How was the immigration of Bekhzod Asrarov supposed to make Americans better off?

A migration enrichment story that ended badly for a native-born American (Fox):

Suppose that Bekhzod Asrarov hadn’t killed anyone. How was his immigration to the U.S. in 2024 expected to make existing Americans better off? He won a “diversity lottery” at age 40 during the Biden administration. Given that he couldn’t speak English and was just 25 years from retirement age, how was his presence in the U.S. supposed to make this a better country?

Why does the U.S. continue to operate this diversity lottery? The New York Times, reporting on a Harvard study, says that diversity makes us worse off. If the goal is economic enrichment, you’d think we’d be selecting immigrants for their ability to earn a high income here in the U.S., which someone who doesn’t speak English is extremely unlikely to do. There is no international law or treaty that, as far as I know, requires us to turn foreigners selected at random into U.S. citizens.

RIP, Tobias “Toby” Forsythe, 21:

Related:

• How was the immigration of Mohamed Sabry Soliman supposed to benefit Americans?
• How was the immigration of Ndiaga Diagne supposed to make Americans better off?
• How was the immigration of Rahmanullah Lakanwal supposed to make Americans better off?
• How was the immigration of Akayed Ullah supposed to benefit native-born Americans?
• How was the immigration of José Antonio Ibarra supposed to make the average American better off?
• How was the immigration of Ayman Mohamad Ghazali supposed to make Americans better off?
• How was the immigration of Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov supposed to benefit native-born Americans?