I agree with this in principle but under the large proviso that we get a handle on the borders and actually enforce existing immigration law. Yes, a Canadian/Australian system that is based on national need would be optimal but doesn’t seem likely under a Democrat administration.
Lastly, yes a large scale system of deportation would be expensive and unwieldy but what exactly are the penalties for entering the US and flaunting our laws? And please explain why we can’t deport the thousands of illegals that have criminal records, are national security risks and/or commit crimes?!
Those with felony records or pose national security risks (foreign agents/spies, etc.) should be arrested and, depending on the situation, either deported or jailed for a time and then deported.
I agree with you James that Mass deportations is a silly endeavor. What keeps getting lost in this discussion of illegal/legal immigration is that it will never be enough to build a wall, we must expand the legal pathways for immigrants.
The US’s “superpower” has been its ability to attract talent from around the world and give them the freedom they need to be the best version of themselves that they can. If and when the US close this down, the US itself will founder.
However, I disagree with the notion that the government can successfully “pick and choose” which immigrants are going to be the most successful. Who is to say a French Literature PhD is more valuable than a plumber?
As I wrote a long time ago, the simplest solution is an immigration “fee” that scales with age. Young immigrants who have their whole taxpaying and productive lives ahead of them are free. Older immigrants would be charged lot more to prevent the healthcare/pension systems from becoming overburdened. I roughly outlined how this would work here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system
The other option is visa auctions, but I can see how that could be abused quite easily by politicians.
It's not our job to provide a safety net for the world. However, we should prioritize immigrating people who will be a net-positive for the country or, thinking more strategically, could "brain drain" certain other countries (coughChinacough)--think Operation Paperclip to keep the Nazis' best and brightest out of the hands of the Soviets.
We should politely yet firmly tell those who will be a net-negative on the country "thank you for your interest but...". Have enough border security to keep out those who won't be a net-positive, and jail those who make it in and pose an articulable threat.
One thing we need to get rid of are waiting lists multiple decades long, like we have with Mexico and India. That helps nobody.
I agree with this in principle but under the large proviso that we get a handle on the borders and actually enforce existing immigration law. Yes, a Canadian/Australian system that is based on national need would be optimal but doesn’t seem likely under a Democrat administration.
Lastly, yes a large scale system of deportation would be expensive and unwieldy but what exactly are the penalties for entering the US and flaunting our laws? And please explain why we can’t deport the thousands of illegals that have criminal records, are national security risks and/or commit crimes?!
Those with felony records or pose national security risks (foreign agents/spies, etc.) should be arrested and, depending on the situation, either deported or jailed for a time and then deported.
I agree with you James that Mass deportations is a silly endeavor. What keeps getting lost in this discussion of illegal/legal immigration is that it will never be enough to build a wall, we must expand the legal pathways for immigrants.
The US’s “superpower” has been its ability to attract talent from around the world and give them the freedom they need to be the best version of themselves that they can. If and when the US close this down, the US itself will founder.
However, I disagree with the notion that the government can successfully “pick and choose” which immigrants are going to be the most successful. Who is to say a French Literature PhD is more valuable than a plumber?
As I wrote a long time ago, the simplest solution is an immigration “fee” that scales with age. Young immigrants who have their whole taxpaying and productive lives ahead of them are free. Older immigrants would be charged lot more to prevent the healthcare/pension systems from becoming overburdened. I roughly outlined how this would work here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system
The other option is visa auctions, but I can see how that could be abused quite easily by politicians.
Taking people for FREE from a country that has invested about $20,000 in each of them by age 18 (health, education, etc.) is THEFT of national wealth.
Does the US want to be a thief?
It's not our job to provide a safety net for the world. However, we should prioritize immigrating people who will be a net-positive for the country or, thinking more strategically, could "brain drain" certain other countries (coughChinacough)--think Operation Paperclip to keep the Nazis' best and brightest out of the hands of the Soviets.
We should politely yet firmly tell those who will be a net-negative on the country "thank you for your interest but...". Have enough border security to keep out those who won't be a net-positive, and jail those who make it in and pose an articulable threat.
One thing we need to get rid of are waiting lists multiple decades long, like we have with Mexico and India. That helps nobody.