Cut low-skilled im­mi­gra­tion to raise Amer­i­can wages

Cherokee County Herald - - VIEWPOINTS -

The Se­nate could soon vote to give mil­lions of Amer­i­cans their big­gest pay-raise in decades.

The pro­posal in ques­tion isn’t a min­i­mum wage hike or a tax cut. Rather, it’s a bill that would re­duce le­gal im­mi­gra­tion by half. The re­form would turbo-charge wage growth and open up new job op­por­tu­ni­ties for work­ing-class Amer­i­cans.

Se­na­tor Tom Cot­ton’s RAISE Act would re­duce fam­ily-spon­sored visas by elim­i­nat­ing cat­e­gories that al­low for the im­mi­gra­tion of ex­tended fam­ily mem­bers. In plain terms, most re­cent im­mi­grants would no longer be able to se­cure green cards grant­ing life­time res­i­dency and work priv­i­leges for their sib­lings or adult chil­dren. They would still be able to bring over their mi­nor chil­dren and spouses, of course.

The pro­posed law would also cap refugee ad­mit­tances at a com­pas­sion­ate but sus­tain­able 50,000 per year — roughly the av­er­age an­nual in­take from 2001-2010. Ad­di­tion­ally, it would end the “visa lot­tery” — a fraud-plagued pro­gram that awards green cards at ran­dom to over 50,000 lucky for­eign­ers each year.

An­a­lysts pre­dict that th­ese changes will re­duce le­gal im­mi­gra­tion by 40 per­cent the first year and 50 per­cent over a decade.

Why is this a good thing for Amer­i­can work­ers? Sim­ple. Most of the peo­ple who ar­rive on fam­ily-spon­sored, refugee, and lot­tery visas have lim­ited skillsets. Nearly 30 per­cent of for­eign-born adults lack a high-school de­gree com­pared to just 9 per­cent of na­tive-born Amer­i­cans.

As a re­sult, th­ese new ar­rivals — most of whom are law- abid­ing and hard­work­ing — grav­i­tate to blue col­lar or ser­vice-sec­tor jobs. Ac­cord­ing to the lat­est fig­ures from the Depart­ment of Home­land Se­cu­rity, less than 13 per­cent of im­mi­grants with fam­ily-spon­sored visas work in man­age­ment or pro­fes­sional oc­cu­pa­tions.

Off­shoring and au­toma­tion have wiped out mil­lions of low and medium- wage jobs. Al­most two mil­lion Amer­i­cans have been out of work for six months or more. Im­port­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands of for­eign la­bor­ers to com­pete with th­ese strug­gling Amer­i­cans only holds down wages.

When a coun­try in­creases the size of a skill group by 10 per­cent through im­mi­gra­tion, wages fall by about 4 per­cent for that skill group. Wages have been stag­nant, es­pe­cially for low-skill work­ers, for decades. Hourly wages have scarcely budged since the 1960s once in­fla­tion is ac­counted for.

Amer­ica should not bring in more low-skilled for­eign­ers when its own lesser-skilled work­ers can­not find de­cent jobs. This isn’t about hos­til­ity to im­mi­grants. It’s about a deep con­cern for the cit­i­zens of our own coun­try who strug­gle to make ends meet but who can make lit­tle head­way in a bulging la­bor mar­ket.

The RAISE Act wouldn’t com­pletely solve this over-sup­ply of low-skilled la­bor. The pro­posed law doesn’t ad­dress il­le­gal im­mi­gra­tion at all. Nor would it elim­i­nate the tens of thou­sands of tem­po­rary, nona­gri­cul­tural work visas given to for­eign­ers who toil as line cooks, con­struc­tion work­ers, and house­keep­ing staff — jobs that unem­ployed Amer­i­cans would thrive in.

Due to an over­abun­dance of la­bor­ers, work­ing-class Amer­i­cans haven’t seen a sub­stan­tial pay bump in decades. It’s time for a RAISE.

Deena Flinchum is an IT worker who was em­ployed by the AFL-CIO for 25 years be­fore re­tir­ing. She is now a com­mu­nity vol­un­teer in south­west Vir­ginia. “Just Plain Neat In­for­ma­tion” sup­plied by a lo­cal reader.

“Male and fe­male He cre­ated them …” (Ge­n­e­sis 5:2) With those six sim­ple words the Bi­ble gives us all the in­for­ma­tion we need re­gard­ing the gen­ders God cre­ated. Peo­ple are born ei­ther male or fe­male; there are no other op­tions. But lib­er­als dis­agree.

Ac­cord­ing to Merriam-Web­ster, one def­i­ni­tion of the word lu­nacy is “wild fool­ish­ness” or “ex­trav­a­gant folly.” In an in­cred­i­ble demon­stra­tion of lib­eral lu­nacy, the po­lit­i­cally cor­rect sec­u­lar­ists among us have de­cided that there are now four gen­ders — male, fe­male, males who were born with fe­male bod­ies, and fe­males who were born with male bod­ies. Th­ese lu­natics as­sert that a per­son’s “gen­der iden­tity” and not his bi­o­log­i­cal gen­der is to gov­ern whether he is ad­dressed as a man or woman. This is, of course, ab­so­lute non­sense!

Un­for­tu­nately, how­ever, such non­sense is be­com­ing more ac­cept­able in our post-Chris­tian na­tion. Last year Target an­nounced that a change in its poli­cies re­gard­ing re­strooms would al­low men to en­ter the women’s re­strooms and vice versa. Ama­zon has a pro­gram ti­tled “Trans­gen­der.” And, of course, Barack Obama en­thu­si­as­ti­cally put the weight of the fed­eral govern­ment be­hind the in­san­ity by or­der­ing public schools around the coun­try to al­low stu­dents to use the locker room cor­re­spond­ing to their “gen­der iden­tity.” That’s right — Obama tried to force public high schools to al­low teen boys to go into girls’ locker rooms.

As is al­ways the case for lib­er­als, the big­gest prob­lem they en­counter in their push to­ward a God-less utopia is the pres­ence of Chris­tian con­ser­va­tives, many of whom boy­cotted Target and many more of whom voted for Don­ald Trump in a re­jec­tion of all that the Demo­crat party rep­re­sents. I am thank­ful that one of the many pos­i­tive changes Pres­i­dent Trump quickly brought to our na­tion was a re­ver­sal of Obama’s “trans­gen­der” pol­icy. The lib­er­als, of course, did not like this and re­sorted to do­ing what they al­ways do — per­son­ally at­tack­ing any­one who dis­agrees with them in the slight­est. As for­mer North Carolina Gov­er­nor Pat McCrory said re­cently, “If you dis­agree with the po­lit­i­cally cor­rect thought police on this new def­i­ni­tion of gen­der, you’re a bigot, you’re the worst of evil.” For ex­am­ple, Chris Cuomo, a co-an­chor of a morn­ing show on CNN, re­sponded to a ques­tion re­gard­ing what one should tell a 12-year-old girl who does not want to see a naked boy in her locker room with a tweet that read, “I won­der if she is the prob­lem or her over­pro­tec­tive and in­tol­er­ant dad? teach (sic) tol­er­ance.” What hate speech by the left! Once again we see that those who preach tol­er­ance the most prac­tice it the least.

Although this is­sue has been com­pletely fab­ri­cated by the lu­natics on the left, we Chris­tian con­ser­va­tives now find our­selves in a po­si­tion of hav­ing to take a stand. But stand we must. World his­tory teaches us that the re­jec­tion of God’s laws by a peo­ple will al­ways lead to their de­struc­tion. We must con­tinue to ag­gres­sively op­pose any be­liefs that would un­der­mine our moral her­itage.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.