It works both ways, countries restrict flows of capital. Hell, China’s doing it right now.
Yet, we don’t seek to do the same, and we even reject Liberal rhetoric to “repatriate” business “profits”, because we know this would be counter-productive.
Labor is no different. It needs to flow where it can in order for the economy to achieve equilibrium.
To point out one example in our case; Americans flooding the Mexican consumer produce market with our own produce, resulted in many Mexican farmers becoming noncompetitive, and going out of business. These Farmers still needed to work of course, and it made all the sense in world that they then came to the U.S. to fill our agricultural labor shortages, and learned for themselves just how we put them out of business.
> What we do NOT do is allow unknown, un-vetted aliens IN.
I’m not talking about leaving them “unvetted”.
I’m saying, once you’ve established that they aren’t a danger, basically, not intending to commit a crime, not a terrorist, and not sick, or anything else of a similar nature; you need to let them in.
There is no just cause to block their entry after that point. They have a right to do business here with Americans who want to do business with them.
> That what Ellis Island was? An open border?
Ellis Island didn’t appear until 1892, and even when it did appear, it only rejected 2% of those who arrived. We’re closer to 70% today.
If you want to go back to an Ellis island model, fine by me. It was a much better process than what we have now.
> We never DID have open borders.
Uh, yes we did. With no official border agency, there was little to nothing to enforce border policy, even when laws were passed.
Equally, most of the laws you’re thinking of had to do with naturalization, not immigration. Ergo, how long you had to live here before you could apply for citizenship, and what requirements you had meet to be allowed that chance.
> And we did NOT have such an elaborate Welfare State. As Friedman so eloquently pronounced, Open Borders and a Welfare State are an impossible combination.
Which is why he likened illegal immigration to pre-1914 immigration. They consume less benefits.
His stance on the issue: build a wall around the welfare state. He was never for restricting immigration; that’s simply proposing a state solution to a state-created problem.