DISQUS

DISQUS Hello!  The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.

Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.

Matthew Tievsky's picture

Unregistered

Feeds

aliases

  • Matthew Tievsky
  • Matt Tievsky

Matthew Tievsky

3 months ago

in APPLYING FOR AN H-1B VISA THIS YEAR? KNOW ANYONE WHO IS? on Will Wilkinson
From the premise that the distribution of visas is an issue of justice, it does not follow that we must allow totally unrestricted immigration and naturalization. (E.g., I think all of us here would endorse restrictions upon immigrants' voting rights. I think what Will's primarily arguing against is using immigration law as a means of labor protectionism.) So whereas I agree you've made some points that support some restrictions upon immigration, you haven't defeated Will's major premise, which is merely that immigration restrictions MUST BE JUSTIFIED by legitimate concerns (including some you've alluded to).
1 reply
Not So Fast From the premise that the distribution of visas is an issue of justice,

You can stop right there, because there's no such thing as a recognized right to immigrate anywhere on earth, our aspiring Atticus Finch having pulled one from his suppository repository notwithstanding. Until you can demonstrate one of those, "cuz we said so!" is all the justification needed. The privilege of immigration is granted entirely at the discretion of the host nation. End of story.

3 months ago

in APPLYING FOR AN H-1B VISA THIS YEAR? KNOW ANYONE WHO IS? on Will Wilkinson
Your "answer" comes off as evasive because you toss back rhetorical questions and refer to a general "right to estabilsh criteria," which I'm not challenging. I'm asking very specifically:

Is there anything unjust about an American immigration policy of admitting only white people (not too different from what we've had in the past)?

I really can't tell your answer from your previous comment. Yes or no?
1 reply
Not So Fast No. I don't know how many ways you'd like me to say it. The only immoral immigration policy is one that is damaging to the interests of those people whose interests the government is charged with protecting - namely, the citizens of that country. Other than that, all bets are off. Repeat after me: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE. PERIOD.

3 months ago

in APPLYING FOR AN H-1B VISA THIS YEAR? KNOW ANYONE WHO IS? on Will Wilkinson
Not So Fast: "It's not an issue of any kind of justice. The government's responsibility is to it's own citizens, and 1.) it doesn't owe foreign nationals a Goddamn thing, and 2.) there is not now, and never has been, any right to enter a sovereign nation you are not a citizen of."

Apparently, then, you believe there's nothing immoral about, e.g., allowing only white people to immigrate.
1 reply
Not So Fast Apparently, then, you believe there's nothing immoral about, e.g., allowing only white people to immigrate.

Considering that every other society, from your local bridge club to the United Nations, reserves the right to establish criteria for admitting members and allowing use of their facilities, why would I? But what would be the point?

5 months ago

in The Perversity of Legacy on Will Wilkinson
Secession pre-dated Lincoln's inauguration, but the war did not begin until afterwardn (at Ft. Sumter) . Whatever the merits of the Civil War--and they are substantial (for freeing the slaves, not for preserving the unity of the state--wars for land are odious things)--it was largely a war of Lincoln's choosing, and it's that war that made him "great."

8 months ago

in One Night of Romance on Will Wilkinson
Well said.

8 months ago

in The Principles of Weisbergian Political Economy on Will Wilkinson
I'm pretty sure you're misreading the first passage. Will's not stating that's what he actually believes. Rather, Will's arguing that it is true if you accept Weisberg's logic.
1 reply
DMonteith The paragraph in the original post from which I quote begins, "The most obvious objection goes to the “hack” charge." I'm not sure how I'm to construe what follows as Weisberg's POV unless you and Will are both claiming that he objects to himself because he thinks he's a hack. Two sentences later, Will goes on to posit that govt. encouragement of home ownership is "more causally fundamental than other [ideas]" as a hypothetical point of agreement between Weisberg and himself that sets the stage for Weisberg's hackish contrast to Will's virtue. Again, no room that I can see for confusing Will's actual position here, but maybe I'm just slow or Will's just writing badly.

I'm not really interested in fighting straw men, so if you can clearly demonstrate that that's what I'm doing I'd appreciate it.

9 months ago

in New on Free Will: Polluting the Polls with Jason Brennan on Will Wilkinson
In theory, I agree with Brennan's argument. But I'm not sure that voters can reliably identify when they are incompetent to vote.

1 year ago

in Guest Workers and The Ultimate Liberal Aim on Will Wilkinson
Thank you, Will--a very valuable article that changes how I think about the issue of guest worker programs.

1 year ago

in On the Brain Drain Refrain on Will Wilkinson
Chris: "How can you have as much moral responsibility for people that you do not have as much political authority over?"

Maybe you don't. But my--and perhaps Will's--response is that you have the RIGHT to treat aliens as well as (if not better than) your countrymen. Thus, restricting immigration to effect protectionism is wrong.

2 years ago

in Douthat’s Populist Nationalism on Will Wilkinson
This gets us back to WW's original post. The point isn't that American policy must always equate aliens and citizens, in every context. The point is that it's particularly pernicious to coerce citizens, and justify that coercion on the ground that aliens are worth less than citizens.

In other words, it is objectionable to force citizens to discriminate against aliens on the ground that aliens are worth less.

2 years ago

in Douthat’s Populist Nationalism on Will Wilkinson
bjkad: "If you want a simpler argument: economic nationalism is just individual selfishness writ large. It is perfectly consistent."

No, because the nation isn't unanimous in its choice of immigration policy. E.g., a primary reason there's conflict over this issue is that some Americans want to employ certain immigrants and other Americans don't want to allow that, each group acting in its own self-interest.

2 years ago

in Douthat’s Populist Nationalism on Will Wilkinson
Is there a better argument than "everyone is doing it"? (And I don't think the U.S. did until the 20th century, FWIW.)

Mind you, I think you can support some immigration restrictions without basing them on the flawed logic I spelled out above. But not protectionist immigration restrictions.

2 years ago

in Douthat’s Populist Nationalism on Will Wilkinson
So once an alien becomes a citizen, I take it you value his welfare as much as anyone born a citizen. But until then, you value his welfare less...and that is how you justify not allowing him to become a citizen.

That's a catch-22, and it strikes me as morally perverse.
Returning? Login