The Intellectual Home of Immigration Opposition
I believe only one group can claim this.
Assertion 1: An opposition to immigration1 is inherently a conservative position.
Assertion 2: Whenever someone of any ideological disposition (conservative, progressive, or libertarian) opposes immigration in any degree, they are in that case taking a conservative position.
Assertion 3: Progressives, conservatives, and libertarians can each oppose immigration logically consistent given the right assumptions. But when they do, assertions 1 and 2 hold.
Assertion 4: There are or could be moral/ethical arguments against immigration that withstand all attacks.
This post will not contend with assertions 3 or 4. It will look like I am addressing assertion 3, but this is just because I will operate adjacent to this assertion ignoring if arguments made are actually logically consistent.
As frequent readers know, I love Arnold Kling’s framework of the Three Languages of Politics. To recap briefly his three-axes model:
A progressive will communicate along the oppressor-oppressed axis.
A conservative will communicate along the civilization-barbarism axis.
A libertarian will communicate along the liberty-coercion axis.
A conservative will make arguments against immigration from partial opposition with various limitations to compete opposition from a standpoint of the civilization-barbarism language. Immigration is potentially an external threat; hence, it is barbarism. Barbarism isn’t necessarily literal in any respect. It is simply a stand-in for that which is a threatening challenge to the status quo.
When a conservative opposes immigration raising concerns about culture, economics, crime, etc., they are operating completely consistently with their label.
When a progressive opposes immigration, they may try to frame it as oppressor-oppressed in a manner like this: “Business leaders, the owners of capital, wish to drive down costs. To do so, they import cheap labor, which competes against and drives down the income of native citizens (current workers). I oppose this immigration since it allows an oppressor, the wealthy owner, to exploit the oppressed victim, the worker harmed by competition.”
I argue that this is an inconsistent2 use of the progressive language because it is incomplete. The progressive in this case is ignoring the immigrant who is being oppressed. Further, the progressive is raising a concern of the threat to the status quo. Therefore, to oppose immigration in this case is to take on a conservative perspective.
When a libertarian opposes immigration, they may try to frame it as liberty-coercion like this: “We have a government that does a lot to support the poor and needy. This entails large expenses that are borne by taxpayers. In short we have a welfare state funded through (forced) contributions. Some types of immigrants are very poor and needy, and the number in this category is very large. Allowing a lot of immigrants from this pool would impose even greater liberty harms on current citizens. Even if taxation is not theft, policies that substantially grow government and taxation are impositions to liberty.”
I argue this is inconsistent use of libertarian language in a similar manner as the progressive case above. The libertarian here is ignoring the liberty of the immigrant while assuming pragmatic difficulties imply ethical violations. Again this amounts to a concern over a threat to the status quo. Therefore, to oppose immigration in this case is to take on a conservative perspective.
While these are just a couple of examples, I think they are emblematic of the larger set for each group, progressives and libertarians.
Opposing immigration is inherently a conservative position. It may be right or wrong, just or unjust, logically consistent or inconsistent, but it is always civilization versus barbarism.
In all cases I am discussing voluntary immigration. Involuntary immigration (people made to move and others made to accept them) is a different thing altogether—a use of force that opposition to is always a libertarian perspective (definitely anti-liberty), could be supported by a progressive perspective (has oppression in its effects), and has elements of a conservative perspective (a civilized society does not do this). And no, a government accepting refugees is not “making others accept them”. That is a decision made by the party who is doing the accepting, the government. If you think the government doesn’t have the right to accept refugees, then you are not allowed to think the government can prevent immigration.
Again, I am arguing this is inconsistent with the progressive language itself. I am ignoring if it is a consistent argument.