Q Discussion 2: review your Discussion 1 feedback, read more of the assigned readings, and develop your argument more for a second discussion post. Thesis: By restricting flows of immigrants, government can focus on the quality of immigrants. • Prompt 1: A good example of this point is that Asian Americans are hyper-selected. • Prompt 2: Opponents might argue this would lead to discriminatory laws. However, this rests upon the questionable assumption that Congress might intend for whites to become a minority in the U.S. • Prompt 3: Opponents often argue that restrictive immigration laws are “un-American” as President Johnson did (see Valdez in 50 years). In isolation, they might be correct. But if we look at all the evidence, we can see that naturalization ceremonies generate social solidarity (see Aptekar) and not all immigrants want to regularize their status (see Bylander). Debate: review your Discussion 2 feedback, review the assigned readings to see what more you can use to build your debate (you can use more prompts), write out a script with your full argument (consider the organization of ideas so that the flow logically). Then go to VT, find the slide for your group number, audio record your debate. (script to read on VT recording): We are debating whether a country should have open borders or restricted flows immigration. But what exactly does that mean? Of course this issue is complex. Is it possible to effectively control the flow of immigrants into a country? What are the consequences of open borders? I would argue that restricting flows of immigration will result in a high quality population of immigrants who will fulfill the needs of the country. For instance, if we look at the Asian American population, broadly, we will see popular stereotypes of this group as highly educated. This is partly because they are hyper-selected as a result of the 1965 immigration laws. It is unclear if Congress and President Johnson attempted to make the country less white when they signed laws to get rid of “un-American” restrictions on immigration, but the result is that a lot of immigrants came from Asia and Latin America. Opponents of restrictive immigration laws might argue that they are discriminatory, but the government does not need to be concerned about that as long as they are controlling the border. Moreover, some may say that immigrants fill needed jobs and not all of them would want to regularize their status but just work these jobs temporarily. If they do not want to be part of naturalization ceremonies and social solidarity then there is no place for them in the country. In conclusion, this is really a debate about quality vs. quantity of immigrants and governments controlling borders. So I urge you, if you remember only one thing, to remember that we must pick the best of the best above other considerations about being fair or filling jobs.