There were the so-called Subsequent Nuremberg Trials (12 of them). Among them were the trials of IG Farben (gas chamber supplies, Zyklon B) and Krupp (armament of the German military forces in preparation of an aggressive war)
I'm under no illusion that all the perpetrators of war crimes were held accountable but it's not a bad model.
No horse either but here is an attempt (ignoring criminal record as you say): Opening the border and letting her rip is clearly not sustainable in the medium term. So you try to make it (reasonably) hard to get in incl. turning people away at the border.
Once they are in (incl illegally so) you concede you have lost on this instance. Now you admit that forcefully removing immigrants carries too high a cost (literally + damage in the communities you remove the immigrants from + your humanitarian image). So you don't.
Somehow that balance seems really hard to get right and edge cases (criminal record) matter.
Not sure I agree with 'appearance [...] is much worse'.
Given the choice between a class room of first years who believe (in themselves and) an appearance of calculus knowledge or a room of scared undergrads that recoil from any calculus-inspired argument they 'have never learnt it properly', I'll take the former. I can work with that much more easily. Sure, some things might break - but what's the worst that can happen?
We'll sort out the rigour later while we patch the bruises of overextending some analogies.
no. there might be some mild advantages (less environmental damage? also protection from excessive IR+VIS?) But in the published testdata listed above there are mineral sunscreens promising 50 SPF and not getting there either. Combined with the often more difficult application you might end up with even less protection. So buyer beware (or wear hats and shirts).
For added benefit, full screen?
Until you need presenter notes or other niceties, this covers a large space of usage.