Judging people's looks, then claiming it's a good idea to let foreigners come here, get educated here, then stay here the rest of their lives and take jobs that citizens could have had.
Depends, but actually yes. Jobs are not a finite market. If you have more demand (i.e. growing society), more jobs will be created. If you get people educated, they will "finance" more jobs via income, taxes, economic action they are taking... (i.e. they will employ other people too).
In a working society, refugees or migrants actually dont take away from economic activity, they add to it. There are limitations, like what if they arent getting jobs, because they couldnt integrate, but in general they add to society - especially, if they are fleeing from warzones far away, because, then its usually the rich and educated folks that make their way into the US.
So its never as simple as "they be taking me jobs".
Also usually they dont. (In the UK before Brexit maybe --). But usually many of them get a foothold in different sectors (low entry barriers, auxiliary jobs) in the beginning that ist.
So from the view of a state, its a higher initial investment to get them job ready, but starting with the second generation (their kids), they actually add to the economy.
If your economy is working of course...
If you let them rot in border towns, with no options, and people start to get the usual poverty malaises ("sicknesses" but less medical term
), then no wonder that people get worried and angry looking at a bunch of them.
But usually speaking, and especially in the US economy - more "benefits money" just gets printed, because it ads to economic activity in the longer term.
To make sure 'usually' works, you need planning.
To make sure they dont come at all, you need cooperations with the american south. (Presuming you are talking mostly about people crossing the mexican border). Mostly in economic development. (Costs less there then in the US - important if you dont plan to upskill them, because US border communities only need a finite amount of fruitvendors (low barrier of entry jobs - that allow them to build a life). So the "job education" hump might be too steep/expensive for your economy - depending on several economic factors. But once that is sorted, or financed, its mostly plain sailing.
(edit: Maybe, not culturally - but economically. Old town gets new people > more people positive about the future of the town > investments flow > money flows into developments... People work for cheap, right? So its cheaper to build up stuff. (Higher profit margins, once you have it built. Then people may ask for more money, but lets say not above "union prices", so still cheap to build the stuff up, as an entrepreneur.)) If the economy is working.
If you want to read more about that, here:
https://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD Migration Policy Debates Numero 2.pdf
Of course at every intersection something can go wrong, and problems may arise - Corporations f.e. might push for a higher influx of migrants, to get jobs in certain sectors fulfilled for less pay. If that is short term its usually a boost to that company (higher growth), if it is long term (money doesnt get invested back into their business), it becomes a problem, and the state needs to regulate. If most of your companies are in a "post growth" phase, (so already have invested and arent planning new investments anytime soon (lets say, because they are producing for export), and automation makes sure that you need higher job education to get your foot into the door, it might be easier to opt for a harsher migration policy - for a while) But in general more people wanting to be productive (work), usually (if there arent constraints that are hard to overcome) means economy will grow..)
The "they took me job" saying in general never held true. Statistically. In certain individual cases, of course it might.