[rtl49]

Often stories of this sort are used to advocate a more permissive immigration policy, particularly toward those from Mexico and South America who have entered the US illegally seeking economic opportunity.

Rational arguments seldom make their way into this discussion, if it can be called that.

On the one side we have the empathetic liberals, who in many cases ultimately wish to see the complete abolition of national borders and global inequality. Joining them are corporations, which want abundant labor in order to reduce the costs of employment.

On the other, we have low-skilled citizens, who don't wish to see their quality of life reduced by admitting large numbers of people willing to work for very little. Along with them are those concerned about the political and cultural consequences of admitting a massive, homogeneous, and very different group of people into their homeland. There are probably some racists among the group, though probably far fewer than the other side often claim.

Whichever side you find yourself on, I think the following must be admitted:

1) The ordinary citizen currently in the United States will likely experience a decline in quality of life as a result of a permissive immigration policy.

2) Massive economic migration to rich countries from poor ones is not a solution to the problem of global economic inequality or poverty.

3) Historical instances of immigration, colonialism, and invasion do not justify or necessitate permissive immigration policies in the present day.

[vannevar]

Rational arguments seldom make their way into this discussion, if it can be called that. On the one side we have the empathetic liberals...

It's a common misconception among conservatives that progressive policies are driven solely by emotion, out of compassion and empathy. In fact, progressive policies are pragmatic, driven by sound economics based on long experience. Policies like the minimum wage aren't in place solely to give poor working families more money; they are in place to prevent just the sort of economically destructive race to the bottom that you use as a rationale for limiting immigration. With a strongly enforced minimum wage, workers compete to deliver better service, not to get lower wages. This prevents the decline that you speculate accompanies permissive immigration. Progressive taxation policies are similarly pragmatic and economically sound---despite the knee-jerk emotional reaction conservatives have to taxation, no substantial correlation has ever been found between tax rates and economic growth.

[jsprogrammer]

>1) The ordinary citizen currently in the United States will likely experience a decline in quality of life as a result of a permissive immigration policy.

On what basis must this be "admitted"? You provide no rationale for it in the preceding paragraphs and then dump this line as if it should be obvious.

[rtl49]

Ordinary people in the US benefit economically because of their citizenship. Many of these people possess few skills and would live in abject poverty doing the same work in other countries. Admitting large numbers of low-skilled workers increases the supply of laborers, with the result that competition for employment increases, and wages decline. Even with a minimum wage, the number of employment opportunities is reduced. Thus, ordinary citizens stand to experience a decline in their quality of life.