You can be opposed, but that doesn't make your position correct. In fact, based on your steadfast commitment to your position despite the glaring evidence I've put directly in front of you, that... kind of makes you stubbornly closed minded.
The fact that you're not even talking about the things I mentioned in my earlier comments should be a red flag for you; why won't you talk about the facts related to immigration into the US? I wonder, maybe it's because the facts won't support your position?
1. How relevant is open space when a majority of prospective low-skilled immigrants want to live in already-heavily-populated areas, not North Dakota?
2. I already mentioned that the other countries most comparable to the US (Canada and Australia), including on the open space dimension, make the same hard distinction between high-skill and low-skill immigrants... and they are doing conspicuously better than other Western democracies at simultaneously maintaining high immigration volume and avoiding populist revolt. It is not my problem that you failed to parse this. New Zealand did see a political turn in favor of more restriction recently, but it was from the left. If anything, it's Singapore's lack of space that makes it practical for the Singaporean government to enforce the conditions under which they can keep so many guest workers around to mutual benefit, such as no pregnancies.
The fact that you're not even talking about the things I mentioned in my earlier comments should be a red flag for you; why won't you talk about the facts related to immigration into the US? I wonder, maybe it's because the facts won't support your position?