Intuition alone really isn't to be trusted with public policy decisions of this magnitude.

I agree, but shouldn’t the burden be on the people advocating mass immigration to prove it helps?

No, because freedom of movement and commerce (specifically, selling one's labor) are human rights. No right is absolute, but the burden of proof is on the person claiming the consequences of exercising these rights are severe enough that they need to be abrogated.

There is no “human right” to cross national borders. It’s the opposite. International law recognizes both the collective right of “peoples”—groups of people—to form nations, and the right of nations to their territorial integrity.

> the burden of proof is on the person claiming the consequences of exercising these rights are severe enough that they need to be abrogated.

Every country on earth claims this.

If what you write were true, there wouldn't be any borders on this planet. However, there are. The right to free movement is simply not true. If you want that to be true, advocate for the removal of all borders worldwide.

Well, "data" can't be trusted either, because it is released/announced very selectively. And the media doesn't help either, because data which contradicts the chosen narrative isn't published/commented. In general, I am missing independent journalism. Most of what we get these days is agenda-driven.