The Puzzle of American Immigration Policies

[Apocalypse]

There are significant constituents in both parties in the US that don't want immigration stopped. Actually stopping it is the only way you really lose any votes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't believe that to be true. Or at least, they would wish the provisions for legal immigration to be very narrow.

You missed the next sentence in that post.

[DanS]

Just making things slightly more explicit for our European friend.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No one wants to stop legal immigration. Well at least no one worth being taken seriously.

I believe that this is not true, unless you regard your neighbours and fellow voters as unworthy of being taken seriously. It is my impression that common people are opposed to just about any immigration, but the elites are completely detached from what the people want. And since elites run the media, they set the limits of what is discussed and how.

I'm no expert on US elites, but here is an example. I follow a few blogs and sites by Ivy league economic professors and the like. I haven't observed a single one that is opposed to immigration.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Immigration is good for business and bad for the average local worker, because it gives a pool of cheap and obedient labor to the businessmen, that directly competes against the more demanding red-blooded-American workforce.

I agree. However, how big is the big business elite that wants cheap labour? It's tiny. How cool is it for world's greatest democracy to listen to a tiny group over wishes of the teeming millions?

See Denmark, I bet you they could use cheaper labour in their huge Lego factories, however, they stopped immigration anyway.

Apocalypse:

There are significant constituents in both parties in the US that don't want immigration stopped. Actually stopping it is the only way you really lose any votes.

Can you prove this? What "significant" constituents? I think that they are only significant because they have money and control the media, but they have few votes on their own.

[VetLegion]

The Big Business right, the socially left, Big Labor, and assorted Libertarians generally favor as open an immigration policy as possible, favor guest worker programs, and favor some sort of amnesty.

Social conservatives and rank & file union members generally favor clamping down on illegal immigration, oppose amnesty, and generally oppose guest worker programs.

Libertarians + Big Business + others ...

... 10 000 people?

I mean it's fairly obvious which group is bigger by an enormous margin.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DanS
VL: It's a great contradiction. The country has a strong economy and needs a steady stream of immigrants. Meanwhile, that immigration is unpopular. The gov't is left with the task of squaring that circle.

Basically, you see nothing wrong with people not getting their way

BTW., the argument that a country needs a steady stream of immigrants to maintain economic growth is far from an established fact, as has been proven by US among others, for it grew even while immigration was reduced.

[Provost Harrison]

The solitary issue I have with immigration into this country is not one of the immigrants themselves but what kind of provisions are made for them (or, in fact, the population as a whole). They need to start addressing the lack of available/affordable property in London, which seems to be quite a hotspot for immigrants. There is a considerable amount of brownfield sites that can be used to resolve this - and so many places that just stand empty and boarded up - you can't help but notice this when moving around London.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I agree. However, how big is the big business elite that wants cheap labour? It's tiny. How cool is it for world's greatest democracy to listen to a tiny group over wishes of the teeming millions?

See Denmark, I bet you they could use cheaper labour in their huge Lego factories, however, they stopped immigration anyway.

Apocalypse:


Can you prove this? What "significant" constituents? I think that they are only significant because they have money and control the media, but they have few votes on their own.

On both the republican and dem side, there are capitalists who enjoy the cheaper labor. These aren't just the very rich, but many small business owners who find that is another way for them to be able to survive. The "big" businesses usually aren't the ones employing these people, and when they do it isn't the top people doing the hiring. It's more on a store by store basis.

With the dems, there is the hispanic vote. While many hispanics are against illegal immigation, they aren't the majority. The democrats also don't have a very strong hold on this vote, since from a religious stance, many hispanics are more likely to side with the republicans.

You also have many people who believe that illegal immigration is good for America. They believe that the US is not very competitive in the export market due to labor unions and illegal immigration is a way to help turn things around.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by VetLegion Libertarians + Big Business + others ...

... 10 000 people?

No, more like millions of people. Libertarians and other free market Conservatives don't necessarily have to be fat cats, they just believe in a particular philosophy. In my experience, most upper middle class Republicans fall into this free market Conservative mold and support lenient immigration / guest workers / amnesty for illegals.

Another important pro-immigration group that I forgot about are the religious groups. The Catholic Church and many Protestant churches side with the pro-immigration movements.

[Dr Strangelove]

The border between the US and Mexico is freakin' long and much of the terrain rather barren. Short of putting the entire border on war footing it's simply not feasible to stop illegal immigration across this border. Add to that the fact that we're dependent on Mexican oil so we don't want to completely stifle trade with Mexico and you can see that the persistance of illegal immigration isn't really the fault of the parties. If we want to stop illegal immigration from Mexico we need to tackle the root cause, Mexican poverty.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Libertarians + Big Business + others ...

... 10 000 people?

I mean it's fairly obvious which group is bigger by an enormous margin.

But those 10.000 people are richer than the rest of the country
and therefore can afford to influence the opinion of the poeople (for example by election campaigns and the like)
And with just 2 political parties that have any influence, the options for the voters are minimal to change anything (unless they all would vote any of the smaller parties, but as these aren´t supported by the people with the big money (which could be used for election campaigns), the chances of this happening are minimal

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I believe that this is not true, unless you regard your neighbours and fellow voters as unworthy of being taken seriously.

Quite often I do but that's beside the point for now. Where do you get the impression that we are against all immigration anyway? Pat Buchanan's position is considered fringe as far as I can tell.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If we want to stop illegal immigration from Mexico we need to tackle the root cause, Mexican poverty.

And the cause of that is the large scale corruption of their system. good luck trying to fix that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If we want to stop illegal immigration from Mexico we need to tackle the root cause, Mexican poverty.

Wouldn't it be easier and more productive to tackle the people who hire them and maybe set up somesort of guest worker program?