Peter Brimelow interviews Ron Paul

via Conservative Heritage Times

The interview. Bede at CHT criticizes Paul for the following exchange, and rightly so:

Brimelow: What do you think of the H1-B program?
Paul: I’ve supported that because it’s legal. I know some people say they don’t follow the law…. The argument is that it’s a form of corporate subsidy—powerful interest groups have arranged to break down their workers’ wages by bringing in temporary workers. Well, the market always works to put pressure on the businessman to spend the least amount of money to provide product. So what some may call a corporate subsidy is also a subsidy to the consumer. The consumer is the one protected in the free market. The object of labor is to push wages up as high as possible. The object of business is to get the most efficient labor at the best price. In the free market, that works out. But the problem is we have too much welfare and we have a currency that’s losing value.
Brimelow: If you’re President, various interest groups are going to come to you and say, there’s a shortage of nurses or teachers or (goodness!) possibly journalists; therefore we have to have these temporary work programs to bring in labor in this area. If the labor is organized, it’s going to say to you, look, the problem isn’t that there’s a shortage, the problem is business doesn’t want to pay higher wages. What will you do?
Paul: Well, whatever we do will be legal. Congress has to have a say, they have to pass a law, and the President has to decide to sign it or not. And I would lean in the direction of saying, if there is indeed a shortage, and this is a legal process, this shouldn’t be threatening to us.
Brimelow: How would you determine that there was a shortage?
Paul: Well, I don’t think it would be easy but if there’s a need and immigrants can get a job, that means there’s a shortage. If there was no shortage, they wouldn’t have jobs. Obviously the companies can’t fill some of these jobs and they’re looking for people to fill them.

Ron Paul is not a distributist, and he probably will never become one; he is committed to his brand of economic liberalism. Still, he is willing to limit the Federal Government, and the rest of the work that must be done is up to those who believe in strengthening local community and sovereignty, states' rights, "subsidiarity," and so on...