- 15 Aug 2009 01:25
#13129085
This is a mistaken view, actually. A 'nationalist' would, economically speaking, be supportive of immigration and illegal immigration.
The reason beings get to the heart of the modern-day enterprise. For you see, only the illegal immigrant can suffice as the 'low-wage' worker in our Liberal Capitalism. That is, laws like 'the minimum wage' make it so that many fields of work are inaccessible to citizens of the U.S. The illegal immigrant (or the prisoner or the trafficked individual), then, is the only source of 'low-wage' work. Were these groups above no longer allowed to operate in the country, the following are reasonable predictions: our wages would reduce, our costs would increase or our businesses would go abroad (where minimum wage is not in effect.)
I had a hard time explaining this to a chum of mine. He was using the example of "Red Lobsters" hiring a Mexican over a Black for $8.75 compared against $10 an hour. The problem with his understanding was that these 'waiters' weren't "low-wage work"--I excuse him for believing so as an American--but rather the farmers and fisherpeople of Red Lobsters are the people making the low-wages. Again, if their jobs were paid at minimum wage, Red Lobster wouldn't have much a business.
So, actually, no, if I were a nationalist, I'd support illegal immigration--the status quo. It's true, though, that as a soi-disant Abolitionist, I should oppose 'illegal immigration.' Nevertheless, this is not the common ideology hence it's not worth discussing.
Actually, no. Many say that the South will never stop being racist, and this is just an example of such. The word 'illegal immigrant,' this may seem like a change of an argument, does the same thing as the word "Negro" in that it removes a nationality from a person, this can have negative consequences. The addition of 'illegal' just puts icing on the cake.
Well, say, 'fear of the stranger,' even if we bought that as true, certainly you'd agree that "Illegal Mexican" would be more 'congenial' than "Illegal Immigrant," following from the above thoughts on nationality. As to compassion for your neighbor, it's just not a feature in the U.S. There is racial solidarity for sure, but there isn't 'compassion for your neighbor.' To suddenly argue that there is, is reaching for explanations.
Cheesecake_Marmalade wrote:Seriously, if you care about lower class workers to any degree whatsoever, then you'd be against unchecked immigration, especially from low income countries.
This is a mistaken view, actually. A 'nationalist' would, economically speaking, be supportive of immigration and illegal immigration.
The reason beings get to the heart of the modern-day enterprise. For you see, only the illegal immigrant can suffice as the 'low-wage' worker in our Liberal Capitalism. That is, laws like 'the minimum wage' make it so that many fields of work are inaccessible to citizens of the U.S. The illegal immigrant (or the prisoner or the trafficked individual), then, is the only source of 'low-wage' work. Were these groups above no longer allowed to operate in the country, the following are reasonable predictions: our wages would reduce, our costs would increase or our businesses would go abroad (where minimum wage is not in effect.)
I had a hard time explaining this to a chum of mine. He was using the example of "Red Lobsters" hiring a Mexican over a Black for $8.75 compared against $10 an hour. The problem with his understanding was that these 'waiters' weren't "low-wage work"--I excuse him for believing so as an American--but rather the farmers and fisherpeople of Red Lobsters are the people making the low-wages. Again, if their jobs were paid at minimum wage, Red Lobster wouldn't have much a business.
So, actually, no, if I were a nationalist, I'd support illegal immigration--the status quo. It's true, though, that as a soi-disant Abolitionist, I should oppose 'illegal immigration.' Nevertheless, this is not the common ideology hence it's not worth discussing.
Ibid. wrote:However, what most nationalists interpret as "legal immigrants" includes a stringent vetting process and a merit based selection process that is indicative of economic nationalism.
Actually, no. Many say that the South will never stop being racist, and this is just an example of such. The word 'illegal immigrant,' this may seem like a change of an argument, does the same thing as the word "Negro" in that it removes a nationality from a person, this can have negative consequences. The addition of 'illegal' just puts icing on the cake.
Ibid. wrote:what I'm arguing is compassion for your neighbor and fear of the stranger, both of which would lead you to being against illegal immigrants.
Well, say, 'fear of the stranger,' even if we bought that as true, certainly you'd agree that "Illegal Mexican" would be more 'congenial' than "Illegal Immigrant," following from the above thoughts on nationality. As to compassion for your neighbor, it's just not a feature in the U.S. There is racial solidarity for sure, but there isn't 'compassion for your neighbor.' To suddenly argue that there is, is reaching for explanations.
- By Pants-of-dog
- By Saeko
- By Tainari88
- By QatzelOk