So what you are saying is, you could bring in immigrants, tax the wealthiest by about $300,000,000,000, give that money to poor Americans, and everyone including the rich and immigrants and poor Americans would still be better off?
That article addresses that somewhat.
Obviously I'm against doing such a thing but I'm not going to address it from that stand point.
Assuming you were to attempt to do such a policy would everyone be better off? No. The only winner in that scenario is the government because they gained a bigger tax base. You'd have to tax the richest more than the gains they received in order to get the money to the poorest population because the government will need the bureaucracy in place to collect and distribute it. (To be fair, a lot of that structure is already in place but you know how the government works - instead of a direct monetary transfer it will be various programs that the government *thinks* the population needs in the form of various assistances - housing assistance - work training programs - higher education etc. Meanwhile, they probably would have rather had the cash they could have had if immigration would have just been curbed.)
The bigger tax base is actually one aspect of immigration I can support - increasing our tax base would allow us to lower taxes on everyone - theoretically - and we DO need to be able to supplement parts of our work force. I'm not saying lock the borders and don't let anyone in. I'm saying our immigration policy should be driven by the economic interests of the native population first. Yes we should be a benevolent country and take care of those with the greatest needs - refugees and asylum seekers etc. But we need to make sure we balance all the numbers. Take in 80,000 refugees this year, then only let in 20,000 non refugee, non asylum seeking immigrants along with them. If refugee numbers drop to 20,000 the next year, increase the remaining numbers to 80,000. As long as it is balanced. (those numbers being hypotheticals)
The numbers you let in each year would vary based on economic conditions. Have it trigger based on GDP and wage inflation numbers. If wage growth is stagnant you may even consider dropping your immigration numbers some. You might even consider throwing in other targets that deal with population growth in general such as birth and death rates of native population (btw, I will admit using the phrase "native population" is kind of disingenuous, I'm merely continuing that phrasing from the politico article).