Of course it would make the US less appealing, which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations.
It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate.
Back to your claim about this being an "effective" immigration policy: no it's not.
I think it is pretty dishonest how you are asserting that I am making arguments, which I never made.
>which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations.
>It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate.
Completely agree. But I want the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors" even less than the rest. Those groups are actually harder to remove, they often have institutional support in the form of corporations and other associations and might feasibly be positive fiscal contributors. With "the rest" the argument for deportation is far simpler and has far more support in the population. Also my labor competes with the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors", while "the rest" only depresses the wages of the proletariat who now have to compete with black market labor.