Also, for the people claiming that immigrants "rob" Americans from their jobs...
Excuse me? What the fuck makes you people think you are entitled to that?
People get jobs depending on whether or not the people is capable, trained and qualified for said work.
Besides, it's not like the country has been such a metropolis from the start, nor the continent.
The whole American continent (not just USA) was build on invasion, death, lust, greed and power-hunger, actually ROBBING people from their land, belongings and resources. Doesn't sound so patriotic does it? The very land that any people steps within a country inside the American continent was build from immigrants from Europe and other continents. So that falls as an hypocrisy.
Immigration exists so that people can seek a better place for themselves, one that fits their needs and wishes. If an immigrant is more capable to get a job than a "native" citizen, then so be it.
It's called being fair.
If people from other countries taking your jobs was the problem, then why are so many people in higher positions in a huge amount of enterprises foreigners? That makes the point mute.
Illegal immigration exists mostly due to Americans themselves (not all) being so greedy and selfish that they want to pay below minimum wage to someone to get a job done.
THAT is main reason why people enter the country, and the Americans themselves encourage this.
Oh and also, if people are SO worried about supposed "diseases" entering the country, then you might as well just close all international travels. Don't be naive and stupid, the US is one of the most international countries in the world, don't forget it gets a lot of tourists and people that have to travel to the country for work purposes, and it has a huge amount of people going in and out of it through all kinds of transports, illegal or not.
If a disease will enter, it will do so despite illegal immigration, it's not like illegal immigrants are the only people prone to get sick, a-hole.
Willingness to pay less than the minimum wage (or also dodge having to dodge having to provide healthcare, pensions, sick pay, nice conditions, decent hours..., not that such things are so very common in low end jobs today) is a fun one. Here I would probably first look to the thing in US law that says companies can be sued if they don't go in hard for the profits, with some small notice given to a company's mission statement, and repeatedly sees it used as well (shareholder sues for lost earnings being a reasonable start for a search there).
Entitled is not necessarily the right term. Most would however say you, as a government, are responsible for providing, or maybe ensuring conditions (there are some people with varying opinions on the responsibilities of the state), for your citizens to thrive. That includes your poor skilled and poorly able (which in case you missed it is no small part of the population and much of the theoretical base of the president) which are quite likely to be displaced or have their quality of life reduced. While I am likely to be fairly callous and aim for meritocracy it is not the only way and "so be it" is far from the only option (we see people encourage, subsidise and cajole to do things all the time).
Minimum wage itself is also not a policy without question by those with their eyes on workers getting a good deal (between limiting growth, pricing certain people out of the market*** and a rising tide lifting all ships) but we should probably skip that one at this point in the discussion.
***if I am compelled to hire someone for minimum wage and I can hire an 18 year old with a strong back to push the button in my factory line the 35 year old disabled guy or a 60 year old semi retired guy looking for some pocket money has not got a look in, to say nothing of it making it likely for me to automate the task when the payoff for it hits around the 3 year range if my usual talks are anything to go by.
When such a thing is coupled with not many disincentives to avoid hiring such people (for all the strong talk it really is easy to hire and be hired there).
Also is it immigrants or illegal immigrants? Big difference in a lot of cases and your post frequently blends the two.
What does that history have to do with today? One is typically not held as responsible for the actions they did not have a part in, and given nobody alive today (give or take the 300 year old illuminati members but there are only like 12 of those so statistical anomaly and all that) will have taken part in it. History, borders and such is a fun one the world over, especially since we decided Westphalian sovereignty was the model to be used (compare to older models of more loose affiliations, those things done under feudalism, the likes of the Austro-Hungarian thing, marcher lords and that is just Europe-Russia for the most part), but in general it is noted that history can't be changed, and thus we are left with solving problems of today and the future, both of which we can seemingly change or effect. Absolutely remember the past, and I look down upon that would seek to forget it, but "you are here, now, it is what it is, deal with it" is a fairly sound policy.
There is also the argument that you don't want to drain the resources of other countries, typically a phrase like brain drain is used here, and it represents a real problem for those countries (you scrimp, save and make international standards, only to have them turn around in the prime of life and say "see you, I might be back to retire or for a holiday"), and possibly also your natives as well*. Economics is a complicated problem here with all sorts of things that happen, and while I would say anybody that claims to know the full picture/resulting effects (even ignoring black swan events) of twiddling a few knobs via a given policy is a charlatan there are still observed patterns and there is a reason we call economics a science. Speaking of it being a science this whole sanctuary city (or in some cases state) thing probably provides us a nice basis to do their favourite trick of a regression analysis on things and resulting effects.
*since the advent of computer work outsourcing (which might speak to the higher positions thing, I should also note the word on the end should have been "moot" as mute means person that can't speak, thing which has the sound turned off or not very bright colours) it has had some fun effects on the natives, and how being able to import 10000 nurses from central America/Africa/somewhere poor is not going to have some serious effects on their original countries and your locals looking at it as a career. Not sure what an answer might be here as I have not even started to properly do the cost-benefit analysis.
Disease spread is an interesting topic and you are possibly over simplifying things. That said controls with regards to diseases are there for good reason -- India and Pakistan having some nice examples for humans (them sending people into the mountain passes to say "we don't care what you do beyond this, if you come through though your kids are getting these vaccinations" being a favourite), though for America a lesser known one would be the end of the Californian quarantine** when everything got diverted to go after the largely theoretical terrorists).
**as 2002 was so long ago (possibly before many here were born, or otherwise were able to make some real sense of the world around them) then some might not have experienced it. Anyway when driving into California there would be people that stopped you and got you to throw away all fresh fruit and veg you were bringing with you (I saw it when coming through Oregon into there, friends have seen it having started in Texas and New Mexico). Right now everybody is concerned with fruit flies (and various types have been for a while now) but it was noted that after such controls were lessened (within the US itself) that things picked up fairly soon after they were dropped.
I would agree the moron natives which eschew vaccinations for their kids for no rational reason are the bigger threat, with misuse of antibiotics being another problem, but to dismiss the problems associated with the more unchecked types of immigration would be a disservice to those looking to control disease spread. Whether it is a good reason to do various things, and what steps are warranted, remains to be debated but to dismiss it out of hand is a bit strong.
I would happily agree that the US' immigration policies are very strange and in need of considerable reform as they make things far harder than they ought to be (not aided by a commonly held notion that it is the best place on earth and essentially everybody would choose to live there if they could, I certainly wouldn't do more than a sub year project and said project would have to be mightily interesting), however at the same time your thoughts here might represent something of an oversimplification of things.
