Why do conservatives think that...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187



So you don't expect the U.S. to endure any social costs from large-scale immigration from a neighboring country with a different culture and language?

I didn't say that, now did I? I thought we were discussing the Derbyshire quote as an example of Burkean reasoning. If the calculation has already been performed by previous generations (which found that large amounts of fairly unrestricted immigration was a good thing) then we don't need to perform it again from scratch. That is the point.

(I also think you're being a bit inconsistent yourself -- if the New Deal at 70 years is no longer an experiment, why are immigration controls "experimental"? The Chinese Exclusion Acts were passed in 1882, far earlier than the New Deal. But I'm not going to press you on the issue, as the above question is the crux of the matter.)

Chinese exclusion yes. Italian (Arguably a much closer proxy for Mexican immigration than Chinese was) no.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We had large amounts of Chinese immigration earlier.

JM

Not anywhere near the magnitude of either the great
era of migration, which was evenly distributed amongst a multitude of nations, or the current migration wave, which is not.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Prior to 1965 American immigration policies overwhelmingly favored immigrants from Western nations. Until then (and even at that point), it was always taken for granted that America would be a majority-white nation. The giant social engineering project has been to massively increase non-western immigration.

Latin America isn't white enough but Italy is?

Go look up the ****ing census and tell me where the foreign born population originates from.

[Patroklos]

I didn't say that, now did I? I thought we were discussing the Derbyshire quote as an example of Burkean reasoning. If the calculation has already been performed by previous generations (which found that large amounts of fairly unrestricted immigration was a good thing) then we don't need to perform it again from scratch. That is the point.

Yeah, but those very same influxes allowed because the calculations predicted benefits resulted in a changes, making those calculations no longer relevant. It is annoying when people point to the industrial revolution as justification to unrestricted immigration when America is obviously a different economic animal now.

Chinese exclusion yes. Italian (Arguably a much closer proxy for Mexican immigration than Chinese was) no.

The Irish predated that, and there were extensive anti-immigration policies leveled against them on the city/state level.

[KrazyHorse]

Patroklos

I don't think Burkean arguments are valid, dude. I'm not arguing for them. In fact, I'm just pointing out that the Burkean argument is not particularly persuasive against immigration.

If you want to have an argument about how this time is different than last time, then leave your Burkean credentials at the door. We can have that argument separately. My support of fairly free immigration is not based on that...

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I didn't say that, now did I? I thought we were discussing the Derbyshire quote as an example of Burkean reasoning. If the calculation has already been performed by previous generations (which found that large amounts of fairly unrestricted immigration was a good thing) then we don't need to perform it again from scratch. That is the point.

Really, I was asking the substantive question.

Chinese exclusion yes. Italian (Arguably a much closer proxy for Mexican immigration than Chinese was) no.

Gosh, how do you figure?

[KrazyHorse]

Gosh, how do you figure?

How do I figure? Countries with a shared religion, history and overall "Western" culture (to dredge up Cali here) as opposed to a group from a completely alien culture?

Now, I discount social/cultural "displacement" issues in general, but if I were going to take them seriously I would certainly see a lot less "danger" from Mexicans than from 1870s Chinese. Hey, at least Mexicans have a quasi-democratic government and organize themselves in the same family units as native Americans.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


Really, I was asking the substantive question.

What substantive question?

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What substantive question?

So you don't expect the U.S. to endure any social costs from large-scale immigration from a neighboring country with a different culture and language?

[Ramo]

Yes, it's a good thing all cultures are equal.

No, Northern European food is remarkably ****ty, absent other cultural influences. But I'm ok with them staying despite such a terrible flaw.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Latin America isn't white enough but Italy is?

Go look up the ****ing census and tell me where the foreign born population originates from.

What are you trying to say?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187

Define "social cost"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Caligastia


What are you trying to say?

That your fear of the Mexican invasion due to cultural dissimilarities is strange given the makeup of the last great wave of European immigration.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Gosh, how do you figure?

How do I figure? Countries with a shared religion, history and overall "Western" culture (to dredge up Cali here) as opposed to a group from a completely alien culture?

Now, I discount social/cultural "displacement" issues in general, but if I were going to take them seriously I would certainly see a lot less "danger" from Mexicans than from 1870s Chinese. Hey, at least Mexicans have a quasi-democratic government and organize themselves in the same family units as native Americans.

That's fine as far as it goes. But neither the Chinese nor the Italians could immigrate and return to the mother country simply by walking. Many thought that they would not see their home country again when they came to the U.S. That is definitely not true of Mexican immigrants, and I think that as a result, at least some of those immigrants may be resistant to assimilation into the American mainstream culture.

Would you agree or disagree that having a minority culture group that consciously keeps itself separated from the mainstream might set up the country for future problems? Examples in other countries (Quebec or Belgium, for instance,) are not necessarily encouraging.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

This is a good point. I should think I count as a conservative, and I have a completely different idea of how immigration ought to be managed. I think that there should be an entry fee for those to come in, but that there should be no quotas. I think the quotas are bad management, and won't help us deal with the shortages available.

I also think things like welfare should only be available to Canadian citizens, not immigrants. If you are immigrating here, you should be able to support yourself. If the entry fee was high enough, I think we could still have reasonable assurances of self-sufficiency.

I totally agree with you Krazyhorse.