In designing policy, we employ ideologies in a consulting sense, that is, explicitly incorporating ideological considerations into the policy framework. Both egalitarianism (socialism) and free market liberalism are well understood. By contrast, conservatism has no functional definition, and therefore 'conservative policy' is easily mistaken to mean anything appealing to white, southern Christians.
We use liberal to mean 'pertaining to the individual' and conservative to mean 'pertaining to the group and its members.' Try that definition the next time you use or see the term 'conservative'. You'll find it helpful. For example, our definition makes FAIR and CIS conservative institutions in that their expertise is in membership policy. They are all about who is and can be a member of the group -- the country, in this case -- including the conditions for obtaining membership and sanctions for those violating membership rules, for example, deportation of illegals.
Our framework for ideology is entirely consistent with neoclassical economics and therefore allows us to explicitly incorporate conservative considerations into a given economic policy which may also have liberal and egalitarian (a form of liberal) components. It gives us a bigger toolbox and a new way to view old problems.
*****
In designing a market-based visa policy, I have referred to the ordinary conservative objectives of safety, propriety (legality), conformity (following customs) and compensation (paying one's way). All of these pertain to the relationship of the individual member to the group. (Confirm it for yourself.) In this note, I would like to highlight the issue of illegal immigration and conformity.
Yesterday's Washington Times carried a story about undocumented migrants riding the train across the US border, accompanied by the photo below.
Is riding a train like that illegal, strictly speaking? Maybe not. But for the middle of the road suburban voter, it is surely inappropriate. It creates a sense of unease about these migrants, that they are rabble, an unwashed horde and a threat to society. Of course, this semi-legal form of transportation is part of the entire undocumented migrant journey, which also finds some illegals packed into tractor trailers or dozens to an SUV. It may not be illegal per se, but it brands these migrants as undesirables. And that branding casts a shadow on Hispanics more broadly. It influences the public's feelings not only about illegal immigrants, but also about race more generally.
In a market-based system, all this disappears, and migrants will use more conventional conveyances. From the Northern Triangle, most migrants -- even those in minimum wage jobs -- will travel to the US by air, just as in the photo below, from the Guatemala City airport.
If you doubt that, do the math, and you will find flying is actually cheaper than the opportunity cost of trudging up Mexico or even traveling by bus. In a market-based system, those sitting astride the train would instead have passed through the airport. And anyone who flies is more or less a regular person. It changes the public's perception of those people on the train -- even though they would literally be the same people as those flying in. Thus, when I speak of 'conformity', I do not mean how one holds a teacup, but rather behaving in ways that the general public perceives as within societal norms. Riding on top of trains, or crammed like sardines into a tractor trailer or an SUV, is not normal. By contrast, hopping a flight from Guatemala City to Houston (which may have its own sardine-like qualities) is normal.
Therefore, note that a market-based system not only increases legality, it also materially addresses conformity. It allows migrants to conform to standards the US public considers normal. In that, it will improve migrants' standing -- and by extension, enhance the standing of Hispanics more generally -- in the public mind.
There is more at stake here than whether we close the southwest border to illegal immigration or grant amnesty to some portion of long-standing undocumented residents. At stake, in important ways, is how many Hispanics feel about themselves and how they are perceived by society. Legality enables conformity, and taken together, they are foundational for achieving dignity and equality.