The Conservative Stance on Illegal Immigration
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on March 29th, 2006 in General, PoliticsIsn’t it crass hypocrisy for conservatives who swear by free markets and free trade to take the stand on immigration that they do?
For Republican presidential candidates, immigration offers up a difficult choice: Appeal to conservatives eager to clamp down on illegal immigration who could buoy your position in the primaries, or take a moderate stand to win independents and the growing Latino vote, which could be vital to winning the general election.
Why are they so eager to clamp down on illegal immigration? There should be free trade only in goods, but not in services? There should be barriers for labor, but not for capital?* In my book, that’s intellectual dishonesty.
* That may sound a little abstract. A concrete example of the “no barriers for capital” philosophy would be the administration’s stance on the DP World port deal. In a free market, you do not interfere with flows of investment capital in and out of countries. You do not interfere with transactions in the market for corporate control. When DP World wants to take over P & O, a government committed to free markets does not interfere. When Congress wants to scuttle the deal, a government committed to free markets worries only about what kind of message that will send to international investors.
Alex wrote:
Eh? It’s not free-trade in goods if the goods are manufactured inside the US. It’s not trade period, let alone free-trade. Similarly, it’s not free-trade in services when the services are provided inside the US. Outsourcing is free trade in services.
Where the heck do you find these fallacious analogies?
To be clear, illegal immigration is a potential threat on multiple levels, including economic, societal, and political. All nations maintain strict control of immigration - it’s one of the basic responsibilities of any government. Regaurdless, it’s not so much illegal immigration that we’re opposed to, but rather the idea of giving illegals expanded rights. ESPECIALLY after all the rallies in the last week or so. Illegal immigrants who just want to work and get by tend to induce sympathetic feelings in most people, and the vast majority would be in favour of leaving them alone, peraps even granting them citizenship once they’ve demonstrated the ability to become productive members of society. On the other hand, illegal immigrants forming political alliances and demonstrating for the annexation of US territory are a totally different matter. Should have called in a few thousand riot police and started tossing them back over the border.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 8:24 am ¶
matt wrote:
free trade = no barriers. how hard is that to understand? shall i outsource an explanation to another blog for you?
will you be passing along our thoughts to your super-top-secret imaginary government friends?
ahh, the true colors.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 8:50 am ¶
Alex wrote:
Jeezus f-ing christ.
From Dictionary.com
Get a goddamn clue.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 11:14 am ¶
matt wrote:
because you post a definition of something from 20 years ago when “free trade” has come to mean so many other things?
think the absence of tariffs is the only thing signifying free trade? really?
environmental regulations, worker wages, government subsidies, etc…
not been paying much attention to the doha talks i see
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 11:35 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
True colors also coming out here, I think. For Alex and whoever else is included in that “we”, illegal immigrants are fine as long as they shut up and let themselves be exploited mercilessly, by having no rights. Seems to me we tried this social experiment once in this country, and declared it to be a big failure. Back then it was called slavery.
As for
grandeur is not the only delusion this prick suffers from.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 11:40 am ¶
Alex wrote:
Slavery? Yes, that’s right, all the mexicans are slaves. That’s why they’re practically killing themselves to get over the border. How could I not have seen it before.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:03 pm ¶
matt wrote:
let me count the ways.
but i think you’re worried about them taking your janitor job. cleaning military latrines give you proximity to power and men in uniforms.
seriously, do you have a purpose here?
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Will someone explain to me why this Canadian guy is so worked up on the subject of illegal immigrants in the US?
And what’s with all the “we”?
And, finally, hat’s off to Matthew Tobey, who somehow managed to come up with this penetrating diagnosis very early in Alex’s 1115 career:
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:12 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I think he’s just an exhibitionist, out to expose himself for what he is.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:21 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Alex, we’re probably too small a blog to heap enough disgust on you to satisfy your twisted needs. I really think you should go flash your values on some other site where you can get a lot more bang for your buck.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:29 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Yeah, word has it, Huffington Post is handing out “badges of honor” to folks like you.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:35 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
So let me get this stright:
They’re okay as long as they have no rights, and know their place, and keep their mouths shut, and just do their work. The moment they start demanding rights, they become a big problem.
But to deny them civil rights is not to enslave them, because they came here willingly?
The reason why you fled the US and have lived in Canada most of your life, it didn’t have anything to do with wearing long white robes and funny conical hats, did it?
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:43 pm ¶
marc wrote:
Methinks it was to become a lumberjack.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 12:59 pm ¶
Alex wrote:
They’re ok as long as they’re decent human beings looking to make a better life for themselves. Frankly, there are many illegal immigrants who deserve to have US citizenship more than either of you two.
Are you capable of actually having a discussion without turning it into a kindergarden playground style argument? This is usualy the type of nonsense I have to put up with when attending left-wing rallies, however, I was (perhaps naively) hoping for something better here.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 3:54 pm ¶
matt wrote:
how is that exactly?
it’s difficult to take you seriously. step your game up, stop fluffing yourself, and maybe we can duke it out on the issues.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 3:58 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
>
Ah yes, people whose opinions you don’t like certainly don’t deserve citizenship in the US, which is not even your country.
Why don’t you go fuck a duck? Or screw a goose.
Posted 29 Mar 2006 at 4:59 pm ¶