Hmm. I think I understand your point: keep foreign born population under 10%, and you avoid some of the pushback against perceptible "demographic change" (ethni

Hmm. I think I understand your point: keep foreign born population under 10%, and you avoid some of the pushback against perceptible "demographic change" (ethnic/cultural). I wonder though how adjusting for undocumented immigrants against the overall number would work, and the impact it would have. The legal immigration system also strongly leans against a large influx of people from any one country & towards a more diverse mix. This isn't the case with most undocumented immigrants, who largely (though not entirely) come from a handful of countries based on geographical access. Now, for me as an Indian biomedical researcher with a PhD working in the US, the path to immigration today is incredibly steep, almost to the point of non-existent. Adjusting for the undocumented burden would severely curtail the pathway for people like me, so I would be biased against your proposal. I can see the merit in it, though. Still, the fact that my co-worker who is a Spanish citizen faces an exponentially lower barrier to entry does stings. If the goal is to keep the foreign born population under 10% (or perhaps establish a cap at the present 15%), does it matter where they come from? Or is the country wise quota one of the things that should be retained?