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.

01Chat transcript

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.

Samantha

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.

Samantha

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.

Samantha

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.

Samantha

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.👍

Ethan

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. Scores are accurate. Questions and responses may be updated from time to time to reflect improvements to Sway.

Ethandisagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Samantha argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, what evidence did Samantha use to support her claim that immigrant workers fill important labor gaps?

She cited existing visa preferences and argued that Congress may respond to shortages through immigration policy.
She cited immigrant shares in construction, farming, and health care and linked their absence to shortages and higher costs.
She cited tight industry budgets and argued that raising wages would increase prices for consumers.
She cited poor job conditions and argued that Americans would enter these industries if employers improved them.

correct Justification

Samantha cited a 2024 report saying immigrants are "more than 25% of U.S constructions workers and over 50% of farmworkers," plus a report placing them at "nearly 18% of all health care workers." She inferred that without them, industries would face "serious labor shortages and rising costs." The other choices refer to arguments raised later or by you.

When Guide pressed your argument that sufficiently high wages could attract American workers, how did Samantha respond?

She argued that the existing labor force was too small for these jobs, while legal residents preferred different industries.
She argued that large raises could strain tight budgets and increase prices, while seasonal, exhausting, or remote work could remain unattractive.
She argued that wage increases would violate fair-pay standards and prevent immigrants from obtaining employment-based visas.
She argued that Americans lacked the training for these jobs, while immigrants already possessed the necessary specialized skills.

correct Justification

Samantha said some industries operate on "small/tight budgets" and that higher pay could make "the prices of goods and services" rise. She added that the jobs remain hard to fill because they are "physically exhausting, seasonal, and sometimes located in rural areas." She did not claim wage increases were unlawful, that Americans lacked training, or that the labor force's size was the central issue.

Towards the middle of the discussion, when Samantha acknowledged your concerns about resentment and unfair advantages, what compromise did she propose at that moment?

She proposed allowing immigrants to fill remaining openings alongside job improvements, fair-pay rules, and limits on exploitation.
She proposed favoring current residents first and admitting immigrants only after all domestic applicants had been rejected.
She proposed retaining the current system because any explicit employment preference would violate equal rights.
She proposed replacing immigration preferences with wage increases and improved conditions for American workers.

not quite Justification

At that moment Samantha said immigrant programs could "work alongside" better wages and conditions, and that "fair pay standards" and limits on exploitation could benefit both groups. She even said, "Maybe the US shouldn't necessarily 'prioritize' immigrants," distinguishing this temporary compromise from her earlier and later support for some prioritization.

Near the end, how did Samantha answer your claim that labor-based immigration preferences would violate the Equal Employment Opportunity Act?

She argued that the act concerns people working or seeking work within the United States, whereas entry categories fall under Congress's immigration authority.
She argued that the act permits preferences whenever employers can prove that an industry faces a serious labor shortage.
She argued that the act applies only to citizens, whereas immigrants receive employment protections exclusively through visa law.
She argued that the act is subordinate to economic policy, so Congress may suspend equal-employment protections when prices rise.

correct Justification

Samantha said the law protects people "already employed or seeking employment within the US," not applicants seeking "to enter the US through immigration." She then pointed to Congress's power to create visa categories based on "labor needs, skills, etc." She did not argue that shortages create an exception to employment law, that immigrants lack its protections, or that Congress may suspend those protections.

When Guide challenged your repeated constitutional objection, what weakness in your reasoning was Guide asking you to address?

You had not distinguished difficult working conditions from low pay as the cause of labor shortages.
You had not identified a constitutional provision or explained why job-based preferences differ from existing immigration categories.
You had not explained why fair-pay standards would fail to protect both immigrants and American workers.
You had not shown that immigrant labor actually reduced wages in the industries Samantha identified.

correct Justification

Guide asked you to "explain which constitutional provision this would violate" and noted that Congress already creates categories for "skilled workers, family reunification, diversity visas, etc." The challenge was therefore to identify the legal basis and distinguish employment-based preferences from accepted categories, not to settle the separate wage, working-condition, or fair-pay questions.

4 of 5 correct Next

Samanthaagrees

Understanding Quiz

5 questions about what Ethan argued.

At the beginning of the discussion, how did Ethan explain why certain difficult jobs appear impossible to fill with American workers?

He argued that access to cheaper immigrant labor kept wages low, while higher wages would make the jobs more desirable.
He argued that rural relocation was the main barrier, while higher wages would have little effect on recruitment.
He argued that labor shortages were caused by tight business budgets, while immigrant workers kept consumer prices stable.
He argued that Americans lacked the specialized skills required, while immigrants received more relevant training.

correct Justification

Ethan said the jobs were not inherently unfillable: "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." The other choices reflect arguments you made or explanations Ethan did not give.

When Ethan later emphasized the interests of people already in the country, what chain of reasoning supported his objection to bringing in additional workers?

Additional workers would make seasonal jobs permanent, which would prevent employers from improving rural infrastructure.
Additional workers would lack needed qualifications, which would force businesses to spend more money on training.
Additional workers would expand the supply of cheap labor, which could depress wages and hurt existing job seekers.
Additional workers would increase consumer prices, which would place smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

correct Justification

Ethan argued that emphasizing new workers who become "cheaper and cheaper" would "create a bubble" and could hurt American workers, especially where "wages are already low and competition is high." He did not base this objection on training costs, permanent jobs, or rising consumer prices.

How did Guide challenge Ethan's repeated claim that employment-based immigration preferences would be unconstitutional?

Guide argued that the existing labor force was too small and asked him to provide evidence that more workers were unnecessary.
Guide argued that difficult jobs remain unattractive after wage increases and asked him to address their seasonal and rural character.
Guide asked whether fair-pay rules would eliminate his concerns about exploitation and competition among current workers.
Guide asked him to identify the violated provision and explain why these preferences differ from Congress's existing immigration categories.

correct Justification

Guide asked Ethan "which constitutional provision this would violate" and noted that Congress already creates categories for "skilled workers, family reunification, diversity visas, etc." Guide then asked what made employment-based preferences different or unconstitutional.

After you suggested merely allowing immigrants to fill unfilled jobs rather than prioritizing them, why did Ethan accept permission to work but continue rejecting legal preference?

He believed permission would reduce labor competition, while preference would make industries depend on temporary workers.
He believed permission would raise wages for current workers, while preference would increase prices for consumers.
He believed permission was justified only for skilled workers, while preference would extend visas to untrained workers.
He believed needed workers should have equal access, while preference would violate rights by legally favoring one group.

correct Justification

Ethan said immigrants "should be allowed to work if their services are needed," but also that there should not be "laws that favor one group of people over another." He added that excluding them from the roles could violate the same rights, showing that equal access - rather than guaranteed wage or price effects - drove the distinction.

By the end of the discussion, how had Ethan revised his legal argument after your response about immigration law and congressional power?

He accepted that Congress could target occupational shortages, but retained an ethical concern about overly favoring groups.
He accepted that employment law required immigrant preferences, but retained a practical concern about rural job locations.
He maintained that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act controlled immigration, but accepted merit systems as unconstitutional exceptions.
He maintained that Congress lacked authority to target shortages, but accepted that the policy might still be economically useful.

correct Justification

Ethan conceded, "immigration and employment laws do operate in different ways" and "Legally speaking your correct that targeting a shortage in a specific field through immigration policy is an ability of congress." He nevertheless said that favoring groups "to heavily" could raise "ethical questions about equal opportunity on a global scale."

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 disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	No idea	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly 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 disagree	Moderately disagree	Slightly disagree	No idea	Slightly agree	Moderately agree	Strongly agree

How much do you agree with each of these?

Statement	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly 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

Samanthaagrees

-2

before the chat after the chat

Immigration & Labor Policy

01Chat transcript

02Understanding quiz

03Post-chat survey

Up next

All the chats

The student app

The research