On that point I believe you are correct. This one IS different. Because of that, I think our immgration policies should reflect our "next door" status. It just makes sense to me that we would give "first place" in line to people who can come in when they need to, but who may wish to return. Now, people come and stay b/c being illegal, they can't go and come back.
I am a guy who believes the huge outflow of funds to Mexico (remitted US dollars is the biggest source of revenue to Mexico..., bigger than tourism or oil) is actually a good thing in the long run. Those dollars wind up coming BACK to the US in terms of capital goods bought. If you look at the increase of goods purchased from the USA over the last 6 years, and the estimates of money into Mexico from here, the net cash flow is actually projected to go positive in 5-7 more years. It is like Henry Ford paying his guys more than the prevailing wage saying "how else are they going to buy my cars?"
It is that dynamic, and other political issues that make me want to give Mexico "first place" in line for immigration status (to pick up on an earlier thread).
And I would venture to say, never with so few controls. Even before quotas and such, most people had to reach land via ships and get off, versus simply walking or driving across the desert as millions have done over the last five years. In the 1940s/50s' waves, people were screened for diseases.
Now the government just winks and nods, and the states blames the feds and the local govts set up water stations and day laborer centers. Meanwhile the serfs continue to pay $4 - $6/head of lettuce when you factor in what we pay for the illegal alien healthcare, schools, welfare, highways, etc. ad nauseum.