>A right-wing person makes a statement saying, "We need to stop allowing Muslims into this country to protect ourselves against terrorism"
>A liberal response is to say, "That is intolerant. You can't group all Muslims as terrorists. We need to be tolerant of people with different faiths"
That's a very good characterization of most liberal responses on this particular issue. It's a complete non-sequitur. The RW statement does not in any way imply that all Muslims are terrorists. The liberal response doesn't address the crux of the statement at all, it just impugns the character of the person who made it.
I don't think it is a non-sequitur as much as focusing on different concerns.
While it is true that the RW statement doesn't imply that all Muslims are terrorists, it does imply that it is ok to ban ALL Muslims if some are terrorists. The liberal position is that this is NOT ok; we feel that the cost of blocking innocent people from entering the country is not worth the cost of allowing some possible terrorists in.
The RW position is that the cost of innocent people being blocked from entering is worth paying to block the possible terrorists.
This is somewhat ironic, because the positions become reversed when talking about gun control; conservatives believe you shouldn't punish law abiding gun owners because some people use guns to hurt people, while liberals believe it is a fair price to pay.
This is actually one place where I diverge from the traditional liberal position; while I think some gun control is reasonable, I think we shouldn't punish gun owners unreasonably because some people can't be trusted with guns.
>While it is true that the RW statement doesn't imply that all Muslims are terrorists, it does imply that it is ok to ban ALL Muslims if some are terrorists. The liberal position is that this is NOT ok; we feel that the cost of blocking innocent people from entering the country is not worth the cost of allowing some possible terrorists in.
I'm about to speak one of the "heresies" that sama referred to in the third paragraph.
I don't believe there is a significant "cost" to barring immigration of low-skilled, poorly-educated people into the US. If fact, in my calculation, it costs us more than we gain by letting them in, considering that the number of jobs that the half of our citizenry with an IQ of 100 or below are capable of doing are shrinking.
I'm not without compassion for those people who want to come here. I don't blame them at all for wanting to. But my main priority is helping our own citizens (of any race, creed or color) who rightly view their future with trepidation. America has a huge number of huge problems, and I don't see how low-skilled, low-educated immigration addresses any of them. But I do see how it exacerbates some of them.
Unlike many people, I'm not moved by platitudes like "but we're a nation of immigrants!" or "diversity!" I think US immigration policy should be based on what benefits the US and its citizens, rather than other countries or their citizens. My position is essentially based on mathematics.
I would say that in about 80% of the instances where I've attempted to discuss this issue with liberals, they've offered not a shred of dispassionate reasoning, but reached straight for the old "but that's racist!" arrow in their quiver. They either can't or won't refute my reasoning, so they impugn my character instead.
I really enjoy the rare occasions where I can have a legitimate discussion on political issues with someone who disagrees with me, and who can discuss the issues without calling me names. But alas, those occasions are rare. That's why sama's article really resonated with me.
This one is a factual question which should be discussed openly. Shutting down the conversation doesn't change opinions, it just hardens them, drives them underground, and makes it clear that we do not tolerate open debate.
That said, the majority of studies that I have seen disagree with your calculation. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-ef... is typical. Even low skilled immigrants have a small but net positive effect on the net wealth of US citizens. But the effect is small, and there are some who are impacted negatively. Particularly among blacks and teenagers who have been displaced from bottom rung jobs by immigrants who are willing to work harder for less, and still feel lucky because their lives are better than where they came from.
Due to that I am happy with having relative open borders for immigration. But I can understand why others might be concerned.
>That said, the majority of studies that I have seen disagree with your calculation. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-ef.... is typical. Even low skilled immigrants have a small but net positive effect on the net wealth of US citizens.
I understand that reducing productivity costs will increase productivity, so unlimited immigration would make GDP go up. (And GDP does not factor in the costs of supporting increased numbers of unemployed people.) But this, from the study, strikes me as pure hand-waving:
>Moreover, immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers in U.S. labor markets. That means they do not compete for the same jobs and put minimal downward pressure on natives’ wages.
For the statement "they do not compete for the same jobs" to be even partially true, you would have to show me at least one job in the US that only immigrants do, and no natives do. It certainly would not be construction, or landscaping, or custodial work.
A flood of low-skilled, low-educated immigrants would benefit people like me, who they do not compete with for jobs, because it would make the services they provide cheaper for me.
But as you acknowledged, it does hurt the people whom they DO compete with, and I would argue that extends beyond blacks and teenagers, although that alone is enough for me.
Roughly half of the working population in the US has an IQ of 100 or below. These are the people upon whose well-being, I, personally, place a far higher priority than similar people who are currently not US citizens. That is what my position is premised upon. I am willing to forgo the extra GDP and cheaper lawncare so that their lives might be a little less difficult than they currently are.
The two arguments aren't exactly equivalent. Gun buyers are US citizens have a lot of rights and obligations from the government. Immigrants are not citizens and don't have any rights or obligations to fairness from the government. We already have very different rules for immigrants from different countries. A Canadian can get into the country much easier than other countries for example.
I don't personally support banning Muslims because the terrorism is so low it's not worth worrying about. But one could imagine if it got much higher and was a legitimate large threat. Then I would be completely ok with banning Muslims.
You might be correct that the country doesn't have a constitutional obligation to non-citizens (although courts have ruled that non-citizens do have SOME rights when they are in the country), I was saying the liberal position is that we SHOULD have obligations to all people of the world to be treated fairly.
>A liberal response is to say, "That is intolerant. You can't group all Muslims as terrorists. We need to be tolerant of people with different faiths"
That's a very good characterization of most liberal responses on this particular issue. It's a complete non-sequitur. The RW statement does not in any way imply that all Muslims are terrorists. The liberal response doesn't address the crux of the statement at all, it just impugns the character of the person who made it.