Rupert Murdoch doing the unthinkable: Promoting the Democratic Agenda

[Meursault]

angus is reading history very selectively, as he's prone to doing.

Yes, labor unions have often considered immigrants to be unwanted competition. But it was a conservative Republican - Coolidge - who sealed the borders in the 1920s.

[angus]

Surely you know that H-1Bs already don't have a cap... for academics.

I know that the US Immigration Services offices reports specific caps for H1B visas, although there are several thousand exceptions allowed for certain applicants.  "Advanced degree" is one of them.

Tell us more about the left opposing immigration...

The AFL and CIO both expressed opposition, both before and after their mergers.  Sometime, starting in the 80s they became more friendly.  Several unions in fact started courting immigrants because they knew it was an easy way to make membership grow.  Nevertheless, a number of writers on the left still make those same arguments.  See T.A. Frank of the New Republic, for example, or NYT journalist Bill Keller, who describes himself as a "flaming liberal."

Nowadays, the main argument from the left against immigration is that high levels of low-skill immigration are good for wealthy Americans and bad for poor Americans.  They claim that this is especially true for immigration of the illegal variety because it lowers wages and undermines union standards, but they make the argument that it is also true for skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled legitimate immigrants as well.  The main argument from the right against immigration is similar, but it focus on the drain on resources and the social tensions.  

Among the well-educated cultural elites (both on the left and the right), I don't think there's much opposition to immigration.  After all, the illegal variety is a huge benefit in terms of childcare, household help, dinners out, and other staples of upper- and upper middle-class living.  And immigration of the legitimate variety provides ethnic diversity.  I enjoy having Indian and East Asian neighbors, and the public schools like the padding to their mean achievement test scores. 

They all make relevant points, but I still tend to think that a blanket amnesty is useful.  It clears the air and turns shadows into people.  It might end up costing the rich more for domestic help, but in the long-run, they become taxpaying, law-abiding residents if they're allowed to do so.  As for legit immigration, I haven't thought as much about caps, mostly because as jfern mentioned, the caps aren't as meaningful in the white-collar fields because of the exemptions.

Anyway, I voted perhaps.  I think there's enough opposition on the left and on the right and that I'm in a minority.  Whether Murdoch can change that is something I won't try to predict.

[Badger]

Your post I quoted clearly more than implied so.

My God, he's actually arguing with himself now.

My post implied that politicians have an interest in periodically widening the tax base. I'm not sure why you think widening the tax base is a bad thing.

As you just reiterated, your post more than implied that immigration reform leading to an expanded tax base was more a political game than good policy.

Seriously, are you like one of those siamese fighting fish that, if you put a mirror up to their bowl, will still blindly attack themselves.

[rob in cal]

    I'm shocked, just shocked, that a wealthy multi-billionaire like Murdock is in favor of the immigration surge called for in the current Immigration reform.  All kidding aside, is there one high profile billionaire who is in favor of less immigration?  I read somewhere that even the Koch brothers are for more immigration, which makes sense due to their libertarian leanings.
    Concerning taxation, one issue is that right now illegals pay much of the taxes that they would anyway because on average they are poor, and like legal poor people much of the taxes they pay are from gas taxes, excise taxes and sales taxes, and higher rent prices due to property taxes. With so many being poor, legalization would entitle them to the Earned income tax credit and other goodies.  Of course legalization will help many rise in the economy, but a valid concern is that the majority won't rise, and that legalization will merely enable them to come out of the shadows and expand the size of the poor who are eligible for more government benefits.

[AggregateDemand]

As you just reiterated, your post more than implied that immigration reform leading to an expanded tax base was more a political game than good policy.

Seriously, are you like one of those siamese fighting fish that, if you put a mirror up to their bowl, will still blindly attack themselves.

I'm more like a Siamese cat. I'm curious why you think widening the tax base could be construed as nefarious policy.

[Badger]

As you just reiterated, your post more than implied that immigration reform leading to an expanded tax base was more a political game than good policy.

Seriously, are you like one of those siamese fighting fish that, if you put a mirror up to their bowl, will still blindly attack themselves.

I'm more like a Siamese cat. I'm curious why you think widening the tax base could be construed as nefarious policy.

O  O
  ^
-------

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Surely you know that H-1Bs already don't have a cap... for academics.

I know that the US Immigration Services offices reports specific caps for H1B visas, although there are several thousand exceptions allowed for certain applicants.  "Advanced degree" is one of them.

"Advanced degree" just means a masters. If someone has a masters in Basket Weaving from some crappy college somewhere, that doesn't mean much. There's absolutely no cap for universities or other non-profits. Anyone pretty accomplished should qualify for an O-1 visa, so these H-1Bs aren't needed for the best.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Democrats need more taxpayers. Same thing Reagan wanted for his tax reform.

And more working, taxpaying citizens is a bad thing because........?

The most obvious anti-immigrant talking point is that they push wages down. And that's probably true. We also already have an enormous oversupply of workers. Business would love to be able to hire these folks for peanuts without the risk of bad press.

But isn't one of the biggest reasons immigrant wages are relatively low is that illegals have no recourse for minimum wage/prevailing wage laws, other worker protections, demands for raises, etc. due to the overhanging threat of deportation? I've heard the argument that if that threat is removed they can more freely assert their rights, both in court and in the free enterprise market (switching to better paying jobs easier, etc.).

But that only works to advance their general progress if they are the last group of illegals. Surely you don't buy the "secure the border bs" and history has shown there is always another group. I am rather cynical on this point, but it has long been my view that the goal of business is to merely replace them with yet another wave. The idea that they would get behind a policy that would weaken their bargaining position, particularly in light of how they regard unions, minimum wages and the like, seems rather unlikely.

[Heimdal]

The capitalist wants more cheap labour? Who would have thought?