spindoc, no-one drowns if the borders are open. Think about it. Even Clive Palmer got that one right.

This graph from the Global Footprint Network shows the problem with Barry York's open borders. It plots environmental footprint (consumption) vs. rank on the UN Human Development index (human well-being) for all the different countries.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/blog/human_development_and_the_ecological_footprint

All of the countries on the UN's very high human development list have their average consumption well above what would be sustainable if all 7 billion of us (going on 10-11 billion) did it. If we opened our borders people would flood in until conditions here were just as bad as they are in their home countries, with all the effects on the environment that you might expect.

We are getting massively high immigration, not because it is good for us, but because our elite and their puppet politicians benefit from the distributional effects. More people mean bigger domestic markets, easy profits from real estate (and from lending the money to buy the houses), and a cheap, compliant work force due to an oversupplied labour market and migrants (often temporary) who are under the thumb of their employers. The Democrats in the US and the Labor parties here and in the UK also benefit from importing people who are more likely to vote for them. Obama is electing a new people.

Rhian says

<For free-marketeers like me the answer is easy – let people come as long as they support themselves. But for Lefties like Barrie this is a dilemma – people will either welcome poor migrants, or be generous to them, but not both.>

But what if the migrants are supporting themselves at the expense of the existing population by a race to the bottom on the labour market? See the 2008 House of Lords report

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Rhian, say, benefits from the low wages and high rents, but the costs of the extra infrastructure and the welfare costs for the people who are now in precarious employment and need their wages supplemented to get by are shared with everyone else in the community.

A lot of us have objected to the Trans-Tasman agreement because of the extra numbers.

Byork,
Palmer United's refugee policy is even stricter than the coalition's, they propose a system where the asylum seeker needs a valid passport and ID documentation and legitimate documents from the country in which he embarked the flight to Australia. If the asylum seeker fails to satisfy the immigration requirements he's to be detained at the airport and put straight back on the next flight to his point of departure.

I think Mr Obama is targeting people already in the country, holding down two or three jobs and paying tax, repeat, paying tax, and for their social security tax stamps.
These people have invariably been there and tolerated for decades; are sending their kids to school and behaving like any other law abiding citizens/ethnic community.

Another question that needs to be answered is.
Why aren't the old Spanish land titles, which predates modern America, regarded as just or more legal than those handed to those who forced them off their land claims?

Spanish is spoken by around 40% of Americans, and far too big a demographic to ignore, exploit or abuse!

The predictable republican reaction, is just handing the next congress/senate election to the democrats!
Rhrosty.

Divergence

Apologies, I should have said “ALMOST none of the anti-immigration spruikers we hear in Australia objects to the free movement of New Zealanders into Australia.” There were bound to be a few.

The study you linked to finds that immigration benefits the UK, though the effect is small. This more recent one finds a bigger benefit from EU immigration.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study

Most of the objective and rigorous studies I have seen show a small but positive welfare effect for pre-existing populations from migration.

Rhrosty,

The old Spanish land titles were recognized by the US in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, although in many cases the Mexicans were cheated of their rights by corrupt local courts. The people themselves were given the choice of becoming American citizens with full voting rights, provided that they took up citizenship within a year. These lands were very sparsely populated at the time.

A lot of US citizens of Hispanic descent are not overjoyed with illegal immigration because it depresses wages and denies their children entry level jobs.(Do a search on "Los Angeles janitors illegal immigrants".) In fact, I recall reading that some anti-immigration politicians in Arizona could not have been elected without Hispanic votes.

The problem is that the American politicians have been refusing to enforce the immigration laws on the books at the instigation of their corporate backers. In order to work in the US, illegal aliens have to commit crimes such as identity theft (which Obama is not going to pursue).

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22562690/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/illegal-immigrants-turn-identity-theft/#.VHWhHWdxnrw

Low-skilled immigrants, especially illegal ones, earn low wages and thus pay very little tax. They impose fiscal costs for their health care, the education of their children, etc. that make them a net loss to the public as a whole. Far better if those jobs went to unemployed Americans, who are otherwise drawing welfare benefits, with somewhat better pay and conditions.

I have some sympathy for people who were brought to the US as small children and know no other country, but very little for their parents. The main concern is not the people who are already in the US, however, but the flood of new illegal immigrants that are likely to be attracted by the amnesty. Remember that employers often want them because they are illegal and have no rights to legal wages and safe working conditions.

Obama is electing a new people.