Ron Paul Rejects Evolution

source: numbersusa

Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006
Rep. Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the timing of issuance of H-2B visas during a fiscal year. Specifically, H.R. 793 would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year. HOWEVER, H.R. 793 exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time. Although timing the issuance of H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that would help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY 2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, H.R. 793 would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time.

Nearly doubled H-1B foreign
high-tech workers in 1998
Rep. Paul helped the House pass H.R.3736. Enacted into law, it increased by nearly 150,000 the number of foreign workers high-tech American companies could hire over the next three years. Although the foreign workers receive temporary visas for up to six years, most historically have found ways to stay permanently in this country. Rep. Paul voted for more foreign workers even though U.S. high tech workers over the age of 50 were suffering 17% unemployment and U.S. firms were laying off thousands of workers at the time.


Voted in 1998 to allow firms to lay off Americans
to make room for foreign workers
Before the House passed the H-1B doubling bill (H.R.3736), Rep. Paul had an opportunity to vote for a Watt Substitute bill that would have forbidden U.S. firms from using temporary foreign workers to replace Americans. Rep. Paul opposed that protection. The substitute also would have required U.S. firms to check a box on a form attesting that they had first sought an American worker for the job. Rep. Paul voted against that. The protections for American workers fell 33 votes short of passing.

 

What do you think of the H1-B program?

Ron Paul: I’ve supported that because it’s legal. I know some people say they don’t follow the law….

Q: The argument is that it’s a form of corporate subsidy—powerful interest groups have arranged to break down their workers’ wages by bringing in temporary workers.

Ron Paul: the market always works to put pressure on the businessman to spend the least amount of money to provide product. So what some may call a corporate subsidy is also a subsidy to the consumer. The consumer is the one protected in the free market. The object of labor is to push wages up as high as possible. The object of business is to get the most efficient labor at the best price. In the free market, that works out. But the problem is we have too much welfare and we have a currency that’s losing value.

Q: If you’re President, various interest groups are going to come to you and say, there’s a shortage of nurses or teachers or (goodness!) possibly journalists; therefore we have to have these temporary work programs to bring in labor in this area. If the labor is organized, it’s going to say to you, look, the problem isn’t that there’s a shortage, the problem is business doesn’t want to pay higher wages. What will you do?

Ron Paul: Well, whatever we do will be legal. Congress has to have a say, they have to pass a law, and the President has to decide to sign it or not. And I would lean in the direction of saying, if there is indeed a shortage, and this is a legal process, this shouldn’t be threatening to us.

Q: How would you determine that there was a shortage?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t think it would be easy but if there’s a need and immigrants can get a job, that means there’s a shortage. If there was no shortage, they wouldn’t have jobs. Obviously the companies can’t fill some of these jobs and they’re looking for people to fill them.

Q: Well, the counter-argument is that they can’t fill them at the price that they’re offering.

Ron Paul: That’s right, but the market has to set the price. Set the product and set the price of labor.

Q: But the argument of the displaced software engineers is that the government is colluding with the business owners to break down the price by importing temporary workers.

Ron Paul: I don’t think we should have minimum wages to protect the price of labor. I want the market to determine this. At the upper level as well.

Q: It’s really a question of defining the rules, isn’t it? Is it fair for corporations to increase supply by bringing in temporary workers?

Ron Paul: Which, means they’re going to fill a need for a certain time at a certain price, by people who have come here voluntarily. Otherwise, you have to be anti-immigrant and I don’t think our country is anti-immigrant. I think its anti-illegal immigrant. I think the problem you identify is occurring because we don’t have a healthy free market economy and we reward people for not getting training and becoming the type of individual who might get a job in a software company.

http://blog.noslaves.com/ron-paul-is-not-the-answer/

(an article today showed that 315,000 L1 visas were issued per year for the last 3 years on top of the 85,000 H-1bs each year. Research, educational, and any 'non-profit' were exempt from the cap, even if they were deployed by a for profit body shop)

that's an obscene number of workers dumped into a field

 

Ron Paul: the market always works to put pressure on the businessman to spend the least amount of money to provide product.
Yeah, and the key is innovation, computerization, modernization, optimization...not cheap/slave labor.

So what some may call a corporate subsidy is also a subsidy to the consumer. The consumer is the one protected in the free market.
Too bad the American wage earner is the consumer Paul is so worried about. According to Paul's logic this wage earner/consumer will be best protected if we go back to slavery.

The object of labor is to push wages up as high as possible.
And that's a bad thing, right Dr Paul? I mean it's the wages of the american people we're talking about. If wages go up the average american will god forbid make more money and be better off - this is completely unacceptable.

The object of business is to get the most efficient labor at the best price.
The object of business is to maximize profits at the expense of labor, consumers, environment, safety and anything else for that matter. (there is nothing wrong with that but that's exactly why we need measures/laws to protect labor, consumers, environment, safety etc).

In the free market, that works out.
In the free market with unlimited supply (cheap foreign labor + outsourcing) and limited/stagnant demand (american companies) it works out at about $2hr.

In other words typical libertarian economic nonsense.

 

LT,

Thanks for the additional info. I understand that you feel the H visas are a big problem, but to me, they are the smallest and easiest of the long list of immigration problems. For example, birth citizenship is far more of a problem, thanks to an unsound court decision. Realistically, the H visa program is not going to be eliminated under any president. Other than Tom Tancredo, who is out of the race, which candidate has an immigration plan that is superior to Paul's? And most importantly, how sure are you he will follow it when in office?

 

well, we havent been on the same side on other topics, but i'd have to rate you a 'high 5' here, you're dead on

 

well, you're basicly right about that

the reason I'm so critical of paul on this issue, is that a labor model has been put in place that can suck out all of white collar middle class like a vacume. it really has nothing to do with tech, never has.

that's the war we're in right now - birthright citizenship is from 1866, fed reserve was sealed in 1913. In paul's tenure in congress spanning 3 decades, what progress has he made on *any* of the fronts he talks about? Yes, he votes no on a lot of bad stuff, and I'll give him credit for that. But why should I believe that in 4 years as president, he'll make more headway than he made in 3 decades in congress and the issues he talks about?

you'd think a doctor would know something about triage

you go after what is in the process of setting, before you go after stuff set in granite

 

OK Ratboy, since you are so smart, and we are so dumb, I'll bet you $100 that Paul never even hits 15% based on RealClear Politics national average (they average all the polls). He won't hit it for even one day.

Since I am so stupid, this bet should be a no brainer for you. I'll pay up via Paypal the day Paul hits 15% or better. If you take the bet, you pay up when Paul is done, unless he hits 15%. To win, a candidate is going to need at least 35% by the convention, and that's if several are still around. Yes, I don't think Paul has a chance in hell of even getting half that. He's a LOONY!

 

the whole point of my post is that anything the mainstream puts out is fixed. i dont trust any of the polls.... nor the election process. they will try their best to hijack the vote. have you not been paying attention to the straw polls?

 

and another thing about ron paul

i pretty much agree with his statements about our role in the mideast, and yes, it would be good if we didnt push it further

but can we really afford to say 'mea culpa' for everything going back to the cia overthrow of iran in 1953?

too often this gets framed in the arguement of 'mideasterners are nasty' vs 'we've provked them'

in fact BOTH are true, and they're not going to join hands with us and sing kumbaya if we abruptly conceed guilt

 

Is anyone interested in getting this thread back on topic? So Ron Paul rejects evolution...discuss!!!