There might be a big difference, but this isn’t it. I see no reason to believe that conservatives are any more likely to consider the welfare of the country as a whole with regards to immigration policy.
…
Have you ever even been 16 in a state like Texas, where all the employers give you the run around and all the jobs at the entry level are taken by illegals? This sounds like the kind of bullshit my parents pulled then, refusing to pay for me taking the SAT unless I got a job, and of course I had a great deal of difficulty getting one as basically a shiftless teenager without experience. I don’t blame employers for choosing the better candidate - a hard working Mexican is clearly the right choice - but those folks shouldn’t have even been in the labor pool. And of course, once I did get a job, the restaurant kitchen sounded like we were in Mexico. I was the majority, in a country that my grandparents had fought for, my dad barely dodged the draft with an exemption, and I myself eventually served in the military.
What exactly did the illegals do? Why should I have had to compete with them for jobs, or learn Spanish or be left out? Da fuq.
As for genetics, fine, let’s say it’s just culture. Mexico is a corrupt shithole. Let in limitless Mexicans - legal or illegal - and maybe this country will become a corrupt shithole as well. Well, more than it already is.
You’ve never read comments of the “Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs/committing crimes/making the country worse/getting a free ride on welfare/Social Security” sort?
Having open borders would completely destroy the Olympics and the World Cup of soccer virtually overnight.
Anyone could just start representing whatever country they’d like
Of course, but there are plenty of similar arguments from liberals – immigrants start businesses, have lower crime, enhance the culture, etc.
Yes, but my point is, conservatives often evaluate immigration’s merits on whether or not they think it is beneficial to the country’s welfare. Whether those evaluations are correct or not is another matter entirely.
To me, it seems like Conservatives are more likely to think…*.immigration is bad. *
So do liberals.
Liberals are more likely than conservatives to look at immigration from the perspective of the immigrant’s benefit.
The bulk of the liberal arguments in favor of taking in refugees weren’t, “Refugees are good for America,” but, rather, “Isn’t America good for refugees?”
except that it’s probably a myth
from fortune magazine a moderately conservative pro business publication
mc
That certainly wasn’t the impression I got. This sure sounds like the very picture of a strawman argument.
Your impression is your impression, mine is mine. Everyone reads different news and interacts in a different social circle.
Surely you didn’t think the “cream of the crop” would spend thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles just to lay around and remain idle once they land on our shores?
Ever heard of economics? Competition in the marketplace is a good thing. IF these immigrants are so inferior to the locally-born, they will not be any competition at all. If they are superior to the locals, that will be a very good thing for the US and its economy. If you’re so worried about the poor, uncompetitive American worker, give him a basic income and let the competitive workers move here and do better work cheaper. You know, the American dream? Buy American, American manufacturing, Horatio Alger, free market, bootstraps, etc?
Liberals might argue from both points of view, but that doesn’t mean that conservatives think of the country’s welfare any more than liberals.
“More” isn’t the way to quantify it. “Primary” is more apt. Conservative’s primary motive, when evaluating immigration, is, “Is the immigration of (X group of people) good for the country?”
Quite often, their answer is no, unless, as some have suggested, it involves skimming off the “cream of the crop” of other countries.
I should get a preference because of my fortuitous selection of ancestors?
Truth be told, I already have, in many ways. Just not in any way that’s legally enshrined. Why should I get an official advantage as well?
Because the very nation who’s government is responsible for all these actions would not exist if it were not for the actions of millions of our ancestors working their asses off, inventing the best technology base the world has ever seen, and yes, bleeding for it, sometimes to death.
Also, most other countries put their native citizens first for everything, why should ours be different? This includes most European countries. Go look at the onerous official immigration requirements for one.
Too late to edit: Sorry, RickJay, my comment came across as snippier than intended.
But I certainly didn’t sense that the argument for accepting refugees was, “Think of all the businesses they’ll start!” It was, “The refugees are fleeing war, they need a home.”
You didn’t get the impression that liberals who wanted the US to take in more refugees were wanting that because it would help the refugees? What, did you think liberals wanted to let them in for food or hunting or something? I’m trying to come up with alternatives, if that description was a straw man.
Conservatives who think liberals don’t argue that immigration is in the national interest are blindered. Indeed, they’re missing posts in this very thread from prior to that argument being made.