Nader opposes H-1B
Nader opposes H-1B
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:08 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
June 08, 2004 - No. 1030
This is the ultimate example of right meets left because both Buchanan
and Nader oppose H-1B, NAFTA, and the WTO. The interview below between
Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader is rather long so I extracted the part
that deals with job issues and immigration. They talk about a lot of
issues so read the entire article if time permits.
Here is Ralph Nader's statement:
I dont believe in giving visas to software people
from the Third World when we have got all kinds of
unemployed software people here.
This is not a new position for Ralph Nader. I attended a small house
meeting with Nader in 2000. I asked him how he feels about H-1B and he
gave a similar answer. He also spoke vehemently against the practice of
exploiting foreign labor to reduce wages.
The American public should demand that Bush and Kerry have an honest
discussion on these issues, but that probably won't ever happen. If you
recall, both Buchanan and Nader were not allowed to participate in the
debates between Bush and Gore because the Republicrats didn't want
someone to ruin their charade of a debate. When Bush and Kerry debate
don't expect other presidential candidates to be invited, and expect
softball questions with lite answers.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html
TAC: You often mention corporations. What is the theory behind this or
what are the alternatives to corporate economic power? I presume you
are not talking about state ownership or socialism, or perhaps you are
...
RN: Well, that is what representative government is for, to counteract
the excesses of the monied interests, as Thomas Jefferson said. Because
big business realizes that the main countervailing force against their
excesses and abuses is government, their goal has been to take over the
government, and they do this with money and politics. They do it by
putting their top officials at the Pentagon, Treasury, and Federal
Reserve, and they do it by providing job opportunities to retiring
members of Congress. They have law firms that draft legislation and
think-tanks that provide ready-made speeches. They also do it by
threatening to leave the country. The quickest way to bring a member of
Congress to his or her knees is by shifting industries abroad.
Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism.
For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under
multinational corporations, the shareholders dont control their
corporation. Under capitalism, if you cant make the market respond,
you sink. Under big business, you dont go bankrupt; you go to
Washington for a bailout. Under capitalism, there is supposed to be
freedom of contract. When was the last time you negotiated a contract
with banks or auto dealers? They are all fine-print contracts. The law
of contracts has been wiped out for 99 percent of contracts that
ordinary consumers sign on to. Capitalism is supposed to be based on
law and order. Corporations get away with corporate crime, fraud, and
abuse. And finally, capitalism is premised on a level playing field;
the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor
or a small business up against McDonalds or a software programmer up
against Microsoft.
Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or
community other than to control them or abandon them. So what we have
now is the merger of big business and big government to further
subsidize costs or eliminate risks or guarantee profits by our
government.
PB: Lets move to immigration. We stop 1.5 million illegal aliens on
our borders each year. One million still get through. There are
currently 8-14 million illegal aliens in the United States. The
president is mandated under the Constitution to defend the States
against foreign invasion, and this certainly seems to constitute that.
RN: As long as our foreign policy supports dictators and oligarchs, you
are going to have desperate people moving north over the border.
Part of the problem involves NAFTA. The flood of cheap corn into Mexico
has dispossessed over a million Mexican farmers, and, with their
families, they either go to the slums or, in their desperation, head
north.
In addition, I dont think the United States should be in the
business of brain-draining skilled talent, especially in the Third
World, because we are importing in the best engineers, scientists,
software people, doctors, entrepreneurs who should be in their
countries, building their own countries. We are driving the talent to
these shores--
PB: How do we defend these shores?
RN: I dont believe in giving visas to software people from the Third
World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here.
Lets get down to the manual labor. This is the reason the Wall
Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage
policy. There are two ways to deal with that. One is to raise the
minimum wage to the purchasing-power level of 1968--$8 an hour--and
then, in another year, raise it to $10 an hour because the economy
since 1968 has doubled in production per capita.
PB: Say we went to $10 an hour minimum wage. It is 50 cents an hour in
Mexico. Why wouldnt that cause not 1.5 million, but 3 million to
head straight north where they could be making 20 times what they can
make minimum wage in Mexico?
RN: Because 14 million Americans are unemployed or part-time employed
who want full employment or have given up looking for jobs. The more
the minimum wage goes up, the more they will do so-called work that
Americans wont do. They are not going to do it at $5.15 an hour and
have another used car, another insurance policy, another repair bill to
get to work, but they are much more likely to do it at $10 an hour.
The second is to enforce the law against employers. It is hard to blame
desperately poor people who want to feed their families and are willing
to work their heads off. You have to start with Washington and Wall
Street.
PB: Should illegal aliens be entitled to social-welfare benefits, even
though they are not citizens and broke into the country?
RN: I think they should be given all the fair-labor standards and all
the rights and benefits of American workers, and if this country
doesnt like that, maybe they will do something about the immigration
laws.
PB: Should they be entitled to get drivers licenses?
RN: Yes, in order to reduce hazards on the highway. If you have people
who are driving illegally, there are going to be more crashes, and more
people are going to be killed.
PB: The Democrats have picked up on Bushs amnesty idea and have
proposed an amnesty for illegals who have been in the country for five
years and who have shown that they have jobs and can support
themselves. Would you support the Democratic proposal?
RN: This is very difficult because you are giving a green light to
cross the border illegally. I dont like the idea of legalization
because then the question is how do you prevent the next wave and the
next? I like the idea of giving workers and children--they are working,
they are having their taxes withheld, they are performing a valuable
service, even though they are illegally here--of giving them the same
benefits of any other workers. If that produces enough outrage to raise
the immigration issue to a high level of visibility for public debate,
that would be a good thing.
PB: The U.S. population now--primarily due to immigrants and their
children coming in--is estimated to grow to over 400 million by
mid-century. Would that have an adverse impact on the environment?
RN: We dont have the absorptive capacity for that many people. Over
32 million came in, in the 90s, which is the highest in American
history.
PB: What would you do about it?
RN: We have to control our immigration. We have to limit the number of
people who come into this country illegally.
PB: What level of legal immigration do you think we should have per
year?
RN: First of all, we have to say what is the impact on
African-Americans and Hispanic Americans in this country in terms of
wages of our present stance on immigration? It is a wage-depressing
policy, which is why the Chambers of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers, Tyson Foods, and the Wall Street Journal
like it. The AFL-CIO has no objection to it because they think they can
organize the illegal workers--
PB: They switched.
RN: because they have been so inept at organizing other workers. There
is hardly a more complex issue, except on the outside of the issue, the
foreign policy, the NAFTA--
PB: I was going to ask you about NAFTA and the WTO--
RN: Sovereignty shredding, you know. The decisions are now in Geneva,
bypassing our courts, our regulatory agencies, our legislatures.
PB: I find it amazing that Congress sits there and they get an order
from the WTO, and they capitulate. What happened to bristling
conservative defiance, "dont tread on me" patriotism? I think the
problem is that a lot of these guys in Congress--I think some of them
are basically good guys. But I went up there and was asking about some
issue, and they would say things like, "I dont even know what it is
about. My boss tells me "
RN: Did you hear about my challenge to Senator Hank Brown?
We put a challenge out before WTO was voted in 1995 because we went all
over Capitol Hill and had never found any Member of Congress or a
staffer who had ever read the proposal. So I said, "Ill give $10,000
to the favorite charity of any Member of Congress who will sign an
affidavit that he or she has read the WTO agreement and will answer 10
questions in public."
The deadline passed. Nobody. So I extended it a week. A quarter to 5:00
on Friday, the phone rings in our office. It is Hank Brown, and he
said, "I dont want the $10,000 to charity, but I will take you up on
it. How much time do I have?" I said, "Take a month." So he reserves
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the interrogation.
It gets better. The press is all there, and in the witness chair is
Hank Brown. We have 12 questions, and he answers every one. They
werent all simple either. It was really impressive. And I said,
"Thank you very much. That was really commendable," and we start to get
up and he says, "Wait. I have something to say." He says, "You know, I
am a free trader, and I voted for NAFTA, but after reading the WTO
agreement, I was so appalled by the anti-democratic provisions that I
am going to vote against it and urge everyone else to."
The next day, almost no press. It shows you the bias against anybody
who challenges those multinational systems of autocratic governance
that we call "trade agreements." And he didnt convince one extra
senator.
Once when I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, I had
to say some nice things at the beginning, "Mr. Chairman, distinguished
Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, it is indeed a pleasure
to testify before a committee of Congress that has read this proposed
trade agreement," and the chair looks up and says, "What makes you
think we did?"
Lets put it this way: it is impossible to exaggerate the dereliction
of diligence in the Congress.
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe send an email to
To View the Newsletter Archive Go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Back to archives