Conservative, by definition, means averse to change and holding to traditional values and cultural norms. Immigrants, regardless of how hard they work or what they put or take from the system, tend to represent change or new and strange values and cultures. So not surprisingly, people who tend to be a bit xenophobic tend to lean conservative.
The one highly Americanized token brown family down the street who bring an unusual dish to the neighborhood block party is fine. But if all of a sudden, the neighborhood starts to look like Greenwich Village, with the gay couple down the street and the Muslim couple next door praying ten times a day and the town making all the street signs tri-lingual, conservatives feel their culture and traditions are threatened.
I hear that California has a prison overcrowding problem. Let’s apply your solution: let them all out, and Poof! problem solved!
Remember, conservatives consider all illegal immigrants as law breakers. Giving amnesty just gives incentive to continue the criminal behavior. I agree that there should be reforms. Perhaps a better guest worker program that registers the illegals, gives them the right to be here and work, but does not give them the benefits of welfare/food stamps. If they have school aged children, they should pay some sort of school tax to ensure their kids get an education. Have them give yearly proof that they are working, and they can stay, and eventually work towards citizenship. Too take paret in this program, illegals would have to go back to their country of origin to apply, but as long as there is no criminal record, it should be an easy approval process. Blanket amnesty would just bring more illegals.
For the reason already mentioned, which is that it incentivizes future law breaking. Plus, conservatives tend to find the idea of giving people who intentionally break the law a get out of jail free card offensive to begin with. You might recall conservatives objected when the flow of illegal immigration was from the U.S. to Canada during the late sixties and early seventies, and conservatives were opposed to Carter when he wanted to allow them amnesty. (No poor and brown going on there. You guys just can’t get it through your heads that with conservatives it’s about principles and not about people, can you?)
This seems to be the preferred liberal solution to a lot of law breaking. Why not just obey the law in the first place? That’s what it’s there for.
You always have the option of getting the law changed, provided you can rally enough people to your cause…of course, therein usually lies the rub for our liberal brethren.
Making the leap from “legal immigration has been good in the past” to “we should allow illegal immigrants to become citizens” is what is commonly called a non sequitur. Rewarding illegal behavior will almost certainly result in more illegal behavior.
But your original point was also a fallacy-- Bad Analogy. We all pick and choose our battles, and you can’t fault someone for choosing to ignore the trivial.
If it’s just about law and order, then what’s the problem with significantly relaxing the barriers to legal immigration? (Don’t give me “Amnesty would encourage future illegal activity”. I’m not talking about amnesty here. I’m talking about changing immigration law for the benefit of future immigrants, such that far more would be able to legally immigrate far more easily.)
Well, why make them illegal in the first place? Make the admissions process a smooth, efficient, mostly-rubber-stamp process such that anyone who wants to work can do so with a minimal amount of hassle.
Gadzooks, people who go to the U.S. to work hard might, if they are no longer treated like scum, encourage more people to go to the U.S. to work hard! OH, THE HUMANITY!
:dubious: Actually, judging from your post it apparently isn’t, unless you’re admitting that your conservative “principles” don’t include factual accuracy and logical consistency.
If we’re being factually accurate, Carter didn’t offer anybody any amnesty for illegal immigration from the US to Canada (which as US President he logically couldn’t have done anyway, since such illegal immigration would have been a violation of Canadian rather than US law. As it turned out, though, Canada mostly and deliberately turned a blind eye to the status of the “draft dodgers” and ended up treating them as legal immigrants).
Rather, the Carter amnesty was for those who had violated US draft laws, whether by fleeing to Canada or by hiding from Selective Service within the States. It was the “draft dodging” that many conservatives were pissed off about, irrespective of immigration issues.
And as for conservative resentment of draft-dodging being “about principles and not about people”, I remember a lot of conservatives hurling furious accusations of “draft dodger” at Bill Clinton for having legally avoided military service in Vietnam. Strangely, those same conservatives seemed completely indifferent to George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s having done the same. Hmmm.
Mind you, I wouldn’t dispute that there exist plenty of conservatives who do hold principled positions about law enforcement and immigration, but nobody would know it from that muddleheaded post of yours.
No country that I’m aware of allows unfettered immigration to all comers. Immigration causes strains and pressures on the host country in addition to whatever benefit it brings. These have to be balanced in the best interest of the host country so that it may absorb and assimilate the new immigrants in ways that are beneficial both to the new immigrants and to itself. Additionally, people from all over the world want to come here. So it becomes necessary to limit the number of people coming from some countries in order to allow immigrants to come in from others. I suspect that the U.S. has already curtailed immigration from Europe and Asia quite a lot as a result of the number of illegal immigrants flooding in from Latin America.
Even without having an amnesty program, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest on the right to making legal immigration any easier. Unless I can see evidence of such interest I am tending to believe that for many conservatives concentrating on the illegal aspect is just a post hoc justification for a less socially acceptable feelings against immigrants of any form.
The point, as you perfectly well know, is that conserservatives in general are opposed to amnesty for lawbreakers as a matter of principle, and secondarily that in the case of the American draft-dodgers the law they broke was facilitated by immigrating illegally into Canada, and thirdilarily that being brown and poor had not a damn thing to do with conservative opposition to Carter’s amnesty.
I do thank you though for giving me the opportunity to make these points once again though.
Yeah, a matter of principle, even when it makes no sense whatsoever and even contradicts other just-as-stubbornly-held principles. THAT’S modern conservatism for ya!
I suspect the reason some conservatives love legal immigrants so much is because they’re non-existent.
I started a thread about a year or so ago, asking what procedure an average Mexican should follow if he wanted to immigrate legally to the United States with the intent of fighting a job and eventually becoming an American citizen - essentially the same path most of ancestors followed. The consensus was that no such procedure existed. A Mexican cannot legally immigrate to the United States unless he qualifies in some special category.
If we want to fix the illegal immigration problem we should start by offering a legal alternative that’s equivalent to what our ancestors were offered.
There’s nothing wrong with stubbornly-held principles so long as they’re the right kind of priniciples. I think you’d have a hard time arguing that a principle which holds that people should obey the law is a principle that should be abandoned.
It’s a distraction from the issue. There’s such a thing as a bad law. Some of us think current immigration law is poor law. The OP’s question is essentially “Why don’t conservatives love laws which encourage immigration? Why do they prefer laws which are much more restrictive on immigration than they could be?”.
:dubious: Considering that the previous (Republican) President Gerald Ford also decreed amnesty for Vietnam-era draft dodgers before Carter did, and you conservatives don’t seem to bother crying and whining about that, I’m skeptical that this incident is as much of an illustration of conservative “principle” as you seem to think.
You keep saying that, but it’s wrong. Not all of the beneficiaries of the Ford and Carter amnesties “facilitated” their draft evasion by going to Canada, and the amnesties were in no way limited to those who had left the country. Many Americans who illegally evaded the Vietnam-era draft did so right in the good old U.S. of A., with no immigration involved at any point.
No, being Democratic did. Apparently conservative “principle”, as expounded by you, requires condemning amnesty for lawbreakers when it’s implemented by a Democrat and ignoring it when it’s implemented by a Republican.
Same as with calling legal means of draft avoidance “draft dodging” when they’re used by a Democrat and ignoring them when they’re used by Republicans.
In short, your attempt at using the Carter draft-evasion amnesty as an example of your attempt to make a point was neither meaningfully related to immigration policy in any way nor illustrative of any principled stand on the part of conservatives. Which is why I criticized it.
Good point. I’ll talk to the East Asian folks who own the Chinese Restaurant down the street, and the Middle Eastern men and women who work at the Walmart and 7-11 nearby, and the freshly arrived Romanian student who just arrived to study at one of our local community colleges, and the Mexican woman next door who immigrated here legally and oversees multiple McDonald’s restaurants for her boss who also happens to be a legally immigrated Mexican immigrant, and ask them if they show up in mirrors because this guy on a leftie message board is convinced they can’t really be here.
If the law is bad, processes exist by which it can be changed. Conservatives by and large are fine with laws that encourage immigration. Properly managed immigration is a benefit to the country. What conservatives don’t like is people breaking the law, and breaking it in a way that throws immigration out of balance and interferes with the country’s ability to manage it and to take on immigrants from other countries.
No, it’s right, I just hadn’t elucidated it for hair-splitters, and now it’s probably so late that you’ll just accuse me of the goalposts. The law they broke when they immigrated illegally to Canada was Canada’s. Makes no difference to the law-abiding conservative mentality. They were dual law breakers: one, by dodging the draft; and two, by breaking Canada’s immigration laws and skipping off to Canada.
I would think even a moron would know, or at least suspect, that Carter wouldn’t be trying to grant amnesty to the draft-dodgers for breaking Canada’s immigration laws, so perhaps I have more faith than you in the average Doper’s ability to suss out such subtle distinctions without having them spelled out.
Carter wanted to amnestify the draft-dodgers; American conservatives were opposed. The end. Finis. The rest of your complaint is mere stuff and such.
While I agree that it would be nice to have a route for legal immigration, we are not obligated to do so. And there’s certainly no reasons that if we did, that it should resemble the immigration policy we had over a hundred years ago.
Our immigration policy should be designed to serve the U.S., no one else. I do feel that some level of immigration is desirable, but the circumstances should dictate that. For example, on the one hand, we have an aging workforce, which would argue for opening the gates some. On the other, we have high unemployment, particularly among low-skilled workers (which, b y the way, disproportionately affects black Americans), which says that we should not encourage low-skilled workers to come here.
Another issue is crafting a legal immigration policy that is likely to encourage assimilation. So large numbers from one country is not as beneficial as the same number from many countries.
Finally, we needn’t confuse a need for immigration with a need for additional citizens. Canada, for instance, has a sensible guest worker program that ensures that seasonal work will get done while allowing workers to travel back and forth to their families freely.
