Not having them in anything is the improvement.
So the question is do we allow them in or do we not?
That is the bottom line.
Considered this a few years ago.
I support a resident non citizen status, which provides a path to citizenship, if that path is a minimum 60 years continuous residence, of themselves and family, in the USA,
and they can't go back or the years start back at 1 again.
The basically only right to hold back from them from non citizen status is to vote or hold political office, maybe to form a corporation, maybe even to buy land, but, the only reason for those is to stop the corruption of politics by anyone from all over the world who walks in,
if those wouldn't continue the corruption of politics, then no reason to hold back.
But!
We have to admit the continuous flow of people is an attempt to coruupt and control politics,
if it's really about people and humanitarianism,
then they shouldn't mind in the least 60 years of continuous residency before political citizenship.
I mean, think about it. You either have a Country, (USA), or you don't.
I mean, if there is no difference from the people who spent the last
50 years in Kazakhstan,
50 years in Columbia, or
50 years in Minnesota,
then you don't have a country, do you.
edit: got distractded, forgot to finish my thought.
What do you call them? "resident non-citizens" what else. "legal resident non-citizens" there can be a process,
a legal process, make the law fair, and make everyone follow the law.