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
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
Ethan
the next day
Samantha
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
a few days later
Ethan
Samantha
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
Samantha
Ethan
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
Samantha
the next day
Ethan
You have completed the chat! You may continue chatting after the Understanding Quiz 🤠
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
Samanthaagrees
Understanding Quiz
5 questions about what Ethan argued.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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 |
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 |
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
All the chats
Sixteen transcripts of students paired with a classmate who disagreed with them.
Back to the showcase →The student app
Every screen a student can reach in Sway, drawn as a wireframe you can click around in.
Explore the app →The research
What we measure after chats like this one: opinion change, and how students rate the people they disagree with.
Read the research →