Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By csarbww
  • 1 Post By Newmexican

Thread: WSJ Compares Sessions, Heritage to AFL-CIO

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    64,755

    WSJ Compares Sessions, Heritage to AFL-CIO

    by Matthew Boyle 9 Feb 2014, 9:01 AM PDT
    breitbart.com



    The Wall Street Journal editorial board accused Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and the Heritage Foundation of being lockstep with the AFL-CIO and other labor unions because of their aggressive opposition to amnesty.

    "The populist wing of the [Republican] party has talked itself into believing the zero-sum economics that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens and reduce American living standards,” the WSJ wrote on Thursday. “Neither claim is true, but Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.”

    The WSJ’s piece focused on how House Speaker John Boehner placed blame for dropping a push for amnesty on President Barack Obama’s selective enforcement of laws. The newspaper blamed Republicans like Sessions for the stall in immigration legislation and talk radio, as well.

    "So great is the House GOP fear of a talk-radio backlash that it won't even pass smaller bills that 75% of Republicans agree on,” the WSJ wrote.

    Thirty-two Senate Republicans, including every member of Senate GOP leadership, voted against the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” bill, while only 14 voted for it. And at the recent House GOP retreat, about 80% of those who spoke up opposed bringing forward immigration legislation in 2014.

    However, the AFL-CIO, like the WSJ, endorsed the Senate Gang of Eight bill. The AFL-CIO actually helped, alongside the Chamber of Commerce, write that bill that the WSJ supports.

    Critics say they oppose amnesty and a significant increase in legal immigration is because American workers are currently struggling to find work. More than a hundred million Americans are either officially unemployed or have left the workforce, according to the Department of Labor. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Senate immigration bill would drive unemployment numbers up for American workers – and for those lucky enough to find or keep a job, the Senate immigration bill would drive their wages down.

    In early January, a group of 16 House Republicans, led by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), wrote about these concerns in a letter to President Obama:

    Rapidly expanding unskilled immigration – at a time when factory work and blue collar jobs are disappearing – would represent the final economic blow for millions of workers who have been struggling to gain an economic foothold. Yet, despite this jobs crisis for American workers, the White House continues to advocate that CEOs and business executives seek lower cost labor. The White House has entertained a parade of high-powered business executives to discuss immigration policy, all while shutting out the concerns of everyday wage-earners who overwhelmingly oppose these measures. You even released an economic report saying that the "hospitality and leisure industry" needs "legislation that would legalize workers in the U.S. and facilitate the lawful employment of future foreign-born workers."

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...conomic-impact
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,201
    I do not know what perversion of free enterprise theory drives the Wall Street Journal's editorials, but stripped of the double talk, its core argument is that a continuous supply of new immigrants was the cause of American prosperity and is necessary to maintain it into the future. This is rubbish. An economy adjusts to the size of the population and the prosperity of a nation is not related to the number of its citizens; it is certainly not due to an endless increase of people. China has had no significant increase in population, domestic or immigrant, yet its economy grows as it adopts free market economic principles. Switzerland has had economic prosperity for centuries yet its population has not significantly grown.
    Last edited by csarbww; 02-10-2014 at 12:28 AM.
    Mayday likes this.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723
    WSJ editorials are pro big business cheap labor.
    Mayday likes this.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •