We are here because our ancestors didn't do that.
I beg your pardon? You're telling me that our ancestors didn't drive the Natives out of house and home? That they didn't war against them in order to expand their own territory?
No, you misunderstand. Our ancestors did not opt to stay in their own country and improve conditions there.
To demand it of others seems rather hypocritical don't you think - we, in our wealthy comfortable America....?
Curious, why rob your homeland of the skills you have by fleeing to another country? I get coming here to get the skills, but why not go back to your homeland and use them to better it? Why can't we incentivize the existing population to acquire such skills?
I mean, it's like having clean running water at home but instead buying bottled and jugged water at the store... for fear of turning on the spigot and using the water you have.
In your second paragraph...you have a number of different, and good questions.
1 and 2. The reasons for leaving a country are many. In some cases even with the skills there are few opportunities available to utilize them (high unemployment, unstabe governments, dictatorships). You might be fleeing extreme poverty, corrupt government and law enforcement, government ignored gang violence (El Salvadore) where you children's choices might be join a gang or die. You might be fleeing civil war in a country with multiple militias and no clear path forward and a government that wants to kill you (Syria). You might be fleeing severe poverty, famine, drought (Sudan). You might be fleeing a country where the majority has turned against you, stript you of citizenship, put you in camps, forbidden you education and ability to work and finally driven you out murdering, burning alive, and raping your people (Rohinga and Azhidi). You might be fleeing ethnic/racial/religious persecution (many). Secondly...there are many who come here for an education (despite the constant bashing of our higher ed, our schools are very sought after around the world) and return to work in their home countries. Again, they may not facing the crisis others do. They are immigrating for the same reasons our ancestors did - and that is why I think it's important to at least recognize that instead of denigrating them.
Also...immigration historically has been incredibly important to us as a country throughout history. It built this country into what it was. The more closed a country - the more it stagnates. We offer a unique environment in the US - anyone can be anything. People can reinvent themselves. Innovation is not only encouraged but valued. And new ideas don't just spring out stagnation - they are brought in by different ways of thinking, of viewing a problem, of INTERACTING with the people already there. Why do you think high tech companies and start ups want them so badly and openly value a diverse workplace? This is one area were we stand out.
That brings me to my last point on those two lines...because someone is bound to take me wrong.
I don't call for unregulated immigration. And I support a blend of (majority) merit based and a smaller group that is not merit based. Why? Because that smaller group may not have skills we want now - but they tend to be hard working and driven. They tend to value education and push their children to do well. And it is those young people that become the doctors and engineers. Immigrants by and large love and value our country because often the countries they left do not offer the same freedoms, opportunitees and rights that their old country did. These are people willing to take tremendous risk and loss to come here - that says a lot about them, and in my mind the kind of people we want.
3. Your last line in the paragraph is a good one...."
Why can't we incentivize the existing population to acquire such skills?" But I'm not sure - do you mean Americans? If so - I don't know...
There are people in Mosul trying to repair their lives - whole families decimated in the conflict. I couldn't blame a single one of them for leaving. Those that didn't really couldn't. So, it's a worthy aspiration yes...but so is striking out to make a new life.
There are people in Houston, South Florida and Puerto Rico who are still reeling from the worst hurricane season in American history, too. They have the entire length and breadth of the USA to strike out to. They don't flee, they rebuild. A lot of these people have had their homes and livelihoods destroyed. Some lost their jobs. All (or most) of those people are
American citizens who need to make a new life also. Who do we give preference to? People from war-torn countries with little education or trade skills? Or people like I just described, who already live in America and have a higher likelihood of already being educated and versed in a trade? I know it sounds bad and it may sound discriminatory, but to me that is logic. Pure logic. We are trying to take the easiest most efficient path to success, not trying to give everyone on the planet a job or a new life. It sounds rough, but that's how I see it.
Actually....that isn't entirely true. Puerto Rico has been steadily losing population due to economic troubles and the final blow, the hurricane, caused a huge number of people to pull up stakes and leave. After Katrina many people opted not to rebuild - they left. Ironically - many went to Texas where some were flooded out again in the recent floods. Detroit's economic bust has led to a population decline leaving entire neighborhoods full of empty abandoned houses. Most people did not stay and those that did are often those with no other options. It is also impossible to make relevent comparisons between American states and other countries. People here have options that make it easier to stay and rebuild that don't exist in many other parts of the world.
Look at Mosul. That city is a real tragedy, destroyed by civil war, competing forces, and ISIS brutality. Not much left standing, no family left whole, thousands bodies to bury as people try to clean up and rebuild. And overarching all that - no accountable government, no political stability, the possibility that the regime may turn against them and try to kill them. Infrastructure destroyed. Those left have nowhere to go. No government funding to help them rebuild. Is that comparable to Texas, Houston, Puerto Rico?
For the time being, new immigrants are getting in the way. There are people in those hurricane ravaged areas that need to rebuild and make a new life. We should be giving preference to them, devoting our money and resources to them, getting them back on their feet and getting them jobs whilst helping them rebuild their lives.
I see no evidence immigrants get in the way at all. Does it have to be a zero sum equation?