Percentages matter, not absolute numbers, because capacity for immigration should scale with the size of the overall population obviously.
Second, even with birthright immigrants counted, which increases the amount to 80-85 million, it's still rivaled by the likes of Australia, Hong Kong, Luxemborg, Singapore, Lichenstein, Israel, New Zealand and Canada.
Third, anecdotes do not impress or persuade; you need to specifically quantify the supposed overall costs of immigration and diversify as a net sink in proportional excess vis a vis other countries, and furthermore directly show that it directly accounts, alongside the population size, for an inability to implement these programs as opposed to more likely modes of prevention such as lobbying, money in politics, and political cronyism/corruption that has come to domineer US federal policy:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Again, broad claims of qualitative nonsense that demonstrates nothing substantive or compelling; actual numbers on national educational attainment shows the US to be roughly in line with OECD averages. In fact, the US leads some other European countries with higher overall standards of living in terms of tertiary education.
No one forced Clinton to pass either of those things. In fact Clinton lobbied for the commodities deregulation per the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000:
How the Clinton Team Thwarted Effort to Regulate Derivatives |
Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton