Text 1: Economist Park argues that immigration produces large net benefits for receiving countries. Studies consistently show that immigration grows GDP, creates new businesses, and over time pays more in taxes than it consumes in services. Economic concerns about immigration, Park contends, are largely unfounded.
Text 2: Economist Singh accepts the aggregate gains but argues that Park's framing obscures distributional effects. Native-born workers in occupations that compete directly with immigrants, she notes, can experience real wage pressure even as the overall economy grows. "Net benefit" arguments must reckon with who bears the costs, not just who reaps the gains.
Based on the texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Park's argument?
- A
She would propose ending all immigration.
- Bcheck_circle
She would accept the gains while arguing that aggregate framing hides important distributional effects.
- C
She would deny that immigration produces aggregate gains.
- D
She would say economics is irrelevant to immigration policy.
Explanation
Singh accepts the aggregate but adds distributional nuance. B captures this. A, C, and D contradict her stance.