# Why don't conservatives love immigrants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891 "2012-09-26T15:41:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/61 "2012-09-27T15:55:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > No more ridiculous than arguing that American conservatives were outraged over illegal immigration from the US to Canada: I never said they were. What I did say is what you quote just below. And the “objection” was to Canada allowing it. You continue to demonstrate quite a proclivity for this kind of inaccurate recounting of my words. > [@Kimstu](#): > > What US conservatives were “objecting” to was draft-dodging by Americans, not violations of Canadian immigration law, and it was silly of you to pretend that it had any significant relation to US conservative positions on illegal immigration in general. Wrong. What they were objecting to was both, although in regard to the second it was Canada that conservatives were unhappy with. > [@Kimstu](#): > > As long as the “free pass” happens to be proposed by a Democrat, of course. Are you aware of any other instances of widespread breaking of the law in which amnesty was supported by conservatives and proposed by a conservative president? If so I’ll grant that you may have a point. Now, shall we continue this silly hair-splitting hijack all day or do you think the OP might like to have his thread back? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/62 "2012-09-27T16:20:24Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And the “objection” was to Canada allowing it. Allowing the _draft-dodging in violation of **US** law_, not the breach of Canada’s own immigration laws, which were not a matter of concern to American conservatives. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Now, shall we continue this silly hair-splitting hijack It’s not hair-splitting. You are attempting to fabricate an argument for conservative opposition to immigration law violation in general by pretending that conservative opposition to Vietnam-era draft evasion was based to any significant extent on the violation of Canadian immigration law _per se_, which it wasn’t. It **is** true, however, that by introducing the irrelevant topic of draft-dodging you somewhat hijacked a thread that’s really about illegal immigration. By all means, feel free to stop the hijack at any time. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/63 "2012-09-27T16:54:31Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I seem to recall Ford also being involved in some other high-profile pardon of a lawbreaker…hang on, the name will come to me in a minute… > > What always bothers me about the GOP approach is the emphasis on the workers. ISTM that if you don’t want the workers here you need to hit the employers harder as they’re the ones incentivising the workers to come to the US in the first place. One might be tempted to suspect that there’s a reason the focus is on poor brown people rather than the rich white guys who hire them, but that might be considered churlish. One might be tempted if one was a liberal or ignorant of the facts. The e-verify progam was started in 1997 to target businesses who were hiring illegal immigrants. Since then 16 states, mostly republican run, have passed laws mandating its use for state hiring and state contractors. Democrats have tried to sue to stop the program but they were unsuccesful. There was a big case about an Arizona law targeting businesses who hire illegals that went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was in all the papers. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/64 "2012-09-27T16:58:14Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Allowing the _draft-dodging in violation of **US** law_, not the breach of Canada’s own immigration laws, which were not a matter of concern to American conservatives. How many times do I have to tell you that it pissed a lot of us off that Canada was allowing draft-dodgers from the U.S. to cross illegally into Canada to avoid the draft? I know you think you’ve found some sort of silly little point to cling to try to eke out some sort of victory here, but a.) you’re wrong; and b.) it’s a stupid thing to argue about and I’m not going to indulge you on it further. > [@Kimstu](#): > > It’s not hair-splitting. You are attempting to fabricate an argument for conservative opposition to immigration law violation in general by pretending that conservative opposition to Vietnam-era draft evasion was based to any significant extent on the violation of Canadian immigration law _per se_, which it wasn’t. It’s a good thing this isn’t in the Pit, where I could properly characterize what you’re doing here. Yet again, what I’m doing here is pointing to the fact that conservatives in general are opposed to amnesty for lawbreakers. Why are you so desperate to deflect the issue from that central point that you continue to try to brew a tempest in a teapot over this silly conservatives/Canadian immigration issue? > [@Kimstu](#): > > It **is** true, however, that by introducing the irrelevant topic of draft-dodging you somewhat hijacked a thread that’s really about illegal immigration. By all means, feel free to stop the hijack at any time. Sorry, but this is yet another…ahem, _inaccurate_, recounting of my words. What I did was point out in response to another post that conservatives generally oppose amnesty, and the draft-dodgers of the late-sixties/early-seventies were an example which everyone would be familiar with. So let me say it again just so were clear: the point being made when I raised the issue of draft-dodgers was amnesty, not immigration. Got it? And now having said that, I maintain that by reiterating the point I remain on topic as to the discussion under way before you came charging in to huff and puff over a minor liberty in phrasing whose meaning a child could understand, so ain’t no hijack on me! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Incubus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c68b51/32.png) [@Incubus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Incubus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/65 "2012-09-27T17:11:10Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > You mean those who somehow found themselves wandering the countryside with no idea how they got here and therefore understandably lacking documentation? Undocumented people can be undocumented for a wide variety of reasons. For example, if someone’s parents brought them here when they were 6 months old. This individual, even though they were raised in the US, with US customs, language, and beliefs, is not a US citizen according to the law. Because of the laws, this person cannot obtain a driver’s license or legally work in most places, even though the only crime they commited was being born on the wrong side of a border. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/66 "2012-09-27T17:22:46Z")
A valid point. As long as the term is used to refer to people like that rather than as a PC attempt to minimize the fact that many immigrants are here illegally, I’m fine with it then. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/67 "2012-09-27T17:28:02Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I seem to recall Ford also being involved in some other high-profile pardon of a lawbreaker…hang on, the name will come to me in a minute… > > What always bothers me about the GOP approach is the emphasis on the workers. ISTM that if you don’t want the workers here you need to hit the employers harder as they’re the ones incentivising the workers to come to the US in the first place. One might be tempted to suspect that there’s a reason the focus is on poor brown people rather than the rich white guys who hire them, but that might be considered churlish. The Missouri GOP criminalized the employers a few years ago. ☹ So did Oklahoma, and a few other states. They are going after employers, on the, “How dare you hire a foreigner!” theory. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/68 "2012-09-27T17:38:56Z")
Cite? I’ve been of the impression that the pressure to fine the evil business people who hire illegals has been coming from the left as a way of trying to discourage illegal immigration without, you know, expecting people to actually obey immigration laws. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/69 "2012-09-27T17:40:40Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Are you aware of any other instances of widespread breaking of the law in which amnesty was supported by conservatives and proposed by a conservative president? If so I’ll grant that you may have a point. Particularly relevant here is the Reagan Republican immigration amnesty of 1986, on which Ronald Reagan _campaigned:_ > [@](#): > > [The Sins of St. Reagan](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/15/st-reagan.html) > > In 1986, Reagan supported an immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. During the 1984 election, Reagan said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.” I was raised a Reagan Republican, I was raised to believe in open borders to trade and human movement, I was raised to believe in freedom. Imagine my disgust when as an adult I found out what “conservatism” really means. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/70 "2012-09-27T17:59:31Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Magellan, I don’t understand who you’re calling, “not true conservatives.” Is it those who want a guest worker program; or those who are keeping undocumented aliens “illegal” so they can’t push back against abusive employers and participate above ground in society? > > And that kind of No True Scotsman talk is part of the problem in conservative politics. There are those on either side of the split that will insist that they are the “real conservatives” and the others are “fake conservatives.” But it’s self-delusion. The movement is a coalition of people who disagree with each other. > > (Of course, as a cynic with leftie influences, I would argue that using nationalism to drive a wedge between different sectors of the labor market is “true conservatism” in an insulting sense.) Anyone who does not think that our borders should be protected/regulated is not a true conservative. Anyone who, after what happened with Reagan’s amnesty proposition, favors amnesty, or amnesty-light, is not operating from a conservative position. Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/71 "2012-09-27T18:04:44Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Particularly relevant here is the Reagan Republican immigration amnesty of 1986, on which Ronald Reagan \*campaigned:\*I was raised a Reagan Republican, I was raised to believe in open borders to trade and human movement, I was raised to believe in freedom. > > Imagine my disgust when as an adult I found out what “conservatism” really means. You’re leaving out two things. 1) Reagan was seeking to fix a problem that had gotten that way due to years and years of lax immigration enforcement. So, the die was to reset the clock. And part of that was 2) that illegal immigration from that point forward would be prevented. Naturally, given the unholy alliance between dems and reps on the issue (albeit for different reasons), illegal immigration got worse than ever. Also, the policy sent the wrong message. Illegals believed that all they had to do was get here and eventually there would be another amnesty. And if we do it again, we will encourage more illegal immigration. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/72 "2012-09-27T18:07:06Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Cite? I’ve been of the impression that the pressure to fine the evil business people who hire illegals has been coming from the left as a way of trying to discourage illegal immigration without, you know, expecting people to actually obey immigration laws. [Missouri Governor Matt Blunt fighting illegals (born, illegal immigrants, law, Mexico) - Illegal Immigration - City-Data Forum](http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/156999-missouri-governor-matt-blunt-fighting-illegals.html) (2007 message board post) Matt Blunt is GOP, the son of then-Congressman, now-Senator, Roy Blunt. [Missouri now 'destination state' for immigrants](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-now-destination-state-for-immigrants/article_5af7e91a-263d-56a0-91ff-f5b1a6a9d9b8.html) (2010 article) [HB1549T-ILLEGAL ALIENS](http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bilsum/truly/sHB1549T.htm) (2008 law) [http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd\_id=665332](http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=665332) (2012 article) Your impressions aren’t worth a cup of coffee. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/73 "2012-09-27T18:08:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Anyone who does not think that our borders should be protected/regulated is not a true conservative. Anyone who, after what happened with Reagan’s amnesty proposition, favors amnesty, or amnesty-light, is not operating from a conservative position. Does that help? Yeah, that’s pretty much the first line of my first post in this thread. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/74 "2012-09-27T18:11:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Anyone who does not think that our borders should be protected/regulated is not a true conservative. That’s an awfully vague criterion, though. I don’t know of **anybody** except maybe some **really** hardcore anarchists or libertarians who argues that our borders shouldn’t be “protected/regulated” **at all**. And from there, you’re arguing about matters of degree. Specifically how much and what kind of border regulation does one have to support to be a “true conservative” in your book? > [@magellan01](#): > > Anyone who, after what happened with Reagan’s amnesty proposition, favors amnesty, or amnesty-light, is not operating from a conservative position. Does that help? Well, that would disqualify [Mike Huckabee](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/huckabee-defends-obamas-immigration-policy-its-an-admirable-thing/), for one. It sounds as though you’re using a fairly hard-core zero-tolerance “immigration hawk” stance as your bright line for being a “true conservative” on immigration issues. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/75 "2012-09-27T18:29:34Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > [Missouri Governor Matt Blunt fighting illegals (born, illegal immigrants, law, Mexico) - Illegal Immigration - City-Data Forum](http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/156999-missouri-governor-matt-blunt-fighting-illegals.html) (2007 message board post) Matt Blunt is GOP, the son of then-Congressman, now-Senator, Roy Blunt. > > [http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-now-destination-state-for-immigrants/article\_5af7e91a-263d-56a0-91ff-f5b1a6a9d9b8.html](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-now-destination-state-for-immigrants/article_5af7e91a-263d-56a0-91ff-f5b1a6a9d9b8.html) (2010 article) > > [HB1549T-ILLEGAL ALIENS](http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bilsum/truly/sHB1549T.htm) (2008 law) > > [http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd\_id=665332](http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=665332) (2012 article) > > Your impressions aren’t worth a cup of coffee. Don’t you think it was just a tad disingenuous to phrase it that the Missouri GOP decided years ago to “criminalize” employers on the “How dare you hire a foreigner!” theory, when in reality what they were doing was trying to deal with an influx of illegal immigrants fleeing the six states they had previously been flocking to and which had been forced into enacting stricter laws of their own in an effort to deal with the problems the influx of illegals was causing them? In the case of Missouri and according to your own cites, this was resulting in areas of some communities becoming so saturated with illegals that landlords were finding themselves renting to people with proper ID only to find shortly thereafter and in response to citizen complaints that as many as eight to ten people were living in one and two bedroom apartments, and taxing local police and community service agencies. And let’s call a spade a fucking shovel while we’re at it and acknowledge that any community in which circumstances like this exist are invariably hotbeds of drug and criminal activity as well. So _of course_ conservative politicians are going to attempt to create legislation to deal with all that, which is a far cry from your rather creative characterization that they simply decided to make employers criminals for daring to hire “foreign people.” :rolleyes: I actually like it when most people post cites around here because they so rarely show what they’re supposed to show. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/76 "2012-09-27T18:29:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Illegals believed that all they had to do was get here and eventually there would be another amnesty. And if we do it again, we will encourage more illegal immigration. This argument I don’t really get. Do people really base their decisions about whether to move to a foreign country and live and work for years without legal status on the expectation that sometime within the next few **decades** there will be an amnesty? I doubt it. ISTM that on average people take a chance on illegal immigration based on much more short-term and pressing concerns. This is indicated by the fact that [as of this spring, the net migration from Mexico to the US has fallen to zero or possibly even negative](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/). > [@](#): > > The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. […] > > The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico. […] > > As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. […] > > […] apprehensions of Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally have plummeted in recent years—from more than 1 million in 2005 to 286,000 in 2011—a likely indication that fewer unauthorized migrants are trying to cross. Border Patrol apprehensions of all unauthorized immigrants are now at their lowest level since 1971. […] > > In Mexico, among the wide array of trends with potential impact on the decision to emigrate, the most significant demographic change is falling fertility: As of 2009, a typical Mexican woman was projected to have an average 2.4 children in her lifetime, compared with 7.3 for her 1960 counterpart. So it looks as though the illegal immigration problem is hardly spiraling out of control; in fact, it seems to be vastly reduced from what it was even just a few years ago. And that appears to have much less to do with amnesty prospects than with ordinary economic and demographic pressures on migration. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/77 "2012-09-27T18:40:59Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I’ve been of the impression that the pressure to fine the evil business people who hire illegals has been coming from the left […] Are you saying that the right **isn’t** exerting pressure to fine employers “who hire illegals”? Why wouldn’t they, if conservatives in general are supposedly so opposed to giving people a pass for breaking the law? In fact, wouldn’t it be more efficient to crack down on illegal employers _more_ than on illegal employees, thus disincentivizing the employees from seeking work illegally in the US in the first place? That seems to be the Obama administration’s rationale, at least, judging from [this May 2011 article on immigration crackdowns in Oklahoma](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html?pagewanted=all): > [@](#): > > Obama administration officials are sharpening their crackdown on the hiring of illegal immigrants by focusing increasingly tough criminal charges on employers while moving away from criminal arrests of the workers themselves. > > After months of criticism from Republicans who said President Obama was relaxing immigration enforcement in workplaces, the scope of the administration’s strategy has become clear as long-running investigations of employers have culminated in indictments, convictions, exponentially increased fines and jail sentences. While conducting fewer headline-making factory raids, the immigration authorities have greatly expanded the number of businesses facing scrutiny and the cases where employers face severe sanctions. > > In a break with Bush-era policies, the number of criminal cases against unauthorized immigrant workers has dropped sharply over the last two years. […] > > Administration officials say that their audits and investigations of employers have laid the groundwork for a system that would dissuade companies from hiring illegal immigrants. > > “We have steadily increased our efforts to investigate and prosecute employers who violate the law on a serious and grand scale,” said John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. The next step, administration officials said, is to open a pathway that would allow millions of illegal immigrants in the country to live and work here legally. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/78 "2012-09-27T19:37:04Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > This argument I don’t really get. Do people really base their decisions about whether to move to a foreign country and live and work for years without legal status on the expectation that sometime within the next few **decades** there will be an amnesty? > > I doubt it. ISTM that on average people take a chance on illegal immigration based on much more short-term and pressing concerns. This is indicated by the fact that [as of this spring, the net migration from Mexico to the US has fallen to zero or possibly even negative](http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/). > > So it looks as though the illegal immigration problem is hardly spiraling out of control; in fact, it seems to be vastly reduced from what it was even just a few years ago. And that appears to have much less to do with amnesty prospects than with ordinary economic and demographic pressures on migration. No one assumes that the wait will be decades. There’s always that hope that it wil be next year, or the year after, etc. True, illegal immigration has calmed down in recent years. But that is an accident of our economy. It had _already_ spiraled out of control prior to the recent leveling off. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/79 "2012-09-27T19:43:19Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yeah, that’s pretty much the first line of my first post in this thread. 😉 I just went back and read your post. You seem to be talking about immigration, I am talking about _illegal_ immigration. The two are very different things. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891/80 "2012-09-27T20:03:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No one assumes that the wait will be decades. There’s always that hope that it wil be next year, or the year after, etc. Got a cite for that? I would really like to see some evidence that the average illegal immigrant’s decisions about coming to the US are significantly affected by expectations of an imminent amnesty. Anyway, since there hasn’t been a general immigration amnesty since Reagan’s 1987 Act a quarter-century ago, it seems that whatever “assumptions” about imminent amnesty allegedly fuel illegal immigration still operate whether we actually pass an amnesty law or not. > [@magellan01](#): > > True, illegal immigration has calmed down in recent years. But that is an accident of our economy. Got a cite for that either? The cite I provided indicated that the recent sharp drop in illegal immigration appears to be due to the combination of a number of factors, including more effective enforcement, the Great Recession, and decreased demographic/economic pressures in Mexico. > [@magellan01](#): > > It had _already_ spiraled out of control prior to the recent leveling off. 😕 I don’t see how something that is not currently out of control can be said to have “spiraled out of control” immediately prior to that. It sounds kind of like saying “The dropped papers were irretrievably scattered by the wind before we managed to retrieve them”. Yes, there was a very heavy wave of illegal immigration from Mexico up to a peak in about 2007, after which various factors combined to drastically reduce it. I’m not seeing an “out of control” situation there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-conservatives-love-immigrants/635891.md?page=5)