3 ms·

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.

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.