From a purely objective view, would US be worse for rejecting immigrants from poor countries?

[ManCityFC9]

Selection should not be based on whether the immigrant's country is poor but based on the immigrant's own qualifications. I would rather admit a top software engineer from Bangladesh than a slacker from Sweden.

<{monica}>
That is the proper way to do immigration:
The value the immigrant brings and their ability to self-sustain.

Refugees and asylum seekers are another issue; but you are spot on w.r.t. legal immigration and long term visa seekers.

 

[ImNotSurpisedDonks!]

We are way too over populated as it is. All these liberal programs have interfered with natural selection and have allowed the sick, weak, dumb and unfit to breed to become the norm and procreate like crazy. Meanwhile, the intelligent and breedable people don't have babies anymore, while these trash welfare queens and inbred 3rd country immigrants have 20 kids each. China had the right idea of installing a one child policy and giving incentives to those that don't breed - US and the West should do the same and should curb their immigration policies before the west evaporates forever.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It's not about poor countries. It's about poor immigrants, from a point of view of economics and skill. The USA wouldn't lose anything, it would in fact gain, by not accepting people like the pipe bomber from bangladesh. You can search for the studies, these people use a lot more taxes than they contribute. They also commit crimes at a higher rate than the non-black population.
Fruit pickers also have some skills, you don't see people from somalia working hard in the fields, it's usually people that grew up in similar conditions and have a high tolerance to work in such conditions, it's mostly mexicans and central americans as they were peasants, not nomad bandits or pirates.
So, an exception could be made for a quota of mexican laborers.

Even liberals admit that, they accept this kind of low skilled migrants out of pity because they live in bad places. By liberals I mean real liberals, not SJW that think white people are inbred and need to be raped by africans for much needed DNA.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Is there any DOWNSIDE from rejecting people from countries that are really poor? Do we really want people who pay in goat milk? What would be the positive of bringing in Syrians refugees rather than say Canadians or German or Moroccans.

 

[sub_thug]

It should be about the individual unless there is a clear and present danger presented by a group. For example, we don't need to take in people from failed states where we can't verify the backgrounds of personnel AND there is a significant probability that the person in question is a violent criminal, terrorist, etc. If there is a strong probability that the government of that state would lie and try to plant spies/operatives in the US, that would also qualify.

However, except in those situations, it should be about the individual's qualifications. I would be more than happy to "brain drain" a poor country so that the person can make a better life for themselves here and reach their full potential. That makes us better! And we don't need people who want to be bums coming from another country, regardless of the financial situation of that country.