| >Immigrants contribute a lot more than they consume. Some do. Many don't. And even among those that do contribute more than they consume, it seems very unlikely that the contributions and the drawbacks would be distributed evenly throughout the population. Some people will be made better off by their presence, and others (perhaps even a greater number, but totaling a smaller dollar value) will be made worse off. Do you disagree with that? >The problem is that this country's laws hate and despise skilled and educated immigrants. I don't lock my doors because I hate the people outside. I lock my doors because I want to protect the people inside. >And he was rejected (lost the H1B lottery) twice, thanks to the US skilled immigration policy. Right, but do you deny that many companies make enormous amounts of money off of the H1B programs and that they can bring down salaries of the local people that compete with their labor? Do you deny that people that come in via H1B are less likely to have loyalty to this country and its people? >Which is a far cry from what is morally right. Whether it's morally right or not depends on what moral system you're using to evaluate it. I can pick one that says what I want just as easily as you can. >people that are peaceful/non-voilent How do you know their descendants will be peaceful and non-violent, and that their interests and those of their descendants will tightly overlap with the interests of the current population and their descendants? Why would the current inhabitants want to let people in if they don't have strong reason to believe that the interests of the immigrants and their descendants will strongly align with the interests of the current inhabitants and their descendants? |