More immigration, or increased social spending?

Author: rbelivb

Posts

Total: 84
Topic's author
#1
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
If you had to choose only one of these outcomes, which would you pick?

  • Opening up immigration to allow more people in, or
  • Increasing government spending on welfare programs?
On the one hand, many progressives claim to value open immigration, but I wonder what they would choose if increased immigration meant more pressure on the welfare state.

On the other hand, many conservatives claim to value the free market and the exchange of ideas, but advocate social policies which would further isolate distinct social groups based upon ethnicity, which seems antithetical to an open market.
#2
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@rbelivb
If I'm allowed to specify that the immigration is legal, then I would pick opening up immigration.
#3
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
That would really depend on what type of immigrant and what programs we would increase spending on, wouldn’t it?
#4
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@SirAnonymous
What is or is not legal is determined by the government so yes in this hypothetical scenario choosing government policies to increase immigration probably starts with making more of it legal...
#5
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
social policies which would further isolate distinct social groups based upon ethnicity,
This is false. Nationality is not equivalent to ethnicity. The decision of conservatives on immigration are not based on ethnicity but based on nationality and legality.

If i had to pick, I would pick Increasing government spending on welfare programs because at least then I know, it would be spent on Americans.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I'll pick open borders so that the country will go bankrupt faster trying to provide the infrastructure and welfare for countless economic refugees.
#7
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought about that too. So that the liberal loonies would not be able to deny that  their loser policies have bankrupted the country with the ruins around our ears, and then people would soundly reject them and their loony policies and start implementing sane policies.

There is one problem with that. We will be stuck with all those countless economic refugees mooching on the gravy train.
Topic's author
#8
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
This is false. Nationality is not equivalent to ethnicity. The decision of conservatives on immigration are not based on ethnicity but based on nationality and legality.
You are right that nationality and ethnicity are not strictly equivalent, but historically and practically they are closely associated. While conservatives may not subjectively acknowledge this association, its consequences are clearly visible in the deepening ethnic divisions caused by nationalism in practice. The distinction between law and politics (and history) is crucial here. The idea that e.g. American nationalism can be totally disconnected from ethnicity often functions as an empty, ideological abstraction caused by the illusion that simply because two concepts can be semantically distinguished, they must therefore function independently in reality.

"In older texts the word nationality, rather than ethnicity, is often used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, lineage, history, and so forth)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

"A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group; it has been described as "a fully mobilized or institutionalized ethnic group". Some nations are ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism) and some are not (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

#9
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
While conservatives may not subjectively acknowledge this association, its consequences are clearly visible in the deepening ethnic divisions caused by nationalism in practice. 
This is a non sequitur. Nationalism is practised by a society, not just conservatives. And even if you are correct here, nationalism is not synonymous with ethnicity, certainly not in the way you tried to conch it.

The idea that e.g. American nationalism can be totally disconnected from ethnicity...
You are building a strawman. Your claim was about conservative policies built on ethnicities. Conservatives themselves cover the entire range of ethnicities, with ethnic people often being the most conservative. 

..often functions as an empty, ideological abstraction caused by the illusion that simply because two concepts can be semantically distinguished, they must therefore function independently in reality.
You are opposing claims that have not been made. You just agreed that the two concepts are not synonymous.

Basically, you are attempting to rationalize your way to the old liberal line that Conservatives are racist white men.

Some nations are ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism) and some are not (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism)." 
America is not a single ethnic group. And neither are conservatives. You are wrong generally, and wrong even more in the specific case of America.

In none of it's history has America been an ethno-state. And a close examination of actual history shows that conservative opposition to immigration has never been based on ethnicity (code for "race" with liberals) but on other practical factors.

Your question was rigged either knowingly or unknowingly to carry a liberal bias within it, to subtly cast conservatives as being motivated by racism.

Your strawmanning makes me suspect it was knowingly.

its consequences are clearly visible in the deepening ethnic divisions caused by nationalism in practice. 
Others would say, "caused by unchecked immigration in practise." Outside of liberal bias, nationalism is not necessarily evil.
#10
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What is or is not legal is determined by the government so yes in this hypothetical scenario choosing government policies to increase immigration probably starts with making more of it legal...
Good point.
Topic's author
#11
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Conservatives themselves cover the entire range of ethnicities, with ethnic people often being the most conservative. 
Individuals of other ethnicities can participate in a social group which is nevertheless percieved as tied to a specific ethnic tradition.

In none of it's history has America been an ethno-state. And a close examination of actual history shows that conservative opposition to immigration has never been based on ethnicity (code for "race" with liberals) but on other practical factors.
A nation does not need to be an ethno-state, or have race embedded explicity into its laws, for its (perceived) social cohesion to be tied to ethnicity. I think to conservatives, in fact, a certain amount of liberalism, pluralism, and idealism (thus "not focusing on race") is itself viewed implicitly as part of a broader ethnic tradition. So strictly racial ethno-states would be viewed as a foreign political form and would offend their (ethnically based) sensibilities.

Your question was rigged either knowingly or unknowingly to carry a liberal bias within it, to subtly cast conservatives as being motivated by racism.
I was focusing on the tension between social groups oriented primarily by their ethnic traditions and the effects of the market. If there is a deeper implication behind the question, I think it is that both the welfare state as advocated by progressives, and the conservative focus on law and order, are basically guided by (reactionary) ethnic presuppositions, despite the explicit intentions of their advocates. For example, many of the Nordic countries which serve as models for current progressives, forged their welfare model while pioneering eugenics policies of mass sterilisation, trying to curtail what were perceived as dysgenic tendencies in their population. These were viewed under the auspices of a general improvement of the health and harmony of the society, guided by the state.
Topic's author
#12
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Your question was rigged either knowingly or unknowingly to carry a liberal bias within it, to subtly cast conservatives as being motivated by racism.
To be clear, I don't think conservatives are motivated primarily by racism, in the sense of a personal contempt for individuals of a particular race, or a fear of the out-group. However, they are guided by a view of an implicitly ethnic sense of social cohesion and heritage, and I believe that these sedimented social forms are inevitably going to become increasingly untenable due to the erosion caused by the market.
#13
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@rbelivb
However, they are guided by a view of an implicitly ethnic sense of social cohesion and heritage
This conservative isn't.
#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
OK, I get you. I think your argument is ad-hoc to reach a preconceived conclusion, but no matter.

I believe that these sedimented social forms are inevitably going to become increasingly untenable due to the erosion caused by the market.
The erosion of what? Social forms? Is it unknown to anyone that broad financial success in a society erodes latent
-isms?

Do you have a timeframe on when it collapses?

How do you classify yourself politically?
Topic's author
#15
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
The erosion of what? Social forms? Is it unknown to anyone that broad financial success in a society erodes latent
-isms?
Maybe not unknown, but in my view the conservative response belies a deeper cognitive dissonance about the issue. See: Andrew Yang, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson etc all trying to claim that Trump's win is due to religious, "cultural," spiritual, economic reasons, and so on, and not a conservative reaction against ethnic transformation.

Do you have a timeframe on when it collapses?
Over the next 20 to 30 years the ethnic majority in the US is projected to dwindle, which is what is fueling the populist backlashes.

How do you classify yourself politically?
Libertarian, in that I support free movement and open markets.
Topic's author
#16
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
This conservative isn't.
Then how do you define conservatism if it is independent of ethnicity? What are you trying to conserve?
#17
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
Over the next 20 to 30 years the ethnic majority in the US is projected to dwindle, 
Where do they go? Death? Migration out? Interbreeding to oblivion?

Andrew Yang, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson etc all trying to claim that Trump's win is due to religious, "cultural," spiritual, economic reasons, and so on, and not a conservative reaction against ethnic transformation.
So the evidence that you are right is that intelligent people think you're wrong?

Libertarian, in that I support free movement and open markets.
You mean open borders and no tariffs. Lol, you're close enough to liberal in my book RB.
#18
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
Conservatism is about traditional values and order. In America, those traditional values also include economic policies such as limited government intervention and essentially as much personal freedom as possible. That is what conservatism is trying to conserve
#19
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@rbelivb
Then how do you define conservatism if it is independent of ethnicity? What are you trying to conserve?
Well, I can't speak for all conservatives (no one person can), but I can tell you what I think. "Conservative" is a bit of a misnomer because there's no one place in history I can point to and say, "That's what I'm trying to conserve." I'm trying to conserve the ideals that the Founders had for this country. They famously wrote that all men are created equal and are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, they didn't implement that perfectly, or anywhere close to it. However, that ideal is what I want to see happen in this country. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed without being discriminated against over their skin color, sex, or religion, and that their rights to say, write, and believe what they want should be protected. I also believe that the inherent human right to life should be protected.
Topic's author
#20
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Where do they go? Death? Migration out? Interbreeding to oblivion?
They don't need to be killed or kicked out or whatever, that's just the most likely prediction projecting from current demographic trends.

So the evidence that you are right is that intelligent people think you're wrong?
Those conservatives pundits are making statements that fly in the face of reality. Preference for Trump was divided squarely along racial lines and was motivated by concerns about demographic transformation.

"No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals - the gold standard for public opinion research - can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat." - Eric Kaufmann (expert on political demography)

You mean open borders and no tariffs. Lol, you're close enough to liberal in my book RB.
Libertarianism and liberalism are similar in many ways, yes.
Topic's author
#21
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Conservatism is about traditional values and order. In America, those traditional values also include economic policies such as limited government intervention and essentially as much personal freedom as possible. That is what conservatism is trying to conserve
If we took only the content of what you listed there, America would be founded on a purely universalist message. However, it was always implicit in all those writers that such values only applied to a particular community. As de Tocqueville argued, liberty was only fit for those individuals who had the habits and dispositions which made them suitable for it, and if the politics of America were applied to other communities it would lead to anarchy. We can therefore decode the esoteric behind the exoteric doctrine of American classical liberalism: limited government, freedom of all men, and so on, really mean the freedom of a particular ethnic community. However, this part must remain somewhat indirect and flexible, to avoid the supposed liberal values collapsing upon the foundations upon which they are perceived as resting in practice.
Topic's author
#22
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'm trying to conserve the ideals that the Founders had for this country. They famously wrote that all men are created equal and are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, they didn't implement that perfectly, or anywhere close to it. However, that ideal is what I want to see happen in this country. I believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed without being discriminated against over their skin color, sex, or religion, and that their rights to say, write, and believe what they want should be protected. I also believe that the inherent human right to life should be protected.
This makes a lot of sense, but I don't see how this would distinguish a conservative view from a progressive, liberal, etc. As far as I can tell, even most leftists would agree with the sentiment behind what you said: basically universalism, liberty, and tolerance. The only exception would be abortion.
#23
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@rbelivb
The reason that it seems hard to distinguish is because the conservative position is very similar to what's known as classical liberalism. It actually is a liberal-minded viewpoint. However, it's from a conservative perspective of limited government. 21st century conservatism is based off 18th century liberalism.
#24
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
Could you decode that a bit? What types of ethnic communities are you saying can live with limited government and personal freedom?

Topic's author
#25
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Could you decode that a bit? What types of ethnic communities are you saying can live with limited government and personal freedom?
I am making a distinction between what classical liberals say explicitly and the total implications of what they say. This is outlined in Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism: A Counter-History where he uses the term "community of the free." The founders, and the original writers of liberalism (Locke, de Tocqueville, etc.) may have made statements that, taken at face value, sounded universalist. But if we do take these statements at face value, we can't understand how those values were actually applied. No nation could ultimately be maintained upon purely universalist precepts - such as an abstract understanding of personal liberty deprived of any ethnic content. Instead, when classical liberals speak about the freedom of all men, they are implicitly saying that those values should be universal to the community of the free, not to all men in general.

To try to apply "limited government" with regard to the relation between whites and blacks in the founding of America would be a category mistake. It was a concept forged e.g. by Calhoun to make the distinction between the (tyrannical) numerical majority and the (constitutional) concurrent majority as state-forms as applied to the population of legitimate citizens of a nation. 
Topic's author
#26
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
The reason that it seems hard to distinguish is because the conservative position is very similar to what's known as classical liberalism. It actually is a liberal-minded viewpoint. However, it's from a conservative perspective of limited government. 21st century conservatism is based off 18th century liberalism.
I guess I am asking, in opposition to what? Aren't today's progressives basically arguing for the same thing? I.e. a nation-state founded upon abstract principles of universalism.

#27
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rbelivb
"No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals - the gold standard for public opinion research - can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat." - Eric Kaufmann (expert on political demography)

This is misleading.

Can anyone deny that female majority concern over sexual harassment is the main cause of the rise of the "Me Too Movement" in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over gender, not bodily threat."

So fear of men, not fear of sexual harassment, is to blame for the me too movement? Misleading.

Your argument treats collorary conditions, (race) as causal.
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Corollary.


Nonetheless:

By race, I would suggest that what you are actually referring to is the assumed label that we apply to perceived differences, either physiological or cultural.

A result of evolutionary development, with no chance of turning back the clocks.

So why the dogged futility of wallowing in the past?

Perhaps it's just the way that things were meant to be.



#29
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't know what you're on about. Or who's wallowing in the past.

His argument was not sound.
#30
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
And you believe that this “community of the free” cannot refer to all American citizens?

You are saying that a country couldn’t survive on a platform of individual freedom without taking ethnicity into account. But why? What exactly would happen if we respected the personal liberties of every American citizen, as in: we respect their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?