Immigration

>>2600050
What's the point? Any study or argument put forward by economists, which do and always have favored looser borders, is just going to result in the usual "haha I called him a Jew so I don't have to listen".

Legal immigration or illegal?

>>2600050
It isn't. Illegal immigration is beneficial because then you get to use an underclass of house builders and fruit pickers... but giving them citizenship defeats the purpose. What is economically beneficial is to use them and then kick them out.

>>2600050
>>2600068
Well, to clarify, what I mean is that increased levels of non-European immigration would not be beneficial. Current levels of LEGAL immigration are actually fine, since right now it is very hard to immigrate into the US unless you already have some $ or are selling yourself into sexual indentured servitude to an American with $. Personally, I would prefer if people couldn't become citizens by marrying a citizen, but still, it's not like there are floods of legal immigrants.

>>2600068
OP here. Thank you for your answer.
What I'm mainly talking about is immigrants' (whether skilled or unskilled) effect on wages. It's pretty much indisputed that an increase in the workforce increases the productive capacity of the workforce, thus leading to long run growth, as opposed to a spike in the trade cycle of an economy, so there's that. But the contentious debate is over whether or not wages are being depressed by immigrants, causing unemployment in low-skill sectors in the US. Is this true? -- that is my question.