Do you want open borders or well-funded social programs? Pick one. Both cannot simultaneously exist because it is unsustainable. If you disagree with this, please explain how you can achieve both, I assure you they are mutually exclusive.
Uh, no they're not mutually exclusive. About half of social programs are funded by taxes at a flat rate upon income earned*. This means that the best way to fund social programs is to have higher paying jobs on a broad base of the population. An open border doesn't push wages down unless there's a glut of supply of workers and even then only so long as minimum wage laws are ignored. For the former, one could argue that there's a glut of supply of workers substantial enough that open borders immigration would have little to no effect--look at the US's relatively open border position when it comes to doctors and yet the US has one of the highest pay rates on doctors. For the latter, well, that's more a problem of a system designed to in theory discourage illegal immigration but in practice to allow abuse of illegal immigrants. If we wanted to actual focus on discouraging the hiring of illegal immigrants, we'd go after employers who do that.
I'm actually for open borders. One would have much more solid argument if you were talking about state taxes and state programs, especially education, but most the US has an ass backwards broken property tax based system for local funding which is again is ass backwards broken. Being from a lower property neighborhood shouldn't translate into having a less well funded education. Further, federal efforts (NCLB and Common Core) have been cluster fucks because of the nature of their design. My point is, the programs under federal control should be sustainable with open borders. The ones under state control are various levels of shit by state design, which has little to do with immigration policy.
Tax breaks or not, they still hold the country up by paying the most into taxes.
Granted, although I always hate when journalists report "income tax" and ignore the obvious: if you make relatively little income, it's payroll taxes that fund social programs which make up the substantial amount of your federal taxes. It's the progressive income tax that of course causes the 1% to pay substantial more income tax than the bottom 90% (or bottom 50%) precisely because there's no means one could tax the bottom 50% at any rate that they'd be able to substantially contribute to the social and non-social spending the federal government engages in.
Now, if you want to argue for changing federal government spending to resolve some of these funding/taxing discrepancies, I'm all ears. IMHO, EITC should be gotten rid of as well as federal housing assistance--that really should be dealt with at the state level or at least be something the states pay into and be federally managed. SNAPs is agricultural subsidies and should be probably taken out of military spending--it's intended to be a strategy of guaranteed overproduction of food for security reasons. Military spending itself could be greatly decreased, which needs to happen anyways because the spending to funding ratio is way off.
So, yes, the very rich are a substantial part of what keeps the country afloat. That functionally can't change in any government. Efforts to close tax loopholes (including with corporations)** would improve the funding to spending ratio, but it obviously isn't nearly enough. Immigration is something that should be resolved but more for the recognition of human rights***. If we want to tie many social benefits to citizenship and limit citizenship, so be it; we already do that, and I don't really have much problem with it so long as we make citizenship a reasonably achievable goal for most people.
* Ignoring that some taxes have a cap which effectively makes the tax regressive after a certain income.
** For all the talk of people moving, there's a reason why very rich people still live in the US and pay substantial taxes. It's not out of the goodness of their heart. It's that most other equally western countries where they'd have ready access to the means of their wealth have much greater tax ratios. There's a lot of room to move before they would bulk in leave the country, just as it's lots of hyperbole when people said they'd leave the country if Trump were elected.
*** The world has become globalized, so it's reasonable to expect that people with the basic right to travel should be able to travel to follow work, wherever that may be. In the short term there's always hiccups with such an approach, but it's literally the foundation of how the US became the diverse and powerful country that it is. Or should we go back to wanting to lynching all the Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc that dared to come and have children here?