How much should immigrants be vetted?

[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.

[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.

[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.