tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post124214601357561903..comments2024-03-18T07:36:28.100-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: Even More Against Immigration PhariseesThomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-5083734511276960922010-04-28T14:25:54.282-04:002010-04-28T14:25:54.282-04:00Some good points, but I think you're missing t...Some good points, but I think you're missing the overall thrust. That's probably my fault, so I'll try to clarify:<br /><br />You say that I don't spend much time on the internal validity of Krugman's hypothesis, but that's not true: the whole point of these posts is to show that the position Krugman defended is every bit as nativist as the one he criticized. By writing in response to Krugman I've framed my argument in way that looks like a personal attack, but my point is intended to be broader than that, and to point out that there is a huge gap in the ethics of politics of basically everyone in the country. You cannot simultaneously say that nativism is bad but then insist that it's fine to reserve aid for natives and exclude all others. I think I've been clear enough that my criticism isn't partisan, since I blame the GOP for doing the same thing (albeit less hypocritically).<br /><br />In other words, you're right: my goal absolutely is to point out the inconsistency and dishonesty (intentional or not) in Krugman's argument. You suggest that this sort of criticism is not appropriate. Why not? <br /><br />So it doesn't matter to me whether Krugman's empirical claims are true. It could be that Democrats feel more conflicted than Republicans. (Just to clarify, I never said they didn't, and have no reason to think it isn't true.) But so what? That doesn't change the fact that Krugman's position is just as nativist as those he criticizes.<br /><br />Krugman's positive assertion comes in defense of a normative argument, and I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in that argument, and the very real ethical problems that underlay it. So "testing" the claim in the manner you describe (by looking at the votes of legislators) doesn't help us at all.<br /><br />As for other criticisms... Dr. Oatley criticizes me all the time for all sorts of things, and very few of them end up on the blog. That's basically his job. The previous Anon poster agreed with me that Krugman's position was nativist. This is a blog; I don't expect everything I write to be accurate, and I don't mind getting criticism. My goal is to generate reasonable interesting discussion, and to learn from others. I expect that to involve criticism of things I write, and I'm fine with that.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-76405467060890197802010-04-28T09:30:52.182-04:002010-04-28T09:30:52.182-04:00We can’t directly measure “people torn between mor...We can’t directly measure “people torn between more and less immigration” because people haven’t been asked this question, and even if they were asked this question, they might lie about their response. Therefore, we have to measure it in other ways. One indirect measure is how democratic and republican elected officials vote on illegal immigration-related issues or issues that effect illegal immigrants. Another is the types of people that democratic and republican citizens vote for. If more dems. than repubs. vote for legislation that is kinder to illegal immigrants in the U.S. and if more dems. than repubs. citizens vote for candidates that support policies that are more kinder to illegal immigrants in the U.S., then I would think Krugman’s hypothesis is more right than wrong. I don’t have evidence to test the hypothesis, but it seems more plausible than what you make it seem. You don’t seem to be very interested in resolving this issue in a scientific way. Instead, you seem more interested in establishing Krugman's dishonesty and how is arguments are predominantly driven by political (Left) ideology. The quality of your blog posts (assuming it’s by an aspiring academic) should not be a function of trying to achieve the above based on what someone wrote on a blog post, regardless if it’s by a Nobel winner. I’m confident that Krugman would muster significant theoretical and empirical support for his hypothesis if he wanted to write a paper on it. By focusing more on personal attacks, you don’t spend much time on the internal and external validity of Krugman’s hypothesis and ways to scientifically test it. The personal attacks also make it hard to follow the logic of your arguments as well as what empirical evidence would support them and would not support the arguments that you have problems with. I see that a previous Anonymous poster, Oatley, and Drezner had similar problems in some of your past posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com