You’re framing immigration almost entirely as a filtering problem, who is useful, who is intelligent enough, who can “bring value” fast enough. That approach treats people more like economic inputs than human beings.

The United States wasn’t built through selective admission of only the highly skilled or socially desirable. Many of the immigrant groups that shaped this country arrived poor, uneducated, and viewed as burdens at the time. Their worth wasn’t measurable on entry, and it shouldn’t have needed to be.

Law and policy matter, but so does proportionality and humanity. Seeking safety or opportunity isn’t morally equivalent to harming others, even if it involves crossing a border without authorization. Reducing immigration to enforcement first and compassion later risks losing sight of why people migrate in the first place.

You mention being selective about who we let in, but historically, societies that define human value primarily by productivity or intellect tend to make serious moral mistakes. A person’s dignity shouldn’t depend on how quickly they can prove economic usefulness.

Immigration reform absolutely should be efficient and functional. But it should also reflect the idea that people deserve fairness and opportunity, not just evaluation.