Want to use Sway with your students?

Student chat

Immigration & Labor Policy

Privacy Notice: Student names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect privacy. The audio is AI-generated narration, not the students’ voices. Emoji reactions are illustrative. Plain transcript.

The conversation, then the understanding quiz and the post-chat survey that followed it. All three are written out below in order.

01Chat transcript

immigration & labor policy
0:00
——

Guide

👋 Welcome, everyone!

Our topic is using immigration to fill vacant U.S. jobs. We'll be discussing this statement:

U.S. law should favor immigrants who are willing to take jobs that can’t be filled by Americans.

  • Samantha agrees with the statement.
  • Ethan disagrees with the statement.

My name is Guide, and I'm here to support your discussion. If you need anything, start your message with “Hey Guide” 🤓

Samantha

I believe that U.S law should should favor immigrants who are willing to take jobs that can't be filled by American's because this policy benefits both our economy and our communities. Immigrants also play a major role in keeping our economy running. Many industries like agriculture, construction, and health care are struggling to find enough workers. For example, a 2024 report from the American Immigration Council found that immigrants make up more than 25% of U.S constructions workers and over 50% of farmworkers. Without them, these industries would face serious labor shortages and rising costs. In health care, the Center for Migration Studies reported that immigrants account for nearly 18% of all health care workers, helping fill positions that many Americans are not taking. Favoring immigrants who are willing to take these jobs isn't about replacing American workers, it is about filling critical gaps so the economy can keep growing.

Ethan

I disagree with the statement that US law should favor immigrants who are willing to take jobs that can't be filled by Americans for two reasons. Firstly, I don't think that there are jobs that can't specifically be filled by Americans. I understand that these crucial industries that many immigrants work in are undesirable jobs, but I don't believe that they are jobs that can't be filled by Americans. Instead, the immigrants are cheaper labor, and the jobs are therefore seen as undesirable. If the jobs paid higher, they would be seen as desirable. Secondly, the law should also not favor any specific person over another because this can be looked at as unconstitutional. The country has a surplus of immigrants who are looking for work, so favoring new ones to come in a written law violates equal rights acts and could out the large percentage of Americans who do work in these industries in jeopardy as wages would decrease even more with a higher surplus of immigrants.

the next day

Samantha

I understand your concerns but I disagree. You said that there aren't jobs that Americans can't fill, but I think the issue is that some Americans just won't take certain jobs because of how difficult or demanding they are, not because they are being underpaid. These jobs usually require long hours, physical labor, and somethings even relocation. I know that most people prefer more stable and less demanding jobs. Immigrants often take these jobs because they are looking for any better opportunity to build a better life, not because the jobs are cheaper labor. You also mentioned that favoring immigrants could be unconstitutional or unfair, but the US law already gives preference to different groups of immigrants for different reasons. Such as family reunification, work skills, or humanitarian status. Creating policies that help fill important labor gaps does noto take away from American's rights; it helps the country function more efficiently. Finally, about the idea that immigrants lower wages, that is not always true in practice. Many of these jobs would go unfilled without Immigrant workers, would could hurt businesses and the economy overall. So instead of hurting Americans, this policy actually supports industries that we rely on every day.

Guide

Samantha, you argue that Americans "won't take" these jobs because they're difficult and demanding, not because of pay. But doesn't that contradict basic economic principles? If employers raised wages high enough, wouldn't even difficult and demanding jobs attract American workers?

Ethan's point seems to be that the real issue is wages — that these jobs appear "unfillable" only because employers can access cheaper immigrant labor instead of raising pay to market-clearing levels. How do you respond to that specific economic argument?

Samantha

I get where Ethan's argument comes from. But I don't think it is as simple as just raising wages. some of these industries operate on small/tight budgets. If employers increased pay, the prices of goods and services would also rise, which would end up hurting consumers and smaller businesses. It is not that they do not want to pay more, it is that many can't without major hits to their industry. Also, even when wages do go up, these jobs still tend to have problem attracting workers because they are physically exhausting, seasonal, and sometimes located in rural areas far from where most people live. So while higher pay might help a little, it wouldn't completely solve the issue. That is why having immigrants willing to take these jobs are so important.

a few days later

Ethan

I see your point, but I think it's important that we don't give legal leeway to new workers coming into the nation. Prioritizing legal residents or even illegals who are already in the nation is important because it ensures fair access to employment opportunities, and by emphasizing new workers who will inevitably become cheaper and cheaper, it creates a bubble and can hurt American workers looking for jobs. While the immigrants are filling important roles in the economy, the focus should be on improving job conditions for Americans, rather than giving legal advantages to new immigrants, which could cause resentment and tension in the market and nation, especially in industries where wages are already low and competition is high.

Samantha

I actually do agree with part of what you are saying. I think improving job conditions for Americans is important and I understand the concern about creating resentment or unfair advantages. Nobody wants a system that pushes out American workers or makes wages worse for us. But I still think allowing immigrants to fill open jobs can work alongside those improvements. I think the truth is, even if we raise wages and improve working conditions, some jobs just don't appeal to Americans. Having programs that bring in immigrants for those roles doesn't have to take away opportunities. It would stabilize jobs and improve our economy. If we set fair pay standards and limit exploitation, Americans and Immigrants can benefit. So I agree that fairness should be a priority, but I don't think that means we have to exclude immigrants who are more likely to fill those jobs than Americans. Maybe the US shouldn't necessarily "prioritize" immigrants, but I do think that allowing them to fill positions that can't be filled by us, is fair and important.

Guide

Ethan, Samantha just conceded significant ground — she's now saying maybe the U.S. shouldn't "prioritize" immigrants, just "allow" them to fill unfilled positions.

Does that address your concern about legal favoritism? Or do you think even allowing immigrants to fill these roles still creates the wage pressure and competition problems you mentioned?

Ethan

I understand the importance of immigrant labor, and we shouldn't prioritize more immigrants to fill the spots, but they should be allowed to work if their services are needed. This is the current system, and although it has its flaws, I believe that it is the right way to go about it. There should never be laws that favor one group of people over another in this country and having such laws violates a few different personal rights. I do think that cheap labor does cause issues regarding wages and competition, but not allowing them to fill these roles would also be a violation of the same rights I mentioned earlier.

Samantha

I see what you mean and I agree that the current system allows immigrants to work when their services are needed, which is a good thing. However, I do not see it as favoring one group over another ultimately violating their rights, it is more about responding to economic needs. When specific industries fail to fill jobs that are necessary, it makes sense for the US the slightly prioritize immigrants who are willing to take these jobs. It isn't about special treatment, it is more about keeping the economy stable in my opinion. I also agree that cheap labor can be a problem, but that is why these programs should come with fair wages. That way, immigrants aren't being exploited and Americans aren't being treated unfairly. Prioritizing immigrants when necessary could be practical.

Ethan

I disagree with you on the aspect of one group over another violating rights as each person under the bill of rights has the same freedoms, and the current market needs cheap labor, but prioritizing a group over another even for economic needs is unconstitutional. I do agree with you on the aspect of needing some people to fill spots in the industry, but there is a large workforce already and more people aren't needed, especially if it means legal favoritism.

Guide

Ethan, you keep asserting that prioritizing immigrants for specific job categories is "unconstitutional" — but can you explain which constitutional provision this would violate?

Congress has broad authority over immigration policy and routinely creates preference categories (skilled workers, family reunification, diversity visas, etc.). What makes employment-based preferences different or unconstitutional in your view?

Ethan

This would violate the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Influx and outflux of workers by congress doesn't give legal leeway to new immigrants but instead helps keep the economy balanced. None of these people are legally prioritized, but rather used to fill the needs through a merit system.

Samantha

I understand what you are saying about the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, but I do not think it apples the same way here. That law protects people who are already employed or seeking employment within the US, not people who are applying to enter the US through immigration. Immigration law has always worked differently. Congress has the power to create specific visa categories based on labor needs, skills, etc. And that is not seen an unconstitutional. I don't think we should ignore the fairness or give special treatment. I just think there is a shortage in a certain field and its reasonable for immigration policy to focus on helping to meet that need.

the next day

Ethan

That's a fair point; immigration and employment laws do operate in different ways. I do see where your fairness point comes in if immigration policy favors certain groups to heavily, it can raise ethical questions about equal opportunity on a global scale. Legally speaking your correct that targeting a shortage in a specific field through immigration policy is an ability of congress.👍

02Understanding quiz

Sway asks each student five questions about what their partner argued. These are the answers they gave.

Ethandisagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Samantha argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, what evidence did Samantha provide to support favoring immigrants for hard-to-fill U.S. jobs?
  • She argued that immigrant workers are vital in manufacturing, transportation, energy, construction, and health care sectors.
  • She cited reports showing immigrants make up over 25% of construction workers, over 50% of farmworkers, and 18% of health care workers.
  • She argued that immigrants have superior skills compared to Americans in sectors like agriculture and construction.
  • She mentioned anecdotal reports of labor shortages in sectors such as technology and education.

correct

When you argued that Americans would take these jobs if wages were increased, how did Samantha respond to that economic argument?
  • She maintained that raising wages would fully resolve labor shortages by attracting American workers, despite potential cost increases.
  • She said that many employers can't raise wages without hurting consumers, and that even with higher pay, physically demanding, seasonal, or...
  • She claimed that immigrants would decline higher wages since they prefer stability and community over pay, regardless of job demands.
  • She suggested that significant wage hikes would result in more government regulation and market distortions, making the policy unviable.

correct

At the midpoint of the discussion, when you argued that favoring immigrants could be unconstitutional and unfair, how did Samantha defend the idea that immigration preferences don't violate Americans' rights?
  • She noted that U.S. law already favors immigrants in categories like family reunification, work skills, and humanitarian status without violating rights.
  • She argued that the Constitution explicitly permits economic preferences for immigrants to address industry labor shortages.
  • She claimed that American constitutional rights cannot be constrained by immigration laws, regardless of policy outcomes.
  • She suggested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act governs the fairness of hiring practices, making constitutional objections...

correct

How did Guide challenge Samantha's reasoning when she said Americans "won't take" difficult jobs?
  • Guide questioned whether basic economic principles wouldn't predict that higher wages would attract American workers.
  • Guide argued that immigrants could fill any job regardless of wages or difficulty, making policy moot.
  • Guide suggested that Samantha was ignoring the constitutional limitations on Congress's power over immigration.
  • Guide claimed that Samantha's statistics were outdated and not relevant to current labor markets.

correct

Towards the end, Samantha refined her position on prioritizing immigrants. What nuance did she introduce to address fairness concerns?
  • She agreed that the U.S. shouldn't necessarily prioritize immigrants, but should allow them to fill unfilled roles while ensuring fair pay and...
  • She insisted that immigrants should always be placed above citizens in job allocation to guarantee every position is filled.
  • She proposed abolishing existing immigration work visas and relying entirely on domestic workers to address shortages.
  • She suggested that only immigrants with pre-arranged high-wage employment offers be admitted to fill critical roles.

correct

5 of 5 correct Next

Samanthaagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Ethan argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, why did Ethan argue that certain jobs appear unfillable by Americans?
  • Because these jobs require specialized skills that most Americans lack
  • Because immigrants are cheaper labor, and if wages were higher Americans would take them
  • Because cultural factors make Americans avoid these industries
  • Because government subsidies make these jobs unattractive to Americans

correct

What legal principle did Ethan invoke to oppose favoring immigrants in U.S. law?
  • He cited the Fifth Amendment's due process clause
  • He referenced Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
  • He argued it would violate equal rights acts by favoring one group over another
  • He pointed to restrictions in the Immigration and Nationality Act

correct

How did Ethan respond when Guide asked which legal provision prioritizing immigrants would violate?
  • He said no specific provision applied
  • He claimed it would infringe on the First Amendment
  • He stated it would violate the Equal Employment Opportunity Act
  • He referenced a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act

correct

Towards the end of the discussion, how did Ethan's stance on employment-based immigration preferences evolve?
  • He insisted such preferences remain unconstitutional
  • He argued that no more immigrant labor is needed at all
  • He shifted to focus solely on global ethical concerns
  • He conceded that Congress can legally target labor shortages through immigration policy

correct

When Guide challenged your economic argument, what did they suggest would solve labor shortages?
  • That employers are discriminating against American workers
  • That raising wages would attract American workers to these jobs
  • That consumer prices would automatically rise to correct the imbalance
  • That immigrants depress wages and thus reduce demand

correct

5 of 5 correct Next

03Post-chat survey

Last, both students rate the statement again and then rate a randomly sampled subset of our post-chat survey items. Like their transcripts, individual student opinions are never revealed to instructors.

Ethandisagrees

Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.

Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.

U.S. law should favor immigrants who are willing to take jobs that can’t be filled by Americans.

Strongly disagreeModerately disagreeSlightly disagreeNo ideaSlightly agreeModerately agreeStrongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

StatementStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
Guide's contributions improved the discussion
I felt comfortable sharing my honest opinions with my partner
I was not offended by my partner's perspective
My partner was genuinely trying to understand my perspective
My partner had better reasons for their views than I expected
It was valuable to chat with a student who did NOT share my perspective
Submit

Samanthaagrees

Now you’ve had a chance to discuss the topic, rate your level of agreement with the original statement again.

Remember, all responses to Sway surveys are private and never shown to your instructor.

U.S. law should favor immigrants who are willing to take jobs that can’t be filled by Americans.

Strongly disagreeModerately disagreeSlightly disagreeNo ideaSlightly agreeModerately agreeStrongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

StatementStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree
Guide's contributions improved the discussion
Guide supported both sides of the discussion equally
My partner was genuinely trying to understand my perspective
My partner had better reasons for their views than I expected
It would be good if more students and classes used Sway
Sway helped me articulate my thoughts/feelings better
Submit

Opinion change

Ethandisagrees

+2

Samanthaagrees

-2

before the chat after the chat Seven points, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Both students rated the statement before the chat and again after the quiz.

Up next