1) Even if Cato couldn’t hire H1B, experts, Cato could form a sister organization in India, and have the economic literature analyzed over there. You compete with foreign workers anyway. 
2) Elsewhere, you argued that chaos at the border had a big impact on public policy. By analogy, factory workers, and Apple pickers could be hearing threats of “keep quiet or I’ll move the plant or orchard to Mexico.” Pain comes from fear and chaos. 
"My foreign-born colleagues and friends at other think tanks who are foreign-born have produced a more vibrant, interesting, and productive industry that benefits us all."
Right, but this might indeed explain why you like immigration.
Suppose somebody else arrived at your thinktank working in the same research area as you. Would you be worried? I doubt it. Most academics are overjoyed by that. This is because academics specialize very much. I'm not just an economist - I focus on social norms, genetics and a few other topics. Another social norms guy would give me a potential coauthor, and someone to bounce ideas off.
I suspect this is quite typical of very skilled labour. If you're a family lawyer at a general law firm, you might like having another (say) family lawyer arrive. Skilled labour is specialized. Specialization leads to complementarities.
Unskilled labour might be less like that. If I'm an apple picker, the arrival of some new apple pickers isn't going to give me new apple picking ideas; instead, the boss is just gonna lower my wages. (Yes, I understand and accept the arguments about long-run demand - I'm just ignoring it, to focus on the contrast between skilled and unskilled on the labour supply dimension.)
So yes, you may compete with more immigrant workers than most. But that "competition", or more broadly interaction, is more directly beneficial to you than most.
Great article.
1) Even if Cato couldn’t hire H1B, experts, Cato could form a sister organization in India, and have the economic literature analyzed over there. You compete with foreign workers anyway. 
2) Elsewhere, you argued that chaos at the border had a big impact on public policy. By analogy, factory workers, and Apple pickers could be hearing threats of “keep quiet or I’ll move the plant or orchard to Mexico.” Pain comes from fear and chaos. 
It's interesting but but but.
"My foreign-born colleagues and friends at other think tanks who are foreign-born have produced a more vibrant, interesting, and productive industry that benefits us all."
Right, but this might indeed explain why you like immigration.
Suppose somebody else arrived at your thinktank working in the same research area as you. Would you be worried? I doubt it. Most academics are overjoyed by that. This is because academics specialize very much. I'm not just an economist - I focus on social norms, genetics and a few other topics. Another social norms guy would give me a potential coauthor, and someone to bounce ideas off.
I suspect this is quite typical of very skilled labour. If you're a family lawyer at a general law firm, you might like having another (say) family lawyer arrive. Skilled labour is specialized. Specialization leads to complementarities.
Unskilled labour might be less like that. If I'm an apple picker, the arrival of some new apple pickers isn't going to give me new apple picking ideas; instead, the boss is just gonna lower my wages. (Yes, I understand and accept the arguments about long-run demand - I'm just ignoring it, to focus on the contrast between skilled and unskilled on the labour supply dimension.)
So yes, you may compete with more immigrant workers than most. But that "competition", or more broadly interaction, is more directly beneficial to you than most.
And the FOOD!!!!
Thanks, I am cross-posting this one ;)