Netanyahu: "Seventy years ago, only Shanghai opened the door... to Jewish refugees"

Which is the bad part? The eagerness to work? Or the willingness to do it for less?

Before he slowly backtracked on almost everything he used to stand for on immigration.

quote:

---

Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work. You’ve changed your view.

​

A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

​

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 Meet the Candidates series , Dec 23, 2007

---

As recently as 2011, he was against deporting illegals.

quote:

---

Immigrants who can't be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship--no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a "green card" with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be said that it will create a class of 2nd-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship--a much better option than deportation.

​

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.156 , Apr 19, 2011

---

quote:

---

Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.

​

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.153 , Apr 19, 2011

---

The Republican party (and frankly the nation) has really moved in a direction of supporting deportation of undocumented immigrants.But a recent Gallop poll showed that 34% of Americans favor increasing the numbed legal immigrants into our country per year, and that seems to be a record in my lifetime.The same poll showed that 63% wanted to keeps numbers the same (38%) or reduce legal immigrants allowed into the country (25% support the latter). 38+25=63But look at the progress.The period between 2000 and 2006 saw support for DECREASING ANNUAL LEGAL IMMIGRATION fall from a majority to a plurality, and now it is down to just 25% support.The poll watchers used to see what the percentage of those polled who said DECREASE ANNUAL LEVELS and then compare it the COMBINED TOTAL of those who wanted to increased yearly immigration WITH those who said keep immigration levels the same.The 2006 period saw the combined "leave it the same" WITH "increase levels" hit about 55% while those who wanted to decrease it fell down to about 40% or slightly less.Now the number of those wanted to increase LEGAL IMMIGRATION is getting so high that it can almost compete with those who want to REDUCE LEGAL IMMIGRATION combined with KEEP LEGAL IMMIGRATION TOTALS THE SAME.But support for deportation of illegals/undocumented has gained strength for sure.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

That's because you are a laborer. I suspect that tech workers who feel as you do, don't want too many eager workers who can program for less than what the tech workers want to be paid. If we adopt a "don't compete with me" immigration policy, just who would get in?And do you make-up hotel beds or do gardening?So you are not for a merit-based immigration policy at all. What you consider contributing is just not competing with you. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The willingness to do it for less. We can't allow the wages of citizens here to suffer simply to accommodate more workers. The businesses would love it of course, but it would be unfair to subject the laborers to such competition.

That's right. What's fair is that folks just crawl away into a corner and die instead of competing with you. Sorry, but it is difficult to imagine a less Christian sentiment.

How would you feel if you had major health issues such as Diabetes and Sleep Apnea and were nearly 60 and had no retirement except for the pension provided by your job and a wage that just paid your living expenses and you couldn't work at any other job and you were depending on a decent labor contract to survive? Would you simply count on Jesus as you watched the wages diminish?

How would you feel if you were faced with the choice between living in a war zone, not being able to educate your children, living in a tent city with no job prospects, and no way to even envision a future.I suppose it is possible to pretend that every new person, born in the US or out of it, is a threat to your own existence. But the truth is that such thinking is sheer paranoia. How many refugees would we have to admit to this country before your job prospects would be negatively affected in an appreciable way.I imagine that to your mind, the answer is just one.

No. As I said before, we need an inflow of new workers to pay into social security. What we don't need are open borders. I think that the amount of workers we get now is just about right. My best friend is from Mexico and not a citizen. I am glad he is here.

quote:

---

How would you feel if you had major health issues such as Diabetes and Sleep Apnea and were nearly 60 and had no retirement except for the pension provided by your job and a wage that just paid your living expenses and you couldn't work at any other job and you were depending on a decent labor contract to survive? Would you simply count on Jesus as you watched the wages diminish?

---

Wages keep going up.Something like $55,000 per year in 2015 and around $62,000 per year per person in 2018.There are like 100 other policy changes that will address the problem of resources being allocated in a better way.Why go after a driver of the wage growth (immigration) just because it MIGHT reshuffle things in a way that MIGHT not be totally helpful to you under the current screwed up policies?Our last trade deal was with South Korea. (under Obama)The E.U. also had a trade deal with South Korea.The U.K. has seen exports go up 110% to South Korea in just 5 years since the deal.

We always have. That's pretty much the basis of the capitalist system, isn't it? Suppose we apply the same principle to the businesses. "It would be unfair to expect Safeway to compete with Mom-and-Pop-Mart. Safeway needs high prices so lets keep the low prices out of the marketplace."

Im not against controlled immigration. What I am against is open borders and unlimited immigration because it would trash the middle class. And socialism is no prize either---look at what is happening in Venezuela.Capitalism as a model wont work on a global level.Once you run out of foreigners to exploit, the only way that the system will survive is to exploit its own middle class. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You sure are obsessed with the middle class, aren't you?Our Prime Minister, Trudeau the Second, is always taking about "the middle class and those who are working hard to join it." I've never wanted to keep up with the middle class or the Joneses.What's the difference between the rich capitalists exploiting the middle class and the middle class exploiting the working class, immigrants, etc.?

Not sure that I understand your position....What is the dream for a better life anyway? Every immigrant aspires to the same level that many Americans take for granted. Just because *you* proudly have never had a desire for an extra TV set or a weeks vacation fishing does not mean that middle class values should sound so strange to most of us.

I don't want a life that's better than somebody else's. I don't think that's true. A lot of them just want a place where there's less war and more of a chance to make a living.My ancestors came to North America for land, not to become part of the middle class. And since immigration is in the neighbourhood of the topic, I have no idea whether or not they entered the country legally. I do know that they lived on both sides of the border from time to time and I doubt that they worried much about papers.

Does the fact that a poor person doesn't have something like a TV set mean that somebody in the middle class has exploited you? Is the company you worked for owned by somebody in the middle class? Is some middle-class person ultimately responsible for the fact that you yourself are not in the middle-class?If the answer to those question is not yes, then I suggest that your obvious ire is misplaced. Even your boss does not have the power to offer you raises that change your status more than incrementally.You've got a lot of anger. But it is no more well directed than the anger that caused mine workers or air conditioning factory workers to vote for Trump. I know that telling you that does not help, and in fact is a complete turnoff. But somebody needs to say it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.