I think the argument is right, but the evidence you cite isn't very supportive.

> Most of the wealthiest countries sustain high immigration ... Switzerland has over 3 times the US rate of immigration yet has one of the highest bottom quintile incomes in world.

Obviously economic migrants aren't going to migrate somewhere with no opportunities. It is hypothetically possible that low-skilled they choose the country to migrate to by picking the one with the highest bottom quintile income (some proxy of, given they wouldn't actually review the stats). If the host country has immigration limits the economic state of the hosting country would change slowly so the migration wouldn't immediately normalise the host countries economy with the rest of the world.

Basically, we'd expect to see that statistic even if migrants did lower the income of their quintile. They don't, but the evidence of that is a separate thing.

Is Switzerland really the best comparison? Most of the immigration to Switzerland is from Europe, and mostly the wealthier countries in Europe.

>Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

>Immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows... But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinto...

Switzerland is not a member of the EU and is free to be very strict on education and skill requirements for its immigrants. Many US conservatives that lean libertarian are very much for increasing and streamlining legal immigration, as long as laws are enforced, immigrants are prioritized by merit rather than lottery or privilege of geographic proximity, and the welfare state is trimmed (one of the reasons why government agencies limit immigration more than a hundred years ago is due to budgetary resource projections).

Japan, South Korea, and China are among the wealthiest countries, and have very low immigration.

The US context is also exacerbated by the fact that locals cannot legally compete with illegal aliens working sub-minimum wages. In those towns wages for legal workers stagnate at the minimum wage floor due to downward pressure, and job listings are more of a custom than an honest opportunity.

This is not correct. Switzerland is no more free to restrict European immigration than any member of the the EU (or Norway for that matter) as they have signed up to EU freedom of movement 10 or 15 years ago. There is no "prioritization by merit".

I'm countering the general claim of the parent, that simple economics means that immigration impoverishes the host country's lower earners, so data-points like Japan does not validate such a general claim. I provide Switzerland as an counter-example: extremely high "unfiltered" immigration and a high earning lower quintile. There are others which cannot be explained Singapore, Australia, etc.

Consider a thought experiment: if each individual state of the US introduced restrictions on migration from other US states, would that improve or disimprove the income of the lowest quintile of US workers? I don't believe that it's an "economic principle" that such restrictions would increase the income for the lowest earners.

It's more complicated than that. When I moved there in the mid part of the first decade I needed a work permit despite coming from an EU member state. Then there has been a period of "unlimited immigration" from the EU but due to language issues and because it came about much later than other countries, most poor immigrants did not go to Switzerland but rather to the UK. British towns routinely have Polish shops on their high streets but I've never seen anything like that anywhere in Switzerland, it's simply not comparable. Differences in the welfare system and how aggressively jobs are required to move (which is technically possible under EU rules although most member states don't seem to enforce it) also cause this trend. Most "poor" immigrants to Switzerland are either from the Balkans and brought in under asylum during the Balkan conflicts, or German!

And recently a local worker preference law has been established, and the population voted to end freedom of movement with the EU. Like always with the EU, the people won the vote but lost the power, and so immigration rules weren't actually implemented. But it's still different to the experiences of other European states.

It's not really more complicated; it is strictly incorrect to claim that Switzerland has the power to restrict and filter immigrants which is what I was responding to.

Of course, it hasn't always been that way. Strictly speaking full EU freedom of movement has been in place since 2002 but like everything in Switzerland, it can take years for federal decisions to be reflected in local law.

I disagree strongly with your characterization of Swiss immigrants as being richer than those of the UK. The UK may have more (proportionally speaking) Poles, but Switzerland has a larger number of Kosovars, Serbs and other ex-Yugoslavia people who are even poorer. It also has a huge "poor" Portuguese immigrant population - mucher bigger per-capita than the Poles in the UK. On a per-capital basis, Switzerland has 3 times as many foreign-born than the UK. Both countries attract both highly paid immigrants and bottom quartile workers in large amounts.

The 2014 referendum has been already been translated into law and NO FILTERING has been introduced for EU citizens - it just means companies have to advertise the job to existing Swiss residents. Nothing substantial has changed.

The barriers to physically get in may not be high, but Switzerland is very strict on those who try to stay. Switzerland recently rejected the citizenship applications of girls who refused to swim in a communal pool with the opposite sex, and suspended the citizenship application of a family whose boys refused to shake a female teacher's hand. Migrants wearing pajamas around town and refusing to greet neighbors had their otherwise satisfactory applications rejected and were quickly deported.

> To receive Swiss citizenship, it’s not enough to show long-term residency, fluency in one of the country’s three official languages and knowledge of its history and geography. Applicant must also show they are integrated with Swiss society and their local community.

https://qz.com/720908/switzerland-denied-citizenship-to-musl...

Even if not a citizen, after only 5 years of living in Switzerland, you can hold a C-permit (which is like a green card), which means you have all rights of a Swiss with the only exception that you can't vote.