo of a protester, carrying a desecrated image of our flag, with herself in the background. This woman is a disgrace to her district, America, and humanity as a whole. Ask yourself who you think is more fit to hold office: somebody who would show such blatant disrespect to her constituents and the nation she’s supposed to be serving, or somebody who is eternally grateful for the opportunities provided here and wants to ensure that future generations will also have that available to them. This is why it’s so important to vote based on person, not party. Although let’s be honest here—every major problem facing the US today is a result of poor Democratic leadership. Economic collapse, racial tension, looting and rioting, removal of rights, erasure of history, attempted defunding of the police…this is the new Democratic platform. This is not what anybody actually wants. This is only what ill-informed people think they want. And if they were to get their way, it wouldn’t take very long for them to see the repercussions and realize their mistake. But by then it will be too late.
As incredible as Dasha is, she’s not fueled by liberal tears alone. If you’re a 5th district resident and want her representing you in Washington D.C., then you have to help put her in that position. Donate or volunteer if you can; if you can’t, word-of-mouth does more than you think. Ask people you know if they’re registered at their current address, which congressional district they’re in, and if they know their precinct. Remind them that this election is on Nov. 3, and that they do not have to be registered with the Republican party in order to vote for a Republican candidate in a general election (yes, some people actually don’t know this.) If they’re not registered at all, it HAS to be done by October nineteenth in order to vote in the upcoming general. Encourage them to meet or at least research the candidates. Most importantly, V O T E. Dasha has an excellent shot at this election, but it’s not in the bag. It’s never in the bag. For her to win, YOU have to fulfill your civic duty and exercise your right. The power, the opportunity, to get her into office lies in YOUR hands—don’t let it slip through your fingers.
Ed Note: If anyone from the Mary Gay Scanlon wants to send us an endorsement column, we’d be happy to run it.
A Gallup Poll conducted between May 28 and June 4, a period that pre-dates President Trump’s Executive Order that suspended some employment-based visas, found that 34 percent of Americans, up from 27 percent a year ago, support increased immigration to the U.S. Gallup notes that it’s the highest support for expanding immigration since 1965 when Gallup began its polling.
Furthermore, Gallup’s poll showed that those who favored decreasing immigration fell to 28 percent, a new low. However, Gallup didn’t include total annual immigration statistics – more than 1 million lawful permanent residents settle each year – an important fact that could have had a bearing on responses.
Some of the poll’s takeaways were predictable: more Democrats and liberals than Republicans favor increased immigration. But the most surprising Gallup finding was that 77 percent of Americans “think immigration is a good thing for their country,” a result that conflicts with earlier polls including ones that Gallup conducted. One year ago, Gallup reported that 72 percent of Americans either wanted immigration kept at its current 1 million-plus level or reduced.
Much less ballyhooed in the establishment media than this year’s Gallup Poll, a Washington Post poll taken from April 21 to 26 showed that 69 percent of Hispanics answered yes when asked, “Would you support … temporarily blocking nearly all immigration into the United States during the coronavirus outbreak?” Only 30 percent of Hispanics would oppose a shutdown. The Postpoll also showed that an immigration shutdown “is backed by 65 percent of all adults, 67 percent of independents, 83 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of conservatives, 64 percent of moderates, and by 63 percent of younger people age 18 to 39.” Hispanics understand that more immigration means, among other outcomes, more job competition.
The Gallup and the Washington Post polls prove only that individual surveys don’t convey broad sentiment or represent a barometer for future outcomes. Look no further back into history than the 2016 national election when virtually every poll showed candidate Hillary Clinton trouncing now- President Donald Trump. Especially without merit are push polls, so called because the questions asked are designed to influence a certain voter block.
Consider this question that Gallup asked in its latest survey of a mere 1,040 U.S. residents: “On the whole, do you think immigration is a good or bad thing for the nation?” The question is not related to any specific subject, and so vague that it’s obvious that Gallup’s intention is to elicit a positive reply. “Good” has constructive connotations, while “bad” is synonymous with evil or wicked. Americans like “good” things and hate “evil” things.
In the more than 30 years that I’ve studied and written about immigration, thousands of polls have been taken. I’ve read most of them. But the most important question to measure Americans’ mood about immigration is rarely asked: Do you favor dramatic and unsustainable immigration-driven U.S. population growth?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, immigration and births to immigrants drove nearly 90 percent of immigration growth since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Since then more than 60 million new immigrantshave settled in the U.S. The Census Bureau projects that by 2060, immigration-driven U.S. population growth will hit 420 million, nearly 30 percent higher than today’s 331 million.
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he said: “It [the bill] does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.” But President Johnson was dead wrong. The overhauled immigration bill opened the door to tens of millions of new lawful immigrants. Many immigrants contribute to the U.S.’s fabric, but each of them needs housing, transportation, roads, schools and hospitals. Providing those essentials has created the massive sprawl that has undeniably diminished Americans’ quality of life.
Twenty-five years ago Bill Clinton said in the introduction to his Population and Consumption Task Force report that “…reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the U.S.” But two and a half decades later, about 25 million new immigrants have entered; all need basic those services that contribute to all that sprawl.
Preferring less immigration is not an indictment against immigrants. Instead, favoring lower immigration is a strong endorsement for population stability that will ensure an improved quality of life for all current U.S. residents, including immigrants who already live in America.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.com.
By Joe Guzzardi Immediately after President Trump appointed son-in-law Jared Kushner as a Senior White House Advisor, the fur flew on Capitol Hill. On the most basic level, D.C. analysts couldn’t figure out what the politically inexperienced Kushner could bring to President Trump’s table. And on the legal front, critics argued that Kushner’s presence on President Trump’s staff violated the 1967 federal anti-nepotism statute that Congress passed shortly after President Kennedy tapped his brother Robert as his Attorney General. The statute ruled that nepotism potentially undermines presidential policymaking.
Kushner’s elevation to a key, influential White House position also violated President Trump’s Executive Order 13770 that he issued just days after his inauguration, in which the president wrote: “I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate’s qualifications, competence and experience.”
In an effort to slow the mounting fury over Kushner, and eventually over Kushner’s wife – the President’s daughter Ivanka, who also became a Senior White House Advisor – the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that, based on another statute, when the president hires White House employees, he’s exempt from the anti-nepotism law.
Regardless of legal arguments, President Trump’s addition of son-in-law Jared and daughter Ivanka to key White House insider positions raised questions about his judgment and demonstrated a remarkable political naiveté, especially for a man who had just shocked the nation with his 2016 win. Nothing positive could have come from President Trump’s decision to hire Jared and Ivanka. And nothing productive ever did evolve from Kushner and Ivanka.
Predictably, the love birds have been a thorn in President Trump’s side since Day 1. They have done everything possible to undermine the president’s strategy to tighten immigration, the platform that delivered the 2016 election to Trump. Kushner has persistently lobbied for more immigration, mostly in the form of employment-based visas, that would displace U.S. tech workers. In secret meetings with immigration advocates like the Chamber of Commerce, Kushner pressed for higher legal immigrant levels. More employment-authorized immigrants directly conflicts with President Trump’s “hire American” Executive Order. More than 40 million unemployed and desperate Americans haven’t dissuaded either Kushner, or the lockstep aides and assistants under his direction, from pushing their expansionist views.
Ivanka is all-in on her husband’s indefensible more-workers-are-needed philosophy. At the 2020 Consumer Electronics Show, Ivanka, the keynote speaker, said in reference to F-1 student visa holders, “We need to reach over the sidelines, draw them into our workforce.” Such a policy, if enacted, would greatly hamper the already formidable challenge that tens of thousands of U.S. tech graduates and prospective employment-seekers must overcome to get good white-collar jobs.
But credible rumors continue to swirl that President Trump has had his fill of Jared. In 2018, President Trump reportedly told then-Chief-of-Staff John Kelly and others among his close friends that “Jared hasn’t been so good for me” and that “he wished both Jared and Ivanka would return to New York.” Jokingly – or perhaps not – President Trump said that he wished Ivanka had married New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, but instead got Kushner. Some in the media have derided Kushner for subverting President Trump and have correctly noted that Jared finds his father-in-law’s supporters contemptible.
When the time comes for President Trump to dismiss those who have fallen out of his favor, he acts swiftly. Through May 20, 2020, about 415 among the president’s staff have been fired or have resigned under pressure.
Kushner could soon be gone too. Jared’s continued high-visibility presence, often in critical immigration negotiations, detracts from President Trump’s agenda, and greatly annoys the president’s base which he can ill-afford to lose.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Globalist Push For More Worker Visas As Clock Ticks
By Joe Guzzardi
The May jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics dumbfounded economists and made Wall Street analysts look foolish. Supposed experts expected that the huge job losses reflected in the April report, 20.5 million, would continue in May to the tune of 7 million Americans sidelined. Instead, the economy added 2.5 million jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to 13.3 percent from 14.7 percent
Put aside whether those jobs are newly created or furloughed workers returning to their former positions. The BLS data raises important questions about what President Trump will do when his Executive Order that paused some immigration expires later this month.
The expansion lobby, which includes immigration advocates and lawyers, has long argued that employers face dire labor shortages in virtually every BLS occupational classification. The “Buy American, Hire American” proponents – those who want to protect American jobs through a commonsense immigration policy – face a huge problem. They don’t have congressional support. But, the expansionists do. A recent example is seen in the letters members of the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives sent to President Trump asking him to protect the H-2B visa, the vehicle used to import low-skilled, foreign-born nonagricultural workers.
The Upper Chamber wrote that “farming, forestry, packing, hospitality, healthcare, communications, and information technology rely on non-immigrant guest workers to survive.” And the House letter stated, “It is important that the H-2B program continue to be available to our seasonal employers as a fail-safe in the event that we see a rapid drop in unemployment and a return to the extremely tight labor markets of just a few months ago.”
This year, the Department of Homeland Security announced plans to implement a rule that would allow an additional 35,000 H-2B visas to the existing 66,000 cap. But after a voter rebellion opposing the proposed increase, DHS backed off. Around that time, about 50 million native-born and 10.4 million foreign-born age 16 to 64 were detached from the labor force, and businesses were entering the shutdown phase.
Given the May U-6 20.7 unemployment rate, which measures individuals who want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months, the Senate and House letters are brazenly misleading. Not only are the letters deceptive, they show a cynical disregard for America’s most vulnerable workers and a sellout to the pro-business, cheap labor lobby.
Once Congress, through its expansive guest worker visa legislation, allowed employers to become dependent on foreign-born labor, those same employers stopped looking for Americans to hire. In the ag industry’s case, with an abundance of cheap labor available, thoughts of moving from stoop labor to more efficient mechanization have all but vanished.
Last year, the Department of Homeland Security granted more than 900,000 temporary work visas. In other words, the federal government allowed 900,000-plus foreign nationals to deny American workers a fair shot at available jobs.
Every year, employers allege that they’re facing a worker shortage. And every year, nonpartisan think tanks debunk the employers’ claims. Tworeports from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute published in back-to-back years found “no evidence at all” of labor shortages in the top H-2B occupations. And in its editorial, the pro-immigration New York Timesconcluded that labor shortage claims don’t stand up. The Times, applying Econ 101 basics, wrote that when labor is scarce, unemployment falls, and wages rise. The Times noted that H-2B workers are subject to exploitation and unemployment “is high in the major H-2B fields, which include landscaping, groundskeeping, construction, hospitality and seafood processing, while wages in those fields have long been flat or declining.”
In 1986, Congress created the H-2B visa as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. IRCA’s goal was to supplement the U.S. labor market through the H-2B when true shortages exist. But Republican and Democratic administrations abandoned the visa’s original intent. They granted H-2B visas to lifeguards, landscapers, hospitality workers, Vail ski instructors, football coaches and Cape Cod summer employees. Nobody can intelligently argue that ski resorts can’t find local instructors or that Cape Cod, surrounded by New England colleges, couldn’t find nearby workers. Giving skiing lessons in the Rocky Mountains or waiting tables on the Cape are a young person’s dream job.
The traditional solution to true job shortages, which employers refuse to adopt, is to pay higher wages, not import more pliable foreign-born workers.
Joe Guzzardi is a Progressives for Immigration Reform analyst who has written about immigration for more than 30 years. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Globalist Push For More Worker Visas As Clock Ticks Globalist Push For More Worker Visas
