When and why did 'immigration' become a partisan issue in the west, with anti-immigration becoming 'right wing' and pro-immigration becoming 'left-wing'? Apparently, it didn't used to be that polarized. Some left-wing western groups opposed immigration on grounds of worker's rights. And some right-wing groups supported immigration on economic grounds.But it seems like this changed quickly after the 1960's, and by the 1980's, 'left-wing anti-immigration' became a completely incoherent concept in the west. Why is that?
>>18031128From the 60's to the 80's when you had deindustrialization which greatly weakened unions and labor, as well as the civil rights movement in the US and decolonization in Europe becoming important markers of identity on the left. The left also increasingly relied on minority voters, immigrant communities, and educated urban liberals as core constituencies, making pro-immigration positions strategically essential.So the old “workerist” left argument for restricting immigration fell away, and immigration became a cultural marker of political identity.One thing also worth noting is that open borders was traditionally often a pro big business position, not a moral one. Do you know about yhe 1924 immigration and nationality act? It created the modern immigration framework in the US where people are presumptively NOT allowed to immigrate unless they can obtain a visa which are limited in number and many people cannot qualify at all, which replaced the pre-1924 system where anyone presumptively could immigrate unless they were excluded such as by having a dangerous disease, having no money or support, being east asian, etc.People had been trying hard to get a law like that passed since TR's administration 2 decades earlier, but it always failed to pass congress in the face of fierce opposition from business elites who wanted to keep on the fire hose of cheap immigrant labor to shovel piles of coal for them. I'd consider that a right wing position.
>>18031128Rightoids and their jewish merchant masters squashed American labor movements in the 1910s-1930s. We're lucky to even have a day off. They're still doing it to this day.
>>18031180This does not follow, because in 1935 president Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act which for the first time granted a legal right to collectively bargain and strike. Prior to that employers had the right to fire workers for starting or joining unions, and could get court orders to remove picketing workers as trespassers. That was the greatest win for labor rights in US history, and business interests have been working for the past 90 years to roll it back, something that is happening right now, with Trump trying to destroy the National Labor Relations Board by on day 1 of his presidency unilaterally firing the one board member that's a black woman so there would not be a quorum in the hopes that this would prevent the agency from functioning. Although this did not actually do that, it just made it impossible for the NLRB to reverse Biden era decisions (which it could have done if Trump had just appointed pro-management board members instead of doing this botched effort to delete the agency with the stroke of a pen), but no one ever accused Trump of being smart.
Economic growth and demographic needs often trumped nationalist considerations.
>>18031128>when
Even the right wing parties usually still support right kind of "work based" migration. They still want their non-white semi-slave labor to work for cheaper and with less regulations than white men would, they just wish westerners would treat them like oil Arabs treat their migrant workers.
>>18031157>One thing also worth noting is that open borders was traditionally often a pro big business position, not a moral one.It's still like this.>>18032340Yep.So labor and Unions, two thing I used to hate way more. Were anti immigration to protect thier workers. Other anons said things but a heavy blow to this was moving manufacturing to China. Lots of those former Democrats are Republicans now. The democrats that are left publicly love any immigration. Did Trump cause this because before him even modern Democrats had a little of that Dixie in em and enforced the border more than Republicans did. But it looks like Trumps border enforcement will only lower illegal immigration temporarily. If it has in fact lowered, it did during his last term.But to answer your question OP it seems the more immigrants you take in the more want to come. People are tired of all the immigrants for various reasons. Economic, social, political, etc. Politicians bluster but don't really change any important laws much. Democrats because its part of thier image now and they're too transactional and desperate to co operate on anything in congress most of the time. And Republicans because rich guys want cheap labor.Is the wall still being built? Wall or not if the people arent willing to enforce border laws nothing else short of autonomous enforcement bots will be effective.
>>18032356Also, you will notice i brought up illegal immigration. Even Fox is calling illegals just regular old immigrants/migrants now. The mind virus is spreading.
>>18031128>after the 1960's, and by the 1980's, 'left-wing anti-immigration' became a completely incoherent concept in the west. Why is that?Because after the non whites flooded in and took over the "left" they supported the immigration policies that allowed them in.
>>18032367Minority immigrants shouldn't really want more immigrants because it debases their position too. Blacks don't support it all that much and Latinos are surprisingly split on the issue. What you say is true but its all part of the theater put on by the media.
>>18031128Somewhere in the last century a lot of browns came in under the pretense that "the left wants a nice big social net me and my family can live in" and now they have to appeal to their new voter base.
States had full control of immigration until 1890. It was largely due to the sheer amount of illegal immigration coming through ports like New York that spurred Congress into making immigration federally regulated. So you could say mass illegal immigration in the north was a major issue, so much so that southerners before the civil war were claiming europoor illegals in the north had it worse than actual black slaves in the south.
>>18031128Every Marxist worth some salt is critical of immigration. Too bad the CIA buck broke them so hard, they have mosyly become pro migrants now
>>18032398It does astonish me that the constitution gives congress the power to legislate on naturalization but says nothing about immigration.
>>18032375>Blacks don't support it all that muchBlacks profit from black migrants (african and caribbeans) from a genetic perspective. They don't profit from non-black migrants, the opposite.
>>18032367>Because after the non whites flooded in and took over the "left"/pol/trannies are retarded and obsessed and brown people. The modern Democratic political machine was built by corrupt Ellis island shitters in the late 19th-early 20th century.
>>18031128Bump
>>18032367In actuality, immigrants are often the most opposed to letting in more immigrants lol
>>18032809They don't benefit from it economically. Just like Latinos don't. Are you saying blacks are racial supremacists?
What's wild is how in the 1960s how "woke" (for lack of a better term) everything became. I pick up old books from the second hand shop all the time, and it seems like by the time the 1960s rolled around conservative voices were just disappearing. By the time you reach the 1970s they're entirely gone.The basedface nerds weren't even like this back pre-world war II. H.G Wells would be today your prototypical redditor "I heccin' love science" tech nerd, but his writings on history would be considered white nationalist in this day and age. He speaks softly and with understanding towards islamic and far eastern societies, but he's by no means naive about the realities of race and cultural differences.
>>18034595This is false. Major works of history like the series by Will Durant made passing references to anti racism, and conservative authors like William F Buckley were prominent in the 1960s
