In his 2006 autobiography Obama stated he was against the immigration measures he now favors, that they'd harm wages of blue-collar Americans, strain already overburdened safety net. Obama will let rich companies hire 500,000 foreign skilled workers instead of 800,000 equally qualified Americans, another move he claimed to be against in 2006

.
11/16/14, ""SHOCK FLASHBACK: Obama Says Illegal Immigration HURTS ‘Blue-Collar Americans,’ STRAINS Welfare [video]," Daily Caller, Neil Munro

"President Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
 
”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument that the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country.

In the passage, Obama also reveals that he personally feels “patriotic resentment” when he sees Mexican flags at immigration rallies.

“Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt” to social changes caused by migration, he said.

“And if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments,” Obama wrote. “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

Obama’s frank statements were written in 2006, as he was eying a run for the presidency.

Those worries are mainstream, according to recent polls. Obama now presides over a very porous southern border, and he’s allowed 130,000 Central American migrants across since October 2013.

Via executive order, he is also about to provide work permits to at least 3 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to compete against the very Americans — 

black, white, Latino and Asian — 

who he once said would be harmed by such a move.

The new work permits would in addition to the 600,000 work permits given to younger illegals under the 2012 “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program.

Roughly 4 million Americans will enter the job market this year.

Careful observers of Obama’s modern-day immigration rhetoric will note that he does not discuss the impact millions of formerly-illegal immigrants would have on the wages of American workers. Rather, Obama has repeatedly declared, “It’s the right thing to do.” Obama has even justified his planned unilateral amnesty as a border control measure.

“In terms of immigration, I have consistently said that it is my profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill,” he said Nov. 5, at his post-defeat press conference in the White House.

That bill, he said, “would strengthen our borders; would streamline our legal immigration system so that it works better and we’re attracting the best and the brightest from around the world; and that we give an opportunity for folks who’ve lived here, in many cases, for a very long time, may have kids who are U.S. citizens, but aren’t properly documented.”

Obama’s plan reportedly would also allow companies to hire up to 500,000 foreign professionals to compete for jobs sought by the roughly 800,000 Americans who will graduate from universities in 2015, often carrying heavy debts, with degrees in medicine, business, science, math, engineering or architecture.

Back in 2006, Obama dismissed the current guest worker programs as unfair to Americans.

A 2006 immigration bill “included a guest worker program that would allow two hundred thousand foreign workers to enter the country for temporary employment,” he wrote.

“The guest worker provision of the bill troubled me,” Obama wrote, “it was essentially a sop to big business, a means for them to employ immigrants without granting them citizenship rights—indeed, a means for business to gain the benefits of outsourcing without having to locate their operations overseas.”

Obama is already expanding those guest worker programs by at least 100,000 jobs, and he backed the Senate’s 2013 bill that would have boosted the number of guest workers above 1 million each year.

Under current law, the U.S. accept 1 million immigrants and 650,000 non-agricultural guest workers each year. Many of the guest workers stay for six years." via Drudge

.
===================

Comment: Good work by Mr. Munro. It must be said that Daily Caller is an Establishment Republican site. "Critics" of Obama's plans referenced by the Daily Caller don't come from the purported opposition party. The GOP Establishment very much agrees with Obama's population plans. They've desperately wanted open borders for many years. The Bush people in 2006 and 2007 were desperate to do what Obama's doing. The critics are the people. I appreciate Jeff Sessions speaking up now but he's been around for many years as we've continued to have de facto open borders with the terror state of Mexico. Sessions was there in 2006 when a law passed (a month before midterms) to build 700 feet of fence on the southern border. None of it has been built. When tens of thousands of homeless Central Americans poured over the border a few months ago--and many more to come--no GOP took to the microphone on our behalf. They acted like nothing happened. Many of the Central Americans aren't willing to use flush toilets in their US accommodations, throw used tissue around which spreads disease. In July 1984 the Wall St. Journal suggested a 5 word Constitutional Amendment: "There shall be open borders." They feel the same way today. They don't address the fact that if you have no southern border you're not a country. There's no reason to have a military. Other than to do what they do now which is dirty work for thugs. You plan for me to be the slave of millions of homeless people from terrorist cultures. You plan to tax me to pay for a military that takes orders from someone in Honduras. The elites want the US as we've known it to end--not a single peep to be heard from we the peons again. We'll have chaos as all Third World countries do. This chaos allows elites to do their deals undisturbed by citizens asking questions. Like royals in days of old, they know everything, deserve everything, are entitled to steal the last penny from workers, and create misery.

"We propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders." (parag. 5):
  
July 3, 1984, "REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Editorial): In Praise of Huddled Masses," Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition) (scroll down)

"Amid the fireworks and picnics as this nation celebrates its independence tomorrow, we hope Americans stop to ask, what is the United States? The question is especially appropriate at this moment in the history of a nation of immigrants; upon returning from its July 4 recess Congress will try to finish work on the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

The answer to the question is in the first words of our Constitution, “We, the people.” It was the people, and especially new people, who worked this land into a New World. We hope today’s gentlepeople, the descendants of the tired and poor who sought refuge on these shores, can still spare a thought for today’s huddled masses, yearning to be free.

Simpson-Mazzoli, we are repeatedly told, is a carefully crafted compromise. It is in fact an anti-immigration bill. Note well that despite its grant of amnesty for aliens who have been residents long enough, its most outspoken opponents are the Hispanics, who would prefer to live with the present laws. Its constituency is an interesting and perhaps portentous alliance of the “nativist” Americans who still dominate Mountain States politics and the “Club of Rome” elitists of the Boston-Washington corridor.

We can hope that the bill will die in the House-Senate conference, which still must resolve such contentious differences as whether or not to have a program of temporary guest workers for agriculture. If it survives conference, President Reagan would be wise to veto it as antithetical to the national self-confidence his administration has done so much to renew.

If Washington still wants to “do something” about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. Perhaps this policy is overly ambitious in today’s world, but the U.S. became the world’s envy by trumpeting precisely this kind of heresy. Our greatest heresy is that we believe in people as the great resource of our land. Those who would live in freedom have voted over the centuries with their feet. Wherever the state abused its people, beginning with the Puritan pilgrims and continuing today in places like Ho Chi Minh City and Managua, they’ve aimed for our shores. They — we — have astonished the world with the country’s success.

The nativist patriots scream for “control of the borders.” It is nonsense to believe that this unenforceable legislation will provide any such thing. Does anyone want to “control the borders” at the moral expense of a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall with minefields, dogs and machine-gun towers? Those who mouth this slogan forget what America means. They want those of us already safely ensconced to erect giant signs warning: Keep Out, Private Property.

The instinct is seconded by the “zero-sum” mentality that has been intellectually faddish this past decade. More people, the worry runs, will lead to overcrowding; will use up all our “resources,” and will cause unemployment. Trembling no-growthers cry that we’ll never “feed,” “house” or “clothe” all the immigrants — though the immigrants want to feed, house and clothe themselves. In fact, people are the great resource, and so long as we keep our economy free, more people means more growth, the more the merrier. Somehow the Reagan administration at least momentarily adopted the cramped Club-of-Rome vision, forgetting which side of this debate it is supposed to support. Ronald Reagan, we thought, marched to different bywords — “growth,” for example, and “opportunity.”

If anyone doubts that the immigration and growth issue touches the fundamental character of a nation, he should look to recent experience in Europe. Some European governments are taken in by the no-growth nonsense that economic pies no longer grow, and must be sliced. They are actually paying immigrants and guest workers to go home: the Germans pay Turks, the French pay North Africans, the British pay West Indians and Asians. It was this dour view of people as liabilities, not assets, that led to the great European emigration to the U.S. in the first place. Meanwhile, Europe today settles into long-term unemployment for millions while the U.S. economy is booming with new jobs.

The same underlying difference in vision applies in political ideals. The individual is the lightning rod of 20th-century politics. The totalitarians of the Communist Bloc don’t allow their people to leave. The foremost use of the machinery of the state is to wall in the citizens. If we cannot change their regimes, the least we can do is to offer refuge to those of their peoples with the opportunity and courage to arrive here."...

===============


.