I want to ask this question non-rhetorically: what if our only limits on immigration were based on actual reasons for denying an individual?
So here’s the proposal. If someone wants to move to the United States, they need to agree to a background check, and they need to somehow pay for the background check. To throw out some random numbers, let’s say it’s $3,000 cash up front, or a $5,000 tax burden to pay over ten years. I don’t know if these numbers are reasonable, and welcome correction.
You have to complete the check before moving to the US. A criminal record, membership in or stated support of terrorist groups, membership in an oppressive regime, and a few other metrics will result in a denial.
But if you don’t have a reason like that to be denied entry, you will be admitted.
This isn’t an open borders proposal like we used to have, but it’s a far more generous immigration policy than the US has had in decades. And my question is, what would be the likely effects of such a policy? What advantages would it have? What disadvantages?
I’ll start: I think it’d result in significantly more immigrants. I think it’d result in a harder time for criminal immigrants, e.g., drug cartel member, since they’d comprise most of the sneaky immigrants to the country, allowing border enforcement to see them more easily. I think it’d be a more humanitarian policy. Since immigrants on balance are a net tax gain, it’d result in a boost to our government budget.
But I’d really like to hear what problems it might have, or what other advantages it might have. And if there’s currently a proposal similar to this one being discussed elsewhere, I’d love to see more about it. It strikes me as a very reasonable approach that I’ve heard nothing about.