Any two paragraph comment is necessarily an over-simplification, and I'm mindful of the fact that this conversation is basically about a photographer who documented child labor practices rather than immigration, which is part of why I kept it brief. However, you make some points that deserve a response. For context, I'm also an immigrant and unusually conversant with the legal and political history, as I intended to become an immigration lawyer at one point.

For some incomprehensible reason the US has, over the last few years, let in over six million people without much in the way of controls. This, by definition, means, at a minimum, six million unemployed. We are not creating an extra 100K+ jobs per month.

We create 3-4 times that many jobs, and part of the reason that some states have been loosening child labor regulations is because employers are having a hard time finding people to staff blue collar jobs.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=ne...

at a minimum, any job they land will be taken from someone else.

This is called a 'lump of labor fallacy' by economists. It overlooks the fact that job holders also create additional demand = both personally, as individual consumers who need food, shelter, transport and other necessities (plus some discretionary consumption), as productive workers whose output creates wealth for their employer, which wealth is either reinvested or spent on discretionary consumption, and thirdly as workers whose labor has to be paired with other economic inputs like fuel or tools. Particularly in the agricultural sector, if the labor force isn't available the employer often faces the choice of abandoning a project (eg harvesting crops) crop or not investing to produce it in the first place (eg not planting at the beginning of the season).

However, you would be surprised how much of an ATM machine the US is for the world.

This metaphor implies receiving money without any real effort. Certainly immigrants can make far more money in the US than they would in less developed economies for the same combination of skill and labor. In this sense immigrants are engaging in economic arbitrage, ie supplying demand in one market rather than another. This is normal, and indeed the financial sector handsomely rewards people for doing the exact same thing. If capital can move freely across borders to meet demand, why not labor?

I think we need a points system and a process of acceptance that is in sync with our needs.

This will just make the current dysfunctional system more dysfunctional by adding another thick layer of bureaucracy, political gamesmanship, and potential for fraud or abuse.

The US has lost most of its industrial base to China. This means we don't really create jobs. Our industrial/manufacturing base isn't expanding at a sufficient rate to justify such influx.

Perhaps the US should have instituted capital controls several decades ago instead of letting the monied class fatten itself on the short-term windfalls of outsourcing to markets with an oversupply of cheap labor. But to do so would have been to question market orthodoxy and by extension, the whole notion of capitalism as an organizing principle for a civilization - political heresy in America, not withstanding the absence of any particular economic ideology from its founding documents. Again, it's unclear to me why capital should be allowed to move freely in search of maximum return but labor markets should be subjected to arbitrary controls. There is no coherent economic argument in favor of this unless to include autarkical systems like Juche.

US manufacturing is actually doing great and outpacing the rest of the world, in part because China shut its economic engine down to such a degree during COVID. This trend looks likely to continue for some time given the large subsidies still coming down the pipe for green energy and chip production, both of which the US is trying to re-domesticate to lessen its strategic dependence on China and other low-cost labor markets.