Of course vetting is necessary and it exists. The two options are not just opening the border to everybody vs putting kids in cages. There needs to be an honest discussion and that isn't happening among those that talk the loudest on either side. Immigrants have been coming here since literally the beginning of this country and when the process was signing your name in a book even if you were not able to write. Criminals have always existed and always will exist which is why we have a system, but it's not perfect. Criminals from south of the border will sometimes make it through, as will criminals from Ireland, Poland, Australia, etc.
Trump and Sessions telling people to turn around and start this process from a consulate is a lie because that isn't how this works. Again, to claim asylum you have to either be in the country or at a port of entry (eg, border, airport, etc). If the current administration doesn't like the current rules, there is a process for that. However, people seem ok with them skipping that process while they're distracting by the horrible mob that is coming for all of us and our jobs. Apparently boogeyman stories of MS13 aren't working anymore because Trump had to make a claim that there were "unknown Middle Easterners" in the caravan.
The current tactics are going to create illegal border crossings because you have people who have traveled long distances because we told them this is the process, but then we stop them from reaching the legal option. You then have them camped out, running out of food with the option of going home to starve or get shot or taking a chance on an unknown future in the US. I'm not even arguing morals or humanitarian hypothetical scenarios. This is the situation and I don't think Trump or a lot of people in the administration want it to be better. He wants that wall as a monument to himself and he'll do whatever it takes to get what he wants.
The way I see it, from a purely economic perspective, is the more open borders are, the less social programs can exist. A lot of those small European countries that have a substantial amount of social programs have strict immigration, and won’t let people in if they can’t demonstrate that they are unlikely to be a burden on the country (barring some sort of injury or illness that can not be predicted of course).
I’m libertarian leaning, so I think that anyone who can demonstrate they are not a criminal and has a skill should be allowed into the country no questions asked. But if we want to enact more “democratic socialist” policies, then we would be creating a potential problem if we let people in who are unlikely to be self-sufficient, if that makes any sense. From a purely economic perspective, open borders and vast social programs/welfare don’t really mesh. Back in the days when you mentioned immigrants “always” coming into the country, if they couldn’t provide for themselves, they starved. There was no real welfare back in the 1800s-1900s for immigrants from Europe. I’m not saying we should have absolutely no social programs for immigrants, only that there needs to be a balance between letting in every non-criminal, regardless of skills/talents and social programs/welfare. Granted, most immigrants, even unskilled ones, are very hard working and self sufficient, so I won’t pretend that even most of them would jump for social programs, but it’d be foolish not to address the basic economic implications and balance.
Do I know where that balance is? No. But I think you’d agree that this is the discussion we should be having. How do we balance these things, and how to we adjust policies going forwards to make things consistent and sustainable.
Also, wasn’t the kid in a cage picture, at least the most prominent one on magazine covers, fake?
Also also, didn’t we turn back a ship full of Jews during the Holocaust? We hardly have a perfect track record here, not that it justifies future bad decisions of course, just pointing it out.
