The argument being countered by showing the origin of the 2016 laureates is that immigration is bad for the destination country; on the contrary, immigrants hav

The argument being countered by showing the origin of the 2016 laureates is that immigration is bad for the destination country; on the contrary, immigrants have fantastic achievements, both as scientists and as entrepreneurs. This is not about the wellbeing of the immigrants themselves. Arguably, tough (yet reasonable) immigration policies act as somewhat of a barrier, causing "good" immigrants to flow in, and restricting the bad. I mean, you can't argue that on average, the population of prospective immigrants is any better than the indigenous American citizens, but those who make it past the immigration hoops are, evidently, pretty good. If all immigration barriers were to be removed tomorrow, the influx of third world population would crush the USA - or any other western state - as we know it. The challenge of the immigration system is being tough but fair, where you let more of the useful immigrants pass while filtering out the rest. The American system is not there; it's tough alright, but it's still missing on a huge amount of human potential. (I'm not a US citizen)