Would Community Immigration only Lead to More Division?

  If the fear is that they would overburden us, overwhelm us, overpopulate us, then it is the communities that should decide whether they should come.
  Too many people for our schools? Would they come faster than we coul build new roads? What do we mean when we say that if we just open the borders we would be overwhelmed?
   This much seems true: It is largely at the community level that the overburdening would occur. If no one moved into Sioux Falls, South Dakota, then Sioux Falls would not be impacted. But, if a large number of them moved into Biloxi, Mississippi, then it would be Biloxi that would face that challenge.
   I do not know the politics of Biloxi, to know whether they favor or oppose greater immigration, but I know there are cities where the populace might be friendly towards more open immigration, cities that would let them in..
   We could look among the sanctuary cities, and surely find a number.
   Here is the question, then: If it is the cities that are impacted, and if some of them favor more immigration, who are we to tell them no?  If picking your friends is a liberty, ought not the communities be allowed to pick who they will have among them? If San Francisco says it wants these people to live there, why should the rest of the country be allowed to put a stop to it? San Francisco must  deal with the impact, so it should be that city's decision.
   By this line of thinking.
   There is an exception to this rule, and it is significant enough: When they come, they sometimes receive welfare, and that means tax dollars are used that come from everyone, nationwide.
   But, most every other impact comes at the community level.
   So, perhaps communities should be given self-determination. Local control, some argue, is better than control from Washington. Does this test our belief in that principle?
   Suffice to say that those in San Francisco ought to be allowed to determine how they will live their lives, free from too much dictating from Washington.
   Now, if we did allow cities and communities to make their own determination on whether to have immigrants, it would create a new concept. Shall we call it, restricted-movement Americans?  You would be free to live in San Francisco and such cities as would have you, but you could not move freely upon the face of the land.. Whether you were granted a partial citizenship, or just classed as a resident, you would be what might come to be called a restricted-movement American.
   Such a concept. In America? Something tells me the courts possibly might become involved, and they would extend your right to move about more freely..
   One negative to this idea of community immigration, is that it might further divide our nation. Those of us opposed to increased immigration might remain opposed, and only grow further irritated as more immigrants come.
   Communities will be divided. Not all people within a city will feel the same. The city might accede to letting in more immigrants, but not all the residents will agree.
   Cities 10 miles away might take offense to having immigrants right next door.. They might argue that while the sanctuary city is building its own new roads and infrastructure, the new population is impacting theirs by pouring daily into the regional malls and such.
   I think of our Civil War, and of how, leading up to it, there were free states and slave states. I think of how this division led to one of the greatest wars in history. Community immigration could lead to the exact same division. You would have immigrant communities and non-immigrant cities.