Donald Trump and US politics

Here's how I'd do US immigration if I had sole discretion over policy...

1. If the we don't have decent diplomatic relations with the country of origin, we accept no immigrants from that country (except for defectors of significant value to the enemy in time of war). For example, if we are currently or were recently bombing them, we probably lack decent diplomatic relations.

2. If a foreign nation won't "track" things we consider severe crimes in an individual's criminal record, we accept no immigrants who have ever been in that country. For example, if murdering homosexuals is not a crime of any sort in a certain country, then we don't take anyone from there. However, if such a thing is a crime of any severity — even if it's as trivial as a speeding ticket is in the US — and that law is effectively enforced and recorded, then that's okay. To this end, we'd sell the concept of fining-for-profit as a revenue stream for allied nations, allowing them to cover the cost of tracking that the US wants for its own security when accepting immigrants. Remember that the goal here is US security, not legislating our morality onto foreign, sovereign land.

3. If the immigrant lacks sufficient identification to identify them to the government of their country/countries of origin, we don't accept them. This information is used to obtain the immigrant's criminal record from their home country.

4. If the immigrant has committed a crime the US considers severe, whether the country of origin does or doesn't consider it severe, then we don't accept them. Because all accepted countries of origin investigate and record crimes the US considers severe, the country of origin performs the background check for the US.

5. The immigrant must complete an IQ test with a score higher than the US median. Optionally, if a family is seeking entry, the entire group can be allowed in so long as the group average exceeds the US median. Every new immigrant taken in should make us a smarter and therefore better nation.

6. The IQ test should be in English only, without translation options. English is and should be the official language of the United States. If a passing score on the test is achieved despite unfamiliarity with English, that's cool too — respect to those who wing it.

7. The immigrant should pay their own way. There are two main functions detailed above: requesting a criminal record from the immigrant's home country, and administering an IQ test. Whatever that costs, applicants should pay it.

8. Outside of the seven above principles, little or nothing should apply. Believe it or not, I'm against "extreme vetting" or any other vague security measure whose name tests well in focus groups. Currently, legal immigrants waste too much time and money going through a bureaucratic and inefficient process. These needless inefficiencies are not only a waste of taxpayer money, but they make legal immigration more difficult, increasing the appeal of lazier illegal immigration for even those who are qualified to immigrate. Just get the two important questions answered — "are they safe?" and "are we better with or without them?" — and don't waste time and money on the other shit.

"

What about existing illnesses? What if a potential immigrant passes the IQ and criminal checks but has a condition requiring regular medication and healthcare?

Although I could perhaps see cause in limiting what government assistance recent immigrants can receive, I certainly don't believe that should effect whether they're allowed legal residency or not. So yeah, they can come.

"

So you're for throwing existing citizens with criminal records and low IQ into the ocean?

This is a criticism best levied at nations sending such people, not those receiving them. I think stupid and dangerous US citizens are a problem for the US government, not another nation.

"

But why have a different set of rules for people coming in and those already in? Shouldn't existing AND potential citizens all be held to the same standard?

No, they shouldn't, because giving somebody rights is expensive. This is why, at most businesses, the standard to hire is higher than the standard to fire; once someone is in, company policies (or unions) make it difficult for management to quickly remove someone, as numerous checklists must be cleared to ensure the firing is appropriate. Plus, training costs are saved by keeping a current employee, so it takes quite a long period of improved productivity before a new hire justifies the additional training costs.

To be clear, immigrants aren't granted their first set of rights, but another; the first set is the responsibility of the immigrant's nation of origin. If the US refuses to grant rights to an immigrant, it isn't depriving the immigrant so much as it's refusing to take up what is currently another nation's obligation. To go back to the employment analogy, we are not talking about the unemployed here; we're talking about people trying to move from one job to another.