Why do conservatives think that...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm pretty sure almost all of the anti-immigrant conservatives are poorer and/or populists.

Or just your typical flag waving middle class moron.

[snoopy369]

That's probably not an unreasonable statement. I certainly don't feel united with the family values/religious types...

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Given that most conservatives have been willing to experiment in the past by drastically reducing regulation and marginal tax rates on the highest brackets you might find me a little bit skeptical of the legitimacy of this philosophy when it's applied narrowly to a single issue.

That's a bit off-base.

It isn't as if a Conservative will fight tooth-and-nail against a specific law, but then once the law is passed, simply throw up his hands and say: "Oh well, we've lost, so now I must fight to defend this new law, too, even though I think it will change things for the worse." Obviously, the same principles that motivate him to oppose a proposed new law will continue to motivate him to work for its repeal.

Taxes in the past were lower, as was regulation. I think that it's hardly "experimental" for a Conservative to seek to reduce both -- if anything, the period of high taxes to support social welfare programs and high regulation for consumer protection is the anomaly in American (and, indeed, in world) history. The conservative is simply arguing (rightly or wrongly) that the experiment should be scaled back.

[Whoha]

Re: Why do conservatives think that...

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
the government can "manage" migration better than the market?

Except for those who call for a total ban on immigration, those who wish to restrict immigration generally want the gubmint to decide (usually by prioritising highly skilled individuals) who gets in and who doesn't.

I thought conservatives were convinced of the government's inability to intelligently intervene in the labour market? If they're smart enough to figure out what the "economy needs" in terms of external labour supply then why not just have them set wages and prices too?

Government management tends to work.

In long term it can increase the incentive to go to college.

We're seeing the complete opposite of this.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I don't think conservatives have ever not felt this way. Certainly not in recent (~50 years) history. Why are conservatives for criminalizing abortion, drugs, etc., for permitting religious displays in schools, for limiting/eliminating immigration (legal or otherwise)... the list goes on. All have the same answer.

Aortion has been legal for ages. Religious displays in schools have been illegal for ages. Immigration has been significant to the US since the dawn of time.

All the opposing views are therefore for CHANGES.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


In short and medium terms costs would be lower too.

Don't fall into the one-sided fallacy here.

I don't see how lower cost can help rising wages in short & medium term. What I see is lower wages for the entire society in short term.

I would tend to agree with you in long run. But I will never ever accept mass immigration for the reason that it bring too high social cost.

The cost of a second class citizen could be translated as the rate of your inmate for black people in U.S. Or the racial problem in France, England and other European country.

[RGBVideo]

it's nationalism vs. internationalism -issue, not conservative vs. liberal (or right vs. left)

if you don't think what kind of people live next to you matters to how pleasant it is for you to live, then naturally micro-managing the quality of immigrants seems like a comical non-issue

Immigration has been significant to the US since the dawn of time.

We should be for this, because this has always been true. Somebody has suckered you into believing that talking point and you've never double-checked it. In reality, what is a branch of "nativist xenophobia" now used to be widespread, unquestioned common sense.

Depending upon the definition of "significant", of course, you can always say that you're correct. That's not my point, I'm not interested in saying that you're wrong or trying to humiliate you. I want you to understand that the current levels of immigration from alien cultures are drastic and unless controlled they WILL create radical changes in societies experiencing them.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hmmm, interesting to hear yousay that KH. I have heard the same thing stated about conservatism being a mishmash with fiscal/family values/religious/market/privacy types all included under one hat when in reality they have little to unite them anymore.

Which would be my main objection to the OP, that "conservatives" are not of one mind on everything.

Interesting point. A hypothesis could be that the fiscal conservative branch is now being brought into direct conflict with the nativist xenophobia branch. Previously the fiscal conservatives/free marketeers didn't give a **** about the social issues and the nativists didn't give a **** about the fiscal/economic issues. Immigration brings them in direct conflict.

While I think there is some truth to this, I think you underestimate the extent to which the two groups (market and nativism) overlap.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by VJ
it's nationalism vs. internationalism -issue, not conservative vs. liberal (or right vs. left)

In some cases, but in others it's an economics issue. What it is not is a govt control vs. free market issue, although the rhetoric comes down to that some times.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Aortion has been legal for ages. Religious displays in schools have been illegal for ages. Immigration has been significant to the US since the dawn of time.

All the opposing views are therefore for CHANGES.

As jkp said above, it's not like conservatives suddenly become supportive of everything that happens. Undoubtedly over TIME this will happen - over a century or so - but not in a generation or two. Conservatives support not specific laws, but the 'general lifestyle of the nation' I would suggest - they want an America that is representative of what they consider American (ie, the "MADE IN USA" crowd definitely fall here - supporting American ideals through industry) and thus oppose legal abortions because that symbolizes a move away from what they consider American (ie, good christian morals).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187



That's a bit off-base.

It isn't as if a Conservative will fight tooth-and-nail against a specific law, but then once the law is passed, simply throw up his hands and say: "Oh well, we've lost, so now I must fight to defend this new law, too, even though I think it will change things for the worse." Obviously, the same principles that motivate him to oppose a proposed new law will continue to motivate him to work for its repeal.

Taxes in the past were lower, as was regulation. I think that it's hardly "experimental" for a Conservative to seek to reduce both -- if anything, the period of high taxes to support social welfare programs and high regulation for consumer protection is the anomaly in American (and, indeed, in world) history. The conservative is simply arguing (rightly or wrongly) that the experiment should be scaled back.

Dude, you can pick a place and time at which anything was the norm. Unregulated immigration was the norm till the early part of the 20th century (actually, this is true up to about the same point where tax rates started drastically increasing).

Are you really suggesting that a bunch of people want the US to go back to exactly 1925?

[Ramo]

What I don't understand is why conservatives accord property (liking free trade) more freedom than people (disliking free immigration). You've got similar downward wage pressures in both cases, and the most effective solution in both cases is to widen the safety net for permanent residents, so all that's left, really, is a fear of other cultures. And I personally like my Vietnamese sandwiches...

[Kuciwalker]

What I don't understand is why conservatives accord property (liking free trade) more freedom than people (disliking free immigration).

A lot of the anti-immigrant crowd doesn't actually like free trade either.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by CrONoS


I don't see how lower cost can help rising wages in short & medium term. What I see is lower wages for the entire society in short term.

In aggregate, yes. But only because you'll have added a bunch of low wage earners.

That comparison is meaningless. Compare the native Canadians before and after. If you double the population of Canada while keeping the same exact skill distribution then I know of no reasonable economic theory which predicts massively lower wages.

Even if total capital remains the same (unlikely) then there is a transitory capital shallowing, increasing the profit to wages ratio. However, if international capital is allowed to flow then I don't see why capital to labour wouldn't remain constant. The only possible objection is that natural resources would become scarcer, increasing rents. I'd like to see some quantitative analysis of this.

Now, imagine that instead of the same skill profile immigrants represent lower skills (including the soft skills of social knowledge, language etc). Now the group of native Canadians is a high-skilled set living in a society where per capita skills are scarcer than before. Their wages go UP (in aggregate). The only objection is in the overlap region. If you are a low-skilled native Canadian then you are living in a society where unskilled labour per capita is in greater supply. Your wages might go down, but by les than everybody else's went up. This is the theory of comparative advantage (immigration just increases the size of the tradable sector; it doesn't change the basic idea). If you want, compensate native Canadians with a per capita immigration displacement disbursement.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Are you really suggesting that a bunch of people want the US to go back to exactly 1925?

Probably about 1850 when the Chinese started immigrating here.