If it cannot be denied, then you do not need to explain.
Regardless, it can be denied, and I will proceed to do so once I see the basis for your assertion.
One could just as easily argue that this is a problem created by immigration, not one to be solved by it. Americans have increasingly sought higher education since the 60's because that is increasingly the only option available to them now that manual labor fields are being made economically uncompetitive by mass immigration.
The restaurant industry is growing because population is growing. Immigration accounts for the vast majority of population growth; the last set of statistics I saw had the American population actually slowly declining without immigration, although those statistics were admittedly outdated. At any rate, this is another case of a problem caused by, not solved by, immigration.
A majority of older Americans will not work those jobs at current wages. Wages will have to go up to encourage employment in those fields. Last I heard, that is a positive thing.
Do you mean job or labor shortage? If there's a job shortage then logically all immigration (legal and illegal) should be cut off immediately.
I suspect you have this reversed; legal immigrant visas are capped at roughly half a million last I heard, while annual illegal immigration exceeds twice that.
All of which could be taken to suggest that immigrants do, in fact, put Americans out of work.
Everyone who buys anything in America pays the sales tax, including tourists. This is not a suitable basis for granting them citizenship.
And they only pay property tax if they own property. So far as I know, most do not. That immigrants pay property tax is irrelevant -- the cost of the services for which property taxes pay would decline without immigrants, so a rough equilibrium would be achieved.
And even if all of this is true (it is not), economics represents only one end of the equation when it comes to immigration. Admittedly, neocon apologists' for mass immigration don't care about anything else, but that does not change the existential fact that there are very real non-economic reasons to oppose mass immigration, ranging from the sociocultural to the environmental.
"Mexican" is not a race.
The land was not "stolen," it was "conquered." The Amerindians are not indigenous to this area, either, having immigrated here from east Asia many years before. (I assume you won't acknowledge anyone as indigenous who is not living within a mile-radius of the place from which their unicellular ancestors crawled from the primordial ooze while the earth was still cooling).
Whether or not you're willing to admit it, conquest is legitimate. Case in point: I defy you to name a single nation whose borders were not fixed by it. We do not invalidate any of their national sovereignties off-the-bat because of it.
Hell, Lincoln contributed to it. As I recall, he signed the single largest writ of execution in American history, all American Indians.
And again, to say the land was "stolen" rather than "conquered" is silly and revisionist. How does one go about "stealing" land? You can't move land, you can only move people onto it and off of it. Doing so is the definition of conquest.
Once again, "Mexican" is not a race. You're going to have to invent a new epithet for him.
The problem with the scenario you pose is that it wouldn't happen. Canadians won't spill across the border because they have a workable First World society. The only way they would do so is if they didn't, in which case he would criticize them.
And then conquered by the French. We finished the job.
I think you're the first person in the world who has insisted on using, as a derogative, a word that is actually less derogatory than the actual history would suggest.
