Today's Poll: Should undocumented immigrants be granted work permits?

First, let's normalize the use of "undocumented immigrant" in terms of the logic we use for all other instances where people knowingly ignore and break a long established law. We will no longer have car thieves, they will be "undocumented drivers". There will be no more rapists, they will be "unaffiliated sex partners". Felony DWI arrestees will become "unregistered mobile tavern patrons". I know I will get slammed for comparing illegal aliens to rapists but that was not the point and there is no comparison UNLESS you are talking about about the hundreds of "undocumented workers" who are arrested everyday in the United States for everything from misdemeanors to murder. The point is people who knowingly break a long established and well known law are committing illegal acts, not undocumented acts regardless of the circumstance.

And Howard, the post is in no way negatively directed at you. it is a societal issue that does not do do justice to the realities of the problem.

Jeff, Everyone who comes here without a written invitation is not a criminal. Technically, you are correct. However, this country was built on breaking and changing unjust and discriminatory laws. Were the Jews and Poles who came here to escape the Nazis criminals? Are the Cubans who ran from Castro and the Haitians who evaded Duvalier criminals? My grandfather was an Austrian seaman on a freighter and was notified that he was being forced into the Austrian navy at the outset of WW1, he wanted no part of a war to protect an empire, so he left his ship in NYC without any documentation or permission. He worked anywhere he could until he could buy passage for my grandmother to join him. They were naturalized years later. I don't care what you say, he was not a criminal.

Sure, some of these people are criminals hiding under the guise of being a hard-worker without papers just trying to have a better life. Guess what? Criminals hide in every level of our society. And when we catch them, we should deal with them accordingly, no breaks. Let's not punish all the rest.

One other point, this country has allowed an environment to flourish where unscrupulous employers can hire undocumented workers and then hold over them the threat of turning them in. That's hardly American values. It's servitude. There is an article currently in another news source in Batavia talking about migrant workers in Livingston county being assaulted and robbed, and the victims are afraid to report it for fear of arrest themselves, not my American values. Fortunately, the ones doing this have been arrested, but they were not the only ones doing it.

If you have time, give this a read, very enlightening.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0503h.asp

Dave, your points are valid about immigrants of the past but it fails to take into consideration that those who came here escaping persecution or for a better life also for the most part took the time to obtain the necessary paperwork, study our founding, take a test, pay the entry fees, and most importantly raise their right hand in solemn oath to the country that offered these great benefits. Ironically, everyone crossing the border illegally today has the same opportunity to do all those things and millions every year do. In fact it is immeasurably easier now with organizations that assist people free of charge in obtaining citizenship, offering all the paperwork in their home language to ease the transition. At no time in our history has it been easier to come to this country and become a LEGAL citizen. For every "undocumented worker" we offer amnesty to we turn our noses up at the ones who followed the rules and became American citizens the way the Jews, Poles, and even your grandfather did. God bless all the immigrants who came to this country and respected the rule of law, contributed to our culture, and pledged allegiance to the flag that represented their new found freedoms and opportunities.

See Dave even your Grandfather had noble efforts in mind, before could legally get your Grandmother he could have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers as well. The problem is that back then it was a hell of a lot easier. But even today as Jeff pointed out its not hard to get a visa or a work visa. I have done it I made a few trips to Taiwan for my boss in Ithaca, and in order to really do any work over there I had to have a work visa. The forms were simple and after turning them in to the embassy and waiting for 2 hours with hundreds of other Taiwanese Americans, it was easy. Even with the patriot act its not hard to get work visas.

The unspoken problem is the grey area, there are SOME honest people that are taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers, but there are those who purposely evade being documented for whatever reasons and intent, for transporting drugs or coming here to commit crimes etc. Its unfortunate to lump them all together but the world isnt always a fair place. I think the descision to grant work permits should be done on a case by case basis.

I just don't believe the government has the right to say who can and who cannot enter this country. Private property holders do have that right. I also don't believe the government has the right to tell an employer who they can and cannot hire and as long as I'm on a rant, an employer should offer whatever pay they want to, it's up to the employee to take the job or not. Of course, once a contract is made, both have to live up to the terms. I happen to hold the right of the individual in high regard. But, alas those in power wish to retain control of the peasants and some folks will give up liberty for a little false security, even though as Mr. Franklin wrote, they deserve neither.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! They should be properly documented. I have no problem with these people wanting to come here to work. Lord knows that most of our children wouldn't last five minutes in the fields harvesting vegetables, etc. It's on some of these employers/farmers to make sure their people are LEGAL!

Come On Dave

There is not a copuntry in the world that does not have some kind of immigration law, and most are MUCH MORE stringent then ours.

While in theory you are correct, there are other outlining issues. Wath Howard's link to Milton Freidman

I am going to do what I have roundly criticized others for: Copy and paste someone else's writing, but these guys are SOOO much smarter and far more eloquent than a chucklehead like me could hope to be. Says it all.
http://openborders.info/right-to-migrate/

Yes I am a hypocrite

Interpretation of Nozickean minarchist state principles by Joseph Carens

Robert Nozick is a (now dead) libertarian philosopher known for the book Anarchy, State and Utopia, where he argues for the existence of a minimal night-watchman state whose only legitimate function is the protection of people’s natural rights. In a paper titled Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders, Joseph Carens argues, in a section titled Aliens and Property Rights:

Would this minimal state be justified in restricting immigration? Nozick never answers this question directly, but his argument at a number of points suggests not. According to Nozick the state has no right to do anything other than enforce the rights which individuals already enjoy in the state of nature. Citizenship gives rise to no distinctive claim. The state is obliged to protect the rights of citizens and noncitizens equally because it enjoys a de facto monopoly over the enforcement of rights within its territory. Individuals have the right to enter into voluntary exchanges with other individuals. They possess this right as individuals, not as citizens. The state may not interfere with such exchanges so long as they do not violate someone else’s rights.

Note what this implies for immigration. Suppose a farmer from the United States wanted to hire workers from Mexico. The government would have no right to prohibit him from doing this. To prevent the Mexicans from coming would violate the rights of both the American farmer and the Mexican workers to engage in voluntary transactions. Of course, American workers might be disadvantaged by this competition with foreign workers. But Nozick explicitly denies that anyone has a right to be protected against competitive disadvantage. (To count that sort of thing as a harm would undermine the foundations of individual property rights.) Even if the Mexicans did not have job offers from an American, a Nozickean government would have no grounds for preventing them from entering the country. So long as they were peaceful and did not steal, trespass on private property, or otherwise violate the rights of other individuals, their entry and their actions would be none of the state’s business.

Does this mean that Nozick’s theory provides no basis for the exclusion of aliens? Not exactly. It means rather that it provides no basis for the state to exclude aliens and no basis for individuals to exclude aliens that could not be used to exclude citizens as well. Poor aliens could not afford to live in affluent suburbs (except in the servants’ quarters), but that would be true of poor citizens too. Individual property owners could refuse to hire aliens, to rent them houses, to sell them food, and so on, but in a Nozickean world they could do the same things to their fellow citizens. In other words, individuals may do what they like with their own personal property. They may normally exclude whomever they want from land they own. But they have this right to exclude as individuals, not as members of a collective. They cannot prevent other individuals from acting differently (hiring aliens, renting them houses, etc.)…

Come on Mark; just because other countries have strict immigration rules, you think that should be a basis for ours? You and i both have traveled to other countries, we both prefer it here or we wouldn't stay here. It's the greatest nation on Earth. I don't want us to follow anyone's lead.

Dave, My Grandfather too came here from Poland in 1913 to avoid being impressed by Austrian Army, I am not against immigration, but precisely for the reasons that Milton Friedman said on the Video clip Howard posted I see documentation as a must, The world is in no way the same place it was back then.

To allow open immigration now, is not the same as it was then.

Theoretically I am actually on the same page as ypou are, but today's reality is much different

Do you think Mark, that the government has the right to stop employers from hiring people unless it's approved by some bureaucrat? If a group of local muck farms got together and hired a Mexican agent to get together a bunch of workers and the farms contracted a bus company to go to Mexico and transport them back here to work, and then drive them back to Mexico after the season was over, you see that as a bad thing? Not talking about immigration here, guest workers. What right does the US Government have to stop that? The farms would be responsible for withholding the proper taxes and pay the proper workman's comp provide proper working conditions and so forth (I have an opinion about taxes etc, but put that aside). The workers would be expected to obey the laws of our country, state, county, and if not are subject to the same arrest as you and I, also the same protections from the law. Don't those farmers and those workers have certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

Dave to put it simply, every law, every regulation even traffic law is a curtailment of individual liberty.

The path to existance in a civilized world is determining which liberties are curtailed for the common good and the balance between that common good and the maintainance of our liberties.

In an Utopian world, the libertarian philosophy would not only be the ideal but the norm. We all know however that Utopia only exist in books and dreams.

I realize some libertarian minded individuals will jump on this and spout that no giving up of freedom is worth the price, but when you think about it, if that were true, a drunk driver could just jump behind the wheel of a car with out worry of consequence. Being reasonable we would say, but that drivers right would be curtailed because of harm he/she might cause to others.

I do belive in limited Government, but I also realize that there must in fact be some government. In the case of immigration, theoretically, I concur totally Robert Nozick but there is a reality.

I am against the Government telling anyone who they can or can not hire, but I see no infringement of right in seeking documentation of that hire, and that I would say is well within the full purview of government.

Open immigration is another matter however, it is apples and oranges to allowing foreign migrant workers, or resident workers. This issue has become so politically muddled in recent years. Once some one immigrates(Becomes a citizen) they become entitiled, that entitlement in this current day besides being costly, is on the backs of the citizenry. When the current entitlements as they do approach nearly 50% of the population, you begin to infringe on the rights of those that have no need of the entitlement

We have been engaged the past few days in discussions about a two party system making voters apathetioc at best or the choice between the lesser of two evils, perhaps this is actually the root of this discussion as well.

By simply allowing people to immigrate and gain citizenship floods the system with individuals who are entitled, some of them will choose to work, but many will not. In our Grandfather's day, work was predominant and there was little if any entitlement simply because of citizenship. This is why open immigration today will not work,because ultimately others will be required to support it far beyond it's benefit.

Again do not confuse what I say with a position that we should not allow farm workers, restuarant workers etc. because that is far from what I am saying. What I am saying is that it is necessary to document, and those documented who wish to become citizens should have a path'

The fact is that our political woes arose primarily from decades of pandering to various groups, this has empowered the two parties to a point where it is almost impossible to make changes to our government, open immigration would not only add to that it would worsen the problem at least 10 fold.

As long as we have a government who gives someting to some for nothing, this situation will exist and open immigration would be problematic. There are truly needy and less fortunate that we should help, but overwhelm that system as we are beginning to now, and neither those in need would have adequate resources nor would those who pay have the resources to provide for them.

Meanwhile, the two political parties will thrive at our expense. Everything with social spending would be affected by open immigration.

This is apples and oranges when you compare open immigration with hiring migrant farm workers, they are not the same thing

Not really, some of those workers will want to stay, and we should welcome that. I can agree that a lot of other government functions would also have to change. I believe in free market solutions, as opposed to government manipulation but I suppose it's gone too far to go back to 1913 very easily, if at all at this point.

Doesn't make it right.

I never said that it was right, I said it was the reality.

And truthfully, for me documentation could be as little as Name, DOB, Place of Birth and expected length of stay, not some who can who can't thing

Dave, Immigration Law is not an unjust law. Every country in the world requires people to document their visit or stay in their country. This is not an unjust law and it is ascinine to define it as such. Lets correct you on the Polish and Jewish people who seeked sanctuary here in the USA during WWII. They were not illegal immigrants, they were document upon their arrival. They asked for protection from the Nazis Regime. My family who came from Scotland, Ireland and Italy documented their arrival through proper channels. I agree not every illegal is coming here for criminal activity but, if they are arriving through illegal means. They are still violating a law for your and my protection. Immigration Laws are not just there for keeping criminals out. They also, meant to keep track of people and keep unwanted diseases out of our country. BTW, this country never allowed farmers and such to bring in undocumented (aka Illegals)immigrants. That is some Liberal BS! Dave, pay closer attention to our southern borders and focus on what is really happening since, you appear to be clueless of the REAL threat that we face. Just so you know, I am all for people from other nations coming here for their "American Dream" but, they need to do like my family and those of others, LEGALLY! Obama is opening the flood gates for his own political agenda with no regards for the American People's safety!

WELL SAID MR. WOODWORTH.

Howard please re-read what I wrote, I am fine with the burden being placed on the employer, I am fine with workers.

Dave's example using his Grandfather and the article he pasted from his philosopher said 'Opem Immigration'

I take pause with the use of the word Immigration now. They are technically 'Undocumented Resident Workers' Immigration implies a move toward citizenship.

My grandparents (All four of them} entered this country with the intent to become citizens, completed all the required paperwork, and sought and found sponsorship. The datre range was from 1905 and 1913 for all of them. My discussion with Dave was directly related to open immigration NOT worker documentation, there is a distinct difference.

I am sorry to disagree with you but documentation IS NOT Government Interference, it is GOOD GOVERNANCE

I have posted months ago on this site and on another immigration related poll something very similar to what you suggest about the burden for worker documentation to be on the employer, I agree with that. I also have stated this before, that we should make it easy for Farmers and other businesses to recruit workers and allow those recruited workers enter the nation for work without hassle.

But in this day and age of terrorism especially, an open border/immigration policy is just plain dangerous.

This is one of those issues I just love. I hear a lot of people say "it's the reality". OK, well here is the 'reality"

This is one of those topics where people like to spout off and beat their chest on where they stand, but in truth, no one really cares. Now don't get me wrong, when an undocumented worker commits a crime, they care, but this has very little to do with their status, but rather their fear.

Look I hate to break it to you, folks. I know that there are farms locally who house and employ undocumented workers, yet when you go to the store, you don't demand to know where your apples are grown, or require a sticker saying "made by legals" do you? As long as it's an invisible problem, you're fine.

I don't care who comes to work here, as long as they follow our rules once their here, and yes, yes I know they're very being here is against the rules, but let's put that aside. There are thousands of undocumented workers in New York right now working the farms that will produce the foods you will eat this fall. Are you that upset about it?

Phil, in almost every post I made, I said in some way shape or form .... I welcome farm workers, You are right I too know many Farmers who employ them.

The conversation changed when the issue of Grandparents who immigrated here and became citizens were compared to the undocumented workers. There is a huge difference.

No one implied that they shouldn't be welcome to work in this thread, but for a miriad of reasons, there should be some form of documentation is all.

That is a far cry from not recognizing the importance of migrant workers and resident non-citizen workers to our economy and Agriculture in particular.

Documentation IS NOT A PUNISHMENT, and should in no way be used as a hinderance, it should be as easy as registering a vehicle, unless of course you believe that registering a vehicle is an afront to Human rights.

That is pretty much my reasoning Howard, you just summed it up a bit better than I ;)

That is the problem Phil, You Do Not Care and probable won't until it effects you in a negative manner and then, you will inquire how this could happen. How was this allowed. The point is you should care and not wait for the negative impact. How do think that Woman's family in Albion feels about her death by that illegal immigrant? However, if you rather have something bad happen before, you decide to do something. I suggest go cry in a corner because, like you stated, "No one cares." I mean why stand in the train tracks if you see the train coming?

John,

What about the daughter of the woman in Albion who was killed by an American citizen? Was it any more/less preventable? Is that parent's pain less because the individual was born in these United States? Please, don't try and paint me like I don't care about people's pain to prove your point.

Bad things happen regardless. If you haven't checked we already have a law now and it didn't stop the crime from happening, so please drop the drama.

Documentation is not about rights or punishment, but rather a question of necessity and approach. What is the need, definition and then finding a practical approach. Not the robust (and frankly pathetic), ship em' all back method, which has shown not only to not work, but create more issue.

True Howard, but they came through Ellis Island, as most on the east coast did, they filled out forms, they aquired sponsors (I have the names of the sponsors in my family tree docs, two of them were sponsored by their employers)

And they would have never thought of not following the process,

I'm gonna step into these waters very gigngerly... I only have a problem with undocumented immigrants beecause of what little screening they go thru. Some of the examples argued here like the murder of the woman in walmart etc. Could have been prevented by some screening processes. Another viewpoint I would like to bring up as well is that immigration today is not like it has been in our past. Back when our grandparents were immigrating there was plenty or work, the country was in expansion mode and opportunities abounded. However today there really arent as many jobs to go around, and with companies moving overseas the drain on our space, medical system and resources is being tested. I have always felt that in the recent past we have done too much for those outside the US and neglected home. Everyone talks of welfare reform, well there is an employment pool right there that would help us cut costs. Not just for the jobs that farmers requires but in the admin of matching people to employers and such. I dont even want to get started on the saving and monies that would be freed up if we stopped these God awful retirement payments and health care money wasted on congressmen and govt workers, rein it in to reasonable things and cut off those reps that have been drummed out of office for misdeeds corruption and crimes.

But back to immigration I just think there is alot more that could be done rather than using the system like this, yes grant undocumented immigrants work permits if we must but make a requirement that they provide documentation.

"This is one of those topics where people like to spout off and beat their chest on where they stand, but in truth, no one really cares. Now don't get me wrong, when an undocumented worker commits a crime, they care" Using that logic, why should people be forced to have drivers licenses, we shouldn't care until they have an accident and show that they were not prepared to drive. Why should people carry auto insurance, we shouldn't care until they hit our car and we are forced to bear the cost. Why should people have to provide proof of certifications for certain jobs, we should just let them work there until they screw up and reveal that they had no formal training, why should teens have to provide proof of age before purchasing alcohol, we just let them buy it at any age unless it suddenly becomes an epidemic of youth alcohol poisoning. Why should I have to provide any type of documentation when I return from traveling outside this country whether it be from Canada or China. The answer is simple, we are a nation of laws and ALL those who choose to live here should abide by them. We as a nation provide unlimited opportunities and freedoms. We also provide our people the greatest protection from outside oppression and enemies. If the cost of all that is simply making yourself known and abiding by the same citizenship requirements that MILLIONS of others do each year, then I can hardly call that oppressive.

Either one believes in "certain unalienable rights" as did Jefferson and most of the Founders of this country, or one doesn't.

Not directed at anyone in particular.

asinine is spelled like this, (that is specifically directed)

lol Dave, yet Jefferson owned slaves, and slavery really contradicts the certain unalienable rights belief.

While looking this up however I found a kernel of food for thought. While Jefferson opposed these laws and pardoned some people prosecuted under them, he still used them during his Presidency. But these laws kinda show that even when our Founding Fathers were still in the Govt that immigration wasnt as open as we think it was.

Four separate laws constituted what is commonly referred to as the "Alien and Sedition Acts"
1.The Naturalization Act (officially An act supplementary to, and to amend the act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1795 to extend the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens of the United States from five years to fourteen years.
2.The Alien Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.
3.The Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24. At the time, war was considered likely between the U.S. and France.
4.The Sedition Act (officially An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States"; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end).

Here is more details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

lol Dave, yet Jefferson owned slaves, and slavery really contradicts the certain unalienable rights belief.

Yeah, OK point taken

Omg Dave dont yield points to me, I'm not supposed to have pointed objects.

Well then I object....:-) Not really.

Just to be clear Howard

1. I never said that I did not welcome people to come here in search of a better life, infact at secerval points I emphazied the opposite

2. Prior to 1914, people who took residence did in fact register at ports of entry
http://www.voxeu.org/article/self-limited-international-migration-insig…

3. The key difference was that there were far fewer ports of entry than there are now and it was much more manageble, the exceptions being The Mexican border which was rife with bandits and was constantly disputed, (George Patton's first combat post was the Mexican Border) and the Canadian border with which we shared mutual ideals. The increase of ports of entries post 1914 and the inability to monitor is what actually caused the immigration issues to abound, especially in the early 70's while Rush Limbaugh was still in High School. Remember Immigration reform messures occurred under Reagan when Limbaugh worked for a Kansas City Base Ball team.

4. Registraion (Or Documentation)_ is NOT in anyway an infringement of rights, it is and has been since or nations inception a matter of National Security.

Unfortunately, it all became politicized beginning in the 70's and common sence was replaced with political posturing.

Documentation is simply registering entry, our politicians have made the word 'Documentation' a four letter word (Probably because few can count)

An excerpt from the link I posted;

"Examining a prior era of globalisation helps compensate for such statistical limitations. In contrast to migration today,<b> the transatlantic flow of 22 million Europeans to the US between 1870 and 1914 was clearly documented and almost entirely legal. Nearly all arrived on a major steamship line at one of four US entry ports, and were tracked under increasing regulations, which permitted entry to nearly all of them.</b> A shift to “restrictionism” in the wake of World War I, however, meant that, whereas over 90% of would-be migrants were permitted relocation from Europe to the US before 1914, over 90% have been blocked since the early 1920s. With some regional divergence, the same sharp policy divide basically applies globally, but migration rates have changed less dramatically. Annual migration across the North Atlantic between 1815 and 1914 rarely exceeded 1-2% of source or destination populations. This is not much greater than rates of international migration in recent decades."

In another paragraph same article;

"US regulations in the early 20th century sought to enhance rather than alter self-limited mass migration. In 1905, US President Theodore Roosevelt enunciated the rationale for aiming at quality improvement and risk reduction rather than control of quantity: “We cannot have too much immigration of the right sort, and we should have none of the wrong sort.” The goal was to make migration safe and supervised. Passengers arriving from Europe were inspected and a few of them rejected, based not on origin, but on health and fitness for work. The approach acknowledged concerns about the social burdens of migration while allowing essentially unfettered reaping of its benefits (US Congress 1911, 39:57-58, Keeling 2008a)."

Again to be clear, I am not advocating restriction, simply documentation.

Which they went through places such as Ellis Island to document their arrival. They were also scan to see if, they could afford and support themselves as well. Howard, it may not have been called, "Illegal Immigration" but, I can be pretty sure that Mexicans were not crossing the border by the thousand either. Could the illegal crossing be the start of the "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?" Yes.

Is murder preventable? No! Unless you can read people's thoughts. Good job for trying take what I stated, out of text though. Are all murderers caught? No! It is especially hard to detect someone when they are not register or known to be in this country. That illegal immigrant who killed that woman was arrested two months prior by the Medina Police. He gave a fake name and stated, he was from Puerto Rico (Which if you did not know is a US territory.) When Law Enforcement arrested him for the alledged murder in Albion, they did not know this. A whistle blower informed a news agency and they got the ball rolling. Before you say it, YES! American citizens use false names. Like I already stated Phil! Immigration laws are not just about keeping criminals out. It allows the US the ability to track who is coming here, what illnesses are trying to be brought in and let's not forget the hundreds of women who cross the border to give birth of their child in the US. I do not know about you but, I am tired of paying for welfare and tired of paying for medical, education and cost of living for the people who abuse our charity!

Back before Illegal Immigration Laws, you had to show proof that you could support yourself to enter this country. It amazes me how many people here do not mine to pay for welfare programs to support those who enter this country illegally or legally but, have a fit when the US rebuilds other countries to help their fellow man out. Before you take me out of text Phil. I do not agree with rebuilding of other countries on our dime. Example: We destroyed Iraq's military, communication and power authorities and now we are rebuilding them on our dime. Why? We should used their oil to finance such operations. Just like at the end of WWII.

Howard, on point I totally agree with you, race shpould in know way have an affect one way or the other.

Again, I want to be absolutelt clear here, Prior to TR, immigation was limited to basically 4 ports of entry and ALL new immigrants did in fact register upon entry. The only limitation was contagoiuos health and total inability to work (or contribute you might say)

My position is is simple, I see no need for quota, no need for restriction other than Contagious health and an ability to work (These days that is not merely physical as it was then because of technology) My ONLY point, is that without an entry registration, we have abosolutely no knowledge of who is here or why.

If some opne wants to come work here, fine, come work here, just sign in at the door. If someone wants to move here, fine come work here and apply for citizenship. A 'Green Card' should not be a complicated and limiting document, simply proof that you signed in at the door.