This is the case in the U.S., as seen in
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) latest survey
of the immigrant workforce10.---
https://npg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016NegativeEconomicImpactForumPaper.pdf
That would all make far more sense were the paper not ignoring some important facts. Have a look at Figure 5.
Note that at 1972, the rate of change flattened out, especially for median income. Even mean stopped rising so sharply, but there is a palpable dropoff for median.
Productivity–Pay Tracker
Change 1973–2017:
Productivity
+77.0%
Hourly pay
+12.4%
Productivity has grown 6.2x more than pay
https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/He's got you looking in the wrong direction. Somehow, you think a 3.5% decrease is something worth complaining about and you go on and on about your fantasy liberals who want cheap nannies, like you are a cut-rate Ronald Reagan fighting the welfare queens. Equally fictional, but why worry about reality when you have a good straw man argument to pose.
So, you provided a paper that quotes numbers from Harvard Economist George Borjas. Great!
It's as if you didn't read the whole thing I linked or even the part I quoted:
Harvard Economist George Borjas is probably the most established academic critic of immigration. But even he admits that immigrants create net benefits for the native-born
The native-born are better off with the immigrants here than not. The current head of the Fed has said the same thing,
including the undocumented workers.
Further, as I have pointed out to you before, the figures you are citing neglect to include the impact of the children of those immigrants. It makes it cherry-picked data.