Well, my tentacled friend, how would your policy handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change?
You said you want to establish a limit based on countries.
Immigration policy shouldn’t be an isolated policy. It should be a subset of growth, economic, and humanitarian policies. The US and other first world countries need to take a look at their age demographics and ensure that the working age population is being maintained, and the ratio of retired/working age isn’t becoming unsustainable. Likewise, countries need to look at how their labour market is being filled. If fundamentally important economic sectors such as agriculture or healthcare are being largely staffed by immigrants, then there needs to be easy means for employers to import legal immigrants. It’s asinine to have economic sectors dependent on illegal immigrants, but not provide a stream of legal immigrants. The alternative would be to accept the inflationary hit by clearing those sectors of illegal immigrants, but very few people are openly advocating for that trade-off. The US and other first world countries also need to relieve at least some of the suffering of the victims of global conflict. It’s not going to be possible to quickly resettle everyone who’s been forced into a refugee camp. However, trying to improve the circumstances of people who’ve demonstrated that they had no resort but to flee their homelands is a worthwhile goal.
Specific to the US, something like 3% of the population is made up of illegal immigrants. The OP doesn’t allow for the removal of those illegal immigrants, but we should acknowledge the scale of the problem. There needs to be some way to bring those illegal immigrants “inside” the system. Maybe something like a good-behaviour probationary amnesty? Have the illegal immigrants register as some new status of probationary immigrants, keep a crime-free record for five years, stay employed for most of that time, and they can become a fully legal permanent resident. At the same time, they’re on a one strike and you’re out status with regards to crime. However, that needs to be a one-time amnesty and not a repeated policy every time there’s a wave of sympathy towards illegal immigrants. Which does mean that there will still need to be strong border enforcement.
One additional thought is that proximity shouldn’t be considered a virtue. It’s easier for Central Americans to get to the US-Mexico border and sneak across. That shouldn’t be an entitlement to do so. There needs to be an intermediate stage where people who are genuinely fleeing persecution are safeguarded, but are not allowed to become economic migrants. Ideally, they would go into refugee camps in Mexico, although I’m not sure if Mexico would agree to that solution.
My other thought is that desperation is also not a virtue. There seems to be an idea that if someone has travelled a thousand miles through harsh conditions, it proves that they are worthwhile to enter the country they wish to immigrate to. Likewise, if they have suffered privation or cruelty during their journey, that makes them even more deserving. I don’t think that rewarding foolhardiness is a good idea.
There probably should be a basis for trying to ensure geographical fairness for the different types of immigration applications. That basis should also try to ensure that the opportunity to apply for different types of immigration visas is not weighted towards established groups.
I see. What I meant was there’s be a quota based on something regional. Something like 250k/continent per year. Or maybe as a function of source country population.
It seems a little unbalanced to give Australia (population 31,000,000) and South America (population 422,000,000) the same quota as Asia (population 4,463,000,000) and Africa (population 1,216,000,000).
Using the examples I mentioned above, that would be something like:
China - 1,398,700
Nigeria - 20,100
Mexico - 12,700
United Kingdom - 6600
Canada - 3800
(I used 0.1% of the country’s population.)
Do you mean that, if you’re not a citizen, and you have a kid in the country, you don’t become a citizen yourself? Or do you mean that, if you’re not a citizen, and you have a kid in this country, the kid isn’t a citizen?
This is already the case and has been for decades.
If not a citizen and have a kid then should the kid automatically be a citizen? How many countries do that?
My plan isn’t complete! 
I was under the impression the various “rational” immigration policies put zero weight on the applicant’s country of origin (except in the case of refugees and asylum seekers)-- why would they care where the person is from?-- but rather prioritises people with more education, language skills, work experience, that fit into whatever sector the economy is seeking at the moment or already have a job offer, etc.
There are also reciprocal arrangements, like in the EU, permitting free movement between member countries thus giving all citizens access to the larger market.
As for denying jus soli, that is common outside the Americas, but opens up the risk of statelessness. That said, if the parents are already nationals of the country of residence, the child typically inherits citizenship that way.
Thirty-five (including the United States). For some reason, it’s mostly an American thing. Thirty of the the thirty-five countries are in the Americas. The other five are Fiji, Pakistan, Lesotho, Tanzania, and Tuvalu.
As a bonus, here are the five countries in the Americas that don’t have birthright citizenship: Bahamas, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Suriname.
Is this, in your view, a criterion that should be considered in formulating America’s citizenship policy?
When advocates of gun control point out that very few other countries, especially industrial democracies, have the sort of easy access to firearms as the United States, and that almost none of them have the right to bear arms enshrined in their constitutions, the response is generally, “Well, the United States shouldn’t base its ideas of rights on what other countries do.”
Birthright citizenship is also part of the US Constitution. Why should it be altered just because some other countries might not do things the same way?
One shot. To avoid additional stress on the already broken CBP, we can back date it to say… June 1, 2019 (for the sake of argument). If you can show you’ve been here before that, you will not be asked to leave. All those here after that date will need to go through the normal intake process (not the current abhorrent process) and may or may not be permitted to stay on a case by case basis.
The goal here is to avoid the chaos, expense and obvious pitfalls we’ve seen in recent ICE raids. IMO, that’s an entirely misguided and cruel policy.
If we have a working immigration policy, immigrants in-country are on a path to citizenship and I see no reason to deny their US born children automatic citizenship. I also don’t think there is an epidemic of alleged “anchor babies” that needs solving. Am I wrong about that?
The problem with not doing this is that you have the risk of creating stateless citizens. There are quite a number of social and economic issues with that.
But, if you really want to do it, all you need to do is to change the constitution. Do you think that there is enough demand to get a constitutional amendment passed?
How about while you are at it, and you are getting rid of citizenship by accident of geography, you also get rid of citizenship by accident of ancestry? No birthright citizenship for anyone, everyone has to earn it.
I’m not a big fan of the idea, personally, but I’ll take it over removing citizenship gained by being born within the US or territories.
Another rational immigration policy: encourage “chain migration”. Family migration greatly reduces the chance of new immigrants needing social assistance from the government – they already have a family support system to rely on, meaning greatly increased chances at affordable housing and jobs.
For a topic so frequently and heatedly debated in the news, this has been surprisingly and refreshingly collegial.
I dont think many left wingers actually want true open Borders, and a lot of Right wingers have “Send them back, unless they are working for me”.
So, my rational policy is this.
Any employer can request “job invites”, much like a H-1B or H2A visa. The Labor dept looks at the work that employer wants, and approves a number. Labor contractors hire people to fill the temp visas, but are responsible (to a modest bond, say $5000?) make sure the worker goes back after the job is done. The Contractors are licensed by the Labor dept , and paid a fee by the US govt, they can also charge a fee to the employer BUT NOT the worker. Thus chicken line workers , hotel maids, lettuce pickers and the like can come in, do their work legally and leave. No "coyotes’ are needed. We had this before, it worked, and in fact have this now, but it’s tanged in incredible red tape.
As for people already here: if they entered legally but over stayed their visa, etc, they have to show 7 years of filing taxes and no felonies or known gang affiliations. If they did not enter legally, they have to show 13 years. Then they get amnesty and a green card, and can* then start *the road to citizenship.