I apologize for hijacking this thread, it's a good one and I've read many interesting things but given the expertise I've seen here perhaps there is a level of understanding here that can confirm/dispute a theory.
I have to think that with the native US very close to a sub-replacement rate we're in the same boat as old Europe. They've tried to save their bacon by importing muslims and it doesn't seem to be working out too well for them either culturally or economically.
Japan won't bend and I think a very strong argument that the economic condition in Japan over the last decade could be the first population decline recession/depression in modern history. Indeed there are other factors, but still...
"We" are doing it with Mexicans and while it is causing problems in perspective with the solutions of other countries they're actually quite mild.
I'd appreciate criticism on this theory, I can't prove it and maybe I'm just grasping at straws trying to come up with any justification I can for the refusal of Washington to address the border problem.
You are right to some extent. The political repercussions are only beginning. If they remain illegal and real attempts are made to stop the flow and reverse it the political changes are not drastic. An amnesty or perceived amnesty will ratchet up the flood tremendously and will eliminate the Republican Party from contention in national politics and prevent any sort of Conservative party from taking its place. Illegals vote already in all Democrat controlled political districts and they vote Democrat. Amnesty will increase the flow of new illegals and raise the percentage who vote. Actually the US is still above the population replacement minimum and one large segment, orthodox Christians and Protestants are actually increasing birthrates.
Last I checked, there were at least 14 different status groupings for those who have come into the country -- most of these still fall under the (questionable) heading of quasi-legal status, resulting from laws made by Democrats, locally and at State levels. To toss back to Mexico, those who came across illegally, but are given quasi-legal status by local or state government laws, is to open the door to tossing out legal citizens of the US, broadly speaking.
But were I to go with your economic theory in re illegals, I would hazard to say this: I've seen statistics provided over past 10 years which portray that resulting from 40+ years of racialist pandering by hucksters in the Black Communities and Liberals United In Politics, low-income blacks tend to consume and not produce -- be on welfare, etc.; consuming any profit margin of every producer (company, employee, entreprenuer, etc.). Statistics do show that most illegals come and work, and due their very nature in being illegal, will more likely shy away from welfarian systems, and while working under the table and not directly paying taxes -- they do pay taxes at local levels (gas, foods, consumables).
Some assert this benefit ratio is offset by the crimes of certain illegals. This can be true, but as it is yet difficult to get any hard numbers of most matters concerning illegals, it is difficult to assert any which way.
At very least then, one could assert the illegal criminals are increasing investments in police, INS, courts, etc. Also job-boosting, unemployment stats.
Then there is the issue of illegals and quasi-illegals sending their income back to Mexico. This then props up the Mexican economy. As the Mexican economy is propped up, yes, through the transferrence of American dollars, businesses also grow in Mexico. As businesses in Mexico grow, more people in Mexico might find more of an incentive to stay in Mexico and add to their own economy.
But, my having said all this, endless times before, only infuriates border bots and racialists.