> was a legal immigrant

... as determined by an on-the-spot interview. Which was admittedly done in a very bigoted way.

> had passed a medical inspection

... which took about one minute to check for red flags. If you had red flags, they diverted you to quarantine. They were mostly looking for TB and some eye disease.

> had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same

... by which they meant having as much as $25 on hand (call it $1000 in 2026, though that's a bit high), and convincing the interviewer that you could probably get a job. That convincing step did include claiming, in a way the interviewer found credible, to have skills beyond the "day laborer" level. But only just beyond.

> I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.

Good news: the medical requirements now are equivalent, the financial/self-support requirements are now much, much higher, and the vetting is vastly more thorough.