I support immediately getting rid of the corruption in the H-1B visa program. This program allows for immigrants to legally and legitimately come to work here for a set time. I would support expanding it to decrease the incentive to come here illegally

Please visit http://www.madnamerica.com and get copies of the song to send around to everyone – get this thing heard and just maybe enough people will ask why and began to shake up the candidates a little.

For instance:

Dr. Paul’s first profession (OBGYN) is protected by American Law.

After my Son was born, my wife and I explored the option of home-birth with a mid-wife for our second child. We were not interested in incurring another $12,000.00 debt for something as natural as birthing a child.

While researching the topic, I was told, in no uncertain terms, that if any complications arose I — the father — would be open to prosecution.

Our third child only took 45 minutes maternity room time — the Nurse freaked out and ran off to find a Doctor while my wife and I delivered the baby alone.

I wonder how Dr. Paul will justify his position on H- visa consumer benifit, while the medical profession provides deeply discounted services to insurance companies, but cash paying customers are billed @ 100% inflated rates?

I once asked my Dentist for a discount because I was paying cash, therefore eliminating paper work and reimbursement time. I was told that the Dentist’s agreement with the PPO did not allow him to reduce his billing rate for cash payments.

Exhorbanent sustenance costs (such as housing, medical and secondary education) are built into the American economy, dumping third-world labor into our economy is suicide for the consumer class. I’m surprised that Dr. Paul does not recognize this fact.

I think that Paul greatly underestimates how tough it will be to solve the immigration problem. I disagree with the idea that corporations should be provided with work visas at anything less than a “market price”-which would be pretty dang high in a world where there are 10 million folks that want into the US each year-and only 1 million legal immigration slots.

Huckabee and Romney are both trying to pay lip service to immigration restriction-basically by making the lives of Mexican illegals as miserable as possible. However they are both clearly going to dramatically increase the level of guest worker visas if elected-as will McCain or Giuliani. Thompson has a far worse legislative record than Paul-though he is starting to talk tough on the immigration issue recently, his sincerity is rather questionable.

That said, I think it is VERY important that folks give Dennis Kucinich strong support because of his stand on H-1b. Kucinich is the only candidate who has consistently voted against preferential immigration rights diven by corporate needs.

200 years ago sailing ships with lousy cargo capacity and buggies pulled by horses were awefully inneficient. 200 years ago the cost of transportation added so much to the price of goods, it was highly prohibitive to trade.

I read somewhere, that long ago, in some parts of the world salt traded for gold on a pound for pound basis.

Now with very low cost transportation, the most important factor in determining the price of goods is labor cost. So business will naturally migrate to the lowest labor cost. This is all fine and dandy when it is between the 50 states, but when trading with corrupt and Communist nations it is bad for Americans. Between the 50 states when a job is lost it is picked up somewhere else. There is no net loss between the 50 states.

Duncan Hunter votes for free trade agreements with 1st world countries, but votes against free trade agreements with dirt poor corrupt and/or communist countries. The reason they are dirt poor is because they are corrupt and/or Communist. The United States has no control over foreign governments, and it is not the United State’s fault they are dirt poor.

Paul is opposed to birth right citizenship and truly opposed to illegal immigration.

His stance on trade isn’t ideal, but which major candidate is better? Duncan Hunter is polling at around or below 1% last I checked, as is Tom Tancredo, so I’m going with Paul, the next best on trade.

Every other Republican candidate is in favor of selling America out the highest bidder. Paul is not perfect, but he has a lot to offer.

You should check out his stance on the federal reserve bank as well. It sounds strange at first, but those bankers are leaching off America’s currecy. Paul would end that.

I am in the same boat, and there is a key consideration here. Specifically, the Indian economy relies heavily on US aid.

take a look at this article:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-170es.html

Its my conception that pulling the plug on Indian foreign aid would have the effect of ‘evening the score’ in terms of this labor arbitrage problem. I do support Paul but think he needs to be a bit more sophisticated in his understanding of what is going on with h1-b’s specifically, because ideologically he appears to be aligned with those who are concerned about the problems surrounding these visa programs. But I think these issues are obviated by a complete elimination of foreign aid to India. India, as we currently know it, cannot continue without American financial stimulus.

I invite you all to join and participate in the Facebook group, Engineers for Ron Paul.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6009336940

thanks,

JMZ

1) Which presidential candidate offers a clear advantage on the outsourcing and H1-B visa issue? Only Kucinich. Right now, he’s getting the same treatment as Paul by the media and his fellow Democrat presidential-hopefuls (ignore, belittle, etc.). And if he ever won in the primaries or ran as a 3rd party, he would never have a chance of winning the presidency due to his ultra-liberal social positions.

2) While we may disagree with what he’s said in this interview on the outsourcing / H1-B issue, Paul is, IMO, the most thoughtful, well-reasoned, and honest presidential hopefuls we have. He doesn’t pander to the public and has no ties to corporate interests. He says what he believes and has a voting record consistent with that. And I believe that his positions are based on carefully weighing the information. On that point, I think that he would be open to hearing well-reasoned opposing thoughts on this issue and would carefully consider the information presented, rather than simply pretending to care and then taking his orders from the corporate interests. So, personally, I think this is just a case where the otherwise-highly-intelligent Paul needs to be educated on labor arbitrage.

3) Ron Paul is against NAFTA, the WTO, and is very concerned about the falling value of the US dollar. He has publicly criticized the fact that the inflation rate does not take into account the cost of food or fuel. Consider, then, the implications on the working man of a president who cares about these things.

4) Consider Paul’s other unique positions and how, when added up, would work to the benefit of the American worker. If he had his way, we’d have no income tax, a much smaller government, and personal freedom the likes of which we’ve not seen in over a hundred years. He also wouldn’t support giving government subsidies to corporations. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to work for myself. I’m an entrepeneur at heart. A Ron Paul presidency would make this a more realistic dream.