As for business competing to attract legal citizens(I guess you mean workers?), the domestic labor supply is inelastic. It doesn't make any difference how much an employer raises wages, there are only so many workers available, that is why it is inflationary. The exception to this is that over a couple of generations of high birth rate, the labor supply would rise.
As for your statement regarding the population, I can only suggest you take a look at the demographic data. Compare the birth rate to the immigration rate. Notice how the mean age is rising. Etc,Etc.
The US has a long, successful history of importing its economic underclass, don't look for that to change.
"The US has a long, successful history of importing its economic underclass, don't look for that to change."
They can get in line and come in the same way my forebears did; legally (save the Cherokee part of my lineage which migrated prior to formal immigration policy).
The labor supply is not inelastic. Legal immigration and reproduction see to that. A certain amount of legal immigration is part of our American heritage.
I believe that the recent tidal wave of illegal immigration is stifling innovation. With an infinite supply of cheap labor, where is the incentive to spend capital on R&D, uptraining, education? There is none. It's easier to just hire another illegal. This is no different than slave-owners claiming we would fail without slavery. What happened? The industrial revolution. Not bad, eh?
Whatever happened to American ingenuity? The overall goal is a better standard of living for all American citizens willing to work. That will not happen with unchecked immigration.
I never stated that inflation was good. Only inevitable for real-estate. They just aren't making any more of that. In your economic view, the best way to combat inflation is to increase man-hours worked. What a bore. If you have more people here clamoring for goods, you'll still have inflation because demand increases. Supply AND demand.
There are only 2 net ways to combat inflation: increasing productivity per man-hour worked, or importing cheaper goods from overseas. I do support some responsible international trade. I think we ought-not be trading with our enemies. On a long enough timeline, overseas trade is only a temporary fix, anyways.
Population increases INFLATE housing prices. It's the most vital human need next to food (actually faith is first in my book, but I'm trying to confine this to a secular discussion), and the cost is going through the roof. Sure, DVD players are cheaper... So what?
Greenspan's policies have kept consumer goods prices from rising too fast, but how about housing? Housing prices have skyrocketed over the last 25 years. Yes, the percentage of home ownership has increased, but how much of that can be explained away by the aging population? Why does your set not consider housing inflation negative? (I'm not just talking rhetoric, here. I'll save that for the next paragraph. I'd acually like to see the breakdown.)
The problem I find with most economists is that they have traded their god in for a golden idol. Their economic policies are OK but do not factor in human beings as anything more than potential GDP. For me the preservation of our culture, heritage, and the security of our citizens against foreign enemies comes first. I fail to see how rampant illegal immigration has any defensible position in this regard.