Replies

By your own definition of the function Ellis Island fulfilled, the people who have come across our southern border illegally would most certainly not have gone through the same process, and would most certainly not be legal. Wouldn't you agree?

Not even close. Those coming across the southern border almost invariably already have a job and a place to stay lined up. If we had now what we had then (open borders) this would all be very pro forma, as the underground system of recruiting illegal workers would be above ground and transparent. Very few people risk the money involved in the trip from Chiapas without a job and housing already arranged.

And for those who came in without jobs, there would be jobs brokers working the border, like they used to work Ellis Island, lining up entry for other members of their ethnicity.

I think the entire set-up was completely different from what we have now.

The purpose of Ellis Island was to make sure immigrants had a place to stay, money, a job or trade, weren't communists or anarchists or known criminals, and weren't disease ridden.

When these folks get into the nation, they are being courted by the left. If you don't think that is akin to communism and anarchy, what do you judge it to be?

As for known criminals, the record speeks for itself.

As for disease ridden, tuberculosis is on the rise in the United States for this very reason. As I understand it, that isn't the only medical problem.

Your inference seems to be that these people are not going to be a burden on our society. That couldn't be further from the truth. Displacement of US workers, education, healthcare, crime... are you seriously trying to make that case?

I do not agree with your premise. I appreciate your follow-up response, but I sure can't agree with it.