Rupert Murdoch doing the unthinkable: Promoting the Democratic Agenda

[eric82oslo]

Rupert Murdoch - the world's number one media mogul and the ultra conservative founder of the FOX TV conglomerate, originally from Australia, but now a naturalized US citizen - has really done the unthinkable by fiercely promoting the number 1 issue on the Democratic Party's political agenda - immigration reform! Not only that, but in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, he goes even further than many Democratic politicians dear or care to support:

1) He supports full legalization of all illegal immigrants, as long as they've not committed criminal activites!
2) He wants to altogether end the cap on H1-B visas - no more restrictions or limits!

"People are looking for leadership — those who stand for something and offer a vision for how to take America forward and keep our nation economically competitive. One of the most immediate ways to revitalize our economy is by passing immigration reform,"  Murdoch wrote in the Journal, which is owned by News Corp.

Read more here from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/19/rupert-murdoch-pushes-for-immigration-reform/

[Antonio the Sixth]

Unless he launches the Fox Bullsh*t Machine full-scale to brainwash his viewers into thinking that amnesty for illegal immigrants is a super-conservative policy view and that anyone who opposes it is un-American communist scum, I don't see it making much difference.

[Badger]

Doubtful. He has relatively little control over the editorial content of Fox at this point. Murdoch may feel this way, but don't expect Roger Ailes to change Fox's party line on the issue much at all.

[AggregateDemand]

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

[Badger]

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

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

[memphis]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Democrats want their votes, Republican elites want their cheap labor.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The most obvious anti-immigrant talking point is that they push wages down. And that's probably true.

This is one of those commonly accepted beliefs that sounds like "common sense" despite the fact that there's little evidence to support it.

[Badger]

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.).

[eric82oslo]

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.).

Absolutely.
So the biggest threat for low-wage Americans are actually illegal workers and not those who have obtained their citizenship and can start demanding livable wages.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.).

Absolutely.
So the biggest threat for low-wage Americans are actually illegal workers and not those who have obtained their citizenship and can start demanding livable wages.

No, the biggest threat for low-wage Americans are the people who refuse to pay them a living wage.

[AggregateDemand]

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

I'm not sure. Why is it a bad thing?

[Simfan34]

Doubtful. He has relatively little control over the editorial content of Fox at this point. Murdoch may feel this way, but don't expect Roger Ailes to change Fox's party line on the issue much at all.

I mean Murdoch could just get rid of him, no?

[Badger]

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

I'm not sure. Why is it a bad thing?

Your post I quoted clearly more than implied so.

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

[Deus Naturae]

This is barely even news, much less "unthinkable" or a "game-changer." Pretty much all wealthy GOP donors support immigration reform.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

lol who cares

[eric82oslo]

lol who cares

You don't like bathing with your enemy, do you?

[King]

The monster he created is onto him now.

Conservatives were pushed so far right on these issues that they now distrust "Chamber of Commerce" Republicans. The Tea Party now trusts business as much as it trusts government. They're in full anarchy mode, led by Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham. It's too late to fix it.

Conservatives can no longer agenda set, instead they get labeled RINOs if they try to change anything on the agenda.

You reap what you sow.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

end the cap on H1-B visas

That's a terrible right-wing idea. Retitled.

[Indy Texas]

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.

You do realize that once they are legal, the leverage that employers use to pay them peanuts no longer exists, don't you?

[Deus Naturae]

end the cap on H1-B visas

That's a terrible right-wing idea. Retitled.

Interesting. You believe that immigrants depress wages?

[angus]

Friedman argues that the H visa amounts to a subsidy, more or less, for businesses.  He makes a fairly convincing argument, although I disagree with many of his conclusions.  

This stuff crosses party lines.  Historically, the Left always objected to immigration, although in the last 20 years or so the Right has come to the point of being more vocal about it.  I'm not sure why, exactly.

Whatever assignment the categorizers want to give it, historically there has been an argument against the H visas.  I suppose that the job "creators" want the incentive of low-cost job "creation" and that may be why the right has recently begun to object.  

Murdoch's initial point, if you read the article, is mainly a vetch.  He seems to have fallen in love with Eric Cantor, and conflates Cantor's defeat with something broader.  We have had a number of threads regarding Cantor, and it is far from evident that the members of this forum collectively lament his loss.  Nevertheless, Murdoch's op-ed piece starts to evolve away from a shedding tears over Cantor and toward immigration reform in general.  He points out that Rand Paul is a supporter, which is striking, precisely because the mythological Tea Party--in whose existence so many forum members still believe--is purported to be responsible for both Cantor's demise and Paul's ascendancy.  

Mainly, Murdoch wants to remind the public of something we already knew but may have forgotten, which is that the public should get its head out of its collective ass.  We are a nation of immigrants and of entrepreneurs.  The current cap on H visas is arbitrary and inhibits rich Americans from getting richer white-collar, working-class foreigners from contributing to the aggregate GDP.  He makes a valid point, but it's not a point that no one has made before.  Many Republicans, and even a few Democrats, have been making this same point for years.  See, for example, the many David Brooks articles, both political and pragmatic.  Here, for example, is a recent example.  Putting aside his apparent belief in the magical mystery vehicle knows as the Tea Party, we must conclude that Brooks makes good points, just as Murdoch does.  Whether this is a "game changer" is anyone's guess.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

end the cap on H1-B visas

That's a terrible right-wing idea. Retitled.

Interesting. You believe that immigrants depress wages?

The H-1B visa certainly does. It's not necessarily an immigrant visa, the employee has to leave immediately if laid off. Also, H-1Bs encourage training of non-immigrant workers who then are used for offshoring.  The amount of H-1B visa abuse is outrageous with many companies clearly looking for an H-1B over a qualified American. The cries about more H-1Bs being needed to get qualified applicants is such a load of crap. If they are truly outstanding, they can get a O-1 visa.

Friedman argues that the H visa amounts to a subsidy, more or less, for businesses.  He makes a fairly convincing argument, although I disagree with many of his conclusions.  

This stuff crosses party lines.  Historically, the Left always objected to immigration, although in the last 20 years or so the Right has come to the point of being more vocal about it.  I'm not sure why, exactly.

Whatever assignment the categorizers want to give it, historically there has been an argument against the H visas.  I suppose that the job "creators" want the incentive of low-cost job "creation" and that may be why the right has recently begun to object.  

Murdoch's initial point, if you read the article, is mainly a vetch.  He seems to have fallen in love with Eric Cantor, and conflates Cantor's defeat with something broader.  We have had a number of threads regarding Cantor, and it is far from evident that the members of this forum collectively lament his loss.  Nevertheless, Murdoch's op-ed piece starts to evolve away from a shedding tears over Cantor and toward immigration reform in general.  He points out that Rand Paul is a supporter, which is striking, precisely because the mythological Tea Party--in whose existence so many forum members still believe--is purported to be responsible for both Cantor's demise and Paul's ascendancy.  

Mainly, Murdoch wants to remind the public of something we already knew but may have forgotten, which is that the public should get its head out of its collective ass.  We are a nation of immigrants and of entrepreneurs.  The current cap on H visas is arbitrary and inhibits rich Americans from getting richer white-collar, working-class foreigners from contributing to the aggregate GDP.  He makes a valid point, but it's not a point that no one has made before.  Many Republicans, and even a few Democrats, have been making this same point for years.  See, for example, the many David Brooks articles, both political and pragmatic.  Here, for example, is a recent example.  Putting aside his apparent belief in the magical mystery vehicle knows as the Tea Party, we must conclude that Brooks makes good points, just as Murdoch does.  Whether this is a "game changer" is anyone's guess.

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

[AggregateDemand]

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.

[Brittain33]

Friedman argues that the H visa amounts to a subsidy, more or less, for businesses.  He makes a fairly convincing argument, although I disagree with many of his conclusions.  

This stuff crosses party lines.  Historically, the Left always objected to immigration, although in the last 20 years or so the Right has come to the point of being more vocal about it.  I'm not sure why, exactly.

Tell us more about the left opposing immigration... It doesn't jibe with the bits of knowledge I have about it, which are that Ted Kennedy is the father of our modern immigration policy, and that opposition to letting in more Jewish refugees in the 1930s came from Republicans and conservative Southern Dems in Congress.