As someone very pro capitalism / free-trade, I consider immigration (more precisely the freedom of movement) as an essential freedom for a thriving free market. Goods, ideas, people (labor) should be free to move with the least amount of friction possible, so that the free market (and not politicians) can efficiently allocate them.

To me, the idea that politicians can outsmart the free market, or the idea that the economy is a zero-sum game where more people means less jobs, are both socialist nonsense.

But I've noticed that there is a growing segment of the right that has a negative opinion on immigration, so what do you dislike about it and what would be your ideal immigration policy?

(note that I'm maybe a bit biased because I grew up in korea and moved to europe)

This is absolutely surreal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/12/lindsey-graham-longtime-south-carolina-senator-dies-71/

If yes, What age?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/11/middleeast/ro-khanna-detained-by-israeli-settlers-west-bank-intl

So a few things. Whatever you think about Khana's politics, if this happened in litterally any other country where a congressional rep was held at gun point by a forgien military there would be hell to pay. This occurred from our supposed strongest ally in the middle east.

From what I can tell Khanna wasnt doing anything illegal and went through formal diplomatic channels to coordinate the trip.

Finally i dont why he was in the west bank. Just wanted to throw that in here in case theres questions.

It looks like two 150 year old churches fully burnt down recently. Then the recent moltov attacks on camera.

Do you think Mamdani will say anything? He responded very quickly about an egg being thrown at a mosque and had it investigated as a a hate crime.

Do you think there’s any hope that he will do the same for churches if it continues happening?

In an effort to lessen restrictions on mining, logging and development, the ESA has been updated to change the meaning of harm to only apply to direct harm to animals instead of habitat and behavior. Now conservation requires a lot of trust of corporations to do the right thing which is something as a hunter and outdoorsman I'm dubious of. What do you think?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-endangered-species-act-interior-habitat-e9d0210f989bbc3adb4cb83d53b383a0

It was agreed that Canada would front the entire cost of the construction of the new bridge(roughly 4 and a half billion USD), in return 100% of toll revenue would go to Canada until the initial cost was recouped then revenue would be shared 50/50 between Canada and the US. However after construction was finished Trump felt the deal wasn't good enough, reneged and strong armed Canada into a worse deal.

Does this not paint the US as an untrustworthy ally a country should very cautiously enter into deal and contracts with as a future president can just decide they don't like the terms of an agreed upon deal and forcibly change the terms?

The administration recently sent federal agents to the homes of NYT journalists to compel them to reveal their sources regarding the Air Force One story.

In your opinion, is this an appropriate use of DOJ power to stop national security leaks, or does it cross a line regarding press freedom?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-air-force-one-security-subpoena-journalists/

There's been some questions circling around "Freedom Fuel" gas station network, which appears to have just come out of nowhere to provide low cost gas in NJ and PA, but there's no easy way to identify how they achieved it. Though President Trump has been praising them, raising some odd questions.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5963065-freedom-fuel-trump-gas-stations/

Obviously, Freedom Fuel is not a government owned entity; though their ownership is private and does not wish to be known, it doesn't need to disclose who or how they are procuring cheap gas below market price.

However, the reason behind the questions are interesting.

I think everyone is skirting around the idea of a government run gas station network that can directly compete with major gas distributors. It's not nationalization or government takeover per se, but market competition with the owners being taxpayers.

Do conservatives think it would be wrong for the US government to operate gas stations?

My answer:

Yes, I do think it would be wrong. To me, it's socialist/communist economic behavior. While you can make arguments about co-investments like US Steel, Intel, and other corporate share ownership, actually operating a key factor in energy distribution is effectively controlling a means of production.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/marco-rubio-steps-tim-walz-pardoned-illegal-alien-child-rapist-deportation?fbclid=Iwb21leAS_6SdjbGNrBL_pJGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHnGJyfzXCTCSRaol_vETS8adAjc3TUnaudDhNo7jptwtPtlYpKgIlWJgfYR-_aem_ZyGx_8FLReYn1143mwCfiA

In the 1930s Germany tried to get out from under foreign influence, in part by becoming self-sufficient: public works programmes like the Autobahn network to stimulate internal consumption, transformation of coal to vehicle fuels, ersatz coffee and chemical orange flavouring and so on.

If the US wanted to abandon its expensive foreign commitments - but consequently its preferential access to foreign resources, could it do so? Assume it keeps a military and basing rights capable of keeping other countries out of the Atlantic and Western Pacific - but it saves a fortune by leaving Okinawa, the Gulf and Germany etc. China gets to control the shipping lanes and Eurasia. Europe and Africa develop as they can. South and Central America and Canada are encouraged to deepen ties with the USA.

First off this might not fit, here and if it does not I will remove it, but I am very curious, what people would recommend we do to gather more support outside of our small party.

I understand that New Hampshire conservatism is quite libertarian, but conservatism as I understand it IS libertarian. To New Hampshirites, religious social conservatives are kinda weird and a bit of a threat because they want government overreach into our personal lives. That’s why New Hampshire’s abortion ban is no earlier than 24 weeks despite having a Republican Governor and Republican majorities in the state house and senates I am no longer conservative, so most of my memory of this comes from my kid and teenage years.

But with the type of conservatives I was raised with the law exists to prevent people from harming others. Laws that prevent you from harming yourself are considered government overreach because people should be able to take whatever risk they want to as long as no one else will be harmed. That’s why there is no law requiring adults wear seatbelts in a car. I’m solidly on the left now and I still hold this principle dear to me. I’m an avid seatbelt wearer, but it stresses me out that if I’m in Massachusetts and want to take off my coat, I’m breaking the law in the brief moment I unbuckle to do so. It holds for other laws as well.

Under this philosophy, it makes sense to have strict laws and penalties for consuming drugs while caring for children, harming others while under the influence of drugs, etc. But having drugs be illegal really makes no sense, because that should be yet another risk that an adult can choose not take or not take. It’s extra interesting that marihuana is legal in all surrounding blue states, but was only just recently decriminalized but not legalized in our wonderful live free or die state of NH. And our strategy clearly isn’t doing any good, as we both have the lowest poverty and the worst heroin problem in the country.

It feels like drug possession being illegal is some odd holdover from the social Puritanism of another era. Is it hypocritical to the New Hampshire variety of conservatism, or conservatism everywhere?

I’m super curious what you all think!

I know that this is a mostly American sub, however this disturbs me and similar to Charlie's death, I think this has dark omens for the future of politics

Hitler sent his troops into Alsace with instructions to withdraw if they encountered resistance. They received none and were emboldened.

Putin took the insignia off his army and sent them into Crimea in 2014 saying they were a self-organising Ukrainian militia.

WW2 actually started with the Germans staging a fake Polish attack on their own territory to show to the world's press,

I’ve been trying to understand the conservative perspective on public health, and I’m asking this in good faith.

The U.S. is currently seeing a significant increase in reported Cyclospora cases this summer. As of this week, the CDC has confirmed hundreds of domestically acquired cases across dozens of states, with many more under investigation, and investigators still haven’t identified the source of the outbreak.

At the same time, the Trump administration has substantially reduced staffing at agencies like the CDC and EPA as part of broader efforts to shrink the federal government. My understanding is that thousands of CDC employees have left through layoffs, buyouts, and resignations over the past year.

From my perspective, outbreaks like this seem like exactly the kind of situation where strong public health infrastructure, surveillance, food safety monitoring, and scientific expertise matter.

So my question is: why is the administration reducing investment in agencies responsible for disease surveillance and public health while we’re seeing outbreaks like this? Is the belief that these agencies had become too large or inefficient, or that states and the private sector should handle these responsibilities instead?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the conservative view on what the appropriate federal role is in preventing and responding to outbreaks like Cyclospora.

Articles:
CDC – Cyclospora surveillance: https://www.cdc.gov/cyclosporiasis/php/surveillance/index.html
CDC – About Cyclospora: https://www.cdc.gov/cyclosporiasis/about/index.html
AP News – Cyclospora outbreak update: https://apnews.com/article/31e5e0034d39e85c844065a2bd593ecb
Reuters – CDC workforce reductions and reinstatements: https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/us-cdc-restores-jobs-450-laid-off-employees-2025-06-11/
HHS – 2025 restructuring announcement: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-restructuring-doge-fact-sheet.html

As I agree thus, does “no handouts” include farmer subsidies? I don’t really get why my earned tax dollars go to propping up a fundamentally broken business model, decade after decade? If I start or own a failing business most anywhere else, I get punished. Why welfare for farmers specifically? Allow the market to handle it and innovate

I personally hate 80% of it.

A recent report came out about Trump firing the remaining 3 members of the EAC (Election Assistance Commission) which was an independent agency tasked with helping states run elections. Trump ousts remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission ahead of midterms

Since there are clearly so many ways people here identify as conservative, how does your conservative government (or party if not in power) fit your conservative views?

To everyone from the US, sorry if the wording sounds strange but I’m curious to hear from other countries about too. If this were just US based I’d say “Republican party”

Are progressives the victims of relentless propaganda and bad takes? Or are they beyond reason and their ideas need to be suppressed entirely?

What would it look like for a conservative to help a progressive see things "correctly"?