Rework your first sentence so that it introduces the subject of your paper by definition--reword the question into a statement that strengthens and advances your point. How much of that 130 million person growth will be due strictly to immigration and not to a rise in birth rates? Actually, we fought the wars to earn the type of freedom that appeals to the masses of the world--doesn't the promise on the Statue of Liberty about serving as a haven to the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of foreign lands mean anything anymore? Besides, won't their sons and daughters fight in future wars to help keep us free? Give this introduction a bit of direction--you seem to meander around your point--trim off the non-essential information and just focus on giving me background information that helps me understand your thesis when I hit it. What you're arguing is the need for cultural hegemony in the face of a multi-cultural nation--and you'd prefer the dominant culture to which everyone adheres to be the white anglo-saxon protestant culture--just come out and say it. Rework your thesis along those lines.
Is it going to stop growing 50 years from now? It's not like we're packed in here like sardines--there's lots of land in America for the development of new cities and population centers. Other countries, like India, with a billion people, have more to worry about than us. Develop the idea concerning the speed of this economic expansion--if we had greater population growth, wouldn't that speed up consumer purchasing and create a greater demand for consumer goods and jobs? How exactly would you suggest we slow down immigration? Bring closure by telling me the significance of our inability to arrive at a stable replacement rate to the thesis. Does it have anything to do with the fact that immigrant families are on average twice as large as white American families and we're facing not only a population overload, but a gradual browning of America and the impending loss of white middle-class values?
$20,000 a year is good for a great number of white families--how is that a drag on our economy? What goods and services are we necessarily obligated to supply to lower-income immigrant families? Are you arguing that we could put these goods and services to better use elsewhere? Don't immigrants pay taxes, too? What are the percentage of immigrants who come with an education and prospective employment as opposed to those who don't bring these advantages with them? Not all of them can be poor? What is the basis of evidence to support the 175 billion in lost productivity? Don't undereducated immigrants take the jobs that no white person would want? Don't they work more cheaply than the average white person? Give me a citation for these stats you have in here. What's your source on this? You might want to create a hyperlink to it.
Begin this paragraph by introducing the main idea you plan to discuss in it--never begin on a subpoint. What exactly do you mean by 'ill-suited for our society'? How exactly do you perceive American society? What type of society is it in which you'd like to live? What's the basis for your assertion that our need for immigrants ended a century ago? A century ago, we were overpopulated in the East and people found themselves moving West out of necessity to find more living space. Did we really have a "need" for them then? Immigrants don't come to a country because that country needs them nearly as much as they arrive in a country based on their need for it. My great-grandfather, for instance, had to escape the Ottoman Empire, so he came here, and he made his fortune. Gradually, people in this country came to depend on him for jobs. He fed a thousand families through his various enterprises. Is there no longer any room in America for that kind of a dream? Develop the point on immigration to this country hurting the country from which the immigrants are coming. Usually, immigrants leave their home country and everything that is familiar to them because that country has no infrastructure wherein they can advance. So, their leaving is no great loss. Argue that. There are no such things as fun facts. Many immigrants who come to this country arrive to get an education and return home to use that education to advance in their homelands...would you allow for that? Why is it a problem for the Congress to continue allowing liberal immigration policies to remain in effect? For whom is this a problem? Are there no arguments that immigration indeed serves our country?
Do you think you might be overreacting on this idea of educational benefits for the immigrants just a bit? As minorities, they are given some advantages in education to compensate for all the disadvantages with which they've had to deal all their lives--what's wrong with leveling the playing field to ensure that everyone has just as much a chance for success as everyone else? Argue that. Where's your evidence that schools remove difficult vocabulary from the texts and exams? There exist a large number of white students who have similar problems with large vocabulary. Often, the immigrants have much stronger grammar skills than native-born citizens because they've been forced to memorize a new grammar whereas the native-born take their grammar for granted and don't learn the rules. Develop this idea of educational benefits providing immigrants with a free ride--all the benefits do is open the door--immigrants serious about their education have to work doubly hard to ensure their own success as a direct result of language, race, and cultural barriers. You might look at Proposition 209 in California, and what happened there when Gov. Pete Wilson ended Affirmative Action in state institutions of higher education. The immigrant enrollment fell significantly. What kind of impact would something like that have on California? on the nation? Bring closure by telling me the significance to your thesis of so much spending on immigrant students.
Consolidate the first and second sentences into one intro sentence that introduces the idea and defines the idea of push factors. If there were truly such a strong desire and longing to be accepted as an American, what does that mean in respect to your earlier assertion that everyone wants to be accepted as a hyphenated-American? Aren't we better off in this case preparing legislation to more rapidly integrate immigrants into mainstream society than we are putting them off and locking them of mainstream society? Educational opportunities, like you discussed in the previous paragraph, are one way to accomplish that. Affirmative Action in the workplace is another way. Develop this idea of push factors along those lines. Bring closure by telling me the significance of these push factors to the thesis.
This idea of regulation has already been introduced in a previous body paragraph--remove the reference to it there and focus entirely on that idea here. 50/50? You're saying that half of all immigrants are trouble-makers? Where do you get this statistic? Cite your source? This paragraph sort of trails away from the point of Congressional regulation after that--rework it and keep it focused on that one idea. Bring closure by telling me why Congressional regulation is important to the thesis.
Don't summarize all the ideas of your body paragraphs in this conclusion--develop this last paragraph along the lines of the impact this issue is having on our society--on the larger world outside of this society. What has been the impact of the controversy surrounding increased immigration? New laws protecting immigrants? New affirmative action policies? Has there been a backlash against this? What is likely to happen if we follow through with your proposal and turn off the faucet? Bring closure to this paper by telling me why the thesis is important--not by repeating the intro sentence.