3 ms·
I'm going to strongly disagree with you on one point here. If you use very inflammatory language, you need to accept a degree of responsibility it the discussi
by geebee 12y ago
I'm going to strongly disagree with you on one point here. If you use very inflammatory language, you need to accept a degree of responsibility it the discussion veers rapidly off topic.
PG chose to appy the phrase "anti-immigrant" to the people he disagrees with.
Keep in mind, there are people who support high levels of immigration (the US currently takes 1.2+ million immigrants a year), support a path to legalization for people already living here illegally, even support general skilled immigration. They simply don't see evidence for a specific shortage of high tech workers, and, as a result, oppose tinkering with the immigration system in a way designed to specifically increase the percentage of programmers who are immigrants. In my opinion, it's pretty appalling to call people like this "anti-immigrant". They should bristle at the accusation.
Also - the principle of charity is important, but you've got to admit that calling someone "anti-immigrant" is a serious accusation, kind of a smear.
- brandonhsiao 12y agoIn his first paragraph: American technology companies want the government to make immigration easier because they say they can't find enough programmers in the US. Anti-immigration people say that instead of letting foreigners take these jobs, we should train more Americans to be programmers. Who's right? It sounds to me that the word anti-immigration is simply a word he chose to literally mean "people who disagree with the aforementioned party that we should make immigration easier." It means much the same thing throughout the essay. What word would you suggest instead?
- geebee 12y agoI disagree with a number of things here. First off, I don't think that I am obliged to come up with a good term as a condition for objecting to a bad term. In other words, I don't think I need to make a good suggestion as a condition for saying that "anti-immigration people" is a very poor choice of phrase. I also think that your definition of the word anti-immigration isn't reasonable. There are so many ways to be in favor of immigration that don't involve specifically targeting programmers. I don't really agree that technology companies want to make immigration "easier" in some global sense. They want to be able to hire programmers from overseas (I tend to agree with PG that the "good" employers would be just as happy to hire free residents who can change jobs, though the "bad" employers clearly prefer the indentured nature of the visa and the control it gives them over the would-be immigrant). Regardless, tech companies don't necessarily want to make immigration easier for the millions of people living in the US illegally, or for people from traditionally underrepresented regions who have trouble getting a foothold because our system is based on family reunification. This particular objection is an important one, because the very narrow definition of this phrase carries a whiff of the argument by ambiguity. You defend the term "anti-immigration people" one way (people who see no reason to specifically tinker with the immigration system to increase the percentage of immigrants who are programmers), but then you get to call them "anti-immigration people" knowing full well that you have brought a much broader (and unwarranted) accusation against them. Why do you need a term or a label? Why not just explain the point of view that you disagree with (making a sincere effort to represent the argument at its strongest), and explain your disagreement?
- vproman 12y agoAs the people in question believe that the solution is to train more Americans to be programmers, there are a variety of terms that could be thought of: "pro-trainers," "pro-local labor," etc. Instead, the focus is on what their solution isn't.
- geebee 12y agoI'm unable to edit the above remark, so I'll have to leave a new comment. After re-reading the original post, I am obliged to point out that PG does not use the phrase "anti-immigrant" as I claimed, he uses the phrase "anti-immigration people." This was my mistake, and I apologize for the error. Calling someone "anti-immigrant" (directed at a person) is more serious than calling them "anti-immigration" (directed at a policy). This doesn't change the core of my argument - I still feel the label "anti-immigration people" is an unfair one and harms the level of discourse. But I do want to be clear about this again - PG did not use the phrase "anti-immigrant".