Cheap Labour Lies

The notion that "immigration is good for the economy" exposes a rather large issue inherent to the field of economics. One that kurdish-swedish economist Tino Sanandaji has talked about specifically with the subject of immigration. Namely that people, or rather groups of people in this case, are all interchangeable economic units. So while it may be true that cheap labour is a short term benefit, what happens when the newcomers become a large portion of society and the wider society changes to either reflect their characteristics or it changes to constrain their characteristics.

The advantages of cheap labor, in economic models, presuppose that the first world economy is maintained. As such it fails to look at the long term effects of lmmigration. Namely what happens when national institutions take on the characteristics of the newcomers, who by all accounts maintain the same preferences as their nation of origin even three generations in, or struggle against them (which will cost money, energy, make society less free, and is less harmonious relative to homogeneity).
Basically the economic destiny is also imported.

Did this not happen to South Africa? Many Blacks in South Africa are descended from tribes which hail from the interior, they came to South Africa and were accepted because cheap labor was seen as a boon. And it was. Moreover, South Africa then used Apartheid to shut out the Blacks from altering society away from what the Whites want. Apartheid of course went away, and now South Africa has rolling blackouts and a completely different society.

See: the fact that Hispanics retain negative characteristics 3 generations in, which will only get worse the more of society they take up. This also by the way undercuts the lie that people "used to diversity" wont see the drop in trust if Hispanics (and others) retain their low trust ways

The only counterargument to this I can think of is something incredulous like: "well people claimed it would happen before and it has not happened." However this is missing something important: why won't it happen? All that can be verified there is that it has not happened yet, without rebuking the straightforward argument that it will be happening as society is more and more represented by the ascendant demographics. So unless they present a reason why it will not happen they have nothing.