This is said to hurt the poor already living in the United States. Evidence contradicts this, saying that “[during] the period when U.S. immigration accelerated (1970-2012), the actual capital-labor ratio did not significantly or permanently deviate from that trend after 1980” (Wharton Budget Model). In other words, new jobs were being created as existing firms expanded and new ones were established, so the quantity of labor demanded kept pace with the the increased quantity labor resulting from …show more content…
is that the increased population would be more harmful to the current environmental situation in the country: “Because of such heavy consumption of resources [by the United States], even small population increases here can adversely affect countries around the world,” says Zero Population Growth. According to this argument, the United States consumes resources so wildly that any addition to the population can cause overflow pollution and resource deprivation in other countries. “This is the claim that a higher population is the issue, but it neglects to take into account which countries are actually responsible for the use of resources” (Cole 13).
Though immigrants may be displaced people, this is not necessarily a negative for the receiving country. A large percentage of immigrants fall into two different categories: those who are college-educated and those who are young with little education but who have manual labor skills. These immigrants are crucial for U.S. development and the economy. Highly educated immigrants account for about one-third of U.S. innovation. In 2006, immigrants founded 25 percent of new high-tech companies with more than $1 million in sales, generating income and employment for the whole country