Yes, the US used to have quality control on people. Ellis Island was a quality control checkpoint for immigrants. The sick were rejected and sent back where they came from.
Specifically interesting in this context is that the turn of the 20th century, and the 1920s in particular, is really the birth place of modern immigration policy.
Of note is the fact that the requirement of visas for entry and quotas on point of origin appeared around this time- if you read newspaper op-eds for the immigration act of 1924 (or the earlier chinese exclusion act), these measures are specifically pointed out as a way to maintain the racial makeup of the country.
Prior to that point, visitors could just turn up at Ellis island for entry. Afterwards, the island itself served more as an offshore detention center for what were then classified as radicals, anarchists, and those "likely to become a public charge"— awaiting deportation.
Citizenship, too, could once be had for as little as the price of a dozen eggs-- check out this booklet published 1921: https://archive.org/details/howtotakeoutyour00metrrich/page/...
"All it costs is $1, not a penny more. No witnesses, no examination, no pull required." -- 2 years of residence later, another set of papers (also on Archive.org) and a short literacy test (added in 1917) and you could be a citizen-- but this rapidly changed as additional quotas and restrictions were added.
The history of immigration law is a fascinating topic, and there's a lot of interesting primary sources available.
Family story:
My Gran Grandfather was from Trento Region in Italy (North), very poor. At these times, there were some organizations working with migrants. (take note)
So he went to migrate from famine and poor.
Once on this organization, they asked him his scholar level, and he was like 3rd grade. Not good enough for the US was sent to Brazil. (note 2) He paid his fees, jump on a shit boat, and three months later, he was in Brazil.
Then arriving, the support he paid for previously was non-existent; all good land was already taken by the Germans, so they only one left were in the rocky mountains were because of the rocks that were very hard to work on the fields (note 3).
What I mean is: what looks easy today was so hard as yesterday.
And please people long ago were not better from today. I do think they were worse.
Note 1: These organizations at that time earned a lot of money with "fees."
Note 2: The people from the south with a more relaxed moral usually lied about this and were sent to the US.
Note 3: It was later known for good wine and tourist places. (grapes love rocky soil and can grow there).
> The true American believes in Liberty, Equality, Justice, Humanity. [...] The true American believes that "All men are created free and equal." [...] The true American believes in his own ability, but holds that the other fellow is as good as he and should have the same chance to life and happiness. He believes in equality of opportunity.
> Persons not belonging to the White or Black Race, Anarchists, Polygamists, Criminals, Insane, cannot become Citizens; they will not get First Papers.
That's actually an empirical statement, it wouldn't be by definition. (Unless by poor you mean "can't read", then it would be by definition.)
Most of the time the 'by definition' argument just gives you a True Scotsmen.
Take the classic: all men are mortal (by definition in Ancient Greek), Socrates is a men, thus Socrates is mortal.
As an empiric argument, this would make sense. But the Greeks tried to reach 100% certainty. Mortality was included in their definition of a human (otherwise you'd be at least a semi-God or so.) Of course, that just shifts the uncertainty to the second part: we can not be sure that Socrates is indeed human by that definition, until he actually keels over.
And while that one didn't have a very large effect, the one that did block people from voting managed to filter out black people very well:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/could-you-pass-this-test-give...
Only if they were also poor. First class passengers on the boats didn’t go through medical screening.
Most steerage passengers spent about 3 hours being screened at Ellis Island, and most of that was waiting in line. This is not dramatically worse than a typical wait at customs at any international airport at a peak hour. To this day they still let First Class passengers off the airplane first so they get to be the first in line at customs.
Doesn't really help at large airports as that just means you're first in the queue behind the previous 5 planes.
Some airports do have a faster immigration line for first/business passengers though. I don't recall any in the U.S, but Heathrow does for example.
To get a green card for example you need to undergo an exhaustive medical exam and can be rejected due to the results.
To get my US Green card, all that was required was an HIV test and a standard US doctor's affidavit that I wasn't disabled.
That's a far cry from a "rigorous physical exam".
HIV is also more of a chronic condition as apposed to a public health hazard these days. It's cost of perpetual treatment isn't significantly different from dozens of other conditions or diseases, and the risk to the public is similar to other diseases like Hepatitis.
Anyone have insight that I'm not understanding?
--
Edit: elliekelly gave a well-thought out reply below that makes logical sense, even if I disagree with the policy
The price was in the hundreds of dollars in a somewhat poor country.
The doctor was very clear that he could have been refused because of the results he never saw.
It's speculated that STDs are also tested, but as I wrote, he never saw the test results.
I was always under the assumption that immigrants were suppose to benefit the native population. Which in this case they likely wouldn't?
He's not an American, but Stephen Hawking, for example, was a "public charge" whose substantial medical bills were largely covered by the NHS[1] and the cost of his 24-hour nursing care was made possible through grants.
And while Hawking is an extreme example in both the cost of his care and his ability, a determination that someone is "likely to become a public charge" can apply to just about anyone who might find themselves in need of Medicare. An otherwise healthy 20-year-old with a family history of Parkinson's or Alzheimers. Or, to get even more dystopian, an otherwise healthy 20-year-old with a genetic marker for Parkinson's or Alzheimers. The cost of long term care for these diseases is astronomical but I'm certain there are many Parkinson's and Alzheimers patients that have made substantial contributions to society.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/18/nhs-sc... (Written by Hawking himself)
In fact applicants must show the X-Ray upon arrival at the port of entry.
In health care as a care giver we do it this way to see if we have it. I am not sure why they would not do it this way as opposed to a chest X-ray but I am going to go out on a limb and guess you could probably limit or maybe slow down the reaction with antihistamines or some other means I am not sure of where a chest x-ray would be impossible to hide evidence of TB.
[1] https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about...
Our system does however assume that highly capable persons such as yourself are able to not only able to afford medical care, but also to pay for the socialized programs for those who can't.
In most EU countries even tourists can receive free/cheap care at public hospitals - but check for the specific country before you travel.
Personally given a choice I would rather not have paid that because the NHS hasn’t been very helpful to me.
There is no way to be a legal resident without public heath insurance here. Which route you choose, public insurance, public as part of your spouse, private is up to you. If you cannot afford it because you are, say, unemployed the state covers the costs for the public model.
Also worth noting, the public model doesn't exclude pre-existing conditions which can make private solutions prohibitively expensive.
- drop under the minimum wage required for private insurance and the public has to take you back
- become unemployed and the state covers as mentioned above
Exceptions I know so far: Freelancers, mainly their problem is social security and retirement so. But yes, it can be tricky to return from private to public insurance. But as my insurance company stated, "there is an obligation to be insured, let's talk about your options". One very notable exception applies to people living permanently outside the EU. There it really gets difficult, and you might even loose coverage for conditions you didn't have before left the EU. But don't ask for details here, all I know about that is third hand knowledge.
Other countries do it too, but also for financial reasons. Canada will disqualify people from immigrating if they will put an undue burden on the healthcare system.