WASHINGTON, June 20, 2014 — Rupert Murdoch on Wednesday wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, one of Murdoch’s media holdings, about an issue that has been on his wish list for years: immigration reform.
The piece is a benchmark appeal laden with fallacies, logical and otherwise.
Murdoch is frustrated by Eric Cantor’s failed re-election bid. “When I learned that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had lost his Republican primary, my heart sank”, Murdoch laments. Murdoch pleads that if you think Cantor was voted out of office because he supported amnesty, you’re mistaken. “That would be the wrong lesson and an undesirable national consequence of this single, local election result.”
Murdoch would have you believe that Cantor’s loss to a Tea Party upstart is just a fluke and that the rest of the nation in which 20 million Americans, conservatively estimated, are out of work, supports importing millions of foreign nationals.
Murdoch repeats the false equivalency that a new flood of immigrants (legal or otherwise), is the bold solution for our ailing economy. “One of the most immediate ways to revitalize our economy is by passing immigration reform.”
Rupert Murdoch is wealthy, extremely intelligent and runs in circles that are his peers in that regard. He knows what’s best for America and doesn’t owe you an explanation of his profound economic theory.
Murdoch’s equation of more legal and illegal immigrants as an economic fix is as obvious and decipherable as some of the math and science teaching you have seen coming out of the Common Core educational reform. The standard economic theory of supply and demand that tells us that too many workers competing for the same job drives down wages is just too reactionary for world citizens like Rupert Murdoch and his friends.
He goes on to say that “people are looking for leadership—those who stand for something and offer a vision for how to take America forward and keep our nation economically competitive.”
What Murdoch is actually saying in translation is that we (plutocrats) are looking for another Bush or Clinton, who will stand for our interests in taking America forward on the bullet train to serfdom, in which those pests (the working and middle class) are brought to heel and do as we tell them. Keeping our nation economically competitive requires a commitment to institutionalized wage slavery on a basis not seen since the Great Depression.
Then comes Murdoch’s “Immigrant Elevator Speech”.
“I chose to come to America and become a citizen because America was — and remains — the most free and entrepreneurial nation in the world. Our history is defined by people whose character and culture have been shaped by ambition, imagination and hard work, bound together by a dream of a better life.”
This is all quite charming until you realize that Murdoch is probably one of the worst examples of a freeloading immigrant. Murdoch likes America all right. He likes the perks of living here, while leaving his profits in 152 offshore tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. While media and entertainment empires like Disney pay 31 percent tax, Murdoch’s News Corp pays 6 percent.
Some of Murdoch’s largest investments in America yield impressive returns. Murdoch’s business tax obligations are trimmed to the bone by spending $27 million lobbying Congress for tax carve outs. What Murdoch saved on taxes largely financed his $5 Billion buy out of Dow Jones.
Looking back on Murdoch’s fast tracked American citizenship process, it is transparent that his real motive was not his admiration for America, but to obtain a pass to go on a massive media shopping spree.
Next, Murdoch asks:
“Is the idea of immigration reform complicated by the fact that some immigrants went outside the legal system to be here? Yes. It is complicated even more by the fear some Americans have, quite naturally, of how changing populations might also change our culture, communities and economic circumstances. Well, of course immigration means change. Immigrants enrich our culture and add to our economic prosperity.”
Murdoch argues that we should do legislatively to our borders what Obama has already done to them by executive fiat. He demeans you as fearful because you are such a naïve person that you think borders and immigration laws are foundation stones to national security and national sovereignty. He claims immigrants who “went outside of the legal system to be here” enrich our culture.
One might ask what he thinks our culture actually is. Are we a nation of criminals? If so, he would be correct. If not, his statement is an insult.
Murdoch engages in an incoherent narrative about immigrants who have started businesses in America. That’s not exactly film-at-eleven breaking news. What is disingenuous is to conflate legal immigration with illegal border crossing and the opportunistic use of H1-B visas by already obscenely wealthy tech firms to replace American workers at half the existing wages.
Murdoch name drops the Partnership for a New American Economy as if it is some independently objective think tank that has discovered that immigration is a panacea to a jobless recovery. He conveniently neglects to mention that he is one of the principles in this open borders advocacy group, along with Mark Hurd of Hewlett-Packard, J.W. Marriott of Marriott Corporation, and Jim McNerney of Boeing Corp.
Looking closely, it seems that all of these sponsors benefit mightily from looser immigration policies. J.W. Marriott is in the hospitality industry and hires a lot of workers who would be unqualified to work for him if EVerify were implemented. Hurd and McNerney would love to see the cap for H1-B’s lifted altogether.
“Next, we need to do away with the cap on H-1B visas, which is arbitrary and results in U.S. companies struggling to find the high-skill workers they need to continue growing”, Murdoch says.
Murdoch returns to his “obstacles to progress” theme:
“But we are held back by the objections of the richly funded labor unions that mistakenly believe that if we keep innovation out of America, somehow nothing will change. They are wrong, and frankly as much to blame for our stalemate on this issue as nativists who scream about amnesty.”
If you oppose illegal immigration and unsustainable levels of legal immigration, you, according to Murdoch, are a “nativist”. That’s fat cat lexicon for bigot and racist. He says, “We need to give those individuals who are already here — after they have passed checks to ensure they are not dangerous criminals — a path to citizenship so they can pay their full taxes, be counted, and become more productive members of our community.”
Why is this? Where is it written anywhere that we owe illegal immigrants a path to citizenship? Is that our purpose and obligation as a nation?
Murdoch wraps things up telling us that he sees the issue more clearly than do Americans who reject amnesty, because he “came here as an immigrant”. One expects to see an accompanying image of Murdoch arriving here with shaggy clothing and holes in his shoes.
Murdoch lays out a veiled threat to Congress and by extension, its constituents. You either give Murdoch and his cronies the immigration reform they want, or they’ll give Obama the signal to take it and to hell with the Constitution. “President Obama has shown wise restraint despite pressure from the left to act, recognizing that a bipartisan approach on such an immense issue would be best. However, if Congress fails to even try to have this important debate, the president might feel tempted to act via executive order.”
Sounds a lot like a frustrated parent threatening discipline for the unruly and un-cooperative child – “Don’t make me come in there!”
Murdoch, stick to tapping the phones of celebrities and politicians and picking scantily clad “Page Three Girls” and we’ll figure out what’s best for America regarding immigration, if you don’t mind.