My views have changed from reading Tangle, Isaac, just as yours have changed as a result of writing it. Strangely, writing Tangle seems to have nudged you to the right, while reading it has moved me to the left.
One would expect our political spectrum to be a bell curve with most tending to fall near the middle. It's not: It is two bell curves, side by side, with almost no one in the middle.
I also want to let you know how much I love your response to the question about how your views have changed as a result of writing Tangle. It was what made me decide today to become a paying subscriber, so that I could participate in civil discussions in which a wide range of viewpoints can be heard.
This was perhaps the most impactful edition of Tangle for me since I started receiving the newsletter. I really appreciate your willingness to waver, consider all the arguments, and change. I personally have tried to pride myself on being able to do that, but am recognizing that maybe I'm not as malleable as I thought. Reading Tangle is helping me shift.
There's no better instance of that than my views on conservative complaints of discrimination and censorship. As someone who considers himself a non-traditional leftist (in many ways further left than the left, but in many ways more moderate), I was one of the ones scoffing at online cries of discrimination due to conservative leaning political beliefs.
And while I still think a lot of those cries are blown out of proportion (sometimes intentionally) and pale in comparison to the discrimination people in minority groups experience on a daily basis, I am coming to empathize with the fear some conservatives feel. I would like to see solid data on people actually losing their jobs unfairly because of their political beliefs, but I can certainly recognize that there are times I stop myself from tweeting for fear of being on the wrong side of the angry liberal mob, even considering myself a liberal!
When the cries of censorship came up after the social media crackdown in the wake of Jan 6, I mostly ignored them, thinking that dangerous voices did need to be limited in order to quell anger fueled by misinformation. And I'm still not entirely sure I've changed my mind on that. But it's an incredibly nuanced issue and we really need to listen to each other in order to come up with practical, fair solutions.
> the employer pays them less to compensate themselves for the risk of hiring them.
This seems like a selective summary of the effect it's talking about. On the one hand, yes, employers are taking on some risk of violating the law and getting punished. So that's a cost that's going to translate into lower wages. But on the other hand, illegal immigrants have fewer options than legal residents and less negotiating power, so employers can pay them less and pocket the difference.
The reason I think it's important to look at that complete picture, is that a lot of people have very different reactions to the different parts of it. People who think of labor markets as exploitative in general (many Americans? most Americans?) tend to see lower wages for illegal immigrants as especially explotative. People who get angry at lawbreakers tend to get especially angry at lawbreakers who profit from it. That can paint employers in a very bad light, and if you combine that with the (also common?) view that it hurts legal residents too by driving down their wages, you get a realy poignant argument for stronger immigration enforcement. A lot of people make that argument.
Of course, Nowrasteh is pro-immigration, so it's not exactly his job to bring up all the points that anti-immigration folks like to make. I guess it's a tradeoff between acknowledging your opponents' arguments and getting in front of them, vs spending more time on your own arguments and fleshing them out.
While I like what Biden's immigration reform plan would accomplish, some additions are needed if it is to pass with bipartisan support. I see three major components needed for comprehensive immigration reform, only two of which are solidly addressed in Biden's proposal. The plan addresses the need to provide legal status and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already here. It also eases restrictions and speeds up the processing of immigration applications so that legal immigration becomes a viable option for more of those who are seeking to make their home in our country. However, if we are hoping to gain bipartisan support, the proposed legislation will also need to address Republican concerns about enforcement. I think one of the best ways to do this would be through requiring employers to verify the legal status of all their employees. (This would be implemented after reasonable and specified grace period to allow time for all undocumented immigrants currently in the country to register and obtain work permits). Once this requirement becomes operative, employers would face stiff penalties (possibly including criminal prosecution in some cases) for employing undocumented workers. If migrants were made aware that jobs will not be available without legal documentation, this consideration, along with the easing of the process of legal immigration, would be a strong motivation to follow the legal procedures to enter our country.
I am embarrassed to say that I never knew the Right's position on immigration emphasized enforcement measures for employers. Is this because I have been caught in my own bubble which Tangle is thankfully helping me pop, or is it because the Right has spent more time talking up more incendiary points on the topic?
Either way, I'm shocked to find myself agreeing so much with the Right on this. People aren't immigrating to the US for the weather. They're looking for jobs. And if anyone is serious about protecting American jobs, then making sure employers aren't exploiting immigrants to save on costs has got to be a key part of the plan.
I'm also pleasantly surprised to see the Right calling for more legal paths to immigrate. Make it easier come here legally, not harder! We're an aging population, we need our workforce to be complimented by immigration.
Undocumented immigrants that are here should be able to work towards citizenship, more pathways to legal immigration should be opened, and employers should be stiffly punished if they're caught underpaying their employees (of any immigration status!).
If these are indeed major parts of a Republican immigration policy, it's a damn shame they've let it get drowned out by fear mongering and xenophobia. I'm glad I have Tangle to open my eyes to these arguments.
My views have changed from reading Tangle, Isaac, just as yours have changed as a result of writing it. Strangely, writing Tangle seems to have nudged you to the right, while reading it has moved me to the left.
One would expect our political spectrum to be a bell curve with most tending to fall near the middle. It's not: It is two bell curves, side by side, with almost no one in the middle.
I also want to let you know how much I love your response to the question about how your views have changed as a result of writing Tangle. It was what made me decide today to become a paying subscriber, so that I could participate in civil discussions in which a wide range of viewpoints can be heard.
This was perhaps the most impactful edition of Tangle for me since I started receiving the newsletter. I really appreciate your willingness to waver, consider all the arguments, and change. I personally have tried to pride myself on being able to do that, but am recognizing that maybe I'm not as malleable as I thought. Reading Tangle is helping me shift.
There's no better instance of that than my views on conservative complaints of discrimination and censorship. As someone who considers himself a non-traditional leftist (in many ways further left than the left, but in many ways more moderate), I was one of the ones scoffing at online cries of discrimination due to conservative leaning political beliefs.
And while I still think a lot of those cries are blown out of proportion (sometimes intentionally) and pale in comparison to the discrimination people in minority groups experience on a daily basis, I am coming to empathize with the fear some conservatives feel. I would like to see solid data on people actually losing their jobs unfairly because of their political beliefs, but I can certainly recognize that there are times I stop myself from tweeting for fear of being on the wrong side of the angry liberal mob, even considering myself a liberal!
When the cries of censorship came up after the social media crackdown in the wake of Jan 6, I mostly ignored them, thinking that dangerous voices did need to be limited in order to quell anger fueled by misinformation. And I'm still not entirely sure I've changed my mind on that. But it's an incredibly nuanced issue and we really need to listen to each other in order to come up with practical, fair solutions.
I'm glad I've got Tangle to help me listen.
> the employer pays them less to compensate themselves for the risk of hiring them.
This seems like a selective summary of the effect it's talking about. On the one hand, yes, employers are taking on some risk of violating the law and getting punished. So that's a cost that's going to translate into lower wages. But on the other hand, illegal immigrants have fewer options than legal residents and less negotiating power, so employers can pay them less and pocket the difference.
The reason I think it's important to look at that complete picture, is that a lot of people have very different reactions to the different parts of it. People who think of labor markets as exploitative in general (many Americans? most Americans?) tend to see lower wages for illegal immigrants as especially explotative. People who get angry at lawbreakers tend to get especially angry at lawbreakers who profit from it. That can paint employers in a very bad light, and if you combine that with the (also common?) view that it hurts legal residents too by driving down their wages, you get a realy poignant argument for stronger immigration enforcement. A lot of people make that argument.
Of course, Nowrasteh is pro-immigration, so it's not exactly his job to bring up all the points that anti-immigration folks like to make. I guess it's a tradeoff between acknowledging your opponents' arguments and getting in front of them, vs spending more time on your own arguments and fleshing them out.
While I like what Biden's immigration reform plan would accomplish, some additions are needed if it is to pass with bipartisan support. I see three major components needed for comprehensive immigration reform, only two of which are solidly addressed in Biden's proposal. The plan addresses the need to provide legal status and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already here. It also eases restrictions and speeds up the processing of immigration applications so that legal immigration becomes a viable option for more of those who are seeking to make their home in our country. However, if we are hoping to gain bipartisan support, the proposed legislation will also need to address Republican concerns about enforcement. I think one of the best ways to do this would be through requiring employers to verify the legal status of all their employees. (This would be implemented after reasonable and specified grace period to allow time for all undocumented immigrants currently in the country to register and obtain work permits). Once this requirement becomes operative, employers would face stiff penalties (possibly including criminal prosecution in some cases) for employing undocumented workers. If migrants were made aware that jobs will not be available without legal documentation, this consideration, along with the easing of the process of legal immigration, would be a strong motivation to follow the legal procedures to enter our country.
I couldn't agree more -- I enjoy Tangle for the same reasons you enjoy writing it!
I am embarrassed to say that I never knew the Right's position on immigration emphasized enforcement measures for employers. Is this because I have been caught in my own bubble which Tangle is thankfully helping me pop, or is it because the Right has spent more time talking up more incendiary points on the topic?
Either way, I'm shocked to find myself agreeing so much with the Right on this. People aren't immigrating to the US for the weather. They're looking for jobs. And if anyone is serious about protecting American jobs, then making sure employers aren't exploiting immigrants to save on costs has got to be a key part of the plan.
I'm also pleasantly surprised to see the Right calling for more legal paths to immigrate. Make it easier come here legally, not harder! We're an aging population, we need our workforce to be complimented by immigration.
Undocumented immigrants that are here should be able to work towards citizenship, more pathways to legal immigration should be opened, and employers should be stiffly punished if they're caught underpaying their employees (of any immigration status!).
If these are indeed major parts of a Republican immigration policy, it's a damn shame they've let it get drowned out by fear mongering and xenophobia. I'm glad I have Tangle to open my eyes to these arguments.