brennan
Argumentative Brit
I still don't understand why there is any such thing as 'illegal' immigration. Why How could it possibly be immoral to move to a new country?
Let's Talk Immigration
- Thread starter Gary Childress
- Start date
Given this, I really fail to understand how restrictive immigration laws are considered a right wing policy, and allowing more immigration is a left wing one.
There is a difference between illegal and immoral.
Another case in point: the White Australia Policy was historically most enthusiastically supported by the Labor Party and trade unions.
Restricted immigration is only right-wing in that it is socially-conservative. Protectionism, the primary economic argument for restricted immigration, flourishes among both the Left and the Right.
Just goes to show how useless the left-right dichotomy can be I suppose.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Because 'right wing' policies fly in the face of evidence and rely on a purely self-serving ideology. Left wing policies are a bit more cosmopolitan.
If the difference is purely a technicality, then no-one will respect the law. Hey, no-one does respect this law. Maybe that's where the problem lies.
Oruc
Reactionary
Send them back alongside their parents.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Any argument against opening borders to the free movement of labor is an argument against Free Enterprise itself. Capitalism is often taken as a synonym for Free Enterprise, but technically it is not. Capitalism is a system favoring Capitalists, meaning the owners of Capital. Owners of Capital are very often enemies of Free Enterprise, as they often conspire with governments in order to get special treatment such as subsidies and barriers to entry for would be competitors. Whether a capitalist prefers the liberalization of global trade or protectionism can vary greatly depending on the industry.
It is certainly incoherent to support both free trade and restricted immigration based on principle, but politicians tend not to act based on principle. (Also, what politicians call free trade tends to involve complicated negotiations and bureaucratic organizations that maintain a significant degree of protectionism for various special interests.) Politicians act based primarily on what will get them elected, which includes exploiting prejudices as well as collecting campaign donations. This makes it pragmatic to support Capitalism, but not Free Enterprise.
The Right/Left dichotomy itself is not so much based on principle as on historical accident. Right is Conservative or Reactionary, supporting the status quo or status quo ante, while Left is Progressive. When the terms first originated, the Right consisted of Moralist Mercantalist Monarchists while the Left consisted of Classical Liberals. This old Left eventually gained power and implemented many of their ideas, but not completely. They were succeeded by a new Left that wanted significant government intervention in the market, as did the old Right but for different purposes. Immigration restrictions in particular were championed by the more recent Left of Organized Labor movements, which like the old Mercantilist Right was quite Protectionist and often xenophobic.
True Conservatives do not act based on principle, but on maintaining what they grew up knowing. It just so happens that what they grew up knowing was a rather awkward compromise that includes a mix of somewhat liberal capitalism with various state interventions from both older Rightists and newer Leftists. Preferring the familiar is also strongly correlated with preferring one's own race and culture, and thus being willing to use state power to protect them against immigrants.
Classical Liberals were more successful earlier in the United States than on Europe, which makes the American Right more Laissez-faire than the European Right. The European Right wing has long been associated with Xenophobia, but opposition to immigration was not a particularly right wing phenomenon in the United States until recently. Only a decade ago Republicans tended to be more favorable to immigration than Democrats. (Granted, Democrats are less homogenous, and include highly Protectionist old fashioned Conservatives as well as Social Democrats, Organized Labor, and Civil Libertarians. Their constituencies include the most xenophobic and the most welcoming to new immigrants.)
In America the main reason the Right opposes immigration is because immigrants use services which the government provides with tax payer money due to programs initiated by the Left. It would make much more sense for them to use this example of a free rider problem to argue for the abolition of these programs, but is more politically expedient to attack the immigrants than lose votes from citizens who depend on the same programs. The Right is also associated with Law and Order types (a holdover from before Classical Liberalism) which oppose 'crimes" like using false social security numbers, despite the fact that these are only required due to Leftist programs and those committing the act are actually paying more into the system without being able to get it back from the government like citizens can.
It is certainly incoherent to support both free trade and restricted immigration based on principle, but politicians tend not to act based on principle. (Also, what politicians call free trade tends to involve complicated negotiations and bureaucratic organizations that maintain a significant degree of protectionism for various special interests.) Politicians act based primarily on what will get them elected, which includes exploiting prejudices as well as collecting campaign donations. This makes it pragmatic to support Capitalism, but not Free Enterprise.
The Right/Left dichotomy itself is not so much based on principle as on historical accident. Right is Conservative or Reactionary, supporting the status quo or status quo ante, while Left is Progressive. When the terms first originated, the Right consisted of Moralist Mercantalist Monarchists while the Left consisted of Classical Liberals. This old Left eventually gained power and implemented many of their ideas, but not completely. They were succeeded by a new Left that wanted significant government intervention in the market, as did the old Right but for different purposes. Immigration restrictions in particular were championed by the more recent Left of Organized Labor movements, which like the old Mercantilist Right was quite Protectionist and often xenophobic.
True Conservatives do not act based on principle, but on maintaining what they grew up knowing. It just so happens that what they grew up knowing was a rather awkward compromise that includes a mix of somewhat liberal capitalism with various state interventions from both older Rightists and newer Leftists. Preferring the familiar is also strongly correlated with preferring one's own race and culture, and thus being willing to use state power to protect them against immigrants.
Classical Liberals were more successful earlier in the United States than on Europe, which makes the American Right more Laissez-faire than the European Right. The European Right wing has long been associated with Xenophobia, but opposition to immigration was not a particularly right wing phenomenon in the United States until recently. Only a decade ago Republicans tended to be more favorable to immigration than Democrats. (Granted, Democrats are less homogenous, and include highly Protectionist old fashioned Conservatives as well as Social Democrats, Organized Labor, and Civil Libertarians. Their constituencies include the most xenophobic and the most welcoming to new immigrants.)
In America the main reason the Right opposes immigration is because immigrants use services which the government provides with tax payer money due to programs initiated by the Left. It would make much more sense for them to use this example of a free rider problem to argue for the abolition of these programs, but is more politically expedient to attack the immigrants than lose votes from citizens who depend on the same programs. The Right is also associated with Law and Order types (a holdover from before Classical Liberalism) which oppose 'crimes" like using false social security numbers, despite the fact that these are only required due to Leftist programs and those committing the act are actually paying more into the system without being able to get it back from the government like citizens can.
How on Earth does that make the analogy fall flat?
Mango Elephant
Deity
Than he should have the job, obviously.
Of course I'd be disgruntled, but I know what's right and I know what's the most progressive way for humanity, and anyone who wants fairness, equality, and justice in our society doesn't look at how something should benefit me, but rather how something can benefit us. We should have the best we can have performing jobs, and a place where you were born doesn't make you better at a job. An immigrant is a person, and if they can perform a job better than myself they should have the job because they can benefit society more. What else, I am a part of society and so I also benefit from having the jobs performed by the best people who can do them.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Gary Childress speculated as to whether Native Americans felt as put-out as he does when their country's resources were used to support the children of uninvited immigrants, but in fact they often went out of their way to care for European children, so evidently they did not as a matter of principle object to the presence of people of non-native ancestry.
Nope, two completely different things. Your point really does fail.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Would you be able to explain why, rather than simply stating it?
I've got an idea to control immigration! Only two things are needed:
1. Develop widespread anti-immigrant sentiment backed up with a border fence and laws encouraging the harassment of immigrants by law enforcement.
2. Have a severe economic recession followed by a slow, anemic recovery. Make sure that our GDP growth rate during the recovery phase is far lower than that of Mexico and most of the rest of Latin America.
The result? Net migration between Mexico and the US has reversed for the first time in 60 years. We're winning the War on Immigration! Yay!
1. Develop widespread anti-immigrant sentiment backed up with a border fence and laws encouraging the harassment of immigrants by law enforcement.
2. Have a severe economic recession followed by a slow, anemic recovery. Make sure that our GDP growth rate during the recovery phase is far lower than that of Mexico and most of the rest of Latin America.
The result? Net migration between Mexico and the US has reversed for the first time in 60 years. We're winning the War on Immigration! Yay!
aelf
Ashen One
Indeed. In fact, I find that libertarianism and closet xenophobia/racism often go hand-in-hand. I'm doing some research on Emma West (the English woman who was recorded making racist remarks in a tram lat year), and the people who defend her on the Internet are mostly either outright racists or self-professed libertarians trying to turn it into an issue of freedom of speech or reverse racism.
I've found that asking for a stance on immigration is the best way to tell real economic right-wingers from xenophobes. Support for immigration makes a lot of sense from a business perspective as well as a human rights perspective, which is why Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush had "liberal" opinions on immigration.
It's very disturbing to me that the Republican party and other right-wing parties worldwide have shifted against immigration. It implies that anti-immigrant sentiment is now so powerful that it has become worth it for supposed pro-business conservatives to ignore their ideology on this issue and oppose easy immigration.
Mise
isle of lucy
A lot of businesses are rather angry with Cameron's ridiculous and unachievable aim of reducing net migration to a trickle. Universities are up in arms about it.
It's the method not the move. A country generally wants some control over who enters. The legal immigration channels have things like background checks and health screenings. Further, once you've arrived, the new country is able to take steps to help you settle: language classes, health coverage and job placement. Perhaps the most important benefit though is that you're protected. If I start work and my employer decides to withhold part of my cheque or to pay me less than minimum wage or to coerce me into working in dangerous conditions, I needn't fear reporting him. While in general, undocumented immigrants won't be arrested for reporting labour violations, they will have to worry about finding their next job.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You've also got to keep in mind that:
1. Your government pretty much encouraged illegal immigration by turning a blind eye to it and allowing people to move here en masse and taking up jobs that Americans wouldn't want to do.
2. The bottom of your economy relies on immigrants doing said jobs
You can't have your taco and eat it too
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
The economy may rely on immigrants to do the "dirty work" but does it rely on illegal immigrants to do the dirty work? Secondly, as far as doing the "dirty work", is that such a bad thing for someone newly immigrating to a country? Should we instead immediately elevate them to be millionaires when they arrive and let them lord themselves over us instead? I know this may sound harsh but what is the alternative?
Thirdly: I know I've heard the "broken dreams" thing about talented people who come to this country and because of their second rate status don't achieve all they might hope. Well, isn't that life? I've had plenty of broken dreams. I don't think anyone is out there worrying about my broken dreams. WHy should the broken dreams of immigrants be special?
