Atrios is 100% wrong:
Atrios
writes:
... I'm quite pro-immigration and think there should be fairly straightforward and transparent paths to citizenship for people who come here. I think cultural homogeneity is a bad thing as it tends to be self-reinforcing with homogeneity leading to increasing conformism. I think this country would be a much less interesting place without the recent immigration boom, which followed decades of historically low levels of immigration.
Please. If there is one thing that cripples support for the welfare part of Welfare-Capitalism, it's when an "outside" group is , or seen as, taking a disproportionate share of a support system.
Why do you think that there was progressive legislature from the 30's to the 60's? That was when there was limited immigration. People felt part of a whole (blacks excepted) and were more willing to support a Federal social safety net.
Look at other countries and you will find that with increased immigration, there is a diminution in support for welfare programs.
Sure, it would be nice if people weren't that way, but they are. Saying that we should bring in lots of immigrants and
then wondering why there is resistance to generous social welfare programs is classic liberal folly.
posted by Quiddity at 5/18/2007 11:48:00 AM
I think you're mixing up your causality here.
Social programs AND limited immigration were caused in the 30s and later because the US economy was in the shitter (pardon my french).
With the exception of the war boom, there were no jobs here for immigrants to come get. There were very few jobs for those who were here. That is (IMHO) what caused both limited immigration (for upstream reasons, not downstream), and acceptance of welfare programs.
Immigration isn't so much the point, right now. What is the point is that the senate wants to debate a 1,000 page bill 5 days after it is announced. That's sort of NOT democratic.
