4 ms·

Serious question: what does a neutral view on immigrants look like? How does one take a view on immigrants without aligning with one side of the debate? You br

Serious question: what does a neutral view on immigrants look like? How does one take a view on immigrants without aligning with one side of the debate? You bring up a valid point in identifying the authors of this study. I'm just not sure what a truly neutral position in that debate would look like.

jdavis703 7y ago
There's a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt out there. Everything from "immigrants commit crimes" to "I work at companies that treat H1Bs terribly" to "no country has ever had open borders." At the end of the day many of these statements are provable or disprovable by facts, which is what a neutral position would look like.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  I agree that those statements are demonstrably false, but you’d be immediately accused of pro-immigration sentiment by elements of the right for taking such a position, which is why even discussing this issue is difficult. Facts no longer drive these conversations, and it’s pretty unsettling to watch.
joshuaheard 7y ago
Maybe if the study was not published by a pro-immigrant think tank, but was published by a think tank focused on, say, economics or social policy.
- komali2 7y ago
  But, think tanks exist to explore specific issues within their realm of concern. An "economic think tank" that did a bunch of research into, and then published a study on, immigration, would then be an "economic and immigration think tank." Frankly I'm annoyed that an organization can't declare itself "concerned with" a subject without people leveling claims of bias. Why would they do the study if they didn't care about studying immigration? If there's an issue with the research, find it and argue against it. But "they're biased," nah, I don't bite.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  In my experience, most articles that advocate for a particular action or policy make unstated assumptions about metaphysics / ethics. I'm not sure economics or social-policy articles would be an exception. For example: It's pretty uncontroversial to say that ${N} persons cross the Mexican-to-American border, not at official government checkpoints, annually. It's slightly more controversial to claim that ${M} of them are doing so illegally, because matters of law are complicated and matters of judgment. But when we get to actual policy decisions, we have competing concepts of what's good and worth attempting. For example, how do we balance competing concepts of justice? How do we balance justice and mercy? What's the proper balance for the U.S. government regarding protecting immigrants vs. current residents? Personally, I haven't found any good, reasoned way to argue about those metaphysical issues. I have personal preferences, and I know which things rub me the wrong way more than others. But in the end it seems like a matter of taste, so I'm not even sure it's worth trying to persuade others.
  - logicchains 7y ago
    >Personally, I haven't found any good, reasoned way to argue about those metaphysical issues. I have personal preferences, and I know which things rub me the wrong way more than others. But in the end it seems like a matter of taste, so I'm not even sure it's worth trying to persuade others. One approach is to try and adopt a system that has a minimal amount of assumptions and inconsistencies. This is the approach taken by economics. The core idea is that, if somebody is willing to exchange their labour/product of their labour for something, then they demonstrably value that thing more at that time than all other possible things for which they could have exchanged their labour/product of their labour. A surprisingly large body of reasoning is built upon this and little else. This is why most economists, mainstream or otherwise, support immigration. The immigrant wants it, their employer wants it and their landlord wants it, otherwise none of them would have agreed to it, so preventing this arrangement prevents them from realising their top preferences at that time, forcing them to settle for a less desired outcomes. What about the fact it might put a local out of a job? That argument requires some kind of assumptions that how much somebody "deserves" a job depends on where they're born; it's hard to justify without adding extra axioms, and certainly not self-evident (many people argue it's unjust to descriminate based on place of birth). Similarly, what about the argument that immigration destroys cultural homogeneity? This requires some kind of assumptions to justify why cultural homogeneity is desirable, which are hard to even specify, as it requires first clearly defining the concept of culture.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> Serious question: what does a neutral view on immigrants look like? How does one take a view on immigrants without aligning with one side of the debate? Maybe we should distinguish between an article being neutral vs. a person holding a neutral view. IMO, an article would be neutral if it provided the strongest arguments from all relevant viewpoints, including supporting data. I'm not sure what a neutral view would be, though. Aside from taking a stance of agnosticism / uncertainty, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
Shivetya 7y ago
to be honest, I read CATO for a view that seems to favor issues with both sides of the issue. Example, they are very quick to point out that crime does not increase with immigration, illegal or not, nor are the same used to smuggle drugs. However they are quick to support the idea that illegal immigrants to this country should be benefits of the welfare state. What it all comes down to is that like the rest of the world, the US needs to manage its influx of those seeking to immigrate here and yes, it should be able to reject any number of them.

jdavis703 7y ago

There's a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt out there. Everything from "immigrants commit crimes" to "I work at companies that treat H1Bs terribly" to "no country has ever had open borders." At the end of the day many of these statements are provable or disprovable by facts, which is what a neutral position would look like.

save_ferris 7y ago
I agree that those statements are demonstrably false, but you’d be immediately accused of pro-immigration sentiment by elements of the right for taking such a position, which is why even discussing this issue is difficult. Facts no longer drive these conversations, and it’s pretty unsettling to watch.

joshuaheard 7y ago

Maybe if the study was not published by a pro-immigrant think tank, but was published by a think tank focused on, say, economics or social policy.

komali2 7y ago
But, think tanks exist to explore specific issues within their realm of concern. An "economic think tank" that did a bunch of research into, and then published a study on, immigration, would then be an "economic and immigration think tank." Frankly I'm annoyed that an organization can't declare itself "concerned with" a subject without people leveling claims of bias. Why would they do the study if they didn't care about studying immigration? If there's an issue with the research, find it and argue against it. But "they're biased," nah, I don't bite.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
In my experience, most articles that advocate for a particular action or policy make unstated assumptions about metaphysics / ethics. I'm not sure economics or social-policy articles would be an exception. For example: It's pretty uncontroversial to say that ${N} persons cross the Mexican-to-American border, not at official government checkpoints, annually. It's slightly more controversial to claim that ${M} of them are doing so illegally, because matters of law are complicated and matters of judgment. But when we get to actual policy decisions, we have competing concepts of what's good and worth attempting. For example, how do we balance competing concepts of justice? How do we balance justice and mercy? What's the proper balance for the U.S. government regarding protecting immigrants vs. current residents? Personally, I haven't found any good, reasoned way to argue about those metaphysical issues. I have personal preferences, and I know which things rub me the wrong way more than others. But in the end it seems like a matter of taste, so I'm not even sure it's worth trying to persuade others.
- logicchains 7y ago
  >Personally, I haven't found any good, reasoned way to argue about those metaphysical issues. I have personal preferences, and I know which things rub me the wrong way more than others. But in the end it seems like a matter of taste, so I'm not even sure it's worth trying to persuade others. One approach is to try and adopt a system that has a minimal amount of assumptions and inconsistencies. This is the approach taken by economics. The core idea is that, if somebody is willing to exchange their labour/product of their labour for something, then they demonstrably value that thing more at that time than all other possible things for which they could have exchanged their labour/product of their labour. A surprisingly large body of reasoning is built upon this and little else. This is why most economists, mainstream or otherwise, support immigration. The immigrant wants it, their employer wants it and their landlord wants it, otherwise none of them would have agreed to it, so preventing this arrangement prevents them from realising their top preferences at that time, forcing them to settle for a less desired outcomes. What about the fact it might put a local out of a job? That argument requires some kind of assumptions that how much somebody "deserves" a job depends on where they're born; it's hard to justify without adding extra axioms, and certainly not self-evident (many people argue it's unjust to descriminate based on place of birth). Similarly, what about the argument that immigration destroys cultural homogeneity? This requires some kind of assumptions to justify why cultural homogeneity is desirable, which are hard to even specify, as it requires first clearly defining the concept of culture.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

> Serious question: what does a neutral view on immigrants look like? How does one take a view on immigrants without aligning with one side of the debate? Maybe we should distinguish between an article being neutral vs. a person holding a neutral view. IMO, an article would be neutral if it provided the strongest arguments from all relevant viewpoints, including supporting data. I'm not sure what a neutral view would be, though. Aside from taking a stance of agnosticism / uncertainty, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Shivetya 7y ago

to be honest, I read CATO for a view that seems to favor issues with both sides of the issue. Example, they are very quick to point out that crime does not increase with immigration, illegal or not, nor are the same used to smuggle drugs. However they are quick to support the idea that illegal immigrants to this country should be benefits of the welfare state. What it all comes down to is that like the rest of the world, the US needs to manage its influx of those seeking to immigrate here and yes, it should be able to reject any number of them.