Have you read anything on the linked site?  They address _all_ your points.  See especially <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;openborders.info&#x2F;keyhole-solutions&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;openborders.info&#x2F;keyhole-solutions&#x2F;</a><p>&gt; The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don&#x27;t benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country [...]<p>That&#x27;s not at all clear.  Also, we should probably look at benefits to persons (or humanity in general?) instead of countries.<p>The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don&#x27;t benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country, which it obviously doesn&#x27;t.<p>&gt; The immigrants would of course benefit economically, no one ever disputed that. But at the expense of the native population. Good luck earning a living wage when you are competing against the whole third world&#x27;s population of laborers.<p>Actually, it&#x27;s not at the expense of the native population.  (Studies have shown that.  The open borders people have the links.)  In any case any negative impact could be compensated with taxes and redistribution.<p>Also, with free trade you already compete with the whole world in some sense.<p>&gt; That&#x27;s not even covering the immigrants using social services. You can&#x27;t have any social programs at all, or every sick person who needs free health care can just move to your country. Or welfare benefits or whatever. Those programs can&#x27;t work if the entire world&#x27;s population can show up and take them.<p>Just restrict those specific uses.  They cover that, too, on the website.  See <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;openborders.info&#x2F;welfare-objection&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;openborders.info&#x2F;welfare-objection&#x2F;</a>