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.
"We are not "knee-jerkers". We are simply pointing out the fallacies of your arguments. "
Clearly your post here indicates you are not a knee-jerker. I have no problem with people pointing out flaws in my argument. But I've been called a liar, compared to Michael Moore, and had my intelligence questioned for simply raising points of contention with Sowell. The prohibition analogy was not about equating the intensity of the problem or the potential damage of the problem. It was about Sowell's implicit assertion that it was an "insult" to say we were incapable of deporting millions of illegal Mexicans.
That's not a "disengagement" -- it's a statement of fact about the intent of the analogy. The knee-jerkers read it differently, as an equation of the two kinds of illegal behaviors. If you think about it more, I'm sure you'll see this.
I do believe in comprehensive reform. But I lean toward President Bush's proposal as being more realistic and more in our national interest in the long run. I want border security strengthened, but I do not wish to see the razor wire fence envisioned by some people here.
One other thing that distinguishes me from a lot of people here--and this goes back to the Prohibition thing. I do not view the fact that these millions of Mexicans "broke our laws" by illegally crossing the border and working here as evidence of their moral or ethical character. Were I in their shoes, I would very likely try to do the same thing. This recognition man's desire to work, survive, and feed a family seemed to be (surprisingly) absent from Sowell's column.