If your supply is perpetually exceeding demand it sets that precedent. Neo-classical touters like to imagine an influx leading to new job creation: a) this is not necessarily true, b) if it is, it can be a slow process, c) if it is, it may not lead to a sufficient rate of job creation, d) companies are absorbing each other and wealth is concentrating at too high a rate. Growth will stagnate and we'll see a new era of "old money", just as it was before the world wars. And, we're dealing with the effects of automation to boot eroding jobs faster than new ones are replacing them. Just remember that what's good for the GDP is good for the rich, not necessarily workers.
Wages would go lower but goods will be higher. If an immigrant worker produces more than he consumes, the whole is richer, no way to cut that into an unfavorable calculation.
We get more goods with fewer and fewer people in assembly and we're no better off for it as far as structural inequality is concerned. I would check the assumption that a cheap immigrant worker would increase productivity at all.
Again, if the immigrant produces more than he consumes, the whole is richer. The arguments against that calculation would be that you dont like who benefts on that, but the whole is better.
The extra supply is balanced by the extra demand only if exports are zero. I.e. demand for Apple devices won't increase by 10% if the US population grows by 10%. And of course making 10% more rarely requires 10% more workers - you need more on the assembly line, but not more to design the items.
It wouldn't. Say someone in the US buys something made in China - how does that increase demand for labor in the US? There's some marginal US labor required for the last part of the transport, but that's it.
Thee last part of the transport is not marginal in the real world. Increased local consumption drives transport, retail, marketing, etc. etc.
Real life economic modeling is not a simple supply/demand, widgets made/sold chart.
