5 ms·

Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Un

Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests still stack up on the side of permissive immigration policies. It is, after all, capital that benefits from a global free market for labor and an expanded consumer base. It's just about the only thing the Koch brothers and Soros can agree on.

Spooky23 7y ago
The difference is that traditional chamber of commerce GOP types would hold back the anti-immigration stuff because it killed unions and made their mainstream donors happy. Your chicken slaughterhouse in the middle of Nebraska prospers with underpaid illegals who don’t get workers compensation. The big money, big ideology people poured money into hard right conservatism. Investing in and advertising on talk radio being one key strategy. Your average blue collar worker/trucker/etc has been indoctrinated with conservative blather for 30 years.
- neetdeth 7y ago
  All I have to say about that is if you think everyone's being indoctrinated except you, you're probably wrong.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Didn’t say that. When I worked on the farm in the 90s, the classic rock in the barn was swapped out for Rush every afternoon. When I go back home, it’s pretty much the same, except most of the farms are out of business. If you’re from a white collar, suburban background, you just can’t understand. Most media is New York/LA centric, and conservative outlets reject that.
    - neetdeth 7y ago
      I'm not, actually. My own father was one of those three hours a day dittoheads. It's easy to identify propaganda in microcosm, it's harder to see the same thing writ large. I find that most white collar suburbanites I meet have a great number of received opinions and rarely examine the sources of such. Could be I just misinterpreted your comment.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - audiometry 7y ago
      I kept reading this and thinking, "Doesn't Rush count as classic rock???" Then I read the sub-comment and saw a reference to 'ditto-heads'. Ugh ok. I wouldn't enjoy an afternoon of Rush or Rush for that matter....
  - ajxs 7y ago
    Of course. I think he has a good point though, that much of the centre-right discourse pays lip service to nationalism while supporting free-trade and minimal control on immigration. So many who would consider themselves to be anti-immigration end up voting for parties which support wholesale immigration in the interest of big business.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      I suspect most people are voting for parties who have policies they don't support. The small-government people are often in a similar boat, for example. Or the hard-core environmentalists. If the consensus position is broad-scale immigration is a good idea (which seems to be solidly the case in English-speaking politics) then voters who don't like immigration are out of luck.
javert 7y ago
> It's just about the only thing the Koch brothers and Soros can agree on. Is that really true? To me, both Soros and the Kochs seem to be somewhat close to classical liberalism. Mostly free people, mostly free markets, etc. As such, to me, they to have more in common with one another than either has to the Trump crowd or the Sanders/Warren/AOC crowd. My understanding of Soros and the Kochs is somewhat low resolution, so I would be happy to be corrected on whatever I am not seeing here.
- neetdeth 7y ago
  You're not wrong at all. The major point of departure between the two is the role of government and the welfare state - Soros being more of a social democrat and the Kochs doctrinaire libertarians. Now that US politics are going through a realignment, the two are becoming as chummy as they were always destined to be. The demonization from both sides was mostly kayfabe.
deogeo 7y ago
> Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. Popular opposition does not look like it had much of an effect on immigration rate [1]. One might even call the policy un-democratic. [1] https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-United-States https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-United-States, Figure 1
ajxs 7y ago
This is the fantastic irony of the completely false dichotomy that the public imagines mainstream politics to be. The modern left seems to paradoxically be supporting open-borders _and_ worker's rights. Normally I would further qualify that statement by attributing such sentiments to the _far_ left, but this seems to be a fairly mainstream position based upon what we saw in the Democratic Primary debates recently. I find it difficult to believe that a pro-trade union candidate like Bernie Sanders does not understand the basic laws of supply/demand: How a supply of cheap labour affects the wages of the individual employee. I'm in my early 30s and I came of age immersed in the counter-culture of the 90s. Nihilistic Industrial rock decrying the emergence of free-trade and a globalised economy was the left wing soundtrack of the age. Now the far-left seems to be wholesale pro free movement of people and capital. I would accuse the masses expecting that this will not have a negative impact on the financial well-being of the individual of absolute foolishness, but it seems that many proponents of such policies are no longer expecting them to be feasible within the framework of social-democracy. Instead opting for much more collectivist forms of government.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > I find it difficult to believe that a pro-trade union candidate like Bernie Sanders does not understand the basic laws of supply/demand: How a supply of cheap labour affects the wages of the individual employee. This interview would indicate that he understands that, and wants to restrict immigration for that very reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 Edit: The interview is from 2015, so it may be that his understanding has 'evolved' since.
  - ajxs 7y ago
    ( Without watching said interview, I'm in the office and don't have headphones ) Did Sanders not indicate his support for decriminalisation of illegal border crossing in the primaries? I would hardly take that as an endorsement of restricting immigration.
    - supercow12 7y ago
cma 7y ago
> I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests still stack up on the side of permissive immigration policies. It is, after all, capital that benefits from a global free market for labor and an expanded consumer base. For low wage jobs maybe, but doctors have fought very hard to minimize foreign trained competition being allowed to work in the US.
hash872 7y ago
>I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests still stack up on the side of permissive immigration policies. It is, after all, capital that benefits from a global free market for labor George Soros does not, to my knowledge, employ a large number of low-wage workers- how would he personally benefit from a larger labor pool? The Koch brothers do have a very large workforce, but they're all industrial assets- hard to imagine farm laborer-types from Central America could be employed in huge numbers. The only people who could conceivably benefit from immigrant labor would be industries with huge huge numbers of minimum or close to minimum-wage employees- Home Depot, Chipotle, Subway etc. I guess Amazon. Seeing as we have a federal minimum wage- how much money could an evil billionaire who employs thousands of unskilled workers possibly save with a larger labor pool? $1 per hour, per worker? $2 per hour? I find the amount of cost savings they'd get to be not that much- you'd think Evil Billionaire would put way more effort into healthcare reform, given that non-wage benefits are (much much much) more expensive than a few dollars per hour. Saying 'the labor pool' is handwavey. Outside of a few industries, developed countries have mostly outsourced unskilled work to the 3rd world- so, if a bunch of farm laborer-types with a 6th grade education come here, they're not competing with the huge huge majority of skilled US workers. There is no affect on wages for most workers, and no motivation for really any white collar employer. I find your hypothesis unconvincing
- ap3 7y ago
  >The only people who could conceivably benefit from immigrant labor would be industries with huge huge numbers of minimum or close to minimum-wage employees- Home Depot, Chipotle, Subway etc. I guess Amazon. It’s the farms Just look at the latest big raid: chicken farms In California César Chavez was against illegal immigration because the farms would use immigrants to break the unions Don’t know exactly what Soros and the Kochs do, I’m guessing they don’t exactly employ people but own companies that sell things to people
rdtsc 7y ago
One of the illustrative point is also that some present day Democrat presidential candidates and legislators just 4-5 years ago were against increased immigration and open borders. Listen to what Sanders has to say about "open borders": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 he is not just slightly against it, he is quite upset by the idea altogether.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  No one in public office or campaign for it supports “oprn borders”, it's only deployed as a strawman of opposite candidates (or sometimes an attack on a real or also strawman position outside of declared candidates) to define oneself against. And, yeah, it's not uncommon for people who have used the strawman to have it used against them. It's not a sign of flip-flopping unless you can find someone endorsing open borders after having criticized it, something essentially no candidate does (certainly no Democratic Presidential candidate, all of whom have called for strengthening border security and continuing to enforce policies limiting total legal immigration, while disagreeing with the particular policies and practices pursued by the current administration.)
  - bruceb 7y ago
    Isn't straw man. Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders, same with Julian Castro. She literally said during the debate no one gets deported, and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. You can argue the pros and cons, but clearly she and some of the other candidates are calling for de facto open borders.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Isn't straw man. Yes, it is. Specifically, it's most commonly a strawman applied to people who disagree with the speakers’ preferred methods of enforcing immigration law while still supporting the principle of limited legal immigration. As you demonstrate. > Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders No, she hasn't. She's called for decriminalizing crossing outside of designated border crossings (not “crossing illegally”, as there are other illegal crossings—such as crossing at a designated border crossing with false documentation—which is also criminal and she has not called for decriminalizing), but also for continuing to enforce immigration law with civil rather than criminal process (which includes continued use of deportation, which is itself a civil rather than criminal sanction.) This is not open borders, de facto or otherwise. > same with Julian Castro. Well, it's the same in that the claim is also not true of Castro, who explicitly called for monitoring and retaining civil penalties for illegal entry and presence including the selective use of deportation, alongside supporting decriminalization of crossing outside designated crossings and assuring that asylum seekers get the hearings they are entitled to under the law. > She literally said during the debate no one gets deported No, she literally did not. > and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. Civil process includes sanctions much more severe than jay walking tickets, including deportation.

Spooky23 7y ago

The difference is that traditional chamber of commerce GOP types would hold back the anti-immigration stuff because it killed unions and made their mainstream donors happy. Your chicken slaughterhouse in the middle of Nebraska prospers with underpaid illegals who don’t get workers compensation. The big money, big ideology people poured money into hard right conservatism. Investing in and advertising on talk radio being one key strategy. Your average blue collar worker/trucker/etc has been indoctrinated with conservative blather for 30 years.

neetdeth 7y ago
All I have to say about that is if you think everyone's being indoctrinated except you, you're probably wrong.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Didn’t say that. When I worked on the farm in the 90s, the classic rock in the barn was swapped out for Rush every afternoon. When I go back home, it’s pretty much the same, except most of the farms are out of business. If you’re from a white collar, suburban background, you just can’t understand. Most media is New York/LA centric, and conservative outlets reject that.
  - neetdeth 7y ago
    I'm not, actually. My own father was one of those three hours a day dittoheads. It's easy to identify propaganda in microcosm, it's harder to see the same thing writ large. I find that most white collar suburbanites I meet have a great number of received opinions and rarely examine the sources of such. Could be I just misinterpreted your comment.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - audiometry 7y ago
    I kept reading this and thinking, "Doesn't Rush count as classic rock???" Then I read the sub-comment and saw a reference to 'ditto-heads'. Ugh ok. I wouldn't enjoy an afternoon of Rush or Rush for that matter....
- ajxs 7y ago
  Of course. I think he has a good point though, that much of the centre-right discourse pays lip service to nationalism while supporting free-trade and minimal control on immigration. So many who would consider themselves to be anti-immigration end up voting for parties which support wholesale immigration in the interest of big business.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I suspect most people are voting for parties who have policies they don't support. The small-government people are often in a similar boat, for example. Or the hard-core environmentalists. If the consensus position is broad-scale immigration is a good idea (which seems to be solidly the case in English-speaking politics) then voters who don't like immigration are out of luck.

javert 7y ago

> It's just about the only thing the Koch brothers and Soros can agree on. Is that really true? To me, both Soros and the Kochs seem to be somewhat close to classical liberalism. Mostly free people, mostly free markets, etc. As such, to me, they to have more in common with one another than either has to the Trump crowd or the Sanders/Warren/AOC crowd. My understanding of Soros and the Kochs is somewhat low resolution, so I would be happy to be corrected on whatever I am not seeing here.

neetdeth 7y ago
You're not wrong at all. The major point of departure between the two is the role of government and the welfare state - Soros being more of a social democrat and the Kochs doctrinaire libertarians. Now that US politics are going through a realignment, the two are becoming as chummy as they were always destined to be. The demonization from both sides was mostly kayfabe.

deogeo 7y ago

> Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. Popular opposition does not look like it had much of an effect on immigration rate [1]. One might even call the policy un-democratic. [1] https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-United-States https://cis.org/Report/Immigrants-United-States, Figure 1

ajxs 7y ago

This is the fantastic irony of the completely false dichotomy that the public imagines mainstream politics to be. The modern left seems to paradoxically be supporting open-borders _and_ worker's rights. Normally I would further qualify that statement by attributing such sentiments to the _far_ left, but this seems to be a fairly mainstream position based upon what we saw in the Democratic Primary debates recently. I find it difficult to believe that a pro-trade union candidate like Bernie Sanders does not understand the basic laws of supply/demand: How a supply of cheap labour affects the wages of the individual employee. I'm in my early 30s and I came of age immersed in the counter-culture of the 90s. Nihilistic Industrial rock decrying the emergence of free-trade and a globalised economy was the left wing soundtrack of the age. Now the far-left seems to be wholesale pro free movement of people and capital. I would accuse the masses expecting that this will not have a negative impact on the financial well-being of the individual of absolute foolishness, but it seems that many proponents of such policies are no longer expecting them to be feasible within the framework of social-democracy. Instead opting for much more collectivist forms of government.

deogeo 7y ago
> I find it difficult to believe that a pro-trade union candidate like Bernie Sanders does not understand the basic laws of supply/demand: How a supply of cheap labour affects the wages of the individual employee. This interview would indicate that he understands that, and wants to restrict immigration for that very reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 Edit: The interview is from 2015, so it may be that his understanding has 'evolved' since.
- ajxs 7y ago
  ( Without watching said interview, I'm in the office and don't have headphones ) Did Sanders not indicate his support for decriminalisation of illegal border crossing in the primaries? I would hardly take that as an endorsement of restricting immigration.
  - supercow12 7y ago

cma 7y ago

> I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests still stack up on the side of permissive immigration policies. It is, after all, capital that benefits from a global free market for labor and an expanded consumer base. For low wage jobs maybe, but doctors have fought very hard to minimize foreign trained competition being allowed to work in the US.

hash872 7y ago

>I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests still stack up on the side of permissive immigration policies. It is, after all, capital that benefits from a global free market for labor George Soros does not, to my knowledge, employ a large number of low-wage workers- how would he personally benefit from a larger labor pool? The Koch brothers do have a very large workforce, but they're all industrial assets- hard to imagine farm laborer-types from Central America could be employed in huge numbers. The only people who could conceivably benefit from immigrant labor would be industries with huge huge numbers of minimum or close to minimum-wage employees- Home Depot, Chipotle, Subway etc. I guess Amazon. Seeing as we have a federal minimum wage- how much money could an evil billionaire who employs thousands of unskilled workers possibly save with a larger labor pool? $1 per hour, per worker? $2 per hour? I find the amount of cost savings they'd get to be not that much- you'd think Evil Billionaire would put way more effort into healthcare reform, given that non-wage benefits are (much much much) more expensive than a few dollars per hour. Saying 'the labor pool' is handwavey. Outside of a few industries, developed countries have mostly outsourced unskilled work to the 3rd world- so, if a bunch of farm laborer-types with a 6th grade education come here, they're not competing with the huge huge majority of skilled US workers. There is no affect on wages for most workers, and no motivation for really any white collar employer. I find your hypothesis unconvincing

ap3 7y ago
>The only people who could conceivably benefit from immigrant labor would be industries with huge huge numbers of minimum or close to minimum-wage employees- Home Depot, Chipotle, Subway etc. I guess Amazon. It’s the farms Just look at the latest big raid: chicken farms In California César Chavez was against illegal immigration because the farms would use immigrants to break the unions Don’t know exactly what Soros and the Kochs do, I’m guessing they don’t exactly employ people but own companies that sell things to people

rdtsc 7y ago

One of the illustrative point is also that some present day Democrat presidential candidates and legislators just 4-5 years ago were against increased immigration and open borders. Listen to what Sanders has to say about "open borders": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 he is not just slightly against it, he is quite upset by the idea altogether.

dragonwriter 7y ago
No one in public office or campaign for it supports “oprn borders”, it's only deployed as a strawman of opposite candidates (or sometimes an attack on a real or also strawman position outside of declared candidates) to define oneself against. And, yeah, it's not uncommon for people who have used the strawman to have it used against them. It's not a sign of flip-flopping unless you can find someone endorsing open borders after having criticized it, something essentially no candidate does (certainly no Democratic Presidential candidate, all of whom have called for strengthening border security and continuing to enforce policies limiting total legal immigration, while disagreeing with the particular policies and practices pursued by the current administration.)
- bruceb 7y ago
  Isn't straw man. Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders, same with Julian Castro. She literally said during the debate no one gets deported, and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. You can argue the pros and cons, but clearly she and some of the other candidates are calling for de facto open borders.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Isn't straw man. Yes, it is. Specifically, it's most commonly a strawman applied to people who disagree with the speakers’ preferred methods of enforcing immigration law while still supporting the principle of limited legal immigration. As you demonstrate. > Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders No, she hasn't. She's called for decriminalizing crossing outside of designated border crossings (not “crossing illegally”, as there are other illegal crossings—such as crossing at a designated border crossing with false documentation—which is also criminal and she has not called for decriminalizing), but also for continuing to enforce immigration law with civil rather than criminal process (which includes continued use of deportation, which is itself a civil rather than criminal sanction.) This is not open borders, de facto or otherwise. > same with Julian Castro. Well, it's the same in that the claim is also not true of Castro, who explicitly called for monitoring and retaining civil penalties for illegal entry and presence including the selective use of deportation, alongside supporting decriminalization of crossing outside designated crossings and assuring that asylum seekers get the hearings they are entitled to under the law. > She literally said during the debate no one gets deported No, she literally did not. > and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. Civil process includes sanctions much more severe than jay walking tickets, including deportation.