Nathan Newman argues that letting in indigent, unskilled foreigners because they happen to be related to someone who is here is a good thing! That is, he wants family reunification without skill testing.
This strikes me as ridiculous, but I'll need time to work up an argument.
A few ideas:
(1) The built-in support system that the families supposedly give (safety net and loans) requires that someone in the family actually has capital.
(2) The networks he so lovingly praises also serve to keep the immigrants foreign. That is, to obviate the need for assimilation.
If anyone else would like to chime in on why Nathan Newman is wrong, please feel free to do so.
That is all.