>>4158
You never thought about, like, looking it up in a dictionary or something?
>>4143
I'm not sure how it is in America, but in my country the accepted logic is:
>Baby boomers were so plentiful that they enabled vast social welfare programs to exist through the taxes derived from their labour
>The government at the time thought that the population would continuously increase, thus they'd be able to fund more and more social welfare programs
>Since the birth rate has declined, these social welfare programs aren't able to function optimally because there is less tax revenue being collected
>Since these social welfare programs are so important to the overall health of the society, the government needs more taxable working adults in the country ASAP
>The government invites as many immigrants as possible into the country, so that their labour can be taxed to fund social welfare programs
So for example, in my country, Gen2 pays for Gen1's pension program once Gen1 retires, and then Gen3 would pay for Gen2's pension program once Gen2 retires. But, since there are so few Gen3 compared to the large amount of Gen2, the taxes that Gen3 pays won't be enough to cover the pension programs for Gen2. To make up for this, the government had to choose between:
>A) Get rid of the pension program entirely.
>B) Tax corporations and rich people (hahahahaha as if)
>C) Increase taxes to an unsustainable level for those that are working, to the point of causing social disruption akin to what would be caused by Option A
>D) Import millions of unskilled economic immigrants to farm them for tax dollars
And the government chose D because getting rid of the retirement pension plan, and other social programs, would be political and economic suicide.
I assume it's a similar story for America. You'd just have to look into what the taxes fund, whom is paying the taxes, and how many people are paying the taxes.