This could be a policy breakthrough - cutting edge grounded rationalism, inspired by libertarian principles (only one small step, but why throw out the good stuff just because we can't have utopia in a single hit?): Libertarian country/ nation - premises: - all land is either privately or collectively owned (e.g. by the people who use the land, or who are otherwise permitted by the locals to use that land) - the world's only (hypothetical) libertarian nation, the USA, is bordered by fascist democracies, e.g. Mexico and Canada - coastal land is highly prized, and also well protected/ defended by owners/ residents - "corporations" are just individuals or collectives doing business with other individuals and or collectives, and may own land and buildings So, Habib and Dindu each wish to emmigrate from their respective current homelands (Iraq and Somalia), to this utopian libertarian USA. Habib is a young man chasing work. Dindu has a family and they are fleeing Somali terrorism. In this hypothetical "utopian libertarian USA," Habib, and Dindu and his family require direct sponsorship from individuals and/ or collectives of individuals operating together in "mutually beneficial commerce". Or possibly they land somehow by boat, or plane, and make their way to some isolated location in the hopes of being left alone as squatters? Remember: - No taxes, so no sanctuary cities. - No taxes, so no refugee camps except those run voluntarily by free lovin hippies who might likely get jack of the "freely taken" "love". - No taxes, so no free money / handouts, except by personal direct sponsorship. - No taxes, so no police, so most folk self armed (and knowing how to use said arms), and higher consciousness around communal alertness and protection of others. Perhaps if say Trump's administration wanted to pre-empt this particular libertarian conclusion as a policy, he could (besides all the rest he's doing e.g. "extreme vetting") sign an EO to: require every individual and or family that immigrates, to first have an actual sponsoring individual or family with whom they directly live with for some minimum period of time like 3 years; sponsor has absolute veto to say "no, go home" at any time in that 3 years. This would imply a few things: - greater awareness of the needs of immigrants in the community (you better be up to speed if you're going to personally sponsor and live with an immigrant individual or family), especially if you've got children to protect - the natives ("White invaders" for you Lefties), may be less inclined to accept immigration - immigrants may possibly be more likely to 'integrate' - the number of 'spots' available for immigration (quota) is only ever as many as there are actual individual or family sponsors - ghettoization would no longer occur - if you can't make it with your sponsor, you go back home, or possibly try with a second sponsor I'm thinking there are some folks who might appreciate the inescapable libertarian conclusion re immigration, yes?