One of the commenters here recently offered a list of things that have gone wrong with the US. The first item was "anti-immigration." ( This was intriguing to me for several reasons. )
Legal immigration is a greater challenge to those who live by ascriptive status than is illegal immigration. An illegal immigrant is no challenge the the status of a native, because if push comes to shove the native can report him to the INS, or threaten to do so. By contrast, a legal immigrant is a status challenge, because under the American citizen, he is the equal of the native-born in every way save running for the Presidency.
The fact that the Democrats are more in favor of illegal, and the Republicans in favor of legal, immigration makes it obvious that the Democrats are more obsessed with ascriptive status than are the Republicans.
Legal immigration is a greater challenge to those who live by ascriptive status than is illegal immigration. An illegal immigrant is no challenge the the status of a native, because if push comes to shove the native can report him to the INS, or threaten to do so.
Such threats have been somewhat neutered, generally, though there is now a strong push-back in a number of states.
Clues to attitudestelnarAugust 8 2010, 23:44:15 UTC
I think it's reasonable to infer that anyone who sees reducing illegal immigration as a priority, but does not advocate increasing legal immigration prefers less immigration in total than we currently have. It's not plausible that their only objection is that some of our current immigration is illegal, since if it were, they would be looking for ways to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration
( ... )
Re: Clues to attitudeslevel_headAugust 9 2010, 01:22:49 UTC
I think it's reasonable to infer that anyone who sees reducing illegal immigration as a priority, but does not advocate increasing legal immigration prefers less immigration in total than we currently have.Why? The difficulties of legal immigration are a problem, but not necessarily one greatly impinging upon national security
( ... )
Re: Clues to attitudeslevel_headAugust 9 2010, 01:25:09 UTC
It's not plausible that their only objection is that some of our current immigration is illegal, since if it were, they would be looking for ways to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration.
But many do exactly that. I have. Am I not plausible?
As I re-read this, it seems that you're suggesting that any response to illegal immigration other than making it legal is equivalent to not being in favor of legal immigration. Is that what you mean?
Re: Clues to attitudestelnarAugust 9 2010, 01:45:37 UTC
That's not what I mean. For starters, the specific people admitted by expanded legal immigration will not be the same as the illegal immigrants currently entering the US
( ... )
First, it seems to be a commonly repeated canard that US conservatives are against immigration. I have never seen any conservative say this.
You're either using tricky wording to mean that you've never heard a conservative say that conservatives are against immigration or you've completely forgotten about Pat Robertson.
Pat... Robertson? (Sorry if I missed something, I was thinking Pat Buchanan was against it (it's been a long time since I've even heard his name, though I could be wrong there)).
I went looking around as well, and wasn't able to turn up a Pat Robertson quote denouncing legal immigration. The search was not exhaustive.
I note that most Americans, according to various polls, are in favor of slowing down immigration rates to allow for better assimilation.
It's an arguable position, but I think it is the nature of the immigration process more than the raw numbers that are at issue. Solving the procedural difficulties and providing for better assimilation does not automatically mean a reduction in numbers.
This PDF was interesting; the poll is online and therefore somewhat suspect, but I've seen telephone polls with similar results. But I've read the "register illegals to vote" folks' attack as well (discussed here), and that does not seem to hold up.
This is typical for the way the left attempts to frame issues. If you are against their position then you must be for the absolute worst outcome for the most evil of reasons.
By refusing to admit that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration they are admitting that they can't win the debate on this topic using facts and logic.
Comments 62
The fact that the Democrats are more in favor of illegal, and the Republicans in favor of legal, immigration makes it obvious that the Democrats are more obsessed with ascriptive status than are the Republicans.
Reply
Such threats have been somewhat neutered, generally, though there is now a strong push-back in a number of states.
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
I really hope that things swing back to supporting legal immigration and enforcing policies that are already on the books.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But many do exactly that. I have. Am I not plausible?
As I re-read this, it seems that you're suggesting that any response to illegal immigration other than making it legal is equivalent to not being in favor of legal immigration. Is that what you mean?
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
Reply
You're either using tricky wording to mean that you've never heard a conservative say that conservatives are against immigration or you've completely forgotten about Pat Robertson.
Reply
I was telling the simple truth.
I'm aware of Pat Robertson, but don't follow him. He is against legal immigration, I take it.
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
Reply
I note that most Americans, according to various polls, are in favor of slowing down immigration rates to allow for better assimilation.
It's an arguable position, but I think it is the nature of the immigration process more than the raw numbers that are at issue. Solving the procedural difficulties and providing for better assimilation does not automatically mean a reduction in numbers.
This PDF was interesting; the poll is online and therefore somewhat suspect, but I've seen telephone polls with similar results. But I've read the "register illegals to vote" folks' attack as well (discussed here), and that does not seem to hold up.
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
By refusing to admit that there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration they are admitting that they can't win the debate on this topic using facts and logic.
Reply
"it seems to be a commonly repeated canard that US conservatives are against immigration"
Indeed... In fact one of the most abused and misunderstood similar errors is confusing 'discrimination' with 'unfair discrimination'.
Reply
Leave a comment