OSR brought this up in the mod thread and I thought it had some interesting possibilities for a discussion. OSR was told to take it elsewhere (like this board) but for some reason hasn't done so.
I don't know what the current U.S government policy on vetting is.
So, the obvious place I think to go with this is support for the U.S Constitution: if a potential immigrant does not agree with or has given indication that they don't agree with the principles and interpretation of the U.S Constitution should they be allowed to become a citizen?
For instance, if a potential immigrant opposes gay marriage and (some) equal rights for LGBTQ+ people (those protected in the Constitution), should they be allowed to become citizens?
I'm genuinely curious to see a discussion as to what the potential upper and lower bounds regarding vetting might be. For instance, having to support the Constitution in full (how would the vetting process give greater or less weight though?) might be the upper bound and indication of violent or other criminal behavior might be the lower bound.
There is absolutely NO Constitutional Right of ANY Foreigner to emigrate into the US. Nor is their any such right for people to receive a visa to come here.
We are our own gatekeepers, and we get to be that under the Constitution.
I didn't say there was. What I said was 'should lack of support for the U.S Constitution' be a ground for denying a person citizenship of the United States.
