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
Globalist Panic That Trump Might Cut Tech Foreign Workers
By Joe Guzzardi
Time is short to the (June 22) expiration of President Trump’s Executive Order that suspended some immigration, and expansionists are pulling out all the stops. At stake is employment-based visas’ short-term future, specifically whether the White House will permit this year’s annual 85,000 allotment of foreign-born H-1B workers to enter.
A recent Forbes story written by immigration advocate Stuart Anderson claims that since the tech sector unemployment rate is low and declining – 2.8 percent in April versus 3 percent in January – the Trump administration would be remiss to include the employment-based H-1B visa as part of a suspension strategy. To make his point, Anderson selectively chose data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey that supports his perspective.
But the bigger picture that Anderson ignored is the most important one. Employment statistics vary from month to month; employers lay off U.S. tech workers, but retain cheaper imported workers. But the addition of 85,000 H-1B visa holders will represent a permanent fixture in the labor market, because the H-1B is a dual-intent visa, meaning that holders can enter the U.S. on temporary status while simultaneously seeking lawful permanent residency. In other words, the new H-1B visa holders aren’t going home.
If tech employers are truly stretched thin, as they allege, their first consideration should be to tap into the hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers that H-1B visa holders have, over the last three decades, displaced. The list of corporations that use the H-1B visa to exile U.S. workers to the sidelines, after forcing those fired Americans to train their foreign-born replacements, is longer than Wilt Chamberlain’s arm. Among them are nationally known names like Disney, Apple, Facebook, Starbucks, Uber and Walmart.
A newcomer to the list is the Tennessee Valley Authority which announced earlier this month that it would outsource 20 percent of its highly skilled, American-born technology workforce to Capgemini, CGI and Accenture, companies headquartered in France, Canada and Ireland, respectively.
At least 120 workers learned they will lose their jobs later this summer, and the TVA informed the Engineering Association/Local 1937 that eventually another 100 jobs will be outsourced. Last month, affected workers were advised that they too would be required to train their replacements, a procedure deceptively labeled “knowledge transfer.” The TVA is a federally owned corporate agency originally designed to bring jobs to the impoverished Tennessee Valley during the Great Depression. Although TVA employees are unionized, they still can’t escape the foreign worker displacement scourge. Similar public utility displacement programs played out in California when Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric fired their U.S. tech workers and either outsourced their jobs or imported H-1B workers.
Originally, Congress created the H-1B visa program to complement the U.S. workforce. Instead, loopholes encourage abuses, pave the way for employers to bump Americans and deny opportunities to recent college graduates. Moreover, a relatively new displacement vehicle that creates roadblocks for young Americans is the never-congressionally approved Optional Practical Training Program. Initiated by the Bush 43 administration, and kept through President Trump’s three-plus White House years, OPT allows a maximum three years of employment to alien U.S. college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math. OPT provides generous tax subsidies to employers and has mushroomed into a huge foreign-born worker bonanza. More than 1.5 million OPT STEM workershold jobs that should go to Americans.
Despite what elitists, globalists, immigration lobbyists and the American Immigration Lawyers Association claim with their misleading reports and cherry-picked statistics, no intellectually sound argument that favors more H-1B visas, or more of any employment-based visas, can be made.
The ball is in President Trump’s court. He can either fulfill his 2016 campaign promise to “forever end” the H-1B visa or allow himself to be ridden roughshod over by anti-American worker advocates that include his son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner. Last year, more than 900,000 new temporary work visas were issued, and more than 1.8 million work permits were granted or renewed. That’s a total of 2.7 million overseas workers entering an economy that today has more than 36 million unemployed. Among those 2.7 million were nearly 190,000 in the professional category, mostly H-1Bs. They joined approximately 500,000 settled H-1B workers.
American workers always deserve to come ahead of imported labor. Today, with the nation in the grip of the most painful economy since Herbert Hoover’s presidency, American employment must be the nation’s top priority.
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 Panic That Trump Might Cut Tech Foreign Workers
Population and immigration-reduction activists (and everyone else) have a right – under ETHICAL journalism – to expect other than: news blackouts of critical topics, like immigration and population; deliberate misrepresentation of those and other issues; no focus on overpopulation as causal to most social, economic, environmental and, well, pandemic problems; blatant omission or distortion of immigration history (such as ignoring reports from the Jordan Commission and Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development) or libelous characterizations, by reporters, of those concerned about over-immigration as xenophobes, racists or white supremacists.
We have, thanks to deregulation and “leaders” – a term I use advisedly – who refuse to fix the problem, media disturbingly like Pravda, the propaganda tool of the old Soviet Union. We’re indoctrinated, not informed.
We need media regulated, or more accurately, regulated AGAIN, since major media, not long ago, were heavily regulated!
“News media” – another term I use advisedly – are limiting what we hear and see, are putting forth unimportant stories and divisive stories to keep us distracted from the real issues, like the danger of a deregulated media. They are ignoring critical-issues reporting, such as legislation before Congress or why our political system is failing. And sometimes they are even lying – if population and immigration are examples – when it serves their ends, or perhaps more accurately, the ends of those who, again thanks to deregulation, own media.
Even though 11,000 of the world’s scientists – as they recently declared a climate emergency – insisted that we MUST deal with population, media did not give them – likely exactly because of that population reference – the lead-story, run-it-into-the-ground focus far lesser stories get, even as media are, seemingly, gearing up to mislead about the current census. After the last census, they headlined trivia – like Americans own more cats than dogs – but mostly ignored reporting on the real purpose of the census: population.
Media consistently ignore that ours is the world’s third most populated nation, or that our high per-capita carbon footprint makes us the equivalent in “carbon population” to China or India, even as they excoriate and vilify Donald Trump on climate – I’m not a huge fan of his, but fair is fair – and, an increasingly dangerous trend, use their power to vilify him and others. It is such actions by media that have reduced us to the equivalent of a national gutter fight.
Media almost universally depict that falling birthrates, both domestic and global, mean population decreases. They ignore a likely global increase from near 8 billion now to 10 billion by 2050 and even higher late century, and likely increases from 330 million to 430 million Americans – 100 million more – by the 2060s, as they put out “low growth” or even “negative growth” propaganda.
For example, CBS in the Morning featured an author predicting “under” population, with nary a mention that 92 percent of our, in fact, exploding population – increases of 28 million to 30 million a decade – is immigration driven. Meanwhile, every few months, as though carefully choreographed among networks, media headline falling birthrates, even as immigration reporting studiously ignores its impact on population.
Nor do media mention carrying-capacity crises, such as population’s part in the fact that iconic Lake Mead, the second largest reservoir in North America, might run dry and where, due to climate change, the Colorado River, upon which 50 million people depend, might have flows half of normal by 2050 as the region’s population doubles – again, immigration-driven.
Instead, media give us:
– The oxymoron of “news” stories rerun for days!
– Endless political-correctness indoctrination.
– Sensationalized coronavirus coverage, to the point of spawning hysteria, but without mention that our healthcare system, already strained by overpopulation, is not ready for even a bad flu season.
– Adversarial, hostile interviews unfairly forcing interviewees to endlessly defend themselves, absent any premise or exploration of innocence.
– Double standards. If the Trump administration loses an immigration court case, it’s headlined. When it wins, nothing, a double-standard common to many topics.
– Trivia, crimes of only local importance packaged as national news, endless political-correctness stories and celebrity news substituted for that which a democracy MUST have, the critical-issues coverage of the type that used to be the core of ALL news reporting.
– Accusations by advocacy groups like #MeToo absent media responsibility to INVESTIGATE before reporting them, as media instead lead what some call the “Indianapolis 500 Rush to Judgment.”
– Strictly “advocacy” or biased reporting that forgets journalistic ETHICS requiring that news must be separate from opinion. Once, reporters strove to report objectively.
– Consistently seek comment only from those confirming views journalists want advanced. Comments from objective news sources are a thing of the past.
– “Junk news,” like junk food, devoid of substance, and long-term, very dangerous.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The public loath media, although for the wrong reasons. The left loath Fox News on the right. The right loath “liberal” media, both wrong and dangerous conclusions.
Lost on everyone is that media formerly was trusted, that media used to adhere to ETHICS in journalism and didn’t used to be about left or right – except on the editorial page – but about all views and information presented fully, inclusively, without an agenda, the type of reporting that builds common ground and stills the waters of division! Today’s reporting merely confirms our prejudices and assumptions – incites, rather than informs.
In the dawning days of broadcasting, leaders – back when we had leaders – saw huge potential for those who own media to misuse broadcasting. They also saw the public airways as a public resource that should serve the public good, so they heavily regulated broadcasting, a condition that prevailed for half a century, but that was lost when:
In 1987, Ronald Reagan pushed for and got revocation of the 1940s Fairness Doctrine which had banned bias in broadcasting, forbade broadcasters from blacking out or ignoring entire topics – like population – and mandated ethics in reporting, regulations with teeth because the public had the right to protest broadcast license renewals. One television station, for example, lost its license for consistently one-sided, pro-segregation reporting. The Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court which stated it didn’t violate press freedom, so the “problem” was solved legislatively by Reagan, et al.
The Zapple Doctrine, a lingering part of the Fairness Doctrine, was revokedin 2014. The equal-time rule (not part of the Fairness Doctrine) survived, but was so watered down by the courts that it has been described as a “courtesy” granted by broadcasters. Both regulations required broadcasters to give candidates or others “with standing” equal time for rebuttal, including rebuttal of network or station commentaries or “unfair” stories. As an example of how egregious things are, a district court ruled – in a suit brought, and lost, in the 1980s by the League of Women Voters concerned about media overstep – that a station could give airtime to one candidate, but not another.
Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which removed laws that had kept media under diverse ownership – and extremely competitive and, thus, effective – and had banned conflicts-of-interest. Major media were owned by more than 50 entities. Today, Big Media are owned by just six tightly interwoven titans controlling movies, television, radio, publishing, much of the internet and, by extension, much of our perception of “reality” and our thinking. Most of what we hear, see and read passes through the narrow, dangerous bottleneck they control.
It should scare the bejesus out of us that the same entities may also own Big Medicine, pharmaceuticals, insurance, investing, transportation, weapons manufacturing and Big Ag, in contrast to when laws prohibited those owning media from owning ANY other enterprises. Should we be concerned, for example, that those owning media might also own companies making weapons, perhaps using their media power to encourage going to war? Has that already happened? Should we be concerned that the internet – as in China – might be, now or eventually, limited in what is there, that the great pool of “everything” might be gradually limited, censored or restricted, something that also falls in the “scare the bejesus out of you” category.
While most deregulation was about broadcasting, dysfunction has spread to print media. Hundreds of papers have ceased publishing, meaning diverse wire-service coverage from thousands of towns and news sources has shrunk appallingly. Surviving newspapers are often, like broadcasting, owned by Big Media – or the richest man in the world (The Washington Post) – with the same selectively picked news, junk news, bias and, perhaps, dangerous agenda as broadcasting. Appallingly, many newspapers have even ceased publishing letters or commentaries from the public, gagging a key part of the conversation that democracies require!
The irony of media deregulation is that it was justified under claims that regulation, especially the Fairness Doctrine, inhibited the free exchange of information. Yet, deregulation has had the opposite effect, proving that putting a fox in charge of any henhouse never works – except for the fox!
Teddy Roosevelt said it was government’s job to “control the excesses of business,” and nowhere are excesses worse than in media. Yet, the silence from “leaders” who should be speaking out and addressing the problem is deafening. Or is it that, thanks to media “censorship,” they are speaking out, but it isn’t being reported?
It’s profoundly disturbing that media are broken and dangerous as we confront crises like the coronavirus, a broken political system in Washington, D.C. – how many have even heard of the effort to pass a 28th Amendment to fix it? – two political parties unrecognizable from not long ago and a world environment in crisis.
That we have media so broken at a time of overwhelming global events, whether a pandemic or climate change – and all that we must do (personally, nationally and globally) to accurately understand and address them – is a situation that speaks of an urgent need for media re-regulation.
Kathleene Parker, of Los Alamos, New Mexico, spent decades in publishing and journalism, including 13 years as a correspondent covering Los Alamos National Laboratory for two major New Mexico dailies. She writes about population, immigration, water issues and “broken” media.
Ed Note: For the record we don’t agree with this a bit. OK, maybe somewhere in there a tiny bit, but only a teeny tiny bit. Most of this we say is very wrong.
A few years after President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, Rolling Stone sent investigative reporter Dan Baum out to pound the pavement to learn how the globalist-hyped deal was working on both sides of the border. When President Clinton promised during his 1993 signing that NAFTA, an agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada, would create millions of domestic jobs and reduce illegal immigration within its first few years, skeptical blue-collar Americans couldn’t understand President Clinton’s tortured logic. Reform candidate Ross Perot accurately predicted that when Congress passed NAFTA, Americans would hear a “giant sucking sound” of companies fleeing the U.S. for Mexico where workers would be paid less and be without benefits.
Baum quickly learned that Perot had analyzed NAFTA’s fallout correctly. In his story, “The Man Who Took My Job,” Baum located David Quinn, a unionized Indiana auto parts worker who was one of 455 Breed Technologies employees to lose a job when the factory shut, then relocated to Mexico. Soon thereafter, more than 100 Indiana businesses followed Breed to Mexico – a great deal for cheap labor-addicted employers, but devastating to the U.S. domestic workforce.
By 2000, the $5.5 billion U.S. trade surplus with Mexico metastasized into a $16 billion deficit. Quinn and Baum traveled to Mexico where they eventually found “the man who took the [Indianan’s] job,” toiling longer work weeks for less money, few safety precautions and without union protections. During the next two decades, in part under Bush II, job losses continued to mount and deficits deepened; today the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is $617 billi.
Bush 43 learned nothing from the NAFTA fiasco. Instead, he used the NAFTA template to create the World Trade Organization which opened up the U.S. market with China and led to more than a dozen bilateral trade treaties that have hampered America’s labor force. Congress is considering nearly 25 more agreements that may kill more U.S. jobs. Since 2001, the U.S. has lost 3.7 million jobs to China, and is currently running a $346 billion trade deficit with the Asian superpower.
Yet, Republican and Democratic-led administrations put trade first, above working Americans. President Obama’s 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership would have the opened borders to millions of foreign-born workers in every employment classification. Shortly after President Trump assumed office, he withdrew the U.S. from TPP. Because of COVID-19 concerns and the relatively short time period for businesses to adjust to its new regulations, the president’s NAFTA replacement, the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, may be delayed beyond its June 1 starting date. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed his concern: “Let us not make long-term decisions in the midst of a crisis.”
A COVID-19 delay might be a lucky break for U.S. workers. The Economic Policy Institute is apprehensive that the U.S. International Trade Commission’s projections about higher U.S. wages and increased employment may be based, much like NAFTA, on “questionable assumptions.” Specifically, EPI doubts whether U.S. wages will rise as a direct result of improved labor rights enforcement in Mexico, a conclusion that the ITE model doesn’t validate.
NAFTA and other trade deals have been a disaster for American workers; America needs a better approach that will rebalance trade and level the playing field for U.S. workers and other participating countries. Despite two decades of White House bloviating about American jobs and railing against income inequality, the average worker isn’t as important to leaders as easing corporate trade.
Unregulated global trade consequences have led to worldwide criminal-level labor exploitation. Corporations set up sweatshops in Vietnam, China, South Korea, India, Honduras and Taiwan, all sources of plentiful cheap labor that enhance bottom-line profits.
Like NAFTA before it, USMCA has no real American worker protections. USMCA’s language refers to “temporary” immigrant entry to “supply services.” But as the old adage goes, nothing is more permanent than a temporary immigrant, especially when he supplies labor “services.”
President Trump has talked pro-American about trade and immigration, but he’s fallen far short of delivering the goods he’s so often promised.
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.
