You are wrong because you subscribe to the "lump of labor fallacy" aka the "zero sum fallacy". You think that there is a finite number of jobs and each immigrant will take the job of a native born. The reality is that a new worker produces and consumes, which increases output and creates more jobs. This is why it is best to have a positive population growth rate.
Incidentally, another good way to grow the economy is to increase worker productivity, which usually requires capital investments, and is the basis of supply side economics.
You are also wrong historically. The US has a very long history importing her underclass. We have always imported poor people without skills and that has always worked out successfully.
It works well because these "poor immigrants" have a higher standard of living in the US than they did in their home country. And, thru time, the immigrants assimilate, become better educated and acquire skills, putting them on equal footing. The first generation immigrant is definitely at a disadvantage. The second generation immigrant's outlook is much better, and the third generation immigrant is on equal footing with native born.
Regardless of you better education, a claim that is specious at best, I can certainly see that an educated fool is still a fool.
We could afford to import poor unskilled workers when we had a massive labor economy that required nothing more than strong backs.
We are no longer that type of economy. We are a knowledge economy.
If your education, which you speak so glowing of, had continued past 1950 you would understand that.
If by the third generation they can be as unemployed and uneducated as our massive poverty community, I fail to see that as advantage to our economy.
70% of all immigrants are on at least one Federal entitlement. They are not self sufficient, much less an economic benefit.
Everything you are saying is wrong.