The coronavirus outbreak has exposed the United States’ dangerous dependence on China for pharmaceutical and medical supplies, including an estimated 97 percent of all antibiotics and 80 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients needed to produce drugs in the United States.
The economic repercussions of the coronavirus reveal the dangers of allowing one country to have a near monopoly on global manufacturing, David Dayen explains in an article at the American Prospect:
China is a source of not only finished goods, but also of input parts and raw materials. A substantial number of the materials needed for defense and electronic systems come from China, and that nation is “the single or sole supplier for a number of specialty chemicals,” according to a recent Defense Department report. Rare earth minerals, which are critical to electronics, are largely mined in China. As a result, Chinese disruptions don’t just hit Chinese manufacturing, they hit everyone’s. Automakers have already had to slow or shut down factories globally due to supply shortages.
Perhaps the biggest concern is over medical supplies. China produces and exports a large amount of pharmaceuticals to the U.S., including 97 percent of all antibiotics and 80 percent of the active ingredients used to make drugs here. Penicillin, ibuprofen, and aspirin largely come from China. Last month, the medical supply firm Cardinal Health recalled 2.9 million surgical gowns “cross contaminated” at a plant in China; the blood pressure drug valsartan also saw shortages recently, thanks to tainted active ingredients at one Chinese plant. The combination of supply chain disruptions and increased demand at hospitals if coronavirus spreads to the U.S. could prove devastating.
In a dark irony, most of the world’s face masks—now ubiquitous in China as a precaution—are made in China and Taiwan, and even for those made elsewhere, some component parts are Chinese-sourced. Shortages have led China to declare the masks a “strategic resource,” reserving them for medical workers. U.S. hospitals are “critically low” on respiratory masks, according to medical-supply middlemen. Lack of protective gear could increase vulnerability to the virus, and the one place on earth suffering from production shutdowns is the one place where most of the protective gear originates [emphasis added].
In testimony yesterday before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Scott Gottlieb, a physician and the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner in the Trump administration, explained in detail the extent of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry’s dependence on China:
About 40 percent of generic drugs sold in the U.S. have only a single manufacturer. A significant supply chain disruption could cause shortages for some of many of these products.
Last year, manufacturing of intermediate or finished goods in China, as well as pharmaceutical source material, accounted for 95 percent of U.S. imports of ibuprofen, 91 percent of U.S. imports of hydrocortisone, 70 percent of U.S. imports of acetaminophen, 40 to 45 percent of U.S. imports of penicillin, and 40 percent of U.S. imports of heparin, according to the Commerce Department. In total, 80 percent of the U.S. supply of antibiotics are made in China.
While much of the fill finishing work (the actual formulation of finished drug capsules and tablets) is done outside China (and often in India) the starting and intermediate chemicals are often sourced in China. Moreover, the U.S. generic drug industry can no longer produce certain critical medicines such as penicillin and doxycycline without these chemical components.
According to a report from the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, China’s chemical industry, which accounts for 40 percent of global chemical industry revenue, provides a large number of ingredients for drug products. It’s these source materials — where in many cases China is the exclusive source of the chemical ingredients used for the manufacture of a drug product — that create choke points in the global supply chain for critical medicines.
Moreover, when it comes to starting material for the manufacture of pharmaceutical ingredients, a lot of this production is centered in China’s Hubei Provence, the epicenter of coronavirus. Most drug makers have a one to three-months of inventory of drug ingredients on hand. But these supplies are already being drawn down. Among big [active pharmaceutical makers] makers in Wuhan are Wuhan Shiji Pharmaceutical, Chemwerth, Hubei Biocause, Wuhan Calmland Pharmaceuticals. [emphasis added]
Gottlieb notes that “80 percent of the U.S. supply of antibiotics are made in China.” The sourcing of this estimate is explained in greater detail in section three of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s 2019 report to Congress, titled “ Growing U.S. Reliance on China’s Biotech and Pharmaceutical Products.”
The report notes that China is “the world’s largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). The United States is heavily dependent on drugs that are either sourced from China or include APIs sourced from China.” The report further explains that although India is the world’s leading supplier of generic drugs, India gets 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical ingredients directly from China. The United States also imports 80 percent of its APIs from overseas (primarily from India and China) and “a substantial portion” of its generic drugs “either directly from China or from third countries like India that use APIs sourced from China.”
In other words, almost all pharmaceutical roads lead to China.
Furthermore, the report notes that China’s dominance of the chemical industry and global manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients means that “the world is becoming increasingly dependent on China as the single source for life-saving drugs.”
“The U.S. generic drug industry can no longer produce certain critical medicines such as penicillin and doxycycline, and the APIs needed to make these antibiotics are sourced from China,” the report states.
China achieved this dominance in the pharmaceutical industry by the same methods it employed to dominate the steel industry – through anti-competitive trade practices that dumped cheap state-subsidized products on foreign markets to drive competitors out of business.
The report states:
Rosemary Gibson, senior advisor at the Hastings Center and author of China RX, noted in her testimony before the Commission that the United States is losing its ability to produce generic drugs because Chinese drug companies dumped low-price products into the global market, which in turn pushed U.S., European, and Indian producers out of the generic drug manufacturing business. According to Ms. Gibson, China is seeking to disrupt, dominate, and displace U.S. pharmaceutical and other medical companies, and in doing so limit the United States’ ability to produce its own medicines, including critical antibiotics such as penicillin and even generic aspirin. She believes the United States could see its generic drug industry made uncompetitive within five to ten years due to the Chinese government’s policies (including subsidies and export incentives) that allow Chinese pharmaceutical firms to undercut prices and drive U.S. firms out of business. [emphasis added]
Ironically, China’s success in monopolizing the U.S. drug market with these anti-competitive trade practices was reportedly cited by President Trump’s former economic adviser Gary Cohn as an argument against Trump’s efforts to fight back against China’s trade violations.
In his book Fear: Trump in the White House, Bob Woodward describes a heated discussion among Trump administration officials about the repercussions of a trade war with China. Cohn, who disagreed with the president’s decision to impose tariff’s on Beijing, reportedly invoked a Commerce Department study showing that 97 percent of all U.S. antibiotics come from China. “‘If you’re the Chinese and you want to really just destroy us, just stop sending us antibiotics,’ he said.”
Globalist critics like Cohn of Trump’s trade policies “fretted that turbulence from the Trump administration’s tariffs would have catastrophic results on the global economy,” Curtis Ellis wrote last week in an op-ed for Breitbart News. These critics proved to be wrong.
However, the virus itself will cause economic disruptions because it “has exposed the frailty of global supply chains and the fallacy of the management theory calling for intercontinental supply chains and just-in-time inventory management,” Ellis writes.
Or, to put it another way, the tariffs did not hurt the U.S. economy, but the current virus outbreak in China could because of the very problem that the tariffs were enacted, in part, to address. In this sense, the virus has vindicated the Trump’s administration’s tough trade stance and affirmed the necessity of moving the world’s supply chains out of China. If anything, Trump’s tariffs may have actually made the U.S. economy somewhat more resilient because they encouraged companies to begin the process of moving production out of China.
But this vindication could be of little consolation to Trump if the virus’s ripple effects hurt the economy during an election year. The political repercussions could be significant for a president who has touted the strong economy has become a major re-election selling point.
Economists are already expecting the virus to have a major impact on China’s economy. Breitbart News’s John Carney reports, HSBC “lowered its estimate for the first quarter growth from an annualized rate of 5.8 percent to 4.1 percent” for China. “The bank’s estimate for full year growth was lowered by half a percentage point from 5.8 percent to 5.3 percent.”
As for the global economic impact, Dayen quotes Washington University in St. Louis professor Panos Kouvelis who estimates $300 to $400 billion in supply chain damage over a period of up to two years.
“That’s actually manageable as a share of the global economy,” Dayen writes. “But as new cases pop up in Singapore, an important financial hub, and as the head of the World Health Organization warns that we could be seeing only the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ those numbers could already be out of date.”
Those numbers may indeed be overly optimistic. In his testimony before the Senate yesterday, Gottlieb warned of the potential for the coronavirus epidemic to become a full pandemic–and maybe even endemic–now that it has spread to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. “It could take a new position as a more sinister member of the seasonal pathogens that circulate each year and infect humans,” he said, noting that “the next month is critical.”
“We must prepare for the prospect that the virus evaded our border protections and was already introduced into the U.S. in late December or early January — when it first appears to have become epidemic in China’s Hubei province. Those index cases could have seeded community spread, and eventually, outbreaks could emerge in America,” Gottlieb stated.
Whatever the economic impacts of the coronavirus, the current dependence on an authoritarian communist regime for vital necessities is an indictment of the globalists economic policies that have endangered U.S. national security and long-term prosperity.
“[T]he economic threats to locating so much of the global supply chain in one part of the world were eminently predictable,” writes Dayen. “Neoliberal dogma about ‘comparative advantage’ and a concomitant preference for mass outsourcing put the world on a tenuous path.”
There is a growing consensus among populists on the right and left about the need to address the neoliberal trade and economic policies that gave China a monopoly on the world’s supply chains.
Gottlieb urged Congress to empower the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “to look not only at the supply of finished products but to also identify circumstances where key components may have only a single source across an entire category of products.”
Matt Stoller, author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, writes that Gottlieb is essentially asking for the FDA “to have the authority to uncover hidden monopolies.”
“The Federal Trade Commission already has this research authority, it just doesn’t use it very often,” Stoller explains. “And the United States Trade Representative has information on our dependencies on China, because when they threatened tariffs large numbers of companies came to them during a notice and comment period whining about how such dependencies would hurt their business. So we have some information about the scale of the problem. Just not enough.”
“The strongest reason to address monopolies isn’t because monopolies are unjust, but because they are dangerous,” Stoller notes. “And we may be about to find out just how dangerous they are.”
If nothing else, the coronavirus offers business and government leaders another reason to continue the process of decoupling the U.S. economy from China. And it also offers a warning for those who seek to simply relocate production to another developing country in order to exploit cheap labor and lax regulations. All of these short-term money-saving decisions come with long-term risk.
“If there’s a silver lining, it’s that this threat could inspire more diversification of supply chains,” Dayen writes. “The race to the bottom in manufacturing clearly has a cost, and countries must learn that self-preservation demands maintaining some semblance of an industrial base. The U.S.-China trade war did lead to some companies moving their work out of China, but only to cheaper countries where multinationals will likely conglomerate, to build economies of scale. We know the dangers inherent in that. Rebuilding domestic manufacturing is not just a question of jobs; it’s a question of safety.”
Rebecca Mansour is Senior Editor-at-Large for Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Tonight on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125, which broadcasts live weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6-9:00 p.m. Pacific). Follow her on Twitter at @RAMansour.
CEOs and India Want to Trade Indian H-1B Graduates for U.S. Exports
President Donald Trump should use his February 24-25 visit to India to help companies export more Indian college-graduate workers into U.S. white-collar jobs, says an Indian trade group run by Indian and U.S.-Indian companies. The trade association, dubbed NASSCOM, “is lobbying the two sides to treat the movement of skilled Indian workers under the H-1B…
President Donald Trump should use his February 24-25 visit to India to help companies export more Indian college-graduate workers into U.S. white-collar jobs, says an Indian trade group run by Indian and U.S.-Indian companies.
The trade association, dubbed NASSCOM, “is lobbying the two sides to treat the movement of skilled Indian workers under the H-1B scheme as a trade issue, asking that it be separated from the president’s broader concerns about immigration to the US,” according to a report in Financial Times:
“We’re at a loss trying to figure out why we’re seeing the kind of discrimination when this is actually benefiting the US,” Ms Ghosh said, arguing that Indian workers help to fill a vital skills gap in the country.
“We just have one request to [our Indian] government, which is — talk to him, make him understand the importance of high-skilled talent mobility,” Ms Ghosh said. “We have to ensure that he understands that this cannot be treated the same way as immigration — they’re two different things. That’s our biggest ask.”
The outsourcing industry group is essential to the Indian economy, in part, because it helps to keep one million Indian graduates in U.S. jobs sought by U.S. graduates.
Many of those jobs are well-paid jobs in management and recruiting throughout Silicon Valley, allowing the Indian graduates to insert other Indians into the U.S. technology, banking, insurance, health care, and human resources industries.
In turn, much of the money flows back to India, creating a huge export surplus for India’s economy, which can be used to buy U.S. goods and services.
“U.S. goods and services trade with India totaled an estimated $142.6 billion in 2018. Exports were $58.7 billion; imports were $83.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with India was $25.2 billion in 2018,” according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “U.S. imports of services from India were an estimated $29.6 billion in 2018, 4.9% ($1.4 billion) more than 2017, and 134% greater than 2008 levels. Leading services imports from India to the U.S. were in the telecommunications, computer, and information services, research and development, and travel sectors.”
The Indian NASSCOM companies are complaining that Trump’s deputies have curbed the award of H-1B visas to the group’s Indian companies. But Trump has done little to stop U.S. and Indian managers at other U.S. companies from using H-1B visas and OPT work permits to recruit Indians instead of Americans.
The issues related to the H-1B visa may come up during bilateral talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and United States President Donald Trump next week, the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said today. He said five memorandums of understanding are under discussion and could be signed by the two sides.
The likely exclusion of the H-1B issued from a near-term trade deal is also a defeat for many Indian political groups in the United States, dubbed the “Non-Resident Indian” groups. AmericanBazaarOnline.com reported February 18:
Sharmishta Dutt, a 33-year-old homemaker in Philadelphia, came to the US three-years-ago on a an H-4 visa for dependent spouses after getting married.
Every morning, these days, she carefully pores over the newspapers to read everything about President Donald Trump’s February 24-25 visit to India. “I try to read everything including business and foreign affairs pages to learn about the topics that will be discussed by the two leaders during this visit,” she says.
However, she is disappointed that there is no word about immigration reforms in the US, especially for the highly qualified H-1B community that is suffering because of the green card backlog, on the agenda of Trump’s summit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “We would have really appreciated if Modi had also planned to discuss about the NRI community in the US and the problems they are facing,” Dutt said.
The H-1B Indians are a core element of Indian’s economic and diplomatic strategies. “The flow of talent is part of our economic cooperation,” India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in December 2019:
It is in a sense almost strategic bridge between us. So, I cannot overstate the importance of the flow of talent for Indo-American ties. That was a point I make that look, this is important for you, it is important for us. It’s important for the relationship. So let’s work together to make sure this stays sort of open and vibrant and active.
In fact, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi makes a point of repeatedly visiting foreign cities where Indians are employed to keep the “NRI” community tied to India. In 2015, Modi visited the Indian population in Silicon Valley, and in September 2019, he brought Trump to a stadium in Texas where hundreds of Indian organizations had assembled 50,000 Hindus at a “Howdy Modi” show of strength.
Trump shows no evidence that he will take that H-1B-imports-for-U.S.-exports deal before the 2020 election, in part, because it would be a colossal break of faith with his voters.
“It would be a terrible idea for President Trump to sign a trade deal with India that gives them H-1Bs — as many as they want — in return for the grain and oil deals,” said Marie Larson, co-founder of the American Workers Coalition, which represents the many American graduates whose careers and salaries are being slashed by the Indian outsourcing. “He would be selling out the middle class … Once you take those jobs from Americans, you can’t get them back.”
“Congress has made clear to the administration that they should not be negotiating immigration policy as part of trade deals,” said Rosemary Jenks, policy director at NumbersUSA. “The idea that immigration policy would be set to benefit a foreign country is absolutely absurd — our immigration policy should only be used to serve the needs of the United States.”
New Infosys lawsuit helps explain how the huge H-1B/OPT outsourcing economy pressures & rewards Indian managers to discriminate against American graduates, including Indian legal immigrants.
Follow the money, all the way to India.
And to Utah’s #S386https://t.co/anISMObiu6
— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) February 5, 2020
Trump is flying to India from February 24 to 25, partly to sign a partial trade treaty with India, whose population of 1.2 billion might eventually offset the expected loss of trade with China.
Nine months before the 2020 presidential elections, the Indian government is expected to put on a big show of support for Trump, according to Reuters:
“From the moment of their arrival at the airport a little before noon on 24th February, the delegates will be treated to a display of famed Indian hospitality and India’s Unity in Diversity,” said Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla.
He said there will be tens of thousands of ordinary citizens as well as artistes showcasing the performing arts from different states of the country as part of the India Road Show.
“The [political] optics of the visit apart, Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will evaluate the progress of the strategic partnership and possibly also sign the long-awaited trade deal,” reported the U.K. Telegraph newspaper.
“We’re going to India, and we may make a tremendous deal there,” Trump said in a Thursday speech in Nevada. “But we’re only making deals if they’re good deals because we’re putting America first. Whether people like it or not, we’re putting America first.”
Some Indian CEOs are expected to meet with Trump, where they will publicize promised investments in the United States. The biggest deal is likely a contract for Westinghouse to build six nuclear power plants in Southern India.
Hopes for a big trade deal are stalled, in part, because of India’s push to require all information about Indians to be stored in India. This is a problem for major U.S. companies, such as Amazon and Walmart, who want to build Internet-enabled business empires through India’s vast population of more than one billion people.
But the U.S. government also wants to help U.S. companies sell oil and grain, electronics, weapons, Internet services, helicopters, medical equipment, chicken legs, motorcycles, and aerospace contracts to India — and the Indians will want something in exchange.
India’s Cabinet Committee on Security #CCS clears the purchase of 24 multi-role helicopters from @USIBC member @LockheedMartin for India’s Navy, worth $2.6 billion #Defense #USIndia #TrumpVisitIndia https://t.co/xan8vGWEuV
— U.S.-India Business Council (@USIBC) February 19, 2020
The Deccan Chronicle reported:
India has started buying weapons and hydrocarbons from US to improve ties and prevent a trade war with the US.
Trump had been vocal over trade deficit with India and had in past even called India “tariff king of the world.”
India has recently bought Apache and Chinook helicopters from US. According to some estimates India has signed $17 billion defence deals with US since 2007.
In 2018, PSU GAIL had signed two, 20-year LNG supply agreements potentially worth $32 billion for US LNG exports from the Dominion Cove Point project in Maryland and the Sabine Pass project in Louisiana. The first liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipment from the US arrived at the Dabhol terminal of state-run gas major Gail in March 2018.
— Department of State (@StateDept) December 18, 2019
But India is not in a position to strongarm the United States;
Currently, the U.S. trade with India is far smaller than the U.S. trade with China. India’s ThePrint reported:
In 2018, the US was India’s largest export destination at 16 per cent of total exports, and second-largest source of imports after China at 6.3% of total imports. By contrast, in 2019, India accounted for a measly 2.09% of US exports and 2.30% of total US imports.
At last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, India’s commerce minister assured global economic influencers that India’s economy was “poised to take off.” This rings true only because the vaunted Indian economy appears to be bottoming out, with no place to go but up.
But business has high hopes for the Indian market. Rivals Amazon and Walmart, for example, are investing heavily as they race for shares of India’s vast retail sector. “We think [India] is not just an important market for us, it’s the fifth most important and we think it’s going to become the third most important,” Coca Cola chairman and CEO James Quincey said in September 2019.
Modi is promising a bigger economy to foreign investors. “If you want to invest in a market where there is scale, come to India … If you want to invest in start-ups with a huge market, come to India … If you want to invest in one of the world’s largest infrastructure ecosystem, come to India,” he told CEOs.
India needs a way to pay for imports and to encourage investment. In effect, Indians want to trade India’s graduates to the United States in exchange for oil, food, weapons, and technology.
The workers-for-exports swap comes up in numerous trade meetings.
“In some of the meetings, I underlined our interest in ensuring that the flow of talent from India to the United States should not be obstructed and no unreasonable legislative provisions should constrain that,” India’s foreign minister told reporters. “That was the subject which also came up when I was at the White House,” said External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in mid-December.
In September 2018, the Indian foreign minister met with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “I have requested Secretary Pompeo to adopt a balanced and sensitive view on the issue of proposed changes in the H-1 B visa regime as this could affect the people-to-people links, which are important for energizing ties,” the minister, Sushma Swaraj said in a press conference.
“We are happy that we are making very good progress on our trade package between our two sides,” India’s foreign minister said in January. “What we are really looking at is to engage in a long-term framework under which our two countries can provide preferential or free-market access to goods from each other’s countries,” Harsh Shringla said to a business group.
The Indian government’s exports-for-graduates policy is backed by U.S. and Indian business leaders who are trying to accelerate the flow of Indian workers into U.S. jobs.
“The task ahead of us to keep the #usindia relationship moving forward. Trade and investment has been a priority. The high point has been the 2+2 dialogue and the intense engagements b/w the leadership.” – Amb. @HarshShringla @IndianEmbassyUS at USISPF hosted farewell reception. pic.twitter.com/6OXWatx1QX
— USISPF (@USISPForum) January 7, 2020
In early 2020, Mukesh Aghi, the president of the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum, said:
When Donald Trump came to office, India’s trade surplus was $28 billion. In the last two years that has dropped to $20 billion. India has made a continuing effort for this. Large orders of planes and defense have been placed. A large part of the correction has happened in the energy sector. Three years ago, India was getting zero barrels of crude oil from the U.S.; today it’s 142,000 barrels a day.
In the last presidential election cycle, per capita, Indian Americans were the highest donors with 300 people giving as much as $35 million. But as a group we are disjointed … so many associations and groups. An effort has to be made to get them together; with a sledgehammer push every nail in to become one. We are 4 million Indian Americans, we need to be cohesive.
As Trump prepares to visit India, here’s a reminder of what business wants:
More U.S. exports (electronics, food, oil, services) in a swap for more Indian college-grad workers.
Good for investors, bad for American grads.
Utah’s #S386 is a downpayment. https://t.co/2mN846ZnUZ
— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) February 21, 2020
Another business group is the U.S. India Business Council that works under the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
.@DIPPGOI, @USIBC, @FollowCII, @IndiasporaForum & @AnantaAspen will host a premier business event on sidelines of @POTUS first official visit to India on Feb 25th. #IndUSBizStory will bring together senior business leaders, govt officials to celebrate #USIndia relationship. pic.twitter.com/xs6bveqL3v
— U.S.-India Business Council (@USIBC) February 21, 2020
The groups are also pushing the S.386 bill, which is sponsored by Utah’s congressional delegation, including Sen. Mike Lee. So far, Utah’s bill has been blocked in the Senate by GOP and Democratic senators who recognize it would suck college jobs from their states and votes from their election-day tallies.
But the White House has very limited political freedom to trade U.S. exports for Indian graduates, partly because Trump promised in 2016 that he would “end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program.” Yet U.S. officials are using the H-1B prize to shape India’s trade policies. For example, U.S. officials reportedly threatened the loss of H-1B visas if India bars U.S. technology companies from exporting data on Indians’ buying practices outside India.
There is some evidence that DHS officials are denying visa requests by Indian companies, but there is little evidence that the Indian companies are not getting all the visas they need to match their business. More importantly, U.S. companies — including the Indian managers at those companies — are still importing Indian graduates for jobs sought by American graduates.
Trump and his deputies have given gifts to India. For example, they have protected the “H4EAD” program. The program gives work permits to the spouses of H-1B workers in the United States who are waiting ten years or more to get green cards. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency wrote a rule ending the program, which was introduced by President Barack Obama. But officials at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget blocked it amid lobbying by NASSCOM allies, who worried that unemployed wives would pressure H-1B workers to go back to India.
In January 2019, Trump also tweeted a suggestion that the huge population of roughly 700,000 Indians waiting for green cards might be able to get them quicker than scheduled.
H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2019
But Trump needs Americans votes to get reelected in 2020 — and he wants to keep the support of his blue-collar base even after he retires. This means he has to zig-zag between his base and his business donors while each applies public and private pressures on him 24 hours s day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
So the danger of a betrayal rises in 2021, say the groups that defend American graduates from the U.S.-India Outsourcing Economy.
American graduates need a seat at the bargaining table because there is no greater stakeholder than American graduates. They are the ones whose livelihood is at stake.
America’s economy and technological leads are also threatened by outsourcing to Indian companies, said Larson:
We’re talking about Americans’ collective intellectual property — [including the people with] Masters or PhDs in STEM fields — and they are getting displaced and being forced to train their foreign replacements with “knowledge transfers.” The collective IP belongs to America — it is not the property of Microsoft … it is a national treasure. We’re the country that has done wonderful engineering feats — the first man on the moon, the Hoover Dam … The speed with which we are losing American ingenuity is scary. Most people who voted for Trump thought he would do something about it. He seems to be selling out.
No one has more to lose from immigration than we do! We’ve been laid off, lied to & ignored, while foreign workers take our jobs, our livelihoods, our dignity, and our dreams! https://t.co/TR2rK2Vj8w
— American Workers Coalition (@AmWorkCo) February 21, 2020
“The president needs to hear from his base … early and often,” said Daniel Horowitz, editor of Conservative Review:
Now is precisely the time to stand up and not stand down out of fear of pressuring the president. He wants to be pressured [by the base because] it is very hard for the president to go in one direction when 100 percent of the pressure inside the administration is headed in the other direction. The mistake that Trump supporters make is that they wait until it is too late and the president feels compelled to go with the swamp. The time to get to the president is early and often.
Govt data shows 1 million Indian contract-workers get white-collar jobs in tech, banking, health etc.
The Indian hiring ignores many EEOC laws & is expanding amid gov’t & media silence.
It is a huge economic & career loss for US college grads.#S368 #H1B https://t.co/pqEW9yJ89c
— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) February 17, 2020
Report: Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Stopping Anchor Baby Schemes
President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy at the United States-Mexico border is ensuring pregnant migrants are not using their court dates in the U.S. to then deliver their children on American soil, thus securing them birthright citizenship. Currently, Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy has made sure that southern border crossers claiming asylum are returned to…
President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy at the United States-Mexico border is ensuring pregnant migrants are not using their court dates in the U.S. to then deliver their children on American soil, thus securing them birthright citizenship.
Currently, Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy has made sure that southern border crossers claiming asylum are returned to Mexico or their native Central American country while they await their asylum hearings in the U.S. The policy has prevented mass fraud where illegal aliens are released into the interior of the U.S. only to never show up for their asylum hearings and never leave the country.
Local San Diego reporter Max Rivlin-Nadler now rwrites that he has spoken with four pregnant migrants in Mexico awaiting their asylum hearings in the U.S. who were given future court dates after they deliver their child in Mexico — a process to prevent border-crossers from arriving in America solely to secure their children birthright citizenship.
KPBS has found at least four pregnant women who were turned away by Customs and Border Protection agents at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, even though they had been given a court date in the U.S. Some of those women say they were then given new court dates for the month after they would give birth. Others were never given a new court date and had their case closed by an immigration judge. [Emphasis added]
“We told them our names, and the official said that we couldn’t board the bus because I was pregnant and already 8 months along,” Karina said in Spanish. She’s an asylum-seeker from El Salvador. Karina and her husband fled their home country after she says gangs tried to kill them. [Emphasis added]
In July 2019, NBC News published a report that detailed the flow of pregnant migrants waiting in Mexico for their asylum hearings in the U.S. to make sure their children obtain birthright citizenship.
Last year, analysis by the Center for Immigration Students revealed that nearly 400,000 U.S.-born children to illegal aliens, foreign tourists, and temporary visa holders — often referred to as “anchor babies” — were delivered.
To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic American citizenship, and a number of legal scholars dispute the idea.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
For about two years, Trump has signaled that he has reviewed signing an executive order to end birthright citizenship, otherwise known as the “anchor baby policy.” That executive order has yet to come up for consideration, though Trump has signed an executive order that denies B-1 and B-2 visa applicants entry to the U.S. if they are only coming to the country to secure their children birthright citizenship.
Today, there are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. under 18, exceeding the annual roughly four million American babies born every year and costing American taxpayers about $2.4 billion every year to subsidize hospital costs.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Michael Lind: ‘Only Institution Where Republicans Have Any Power Left in Society Is Elective Government’
Conservatives must not shun the last institution — elective government — within which they have some power, said Michael Lind, author of The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite and professor of practice at the University of Texas in Austin. Left-wing and partisan Democrat dominance of academia, news media, and the corporate elite…
Conservatives must not shun the last institution — elective government — within which they have some power, said Michael Lind, author of The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite and professor of practice at the University of Texas in Austin.
Left-wing and partisan Democrat dominance of academia, news media, and the corporate elite have made elected office the last remnant of conservative and Republican power, Lind determined on Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host John Hayward.
The Republican Party is undergoing a “big crisis of rethinking” as a result of its loss of power across arenas of power and influence, said Lind.
“Basically, the Republicans have lost the intellectual class [and] the academics,” said Lind. “They’re overwhelmingly Democratic. Journalists [and] media [are] overwhelmingly Democratic. Increasingly, the corporate elite — which used to be kind of country club Republican — the newer generation, they’re Democrats.”
Lind added, “So basically the only institution where Republicans have any power left in society is elective government.”
Lind warned Republicans against simplistic sloganeering regarding hostility towards government.
Lind remarked, “If you have a party that has this 1980s message when the Republican Party was the country club party, saying, ‘Oh, government’s bad. The market’s good.’ Well, that aligned its interests with the Republican Party when most corporate executives were Republicans, but they’re going to be Democrats in the future, right?”
“Why would you destroy the only institution that your constituents have any say in of all national institutions, which is the government, where conservatives and Republicans and populists can still elect people?” asked Lind. “They’re not going to get anybody on the board of a tech company. They’re not going to have any say in university governance. The only thing they can do is send some people to Congress or maybe the White House.”
Lind continued, “And then when you send them there, is your conservative ideology going to tell them they can’t do anything?”
Declining economic and social circumstances for the working class in the modern era relative to the 1950s and 1960s should compel conservatives to reconsider certain public policies, Lind said.
“Conservatives, as they become more of a blue-collar working-class party, they’re going to have to get over their hatred of the New Deal,” Lind stated, “because the Roosevelt Democrats were mostly socially conservative, but they used government policies to artificially create this post-war [middle class]. What we call the ‘middle class’ is actually a post-war prosperous working class.”
30-year fixed Federal Housing administration loans helped create a post-war middle class, Lind said.
“Only rich people could afford buying houses before the New Deal,” Lind stated. “Everybody else rented. That was a deliberate policy to create a home-owning, property-owning mass middle class in the suburbs. The family wage didn’t just come out of the market. It was the result of unions and the government forcing employers — particularly the big industrial employers — to pay a usually a male worker enough to support himself, a wife, and two or three kids.”
Lind continued, “Two people working can only afford half of what one person could afford in the 1950s and the 1960s, but it’s a very sensitive issue because it gets into the question of sex roles and gender roles and the division of labor in the family, and it’s always been very divisive because if both parents work, who is going to raise the kids?”
Depressed wages brought on by mass immigration has contributed to the establishment of servant class for the elite, Lind assessed.
Lind remarked, “Who are the low-wage workers going to be, and implicitly, the answer is, ‘It’s going to be low-wage immigrants, often poorly paid immigrant women.’ In other words, servants. Upper-class aristocratic and bourgeois families always had the nanny and the au pair and Mary Poppins raising their children, and this neoliberal vision is, ‘Well, everyone will have a Mary Poppins.’ So here’s the basic economic problem with that: if you pay Mary Poppins — who’s raising your family’s kids — enough that she’s middle class, that’s just exorbitantly expensive.”
Lind went on, “The only way that system works is it Mary Poppins is paid poverty wages. And whether the government pays them or nonprofits pay them or the family pays Mary Poppins directly, she can’t make that much money if the system is going to work right.”
“From World War II to all the way up until late 20th century, the working-class [and] middle-class people would not get direct wage subsidies or welfare of any kind from the government,” Lind explained. “The necessities were affordable and [with] a decent living family wage, you didn’t need government help.”
Lind noted that politicians have redefined prosperity since the post-WWII years to include government subsidies for individuals, including tax credits.
“So what have you got?” asked Lind, “Well, you’ve got financial subsistence. You’ve got financial sustainability, but you don’t have financial independence, right? You’re dependent on the government. … You don’t have that independence that comes from basically having a paycheck and then that buys most of your necessities.”
Lind reflected on Henry Ford’s 1914 decision to double workers’ wages to five dollars per day at the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, MI.
“Classically, the definition of Fordism was, the worker can afford to own and purchase that which he makes — it can be a car, it can be a radio, whatever,” noted Lind. “In the 1950s, American automobile workers … could afford through installment payments to buy the cars that rolled off their assembly lines.”
Lind added, “The Chinese workers in manufacturing mills, they cannot afford the products they’re making for the most part. It’s a post-Fordist system.”
“You can’t have a middle class without that kind of Fordism in an industrial economy,” warned Lind, “and you’re also moving into a service economy, so again the question is — getting back to child care — my question always, when I was a kid watching Gone with the Wind, was, ‘Who takes care of Mammy’s kids?’”
Many contemporary service sector jobs are “outsourced domestic chores,” Lind assessed, listing “restaurants, cooking, and food delivery.”
Today’s service sector workers often cannot afford the very services they provide as Ford’s automobile manufacturing employees could in the early 20th century, Lind said.
Lind proposed, “The question you have to ask yourself is, ‘Okay, if we have a middle-class society, can the carry-out delivery person make enough money to afford carry-out? Can the maid make enough money to have her own maid or his own maid?’ Well, clearly the answer is, ‘No.’”
Maids were a rarity in Lind’s family’s neighborhood of the 1960s and 1970s, he recalled, contrasting his younger years with today’s ubiquity of maids and other home workers.
“Thanks largely to mass immigration and low wages combined — and desperation by a lot of other people in the neighborhood where I grew up — there are teams of gardeners and people have maids and nannies and they have cooks and all this,” Lind said.
Lind added, “It’s like the Old South. So we’re reverting back to kind of an aristocratic society where there is an elite and then most of the jobs are actually directly or indirectly being servants to the people with the money.”
Broadening Republican appeal to the working class requires calibration of public policy to help the working class, Lind advised.
“I’m asked for advice by conservatives and Democrats and Republicans and liberals and others over the years and my basic response is, ‘Be on your own side,’” Lind remarked. “Basically everything in politics involves [government]. There’s going to be a government policy, right?”
Lind continued, “There’s going to be some kind of child care policy. There’s going to be some kind of, you know, wage policy. The question is, ‘Who benefits and who is hurt by it?’ And you let the battle begin, and if you represent the working class, you want a family policy and a wage policy that is good for the working class.”
Lind concluded, “If you represent working-class voters, you’re going to support different policies than if you represent their corporate boards in the C Suite.”
Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.
Crime5 years ago
Death of Baltimore man Freddie Gray in custody sparks call for independent inquiry
Politics5 years ago
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback Bans Cruises for Welfare Recipients in Sweeping Crackdown
Science5 years ago
Twenty-five years on: Hubble’s unsung heroes
Health5 years ago
8 Ways to Naturally Boost your Energy Without Caffeine
Real Estate5 years ago
Comcast’s towering ambition collides with Philadelphia’s street-level reality
Politics5 years ago
In Spanish-Language Interview, Marco Rubio Says He Believes Obama’s Executive Amnesty ‘Is Important’
Politics5 years ago
Obama signals support for medical marijuana bill backed by Rand Paul
Politics5 years ago
New Bill Seeks To Ban Former Lawmakers From Becoming Lobbyists