Immigration and Border Control

[Mercury 0]

I find it interesting that Palin is anti-amnesty, while McCain has unlearned what he supposedly learned after the grass-roots slap-down a few months ago, that we need to first "enforce the borders," and has resumed his previous hispandering ways that so alienated the base.

Why do "we need" to "first enforce the borders"?

And what do you mean by "hispandering?"

[ConservativeLA 0]

I find it interesting that Palin is anti-amnesty, while McCain has unlearned what he supposedly learned after the grass-roots slap-down a few months ago, that we need to first "enforce the borders," and has resumed his previous hispandering ways that so alienated the base.

Why do "we need" to "first enforce the borders"?

And what do you mean by "hispandering?"

Question #1: Because a nation that does not ensure the integrity of its borders is a nation in name only.

Question #2: Pandering to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage.

[Mercury 0]

I find it interesting that Palin is anti-amnesty, while McCain has unlearned what he supposedly learned after the grass-roots slap-down a few months ago, that we need to first "enforce the borders," and has resumed his previous hispandering ways that so alienated the base.

Why do "we need" to "first enforce the borders"?

And what do you mean by "hispandering?"

Question #1: Because a nation that does not ensure the integrity of its borders is a nation in name only.

Question #2: Pandering to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage.

How did you arrive at your conclusion in #1? Why is border enforcement important to a nation? And what does border enforcement entail? Please define border enforcement.

Why would McCain "pander to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage" when he could have gained more advantage by "pandering" to (much) larger voting blocs? If "pandering" is what he was doing, why would he limit it to Hispanics? I don't think your position holds up to reason.

[Joss Delage 0]

Question #1: Because a nation that does not ensure the integrity of its borders is a nation in name only.

Question #2: Pandering to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage.

"Securing the border" is a red herring. What people means by that is "enforce current irrational, immoral, right-denying immigration laws".

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Question #1: Because a nation that does not ensure the integrity of its borders is a nation in name only.

Question #2: Pandering to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage.

"Securing the border" is a red herring. What people means by that is "enforce current irrational, immoral, right-denying immigration laws".

No one has a right to immigrate into my house w.o. my permission. Likewise no one has a right to immigrate to the United States without conforming to the laws of immigration. A nation without defensible boundaries will not last very long. Making the boundaries firm -requires- that immigration be both regulated and restricted.

I suggest you read a novel by Jean Raspaille called -Camp of the Saints-. It is a fiction about a future where third world folks decide to march into Europe en mass (mostly people from India). The governments have not the resolve to stop two billion people from overrunning their homes and hearths. It is very chilling and mostly right on the mark.

ruveyn

[ConservativeLA 0]

I find it interesting that Palin is anti-amnesty, while McCain has unlearned what he supposedly learned after the grass-roots slap-down a few months ago, that we need to first "enforce the borders," and has resumed his previous hispandering ways that so alienated the base.

Why do "we need" to "first enforce the borders"?

And what do you mean by "hispandering?"

Question #1: Because a nation that does not ensure the integrity of its borders is a nation in name only.

Question #2: Pandering to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage.

How did you arrive at your conclusion in #1? Why is border enforcement important to a nation? And what does border enforcement entail? Please define border enforcement.

Why would McCain "pander to Hispanics for (a perceived) electoral advantage" when he could have gained more advantage by "pandering" to (much) larger voting blocs? If "pandering" is what he was doing, why would he limit it to Hispanics? I don't think your position holds up to reason.

Re conclusion #1. What coherence does a nation state have if it cannot control who comes into said nation state? It seems to be a starting point for the possibility of the rule of law, and its absence ensures lawlessness. Define it? How about: get in line, wait your turn, you don't get to jump to the front of the line because of your geographical proximity?

Re conclusion #2. I don't know, it's a mystery to a lot of people. I am observing, and commenting on, McCain's (mostly) consistent behavior. I could speculate as to his motivations, but my conclusion about his behavior, which behavior seems to me to be self-evidently irrational (see conclusion #1), is not unreasonable merely because the person I am observing is being irrational. Your position that my position does not hold up to reason, does not hold up to reason.

[ConservativeLA 0]

"Securing the border" is a red herring. What people means by that is "enforce current irrational, immoral, right-denying immigration laws".

Should we then allow Mara Salvatrucha members to enter the country unmolested? How does that advance the cause of morality, freedom and reason?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

No one has a right to immigrate into my house w.o. my permission.

That's because you own your house.

Likewise no one has a right to immigrate to the United States without conforming to the laws of immigration.

But does the U.S. government own everybody's house and business?

What if you want to invite a foreigner into your house and he wants to come, or you want him to work in your business or teach in your school and he wants to work for you? What business is it of the government telling the both of you he can't do it? Our current immigration laws make such voluntary trades that violate nobody's right a crime.

Is that what you advocate?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

"Securing the border" is a red herring. What people means by that is "enforce current irrational, immoral, right-denying immigration laws".

Should we then allow Mara Salvatrucha members to enter the country unmolested? How does that advance the cause of morality, freedom and reason?

The problem isn't how they got here, but what they do here. Violent gangsters should be caught and punished whether they come from Guatemala or Kansas City.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

No one has a right to immigrate into my house w.o. my permission.

That's because you own your house.

Likewise no one has a right to immigrate to the United States without conforming to the laws of immigration.

But does the U.S. government own everybody's house and business?

What if you want to invite a foreigner into your house and he wants to come, or you want him to work in your business or teach in your school and he wants to work for you? What business is it of the government telling the both of you he can't do it? Our current immigration laws make such voluntary trades that violate nobody's right a crime.

Is that what you advocate?

Betsy, foreigners have no -rights- to be here. They are sometimes -permitted- by law to be here. You can offer your hospitality to a foreigner who is here legally. However, the government by law has authority over our -borders-. The only people allowed in our country are those here by right (born or naturalized citizens) or those here by -permission- (those with a visa or diplomatic credentials). The latter are permitted to cross our borders, inward bound under legal restriction, regulation and permission, not by right.

We hire our government to protect us against foreign invaders. That includes people who cross our borders against rules established by Congress, a group of people we hire to make such laws and rules. Any one here illegally should be presumed to have hostile intent. If later investigation shows they are not hostile then perhaps they may be given refuge (if conditions warrant) or a temporary visa.

America is for Americans, not the world. As a body politic America is our house and we, as members of the body politic, can say who can come in and who can not.

So to answer your question, you own your house, but you do not as an individual own the borders. That is owned collectively and politically and legally with the government as the agent in charge.

Think of it this way. Assume you own an apartment in a apartment house. The owner of the apartment house has rules about who you may allow in. If someone buzzes the main entrance it is your responsibility as a dweller, not to let in a stranger who intentions you cannot vouch for. Why is this? Because by letting such a stranger in, you may be putting other tenants or occupants at risk.

No one but Americans have any -right- to be in America.

ruveyn

[ConservativeLA 0]

"Securing the border" is a red herring. What people means by that is "enforce current irrational, immoral, right-denying immigration laws".

Should we then allow Mara Salvatrucha members to enter the country unmolested? How does that advance the cause of morality, freedom and reason?

The problem isn't how they got here, but what they do here. Violent gangsters should be caught and punished whether they come from Guatemala or Kansas City.

So we'll leave it to domestic law enforcement to clean up the carnage caused by our failure to do due diligence vis. who is allowed to enter the country? (Of course, because of sanctuary laws and people being terrified to be perceived as racists, we often cannot inquire as to their immigration status once they're here anyway.)

Or we should just pay for three hots and a cot for every ne'er-do-well who wants to hire a coyote, come here, kill someone, and he never has to leave?

The problem is both the laxity that permits human scum to enter (and re-enter, again and again) the country, and in removing them from society (and hopefully the country) once they manage to sneak in. To say that it is only a question of one or the other is absurd, and I did not think, infer, or articulate that false dichotomy. If I did not speak to home-grown gangsters, it's because that wasn't the topic; nor should those two topics be seen to be mutually exclusive.

So we'll just allow them to waltz in, unmolested, because it's more philosophically appealing than simply taking responsibility for determining who we wish to allow to enter, and who we wish to turn away?

The failure to differentiate between citizen gangsters, and gangsters who, were we vigilant at the borders, would never have a chance to terrorize innocents in this country, at least, leads to just the situation we have in many areas of the country, particularly poor areas of Los Angeles, where innocents are terrorized on a regular basis because well-intentioned voters want to feel good about themselves. It's evil.

[piz 0]

I can see virtue in having almost but not quite open borders. With that in mind, here are some questions for the last three posters:

The problem isn't how they got here, but what they do here. Violent gangsters should be caught and punished whether they come from Guatemala or Kansas City.

While my tutoring business was still in operation, not only was it illegal for me to hire convicted pedophiles, but I certainly didn't want to. For citizens convicted of crimes, there was a means for me to do background checks. How would I have done that if I'd been considering hiring an immigrant, if immigrants are not at least registered in some fashion?

Betsy, foreigners have no -rights- to be here. They are sometimes -permitted- by law to be here. You can offer your hospitality to a foreigner who is here legally. However, the government by law has authority over our -borders-. The only people allowed in our country are those here by right (born or naturalized citizens) or those here by -permission- (those with a visa or diplomatic credentials). The latter are permitted to cross our borders, inward bound under legal restriction, regulation and permission, not by right.

We hire our government to protect us against foreign invaders. That includes people who cross our borders against rules established by Congress, a group of people we hire to make such laws and rules. Any one here illegally should be presumed to have hostile intent. If later investigation shows they are not hostile then perhaps they may be given refuge (if conditions warrant) or a temporary visa.

America is for Americans, not the world. As a body politic America is our house and we, as members of the body politic, can say who can come in and who can not.

So to answer your question, you own your house, but you do not as an individual own the borders. That is owned collectively and politically and legally with the government as the agent in charge.

Think of it this way. Assume you own an apartment in a apartment house. The owner of the apartment house has rules about who you may allow in. If someone buzzes the main entrance it is your responsibility as a dweller, not to let in a stranger who intentions you cannot vouch for. Why is this? Because by letting such a stranger in, you may be putting other tenants or occupants at risk.

No one but Americans have any -right- to be in America.

What if an American wants to hire an immigrant? By what right does anyone but the individual American involved decide with whom he can and cannot peacefully associate? Sounds to me like a direct violation of the first amendment, which has been consistently held by the Supreme Court to include freedom of association.

So we'll leave it to domestic law enforcement to clean up the carnage caused by our failure to do due diligence vis. who is allowed to enter the country? (Of course, because of sanctuary laws and people being terrified to be perceived as racists, we often cannot inquire as to their immigration status once they're here anyway.)

Or we should just pay for three hots and a cot for every ne'er-do-well who wants to hire a coyote, come here, kill someone, and he never has to leave?

The problem is both the laxity that permits human scum to enter (and re-enter, again and again) the country, and in removing them from society (and hopefully the country) once they manage to sneak in. To say that it is only a question of one or the other is absurd, and I did not think, infer, or articulate that false dichotomy. If I did not speak to home-grown gangsters, it's because that wasn't the topic; nor should those two topics be seen to be mutually exclusive.

So we'll just allow them to waltz in, unmolested, because it's more philosophically appealing than simply taking responsibility for determining who we wish to allow to enter, and who we wish to turn away?

The failure to differentiate between citizen gangsters, and gangsters who, were we vigilant at the borders, would never have a chance to terrorize innocents in this country, at least, leads to just the situation we have in many areas of the country, particularly poor areas of Los Angeles, where innocents are terrorized on a regular basis because well-intentioned voters want to feel good about themselves. It's evil.

Vituperation makes it much less likely that a post will be taken seriously. Why not simply propose that, in a similar manner to domestic felons losing the right to vote (in some, but not all, states), certain classes of foreign criminals should lose the right to enter the country, as a consequence of having committed their crimes?

[softwareGuru 0]

So we'll just allow them to waltz in, unmolested, because it's more philosophically appealing than simply taking responsibility for determining who we wish to allow to enter, and who we wish to turn away?

The situation with Mexican immigration is analogous to the situation with Prohibition. The laws disallowing legitimate immigration have motivated good people to seek aid from gangsters. Remove the prohibition.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

In post #11

piz says:

What if an American wants to hire an immigrant? By what right does anyone but the individual American involved decide with whom he can and cannot peacefully associate? Sounds to me like a direct violation of the first amendment, which has been consistently held by the Supreme Court to include freedom of association.

ruveyn responds:

There are already provision for legally hiring (importing, if you will) foreign labor that you might require. However the individual must be vetted by the government to see that he is who he says he is. That he is clear of terrorist connection, that he is not a wanted criminal and that he does not carry any communicable disease.

I would propose adding the following requirement: That the importer of the foreign person post an indemnification bond to compensate any victims that the importee might harm committing an illegal act while here and under the importer's employ.

Just as you have no right to import plant matter from another state where there is an infestation of some sort, you have no right to import people unless they have been checked for chiggers first. Hiring a European or someone from an industrial nation is generally not a problem. It is bringing in third world folk that is dicey. You don't know where they have been and what germs they carry without checking.

One of the purposes of passing foreigners through an authorized port of entry is to prevent contagion and to check identity.

While an American is free to do business with folks abroad, he is not free to endanger his countrymen. Reasonable cautions must be taken. How would it be if a Muslim either here legally or naturalized, imported terrorists to "work" for him? This does not sound like a really peachy keen idea.

Here is an historical fact. During the era when immigration was the most open (between 1860 and 1925) all immigrants were checked as carefully has possible for contagious diseases, in particular typhoid and t.b.. Even then it was not a perfect system. Typhoid Mary, an Irish immigrant was a carrier of typhoid but was asymptomatic. The typhoid she carried did not make her sick, but it caused the deaths and serious illness of several people. So the fear of contagion has a basis in fact.

ruveyn

[Mercury 0]

Betsy, foreigners have no -rights- to be here. They are sometimes -permitted- by law to be here. You can offer your hospitality to a foreigner who is here legally. However, the government by law has authority over our -borders-. The only people allowed in our country are those here by right (born or naturalized citizens) or those here by -permission- (those with a visa or diplomatic credentials). The latter are permitted to cross our borders, inward bound under legal restriction, regulation and permission, not by right.

[...]

No one but Americans have any -right- to be in America.

ruveyn

Please define "right" as you have used it here. Please also provide the factual, contextual basis for your definition.

[PhilO 0]

The U.S. government does not own America and it has absolutely zero right to restrict any immigration (though if a potential visitor/immigrant posed an objective threat, it does have a justification to turn away or confine them until they're no longer a threat.) There is no divine right of existing occupants to tell others that they may not set foot in "their" country, because it is not "their" country, they only have a right to stop somebody setting foot on their *own* property. If anybody claims otherwise, let them actually provide a moral/philosophic argument rather than the completely meaningless exercise of stating that it's the current law.

Whether they should be able to *vote* is a different issue. Personally I'm in favor of restricting voting (in America) to those with a proven ability to speak and read English and pass a basic intelligence test, whether they were born here or immigrated last year.

[B. Royce 0]

The purpose of a border is to place a limit on the jurisdiction of a country's government. Properly that government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force within its borders. When a person crosses a border from country A to country B he is then open to retaliatory force by B's government if he initiates force against another person (or his property) in that country. Crossing the border, if that border does not coincide with a private property line, is not initiating force. If the person crossing the border is known by the "new' country to have initiated force in his "old" country, he may be picked up and deported. Otherwise, he is an innocent man and no action should be taken against him.

Some immigrants are a problem is this country only because of our unjust government---a government that gives away its working citizen's money (welfare) to non-working and non-citizens, and which does not practice sure and swift justice on criminals. At root, the problem is altruism, which is the enemy of justice.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy, foreigners have no -rights- to be here.

Sure they do. Their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness follow from their nature as human beings, not from a government grant.

They have the liberty to travel to any location as long as they have the permission of the property owner of the land they travel or stay on, and that ought to all be private land and not government property. The only reason for getting the government involved is when someone's rights are being violated. With are current immigration laws, it is the government that is violating the rights of immigrants and the Americans who wish to host, hire, and trade with them.

They are sometimes -permitted- by law to be here. You can offer your hospitality to a foreigner who is here legally. However, the government by law has authority over our -borders-. The only people allowed in our country are those here by right (born or naturalized citizens) or those here by -permission- (those with a visa or diplomatic credentials). The latter are permitted to cross our borders, inward bound under legal restriction, regulation and permission, not by right.

I realize that is the way it now is, but is that the way it should be? Should a human being exist by right or by permission of the government?

We hire our government to protect us against foreign invaders. That includes people who cross our borders against rules established by Congress, a group of people we hire to make such laws and rules. Any one here illegally should be presumed to have hostile intent. If later investigation shows they are not hostile then perhaps they may be given refuge (if conditions warrant) or a temporary visa.

There is a big difference between the Jihadists who flew planes into the World Trade Center and a poor Mexican seeking a better life by picking tomatos or working at my local car wash. Prosecute the rights violators, but if someone is here and peaceably going about his business with the voluntary consent of every person he deals with, what reason would you have to prevent him from doing that?

America is for Americans, not the world.

What does that mean -- especially to someone who wants to be an American, visit America, work for an American who wants to hire him, or start a business in America? Was my father an American before he left Russia?

As a body politic America is our house and we, as members of the body politic, can say who can come in and who can not.

I think you will see the essentially collectivist nature of that statement if I change it to read: As a body politic Germany is our Fatherland and we, as Germans, can say who can be allowed to live and who will be exterminated in Germany.

So to answer your question, you own your house, but you do not as an individual own the borders. That is owned collectively and politically and legally with the government as the agent in charge.

Why should it be that way?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The problem isn't how they got here, but what they do here. Violent gangsters should be caught and punished whether they come from Guatemala or Kansas City.

So we'll leave it to domestic law enforcement to clean up the carnage caused by our failure to do due diligence vis. who is allowed to enter the country?

Begging the question. You're assuming that open immigration with proper law enforcement will result in more carnage than that caused by U.S. citizens.

(Of course, because of sanctuary laws and people being terrified to be perceived as racists, we often cannot inquire as to their immigration status once they're here anyway.)

The failure to enforce proper criminal laws is the problem, not open immigration.

Or we should just pay for three hots and a cot for every ne'er-do-well who wants to hire a coyote, come here, kill someone, and he never has to leave?

No and we shouldn't pay for them for tenth generation American citizens either. The problem is the welfare state, not open immigration.

So we'll just allow them to waltz in, unmolested, because it's more philosophically appealing than simply taking responsibility for determining who we wish to allow to enter, and who we wish to turn away?

The only people for whom we should control entry for are those who pose a real threat to the rights of American citizens such as those who would be supported by the taxpayers, people from countries we are at war with, people with contagious diseases, etc.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The problem isn't how they got here, but what they do here. Violent gangsters should be caught and punished whether they come from Guatemala or Kansas City.

While my tutoring business was still in operation, not only was it illegal for me to hire convicted pedophiles, but I certainly didn't want to. For citizens convicted of crimes, there was a means for me to do background checks. How would I have done that if I'd been considering hiring an immigrant, if immigrants are not at least registered in some fashion?

I don't have a problem with that. It is the restrictions on entry and other liberties that have nothing to do with protecting the legitimate rights of Americans that is wrong.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

America is for Americans, not the world.

What does that mean -- especially to someone who wants to be an American, visit America, work for an American who wants to hire him, or start a business in America? Was my father an American before he left Russia?

I am not sure I follow this -- how could he be an American before ever coming here and getting citizenship?

As a body politic America is our house and we, as members of the body politic, can say who can come in and who can not.

I think you will see the essentially collectivist nature of that statement if I change it to read: As a body politic Germany is our Fatherland and we, as Germans, can say who can be allowed to live and who will be exterminated in Germany.

With all due respect, I tend to agree with Ruveyn and I think equating this with Nazi holocaust as you do is an extreme exaggeration and unfair. Now I do agree that some of our immigration laws are unfair or even wrong. But I do think we, individually and collectively, have the right to defend and protect ourselves. Had we had an EFFECTIVE immigration policy, border patrol, and intelligence system, the Islamic attacks on 9/11 probably would not have happened.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But I do think we, individually and collectively, have the right to defend and protect ourselves.

We have the right to protect ourselves from the initiation or threat of force by anyone, but not to interfere with foreigners peaceably living and working here.

Had we had an EFFECTIVE immigration policy, border patrol, and intelligence system, the Islamic attacks on 9/11 probably would not have happened.

If we had a decent foreign policy we would have realized that Bin Laden and the states that supported him had declared war on us long before 9/11. We should have declared war on them and prevented entry and/or deported the terrorists because they did pose a provable threat of force. After they actually did initiate force, it was too late.

[jasonlockwood 0]

A gentle reminder to those arguing against open immigration that the current mess would have PREVENTED Miss Rand from entering the US. Back in the 1920s it was far easier to come to America. We didn't have completely open immigration, but we also didn't have the byzantine nightmare that it's become today.

Did America suffer because we had a more liberal immigration policy nearly 100 years ago? Did those coming to America back then pose any kind of objective threat to the nation?

Incidentally, because of the economic growth in Australia over the past two decades, immigration policy has been relaxed here to allow more people in. It's not an open immigration policy by any means, but it's easier to come here than before. If open or even more open immigration is the problem some posters say it is, then wouldn't we be seeing those problems in Australia?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Did America suffer because we had a more liberal immigration policy nearly 100 years ago? Did those coming to America back then pose any kind of objective threat to the nation?

yes and no. Some Americans suffered because Typhoid Mary and Al Capone immigrated to this country. It cuts both ways. If we have people coming in from the outside that cannot be permitted to bring in any live substance for which there is no counter predator or immunity in our environment. Unfortunately we can't tell who will become criminals and who will be law abiding in the long run.

Look what happened to the Aztecs when the Spaniards brought in smallpox to Meso-America. Six million Aztecs died (so it is estimated) of the pox.

At the very least we have to quarantine immigrants long enough to see that do do not carry in any communicable diseases.

All that aside, what has made immigration a sore issue is the existence of our welfare state. While it is nifty to have hard working law abiding folk come to us to add their labor and wit to our commonweal what about loafers and moochers who come to American to ride our tax funded gravy train? The problem is not so much the immigrants, but the gravy train. Take that away and the issue of immigration would not be so inflamed.

In the interval between the founding of the republic and say 1920, we did not have much of a gravy train, so immigrants, on balance, were a positive addition to our nation and society.

In the best case we should admit any person not carrying a communicable disease and not known to be a criminal or a terrorist provided that person has a job waiting for him. Any acceptable person with a sponsor on our shores could be admitted without damage to the nation (most likely), and very possibly benefit our nation.

The one exception I would make is not to accept Muslim immigrants for obvious reasons. We can't really tell which ones are the terrorists and which are harmless. We found out the hard way on Sept 12, 2001, The Day After, when Jordanian and Palestinian cab drivers in New York City were jumping for joy. Or the Muslim trouble makers in Newark who plotted and carried out the first bombing of the WTC in 1993. They fell under the evil influence of Sheik Abdul, the blind imam. That is really not peachy keen.

ruveyn

[piz 0]

In post #11

piz says:

What if an American wants to hire an immigrant? By what right does anyone but the individual American involved decide with whom he can and cannot peacefully associate? Sounds to me like a direct violation of the first amendment, which has been consistently held by the Supreme Court to include freedom of association.

ruveyn responds:

There are already provision for legally hiring (importing, if you will) foreign labor that you might require. However the individual must be vetted by the government to see that he is who he says he is. That he is clear of terrorist connection, that he is not a wanted criminal and that he does not carry any communicable disease.

I would propose adding the following requirement: That the importer of the foreign person post an indemnification bond to compensate any victims that the importee might harm committing an illegal act while here and under the importer's employ.

Just as you have no right to import plant matter from another state where there is an infestation of some sort, you have no right to import people unless they have been checked for chiggers first. Hiring a European or someone from an industrial nation is generally not a problem. It is bringing in third world folk that is dicey. You don't know where they have been and what germs they carry without checking.

One of the purposes of passing foreigners through an authorized port of entry is to prevent contagion and to check identity.

While an American is free to do business with folks abroad, he is not free to endanger his countrymen. Reasonable cautions must be taken. How would it be if a Muslim either here legally or naturalized, imported terrorists to "work" for him? This does not sound like a really peachy keen idea.

Here is an historical fact. During the era when immigration was the most open (between 1860 and 1925) all immigrants were checked as carefully has possible for contagious diseases, in particular typhoid and t.b.. Even then it was not a perfect system. Typhoid Mary, an Irish immigrant was a carrier of typhoid but was asymptomatic. The typhoid she carried did not make her sick, but it caused the deaths and serious illness of several people. So the fear of contagion has a basis in fact.

Well, no one brought up the contagion issue until now, although I considered it for the post you're replying to here. My point, taking into consideration everything I said in that post and not isolating my response to you, is that there are good reasons for "checking out" immigrants, just as there are good reasons for preventing domestic criminals from interacting with the rest of society and good reasons for quarantining the sick. That's why I replied to Betsy as I did.

But none of that has anything to do with immigrants' right to come here, or Americans' right to associate with them. Enemies in war should never be allowed in, and perhaps some criminals should be permanently barred, depending on the nature of their offenses, but apart from temporary restrictions (due to objective dangers such as contagious disease) no one else should ever be stopped from coming here.