Isn't self-interest enough of an explanation? Mass-immigration is unlikely to be a short term benefit to the host country, particularly to low skill workers in that country. Why should they oppose their own self interest?
(I'm personally a very pro-immigration American, so I'm talking about this to understand the debate not to advance any particular objective.)
Xenophobia, or rational self-interest? How is the common worker better-off by allowing immigration? The only advantage I can think of is having the option of abandoning their country to seek better fortunes elsewhere (assuming immigration is a two-way street). What about the great majority who wish to stay in their own countries?
People are entitled to their self-interest, and it is in peoples' self-interest to avoid the race to the bottom that results from globalization. Furthermore, governments exist to serve their specific constituents, not to hew to abstract humanist principles.
Also, even within the context of abstract humanist principles, immigration isn't wholly positive. My family and I are immigrants to the U.S. It's been great for us, not so great for the country we came from that sees all its bright and ambitious people leave never to return.
If you accept the premise that immigration itself should be limited to a finite quantity (per time period, say per year), it's not a leap to reason that importing highly skilled people is better for the economy than low skilled people.
Low skilled immigrants compete against low skilled workers that are already here and depress their wages. High skilled workers do the same thing but at the top end with the added advantage of generating more tax dollars and GDP (since they have more income).
At its core the question becomes: Is immigration a public policy to benefit those that are here (ie strengthen economy, unify familial bonds) or a charity offered to the rest of the world?
The "utilitarian" case for halting immigration is obvious to me. But utilitarian arguments are what the pro-immigration people use, too.
I find it interesting that nobody ever talks about national solidarity anymore when discussing immigration. It seems taken for granted that the USA is not a real nation, a real "people". It's just some sort of bazaar for various people with nothing in common to do business, so let in the hordes to do business. No need to worry about literally millions of people coming here without strong loyalties and intent to fully and permanently assimilate.
I don't know why this pledge has to take a position on immigration policy.
A flood of low-skilled, poorly educated immigrants definitely helps the rich who don't mow their own lawns or make their own beds, and corporations who benefit from the wage-suppressing effects of a huge surplus low-skilled and poorly educated workers. But it hurts American citizens who are themselves low-skilled and poorly educated.
I know it's not a popular opinion here, but I happen to think that US immigration policy should be crafted solely on what is in the US's best interests. Allowing highly-skilled and highly educated people in helps the country, but I don't really see how allowing a flood of low-skilled immigrants in helps the country in the larger picture. I understand how it does from the Adam Smith/Milton Friedman perspective, but I don't think that benefit justifies the harm done to the most vulnerable workers (or would-be workers) who are citizens and taxpayers and in many cases veterans of our military.
Re: The idea behind mass immigration is that you have a constant supply of workers and tax payers to subsidize the welfare of the retiring natives of a country.
Politicians run up deficits and then cover their boo boo via immigration. I'm not making a value judgement on immigration here, but politicians have a bad habit of sacrificing the future for current benefits largely because their political career is a relatively small slice of time. It's why we have debt and pension problems. True, voters play a part by having short memories, voting for instant gratification.
As some of the siblings point out, it seems like a contradiction that he complains about the lack of tech workers but also is against mass immigration.
These aren't actually opposing when you look deeper - the US does not provide much of a means of legal immigration for high skilled worker.
On the other hand, the US also does not restrict illegal immigration so much - it's easy to get a menial job, a driver's license, just about everything without a legal visa status.
In essence, you have a defacto second class citizen type immigration with a very limited first class immigration ability of the US.
Probably this is the opposite of what would benefit the country most.
Outside observer, but my understanding is that a big concern is that people from more illiberal cultures will make the nation more illiberal. There is also concern that making low skilled labor more plentiful will be harmful to the prospects of existing low skilled labor. A third concern would be that if the immigrants express an ethnic preference for their own community, this will cause increasing difficulty for existing residents. If you want to convince people that immigration will be in their best interest, I'd start by finding ways to ameliorate those concerns.
Increasing immigration rates would benefit both US citizens and immigrants alike. However, many native citizens believe immigrants impose more costs than benefits, by increasing crime, consuming welfare services, and changing the culture. So they naturally oppose increasing immigration rates. Sponsored immigration incents citizens to support increased immigration by a) giving them a personal choice in who they allow to immigrate b)a direct financial stake in the immigrant's long-term success.
We have a greater interest in preventing instability here by ensuring that those already here can find stable employment that provides a good wage and stability. I care about the success of my countrymen more than I do random people from wherever.
I want people to succeed - in their home countries. That's fine, let them do that. I'm also a fan of legal immigration - you come here by the book, throw on the jersey, you're on the team. That's fine too. If you don't do that though, I'm not only not a fan but those people shouldn't be here.
That is one of the many reasons I oppose mass immigration; a constant influx of new people makes it far, far more difficult for a single locality to figure out how best to reduce its own demand and come to a reasonably stable local identity, with an attached reasonable level of demand for goods and services.
(I'm personally a very pro-immigration American, so I'm talking about this to understand the debate not to advance any particular objective.)
reply