The idea of open immigration is implicitly based on the (ethical) generalization that there are no conflicts of interests among rational men.
So it makes no sense to say that allowing people living in other countries (who respect rights), to openly migrate to America, a nation founded on the inalienable rights of Man, leads to an inherent conflict of economic, political and cultural interests between Americans-by-birth and Americans-by-choice respectively.
Furthermore, the economic, political and cultural nature of America is not determined by the number of people who migrate to this country but by the fundamental ideas they hold in their lives.
As long as the migrants hold the right ideas, they’re a threat to no American, whether native or alien. But if they hold the wrong ideas and their practice does not violate the rights of any American, the battle against those ideas should be fought (and ultimately won) in the intellectual realm by those who hold the right ideas. In case their practice does violate rights, it’s the moral responsibility of the American Government to enforce the rights of the victims of such violation.
When the American government restricts open immigration because there’s an alleged ‘risk’ of people who hold the ‘wrong’ ideas entering the country and ‘eroding’ its economics, politics and culture, what such a policy leads to, in practice, is the state dictating, which ideas an alien can or cannot hold, to be allowed entry into, and residence in, the country of his choice.
Once the principle of total separation of state and intellect is abandoned in the case of aliens, there’s nothing to prevent the government from eventually dictating, which ideas natives can or cannot hold, to be allowed to live in the country of their birth.
Leaving aside the issue of cultural and economic factors for the moment, consider this: as the most basic individual right is the right to life, would it not be prudent to have a vetting system in place to determine if an immigrant is basically healthy? Would not free and unrestrained immigration carry the danger of reintroducing diseases that had been previously almost eradicated, such as TB? Would one argue that an immigrant’s individual right to unrestrained travel takes precidence over yours or my right to life, i.e., not being unnessesarily exposed to contagion?
Such a restriction would be rational if it was justified by the seriousness of the disease, by the risks of contagion, and was not used as an excuse to keep people out. I don’t think there are many contagious but incurable disease out there today. Also, you’d want a way for people to come to U.S. hospitals for treatment of such diseases.
For instance, as far as I know, TB is curable but some treatments can take many months. BTW, currently, to get a U.S. Green Card, one has to be screened for TB.
Building on this point, I am still appalled how there is still political inaction to lifting the cap on H-1B visas issued annually for this country, which would allow foreigners with advanced degrees to work in the United States. There are many bright and industrious doctoral students in my department who would make excellent business consultants, researchers in industrial laboratories, professors or entrepreneurs. However, several of them might have to return to their countries of origins simply because they cannot obtain a H-1B visa. This is a monumental injustice. Even Bill Gates travels to Capitol Hill to campaign for an increase in H-1B visas.
It appears that in this election year, the H-1B problem is getting worse rather than better.
American companies looking to hire nonimmigrant workers from overseas to work in specialty fields, including accounting, will have a slimmer chance of obtaining visas because of a change in the H-1B application process that takes effect April 1.
Under the policy change, visas will be granted to a randomly selected 65,000 applicants from a pool of applications consisting of those submitted within five business days after April 1. Before now, there was a set limit of 120,000 applications for the pool; last year the quota was filled in a single day, leaving companies that submitted applications on April 2 to wait to try again this year.
The number of applications to be granted remains the same, but with five business days in which they can be accepted, the size of the applicant pool is expected to be much greater, decreasing the odds that any single application will be selected.