Under the first uniform rule of naturalization, passed in March 1790, the only requirements that would still count now were good character, two years’ residence, and a vow in court to support the Constitution [12].

We would do best to repeal the current naturalization and work-visa statutes and enact naturalization statutes like this first rule. Since entry and citizenship now are more-prized resources, we should adjust the rules to be as follows [13]:

• Naturalize at a rate of 1% of the population per year.
• Select the highest-earning applicants.
• Select only candidates who support the Constitution [8]. Set a 10-year probationary period during which the privilege of naturalization will be revoked immediately if a candidate doesn’t support the Constitution even a single time, either by his words or by his actions.
• Enact these requirements entirely by law passed by a congress and signed by a president, not at all through regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats [14].

So then, we would no longer grant 0-1 extraordinary visas [15] and H-1B specialty [16] visas [17]. Instead, aliens could choose to be naturalized.

Naturalizing 1% of the population per year would strike a balance between preventing harm and gaining added value. The optimal naturalization rate would become faster if selection and probation would be enforced better. Presidents already are constitutionally required to from time to time report on enforcement [18] and recommend bills that would be better-enforceable [19].

Selecting the highest-earning applicants would take control out of the hands of politicians who use the force of law abusively. It would return control back into the hands of producers and ultimately customers [20], who in both cases make voluntary choices based on their own best understanding [21].

Requiring Constitution support and enforcing this well would greatly limit harms from naturalization.

Genuine Constitution support [22] would also greatly promote the general welfare. Government people who support the Constitution separate powers and use offsetting powers against others in government to severely limit them. This leaves everybody freer and much better off [23], [24], as many generations of Americans have known well from personal experience [25]:

• In the American Colonies in peacetimes, total taxes as a percentage of GDP were just 1% to 2%. Under these world’s-lowest taxes, the colonists’ income per person built up to a purchasing power that exceeded that of Great Britain’s people by a spectacular 68% [26].
• In the USA in peacetimes through 1913, total government spending as a percentage of GDP were kept comparatively low at just 3% to 8%. People in the USA kept adding value faster than people elsewhere did, making our nation a world power.
• In the USA now, total government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is 43% [27].

Enacting naturalization rules by law, not as regulations, would make the overall system drastically simpler [28], clearer, operable, and maintainable.

Legislators would pass bills consisting of rules and sanctions, executives would sign, and executives would enforce the resulting rules and sanctions. Legislators could summarily impeach legislators and executives who pose risks to our rights [29], and in practice might at least remove executives who pose risks. Voters could replace rights-risking legislators and executives.