For those demographics (not sure about Asians) I’d agree.
However, that consitutes less than 50% of our immigrants.
Really, we should first get a handle on the illegal problem, then:
1. Approve only enough immigrants to have a net 1% annual population growth once births and deaths are considered.
2. Approve immigrants in order of preference from the following regions, from most to least preferred:
1. English-speaking countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain, etc.
2. Non-English Speaking European countries (Italy, Russia, etc)
3. Non-European countries with reasonably non-corrupt democratic or pro-Western governments (Japan, India, Israel, etc)
4. The rest (China, Mexico, Arab states, etc)
Approve based on following personal attributes in order of preference:
1. College educated
2. High School Educated
3. Uneducated/less than high school
This would solve 90% of the problems associated with immigration. Sure, most educated Eurotwits are leftist, but at least they won’t need welfare in most cases and at least some can be politically persuaded.
Is it racist? No, just realist. I’d take a Nigerian doctor over an illiterate Mexican border-jumper or our own homegrown, illiterate white union-raised idiot any day of the week.
I think your list is sound.
Yes, your plan would undoubtedly be labeled racist by the Left (mainstream media, Democrats, professional ethnic grievance groups, Hollywood) and WSJournal/Bush-style republicans.
Any reduction in legal immigration, which the nation desperately needs, would result in fewer non-white immigrants, therefore those advocating it will face demagoguery and demonization on a stunning level. This will happen no matter how many times pathetic, futile, Hannity-like “I don’t care about race” prefaces are offered.
But that is where America, and indeed all of the West finds itself.