Why do conservatives deny proven benefits of open borders and immigration?

[Anonymous]

[jshm2]

Because they are racists and bigots - not the "conservative" title they hide behind.

Being conservative has nothing to do with race or nationality. But what insecure racists do is try to launder their personal grudges through a veneer of social order, tradition, or the pace of change of conservatism.

They cannot accept they are the problem, not the "immigrant" they are projecting to.

In nearly every country it is often found that immigrants commit less crime than natives.

But also there is no such thing as "open borders" - The Schengen area is a border free zone by agreement as there is common laws shared between the countries, hence it doesn't make much difference which country the citizen moves to.

In the USA there needs to be a border as Canada and Mexico do not share laws with the USA.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Totally depends on what you call conservative, that is a spectrum.

The first quote isn't conservative, it's far-right opinions expressed instead.

There is a huge number of people in the Christian Democrat category, center-right voters, who check the conservative box, as well as the international trade box.

[exitseven]

There is a benefit to immigration if we have people who have skills and want to work and pay taxes and assimilate and become citizens.
Open Borders allows the most uneducated, indigent people to enter the
country. Many come from prisons and insane asylums. When Biden was president over 13.000 murderers were allowed to enter the country. In 2023 the federal government spent 450 billion dollars on illegsal aliens and several billion were spent by state and local governemts.

[Anonymous]

Because your hatred for non-whites exceeds any affection you might feel, no matter how small for anyone who isn't white. You are nothing but a racist. You never have been and you never will be. You are the literal scum of the earth who doesn't deserve to live with decent people.

[strateguy632]

Because imports did the process but open borders lacks the process. Also in Greek many could not vote. So we rejected Greek democracy.

[strateguy632]

Immigration is not the same as open border.

[Dargil]

The "proof" is not convincing.

[Tomislav7]

The benefits dont outweigh the negatives.

[msc545]

What is it that you think the negatives are?

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 I think its multifaceted. I don't know if i really wanna type everything out but. It affects elections, housing, hospitals, communities and families. A regulated border is what defines a nations sovereignty. Not porous borders. America will never turn its back to the refugees but neither should it turn on its people.

[Tomislav7]

Essentially were struggling to sustain what we currently have, and funding isn't there so adding millions more into the country only further cripples us in my opinion.

[msc545]

You get increased tax revenue to finance the things you have mentioned, and you get increased labor to complete tasks that require human labor. This country was founded by immigrants. It runs on immigrants. There is no reason to not have more of them.

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 Trying to fix or funding things after the fact is our main problem. Fix what we can in the meantime rather than add additional burdens to the categories I've listed previously then trying to cure a even larger problem.. Again this has nothing to do with going N Korea on immigration. Just actually upholding the law.

[msc545]

I don't think you get it withoout any immigrants. The country becomes stale. Take some of that trillion dollars that you spend on so-called defense and use it for things that matter.

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 a nonporous border does not equal no immigration. Thats where you're stuck, you're unwilling to separate the two.

[msc545]

No, it only equals immigration by white people. I understand that. The idea of having strict border control is that people like yourself get to determine who crosses them, who doesn't and that usually means white people only.

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 dude not everyone thinks like that. Yes if a nation doesn't regulate passage then wtf is it doing? Hardly anyone is against immigration. This is my opinion. You can both stop illegal crossings and regulate a healthy flow of legal immigration and asylum.

[msc545]

You, like most Trump supporters and right-wing persons that I know, are racist, and you are trying to cover that up and make excuses for it. Why don't you just admit it? It would be easier for all of us. We already know what you are.

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 you're literally projecting. Most of my friends growing up have been either complexion from white to black and have been foreigners. Im attracted to white and latin women. Dont be a fool. Its really not as serious as your made to believe

[msc545]

Well, if all that's true, then perhaps I misunderstood you, but that's for it not being as serious as I've been made to believe. I've not only been made to believe it, I've seen it. I know exactly how serious it is.

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 You didn't misunderstand you just assumed which is never the best way. Seen what the results of porous borders or civil unrest? Because the unrest stems from media extremism. Again you can decide who what and how many arrive without overburden the current systems that already struggling.

[msc545]

To a large extent, these problems tend to be self-correcting, and I also believe that trying to tweak them externally actually makes things worse, not better.

[Tomislav7]

@msc545 I agree. The issue of migration is that it can be exploited, to the benefit of the politicians but to the detriment of the people. So a porous border is a neglected and even worse allowed to be exploited ie surplus migration. What occurred under Biden wasn't a natural flow of immigration or aslyum/refuge seekers

[slatyb]

Basically fear of change.