For more than three decades, conservative Americans have voiced concern over the massive legal immigration program that was not in the best interest of Americans but aided the corporations and industries with low-wage workers.

Now, Americans contend with the promotion of illegal immigration, fostered by the past administration in the best interest of illegal alien invaders, resulting in taxpayers feeling a heavier burden on social programs the government awarded to these illegals.

As it turns out, economist George Borjas, speaking with Talking Points Memo, claimed that decades of mass immigration to the united States became the "world's largest anti-poverty program," which ended up disparaging American blue-collar workers.

Breitbart reported:

In an interview with Talking Points Memo, economist George Borjas detailed how more than five decades of mass immigration of low-wage foreign nationals to the U.S. have negatively impacted America’s poor, working class, and middle class in the labor force.

Borjas explains:

Since 1965, we have admitted a lot of low-skilled immigrants, and one way to view that policy is that we were running basically the largest anti-poverty program in the world. That is actually not a bad thing at all. Except someone is going to have to pay the cost for that.

This is the question that most progressives don’t want to face up to. They really want to believe that immigrants are manna from heaven. That everybody is really better off and that everybody is happy forever after. What they refuse to confront is the reality that nothing in the world is like manna from heaven. In any policy change, some people benefit a lot and some people don’t. And this point also applies to immigration, which has created the dynamics of where we are now.

Borjas expresses what many conservatives have been stating for years.

However, using mass immigration as an "anti-poverty program" does not work, according to NumbersUSA.

In the "gumball" video, the admission of one million immigrants per year does nothing to stem world poverty.

With an approximately 5.6 billion individuals living in poverty in countries around the world and the US admitting immigrants with a poverty level equal to that of Mexican citizens, one million immigrants per year does not even amount to a drop in a bucket to thwart world poverty.

It's a myth perpetuated by The World Bank that it does.

In looking at the future of this "anti-poverty" program of mass immigration, NumbersUSA shows that keeping current mass immigration levels will eventually ensure that the majority of individuals  in America will be foreign immigrants with low-skill levels.

For comprehensive information on mass immigration, NumbersUSA provides numerous resources for individuals to access to learn the effect of mass immigration upon the national interest of America.

Borjas explained how mass immigration is not in the national interest of Americans.

According to Borjas, when immigration increases the number of workers by 10%, the wages of American workers decreases by approximately 3%.

Borjas claimed, "The largest loss is probably the wage drop suffered by the workers who now face more competition in the labor market."

“It is not a huge drop, but it is certainly not zero. And we should all find it particularly worrisome when this wage drop is imposed on workers who can least afford it. And this obviously tends to aggravate the forces that lead to greater inequality in our economy,” Borjas continued.

Borjas said that Americans are not only negatively impacted by immigration in the workforce but also in how much they must pay in social services for new arrivals.

“The other big loss that we need to think about in terms of low-skill immigration is the increased cost of government services that we provide to them,” Borjas said. “According to the latest National Academy report, this number could easily exceed over $50 billion a year.”

While conservative Americans support legal immigration, conservative Americans recognize that unfettered legal immigration, as the US has implemented, actually harms America and her citizens.

However, any stance on immigration, legal or illegal, purporting to curb entry into the united States has been met with the worst of name-calling by left, liberal, progressive, Democratic, communists, socialist, Marxist cult of America.

Breitbart continued:

The cost of legal immigration noted by Borjas is just one component of the cost of overall immigration to the U.S. For instance, a recent study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $116 billion a year, as Breitbart News reported.

Legislation to reduce the burden of legal and illegal immigration on Americans has been set forward by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. David Perdue’s (R-GA) RAISE Act, which President Trump has endorsed.

Under the RAISE Act, the recommendations of Civil Rights Leader Barbara Jordan would be fulfilled, as the bill would cut legal immigration levels in half — reducing immigration to 500,000 new immigrants a year — while also transforming the current low-skilled immigration system into one based on the merit and skills of foreign nationals.

Barbara Jordan, appointed by former President Bill Clinton to chair the Commission on Immigration Reform in 1993, was known as one of the few Democrats who favored a "pro-American legal immigration system that ceased on inundating working-class neighborhoods with low-skilled workers."

The commission would come to be called the "Jordan Commission" since it was one of her "last quests for American justice" before her death in 1996.

Today, the influence of Jordan's commission echoes in the new legislation purported to address Americans' interest, not those of corporate and political interest.

Breitbart reported:

The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) is one of the few immigration overhaul plans that would carry the torch forward for Jordan’s immigration legacy.

“Immigration imposes mutual obligations,” Jordan wrote in a piece for the New York Times in 1995, titled ‘The Americanization Ideal.”

“Those who choose to come here must embrace the common core of American civic culture. We must assist them in learning our common language: American English,” Jordan continued. “We must renew civic education in the teaching of American history for all Americans. We must vigorously enforce the laws against hate crimes and discrimination. We must remind ourselves, as we illustrate for newcomers, what makes us America.”

Under the RAISE Act, the “Americanization” that Jordan so often spoke of would be strengthened by a requirement that legal immigrants coming to the U.S. be skilled in English.

Cotton and Perdue’s legislation also follows through on Jordan’s recommendation that low-skilled immigration -which drives U.S. wages down – and non-merit, family chain migration be entirely abolished, as she famously asserted during a press conference on the Commission’s findings.

In 1995, Jordan wrote, "A well-regulated system of legal immigration is in our national interest."

The RAISE Act purports to "create a merit-based legal immigration system where immigrants are divided into three categories:  nuclear family members, professional immigrants, and refugees."

Moreover, it would abolish the diversity lottery (50,000 visas metered out to foreign nationals yearly without requiring a skill set or speaking English); cap legal immigration to no more than 500,000 per year:  and, limit refugee resettlement to 50,000 per year.

The RAISE Act also recommends no enactment of immigration policy unless it benefits American citizens.

The Cotton/Perdue RAISE Act is a start to stemming the tide of no-skilled and low-skilled workers entering the united States through legal means.

Since the united States is under no obligation to take refugees and considering the united States has taken plenty under the Obama administration, the refugee resettlement program should be eliminated all together, but, should at least be suspended for the next 10-15 years.

While other nations have limited their legal immigration and others closed their immigration programs altogether, the united States has always accepted legal immigrants, even when it was detrimental to our national interests.

At a time when Americans are struggling to find employment and many are under-employed, it is common sense to limit or close the US immigration program in order to attend to Americans' needs first.

Considering the way immigration has been administered in the past, a great financial burden was placed upon Americans as immigrants accessed social programs funded through taxpayer dollars.

Fewer Americans in the workforce mean fewer taxpayer dollars to fund those programs, which are unconstitutional in the first place.

Despite all the research and studies detailing the negative impact of immigration upon the republic, the federal government refused to address the plight of Americans while seeking to address the poverty of the world, which will never be eliminated looking at the numbers.

Both chambers of Congress have addressed what corporate America wanted, what would get these politicians the most votes, and placated the multiculturalism cult's call for increased diversity.

The lack of putting the republic's best interest, aka Americans' best interest, first resulted in over immigration of unskilled, non-English speaking individuals driving down wages and increasing the cost of federal and state social programs.

With a significant portion of the American population unemployed, under-employed, never employed relying on social programs to live, and an increasingly aging population, the best interest of this republic is to pull workers from our own population before admitting immigrants who compete with Americans for jobs or increase the cost of social programs because their skill level precludes them from jobs enabling independence.

While some may consider this harsh, it is not.

Countries, nations and republics can decide who can immigrate into their borders and can close their immigration programs when necessary, during economic crises for example, in order to protect the national interest.

Why this is difficult for some to comprehend is staggering.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.