But if you welcome immigrants so as not to run out of labor or stagnate culturally, rather than simply dislike immigrants, you'd want to improve the bureaucracy.
Is it a hideous insult because you think it's not true, or because the wording feels offensive? Is there a more polite way to express the same sentiment, if you think it's true, or is it either true or insulting?
Cuba has had zero immigration for a long time but has an interesting culture.
Vietnam has basically zero immigration. Indonesia. Philippines. India. Honduras. Guatemala. Brazil. Jamaica. Mexico.
It's both insulting and untrue in a way that feels degrading to these nations' rich thriving cultures. That somehow only western, immigration heavy cultures are valid or are cultures of any worth.
I do think those nations have rich, thriving cultures. I also think that any culture, no matter how rich and thriving, can lead itself toward stagnation if it becomes overly insular. It's fair to point out that immigration isn't the only possible source of cultural diversity, but it's a powerful force for it, and I think the United States, being a huge cultural exporter, is at more risk than countries that are less dominant on the internet.
You’re jumping to the conclusion that there’s another reason they’d arbitrarily leave out such a segment. It’s either because there aren’t enough to merit an entry, or there’s some conspiracy afoot to make this obviously racist enforcement appear racist.
"so as not to run out of labor"
Beloved by the extreme right economically and now Trump. Low ball the labor market. Destroy the middle class and especially the working class. But at least CEOs will get their performance bonuses, and shareholders will see shares rise due to lower costs.
It's literally the current case. Our citizenry is incapable of meeting our labor needs. ("Why" is another discussion entirely.)
If you were to remove all the illegal immigrants right now from the US, our economy would be kneecapped. Granted, the harvest season is over in most of the US, but housing would be among the first markets to collapse functionally. If you are uncertain how important that market is, study the Great Recession of 2008.
"If you were to remove all the illegal immigrants right now from the US"
The wage levels and benefits would have to rise to meet the demand for labor. The US would also have to sort out its education and trades system too.
But if you think this is a skills shortage, I've got a bridge to sell you. And by the way, you are economically libertarian and on the same side as Trump. Bringing in an Indian to do the same job as an American citizen for half the wage is not a skill shortage, it's crony capitalism.
"housing would be among the first markets to collapse functionally"
Poe's Law. You'd have a massive supply in housing, and therefore a collapse in the prices to owning a house. It has nothing to do with '08.
"f you are uncertain how important that market is, study the Great Recession of 2008."
The great recession(It was a depression. I'd suggest studying definitions) was caused by three things:
President Clinton scrapping Glass-Steagall Act, the dam set up after the Great Depression of '29 to stop it happening again.
President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Credit default swaps were the nukes of '08. Clinton exempted CDSs from regulation!!
President Clinton rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks and lending institutions to give NINJA loans under the charge of racism(see commentator above) if they did not.
He also signed NAFTA allowing cheap labor and material into the US, and allowing companies to move South. (see Ross Perot great sucking sound)
He also brought China into the WTO devastating not just America, but the entire West.
