> US citizens also contribute a higher percentage of their income to local communities than immigrants do

I don't know, man. The state of California and the federal government take their rightful 38% share from my income. I'm not a citizen.

My girlfriend also pays her rightful 38% share of income. She is a citizen.

And my income is a bit higher so in absolute terms I contribute more as an immigrant than my girlfriend does as a citizen. Percentagewise it's the same because we're in the same tax bracket.

Anecdata, yes, but my point is that everyone who is in X tax bracket pays Y% taxes. Want immigrants to contribute a higher percentage of their income to local communities? Give them higher salaries. ;)

Also, unless a migrant stays in the US forever, they won't receive the benefits of their social security contributions.

EG: I pay 6.2*2=12.4% as social security, but unless I contribute for at least 10 years, those contributions are lost. So many H1B holders end up paying 12% more in taxes than their American counterparts...

Oh that's a good point I didn't even think of! I have to pay all those social things and will likely never see them again. Like throwing money in the furnace.

And unlike an H1B, my O-1 visa is not dual intent. That means I get to stay in constant purgatory. Haven't really looked into it, but I probably should.

Either way, legal immigrants contribute just as much, if not more, as citizens do.

Edit: Looks like they support sending social security payments to foreign countries, if you meet requirements. That's neat. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10137.pdf

I didn't mean in taxes, I meant that immigrants often send money home or buy from their native country, for instance when on vacation etc.

I for one do not. And none of my immigrant friends do either.

There's two types of immigrants in that regard. One has family back home that they support by getting a better job abroad. They might be the majority, I don't know.

Then there's the young person who moved abroad right after college or studied abroad in the first place. They're looking for better opportunities for themselves. Many start families abroad and their children are citizens.

Many if not most immigrants are hybrids of above. One family member moves abroad with the goal of sending money back home to provide for their family. But the endgame is to eventually bring the rest of the family over once the first immigrant finishes bootstrapping their new life.

I would wager that most immigrants who do have family back home, would love nothing more than to bring the rest of the family over to their new country.

Economically speaking everyone pays taxes. Also economically speaking no one pays taxes equally. I would love to see actual statics that show that immigrants do not contribute to local economies at a rate similar to others in a community at a similar pay bracket.

As for supply and demand. I believe the supply and demand of the job market as a whole is exactly what is causing immigration. I believe those market forces will continue to pull in immigration, legally or not. Market forces have a hard time understanding law.

If your supply/demand argument works, then why is rural Europe suffering from long term unemployment when European cities long-term have more open positions than unemployed? Why is it, that in southern siberia, where there is massive mining and forestry industry, there is also massive unemployment and people move cross continent to Moscow to find work, despite the fact that Moscow has almost no real industry.

Economics isn't a zero-sum game.