It is therefore fatuous to argue that cutting family-based immigration will somehow reduce illegal immigration. Targeted measures, such as Senator Abraham's amendment to the Senate's illegal immigration bill, would address that problem by preventing those who overstay their visas from receiving any new visas for at least three years. Immigrants do make somewhat heavier use of means-tested welfare programs than natives. There have been especially flagrant abuses by immigrants of particular welfare programs, such as Supplemental Security Income. To the extent that welfare use by immigrants is a problem, this can be addressed by restricting the welfare eligibility of immigrants, not by keeping immigrants out.
Immigrants depress the wages and working conditions of American citizens.
It is also contradicted by virtually all other studies on the subject. For example, in the 1980s the U.S. accepted 7 million new immigrants, but unemployment fell sharply and family incomes rose. When polled within the appropriate context, Americans favor immigration. Legal immigration has been one of the few constants throughout American history that has consistently served the nation well, both culturally and economically. In the immigration debate, the burden of proof should be on those who suggest shutting the golden gates tighter.