Actually, it would be career suicide to say that there are no benefits to immigration.
Let's say that you're a "leading economist". You answer the question "Is immigration a net benefit or a net detriment to <first world country x>" with the carefully-chosen response "Well, immigration comes with benefits and downsides, and they more or less balance one another out. Of course, some people, most notably women and minorities already existing in the country, will be hardest hit".
By the law of the excluded middle, claiming to be ambivalent on immigration would mean that you are either for or against immigration. And since if you were for immigration, you'd just come out and say it, you must be against immigration. And by the law of headlines always choosing to word things in the most sensationalist way, that would mean that you are racist.
You say "law of excluded middle" when really you're posing the fallacy of excluded middle [1]. Some folks really can actually be on the fence about something as nebulous as "immigration".
Let's say that you're a "leading economist". You answer the question "Is immigration a net benefit or a net detriment to <first world country x>" with the carefully-chosen response "Well, immigration comes with benefits and downsides, and they more or less balance one another out. Of course, some people, most notably women and minorities already existing in the country, will be hardest hit".
By the law of the excluded middle, claiming to be ambivalent on immigration would mean that you are either for or against immigration. And since if you were for immigration, you'd just come out and say it, you must be against immigration. And by the law of headlines always choosing to word things in the most sensationalist way, that would mean that you are racist.