Immigration Reform in 2013? It Has a Champion in Corporate America

David Grant, Christian Science Monitor, January 10, 2013

Corporate America’s top lobbyist Thursday laid out a slew of the business community’s top goals for the year—lower regulation, increased trade, booming energy production, and a fix to the nation’s fiscal situation.

But US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue was particularly bullish, and at times passionate, on another long-sought goal, one not often associated with the conservative-leaning group: immigration reform.

“I have an optimistic feeling about this,” Mr. Donohue told reporters after his annual State of American Business speech. “Before, everybody talked about it, everybody understood the issues, but there wasn’t an energy behind it and I think there is a bipartisan group of people—we haven’t got everybody, that’s for sure—but I feel positive about it and look forward to [immigration reform] this year.”

The Chamber has been a firm advocate for immigration reform, an issue more closely identified with liberal advocates, for many years, including its support for 2006 legislation that stalled in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Donohue said his conversations with lawmakers from both parties on Capitol Hill make him optimistic for a solution in 2013. He also noted that the Chamber is working with groups ranging from faith organizations to law enforcement to labor unions including the nation’s largest—and staunchly progressive—labor group, the AFL-CIO, to forge a broad political coalition to support an immigration reform effort.


Donohue’s speech offered only the broad outlines of an immigration reform plan. The Chamber favors strict border security measures and workplace systems to verify immigration status, “thoughtfully designed” guest worker programs for both low- and high-skilled workers, more green cards for international students at American universities, and “a path out of the shadows for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the United States today, provided that they meet strict conditions.”

Donohue put special emphasis on the need to reform the immigration system despite persistent unemployment among existing Americans.

“Even with high unemployment, we have millions of job openings that go unfilled. Either the workers come here to fill those jobs,” Donohue said, “or the companies take all of their jobs somewhere else.”


And he warned that America would do well to remember its heritage when thinking through how to change its immigration system.

“As we have this important debate,” Donohue said, “let’s remember who we are and where our families would be today if earlier generations of Americans had decided to slam the door shut.”

“The door to the American dream,” he continued, “must always remain open.”


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    [Chamber of Commerce President Tom] Donohue said, “let’s remember who we are and where our families would be today if earlier generations of Americans had decided to slam the door shut.”


    Mr. Donohue — who was as optimistic about getting amnesty through Congress in ’06 and ’07 — ought to be reminded what the earliest “generation of Americans,” the Founding Fathers themselves, thought of immigration. The Founders’ thoughts are embodied in the Preamble to the U. S. Constitution and the first United States naturalization law:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and OUR POSTERITY [my all-caps], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Preamble, United States Constitution)

    The first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized.

    • The__Bobster

      Yes, we were generous and let the Irish in, and certain segments of their population have set about to destroy traditional America ever since. Apparently they resent its British heritage.

      • Conan

        The Irish were there in the very earliest days of the colonies and were the signatories of the declaration of independence. (don’t they were Ulster-scots, there is no difference and they freely identified themselves as Irish).

        • IstvanIN

          Many Irish Catholics want to bring America down.

        • George

          The original Irish were brought in as slaves.

        • Iron Helm

          but the Ulster Scots did not bear the type of grudge against the Brits that the Gaelic Irish do. They are of Anglo-Saxon Lowland Scots descent, and a lot are actually from SW England.

          They only identified with Ireland when they where its conquerors

    • dhs

      I have found an effective argument to use against “immigration is an American tradition”. It is: times change and behaviors must change. When I was a teenager, I engaged in sex acts with 14 year old girls. It was legal. If I did that today, I would be illegal, and would invoke a many year jail sentence. The desirability of policy in the past does not mean it is a good policy for the present.

      In 1900, America was underpopulated, immigration of Europeans made America stronger economically and militarily. Almost all Americans benefited from this. Today this is not the case, many Americans suffer, few benefit.

      Another argument is the environmental destruction that the increased population causes.

      If appropriate, I also point out the great damage done to the young black population (not that I actually care, but it can be effective when discussing with liberals).

      • One can also ask, ‘how many people do we need or can we support before we have too many?’. How many will be enough? Are our resources unlimited? Have we ever had zero unemployment of capable and productive men and women? Shouldn’t we work to employ all the people we have today who are unemployed before we work to bring in more?

  • wattylersrevolt

    Everyone here should emblazen this on their frontal lobes:severe labor scarcities are a wonderfull thing. Severe labor scarcities have been the single most powerfull events in American history that have narrowed the gap between the Greedy Cheating Class..Carniege Fricke,Gates… and the Common Native Born White American. A large part of American History can be understood as a battle over the control of the supply of labor. There is not a shred of evidence that a severe labor scarcity has ever been harmfull to the Native Born White American Working Class.
    The ongoing very rapid racial dispossession of the Native Born White American Majority is a direct consequence of the very low wage labor policy of both the treasonous Republican and Democatic Parties…when was he last time you heard a Republican and DEmocratic Poltician talk about a high wage economy? Native Born White American race-replacement is direct consequence of this low wage labor policy. As someone once wrote…in France a few centuries ago:behind every great fortune is a great crime.
    The strategy of the White Greedy Cheating Liberal Class that gets a tingle up its collective legs at the mere sight of the War Criminal Kenyan Foreigner comes down to this:they know that they are stealing the wealth of millions of Native Born White Americans…it is truly a great crime of monumental scale. To cover their massive gangster racket against millions of Native Born White Americans, they must put a “humane” spin on it…enter:the blessings of great are its blessings…blesses greatly the bank account of Chris tingle up my leg Matthews… that it requires the race-replacement of the Native Born White American Majority…what “noble” and “benign” intent that resides deep in the hearts of the White Greedy Cheating Liberal Class..the tingles up the leg must be overwhelming!!!
    Last point:the immigration moratorium is a backdoor for cranking up the supply of nonwhite scab labor..the core of the immigration moratorium is this:when labor markets become very scarce in the supply of labor…very bad thing they think…crank up the supply of scab labor!!!…but this time around, we will listen the wise HBD policy wonks and import a higher quality nonwhite scab laborer..the ones who score very high on IQ tests. And who might this be:why the asians of course!!!!
    In other words, the immigration moratorium enthusiasts would deny millions of Native Born White Americans the great benefit of a very severe labor scarcity.
    The open intent of post -1965 immigration policy is to harm the Native Born American Majority…

    • wattylersrevolt

      Should read:the open intent of post-1965 immigration policy is to harm the Native Born White American Majority. If a critical number of Native Born White Americans finally figure out the racket…well, we may have another peasant revolt ..things could get real exciting!!!

      • Dave

        If your talking out the federal reserve racket your right. They too need a divided America.

      • Re: The benefits of labor scarcity.

        Abso-freakin-loutely. The upside of the black death was that labor became scarcer and the lords of the manor had to offer their tenant farmers better terms. Cheap serf labor would have kept Europe locked longer in the middle ages.

        • wattylersrevolt


          Have a look somehwere down below in the benthic region of this thread…go above to newest….and read my post about the 1898 Homstead PA violent labor war between a Native Peasant Army and the sociopaths Andrew Carniege and Henry Clay Fricke… a defacto right-to-work policy for Eastern European Immigrants ignited one of the most violent labor conflicts in US History…and some people here wonder why there are unions in the US.

    • Luca

      And were labor unions actively protesting and lobbying Washington to stop the influx of illegal cheap labor for the last 15 years? No, they weren’t because they planned to unionize the low-wage illegals, especially in the SEIU. Did you forget that labor unions are in bed with the Democrats, donating tons of union dues to them?

      Labor unions who once served a tremendous cause and did so much good, turned the tide and priced the American worker and factory out of existence. Like all organizations that gain too much power and become too big, they destroyed themselves.They kept driving up labor costs until the factory owners had enough from them and government regulations that they decided to move overseas for the sake of profit and survival.

      The intent of the 1965 immigration policy was to recruit new voters for the Democratic Party.

      • wattylersrevolt

        The rise of vicious anti-white highly racialized unions such as SEIU are a direct consequence of destoying Native Born White American Unions which was done through a deliberate and open policy of importing nonwhite scab labor. Moreover, Native Born White American Union membership went down dramatically as nonwhite immigration increased…it is no coincidence. And it is also not a coincidence that when unions were mostly White when America was 90 percent White that the US economy experienced unprecedented economic growth..and the real wage was increasing.

        The right to work laws are continous with the open policy to destroy unions with foreign nonwhite scab labor. The two are inseparable. Right to work law enthusiasts are vicious sociopaths. The same nasty sociopathic logic is employed by both the sociopaths who destroyed Native Born White American Unions with foreign nonwhite scab labor and the sociopaths who want to destroy whats left of a Native Born White American Union Movement with right to work laws.

        • Luca

          I believe in Right-to-Work and I can assure you I am not a sociopath. If an employer advertises a job for $10 per hour and a worker says “I’ll take it”. What is the harm? They have just created a contract; perfectly legal. The Right to Work statutes do not bar unions but prevents unions from excluding non-union employees and was part of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. It tries to counter the “closed shop” concept and not union organizing.

          On the other hand, what I find hard to comprehend is how an organization like unions can basically force you to join as a condition of employment, force you to pay dues and do with those dues whatever they see fit. Where is the freedom in that? Meanwhile, Union bosses are making $500k a year while going to “meetings” in Hawaii on your dime. You think they fight for you as they did decades ago, but now it is all a show. They are in bed with the employers and the politicians.

          The unions don’t care what color or race their members are as long as they have dues taken from their wages.

          You think it is only the SEIU, but no other union for the last 15-years was taking any kind of strong stand against illegal cheap labor when they should have. Why didn’t the teamsters strike when NAFTA let in hordes of Mexican truckers into the US? Why didn’t labor unions petition to have the border shut down and the invaders thrown out? I’ll make this short for you: They are in bed with the Democratic Party and all it’s politicians. The proof is in the campaign funds which come from dues paying members.

          • purestocles

            You don’t get it. Under so-called “right to work laws”, non union workers get the same wages and benefits as their dues-paying Union brothers. So they get the cream without having to help buy the cow.

          • Luca

            That’s a small part of the picture. I don’t believe that a person should be forced to join any organization, nor should they be forced to pay dues that go to Union bosses salaries and political campaigns for which the members have no say in and in fact, may bitterly oppose. If you think they are paid to represent the members then they should only collect dues during bargaining periods which in some cases is only a couple of months every three years.. Much like paying a lawyer only when he actually does work for you. This distracts from the original point which is Unions never said “Boo” when Mexicans were pouring over the border taking jobs for low wages and destroying entire construction trades especially in the Southwest. Where were your paid protectors then? They were too busy stuffing money in Democrats’ pockets and taking orders from them to remain silent about the cheap labor invasion. They know that down the road they will be organizing these immigrants who will be destroying even more American jobs, factories, trades and occupations. It’s already happened here in lovely Mexifornia.

          • wattylersrevolt

            Yeah Yeah..and I don’t think Native Born White American Men and Women with Native Born White American Families to support should be forced into wage slavery and worked to death. You are not fooling anyone.

          • Luca

            Then tell your paid Union representatives to protest the illegal scab invasion. Even though they take your dues money they will not represent you on this issue, in fact, they will oppose you. You are paying them, they are paying Democrats and they’re both allowing the Mexican scab invasion and laughing all the way to the bank with your money.

          • Luis

            Luca, not only would you have to pay union dues, but let’s say you were a member of NRA, and your union dues went to line the pockets of a gun-grabber like Swimmer Ted, or Charles Schumer – wouldn’t you feel resentful?

          • kjh64

            You make some valid points. The problem is most unions today have abused their positions just as much as management. You often can’t fire union members or at least it’s very difficult no matter how incompetant one is. I’m all for a fair wage yet all too often unions demand far in excess of what the job is worth.

            I’m sorry but paying someone forty dollars an hour to do a simple task is ridiculous or paying someone 100k to teach is also ridiculous. I’ve heard of a teacher, totally incompetant and couldn’t be fired because of the union but couldn’t teach, sitting in an emply room still collecting 100k a year.. If a union is city, county or state, the taxpayers have to pick up the tab for the excesses and that can get very expensive. Look at the car industry. They(the pay) became too expensive so they just moved overseas. Now there are not only no unions, but no jobs. States with right-to-work laws are getting all the business and the jobs. That is just the reality.

            Yes, upper management and executives are paid obsene salaries and that too needs to stop. However, the point is there needs to be a balance between workers and upper management.The problem is mass immigration of cheap labor. Without it, workers and the market could determine the pay of a job in right-to-work states or laws.

          • Joseph

            How does that take money out of the union-member’s pocket even if we concede that non-members are paid the same?

            Under the state “concealed carry laws” the entire public gets the benefit of increased safety without having to buy a gun or risk lawsuit. So what?

          • Dave

            Do you think companies should be allowed to pay nonunion works more then union ones???? Who would be creaming who then??

          • Can you feed a family on 10 dollars an hour? I’m a union carpenter and make 56 dollars an hour(plus benefits) and I’m having a hard time.

          • Luca

            No one is forcing anyone to take the $10 per hour job. You take it or leave it. If you’re a student you might take it, but with a family to feed you pass it up for a better job. An employer should pay whatever is appropriate or better if he wants a higher quality worker. But if a guy hires on voluntarily for $10 an hour as a busboy, then he shouldn’t protest, picket or shut down the business and demand a higher living wage because he has a family. He knew what he was getting into on day one. Just like the cashiers at the market, all they do is scan groceries which is very low skill, yet they went on strike out here a few years ago, bitching about making $18 per hour and how they can’t raise a family on that. Well hell, they knew it was a low skill, low paying job to begin with so what right do they have to demand higher wages? if they don’t like the wage they should find a better job or get better skills, like you did.

          • Fran Webber

            More than a registered nurse. How did that happen. Thanks for nothing, “labor movement.”

          • wattylersrevolt

            Right to work laws are all about a greedy sociopath being able to have acess to scab labor. True story:A White Guy..owner of a contracing company..gave his hypothetical about how certain jobs he couldn’t bid on were a result of a union only policy, and therefore his non union workers got cheated out of a job. I asked him about the racial composition of his workers and where they came from…if you guessed mexican and foreign you are correct.

            Another real world eample:Native Born White American Nurses go on strike.North Shore University Hospital…the Phillipino job shop-L-1 B Visa Legal nonwhite immigrant brings in the Philipino Nurses to help the Hospital break the streak. It is pure soicopathy.
            Libertarians are just evil..and that includes race-replacement enthusiasts Ron and Rand Paul.

          • The Worlds Scapegoat

            I think back in the 1970s or 1980s, the union nurses in Chicago went on strike. During their absence, their was a significantly lower rate of death among the patients. When the union nurses returned to work, the death rate returned. I would bet that the union nurses at that time were not white, and the replacement nurses were white.

          • Fran Webber

            Chicago is a dysfunction city to begin with.

          • Luca

            You would think differently if you owned a business and everytime you turned around your workers were protesting and the union was telling you how to run the business and what to pay the workers or they would threaten to shut you down and put you out of business. Unions demand more and more and more, but what does the employer get in return? Higher productiveity, nope They get nothing buy higher overhead. The union gets more revenue from the increased wages. Quite a racket really. It’s like those old movies where the shop owner has to pay protection money or the hoodlums threaten to ruin his business.

          • Dave

            To be fair the Teamsters once protested Mexican Truck drivers driving in the US. That was when Bush was president .

            Of Course not one business owner joined them. There maybe businesses that politically act against illegal immigration but I have yet to see it.

          • Luca

            Once??? Well that’s what those millions of dollars in dues went for…one protest??? Wow … Union members are really getting top-notch representation aren’t they?

          • Joseph

            Ron Paul belongs to the Minutemen, I hardly think he is a “race replacement enthusiast”. Rand Paul has never claimed to be a “libertarian” and neither are in favor or the subsidized free flux of immigrants.

            Unions are okay but they often become a refuge of people who are uncompetitive in the marketplace so want special protections to keep from being replaced by the fittest for the job. Supply and demand is the order of the day in a free society. This is no different than Affirmative Action where certain groups are singled out for special treatment though they bring no special skill to the job.

            You sound very much like the rest of the single-issue voters on this.

          • They’re not evil, they’re just a bit dilusional. They dogmatize the free market in the same way that communists dogmatize collectivism. They also seem to forget that it was slavery and cheap abused labour that contributed to America’s economic growth during libertarian times.

          • Fran Webber

            As far back as I can remember, the labor movement never cared about women workers. They got their blue collar “brothers” huge pay with benefits, but didn’t blink an eye when scab nurses were brought in, or ever tried to get clerical workers a better deal.

        • Joseph

          As a vicious sociopath, I’d submit that if you believe in freedom of association -like the right to live away from minorities or not hire them, then you should support right-to-work. Same deal.

      • The__Bobster

        Traditionally, unions have been opposed to illegal immigration. Then their bosses came up with the “brilliant idea” of signing up the invaders.

        On Monday, the President’s main campaign chore, other than collecting millions of dollars in California fundraisers, was to dedicate a hispander-specific national monument to honor Cesar Chavez, the late labor organizer. In recent years, Chavez has been rejiggered by the raza gang into an open-borders enthusiast, which he was not, since scab foreign workers undermined his efforts to raise wages for his guys.

      • ATBOTL

        Labor unions were against immigration until very recently. Capitalists have always been for importing non-white labor.

        • Luca

          First of all, only the federal Government can “import” people. The last time capitalists petitioned for wholesale immigration was 1880 -1920. If you read history you’ll find we are at the height of becoming a world power, we had factories springing up everywhere and not enough people we could pull off the farms to fill them.

          Labor unions were against immigration until they decided they may as well unionize the immigrants. Which basically sold the American unionized-worker down the river.

    • C_C_Conrad

      It’s called GENOCIDE.

    • Dave

      I’ve been reading amren for quite awhile and this is one of the best posts I’ve read. Thank you

  • C_C_Conrad

    If “we, the Chamber of Commerce”, can commit genocide against whites AND make a profit – what’s not to like. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
    There is nothing new to the actions of these genocidal oligarchs, they’ve been working at this for 100 years or so. Read the book, Revolution From Above.
    Jack’s War

  • mike

    Labor will never be cheap enough for people like Donahue, but his threats about taking jobs elsewhere are meaningless. The truth is that business is moving back to the US for a number of sound economic reasons. Offshoring not completely over but it is past its peak.

    • purestocles

      And the plan is to have a population of one billion people, just like India and China. A huge class of immigrant proles will work for less than a dollar an hour and manufacturers in the good ol’ US of A will be able to compete head to head with the poorest of the poor in a race to the bottom.

      The crowning irony is that most liberals actually subconsciously believe just what this site advocates. And that is that they and their offspring are more intelligent and capable than the dim-witted immigrants and that their children’s future will not be threatened by the masses of dim bulbs. They are confident that their children will be members of the “thinking” class of technicians, administrators and professionals who will run the show in the future diverse utopia.

  • Sam

    I absolutely do not believe that Corporate America is hungry for cheap labor. I’m sure that was true decades ago, maybe even twenty years ago, but it is not true today. Corporate America today can see that they no longer need much cheap labor, except in agriculture and construction industries. Everything else is being automated away, and any of the big ag companies can see that their labor will also be automated away, and the big construction companies are also automating things with pre-fab components.

    If Corporate America is pushing for immigration “reform”, it is not out of desire for more uneducated Third Worlders they don’t want to hire. That’s ludicrous. They are suffering from a labor shortage, but that’s a shortage of skilled Java programmers and the like, not from Jose who can’t read or speak English.

    The reason why Corporate America is backing immigration “reform” is the same as the reason they are backing (in many instances) gay rights: it’s to upgrade their image.

    We need to stop this meme that evil Republican big business leaders are hungry for a flood of third world labor. It is dangerously false and it is giving our people (whites) an excuse to not vote.

    Even the dumbest corporate Republicans at this point know they don’t need to hire more illiterate high-school dropouts and they can also see that Jose from Mexico is going to vote to raise their taxes, and will sue them for not hiring him.

    (The one exception is that big powerful corporations like Oracle do want more H1B visas for skilled workers, but this is a trickle of people, they don’t go on welfare, and while they may be a big issue for tech workers, they are irrelevant to the larger immigration issue. That small trickle is not going to impact America’s demographics or government finances. It’s the flood of illiterate illegals or family-reunificationers that we need to focus on. Do not conflate H1Bs with the floor of cheap labor and illegal immigration.)

    • Yeahbut.

      It ruins career paths in whole industries for native born white Americans.

      One of the reasons why I don’t have an accounting job right now is that a good chunk of The Philippines and India and other countries are being trained in American accounting standards, and in the case of India, British accounting standards.

    • Vonhauer

      Lots of white, skilled Java programmers, lost jobs that went to cheap Indian labor.

    • NM156

      Agribusiness and construction always need cheap labor, no matter how much they are automated and mechanized, because cheap labor is always on the move to better-paying industries that either displace US workers or cause a drop in US workers’ wages; cheap labor is also always on the move to govt. benefits that become available as the length of time immigrants are in the US increases. However, big business knows that they won’t get cheap high-tech foreign labor unless they lobby for poor immigrants as well.

  • kjh64

    ““Even with high unemployment, we have millions of job openings that go unfilled. Either the workers come here to fill those jobs,” Donohue said, “or the companies take all of their jobs somewhere else.””

    Oh stop the nonsense Tom. This is simply a ploy to flood this country with cheap labor and drive down wages. The ONLY jobs unfilled are those that pay slave wages such that Americans can’t afford to do them, pay taxes and survive.

    ““As we have this important debate,” Donohue said, “let’s remember who we are and where our families would be today if earlier generations of Americans had decided to slam the door shut.””

    Earlier generations did have the door shut at times. When immigration was allowed, it was only of Whites, people who were not criminals or in illegally or didn’t have a disease, and would not be a drain to the country. It was only allowed in much smaller numbers and only for a period of time. It was halted during the Great Depression because there were no jobs and didn’t resume until the 70’s.

    ““The door to the American dream,” he continued, “must always remain open.””

    No, it shouldn’t. NO country can have constant immigration and still remain the same country. It’s not America’s job to give non-Americans the “American Dream”.

    • The Worlds Scapegoat

      The new American Dream is poverty, unemployment, rape, murder, disease, and government surveillance.

      • wattylersrevolt

        That’s about right. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that the participation of millions of Native Born White American “Males” in the meta-level fantasy known as fantasy football is an escape from the hell known as America 2013.

      • Luca

        And no guns.

    • plaintruthforidiots

      Well said, I was just about to post exactly the same thing, that the only reason those jobs are unfilled is because the employers only pay slave wages. This is exactly what the scum in power want – a country of mass poverty, where workers will do anything just to survive, for a few dollars a day. It’s sickening.
      White people have the right to have their own countries.

    • And “the door to Tom Donohue’s family home must remain open, unlocked”! Please encourage the Latin Kings, M13, Zeta Cartel foot soldiers to take a stroll through Tom Donohue’s family home.

  • The Chamber Pot of Commerce is getting ready to team up with Moh-DUH-rate Republidorks to go hard left on gun control.

  • JohnEngelman

    Republican politicians may pretend that by promoting more Hispanic immigration they are soliciting the votes of Hispanics. The reality is that they are doing what their rich white contributors are telling them to do: promote policies that raise profits by reducing wages.

    • Vonhauer


    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      The politicians promoting “more Hispanic immigration” — as you well know — are your cherished Democratic Party politicians.

      Just last week the fellow you voted for VP called Hispanics “the center of this nation’s future . . . What’s finally happened is the American people, the American people have finally begun to understand…the awesome potential, future potential of the Hispanic community…. Now the nation — and I might add the hemisphere — understands the Hispanic community must be courted,” said Biden.”

      • JohnEngelman

        Immigration is an issue that divides the elites of both parties from the rank and file. When rich Democrats think of immigration they think of the Statue of Liberty, “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and all that.

        Rich Republicans think of becoming richer Republicans because that is what a high rate of immigration enables them to become by cutting wages.

        • Luca

          The rich Democrats think of votes and cheap maids and gardeners. They were standing on the docks when my grandfather came her telling him: “We’re the party of the working man, vote for us”. They don’t care who you are or what you represent, they just want the votes. They promise each group what ever it wants without regard to the overall long-term effect on the American people or culture.

          And thanks to over-regulation, EPA, and unions driving up costs to unsustainable levels, employers have moved overseas and now have 2-billion cheap laborers in China and India, they don’t need the illegals here.

          • JohnEngelman

            Employers do not move production overseas because they have to but because they can. They can because of laws like NAFTA. President Clinton passed NAFTA, but in Congress it had more Republican support than Democratic support.

            When one third of the work force belonged to unions, and when the top tax rate never got below 91 percent most Americans got yearly pay raises that beat inflation.

          • The Traveller

            Let’s not make excuses. The democrats have been complicit in this as well.

            1) The democrats controlled both the house, the Senate, and the presidency when NAFTA was ratified. Through their control of congress, they could have prevented a vote on NAFTA if they really wanted to 2) We both know that many otherwise supportive democrats likely voted no because the bill was assured passage, so their vote didn’t matter as much, leaving them able to say to their constituents that they voted against the unpopular agreement 3) about 40% of the democrats in the house voted for it – a significant percentage. Without such democratic support, it would not have passed. 4) almost as many democrats supported the legislation as republicans: 132 house republicans vs. 102 house democrats and 34 republican senators vs 27 democrat senators


            “When one third of the work force belonged to unions, and when the top
            tax rate never got below 91 percent most Americans got yearly pay raises
            that beat inflation.”

            You’re putting the cart before the horse. Americans belonged to unions because the economy was strong and employers could afford them; unions did not necessarily make the economy stronger. Americans belonged to unions because the American economy was very strong compared to the decimated ruins of Europe and Asia; WW2 left a tremendous manufacturing void which the United States was easily able to fill. Manufacturers had no choice but to hire Americans at comparatively high wages to do the work that other nations could not. Americans were able to pay that top tax rate and manufacturers tolerated unions because there was a profitable void left by the destruction of WW2 – everyone benefited regardless of wages and taxes. However, as Europe recovered, Asia industrialized, and technology advanced allowing jobs to be outsourced, employers were no longer forced to pay high wages to American workers.

            I think this is a much better hypothesis than your insinuation that unions = wealth generation. Otherwise, Europe should be thriving. Ask Greece how they are doing.

            Furthermore, if you would like unions to return (I’m not against all unions) then you should concentrate on promoting an environment in which they could thrive: limited immigration, no affirmative action or racial quotas, maybe a vat tax, etc.

          • JohnEngelman

            During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt the percentage of the work force that belonged in labor unions climbed from seven percent to 27 percent.


            Labor unions increased the wages of employees. This enabled them to become better consumers. As they bought more employers hired more people to produce and sell what was purchased. Consequently a strong labor movement contributed to more job creation.

            In Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway the percent of the work force that is unionized ranges from 82 percent to 57 percent.


            Unlike the United States these countries retain AAA ratings in Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s.


            Each of these countries have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States.


            In 2011 each of these countries had lower unemployment rates than the Untied States.


          • Luca

            Are you going to seriously reach back 80 years to support your views? Gimme a break, you are talking about incredible times in history marked by the worst Depression on one end and the complete resurgence of the economy because of WW2. You spout out these fractional facts and completely ignore the simple commonsense reality. At the end of the day, unions are in bed with the Democrats and happily accept the invading hordes coming over the border so they can legalize and unionize them. Unions have driven whole industries into the ground through their greedy excessive demands. Think steel and auto workers. I remember the time on a construction job, 50 union laborers were standing for 2 hrs, waiting for one union electrican on a callout to turn on some lights for a night job. That electrician got 4 hours pay for doing something a 3-year old could do…turn on the lights. Those 50 workers sitting idle added about $3000 to the final job costs and for what? Where is the productiivty and efficiency? Lack of cost effectiveness and competitiveness drives employers out of business. Pay increases should be based on performance and not extortion.

          • JohnEngelman

            On economics our only guide about what is likely to work in the present is what did work in the past. A strong labor movement helped the United States recover from the Great Depression.

            The Great Depression was also ended by high government spending and high government employment paid for by very high taxes on the rich.

          • Luca

            Your analogies are disingenuous. If you saw 60 people standing in line at a movie theater and the first guy was wearing a red hat, you’d report here that people with red hats cause other people to stand in a line. When Hitler expelled Jews from Germany, within a few short years they had full employment. According to your logic, expelling Jews is good for the economy.

            War time production was how we got out of the Depression and with the wartime economy booming and everyone working. The jobs, the government spending, the recovery from the Depression and the growth of the unions were all a result of the booming wartime economy. That is based on history and commonsense.

          • JohnEngelman

            What was good for the German economy were increases in government spending and employment.

            In the United States those on the right like to attribute America’s emergence from the Great Depression to military spending, rather than the earlier domestic spending of the New Deal. They forget that military spending and employment is government spending and employment.

            Moreover, military spending is inherently wasteful. People cannot eat bullets. They cannot live in tanks.

            I do not object to America’s entry into World War II. Nevertheless, if the money spent on the American war effort had been spent on domestic spending the results would have been better for the economy.

            This is what President Eisenhower had to say about the tragic waste of military spending:

            “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

            “It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

            “It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

            “It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

            “We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

            “We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”


          • Luca

            Before the Government can tax the worker and spend his money, the worker must first have a job and that job must be in private industry. Otherwise, you are promoting a “perpetual-motion machine”.

            The New Deal government collected more in excise taxes then income taxes until 1942. Excise taxes disproportionately affect the poor. If anything, the 21st Amendment which repealed Prohibition in 1933 probably did more to help the economy, decrease spending, decrease crime and increase tax revenue than the New Deal did. The national economy is comprised of millions of moving parts and levers. You can’t point to one aspect of it and claim it is a magic bullet, it works in conjunction with many other factors. You need to get your microscope off Domestic Government spending as it is not a cure-all. If spending were the answer Obama has done more spending than any President in history and where are we today? Still spending. BTW.. the subject was immigration.

          • JohnEngelman

            I doubt that you can document using a credible source that government spending is higher under President Obama in terms of constant dollars than under any other president.

            If you can document that, please do so.

          • Luca
          • JohnEngelman

            This is a complex debate. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is not necessarily the best way to reflect a president’s spending — it’s just one of them.


          • JohnEngelman


            Your second article makes factual assertions without attributing them to anything. One needs to take the author’s word for his assertions. He uses emotionally charged language like, “so-called,” “Keynesian witchcraft,” “Obama’s Swedish socialism,”Obamacare, “Obama spending binge,” and so on.


            When I am trying to find out where the truth lies on a complex and controversial issue, appeals to emotion incline me to give more credence to the other side.

          • JohnEngelman

            Richard Kogan, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that while the dollar amounts for low-income assistance are growing, they still represent about the same slice of the budget pie when viewed over the long run. He said the costs may have spiked during the recession, but are projected to drop back to more normal levels once the economy recovers.

            “In short, whatever one thinks about the merits or costs of these programs, other than Medicaid, they are contributing nothing to long-run budgetary pressures,” he said.

            As for Medicaid, where major spending increases have been made, Mr. Kogan said even there it may be a savings.

            “Medicaid provides health care at a noticeably cheaper price than Medicare does, and both are cheaper than the cost of private-sector health insurance,” he said. “The problem is not that the programs are badly designed — it is that the entire health care system in the U.S. is much more expensive than in any other advanced country.”
            Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    • Joseph

      The best part of the story is that it started in earnest with the Reagan administration through the influence of Bush & Co.

      A dream coming true for the Trilateralists.

  • JohnEngelman

    The Republican Party exists in order to advance the economic interests of the well to do, regardless of the effect this has on the standard of living of everyone else. Those who keep that in mind should be angry about what Republican politicians do. They should never be surprised.

    • Luca

      The well-to-do are the ones who own businesses and hire the not-so well-to-do. The better the rich do, the more they invest their capital, which in turn promotes economic growth. I have held many jobs but I was never hired by a poor person. Without the rich you would have no middle class. In this country you have the freedom to succeed or fail When someone succeeds they shouldn’t be vilified and when someone fails it’s not always the fault of the rich. The majority of the people who actually get rich do so through hard work, smart decisions and luck, not through nefarious political manipulations by Republicans.

      • JohnEngelman

        Rich people do not hire people when they have more money. They hire people when they have more customers. They have more customers when the government taxes them heavily and spreads the wealth around. That is why there have usually been more economic growth and more job creation per year under Democratic presidents.

        • Luca

          They can’t have more customers if their product or service is not competitive due to high overhead labor costs. When they have extra capital they can expand their business, or open another branch in another part of the state or country, which in turn means they hire more people..

          The government spreads the wealth to the hordes of low-IQ dregs of society who spend it on lottery tickets, booze, cigarettes, drugs and cheap baby food. It would be great if that money were instead spent on something productive. Government by it’s very nature wastes money. As Friedman said “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5-years there would be a shortage of sand”. Damn government can’t even efficiently mail a letter anymore, even the post office is going broke supporrting all those clerks shuffling around behind the counter.

          • JohnEngelman

            Milton Friedman said, “There is no free lunch.” Then he violated his insight during the Reagan administration by encouraging the voters to believe that tax cuts generated so much economic growth that they paid for themselves. In other words, Milton Friedman encouraged the American people to believe that there was a free lunch, and that they could have the government they wanted without paying for it.

          • Luca

            Again, cutting something and eliminating something are two different things. If high taxes are so good one can only imagine how much better off than we be if they taxed us all at 100%. We’d be living high on the hog wouldn’t we? Makes perfect sense. Maybe you think the government is entitled to all of our money but I feel differently. There is no free lunch, somebody somewhere down the line gets to pay the tab. Friedman was absolutely right regardless of your distorted analogies.

          • JohnEngelman

            Those connected with the economic policies of Ronald Reagan were at best mistaken, and at worst dishonest when they maintained that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases.

            During the Roosevelt administration there was a steady increase in the top tax rate, and a steady decline in the unemployment rate, except for a year after 1937 when Roosevelt cut government spending.

            During the Eisenhower administration the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. For most Americans those were good years.




          • Luca

            Again John, selective research, selective postings. The tax rate of 91% which covered less then .01% of the population was a sham, no one in the US paid it. It was on the books, yes, but there were an avalanche of deductions and tax shelters that eroded taxable income down (for the most part) into the 30-percentile rate and many occupations got it down to near zero. In fact, the lower income taxpayers got hammered a lot harder than they do know.

            Of course I understand that you overlooked these facts because it wouldn’t support your argument.

          • JohnEngelman

            The need to use tax loop holes gave the government considerable power over the economic behavior of the rich.

      • Dave

        That’s the way America was supposed to be and should be not the way it is!!
        That day will only return when we get back to the Constitution and some type of gold standard.
        When we think of money and how it affects racial politics lets not forget how the money is Created in the first place.

      • Rich people in Japan and Switzerland generally manage to be patriotic on the live or die issue of mass third world immigration. So why is American stuck with filthy rich traitors like &@$$ Tom Donohue.

  • bigone4u

    In my experience in higher ed, immigrant professors are a sham. The schools claim they can’t find a white (or black) American to fill the position as professor. The government agrees and they go after a foreign born student who has been in America studying.
    The foreign born professorshired then use their employment to obtain citizenship. They are quite docile less they lose their chance to stay in the US and they have no concept of academic freedom. They work for less too.
    Generally, but not always, they are terrible teachers as a visit to will confirm. Or ask any college student. Students learn very little in their classes or have to teach themselves, so the USA is undermined a little bit at a time by the encroaching ignorance.
    Foreign born profs often become academic superstars of a sort. Their research is typically uncreative. They learn a technique and simply reapply that technique over and over. They produce a lot however. It’s a cookie cutter assembly line numbers game that universities reward. The kind of thoughtful papers that marked academia in the 1950s and take thoughtul reflection have gone the way of tailfins on autos.
    Essentially, one open position at a time, higher ed is turned into a tool of the New World Order. By the way, there usually are plenty of unemployed US citizen doctorates who could have been given the job, so the whole system is a sham.

  • Flytrap

    Immigration reform may have a friend in corporate America, but don’t forget that Wall Street voted for BHO. Things that seem like natural enemies aren’t always so.

  • BAW

    “Cheap labor”…isn’t.

    Corporate America is so focused on the PRICE of cheap labor that they’re woefully blind to the COST of cheap labor.

    The cost of cheap immigrant labor includes these costs, just to name a few:

    Increased demand for welfare
    Increased demand for law enforcement
    Increased demand for prisons
    Increased demand for health care
    Increased demand for all other social services from drug rehab to domestic violence shelters
    Increased unemployment
    Increased cost of translation
    Decreased quality of life
    Lower test scores and worse academic performance
    Lower wages for all workers
    Decreased bargaining power for workers
    Decreased property values
    Threatened national security
    Debasement of our Northwestern European/Judeo-Christian culture
    …And many more.

    Who pays these costs? Look in the mirror. Corporate America will end up paying these costs, too, through higher taxes, increased regulations, more lawsuits, and reduced buying power on the part of its customer base. Trouble is, many corporate chieftains’ decisions have more to do with next quarter’s profit than the long-range good of the organization and the country.

  • NM156

    My message to the US Chamber of Commerce: DROP DEAD.

  • Sasha

    They require them for consumption not for production.welfare pays for that consumption. Hence you do through taxes.

    • The Worlds Scapegoat

      I think that is one of the reason why welfare was started. Whites were not spending their money fast enough for the elitists and the bankers, so they took the money away from them, through taxes, and gave it to a group of people who are irresponsible with money.

  • Joseph

    “The door to the American dream,” he continued, “must always remain open.”

    Who IS this loonatron? The “American Dream” has become a nightmare thanks to his recommended solution to a non-existent problem.

    • Donohoe is the man who said in 2007 that anyone who thought immigration reform[amnesty] wouldn’t get passed was as dumb as a bag of hammers.

      When duh-byah tried to ram through his amnesty twice over the objections of his base, I realized what a sheeet he was and had always been and have never listened to him since then and will never listen to him again. When his amnesty was defeated twice, he was so angry that he got drunk and had to be absent from a dinner hosted by the Japanese Prime Minister.

      Anyone trying to amnesty or supporting amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens when native born Americans are being told they need to face austerity is a traitor and should be treated as a traitor by Americans who love their country.

      When they build the fence on the southern border, post guards with orders to shoot to kill and rescind birthright citizenship then we can begin to talk immigration reform but not until.

  • PDK

    For what it is worth:

    Although it may be more who not what, there is a very,
    unmistakable interplay of liberals and their democrat party, and that would be
    those who pursue a socialist democracy, and the blacks and browns.

    First, the liberals and their democrat party are out to
    destroy our Founding Fathers American free enterprise Republic, usurping it
    with their socialist democracy. The former enriches a culture beyond belief,
    the latter milks dry that very, free enterprise created cornucopia of wealth.

    Second, it is primarily the blacks and browns who are the
    recipients of the liberal democrat’s redistribution of free enterprise created
    wealth, which of course is primarily born of white people. The blacks and
    browns are incapable of higher culture creation and higher culture maintenance.
    However, they are enfranchised in our fully enfranchised democratic process and
    therefore vote to take from whitey and give to blackie and browie by voting

    The democrats also stifle our free enterprise system by over
    regulating and over taxing the very businesses that create the wealth to begin
    with. Further the liberal democrat politicians practice an out of control cronyism
    that steals tax dollars for themselves. They are a very immature lot who
    literally practice the art of successful envy and selfishness.

    If helping blacks and browns was a one-time deal who would
    care, but that is not the case. Since FDR and LBJ the liberal democrat policy
    of socialism has done nothing positive for anyone or anything except the
    liberal democrat party, the socialist democracy party.

    Why is it American policy to enfranchise those, the blacks
    and browns, who are incapable of the white created and maintained free
    enterprise Republican culture? The blacks and browns are produced by a gene
    pool that produces a human sub-species designed to live in a tribal
    environment, and further is totally unequipped to function in a higher culture.

    The God complexed, narcissistic liberal democrat leaders are
    themselves incapable of making it on their own, and thus use and abuse our
    system to carve out a niche for themselves, at the expense of the system, to
    achieve their desired lifestyle of power, fame and fortune.

    Their ultimate goal is to usurp our free enterprise Republic
    and replace it with their much dreamed of socialist democracy, the purveyor of
    tyranny, poverty and misery, and further, ultimately pursue the new world, one
    world order of globalism, socialism and democracy.

    The current liberal democrat movement to destroy the America
    second amendment of our Bill of Rights is first and foremost about destroying
    our Republic and transmogrifying it into a democracy, and not about the
    unmedicated sufferers of psychosis.

    The sand pours through the hour glass, our time grows short.
    When we older white male republicans die off the liberal democrats, especially
    considering their immigration policy of more blacks and browns and less whites
    will have the serious advantage they long for to destroy our free enterprise
    Republic and thusly an easy time instituting their socialist democracy.

    I do advocate for a gathering together of non-liberal whites
    in republican states, that we may subsequently secede by declaring our
    independence and write a new Constitution that protects us from all that now
    ails our culture, liberal democrats, blacks, browns and Islamics. Thank you.

  • I cannot see how allowing turd world immigration is helping the country any. These government officials are either completely incompetent and or evil. What do they want, a real shitty future for all. These people suck!!

  • What American dream? Thats been dead for 20 years or more.

    • JohnEngelman

      Twenty years ago Bill Clinton was inaugurated president. The United States was about to enjoy eight years of economic growth with a steady decline in the unemployment rate and low inflation.

  • wattylersrevolt

    Right to work laws in action:In 1898 in Homstead Pennsyvania Steelworkers from Andrew Carniege’s wage slave steel mills-black slaves were probably treated better in the Old South as Fitzthough pointed out-this is not a defense of the institution of chattle slavery by the way… went on strike. Can you imagine that!!! What a bunch of ungratefull bastards!!! They were depriving all those independent contractors from Eastern Europe who wanted to work at much lower wage and at even more horrific work conditions!!!..imagine that..well, thank God that there was a defacto right-to work law in effect that allowed the magnificient Andrew Carniege and his buddy Henry Clay Fricke recover their stolen wealth that they worked so hard for from these ungratefull Native Born White American Workers. The federal goverment intervened to set things right and restore the natural order of things…restoring Andrew Carniege and Henry Clay Fricke to their rightfull postions in American Society…as Lord and Master of the ungratefull and pesky Natives!!!!! The Federal Goverment sent in the troops and made certain that these independent contractors from Eastern Europe could participate in the “free” labor markets of Homestead PA…God Bless the Free Market!!!!

  • The Worlds Scapegoat

    Who do these companies plan on selling their product to? Obviously it won’t be the people they employ

  • Steve5579

    Big businesses want less regulation and a fix to the country’s fiscal situation but also the naturalisation of millions of third world Democrat voters. What planet are these cretins on?

  • split america now

    No different than the slave traders of 500 years ago. Obama will gladly partner with corps for different reasons and use this as a mechanism to ship millions of 3rd worlders from Africa and Asia or South America for cheap labor rather then import and export with globalization to get a white minority race and cares less how he gets it even if he has to climb in bed with capitalism corps. Mullah and his minion tool Holder care less how or why these tens of millions of illegals are legalized and know technically if they are legalized with enough clout the laws could be changed to keep him in power and this is obviously his ultimate goal as he nominates a few whites in his administration as tokens to make it look good.

    The only solution is split America and redraw the lines. Time to clean out the 3rd world filth and split the bad marriage with irreconcilable differences. Do it for your children and their children etc etc. America was mistake from the beginning mainly because of terminal mistakes with unneeded slavery and failure to kill all the millions of migrant red mongoloid Asian impostors already in the west unethically who had crossed the Bering land bridge in order to make the western hemisphere 100% white with white slaves only.

    Low IQ 3rd world lucky blacks keep ignorantly trying to con whites on the 500 year old slave issue knowing full well slavery was their ultimate savior and their escape form the wretched cesspool of death in the jungle being sold off as rejects by their tribal chiefs to the white elite who are no different than the elite corps today. Monumental mistake by whites to bring the cursed Hamites to the western world where they were never supposed to be. in the west. Time to invent a time machine and correct these catastropic errors.

  • Diesel Mechanic

    when are working class white americans going to wake up and realize that the entire political correctness/civil rights/racial integration/mass immigration/race spoils/anti-white movement/culture/regime was created by and for the rich, for the upper class, for rich investors, for corporations?

    When are you going to realize that “liberals” are merely ideological pawns in this system, that they are the tool of the rich, just as the GOP is the tool of the rich. If the white-hating liberal base were not there to drive the white working class towards the arms of the GOP, there would basically be no GOP.

    Don’t hate the libs; instead, hate the rich. They created the anti-white/PC/race-spoils/mass-immigration propaganda regime.

    Mass immigration, affirmative action, political correctness, etc, all help the rich, and the propaganda regime/culture that enforces these ideas was created by and for the rich.

    This was all started decades ago, almost 100 years ago or so via the large nonprofit foundations that molded the education system so as to create a New Left, a fake Left, a Left centered around minority rights, diversity, gender rights, mass immigration, immigrant-worship etc.

    Know your TRUE enemy. It’s not the hated libs. They are mere foot soldiers for the rich, as are the GOP base. The true predator-parasite of the white working class sits perched above society. Don’t look around you for the hated liberal. Look up and discover your enemy.

  • Luis

    Where are the millions of jobs that go unfilled? More important, what wages are they paying, and what benefits package is being provided?

  • I’s irrelevant though, isn’t it ? Once Puerto Rico gains statehood, Dems will never lose another election, and they’ll be going further left. The only hope is white separatism.

  • Fran Webber

    Why aren’t the unions protecting the American workers? Because their leaders sold them out.

  • Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to hate someone. I simply hate and detest US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue. He looks to be another Ted Kennedy type Irish American – super rich, shuns honest work, has some chip on the shoulder resentment of White WASPs. I hope this guy gets in to a fatal car accident with some drunk newly amnestied illegal alien.

  • jackryanvb

    Can some of Amren’s solid Irish-American readers take the lead in taking down this terrible, filthy rich, traitor Donohue? Tom Donohue looks like another Ted Kennedy – filthy rich, but “newly rich” looking to flood the US with tens of millions of 3rd world, NW poor and it’s all supposedly done under the lie that “Well those terrible British WASPs used to look down on poor Irish Immigrants, so we have to take the side on today’s poor immigrants and really stick it to the WASPs”.

  • jackryanvb

    We have to work hard to make this filthy rich @*#&@$% Donohue, Chamber of Commerce minimum wage slave master the face of the immigration invasion. All the propaganda about the honest, hard working immigrant trying to put food on the table (they’re FAT) for their family and restore “the American Dream” – all this propaganda gets blown away when poor and working class Americans understand that mass immigration is about filthy rich traitors like Donohue trying to lower American wages and import low wage slaves, “happy slaves” so selfish, olf #*[email protected]$ like Donohue can ride around in limos and discuss stock options.

  • jackryanvb

    I am afraid we have a Kennedy style newly rich Irish American with a chip on his shoulder. Working class Irish Americans and middle class Irish Americans are generally solid folks and mostly on our side on basic issues with racial themes. But, always watch out for newly rich, multi, multi millionaire Irish Americans in the NorthEast, North (they don’t go anti White in the South). There is always the “Braveheart” path of Irish trying to stick it to us WASPs and somehow get back at the English for supposedly bad treatment of poor Irish back in Ireland or when poor Irish came to the United States.

  • shattered

    I wonder how long it will be until only corporations are allowed to vote in the U.S..

  • Fran Webber

    Within the labor movement, there is a caste system. The “insiders” get the big money blue collar jobs and everyone else gets screwed. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the Catholic Church pushes for more immigration. I remember back in the 70’s how they would bring in Philipino scab nurses that just degraded the working conditions for the American nurses.

  • No Reform

    Donahue is a PUPPET for Labor intensive Business Owners..he WAS the Prez of American Trucking Association before this current Puppet Job…he was a Puppet there too….Big Trucking Companies had him lobby for them to getMORE MONEY…what else would a PUPPET do?? Sure this crap Bill is Amnesty to bring Illiterate Laborers Here. What ELSE??

  • No Reform

    There is no shortage of workers or labor in America……only LOW PAID workers…this is
    whatt this ignornant bill proposes..a pathway to Riches for big Business by exploiting
    illiterate clowns…whao are willing to live in a cardboard box in a field next to Walmart
    and work for peanuts…they dont care about citizenship..they send their MONEY home to Mexico and will Retire their where American Dollars will provide a nice lifestyle.
    They dont care about America..these are laborers…not here on Student Visas….just Peasants looking to Milk the labor rackets and go back home with MONEY.

  • No Reform

    Donahue was put in office by the American Trucking Association…so he could push
    this bogus immigration reform..and get illegal aliens to drive Trucks for cheap!
    He is a Liar and a Crook and was prez of ATA for years and a known CROOK.