- How many of the six-and-a-half billion people in the world should be able to enter the United States to "live and work peacefully" under an "open borders" policy?
- Who decides a number limit if literal "open borders" is deemed impractical?
- What should the limited number be?
- Should national, or continental, origin of new immigrants be considered in the immigration process? If so, what should be the basis for the blaance?
- Should immigrants from Mexico or Canada who can "walk in" be made equal "somehow" with People from Europe, Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, who cannot "walk in"?
- Should these new immigrants be "non-preference" immigrants as was the case before 1965? That is, can anyone immigrate to the U.S. regardless of skill or immediate relatives or refugee status or any other limiting "preference" criteria?
- If it is decided that the United States needs to limit immigration to a billion or two ibllion or some other number of immigrants in some period of time, what should be done about the subsequent illegal immigration problem that would remain?
Of course, Henry gives away his preferences by the questions he asks. If you think, as I do, that everyone who wants to immigrate to the United States has the "United States Nature" and we should welcome them, then you'll disagree with the premise behind the questions. Norman's assumption is that some level of immigration creates problems in excess of the benefits. He doesn't suggest why his assumption is correct.
So, to answer his first question, I say "All of them". From that, the rest of his answers become obvious. No restrictions on whom may immigrate.