1. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Life suddenly got quite busy.
To actually enforce our laws? Well, we already have the infrastructure and manpower in place, and, frankly, could probably use some of the fine-based revenue, so my initial bet would be "not much", however, I would also come down on the side of "within reasonable boundaries, I don't care". Rule of Law is a public good, and a prerequisite for a free, successful, and just society.
I didn't say anything about government assistance in the section you quoted, however, the evidence is absolutely there that income for low-skilled Americans has been depressed relative to other categories over the couple of decades in which we also mass-imported lower-cost low-skilled foreigners to compete with them for employment opportunities.
This isn't exactly complicated. When demand for a particular item (say, low-skilled labor) remains relatively stable and supply increases, price drops.
Furthermore, to my point above, if price drops below the legal market floor (the MW), but an extra-legal option is easily and safely available with little to no reasonable chance of negative consequences.... :shrug:
Well, I literally gave you one such item within the section that you are quoting, so, maybe I'll let you re-read that
:shrug: maybe. "as it has"? well, sure - it would have grown some other way.
But I'm not certain that raw GDP growth is all that great a measure of whether or not your populace is doing well, independent of other factors.
If our GDP and population without the recent immigration waves (making up big round numbers to keep it easy) was 300 million people and GDP of $20 Trillion (GDP per capita of about $66,666), there's an argument to be made that that is a better-off populace than a post-immigration wave populace of 330 million with a GDP of $21 Trillion (GDP per capita of about $63,636).
I'm not staking a flag on this to defend to the death, but, raw GDP growth that results in a lower average standard of living is, shall we say, a heavily mitigated "benefit" at best.
No, you would have fewer low skilled labor meaning lower skilled labor would be more richly rewarded in the market.
Possibly.
That is correct - those of us who wish U.S. domestic policy would stop punishing our poor are generally in favor of U.S. domestic policy ceasing to punish our poor. Making legal labor increasingly expensive through regulation while mass importing an extra-legal low cost substitute is a tailor-made way to go about pushing the most vulnerable parts of your population into structural unemployment and poverty.
