>>If you make them citizens they will immediately invite all of their relatives <g>.

That's an issue if they are a drain, a burden. It would not be the case if newcomers will work hard and contribute to a universal scheme for 30 years before they need a penny back. On that basis, the more youngsters you can get, the better.

>>Just today I heard on tv a commercial by some "immigration group" (sorry didn't catch their name) that call for reducing legal immigration to the USA on the basis that we don't have enough jobs for Americans.

Which is a fair point. However, again you need to consider the effect of trillions of $ in a national scheme that needs to invest and probably would have mandates about acceptable places to invest (iow no shonky financial instruments and maybe limits on off-shoring of funds). The stock market would be awash with cash. Businesses would have easier access to capital to expand and employ. And energetic immigrants would be quick to seize the opportunity and create their own new businesses and jobs, just as they always did, including clawing back some of the exported jobs by offering local advantages that may not interest current citizens.

>>I do a lot of work with hospitals. I have been to some that you think you are in a Latin American country; not a word of English spoken in a lobby. I don't mind because I study Spanish so I am learning.

Fair enough. Maybe we should swap hospital stories in person at some point. ;-)