If you cannot post reasonably current links (that are not just opinions) to support what you say, stop spamming your opinions.
The are two difficulties in providing you with what you demand.
One is that the highly transactional nature of your society prevents many papers from being accessible, unless you are willing to pay or have access to liraries that do pay. You can be a "pirate", but then you will be having to look outside the wwalled gardens for the data.
Here is one walled paper.
This paper is a theoretical examination of the probable effects on the U.S. labor market of a continued high rate of illegal immigration. The author constructs a model to estimate the impact each additional immigrant has on the employment of the domestic population, on GNP, and on the distribution of income. The model suggests that in non-recessionary periods the most important effect of a high rate of immigration is on the wage rates of low-skilled labor rather than on the employment of low-skilled native workers, but immigration also increases the earnings of high-skilled workers and the owners of capital. In the very long run, the author concludes, this redistribution of income will be offset to some extent by increases in the supplies of skilled labor and capital.
It is from 1980, which makes it less biased than recent ones. ,And that is the other problem. Those writing papers want financing. Governments and their international organizatiuons distribute financing, or sometimes corporations. Both have been very interesting in the "freedom of movement" of workers, so as to have more exploitable labour available. The vast majority of papers published are going to say what their authors are paid to say. Science is not "neutral", it is a prodict of circunstances including
who pays for it.
But have an
open paper also. This one doens't even question
if immigration increaces inequality, that is a given but on how to quantify the effect.
This
other one, more recent, of the "promote immigration at all costs" era, does dome amazing contortions to attempt negate what it actuallyy concludes: immigratuon reduces social trust, causing a series of problems:
Focusing specifically on immigration, our analysis supports the view that immigration decreases trust, civic engagement and political participation in some advanced democracies. However, our analysis also raises important qualifications. In societies of relative income equality, residents are far less likely to withdraw from collective life in the face of immigration. Multiculturalism policies might reduce general social trust in the face of immigration, but they also appear to increase engagement. In countries that have both low income inequality and relatively strong multiculturalism policies, all negative effects of immigration on collective-mindedness disappear; we actually see higher levels of organizational and political participation with immigration. While increases in participation do not necessarily mean that everyone is “getting along” —native-born residents might organize to oppose immigration—trust and engagement both increase with immigration in more economically equal societies.
Immigration "increases trust" because it forces the locals to have to organixe to oppose immigration?
They really eraned their funding!
