Just move to any place that's had its workforce, welfare system and social order decimated by impoverished immigrants and given enough time to amass some awful experiences, you'll be able to list your own reasons.
Many parts of the UK, and half of mainland Europe? Was ongoing and in decline in some places, but become worse since the Ukraine crisis which has exacerbated, as both wealthy and poor are arriving en masse straining limited resources.
Sure, in a country with unused land, untapped resources, and infrastructure that can easily adapt, it could (potentially) result in growth and prosperity for all. But much of overcrowded Europe doesn't meet the prerequisites.
How do migrants decimate the workforce? Wouldn't they add to the workforce? (Though I do agree that eg the German policy to ban asylum seekers from working while at the same time enrolling them in welfare is asinine. The devil finds work for bored young man.)
Enrolling migrants in the welfare system is a choice. It's easy to restrict the welfare system to citizens only.
Social order is a bit too nebulous to make a comment.
Migrants from poorer countries have lower standards of living, and often able to claim exclusive subsidies. When a job market is saturated with people willing to do jobs for way less, the existing workforce gets pushed out.
Country level this mightn't change much initially, as the existing workforce moves where they maintain their income. But on a local level it's disruptive, and if not held in check flows up to country-level. (A "brain-drain".)
Labour compensation is mostly decided by labour productivity. Many software engineers are so in love with their craft, that they would work for free. Instead, they are handsomely rewarded, because (in the limit) competitions bids up their wages to their level of productivity.
(Conversely, just because I am used to a high standard of living, doesn't mean that I will automatically gain high pay.)
Does your theory about newcomers pushing people out of the existing workforce also apply to the situation in the 20th century in the US when women started having careers outside the home? Why or why not?
It's not a theory, it's experience - and not just mine.
The situations in the US, especially historically, are very different to those in other parts of the world, especially now.
Yet, even in the US, I see even illegal immigrants right now are being given all manner of bonuses and incentives - free mobile phones, for a recently well-publicised example.
In the UK and Europe immigrants are given free housing and other often monetary benefits not available to ordinary citizens. This, plus their willingness to live in, for example, roach-infested council housing for free or cheap (in the UK), gives them a huge edge in the job market that slowly decimates an area.
There have been very hard times for businesses recently, what do you think they will do when a person turns up offering to do the same job for much less?
Not in my area of work, but in terms of more fundamental employment. All the local faces you see begin changing to those of immigrants, and the entire dynamic and general safety of the small village you once called home shift into something completely alien. Generally, crime goes up, higher-end businesses and talent leave, and the place becomes a ghetto compared to what it was before.
It's not about immigration per se, it's just about the amount of it.
It's accelerated all over Europe recently. It's even headlining the news regularly here as "the migration crisis".
It's not a controversial or unusual thing to think that migrants are causing problems. Historically they're one constant thing that has in Europe.
It's also not at all theoretical - outside perhaps of the safe bubble of comfort those in less volatile situations end up thinking is a universal reality manufacturable by their ideologies.
It's a reality sure, but it's not universal. And not all ideologies work everywhere and when applied to all people.
I have heard this claim before, but I haven't been able to find any strong evidence of this. Can you provide some links to places this has happened to? Developed countries specifically.
If you're looking at country-level data it may be too broad and so harder to identify, only one order away from pointlessly looking for the same effect in "the whole world". You need granularity, where the effects are seen.
For example, small UK villages presently having emotion-filled community meetings unable to cope with the negative effect of sudden influxes of 1000's of allotted refugees radically changing every aspect of their home.
But why require evidence, when the basic math has it:
You have x number of people with y number of resources. What will happen if you increase x without also increasing y?
