Here's what the New York Times did not mention about leading economists' views on immigration
Here is Adam Davidson in the New York Times Magazine:
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition.
For some reason, the New York Times online article did not link to that poll, so readers who do not trust the New York Times -- or readers who might be interested in characteristics of the poll, such as sample size, representativeness, and question wording -- must track down the poll themselves.
It appears that the poll cited by Adam Davidson is here and is limited to the aggregate effect of high-skilled immigrants:
The average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of highly educated foreign workers were legally allowed to immigrate to the US each year.
But concern about immigration is not limited to high-skilled immigrants and is not limited to the aggregate effect: a major concern is that low-skilled immigrants will have a negative effect on the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. There was a recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists on that concern, and that poll found more than a single economist to agree with that proposition; fifty percent, actually:
---
Related: Here's what the New York Times did not mention about teacher grading bias
Related: Here's what the New York Times did not mention about the bus bias study
My comment at the New York Times summarizing this post, available after nine hours in moderation.
Genuine question: Why did you note this, but leave out part A of the low-skilled immigrant question, which says that the *average US citizen* would be better off? Part A clearly says:
"Question A: The average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of low-skilled foreign workers were legally allowed to enter the US each year."
The responses were overwhelmingly agreed with this:
http://i.imgur.com/chFyap1.png
I feel like it somewhat detracts from your argument to leave out that crucial part of the poll...
Hi Or-el,
Thank you for your question.
The blog post was part of a series illustrating that sources often omit relevant evidence that undercuts their claims. I thought that citing the omitted poll of responses to Question B was sufficient to illustrate Adam Davidson's omission of relevant information from the same source undercutting his claim that "the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics." I do not see how poll responses to Question A detracts from that claim.
I suppose that, on a more abstract level, my not citing poll responses to Question A was an omission of relevant evidence about the effect of immigration on US citizens. However, my post did not advocate for an immigration policy, so I did not think that it was necessary to cite all relevant evidence about the effect of immigration.
Even citing poll responses to Question A would still not reflect the set of relevant information that might be useful for discussing the full effects of immigration policy, such as the effect that immigration might have on the average person and the poorest persons in the countries that the immigrants leave.
I think that a more straightforward critique of Mr. Davidson's op-ed is not simply that Question B was not cited, but that poll responses to Question B undercut his claim that "the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics."
---
For what it's worth, the graph that you posted indicates that 52% of leading economists agreed with the statement in Question A. I'm not sure that 52% justifies the claim that respondents "overwhelmingly agreed" with the statement. I think that it would be accurate to state that respondents overwhelmingly did not disagree with the statement in Question A. [Note that the unweighted responses to Question A add up to only 89%, so if the missing 11% is missing from the agree or strongly agree category, then I think that "overwhelmingly agreed" is more justifiable.]