Yes, but unlike mass migration, the integration of women into the workforce did have positive benefits.
Nope, let me explain.
With migrant, they are driven away out of their home country, often with the smartest and most capable and most highly educated going first, to work in first world nations. This damages the development of their home country, this hinders that areas ability to develop and build infrastructure and industry. At the same time, it drives down wages in the first world, or wherever they immigrate to. It is an overall net negative. The immigrants are forced out, the people who they leave behind suffer from the braindrain, the target countries have an increased labour supply that drives down their ability to unionize. Nobody except the capitalists benefit.
Now for women entering the workforce, it is different. Immigrants in the first or third world, despite their differences in wealth, still have roughly the same position in society. Both work, sell their labour to capitalists, both receive income. Both weild power in their society through the forms of strikes and unions. But this is not the case with women and men having working and non working roles.
With women being housewives, they depend entirely on their husband for living, there is still money involved in this relationship. The women have to be subject to the man, because the man controls the income. This is a hierarchical relationship, wherein one of the parties has to sell their labour (housework, etc) to the other (the man). By abolishing this class-like relation, you abolish the subjugation of women to men, and you abolish the dominance of men over women. This is positive. Now, it also has negatives, as you mentioned. By introducing women to the workforce, they effectively doubled the labour supply. As a result, wages over time also dropped to half of what they were, because keep in mind, people get paid just enough to reproduce labour, ie not starve and not have their kids starve. Where in the past, one income could support one family, now two parents need to work to support one family. This is common knowledge, everyone experienced it, your parents no doubt would have told you they have to work more than their parents for the same kind of income. This is very negative. The better solution would have been to have both men and women work, at half the rate the man did before, but we all know that under capitalism, they demand the maximum working hours they can get out of people. Under capitalism, this is not possible, you cannot reduce working hours. In many first world places people work just as much as during the industrial revolution, pulling 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. 60 hour workweeks are not unheard of, and are quite common.
That is the difference. While women "liberation" certainly liberated both women and men from this harmful hierarchical relationship, it also doomed them to work more and more. There is a positive and a negative side to this. But with mass migration, there are no upsides. Braindrain destroy communities, it destroys unions and labour power in the richer countries, creates ethnic tension, etc, while not really making a meaningfull positive impact overall. The alternative to not liberating women can only be subjegation, which is negative, the alternative to no mass migration is peace and stability, which is positive.
It is interesting to point out that feminist-exclusive movements in the past were mostly comprised of bourgoies women, who are the only women who only received benefits from their liberation. They got to own property, they got to exploit workers, and be free, while working women were cast from one form of subjugation into another. Working class women had always fought side by side with working men to abolish capitalism, and socialist movements had always incorporated equality of the sexes.
