It is difficult to have a conversation with you when you ask me questions which I have already expressed an opinion on. You ask above, would I support “. . . retaining or increasing legal immigration levels if we ban welfare to immigrants for five years after entry. If not, why not?"
In post number 44 I wrote: “It seems to me that allowing the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries to flood into our country, as has been the case for over twenty five years, is a recipe for unwanted consequences, and has proven to be the case.”
Even if “welfare” were not available, allowing the above category of foreigners to flood into our country would still have a devastating effect upon local school systems; health care; and law enforcement, which has proven to be the case.
And in post number 87 I wrote:
“We are discussing an America first immigration policy which makes a distinction between the quality of immigrants allowed into the United States as opposed to opening our borders to immigrants who are poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled, in addition to the criminally inspired immigrant.
Is it not in America’s best interests to select immigrants based on their qualities, one of which is their likelihood to not become a public burden to America’s taxpaying citizens?”
And in post no. 125 I wrote:
“* . . . I have expressed my agreement with assigning positive and negative points to desirable and undesirable characteristics of those wishing to migrate into the United States . . .
We need to take a common sense approach to immigration and select immigrants who will be productive and beneficial to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
Is it common sense to allow the poverty stricken poorly educated low and unskilled populations of other countries to flood into America? Even if there is no government assistance available to this type of immigrant, they still become a public burden in other self-evident ways. Therefore, it is wise to assign a negative point to this class of immigrant. Is it not?
Is it common sense to allow those with contagious diseases such as chickenpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, and sexually transmitted diseases to be introduced into our nation’s population? Of course not, and thus a restriction ought to be placed upon this class of immigrant.
Is it common sense to allow immigrants with mental disorders to be introduced into our country? Of course not, and thus, a negative point must be assigned to this classification.
How about immigrants who are healthy and have a skill to offer, but are destitute and with no visible means of support? Should we not require this type of immigrant to have a job and residence waiting and upon entry place this type of immigrant on a probationary time period?
And how about those wishing to migrate into the United States whose cultural and moral values are in direct conflict with America’s cultural and moral values? Should we not consider the consequences of allowing this group to flood into our country, and restrict their entry to preserve the general welfare of our country?
And let us not forget a group which falls into a very, very dangerous class . . . those who are tied to terrorist groups and whose mission is to bring mayhem and destruction to the United States. Is it really in America’s best interests to open our borders to this type of “immigrant”?”*
**So, my answer to your question is no. Banning welfare to immigrants for five years after entry is only part of a rational immigration policy. There are other factors, which I have pointed out above, that ought to be addressed and remedied. **