This probably explains things like why the population of the US roughly trebled over the last 100 years and yet unemployment didn't rise to 66%+ of the working population during that time.
There is no proof that immigrants spend nearly all the money they earn. In fact, I would argue that they are frequently more frugal so the money is locked away from the economy.
And I would also not attribute immigrants as the main factor to why unemployment did not rise to 66%. The main reasons that the number of jobs grew rapidly can be attributed to the auto and computer industry.
The money is typically locked away in the country where they're residing. That money can work as investment money.
You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
Investment money isn't as good as money spent for goods. There is limited demand for loans and stocks without a corresponding rise in productivity.
Try making an economy where people don't spend anything and simply save. Or you can save yourself the trouble and see how well that worked out for Japan in the 90's.
> You're also forgetting about the taxes they pay.
Many illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Immigrants as a whole are paid less (very few are unique geniuses that are paid more), which means that they are actually netting less tax money than if a native was hired. They are also on a lower tax bracket so that is a double whammy.
I really don't see how anyone could be arguing otherwise unless they were trying to exploit H-1B labor themselves.
Incidentally, the point is not that immigration prevented unemployment from rising to 66%, but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of the population. New people == new jobs.
Remittance doesn't help the US dollar. It hurts the US dollar. As foreign exchange banks need to make a profit, for every USD -> Rupee exchange, they are giving you less rupees for your dollar. Its just like buying gold. If a bunch of people start buying gold, the price will skyrocket against the currency you are buying it with.
" but simply that the number of jobs tends to be proportional to the size of the population. New people == new jobs."
Sorry but I don't believe that. More people does not necessarily equate more jobs. If you have a city that has food and water for 500 people, you are bound by that restriction. Adding another 500 people to it would not increase any jobs.