Michael Kotick on immigration
Where does Michael Kotick - running for Congress in CA's 48th district - stand on immigration? Find out below and find out why he's wrong.
First, here's the immigration page at his site , followed by why it's wrong:
My mom is an immigrant to this country, so I know firsthand the commitment of immigrant families to American values, freedom, and opportunity.
Orange County is a county of immigrants and our culture, community, and businesses have flourished because of them. Over 30 percent of our neighbors and friends in Orange County are foreign-born, and we are a beacon for what’s possible when we put aside inexcusable discrimination and fear to embrace good people who are simply pursuing a better life - that’s the American Dream.
But it’s not just our national identity we need to protect. Immigrant workers and inventors have contributed tremendous wealth to our country. It is foolish to tell people to take their talent elsewhere. We need an expedient and fair path to citizenship for law-abiding immigrants who have come to this country in search of the opportunities that only America offers, while ensuring that our laws are enforced and our safety is protected.
1. All "immigrant families" are committed to those things? Anyone with more experience - especially outside the safe confines of Laguna Beach - can testify that's not the case. Some are just here to make a quick buck, some are criminals, some don't share core American values. Kotick falsely pretends every apple is good, when reality shows that's false.
2. Kotick is presenting all opposition to massive and illegal immigration as "inexcusable discrimination and fear", when that's not the case either. Most opponents have perfectly valid concerns about their jobs and their communities. There's a reason why, for instance, the US Chamber of Commerce could have written Kotick's spiel, and it isn't because they want higher wages. Try this mind experiment: if massive immigration raised wages, would the U.S. Chamber, WalMart, McDonalds, Tyson Foods, Facebook, Western Growers, and the Koch family support it so much? Of course not: they know what massive immigration does.
3. One wonders how Kotick defines "national identity". Does he mean the melting pot? The Democratic Party doesn't support that but instead supports a more Canada-style system of ethnic corporatism with groups separated into their own communities to make targeting them easier.
4. Regarding "[i]mmigrant workers and inventors", he's right about their contributions. However, immigrant and illegal alien labor has also been used by the wealthy to lower wages and bust unions. Kotick isn't concerned about the negative impacts.
5. Regarding "[i]t is foolish to tell people to take their talent elsewhere", Kotick would trade short-term gains for long-term problems. The talented people of foreign countries should in most cases be encouraged to remain where they are. Otherwise, we'd be braindraining foreign countries, making the situations in those countries worse and also having a negative impact on the U.S. See the skilled immigration page for a detailed discussion of this issue; even the New York Times has admitted that braindraining foreign countries is a bad thing. Kotick can't figure that out.
6. Kotick's last sentence is a doozy. He's lying about who he's discussing: when he says "immigrants" he means illegal aliens (see the immigration terminology page). He wants to legalize "law-abiding immigrants" even though he's talking about illegal aliens and illegal aliens are by definition and in practice not "law-abiding": many have committed the crime of illegal entry in addition to other crimes such as identity theft. No amnesty bill ever has even attempted to separate those who are just here for "the opportunities that only America offers" from those who are here for less worthy reasons. He wants to "[ensure] that our laws are enforced" by rewarding those who broke our laws. The amnesty he supports will encourage more illegal immigration and thus more law-breaking. Kotick obviously wants loose borders, meaning that "our safety" won't be "protected".
I'll send Kotick some questions about his stance (from @24AheadDotCom_ ) and update this post if he responds.
 kotickforcongress · com/issues/immigration/