There is some 'debate' about the benefits of immigration, and so on. But to not waste time on introductions, let's get on with how low-skill immigration is downright immoral.
The Consent of the Governed
All over the United States, there is a similar pattern. People are being priced out of neighborhoods, and municipalities are fine with it. Bay Area home prices are about $800,000 at the median. New York residents seeks to give public parking spaces to themselves, instead of letting the awful Jersey plates people park for free. And in Seattle, a surge in population has created a surge in home prices, a surge in home prices and a political fight with Starbucks about who is going to pay to remedy the issue.
Seattle's 'woke' tax headache mimics California, a state that has already crippled itself in terms of tax hikes - existing residents have given themselves a free ride and maintain a structure that makes it difficult to do all the government-sponsored 'progressive' things that many assume Californians like.
Quite clearly, the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and New York are not actually in the business of 'nesting' even though they may now or in some time regard themselves as 'sanctuaries'. If these cities were expecting more families, they would be invested in painting more nurseries.
What is happening at the local level is indicative of how the public at large feel about immigration - if put to a vote, increased immigration would surely fail. Very few people want more development in their neighborhood, so why would a nation-wide immigration initiative pass? If an initiative would not pass, why would someone seek to be the benevolent dictator that forces it on the public? The people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
The Abuse of Migrants & Workers
Without exception, every plan to bring in temporary or conditional low-wage workers has led to the abuse of the workers.
In Canada, workers are held in debt bondage, refugees have limited access to employment due to language skills, and those that wish to change their status need to pay additional fees for language classes.
In the United States, temporary teachers are brought in and given a visa status that gives them no access to citizenship while they fill roles at salary levels that undercut wage growth in teaching positions.
The crime is twofold - incoming workers are quite literally given a second-class citizenship status while they undermine market forces that would raise wages of already underpaid positions. The investment of citizens in their own careers (say, 6+ years of university debt to learn how to teach) is undercut by having to compete with someone that will do anything for any wage to keep status.
This is clearly abuse. Conditional visas force wages down, extort more labor from migrant workers and keeps salary increases from young indebted citizens. Everyone loses.
The Moral Hazard of Income Inequality
Lots of concerned liberal ink is spilled talking about 'human trafficking', 'sex trafficking' while maintaining that migration is good for the economy. What are migrants doing? Managing bike shops in Maine and picking berries in the United Kingdom.
Not only is trafficking happening, trafficking is defended as long as migrants are doing jobs 'the locals don't want to do'.
The problem is, there are good reasons that locals do not want to do these jobs. Who wants to live in a society where these jobs are done?
Most Americans, and most inhabitants of the anglo world, do not currently exist in a colonial fantasy where laundry is done by servants and dinners are cooked by in-house chefs. But in this weird and wonderful world where one can apparently 'get' their own immigrant, suddenly there is no end to which services can purchase as long as they can be explained away as helping a migrant that freely 'consents' to doing something that would be otherwise considered degrading labor in our current culture.
Many concerned 'progressives' already defend the status of 'sex work' and do not think of undocumented work as problematic by definition, so it remains to be seen as to what 'sex trafficking' really means. Is someone a victim of 'sex trafficking' when they come to a wealthy country by their own choice and become a 'sex worker' that chooses to work 'jobs' that 'Americans don't want'?
In terms of jobs Americans don't want, we can expect to see shoe shiners back on every corner, cab drivers making even less money, and the utilization of sexual services seen as some sort of diversity-aiding escapade that helps people locked out of the formal job market. (Johns are surely woke now, because why not?) The issues concerning sex tourism will be so much easier to manage when would-be American customers don't even have to buy a flight.
One may imagine that open borders will not be a laissez-faire capitalist hellscape that NPR listeners would surely not survive in. However, it remains that there is no socialist dreamworld to be had as it's already been established that even the 'woke' companies hate taxes.
One may love immigration. One may wish to increase immigration.
But what is the actual plan? Putting people at the mercy of the market is not a scenario that anyone truly wants to live through, and if a competing plan cannot be made real due to the inbuilt hypocrisy of tax-hating liberal America, then supporting more immigration is an inconsistent and immoral policy disaster. Immigration is like choosing to have a baby when one only has $2 in a couch and a partner who will surely leave when hearing the news.
There is no future in immigration if a future cannot be created for immigration.