"That is a lie. "
My understanding is that prior to the late 1800s, one need only come to America and fill out a form. I believe we did essentially have open borders then. I don't advocate this today.
What's clear is that no one here really wants to discuss this. You and so many others are just knee jerkers when it comes to this topic. I take issue with Sowell, and the first thing out of so many poster's is crap like (paraphrasing here) "you're just like Michael Moore" or "you're a liar." Moreover, I don't think anyone recognized that my Prohibition analogy was not aimed at saying illegal immigration was exactly like illegal drinking. The point was that they both represent attempts to use pragmatic legislation to solve a problem with lawbreaking.
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Where are the reasonable people around here?
My understanding is that prior to the late 1800s, one need only come to America and fill out a form. I believe we did essentially have open borders then. I don't advocate this today.
Again, it depended on "who" was filling out the form so to speak. For example, in the mid-1800's, the bulk of the Chinese immigrants that came over here to work on the railroads were essentially "owned" by the companies that sponsored them. They were basically indentured servants to their corporate sponsors (that makes their immigration experience not a very practical example for today). As the railroad system neared completion they started to curtail the flow of Chinese laborers to this country. There were issues with Irish Catholic immigrants coming to this country as well. Some groups were granted greater access than other groups due to demographic considerations. This is the way it was with every other sovereign nation.
What's clear is that no one here really wants to discuss this. You and so many others are just knee jerkers when it comes to this topic. I take issue with Sowell, and the first thing out of so many poster's is crap like (paraphrasing here) "you're just like Michael Moore" or "you're a liar." Moreover, I don't think anyone recognized that my Prohibition analogy was not aimed at saying illegal immigration was exactly like illegal drinking. The point was that they both represent attempts to use pragmatic legislation to solve a problem with lawbreaking.
We are not "knee-jerkers". We are simply pointing out the fallacies of your arguments. Comparing immigration to Prohibition was a poor analogy because you are simply comparing apples to oranges. Even you have begun to recognize this and are trying to slowly disengage yourself from your example ("...my Prohibition analogy was not aimed at saying illegal immigration was exactly like illegal drinking.").
The U.S. already takes in more immigrants every year than any other country in the world. That is more than enough . And over the past three decades we have not done it in a very responsible manner. That is why we ( the reform advocates) are now pushing for comprehensive immigration reform that does not include amnesty for millions of illegals. Why cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the '86 legislation.