The argument wasn’t, “liberals don’t argue that immigration is in the national interest”.
It was, “liberals argue that immigration is in immigrants’ interest.”
Those two things aren’t contradictory.
If that’s the argument, what’s the point? Were you trying to prove that liberals are better at thinking about this issue?
You argued that conservatives use one and liberals use the other. That’s wrong – liberals use both arguments. As they should, since they’re both true.
Not what I said.
I said “more likely to use [one type of argument].”
I still object to that – liberals make both arguments. I contend they (we) argue for the welfare of the country just as often as conservatives.
So, you hate Mexicans because you resent your parents.
Alas, I took Latin in High School; it did help when I finally got around to learning Spanish. Did you also pick the wrong language? I hope your military service enabled you to improve your education. Doesn’t seem like it, though…
One grandfather was in the Navy before WW1 & received an injury that made him unable to serve in that war. The other grandfather was an immigrant–and a family man on the police force by the time WW1 rolled around. His son–my father–served in WW2, started a family, then was called back for the Cold War & died. None of which is relevant to my resume.
Oh, that’s what you mean.
You’re wrong. There’s no legal connection between the quota set for legal Mexican immigration and the amount of illegal Mexican immigration.
The legal immigration system allows for a total of 675,000 immigrants per year. No more than seven percent can come from any one country. This means the upper limit for any country is 47,250 legal immigrants.
American immigration law says that there are priorities on deciding who can immigrate. The first priority goes to people who have a family member who is an American citizen (spouse, parent, child, or sibling). The second priority is employment based. This lets you in if you’re a corporate executive, doctor, engineer, millionaire, athlete, actor, model, etc. Or if you’re an employee of the American government or an American religious organization in your native country.
Only after all the applicants from these two categories have been filled are openings for other people considered. And with Mexicans, that never happens. The Mexican limit of 47,250 is always filled from the first two categories so nobody who doesn’t fit in those two categories is allowed to legally immigrate. Which means, as I wrote earlier, that an average Mexican cannot legally immigrate to the United States.
But there is no special category for criminals. Nobody loses a spot because that spot was given to a criminal. That’s true even if you’re including illegal immigrants as criminals. Illegal immigrants are not counted when the national limits are set.
The only connection between legal immigration and illegal immigration is that the absence of the former encourages the latter.
According to you, these immigrants are uneducated criminals who don’t understand American culture. How exactly are they vicious competition for jobs? Do you feel a lot of businesses are looking for employees with the qualifications you described?
I think it’s more a case of:
Conservatives are more likely to think,* “Do my gut feelings tell me immigration of [people group X] benefit the country?”*
Liberals are more likely to think, “Do the facts tell me immigration of [people group X] benefit the country?”
That’s the OP in a nutshell. The post, not the poster. I reserve judgment on that. 
If there aren’t enough good job prospects for the people already here, how would letting even more people into the country be better for anyone?
Because jobs aren’t like coal found in the ground, fixed in amount until more dinosaurs die. They are created. Often by immigrants. As I noted earlier, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or people with immigrant parents, which is much higher than their overall percentage of the population. Immigrants also tend to be working age, and support an increasingly elderly non immigrant population through taxes and economic productivity.
Open borders is not only a dream of liberals, but also libertarians, ancaps, and some business conservatives. Hard to be for free trade of capital and goods but not the free movement of labor. Imagine if American states treated other states like they were other countries. The economy would implode. Erase the imaginary national borders, watch the world’s GDP skyrocket, and the threat of war decline as people become ever more interconnected. That’s the idea, anyway.
And your actual experience with Africa would be…?
Sure, buddy. Whatever you say 
:rolleyes:
He seems to be saying that he is frustrated because businesses have preferred hiring uneducated criminals who don’t speak English to hiring him. The conclusions that follow from that may not be suitable for discussion in this forum.
At what point does being opposed to mass immigration go from racism, as liberals now call it, to being reasonable, and more importantly, why?
It rarely goes in that direction, but in theory that point is when one stops talking about which particular races and cultures are most desirable to have as immigrants and starts talking about numbers and qualifications instead.
As for the “why”: it’s not that liberals call all opposition to mass immigration “racism”, it’s that some conservatives pretend that their racism is merely opposition to mass immigration. So when one drops little turds in the punchbowl like, for example, claiming that Asians are so much better than Africans, it becomes apparent that the underlying issue has little to do with immigration policy and more to do with not liking certain types of people at all for reasons which could, with some justification, be considered racist. Conversely, when one does not do this and instead focuses primarily on the historical and economic arguments, one may find oneself less frequently accused of racism.
Glad to have cleared that up for you. If there are any other patently obvious concepts you require explained, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Uh huh. But our population is growing faster than job growth, which is a significant part of why it took so long for the jobless rate to recover despite jobs being added after the recession. Adding a bunch more people hasn’t yet created enough jobs, so when will it? Did we just not add enough people to create new jobs, in your opinion?
Now that you’ve learned that jobs aren’t static, I will teach you a second lesson: many variables matter in how many jobs are created.
Population growt and immigration rate did not shoot up in 2007.
When racist reasoning isn’t anywhere in evidence as an argument for it.