It surprises me that liberals generally come down on the side unlimited illegal immigration when the people harmed most are marginalized poor workers who are overwhelmingly disadvantaged minorities themselves (lawful black and Hispanic residents).
Ironically, driving down the cost of labor is great for rich people who are generally conservative and oppose illegal immigration.
It's useful to decouple social liberalism, i.e. that belief that there is no such thing as White culture, and there is no (cultural) harm from large numbers of immigrants from Mexico, from economic liberalism, i.e. the belief that classical economics doesn't adequately describe the economy.
When you separate these things, it is consistent for an orthodox economist to promote more immigration from Mexico (not sure how a person could ever advocate for illegal immigration) while being a social liberal. In classical economics, immigrations is (1) good for the immigrant (2) bad for the local workers they are competing with and (3) good for the employers. According to classical economics, the net benefit is positive, and so (with appropriate taxation policy) the overall result is good for the nation.
Personally I am orthodox when it comes to economics. The only thing I don't understand is that the liberals apply orthodox economic arguments when it comes to Mexican immigrants, but refuse to apply these same arguments when it comes to H-1B visas.
To me it is clear that their real agenda is to promote non-White immigration, but to keep sentiment against Indian and Chinese immigrants as a safe way to express "racist" thoughts.
Ironically, driving down the cost of labor is great for rich people who are generally conservative and oppose illegal immigration.