As @peggynoonanyc sez, often populism is phony. But on immig. it really is elites vs. people. Exhibit Z http://t.co/RS26t4vpBQ— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) September 12, 2015
The credit line for this Washington Post article says "Steve Case, a co-founder of America Online, is chairman and chief executive of Revolution." Steve Case's net worth is $1.21 billion.
It's not all gravy being worth $1.21 billion, especially when you used to be worth more—Forbes says
Ever since the AOL-Time Warner fiasco in 2001, AOL founder Steve Case has been trying to reinvent himself as a venture capitalist. That hasn’t gone as planned. After selling his stake in Zipcar for roughly $95 million in January, he’s watched as his large investment in Groupon competitor LivingSocial has dipped. A February round of debt funding slashed the company’s valuation from $6 billion to just $1.5 billion. Case’s net worth has dropped $500 million in the last 12 months.But he hasn't quite been reduced to freelancing for the Washington Post—this is propaganda exercise designed to push the elite case for Open Borders and Cheap Labor—which would benefit the various enterprises that his company Revolution engages in.
Here's how he puts it
I have tried to steer clear of politics and focus on policy — in particular, the policies that can help the United States remain the world’s most innovative, entrepreneurial nation. That led me to become an advocate for the bipartisan Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act to help more entrepreneurs start and grow their companies. And that led me to push for immigration reform, as it’s clear to me that we are beginning to lose what is now a global battle for talent.It's nonsense to think that "talent" is what the US is getting in terms of illegals, and even H-1Bs don't provide more talent, just almost the same talent as Americans, but cheaper.
The subhead of the Washington Post article above says "The United States has thrived because of, not in spite of, immigrants." Actually, no, Steve Case has. Ten years ago, the WSJ published what I called a "self-revelatory editorial" alluding to how much control they felt that businessmen—specifically Republican "supporters", which means donors in this context—should have over immigration policy.
Republicans also run the risk of doing tangible harm to their own business supporters, as well as to the broader economy. A story yesterday in the North County Times of San Diego led with this: "A growing labor shortage in California's agricultural industry has local farmers bracing for a tough — and expensive — winter harvest." Among the causes: "increased border enforcement that is reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the country," competition for workers from other industries, and "the lack of a guest-worker program to allow undocumented immigrants to work legally."Well, I'm sure employers of cheap labor do say that—it's mostly lies. But consider how many votes American workers have, and contrast that with how many votes the Forbes 400 have. (The answer is "only 400".)
We get the same message from nearly every business executive who comes through our offices: Without immigrants, they couldn't possibly find enough willing workers to do the available work, no matter what the available wages. Yet Republicans seem intent not merely on increasing border patrols but also on further harassing law-abiding businesses that happen to hire illegals, as if anyone can tell the difference between real and fake immigration documents. Only Republicans would think it's smart politics to punish their supporters for hiring willing workers. (Emphases added)
Immigration (Spin) Control, WSJ, December 9, 2005