These things can never be understood purle statistically but have to be understood in a complex mix of evolutionary, social, psychological and geographical, eco

These things can never be understood purle statistically but have to be understood in a complex mix of evolutionary, social, psychological and geographical, economical, context before we can even start to talk about benefits and problems with immigration. I believe a different question needs to be asked which is. What conditions need to be in place before immigration becomes a net positive or a net negative. It's always struck me as an important difference that the US is so attractive to people even though they don't get anything compared to Europe. I remember when I grew up in Denmark and we had discussions about why immigrant/refugees got free bikes and free metrocards to take public transportation. This turned into a kind of resentment where every time you saw an immigrant doing well you would often hear "well of course since they get everything from the government" The sentiment is that it's less deserved. There is something about access to better opportunity which transcends the actual state of that opportunity as long as it feels deserved which I believe is what actually helps a country get more out of its immigration even though if it's system isn't as generous as ex. the Scandinavian or German immigration systems. The US system could be much better but the opportunities here are still second to none IMO (I moved from Denmark because of better opportunity for what I want to do with my life) Immigration is at times great for a country at other times can be a problem depending on the state of the situation the country finds itself in. Looking at it statistically just isn't the right way to do things. It will always be a mix and doesn't really make sense to talk about net benefits in any truly meaningful way IMO. Only context matters.