How much should immigrants be vetted?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

OSR brought this up in the mod thread and I thought it had some interesting possibilities for a discussion. OSR was told to take it elsewhere (like this board) but for some reason hasn't done so.

I don't know what the current U.S government policy on vetting is.

So, the obvious place I think to go with this is support for the U.S Constitution: if a potential immigrant does not agree with or has given indication that they don't agree with the principles and interpretation of the U.S Constitution should they be allowed to become a citizen?

For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?

I'm genuinely curious to see a discussion as to what the potential upper and lower bounds regarding vetting might be. For instance, having to support the Constitution in full (how would the vetting process give greater or less weight though?) might be the upper bound and indication of violent or other criminal behavior might be the lower bound.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Depends on times and circumstances. Scrutiny should generally be done in a way that is mostly viewpoint-neutral but even that might vary depending on time and place.
Maintaining popular support for immigration is important.

[TheReckoning]

One issue with this is that it’s basically impossible to tell what someone’s opinions are on any given topic, unless they’ve left some sort of paper trail (which I doubt most immigrants have). On any given test that they were given for a citizenship application, they could easily lie to answer what is “desirable” for that question.

[lfromnj]

They should also be vetted to be a net fiscal contributor. There are studies in Denmark showing none of the MENA origin countries are on average a net fiscal contributor. Obviously this is just one such example regarding Denmark but it still is a study. Not all immigrants from an area should be banned because some of them are public charges but the ideal goal should be to make sure no immigrant would be a public charge. The fact that a group on average is a net negative suggests terrible immigration policy.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

They should be vetted solely on the quality of their respective cuisines amongst some other stuff

[Santander]

They should be vetted solely on the quality of their respective cuisines amongst some other stuff

It should be the opposite, if anything, given the strong negative correlation between economic productivity and quality of cuisine.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who sympathize with our enemies should not be allowed into our country . If visa holders are shown to do so then we should strip them of their visa and deport them .

And yes Palestine is our enemy along with Iran , Russia , China . If you sympathize with the governments or the causes of those nations then we should not allow you into our country .

[Santander]

People who sympathize with our enemies should not be allowed into our country . If visa holders are shown to do so then we should strip them of their visa and deport them .

And yes Palestine is our enemy along with Iran , Russia , China . If you sympathize with the governments or the causes of those nations then we should not allow you into our country .

You don't have to be Muslim to understand India is a bigger threat than any of those countries.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People who sympathize with our enemies should not be allowed into our country . If visa holders are shown to do so then we should strip them of their visa and deport them .

And yes Palestine is our enemy along with Iran , Russia , China . If you sympathize with the governments or the causes of those nations then we should not allow you into our country .

You don't have to be Muslim to understand India is a bigger threat than any of those countries.

Ok then find a politician who wants to implement such a policy and get them elected.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Significantly.

We need to make sure immigrants share American values on freedom of religion and expression. We also don't need people who support our enemies.

Being let into America should be a privilege.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Agafin]

People who sympathize with our enemies should not be allowed into our country . If visa holders are shown to do so then we should strip them of their visa and deport them .

And yes Palestine is our enemy along with Iran , Russia , China . If you sympathize with the governments or the causes of those nations then we should not allow you into our country .

It's gonna be hard to find a recent immigrant from a country like Iran, China or Russia who is openly critical of their government. They'd be putting themselves and their families at risk.

For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?

If the US were to make LGBT rights an immigration litmus test, then over 95% of immigrants from Africa and MENA would be rejected (though obviously most of them would lie to get through).

[Fuzzy Bear]

OSR brought this up in the mod thread and I thought it had some interesting possibilities for a discussion. OSR was told to take it elsewhere (like this board) but for some reason hasn't done so.

I don't know what the current U.S government policy on vetting is.

So, the obvious place I think to go with this is support for the U.S Constitution: if a potential immigrant does not agree with or has given indication that they don't agree with the principles and interpretation of the U.S Constitution should they be allowed to become a citizen?

For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?

I'm genuinely curious to see a discussion as to what the potential upper and lower bounds regarding vetting might be. For instance, having to support the Constitution in full (how would the vetting process give greater or less weight though?) might be the upper bound and indication of violent or other criminal behavior might be the lower bound.

There is absolutely NO Constitutional Right of ANY Foreigner to emigrate into the US.  Nor is their any such right for people to receive a visa to come here.

We are our own gatekeepers, and we get to be that under the Constitution.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

OSR brought this up in the mod thread and I thought it had some interesting possibilities for a discussion. OSR was told to take it elsewhere (like this board) but for some reason hasn't done so.

I don't know what the current U.S government policy on vetting is.

So, the obvious place I think to go with this is support for the U.S Constitution: if a potential immigrant does not agree with or has given indication that they don't agree with the principles and interpretation of the U.S Constitution should they be allowed to become a citizen?

For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?

I'm genuinely curious to see a discussion as to what the potential upper and lower bounds regarding vetting might be. For instance, having to support the Constitution in full (how would the vetting process give greater or less weight though?) might be the upper bound and indication of violent or other criminal behavior might be the lower bound.

There is absolutely NO Constitutional Right of ANY Foreigner to emigrate into the US.  Nor is their any such right for people to receive a visa to come here.

We are our own gatekeepers, and we get to be that under the Constitution.

I didn't say there was. What I said was 'should lack of support for the U.S Constitution' be a ground for denying a person citizenship of the United States.

[lfromnj]

People who sympathize with our enemies should not be allowed into our country . If visa holders are shown to do so then we should strip them of their visa and deport them .

And yes Palestine is our enemy along with Iran , Russia , China . If you sympathize with the governments or the causes of those nations then we should not allow you into our country .

It's gonna be hard to find a recent immigrant from a country like Iran, China or Russia who is openly critical of their government. They'd be putting themselves and their families at risk.

For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?

If the US were to make LGBT rights an immigration litmus test, then over 95% of immigrants from Africa and MENA would be rejected (though obviously most of them would lie to get through).

I mean its pretty easy to find videos of Iranians criticizing their government especially from 2022. You can call them Tehran liberals but in the end Tehran liberals are also more likely to want to immigrate in the first place.

[Ferguson97]

As long as they're not a spy, terrorist, or someone with a violent criminal history, they should be let in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

OSR brought this up in the mod thread and I thought it had some interesting possibilities for a discussion. OSR was told to take it elsewhere (like this board) but for some reason hasn't done so.

I don't know what the current U.S government policy on vetting is.

So, the obvious place I think to go with this is support for the U.S Constitution: if a potential immigrant does not agree with or has given indication that they don't agree with the principles and interpretation of the U.S Constitution should they be allowed to become a citizen?

For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?

I'm genuinely curious to see a discussion as to what the potential upper and lower bounds regarding vetting might be. For instance, having to support the Constitution in full (how would the vetting process give greater or less weight though?) might be the upper bound and indication of violent or other criminal behavior might be the lower bound.

There is absolutely NO Constitutional Right of ANY Foreigner to emigrate into the US.  Nor is their any such right for people to receive a visa to come here.

We are our own gatekeepers, and we get to be that under the Constitution.

I didn't say there was. What I said was 'should lack of support for the U.S Constitution' be a ground for denying a person citizenship of the United States.

Absolutely, yes.

It is the Constitution that ensures INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, which is a foreign concept in many societies.  No one should be allowed to be a Permanent Resident, let alone a citizen, who is opposed to our system of guaranteed individual liberties, which is our main protection from the tyrrany of the majority.

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely, yes.

It is the Constitution that ensures INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, which is a foreign concept in many societies.  No one should be allowed to be a Permanent Resident, let alone a citizen, who is opposed to our system of guaranteed individual liberties, which is our main protection from the tyrrany of the majority.

How does this work in practice?

Do we just ask them if they support the principles of individual liberties? Or do we ask them their thoughts on more specific topics, like gun ownership or gay marriage. If we ask them about specific topics, how do you pick the topics? Millions of Americans disagree on gay marriage and gun ownership.

And can't they just lie anyway?

You can use background checks to see family and employment history, but how do you find the truth of what is in their hearts?

[Ferguson97]

If they lie, we can cancel their Visa.  We can even denationalize them.  We did this with ex-Nazis after WWII who lied about their past.

I see no reason why someone who got in the US saying the right things, then participates in demonstrations saying "Death to America" or overtly supporting Hamas ought to have their Visa revoked, or possibly denaturalized, just as stealth Nazis were.  Immigration should not be a vehicle to populate our nation with people that hate us and wish us destroyed.

I don't disagree, and I have no problem deporting people who do this, but that wasn't really what I was asking. What you're describing is a mechanism to deport people who lied during their vetting process and get caught after the fact. I'm asking how do you sufficiently vet those people to deny them entry in the first place?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If they lie, we can cancel their Visa.  We can even denationalize them.  We did this with ex-Nazis after WWII who lied about their past.

I see no reason why someone who got in the US saying the right things, then participates in demonstrations saying "Death to America" or overtly supporting Hamas ought to have their Visa revoked, or possibly denaturalized, just as stealth Nazis were.  Immigration should not be a vehicle to populate our nation with people that hate us and wish us destroyed.

I don't disagree, and I have no problem deporting people who do this, but that wasn't really what I was asking. What you're describing is a mechanism to deport people who lied during their vetting process and get caught after the fact. I'm asking how do you sufficiently vet those people to deny them entry in the first place?

We would screen them, ask them, run what checks we could possibly run.

There are many parts of the world where anti-Americanism runs rampant, but information is sparse.  If we can't vet the applicants, we should not bring them in.  

Do we want Chinese Communist Party adherents to emigrate to the US?  Do we want Islamic Jihadists (not ordinary Muslims, but Jihadists who advocate forcible remaking society)?  Do we want the Far Far Right of other countries?  We CAN ask them when they come here.  We CAN deport them if they lie about that.  We have done it before.  It's not a perfect world, but we can to this.

[Fuzzy Bear]

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This has never been law.  This has never been public policy.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Just a driving test, so they don't do stupid sh**t like stop at green lights.

I don't mind the slow African drivers because, although they are slow, they don't change their speed.

Are little old Asian women the worst drivers? Maybe it's just a stereotype.

[jojoju1998]

If they lie, we can cancel their Visa.  We can even denationalize them.  We did this with ex-Nazis after WWII who lied about their past.

I see no reason why someone who got in the US saying the right things, then participates in demonstrations saying "Death to America" or overtly supporting Hamas ought to have their Visa revoked, or possibly denaturalized, just as stealth Nazis were.  Immigration should not be a vehicle to populate our nation with people that hate us and wish us destroyed.

I don't disagree, and I have no problem deporting people who do this, but that wasn't really what I was asking. What you're describing is a mechanism to deport people who lied during their vetting process and get caught after the fact. I'm asking how do you sufficiently vet those people to deny them entry in the first place?

We would screen them, ask them, run what checks we could possibly run.

There are many parts of the world where anti-Americanism runs rampant, but information is sparse.  If we can't vet the applicants, we should not bring them in.  

Do we want Chinese Communist Party adherents to emigrate to the US?  Do we want Islamic Jihadists (not ordinary Muslims, but Jihadists who advocate forcible remaking society)?  Do we want the Far Far Right of other countries?  We CAN ask them when they come here.  We CAN deport them if they lie about that.  We have done it before.  It's not a perfect world, but we can to this.

To be fair, our immigration system is relatively far more stricter than European counterparts.

[Skill and Chance]

Apply the same vetting process that is used for a government employee's security clearance.  Obviously expedite it/have an intermediate step for situations in which someone is coming here because they are truly running for their life.

[SInNYC]

As long as they support changing the law only through constitutional means, we should not be vetting them on their views on issues.

And realistically, this is unenforceable too since anybody can just lie.