Vocal support for unchecked immigration often comes from individuals shielded from its negative impacts on security, schools, and local services. Those with direct stakes—like parents and business owners—tend to hold more pragmatic views because they must confront the real-world trade-offs daily.

Contrary to common political narratives, undocumented immigrants are often a net positive for government finances. They are heavily documented for tax purposes (e.g., Social Security) and pay into these systems but are less likely to draw benefits, effectively subsidizing programs for citizens and creating a highly profitable workforce.

Well-intentioned government support programs can become an economic "shackle," disincentivizing upward mobility. This risks a negative cycle: dependent citizens demand more benefits, requiring higher taxes that drive out businesses, which erodes the tax base and leads to calls for even more wealth redistribution and government control.

America intentionally avoided solving illegal immigration because it serves a crucial economic purpose: providing a flexible, cheap labor force that doesn't draw on social safety nets. This benefits industries and consumers while placing little burden on the state.

A simple test for a political system's quality is whether it must use force to retain its citizens. The Berlin Wall and North Korea's borders were built to prevent people from leaving, not to stop others from entering. This need to contain a population is an implicit confession by the state that life is better elsewhere, contrasting with free societies that attract immigrants.

Immigration's success or failure is determined by values alignment, not ethnicity. The US historically integrated diverse groups because they shared a foundational ethos. Current conflicts arise when immigrant populations hold fundamentally different core values from the host nation, creating societal friction regardless of race.

Framing immigration solely as a moral imperative leads to impractical policies by ignoring crucial factors like resource allocation, cultural integration, and public consent. A pragmatic approach balances humanitarianism with national interest, preventing unsustainable outcomes and social friction.

Restricting immigration halts a key source of labor for essential sectors like agriculture and construction. This drives up consumer costs and could cut GDP by 4-7%, creating a direct path to higher inflation and slower economic growth.

Immigration policy must account for economic incentives. Unlike in the past, modern welfare states make immigration an economically rational choice for survival, not just opportunity. This shifts the dynamic, attracting individuals based on benefits rather than a desire to contribute without a safety net.