Main Page Contact Register Log In

I think the immigration question is ill-posed. Empirical studies show that something happens. They don't show why something happens. At best, the empirical studies provide data which you can use to create hypotheses to later test. A question that asks why an empirical study shows something is asking for pure speculation, not for knowledge or reasoning (unless you want the respondent to answer based on the result of other studies to which you are not referring).

Worse yet, the question includes the weasel word "often". Since "often" can be less than 50%, one possible speculation which answers the question as asked would be "immigration is harmful to natives, but the data has a lot of noise and confounding factors".

Finally, "immigration" is itself a slanted term. Actual political controversies surrounding "immigration" are not about immigration in general; they are about specific subgroups of immigration. Data that is actually about immigration in general often won't apply to them, and are often part of a pro-immigration motte-and-bailey where the motte is "immigration is good" and the bailey is "the particular kind of immigration I am talking about is good".

Frame, by subgroups I mean the groups which are political footballs, which are generally illegal aliens, Mexicans (which overlaps a lot with illegal aliens), and H1Bs. These also happen to fit the unskilled and skilled division, but that's not all that it's about.
Replies (0)

yes, I am asking about the results from other studies and from standard theories that explain the disparity often found between empirical results and common sense. By subgroups, I assume you're referring to skilled vs unskilled labor. The questions weren't meant to be perfect; I'd say the negotiation question allows for the greatest leeway in possible answers. But there is going to be a huge gap between an educated response and an uneducated one on these issues and they are the sorts of problems politics does have to tackle.
Replies (0)