[VowJoyday]

What I don't understand is why conservatives accord property (liking free trade) more freedom than people (disliking free immigration). You've got similar downward wage pressures in both cases, and the most effective solution in both cases is to widen the safety net for permanent residents, so all that's left, really, is a fear of other cultures. And I personally like my Vietnamese sandwiches...

[gagagaridze]

Originally posted by CrONoS


I don't see how lower cost can help rising wages in short & medium term. What I see is lower wages for the entire society in short term. In aggregate, yes. But only because you'll have added a bunch of low wage earners.

That comparison is meaningless. Compare the native Canadians before and after. If you double the population of Canada while keeping the same exact skill distribution then I know of no reasonable economic theory which predicts massively lower wages.

Even if total capital remains the same (unlikely) then there is a transitory capital shallowing, increasing the profit to wages ratio. However, if international capital is allowed to flow then I don't see why capital to labour wouldn't remain constant. The only possible objection is that natural resources would become scarcer, increasing rents. I'd like to see some quantitative analysis of this.

Now, imagine that instead of the same skill profile immigrants represent lower skills (including the soft skills of social knowledge, language etc). Now the group of native Canadians is a high-skilled set living in a society where per capita skills are scarcer than before. Their wages go UP (in aggregate). The only objection is in the overlap region. If you are a low-skilled native Canadian then you are living in a society where unskilled labour per capita is in greater supply. Your wages might go down, but by les than everybody else's went up. This is the theory of comparative advantage (immigration just increases the size of the tradable sector; it doesn't change the basic idea). If you want, compensate native Canadians with a per capita immigration displacement disbursement.

[feseEscaple]

A lot of the anti-immigrant crowd doesn't actually like free trade either.

The elected leadership (in their votes, not necessarily private opinions) are generally anti-immigrant and pro-trade.

And there's a much greater antipathy to "amnesty" than CAFTA among the base..

[cjOTw7ov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Dude, you can pick a place and time at which anything was the norm. Unregulated immigration was the norm till the early part of the 20th century (actually, this is true up to about the same point where tax rates started drastically increasing). Yes, but what of it?

I don't believe that Conservatives were philosophically opposed to new laws or regulation, simply that they tended to be skeptical of change of any kind. On the other hand, I see nothing philosophically inconsistent with a Conservative supporting a new law or regulation to fix one of society's ills as the lesser of two evils.

The Libertarian Free Marketer might also point out that open immigration is not a good idea as long as the welfare state exists (I believe Milton Friedman pointed this out.) The Conservative would agree but also point out that cultural dislocation is also a reason he opposes mass immigration.

Again, I refer you to my paraphrase of Pat Buchanan and especially the quotation I posted from NRO's John Derbyshire concerning immigration. I would be interested in hearing your response to those (Conservative) ideas.


Are you really suggesting that a bunch of people want the US to go back to exactly 1925? Claiming someone wants to "go back" to "exactly 1925" is silly. But I do know of a good number of principled American Conservatives who think that a phase-out of many of the social and economic programs put in place by the New Deal would ultimately benefit the nation.

[CathBraun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I read your Derbyshire quote. And responded to it. Picking and choosing when to apply skepticism to change is not a political philosophy I find compelling. Especially when the "change" you're arguing against is actually the norm for American history. I have to apologize, then, as I did not see a post from you indicating why you thought that the benefits of mass immigration outweighed potential social costs. Is Derbyshire right when he contends that mass immigration is one giant social engineering project? Would you say that he is wrong by saying that he does not want to be forced to be a part of this project?

(EDIT: VJ made similar points.)

And, of course YOU do not have to find Conservatism compelling in the least! But, you did ask the question, and this is the answer.

[Fertassa]

I forgot girls and music.

[melissa]

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? Why is it that liberals think it's such a good idea to have undocumented people running around?
You think this is a USA thing only? A North American thing? What exactly do you think, if anything?

[Vipvlad]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Why is it that liberals think it's such a good idea to have undocumented people running around?
You think this is a USA thing only? A North American thing? What exactly do you think, if anything? Who said anything about undocumented immigration?

Sloww, you're always good for a laugh but I'm just going to put you on ignore so you don't clog up the thread with irrelevancies.

[Jenisoisy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No. I'd say that as far as American society goes, shutting down immigration is the giant social engineering project.
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 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.)

[vesiasmepay]

We had large amounts of Chinese immigration earlier.

JM

[Pyuvjzwf]

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.

[Frinzer]

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.

[RooxiaNof]

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?

[farmarrl]

Originally posted by jkp1187


Really, I was asking the substantive question. What substantive question?

[gooseCile]

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

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

[MaugleeRobins]

Originally posted by jkp1187

Define "social cost"

[Vulkanevsel]

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.