2 ms·
> That's what they usually say, but they also usually oppose policy which would make legal immigration easier and relieve pressure that creates illegal immigrat
by pm90 9y ago
> That's what they usually say, but they also usually oppose policy which would make legal immigration easier and relieve pressure that creates illegal immigration, and frequently support policies to restrict legal immigration. And it's not just 10% of conservatives supporting this kind of policy.
Look, I'm a liberal but I will call out the Dems when I need to. Most of the reforms to legal immigration have always been a sort of addendum, or a two-part deal with relief for the illegal immigrants included in them. Democrats haven't proposed a bill which purely targets legal immigration. So its a little unfair to say that conservatives are opposed to all kinds of Immigration.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Democrats haven't proposed a bill which purely targets legal immigration. Perhaps, but conservatives have frequently put forward bills (or, when in the executive, instituted executive policy without Congressional action) that further restrict currently-legal immigration and non-immigrant entry and privileges, which is more significant sign of opposition to legal immigration than merely voting against expansions to legal immigration, whether pure or not.
- pm90 9y agoI agree with what you're saying and I don't think what I say next matters as much because the outcomes seem similar. But I think it needs to be pointed out. Maybe it is just posturing and lies, but the conservative viewpoint has been to have a merit-based system for permitting immigrants into the country, as opposed to immigration based on familial relations. Every country gets to decide what kind of people that they want coming into their country and I think its perfectly fine for conservatives to feel that way (it is a different matter that I don't agree with that idea). My perception (again, which might be wrong) is that that is essentially what Republicans have been getting at for the past couple of decades (perhaps more). Now, that being said: these are the same folks who were about Family Values, Fiscal Purity etc. So, like I said before, I don't think the arguments are being made in good faith. But the argument does have merit.
- masonic 9y agofurther restrict currently-legal immigration In fact, it was never-legal immigration that just was not enforced under the prior administration. The executive branch lacks those powers.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThe policies I am referring to include the executive policies of the current administration on visa processing and the proposal of the current administration and it's legislative allies to reduce total legal immigration by cutting total visa alotments focussing on reductions in permitted family-based immigration, among others. These are either additional administrative barriers to or outright reductions in currently legal immigration. This has nothing to do with debates over executive authority to choose how to prioritize enforcement and to make transparent commitments regarding that (which the executive clearly has in some cases, outside the obvious pardon power, since literally every grant of immunity from prosecution, or plea bargain to reduced charges, is an enforceable commitment by the executive not to enforce some law in some well-defined circumstance based on policy priorities.)
- stale2002 9y agoThey have also frequently put forward bills that would relax restictions, and allow more HIGH SKILLED labor to come into the country. Go look up the stuff that Orin Hatch and Rubio sponsored with regards to H1B visas. The stuff that they sponsored would double the number of H1Bs and was majority sponsored by republicans.
- briandear 9y agoWhy is this being downvoted? It’s a valid point. For being so “open minded” and “innovative,” it seems like there is a lot of closed-mindedness here.