[dragonwriter]

> Given that the low-end rate has gone down significantly throughout the 3 decades that I have been alive, how do we on the left reason that immigration is not a factor?

Because we can point directly to the tax policy changes that are largely responsible, starting with the Reagan-era tax burden shift on to work.

And because we on the left don't deny that immigration is not a factor, but instead that immigration policy effects whether people who enter do it more to work and export the proceeds or to settle and participate and both sides of the ledger, and that present policy has been harmful in that regard. A particular way tl in which this is true is the production of multi-decade waiting lists for family-based immigration from Mexico, which both reduces attachment of lawful immigrants, drives remittances, and produces illegal immigration directly.

> Also related: I thought public resources and the labor market were the most central reasons for nations having immigration policies.

Xenophobia is probably historically the most central reason, but public resources and labor markets are the acceptable modern pretexts. But even when they are the genuine purposes, that doesn't mean policies are actually well adapted to them.

[extralego]

Thanks for this thoughtful response. I definitely feel like you get my struggle.

I do understand the impact of Reagan-era economic policies and don’t accept that America would be capable of thriving despite a lot of immigration.

But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated. Supply-and-demand of the labor market is super simple and it seems pretty obvious that immigration would end up being a scapegoat. I just realized I don’t have anything to say that because, despite understanding numerous economic causes for the lower wages, I can only reason that immigration adds fuel to the fire.

But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years. It’s nice that people care all of a sudden but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition. If you’re right and that’s the way it is, I wonder how we can actually solve this.

It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements. I mean, we have to do it some day. It seems to undermine everything we stand for.

[dragonwriter]

> But, I guess I don’t understand why this convo isn’t articulated.

In part, because the political “dialogue” in this country isn't a dialogue, it's a propaganda battle where on every issue it is a battle to control the framing, largely with the aim of mobilizing each sides base while alienating the other, not coming to some kind of common consensus.

In part, because the left viewpoint on the economics is not the dominant view of either major party; the (still, arguably barely) dominant faction of the Democratic Party is economically center-right.

> But for some reason people on the left seem to act like this contention doesn’t exist. They just talk about how terrible the border and ICE is; both of which have been awful for many years

Even given the preceding, that's not really true: the left (and Democrats more broadly) do offer much more specific policy criticisms than that, and those didn't all originate under this President. (Though under the immediate preceding one, those positions were often shared with the President though not the Congressional majority, see DACA/DREAM Act.) Obviously, they've become more intense and higher priority with a hostile administration engaging in policy more hostile to their desires.

> It’s nice that people care all of a sudden

People on the left don't care “all of a sudden”, though obviously the policy context has changed all of a sudden which has shifted the tone and focus of criticisms.

> but name-calling doesn’t address these rational claims of the opposition.

Electoral politics largely isn't about rational debate, and trying to make it so is often counterproductive, even if you are winning with the people that are listening for rational debate.

> It sounds like if we can just actually take the economics seriously for once then it would eliminate any decent ground to defend the immigration enforcements.

The left isn't against immigration enforcement so much as it is against the particular policies being enforced and the methods of enforcement.

But “decent ground” isn't, even if it should be, often what wins policy debates.