Posted on 06/16/2014 6:01:47 AM PDT by maggief
The GOP Establishment doesn't want amnesty be the issue. I would like to see the source of your assertion and see exactly how the question was worded. Brat drew the link between American jobs and immigration, legal and illegal. It was all about jobs and what Cantor and his corporate paymasters are doing to the American worker.
I’ll do my best to pull up an article to back up my assertions.
Greetings Patriots. Did you know that your congressman, Eric Cantor, supports amnesty rather than the Rule of Law? Don’t be fooled by his rhetoric or election time flip-flops. Any legislation that allows the lawbreakers, including children, to stay and work here is amnesty.
Cantor favors massive increases in permanent immigration and guest worker programs that will cost the jobs of Americans and depress their wages even further. He even wants to enable illegal aliens to join the US military and compete with US citizens and legal immigrants during a period of downsizing in the military. With over 20 million Americans underemployed or unemployed, this is a travesty no matter how he spins it. We don’t have a shortage of labor; we have a shortage of jobs.
Cantor does the bidding of his corporate paymasters rather than doing what is right for his constituents and our country. Cantor is no conservative. Shock the Republican Leadership on June 10th and let Cantor know there are consequences for his impending betrayal. Protect American jobs for American workers.
You know the issue of amnesty was big because the Cantor campaign flooded the district with flyers portraying Cantor as anti-amensty and the person responsible for stopping the Gang of 8 bill in the House. None of it true. And a week before the primary, Gutierrez shows up in Richmond holding a rally against Cantor for blocking immigration reform--all of this transparently coordinated to make Cantor look like an anti-amnesty stalwart. In fact, Cantor has been working with Gutierrez on Cantor's version of the Dreeam Act, aka the "Kids Act."
Got me? The Senators that voted for him are that dumb too.
Kerry is even worse now than he was after Vietnam. Ugh!
Once a traitor always a traitor.
American Patriots Against John KerryThe 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue.
Kerry met with representatives from “both delegations” of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry’s own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry’s meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s.
According to Corsi, Kerry violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. “A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power,” Corsi told CNSNews.com.
By Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam Warshould be stopped.
FLASHBACK:
http://news.yahoo.com/reset-john-kerry-breezes-hill-hearing-180813815—politics.html
“You’re ready to go,” said Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the panel’s top-ranking Republican . “My sense is your confirmation will go through very, very quickly.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called his fellow Vietnam War veteran “my friend” and told members Kerry ‘s qualifications for the job “are well known to you and all of our colleagues.”
Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the panel’s top Republican , called Kerry “a realist” who will deal with unrest in Egypt, civil war in Syria, the threat of al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups in Africa and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
http://www.nooga.com/159674/sen-bob-corker-complimentary-of-sen-john-kerry-in-confirmation-hearing
Corker, who became ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, had said earlier that he expected Kerry to “sail through” the confirmation process. The senator offered kind words to his colleague, with whom who has chaired the committee for the past for years, adding that his sense was that Kerry’s confirmation process would go through “very quickly.”
“I look at you being nominated as someone who’s almost lived your entire life, if you will, for this moment of being able to serve in this capacity,” Corker said. “I’m happy for you. I know in the many conversations we’ve had over the last two weeks that you’re very anxious to serve.”
uber Patriots ...all....S/
Iranian/shia domination of southern Iraq and the Shatt al-arab and gulf oil exports is such a good thing, we sent aid to Iraq to prevent it in the 1980s and cheered while a million Iraqis and Iranians died fighting each other
d.oh Kerry, our latest geostrategic genius
the mullahs who helped make IEDs that killed our troops in Iraq
What is one to believe revisionist experts and their phony polls? or my own lying eyes?
Corker and McCain... Two dipsticks that should be run out of the Senate.
You got it. I have been in contact with the people on the ground along with Brat himself. Brat used the immigration issue the way it should be used by GOP candidates. It appeals to common sense. Why do we continue to bring in 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants and 640,000 guest workers annually when 21 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed? It makes no sense.
People such as yourself and Brat understand that hard choices must be made soon to mitigate the damage sure to come later. Rather then a more of the same plan we need a put America back to work plan coupled with a serious government reform plan. It will be painful but the more of the same plan could very well be fatal.
Real wages have been declining since 1969. You can increase the population to grow the economy, but the only problem is that the slice of the pie gets smaller.
They also think we need an ever increasing number of tax payers to support Social Security and Medicare.
Pure sophistry. Both are pay as you go programs where today's workers pay for today's retirees. SS has been running in the red since 2010 and Medicare since 2008. Adding more immigrants to the system will hurt these programs, not help them. They are unsustainable as currently structured. The average Medicare recipient gets three time more than they they paid into the system.
Immigrants use our welfare system to a much greater extent than the native born. Bringing in more immigrants will increase welfare costs, which are already bankrupting us.
In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today it are 3 workers for every retiree; and by 2030 it will two to one. Immigrants grow old and retire as well.
While immigrants often arrive young and have somewhat larger families than natives do, the differences are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nation’s age structure. For example, the average age of an immigrant in 2012 was 43 years, while the average age of a native was 37. Also, in 2011 the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the United States without immigrants would have been 1.9 children per woman. With immigrants, it was 2.0 — an increase of one-tenth of a point. Thus, our fertility would be higher than almost all developed countries (and many developing ones) even without any immigrants at all.
In a highly technical but seminal article in Demography in 1992, the leading academic journal in the field, economist Carl Schmertmann explored the impact of immigrants on population aging: “Constant inflows of immigrants, even at relatively young ages, do not necessarily rejuvenate low-fertility populations. In fact, immigration may even contribute to population aging.” As the Census Bureau concluded in 2000, in the long run, immigration is a “highly inefficient” means for increasing the percentage of the population that is of working age.
The newest Census Bureau population projections, released in May of last year, show the same thing. The “high-immigration” projections show that if net immigration totals 67 million by 2060, 57 percent of the U.S. population will be of working age (18 to 64). The “low-immigration” projection (33 million fewer) show 56 percent will be of working age in 2060. Roughly doubling immigration changes the working-age share by about 1 percentage point.
Equally important, the big problem over the past decade and more has not been a shortage of working-age people, but rather that so many people who are of working age do not work. This decline in work began before the recent recession; the share of native-born, working-age Americans holding a job was lower at the economic peak in 2007 than it was at the prior peak in 2000. It deteriorated even more dramatically after 2007, of course, and has barely improved since. As a result, today there are 17 million more working-age natives who are not working than there were in 2000.
Getting several million of these people back into jobs would have a much larger impact on improving the worker-to-nonworker ratio than any likely increase in legal immigration. Immigrants arrive at all ages, and, as with any human population, some work and some do not. By definition, moving working-age natives into jobs shifts the ratio of workers to non-workers more dramatically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
