Question

Consider the following premises of a moral argument about immigration: 1. If high levels of immigration by low-skilled workers make it unlikely that we will fulfill our moral obligations to the poorest Americans, then we should reduce or stop such immigration. 2. Currently high levels of immigration by low-skilled workers do make it unlikely that we will fulfill our moral obligations to the poorest Americans. Which of the following conclusions would make this argument valid?

Answer 1

The valid conclusion from the premises is we should reduce or stop low-skilled immigration to meet our moral obligations to the poorest Americans, backed by economic reasoning that suggests such a reduction could lead to higher wages for domestic low-skilled workers.

Step-by-step explanation:

The conclusion that would make the moral argument about immigration valid, given the premises, is that we should reduce or stop the immigration of low-skilled workers. This is because if high levels of immigration by low-skilled workers indeed make it unlikely that we will fulfill our moral obligations to the poorest Americans (premise 1), and such immigration is currently causing this effect (premise 2), then logically the action to take is to reduce or stop this flow of immigration.

Moreover, economic analyses suggest that immigration by primarily low-skill workers could lead to a decrease in wages for domestic low-skill workers due to an increase in the labor supply. Reducing the number of low-skilled immigrants should then, in theory, shift the supply curve of low-skill labor back to the left, potentially raising the equilibrium wage for low-skill labor. However, the effects on wages of domestic low-skill workers might be relatively small due to existing minimum wage laws, the induced increase in demand for local goods and services, and possible changes in employers’ production techniques.