The same argument posited by Friedman (often repeated by the anti-immigrant bigots) can be used to argue against having more children. You see, you can't have more children because there's a welfare system.Same logic.
Commie. Use up all the resources to buy off the sheeple and see how long your system lasts. Every time, it always ends the same way for you socialistopaths. Your modus operandi is always "Make somebody else pay for the political agendas. It won't matter that we don't have any good ideas to increase production until after we have already consolidated power. By then there will be no-one left to oppose our agendas and we can force the useful idiots into submission with state violence." It always ends so well for your type.
I would say this is a little outdated, illegal immigrants receive benefits. Isn't the real advantage the lower cost to hire and employ? Property rights are also being violated by the modern form of south to north migration. But one way of keeping them off the doles is to keep them out.
The fact that immigration reverses itself during times of slow economic activity or recession belies the notion that immigrants come in for the "welfare".You will have to explain how immigration per se is a violation of property rights. Some people confuse immigration with invasion despite the fact that the two words are used for two completely different and contradictory concepts. Immigrants are not invaders. Invaders are invaders. Immigrants migrate, which implies a non-aggressive action.
There are immigrants that come for benefits. Obviously my comments are not universal and each individual motivation is different, but it does happen. I was speaking of the direct property violations. For example, crossing onto Texas ranchers land, leaving trash behind, damaging property, etc.