You’re talking about an immigrant population that is notably net tax paying, better educated and less unemployed than population.
As for your list: housing is a political choice; residential energy use is increasingly a rounding error; nationally, we’re closing hospitals and schools more than finding them constrained; and we’re a major food (and energy) exporter.
Who is in the mansion and who is in the slum?
The government exists for the general welfare and and economic system that subsidizes idleness because the disingenuous say "look over there, its a net positive" while ignoring the externalized cost borne by the taxpayer is just theft from the taxpayer.
You made an analogy!
> system that subsidizes idleness
You’ve genuinely lost me. What does this have to do with this thread?
Green cards? Companies pay for these applications. The applicants pay taxes. For this particular group, they're notoriously net tax payers.
As for idleness, if you lose your job your lose your visa and–I think–your green-card application.
There are legitimate complaints about all of this. These aren't among them.
The scarcity issue is valid when the resource is limited. In case of US, I was not aware of food scarcity. Even housing is more due to policies than actual land scarcity.
Economic activity does have positive feeback. Yes, some people get unfairly rich - but the solution is not to stop the activity, instead try to get the rich pay their fair share of contribution to the country.
A local working a restaurant will often need to take advantage of welfare. If instead we funneled the locals to higher paying jobs, we would be better off. We're supposed to look after our own citizens, afterall --that's the whole point of electing a government.
What of one of the employees at the restaurant had your job, and they bought food there? Or are you declaring only you can do your job?
As for buying multiple houses, I'm sure the wider population is happy with foreigners buying rental properties.