My devil's advocate argument would be that there is more to the public's skepticism than just data. It's tribal, cultural, and emotional. Although it's true that minds are resistant to change, it would be inaccurate to ignore the depth of this resistance by dismissing it as ignorance. Even with an impenetrable model, people would continu…
My devil's advocate argument would be that there is more to the public's skepticism than just data. It's tribal, cultural, and emotional. Although it's true that minds are resistant to change, it would be inaccurate to ignore the depth of this resistance by dismissing it as ignorance. Even with an impenetrable model, people would continue to advocate for "America First."
Furthermore, even though "build a wall around the welfare state" makes sense in theory, too many voters adore their benefits and don't care who foots the bill, making it an unpopular political strategy in reality. Voters are unlikely to support a policy that singles out immigrants for exclusion if they don't give a damn about who pays for it. Even though the logic is sound, it could worsen the situation by inciting a backlash (imagine charges of "unfairness" or "discrimination"). Politicians are aware of this and would prefer to accommodate it rather than propose a solution that might annoy voters.
Bryan lives in a bubble where all the immigrants he meets are nice and friendly. His kids were home schooled and even if they did go to the local school they’d be surrounded by nice, wealthy immigrants with perhaps a few handpicked poor families in attendance. His view on this would be radically different if he spent a few years living in (say) NYC next to one of those immigrant hotels that were opened up when the border was flooded. I’ve lived next to one - happy to share the address if one wants to run an experiment.
I don’t blame him, living in a bubble means your viewpoint is inherently biased. Mine would be biased too if I was a successful professor! But I do wish Bryan took the time to move out of the bubble into the real world. I’ve never lived in DC but I’m sure one could find a suitable immigrant-rich neighborhood there.
Fair point. Where you live shapes what you see, and Bryan’s lens might be polished by a cushy and selective bubble.
However, Bryan's argument, which is supported by statistics like DiMartino's, is more about immigrants' rights and economic role than it is about whether or not they are generally delightful. His argument still stands even if you live next to the noisiest hotel: low-skilled immigrants are at a net positive fiscal impact if benefits are reduced. He confronts the "net burden" fear head-on and isn't obliging to criticism, even though his solution - a "wall around the welfare state" - might seem like an ivory tower to someone trying to avoid chaos on the streets.
You’re right, though - stepping out of the bubble could sharpen his take. DC’s got plenty of immigrant-heavy spots, where he could see the unfiltered mix of hard work and hard edges. I’d wager he’d still argue for open borders, but he might tweak the rhetoric.
My devil's advocate argument would be that there is more to the public's skepticism than just data. It's tribal, cultural, and emotional. Although it's true that minds are resistant to change, it would be inaccurate to ignore the depth of this resistance by dismissing it as ignorance. Even with an impenetrable model, people would continue to advocate for "America First."
Furthermore, even though "build a wall around the welfare state" makes sense in theory, too many voters adore their benefits and don't care who foots the bill, making it an unpopular political strategy in reality. Voters are unlikely to support a policy that singles out immigrants for exclusion if they don't give a damn about who pays for it. Even though the logic is sound, it could worsen the situation by inciting a backlash (imagine charges of "unfairness" or "discrimination"). Politicians are aware of this and would prefer to accommodate it rather than propose a solution that might annoy voters.
Bryan lives in a bubble where all the immigrants he meets are nice and friendly. His kids were home schooled and even if they did go to the local school they’d be surrounded by nice, wealthy immigrants with perhaps a few handpicked poor families in attendance. His view on this would be radically different if he spent a few years living in (say) NYC next to one of those immigrant hotels that were opened up when the border was flooded. I’ve lived next to one - happy to share the address if one wants to run an experiment.
I don’t blame him, living in a bubble means your viewpoint is inherently biased. Mine would be biased too if I was a successful professor! But I do wish Bryan took the time to move out of the bubble into the real world. I’ve never lived in DC but I’m sure one could find a suitable immigrant-rich neighborhood there.
Fair point. Where you live shapes what you see, and Bryan’s lens might be polished by a cushy and selective bubble.
However, Bryan's argument, which is supported by statistics like DiMartino's, is more about immigrants' rights and economic role than it is about whether or not they are generally delightful. His argument still stands even if you live next to the noisiest hotel: low-skilled immigrants are at a net positive fiscal impact if benefits are reduced. He confronts the "net burden" fear head-on and isn't obliging to criticism, even though his solution - a "wall around the welfare state" - might seem like an ivory tower to someone trying to avoid chaos on the streets.
You’re right, though - stepping out of the bubble could sharpen his take. DC’s got plenty of immigrant-heavy spots, where he could see the unfiltered mix of hard work and hard edges. I’d wager he’d still argue for open borders, but he might tweak the rhetoric.