This really isn't the point at all.
Isn't it?
An unskilled immigrant worker is not bringing any real benefit to the general population of the host country - he is merely doing what a local could do already and driving down wages.
Not really.
Exactly how many unskilled immigrants do you think are admitted to your country? The number isn't very high... and those who are let in only get to come in because it's been established that there's a need for them. IOW, without them, labour costst would be artifically high, meaning that the businesses
you buy from are having to pay too much for their unskilled employees... and who do you think ends up paying for that?
Unless you're talking about refugees, but they're a whole other ball of wax. Refugees get let in not because of benefit to their host country, but out of desire not to be a bunch of heartless ******** who would leave someone to be killed by war, famine, or other nasty things in whatever hellhole they came from.
The only people he helps are the middle classes and above who benefit from his need to accept an even lower wage. (ie: they benefit from his exploitation and as a consequence the general further exploitation of the local workers)
The fact that another country has 'paid' for his education etc. is completely irrelevant.
No, it's not irrelevant. You're the one who put forward this idea of looking at it as a cost-benefit proposition. If you're going to argue that an unskilled immigrant creates less benefit for society than an unskilled native-born citizen, then the fact that the immigrant created less in the way of costs than the native-born citizen is just as relevant.
All else being equal, a person who immigrates as an adult represents much less in the way of tax expenditure than a native-born citizen, because the state never had to shell out money for the immigrant's elementary and secondary educaation. Also, the immigrant is less likely to be a burden on the public purse in the future, because if they think you're likely to end up on welfare, they don't let you in. Native-born citizens don't go through this sort of screening process.
The 30% of salary is still leaving the host country - a local worker pays tax and also spends the rest of his salary in the home economy.
Where are you getting this "30%" from?
My Dad was an immigrant - he was brought to Canada by my grandparents with his brother and sister. My family never sent money to relatives back home; the relatives back there were doing fine. I mean, they'd send Christmas and birthday presents there, but the relatives back there would send presents in return, so the net transfer was about zero.
You have not demonstrated any benefit here to the host nation but have just come up with a sensationalist idea that I begrudge him ' helping his family' (I never implied that at all).
Don't you mean he is helping the families of the rich?
No, I mean he's helping everyone.
If an immigrant gets a job on, say, an assembly lline, then he fulfils a need and contributes to the profit of that company. The investors in that company, including regular people saving for their retirement and pension funds that do the same thing for many people - including many lower-income people - gain as a result. This means that by a small increment, those people are better off. And if this means they get slightly higher income in retirement, then (assuming that Social Security works like Canadian old age benefits do) these people would lose out on some of their government retirement benefits as their income increases, meaning that you and every other taxpayer benefit from either more government services in other areas or lower tax rates.
