Comments on: Liberal opponents of immigration http://chrisberg.org/2008/08/21/liberal-opponents-of-immigration/ Every Point a Good Point Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:56:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Mattofact http://chrisberg.org/2008/08/21/liberal-opponents-of-immigration/#comment-161306 Mattofact Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:16:04 +0000 http://chrisberg.org/?p=1571#comment-161306 I agree with most of what you say but I am afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I am particularly disappointed with your assertion that you feel very uncomfortable with those supposedly free market advocates who oppose immigration, for whatever reason. Whatever reason? This position lacks ALL reason. I don’t seek to speculate too much however think it reasonable to assume that should we open our boarders there would be plenty of takers. You say that simply crossing into the developed world can dramatically increase their potential salary but would it not have a possibility of reducing ours? You might be ok Chris but what about those people working as unskilled labour? What would happen once all of the low skilled jobs were taken (again I don’t think it unreasonable to assume that they soon would be) even with a stronger domestic market our minimum wage would continue to ensure that industrial jobs went overseas. What is your position of welfare? Surely we could not provide it for every new resident, people would continue to come and inevitably large numbers of people would be unable to find suitable work- we would either have to provide welfare or they would understandably communalise and perhaps (out of need) turn to crime ala France and many other European countries (although with an open boarder this would be many times worse). Then there are the issues of housing (tried renting lately?), the environment (yeah I have to admit that I am loath to raise it but still…), the impact upon an already overcrowded hospital system (given the tone of your article you wouldn’t oppose entry by people with sicknesses), the impact upon our education system etcetc… all of which (depending on numbers) would require massive additional investment. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of possible concerns, including those concerns relating to cultural integration which I do think are valid. Like I said I do agree with most of what you say and perhaps this issue will make a good topic for an expanded IPA article, if any such article addressed some of these issues I would read with great interest. I agree with most of what you say but I am afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I am particularly disappointed with your assertion that you feel very uncomfortable with those supposedly free market advocates who oppose immigration, for whatever reason.
Whatever reason? This position lacks ALL reason.
I don’t seek to speculate too much however think it reasonable to assume that should we open our boarders there would be plenty of takers. You say that simply crossing into the developed world can dramatically increase their potential salary but would it not have a possibility of reducing ours? You might be ok Chris but what about those people working as unskilled labour?
What would happen once all of the low skilled jobs were taken (again I don’t think it unreasonable to assume that they soon would be) even with a stronger domestic market our minimum wage would continue to ensure that industrial jobs went overseas.
What is your position of welfare? Surely we could not provide it for every new resident, people would continue to come and inevitably large numbers of people would be unable to find suitable work- we would either have to provide welfare or they would understandably communalise and perhaps (out of need) turn to crime ala France and many other European countries (although with an open boarder this would be many times worse).
Then there are the issues of housing (tried renting lately?), the environment (yeah I have to admit that I am loath to raise it but still…), the impact upon an already overcrowded hospital system (given the tone of your article you wouldn’t oppose entry by people with sicknesses), the impact upon our education system etcetc… all of which (depending on numbers) would require massive additional investment.
This doesn’t even scratch the surface of possible concerns, including those concerns relating to cultural integration which I do think are valid.
Like I said I do agree with most of what you say and perhaps this issue will make a good topic for an expanded IPA article, if any such article addressed some of these issues I would read with great interest.

]]> By: Hannon http://chrisberg.org/2008/08/21/liberal-opponents-of-immigration/#comment-161193 Hannon Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:35:33 +0000 http://chrisberg.org/?p=1571#comment-161193 You write, "How does the free movement of people differ in any significant way from the free movement of goods or services?" Do you really have to ask this question? We partake of goods and services, we do not partake of people. Goods and services do not have personal and familial and cultural histories that command our thoughtfulness and respect. We visit heart and mind in our movements between countries or regions, often with much angst and trepidation. Goods and services are the result of people living productively and in accord with localized social norms, not the other way round. Without dehumanizing and commoditizing your fellow man, how can the movement of these things be said to have any similarities? As to the remainder of your philosophy as given here, it might help you to consider those who wish to preserve some historic measure and particulars of community as working to protect what they see as good, rather than unduly emphasizing their rejection of so-called progressivism. Are you concerned about what they are protecting-advocating, or more afraid of what they are preventing from advancing? You seem to be saying that we have some obligation to support and help up, even absorb into our nations, our fellow man who finds himself, by dumb luck apparently, stuck in the developing world. There is something strange about this argument, the way you have presented it. Not a whimper of kindness and charity, of doing the right thing or the Christian thing, but simply a way to get out from under the crushing guilt of the material and cultural success of the West. This is a sterile, reductionist politics, offering up only pragmatism (on a false basis) and non-discrimination as the driving precepts of post-modern society. It is heartless and it is tragic only in so far as it succeeds in corrupting a majority of citizens. You write, “How does the free movement of people differ in any significant way from the free movement of goods or services?”

Do you really have to ask this question?

We partake of goods and services, we do not partake of people. Goods and services do not have personal and familial and cultural histories that command our thoughtfulness and respect. We visit heart and mind in our movements between countries or regions, often with much angst and trepidation. Goods and services are the result of people living productively and in accord with localized social norms, not the other way round. Without dehumanizing and commoditizing your fellow man, how can the movement of these things be said to have any similarities?

As to the remainder of your philosophy as given here, it might help you to consider those who wish to preserve some historic measure and particulars of community as working to protect what they see as good, rather than unduly emphasizing their rejection of so-called progressivism. Are you concerned about what they are protecting-advocating, or more afraid of what they are preventing from advancing?

You seem to be saying that we have some obligation to support and help up, even absorb into our nations, our fellow man who finds himself, by dumb luck apparently, stuck in the developing world. There is something strange about this argument, the way you have presented it. Not a whimper of kindness and charity, of doing the right thing or the Christian thing, but simply a way to get out from under the crushing guilt of the material and cultural success of the West. This is a sterile, reductionist politics, offering up only pragmatism (on a false basis) and non-discrimination as the driving precepts of post-modern society. It is heartless and it is tragic only in so far as it succeeds in corrupting a majority of citizens.

]]>