Please follow me here.
Iowa Republicans tonight voted 2-to-1 for candidates who want less immigrant labor competition over candidates who continue to think American workers need MORE immigrant competition for jobs.
Here was my statement to the national media as soon as the results were in:
Beleaguered American workers scored a victory in the GOP race as two-thirds of Iowa voters preferred candidates who support admitting fewer future legal immigrants to compete for scarce U.S. jobs.Unfortunately, in the Democratic caucuses voters didn't have a choice. All of their candidates apparently believe the country has a worker shortage and advocate policies that would add perhaps 20 million more lifetime work permits to immigrants over the next decade.
"While Cruz was the big winner of the first presidential primary, it is important to note that Trump, Carson, Huckabee and Santorum joined him in pledging immigration policies that better protect the interest of American workers."
All of the Democratic candidates, plus the immigration-expansionist Republican candidates who got a combined one-third of the vote tonight, look at nearly 60 million working-age Americans who aren't working and think that means we need a continuing mass influx of foreign labor.
But two-thirds of Iowa GOP voters looked at those immigration-expansionist candidates and chose instead to stand with the candidates who chose to stand for a tighter labor market and a better deal for struggling American workers.
Here were the vote percentages for candidates whose policies show practical concern for the effect of immigration on American workers:
WINNER: Cruz (28%)
Our hope is that all other candidates -- in both parties -- will review their immigration stances and show the support for American wage-earners that most of the Republican voters showed tonight in Iowa.
ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.