Why do conservatives think that...

[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?

[snoopy369]

Unfortunately they're not real conservatives

[CrONoS]

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?

Conservatives and libertarians differ on the issue of the ability of the market to manage everything.

[KrazyHorse]

This is not merely a US thing. Conservatives the world over hate immigrants.

[KrazyHorse]

(conseratives in general, in any specific country that is)

[Wezil]

Harper's new policy in mind?

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Why do conservatives think that...

Originally posted by CrONoS


Conservatives and libertarians differ on the issue of the ability of the market to manage everything.

While they differ on the extent of their faith in the gov'ts incompetence there are relatively few conservative movements (AFAIK in the developed world) who want more gov't intervention generally than their "liberal" (American meaning) opponents.

So why the difference on immigation?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil
Harper's new policy in mind?

No. I'm no longer plugged into CanPol. What's the policy?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No. I'm no longer plugged into CanPol. What's the policy?

I did a quick search for a link but didn't find one.

Essentially along the lines of what you were mentioning - the feds will take a greater interest in the skills of prospective immigrants to better select those skills needed going forward.

The conservatives are calling it a progressive change, immigrant groups are expressing concerns.

[jkp1187]

"Conservatism" in its purest form, favors maintaining the status quo, taking a very skeptical view of any proposed changes to government or society absent a clear need for those changes. People who are conservatives are often willing to accept restrictions on various freedoms rather than risk the destabilization of society.

In that sense, it is quite logical for conservatives as such to be opposed to (or, at least, skeptical of) large-scale immigration, particularly from societies that are culturally distinct from the conservatives' own. (As Pat Buchanan famously put it: a group from England would find it easier to assimilate into American societies than a group from Zululand because of the shared cultural and linguistic background).

True, a supporter of the free market would likely oppose controls on immigration for exactly the reasons KrazyHorse stated in the original post. But this misses the point: although Conservatives (especially in the U.S.) tend to be supporters of the free market, they tend to do so pragmatically, and are quite willing to increase government control over the market to achieve certain goals (typically on social issues such as immigration, or abortion, and also on security issues,) and in doing so will be in opposition to the libertarian free marketeer.

In short: Conservatives are not necessarily Free Marketeers and vice-versa, however much the two may overlap.

[KrazyHorse]

Just frigging open the border to anybody with no criminal record who's not a security concern. Deny new immigrants the social safety net (including medicare). Kick out any you find who cannot hold an address (to avoid people coming and living on the streets off informal charity).

Those who cannot find better fortunes in Canada will go home. Those who stay will not be leeching off native-born Canadians. As far as I can see everybody is better off (except for those who are out the cost of a plane ticket).

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Just frigging open the border to anybody with no criminal record who's not a security concern. Deny new immigrants the social safety net (including medicare). Kick out any you find who cannot hold an address (to avoid people coming and living on the streets off informal charity).

Those who cannot find better fortunes in Canada will go home. Those who stay will not be leeching off native-born Canadians. As far as I can see everybody is better off (except for those who are out the cost of a plane ticket).

In short and medium term; wages would be lower. (for long term, nobody can know) and if you have a minimum wages; unemployment will increase.

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

[KrazyHorse]

Burkean conservatism is dead, jkp.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Burkean conservatism is dead, jkp.

Burke

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Just frigging open the border to anybody with no criminal record who's not a security concern. Deny new immigrants the social safety net (including medicare). Kick out any you find who cannot hold an address (to avoid people coming and living on the streets off informal charity).

Those who cannot find better fortunes in Canada will go home. Those who stay will not be leeching off native-born Canadians. As far as I can see everybody is better off (except for those who are out the cost of a plane ticket).

I tend to agree with you. But the Conservative would argue....well, instead of me putting words in their mouths, let's consult one:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE3NzE3NDdlNDAzNTI5NWZhODg2MGZkYzFiM2U4ZmQ=

Originally posted by John Derbyshire of National Review Online

"Numbers are of the Essence" [John Derbyshire]

Sorry, J.J., but I found Drew Carey's comments inane. He lost me with the first sentence:

"I think we should welcome all peaceful people to our country," says Drew Carey.

But how many, Drew? A hundred million? A billion? Four billion? How many? And don't the American people get to say anything about it? Every time they're asked, they favor less immigration. Isn't national policy supposed to be founded on consensus?

When I signed on to the conservative movement, I understood that one of its basic tenets was hostility to vast social-engineering experiments. What is mass immigration but a vast social-engineering experiment?

04/07 09:43 AM