April 29, 2021 - 7:00am
Left-wingers are much more likely to be pro-immigration than Right-wingers, right?
There are exceptions, of course, but as a general pattern it holds up pretty well across the Western world.
While very few people take an absolute position — i.e. favouring either completely open borders or completely closed ones — it’s pretty much the case that Left equals loose on immigration controls and Right equals tight.
Why would that be?
Predictably, the Left accuses the Right of racism, while the Right accuses the Left of recklessness. However, at least some of the Left-Right split on this issue isn’t actually about immigration specifically; rather, it’s about the Left-Right split in general.
58% of strong liberals and 49% of liberals have unfavorable views of immigrants if they join the Republican party. In a similar fashion, 72% of strong conservatives and 55% of conservatives have unfavorable views of Democratic immigrants. #CatoPolls pic.twitter.com/BKGtzB72U9
— Cato Press (@CatoPress) April 27, 2021
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank in the US. As part of its latest Immigration and Identity National Survey, Americans were asked how they felt towards two categories of immigrant — those who register to vote as Democrats and those who register to vote as Republicans.
As can be seen in the chart above, Americans — whether liberal (i.e. Left-leaning) or conservative (i.e. Right-leaning) are much more positive about immigrants who happen to share their political views.
Though liberals are more positive than conservatives are about immigration in general, the position is reversed when it comes to Republican-voting migrants.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeImmigration must first and foremost benefit the host nation. That was the impetus of early waves of immigration into the US in the 20th century. There also came a point where the spigot was cut off so that newcomers would have time to assimilate and settle into society. Today, people lose their minds if someone says “illegal” immigration as if that’s not a thing.
The right/left thing is intellectual laziness. Plenty of conservatives are children of immigrants. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil with wanting a nation to control its borders. That’s among the defining features of nationhood in the first place. Nor is it too much to expect newcomers to assimilate. Otherwise, you wind up with “over there” being ported to “over here.”
While we’re at it, does anyone ever notice how the same people who tout the benefits of multi-culturalism are also the people who accuse others of cultural appropriation? For the slow kids in the class, appropriation is a feature of multi-culti, not a bug.
With you on the cultural appropriation thing. And I tout the benefits of multi-culturalism!
You are an exception. The “appropriation” charge almost invariably comes from the left, which this article tells me is the pro-immigration side. I find that odd seeing as how my own family immigrated to the US from the old country, and I have zero problem with others doing that legally. Legally.
Mass, colonising immigration attacks the existence of the natives of the land. That is how it always goes. So, it is for the natives, including the natives of England, to decide on the question of their own existence. If they desire to hold their land unto themselves, and to pass it on to their own children and not the children of another, that is their right in Nature. No government dictate can morally hold otherwise.
A native people which accommodates its coloniser will die out. Sensible sons and daughters of that people do not, therefore, welcome immigrants. Deluded and self-estranged ones seem to.
That is incoherent . Do you favour increasing or reducing GDP per capita?. What level of public services can the economy provide to a decent standard?. Immigration is not a religion. It is numbers.
Not so simple as “more GDP/c = good”. You can maintain a higher standard of life on a lower, reduced GDP per capita / lower level of public services if the demographic structure of society is optimal. You will have lesser expenses in many departments, both on individual and on state level.
Also, it doesn’t explain why the no borders extremists were the first to demand shut borders in this outbreak of infection, never having demanded it for any other infection – AIDS, TB,Ebola, Leprosy etc. – while not demanding it even now for the beaches of Kent and Sussex.
Wee Nicola, L’Ardern, Frau M, Welsh Stasiman – all want their borders shut, except that they don’t.
GDP and other financial issues are not the only consideration and for many not the main one. Culture and community, living among people like yourself with similar interests and concerns, people with shared traditions you can easily relate to and socialise with. Not having issues of race and ethnicity as constant background noise invading so many aspects of life for example. Life isn’t just about work and money. Throughout the world more diverse societies tend to be less cohesive and more prone to conflict.
It is not so much whether immigration is a good thing, or how much immigration or from where.
The problem is that one of the recent set of nutty beliefs that the Anglo Saxon liberal left has taken on is that having any kind of border control at all is “racist”.
Exactly. But that only applies to white countries, of course.
My view is that immigration should be at levels explicitly put to the electorate and agreed by them.
Let me illustrate. Gross immigration i’e; before deduction of people who emigrated from the UK up to March 2020. Source ONS. was 700,000. That is equivalent to Sheffield arriving in one year.
The UK population has gone up 20% in the last 30 years. Did anyone ask the country if that was what they wanted ?
Its important – so consult us. And if you favour immigration explain why it is a good thing and ask us to vote for it .
They know we wouldn’t have voted for this. Their hands were tied by a kind of moral conformity narrative – speaking out against it would be too costly for one whose position is dependent on popularity.
I left London mid 1970s, and every time I return it is more depressing. My old parts are no longer English, and Not in a better way. WHY? I ask myself every time. WHY?
If Immigration puts up GDP- Politicians will do it.
However if politicians were measured correctly- on GDP per capita _ they would be much more careful about it .
This is exactly right. I’m largely for immigration that makes the country richer; and I’m also for some “charity immigration” for refugees in dire need (as Asians were under Idi Amin). But, while measuring this is hard (and the next tranche of immigrants will be different to previous ones, so ‘evidence from last time’ will be flawed), Bill Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid” should remain the reason for doing almost anything.
The India/Africa diaspora Idi triggered, and Moi and the rest contributed to, brought the Best Migrants to UK since the Huguenots. The 90% of the rest this is NOT true.
Immigration is like weather – there’s splendid good weather, horrible bad weather, and everything in between. Symmetrical migration between equals is a force of good – always has been thus. French bakers, Danish engineers, English jockeys, Czech doctors, Japanese carpenters, Flemish weavers, whathaveyou – a mutually beneficial exchange of goods.
The asymmetric migration of workers from the ex-easternbloc post-EU extension is a lot more mixed bag – negative effect on jobs / wages / housing with a fairly small allegedly positive economic effect to counter it, but no negative cultural / societal baggage to speak of.
Immigration from the thirdworld (Africa / muslim world) is an unmitigated disaster with practically zero positive aspects.
EXCEPTING THE INDIA/AFRICA DISAPORA IDI AMIN TRIGGERED, THEY HAVE REALLY ADDED TO BRITAIN.
Yes indeed. I wasn’t talking about them.
You have to be joking.
If the less advantaged groups get annoyed with the white liberals, it is the white liberals who have to run for cover.
Their loveless marriage might break up one day – and in fact I think it will – but rather than not doing anything to displease, I think it should be not doing anything absolutely outrageous.
And as I say, I think their partnership will break up, because there will be outrages.
There’s nothing more natural than racial segregation.
Seems reasonable. I’d take an unfavourable view of someone who benefited from being able to emigrate to a country and then tried to prevent others doing the same thing. Not sure why that would be surprising.
To move away and leave your whole life and family behind you is not trivial by any means. It is often permanent.
Settled immigrants become integrated. They thus take pride in their adopted country’s institutions and history, and have a stake in its future. This means they can lean either way on immigration, just like you or I.
If you were pro-immigration and wanted immigrants to integrate rather than remaining rootless un-citizens forever after, you would understand that.
I do understand that. And I support integration and multi-culturalism. Integration doesn’t mean complete assimilation, though. I think new ideas and cultures keep any society/country healthy and developing.
You can be multicultural without allowing every ethnic group indiscriminately into your society. Selectivity is the key. Reject those particular groups who are detrimental to society, embrace the rest.
Actually I don’t think you should be multi-culti. Why should you be? What’s wrong with aspiring to one culture? Multi-culti doesn’t work
Because there are too many things one’s own culture can add to its own. Look at Japan for example and their award-winning whiskies. The whole of Europe owes much of their patisserie to the Italians. Etc. Architectural styles, industrial techniques spread around Europe. The English too have a vast cultural footprint in European culture (and certainly in my small birth-country Hungary, we would be a lot poorer without it). What i was saying is take what’s worth to have, reject what’s not. Say yes to gelato, say no to hijabs. That sort of thing.
I do not go to Holland to see the Mosques.
Why do you think multi-culturalism is a good thing? Surely everyone subscribing to one culture must be the thing to strive for? Because otherwise you have a nation at odds with itself. Why do you want that?
This is not to say you can’t have multi-ethnic. But you definitely cant have multi-culture, no matter how pink and fluffy you think you are.
Depends how we define “culture”. To me, Gallic culture is distinctly different from germanic culture, which is distinctly different from Slavic culture, and let’s not even start with the vast differences within northern / southern / eastern Slavic culture etc. etc. Take Switzerland with its distinctly different German, French, Italian and Rhætoromanch cultures – they sure have the odd quips and squabbles, but do get on just fine. Trouble starts when you import a completely incompatible demographic from outside European culture into a European society.
Thats not what we are observing in the Uk. Some immigrants do very well. Others seem at odds with the country.
I see the word Integrate vs assimilate. The past US goal has been assimilation, full adoption of the predominant culture, to fit with society. Integration suggests cultural enclaves that stand equal but not in adoption of the predominant social and cultural norms. (Per https://www.immigrationreform.com/). Much fear of immigration is the existing issue of Press 1 for English, etc. Few US people speak any other language, unlike many Europeans. The US values and honors perhaps more diverse cultures than nearly any nation, accepting over 1M immigrants per year through the front door but uncountable through the back. But erosion of the predominate culture is a very real fear if integration happens versus assimilation,
Depends on the emigrant and the immigration policy and the country involved. Are you only referring to unfettered immigration? It is fact that you cannot logically have an immigration policy which allows immigration to remain unchecked. Given that immigrants favour emigrating to free market democracies, it means that the sums ultimately don’t add up in respect of the quantity of people that can be absorbed and often, supported.
I meant it’s a totally consistent position to be in broadly in favour of immigration and disapprove of people who are broadly suspicious or wary of immigration (whether those people are immigrants or not actually)
How do you get to this from the article?
From the point that the one of the things the survey was measuring was the views of people broadly in favour of immigration (liberals) on people who immigrated and then pledged support to a party broadly against immigration (Republicans).
If you put that “broadly” to work in the economy, much of the damage from lockdowns would be fixed within weeks.
Do you think “immigrant” is a separate species or something? Do you think there’s some shared commonality or equivalence between, say, a French physicist and an Ugandan illiterate who both emigrated to the USA? Because both are “immigrants”? Well, both are humans / mammals / vertebrates too, where do you draw the line? Why should a Danish engineer living in the USA be in favour of mass-immigration from, say, Pakistan?
Someone who benefits from being able to emigrate to a country should be someone who benefits the country he/she emigrated to. That’s why immigration policies need to be selective, not indiscriminate.
I moved to USA as a completely useless rebellious young man – and I am against immigration of any who cannot demonstrate their potential to be a positive addition.