What Constitutes a Rational Immigration Policy?

... When people discuss the dangers of ISIS infiltrating the refugee program, this is a short-term lens and one that focuses on stopping terror as the key challenge. The response is to then propose more extreme vetting. But this does not solve a more fundamental problem, namely the fact that many people who might not be terrorists do not share any of our secular and liberal values. Their views on Jews, gays, women, religious minorities, and all of our foundational freedoms could not be any more antithetical to ours. No amount of extreme vetting could resolve this reality. There are countless countries, unified by one common ideology, wherein 90%+ of the populations in question hold genocidal and abhorrent hatred of Jews. These folks are not ISIS terrorists.... They are part of the so-called “peaceful” majority. Will the infusion of hundreds of thousands of such folks increase or decrease the safety of Jews? Of gays? Of atheists? Again, think in the long run. Will the welcoming of thousands of folks who do not share our cultural ethos strengthen our secular and liberal societies?  As the demographic realities tip toward an increase of folks who might not share our liberal and secular values, will this serve to enrich our societies or sow the seeds for endless future strife? The historical as well as contemporary data could not be any clearer.

There is nothing morally objectionable in stating that a country has the inalienable right to decide on the exact number of immigrants and the exact type of immigrants that it wishes to let into its borders. As part of that calculus, it is perfectly rational to exhibit preferential treatment to immigrants who share one’s cultural values. Those who do so are welcome to prospectively join our liberal and secular societies. Those who don’t must either give up their antiquated and illiberal ideologies or accept the fact that they do not have an entitled right to join our societies...