Why do conservatives support immigration and trade restrictions?

[The Irish Ram]

Conservatives understand that free movement of labor and capital is not what is happening.
Nor are we experiencing immigration. Our borders have been removed. We now have a tsunami of nonAmericans taking our jobs and incomes. These people are not here to become Americans. They are here to usurp America.

That is completely false. We still have borders. Try going to Canada or Mexico and coming back without iD. No one is taking anything from you. No one is here to usurp anything.

Rabbi, you are incorrect. Mexico and Canada have borders. You don't see us running across to vote in Mexico, do you? We have no border. Obama has turned ICE into a taxi service:

WASHINGTON TIMES – Customs and Border Protection Commission R. Gil Kerlikowske told Border Patrol agents who object to President Obama’s amnesty policies that it’s time to “look for another job,” saying Tuesday that agents have to follow the orders of their superiors.

Read more: Border agents told to LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB if they don’t like Obama’s Amnesty policies

What they are taking are our livelihoods. Not only are they taking American's jobs, Americans are actually being forced to train the illegals in order for the Americans to get their severance checks. Why would Disney, for instance, do this? Our government has offered tax breaks for those companies who "sponsor" illegals. They are the reason for a dwindling American middle class.

One needs only look to the invasion (journey, diaspora, as the Muslims call it) to understand that yearning to be French or Belgian or English or American is not the motive behind this madness.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's the first. Someone who doesnt understand what "comparative advantage" means isnt qualified to engage in this debate.
That would be you.

Oh, so I'm not allowed to disagree? That's cute, Rab.

 

[Londoner]

This post reflects Reagan's conflation of Libertarianism (which believes in open borders) with Conservatism (which does not)

In fact Reagan was a libertarian who used conservatism as a populism to attract uneducated voters to the movement.

The OP should read "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" by conservative Harvard Professor Daniel Bell.

It explains exactly where and how open markets conflict with conservative values.

It shows how capital movement is inhibited when it crosses borders because it must adapt to different language, laws and customs. The goal of free market capitalism is to level all cultural/national differences so that there are zero inefficiencies between the coupling of capital and resources/labor.

The book shows how free market capitalism actually destroys Borders/Language/Culture - which is why the conservative movement has to construct a vast propaganda system (FOX, Rush, American Enterprise Institute, etc) to cover up the fact that their Free Market policies undercut the conservative values they use to attract voters.

Rabbi: this is a good issue to discuss. Kudos.

Being a Conservative means going into the voting booth to vote against Roe but coming out with Free Trade. Being a Conservative means not seeing this conflict because of a very powerful message system.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How much is their labor worth collectively? We will lose all that.

Who said we wanted to get rid of it completely?

So how many illegal aliens would you like to keep?

Does the "path to citizenship" mean anything?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the first. Someone who doesnt understand what "comparative advantage" means isnt qualified to engage in this debate.
That would be you.

Oh, so I'm not allowed to disagree? That's cute, Rab.

Not really. Disagreement occurs when people are generally acquainted with the facts. What you are doing is merely denial.

 

[Norman]

It shows how capital movement is inhibited when it crosses borders because it must adapt to different language, laws and customs. The goal of free market capitalism is to level all cultural/national differences so that there are zero inefficiencies between the coupling of capital and resources/labor.

This is complete nonsense. Free markets are value free. There is value in having different languages and customs so voluntarism doesn't destroy them. All cultures change over time of course.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not really. Disagreement occurs when people are generally acquainted with the facts. What you are doing is merely denial.

See, you're not even arguing your own point anymore. You're lobbing spurious accusations at me. I know from experience that the loser of a disagreement is the first one to start labeling and hurling ad hominem at their opponent instead of arguing for the premise they themselves presented.

Therein lies the question:

Who actually had their ass kicked here tonight?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. Disagreement occurs when people are generally acquainted with the facts. What you are doing is merely denial.

See, you're not even arguing your own point anymore. You're lobbing spurious accusations at me. I know from experience that the loser of a disagreement is the first one to start labeling and hurling ad hominem at their opponent instead of disagreeing with them on the premise they themselves presented.

Therein lies the question:

Who actually had their ass kicked here tonight?

I've won this argument, in case you missed it. When you started babbling about concepts you dont understand you lost. Got it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've won this argument, in case you missed it. When you started babbling about concepts you dont understand you lost. Got it?

How did you win? By calling me names? Questioning my conservatism? Insulting my intelligence? At what point did you successfully argue for your side? Hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

From what I see here, a sufficient amount of people disagreed with you on your premise, Rabbi. A sound argument wouldn't illicit that type of response.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've won this argument, in case you missed it. When you started babbling about concepts you dont understand you lost. Got it?

How did you win? By calling me names? Questioning my conservatism? Insulting my intelligence? At what point did you successfully argue for your side? Hmm?

I didnt win. You lost. What part of that did you miss?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The basic value of conservatism is free movement of labor and capital. People are free to offer their labor to employers, employers are free to hire whom they want, consumers are free to buy what they want and sellers are free to sell what they want.
Given that why do conservatives support immigration and trade restrictions when those things are the antithesis of basic conservatives values?

Because immigration is changing the lives of Americans, that's why.

Immigrants are lowering our wages in this country, they are taking American jobs that Americans should have, they are changing us to a bilingual country because they come here without knowing the language and expect us to cater to them instead of the other way around. They are earning American dollars here and sending it back over the border to spend over there.

Wages are a supply and demand process. The lower the supply and higher the demand, prices go up. The higher the supply and lower demand, prices go down.

We can't increase our wages when we have an endless supply of workers coming into this country.

The same workers should start at least some businesses, besides that the cheap labor ultimately makes for cheaper prices.

The jobs killing mexicans argument is not particularly well thought out IMHO. If you think you can't compete with an unskilled mexican, perhaps you should ask whether the public education is doing you any good... oh wait... it isn't. Anyway, it appears that the mexicans are a different breed of immigrants than the muslim rapugees.

I have my doubts that Trump is going to do much about the mexican "problem". Perhaps the wall will get built, or not.

It will cost about $40 Billion to deport all the illegals here. Think of how much we could buy with that money.

That may be true, but if anybody had balls enough to pass a law that states anybody caught here that is illegal after July 1, 2016 is subject to a minimum 5 years in prison, there would be no need for walls, more border patrol or more security cameras. Most would leave on their own.

 

[The Rabbi]

From what I see here, a sufficient amount of people disagreed with you on your premise, Rabbi. A sound argument wouldn't illicit that type of response.

Argumentum ad populam fallacy. It doesnt matter what other people think. It is the quality of the argument and people here who opposed what I said are not conservatives at all but statists and authoritrairans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I didnt win. You lost. What part of that did you miss?

The part where you won. Capisce?

 

[The Rabbi]

The basic value of conservatism is free movement of labor and capital. People are free to offer their labor to employers, employers are free to hire whom they want, consumers are free to buy what they want and sellers are free to sell what they want.
Given that why do conservatives support immigration and trade restrictions when those things are the antithesis of basic conservatives values?

Because immigration is changing the lives of Americans, that's why.

Immigrants are lowering our wages in this country, they are taking American jobs that Americans should have, they are changing us to a bilingual country because they come here without knowing the language and expect us to cater to them instead of the other way around. They are earning American dollars here and sending it back over the border to spend over there.

Wages are a supply and demand process. The lower the supply and higher the demand, prices go up. The higher the supply and lower demand, prices go down.

We can't increase our wages when we have an endless supply of workers coming into this country.

The same workers should start at least some businesses, besides that the cheap labor ultimately makes for cheaper prices.

The jobs killing mexicans argument is not particularly well thought out IMHO. If you think you can't compete with an unskilled mexican, perhaps you should ask whether the public education is doing you any good... oh wait... it isn't. Anyway, it appears that the mexicans are a different breed of immigrants than the muslim rapugees.

I have my doubts that Trump is going to do much about the mexican "problem". Perhaps the wall will get built, or not.

It will cost about $40 Billion to deport all the illegals here. Think of how much we could buy with that money.

That may be true, but if anybody had balls enough to pass a law that states anybody caught here that is illegal after July 1, 2016 is subject to a minimum 5 years in prison, there would be no need for walls, more border patrol or more security cameras. Most would leave on their own.

Where are we going to put 11M people for five years? You complain about giving them benefits. How would that help that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Argument ad populam fallacy ... It is the quality of the argument and people here who opposed what I said are not conservatives at all but statists and authoritrairans.

Argument ad hominem. You insist that people who believe otherwise from your position are "not conservatives." No true Scotsman fallacy. You believe that no true conservative would believe in any sort of restrictions of trade, immigration or capital.

It doesnt matter what other people think.

PRECISELY. You don't care what other people think, because you believe your interpretation is the only one to believe and nothing else.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt win. You lost. What part of that did you miss?

The part where you won. Capisce?

One of us won, the other lost. I won you lost. Is that really unclear?

 

[The Rabbi]

It is the quality of the argument and people here who opposed what I said are not conservatives at all but statists and authoritrairans.

Argument ad hominem. You insist that people who believe otherwise from your position are "not conservatives."

You dont uynderstand fallacies either.
I ddint say that. I said what conservativism traditionally believes and showed that people who call themselves conservatives dont believe that. Adn no one can show otherwise. Least of all you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are demonstrating you are not a conservative and show you hold absurd contradictory beliefs.

You are demonstrating that you define any conservative who doesn't toe the line with your view of conservatism as not conservative at all. My, how McCarthyist of you. How puerile.

Since we're on the topic of "freedom" as you so define it, another key tenet of "basic" conservatism is free thought, the ability to think freely without negative repercussions. For example here, in your thread where you insist that real conservatives allow for the free movement of labor, immigration, and trade, you have restricted free thought by insisting that those who don't agree with you are not conservative.

Don't lecture me about "free movement" of anything unless you're prepared to accept that not all conservatives agree with your version of conservatism.

You can redefine "conservative" to mean "statist" all you want. I am not stopping you. But I will point out that is what you are doing.
Do you dispute that free movement of labor and capital are traditionally bedrock principles of conservatism?

It is within our borders. Movement of free labor does not mean totally unregulated labor. That's cheating the system. Freedom of labor within our borders is a conservative principle, not importing labor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is the quality of the argument and people here who opposed what I said are not conservatives at all but statists and authoritrairans.

Argument ad hominem. You insist that people who believe otherwise from your position are "not conservatives."

You dont uynderstand fallacies either.
I ddint say that. I said what conservativism traditionally believes and showed that people who call themselves conservatives dont believe that. Adn no one can show otherwise. Least of all you.

Let's review, shall we? This is what you said, just five minutes ago:

"people here who opposed what I said are not conservatives at all, but statists and authoritarians."

You applied those terms to your detractors in a derogatory way, thus ad hominem. You made it quite clear that anyone who opposed your premise were "not conservatives at all," thus No true Scotsman.

I know argumentative fallacies quite well, and you engaged in two of them.