Immigration Limits Quotes

We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.

That is why immigration limits are established in the first place. If we only enforced the laws against crime, then we have an open border to the entire world. We will enforce all of our immigration laws.

The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become... We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.'

What we're going to do is have an immigration system that's in our national interest, and that's not what we've had up until now, We've had freedom of movement, which means we haven't been in control of who enters our country - those individuals have, just because of their nationality. And that's going to change.

I'm not suggesting we suddenly become a jingoistic, closed-door society that erects barricades at Dover. That would not be in the interests of London. But we can't, in my view, go on for ever accepting an unlimited number of people.

I want to stop the influx of new immigrants. This way, we can give those who are already here the opportunity to fully integrate into our society.

We can bring immigration down to sustainable levels.

Have you noticed that when it comes to immigration we ride herd on legal immigration pretty damn hard, and who is it that really is subject to most of the limits there? Have to say it’s white immigrants.

We should return to Howard-era immigration levels in NSW.

Europe can't take in huge masses of foreign people in an unlimited, uncontrolled manner.

What people want - and they will get - is control of our own system, with a lower and sustainable level of net migration. And, above all, that has to mean one thing: an end to freedom of movement.

If Europe's outer border is not blocked off, it makes no sense to speak of quotas.

I am against the policy which would promote the entry of immigrants into Europe, which cannot accept them.

The reality is there's a limit to how many people any country can bring in. And we as a country have a right to say we want to bring people based on their ability to contribute to our economy, to be safe, productive citizens, and to uplift the nation as a whole.

Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe, and that is what I will deliver.

I personally believe that a democratic society is morally entitled to set and enforce a limit on the number of new immigrants admitted each year.

The U. S.'s moral responsibility to accept immigrants is not unlimited.

There are a lot of us that want to see limitations on refugee resettlement programs.

And they are much more skeptical of the very idea of having immigration limits, whereas the public - again, independents and Democrats, as well as Republicans, although not necessarily all in the same proportions - have a much stronger sense of the American government and American law having responsibility to Americans specifically rather than to people around the world. So the polarization is up versus down, not really right versus left.

My understanding, when I think of immigration, is like... you know, this country was built on immigrants: the German, the Polish, the Italian, the Jewish, the Russians, the Eastern Europeans. So, all these people came in, and I don't know who decided like, 'No, that's it! There's a cap on it! No more people.'

Western societies will have to focus on the dangers of too rapid cultural change. That might involve some limits on the rate of immigration and on the kinds of immigrants who are permitted to enter.

Protecting national security amounts to looking for needles in a haystack. The work becomes more difficult if the haystack is larger. Restricting immigration generally, and illegal immigration in particular, limits growth in the haystack, and supports protection of national security.

We believe in immigration, but we don't believe in mass immigration.

The right kind of immigrants can benefit the British economy enormously, but no country can accept indiscriminate, unlimited immigration.

Immigration law doesn't exist for the purpose of keeping criminals out. It exists to protect all aspects of American life, the work site, the welfare office, the education system, and everything else. That is why immigration limits are established in the first place. If we only enforce the laws against crime, then we have an open border to the entire world. We will enforce all of our immigration laws!