Because politicians tend to be old and wealthy (they own a lot of stock and real estate). Excessive immigration from culturally incompatible countries rips the fabric of society apart in the long run, but in the short run it enriches the already rich by juicing the labor supply (improving corporate profits by reducing the market-clearing wage) and by putting upward pressure on home prices and rent. An old wealthy politician could cynically but rationally keep the immigration spigots open with the expectation that the negative consequences will materialize after they die (or in the alternative that they and/or their children can simply move abroad with their accumulated wealth).
There are also some politically connected non-corporate players that make a lot of money from the immigration and asylum games on a per case basis (the immigration lawyers). These lawyers donate large amounts to NGOs that act as a thorn-in-the-side of any politicians who want to tighten immigration enforcement.
I think the short term economic benefits explanation probably works for 15 years ago, when both the GOP and Dems were doing it, but saying they were not.
Now the Dem immigration talking points come from the AOC commie types, not the rich Pelosi.
And when Langford (GOP) tried his disgusting amnesty bill in 2024 much of the GOP were not fooled at all.
The reason now is faith-based leftist white guilt, or suicidal empathy to try and get into leftist heaven. The explanation now is a related to a psychological mind virus - not money.
I think because Richard is a natural right winger he takes it for granted that because politicians are more socially liberal than the public they must favour immigration.
But politicians are much more liberal on immigration than they are on almost any other issue.
The average politician is more liberal than the public but still only moderately liberal overall.
Mainstream immigration policy implicitly favours a radical restructuring of society, ultimately trending towards demographic transformation.
There's no other issue where the elite consensus is this radical.
If you imposed veganism on the general public, they might actually prefer that to these big demographic shifts. But obviously the average politician is nowhere near progressive enough to even personally be vegan.
Given they also pay a heavy electoral price to push immigration their unrestrained preference must be even more liberal. Philosophically they can't be that far removed from an open border activist who doesn't think nation states are legitimate.
You need an explanation as to why elite preferences are so uniquely radical on this issue imo. It really is the only area where upper normies mainstream figures are effectively effective altruists.
This observation seems like it is confirming common knowledge, at least on the right.
The far more interesting question is "why".
Why are politicians so interested in destroying western countries with low IQ, low trust, high crime, social welfare sponges?
Because politicians tend to be old and wealthy (they own a lot of stock and real estate). Excessive immigration from culturally incompatible countries rips the fabric of society apart in the long run, but in the short run it enriches the already rich by juicing the labor supply (improving corporate profits by reducing the market-clearing wage) and by putting upward pressure on home prices and rent. An old wealthy politician could cynically but rationally keep the immigration spigots open with the expectation that the negative consequences will materialize after they die (or in the alternative that they and/or their children can simply move abroad with their accumulated wealth).
There are also some politically connected non-corporate players that make a lot of money from the immigration and asylum games on a per case basis (the immigration lawyers). These lawyers donate large amounts to NGOs that act as a thorn-in-the-side of any politicians who want to tighten immigration enforcement.
I think the short term economic benefits explanation probably works for 15 years ago, when both the GOP and Dems were doing it, but saying they were not.
Now the Dem immigration talking points come from the AOC commie types, not the rich Pelosi.
And when Langford (GOP) tried his disgusting amnesty bill in 2024 much of the GOP were not fooled at all.
The reason now is faith-based leftist white guilt, or suicidal empathy to try and get into leftist heaven. The explanation now is a related to a psychological mind virus - not money.
I think because Richard is a natural right winger he takes it for granted that because politicians are more socially liberal than the public they must favour immigration.
But politicians are much more liberal on immigration than they are on almost any other issue.
The average politician is more liberal than the public but still only moderately liberal overall.
Mainstream immigration policy implicitly favours a radical restructuring of society, ultimately trending towards demographic transformation.
There's no other issue where the elite consensus is this radical.
If you imposed veganism on the general public, they might actually prefer that to these big demographic shifts. But obviously the average politician is nowhere near progressive enough to even personally be vegan.
Given they also pay a heavy electoral price to push immigration their unrestrained preference must be even more liberal. Philosophically they can't be that far removed from an open border activist who doesn't think nation states are legitimate.
You need an explanation as to why elite preferences are so uniquely radical on this issue imo. It really is the only area where upper normies mainstream figures are effectively effective altruists.