I challenge you to find a single study showing that any immigrant group (by country of origin.. by ethnicity) takes from the economy more than they contribute. The elderly with pensions, benefits, and healthcare costs, usually are the biggest net sink.<p>Please read the article and see re: opening up the Eastern European labor market, and how the feared outcomes did not materialize in Britain, including the scenario you&#x27;ve outlined.<p>Yet, when a part of the world is hurting bad enough, migration happens despite legal restrictions.<p>Also, pick your argument - are you claiming that the causal result of mass immigration an overburdening of the social systems, or are you claiming that markets will magically stay irrational and the benefits due to this magical irrationalism will not materialize?  I think your argument is stronger if you claim that local governments cannot stay solvent, not due to markets being irrational, but due to a causal chain of events as a result of immigration.<p>Your argument breaks down again as we consider the intra-US case: People will not move to a more expensive neighborhood unless they can afford the bills, thus people making the move will have jobs, or failing to get jobs, would prefer if the cost of goods were lower like it is in their place of origin and stick to the lower-cost locations.  Thus the distribution of people in wealthier and poorer regions self-regulate, just as it currently does in the United States.  Why don&#x27;t we have poor people overwhelming the school systems of wealthy neighborhoods? Because they can&#x27;t afford the houses and taxes. They&#x27;d like to move in, but they can&#x27;t. Economic reality still applies.