Socialists. if you advocate for government regulations for safety, then logically, you must also support the regulation of immigration to protect the safety of citizens.

Immigration is not simply a matter of economics or culture; it has direct implications for public safety. While most immigrants are law-abiding individuals, it is undeniable that unregulated immigration can introduce risks, such as:

• Criminal Activity: Without proper vetting, individuals with violent or criminal histories could enter a country and harm its citizens.

• Economic Strain Leading to Instability: Overwhelmed social services or job markets can create conditions ripe for societal unrest.

If we have 14 agencies regulate drugs to the point where it costs $4 billion to get one approved to be safe and efficient, why don’t we have the same mechanisms for immigration?

Counterarguments Addressed

1. “Most immigrants are harmless.”

• True, but most products on the market are also harmless. Yet, we still regulate them because even a small percentage of harmful cases justifies precautionary measures.

1. “Regulating immigration is discriminatory.”

• Ensuring public safety isn’t about discrimination; it’s about due diligence. Just as inspecting products isn’t an attack on manufacturers but a safeguard for consumers, vetting immigrants isn’t an attack on individuals but a safeguard for citizens.

1. “Immigration benefits society overall.”

• Even beneficial industries like pharmaceuticals are heavily regulated because benefits don’t negate risks. Immigration can bring benefits, but only if managed responsibly.