That is akin to saying there is an open-murder policy or an open-shoplifting policy. If someone really wanted to murder somebody, they will despite what the laws are. There are punishments, as there are for violating immigration laws, but under your odd definition those don’t seem to matter. That’s not to equate an immigration violation with murder. The former is a violation of a complex administrative bureaucracy, the latter actually hurts someone.

And, as what you say above is true about intent to come here, then that is an admission that the immigration laws are doomed to failure. What’s the point in having impossible to enforce laws that violate our freedoms and make us poorer? No point.

Also, words have meanings. When you say “open borders,” I assume that you mean the literal term.

“Granted, immigrating here legally is more difficult, but even here the United States has the most expansive, generous system of immigration of any Western country in history.”

Again, not true. America’s past was far more open to immigration than it is today. We had, literally, open borders for the first 90 years of our Republic. During the 19th century virtually every country in Europe had the same policy. Their policies were far more open, far more liberal (classical sense), and far more generous than America’s system is today.

And it’s not just more difficult legally. For the vast majority of people who wish to immigrate here, there is simply no way to do it. At all.

I can’t help but think, based on your writings here, that you know very little about America’s immigration history or how the law actually works.

Granted, immigrating here legally is more difficult, but even here the United States has the most expansive, generous system of immigration of any Western country in history. Even if you exclude the millions of foreigners effectively granted amnesty under Simpson-Mazzoli, as well as the millions of Haitians and Central Americans to whom the government’s extended Temporary Protected Status, our post-1965 immigration policy has never been replicated anywhere else on the planet. So no, we don’t have “open” borders under the most narrow definition of the term, but if that’s you’re objection then we’re simply arguing semantics, not addressing the real, underlying issues. This is akin to a communist proclaiming that communism hasn’t “failed” because none of the existing or prior Communist states practice communism in the true sense of the word. If you’d prefer me to describe what we have as a “conditionally open” border, then I’m perfectly content to use that term.

This statement you made above is patently absurd. You may think that the U.S. needs more restrictive immigration laws and you may think that government bureaucrats need more power to enforce our capricious immigration regulations, but it is disingenuous to call U.S. government immigration policy “open borders.”

How can you explain the enforcement actions detailed here if he have “open borders”?

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement-ar-2010.pdf

According to 1 poll, 165 million people in other countries want to immigrate here. If we have a policy of “open borders,” where are they?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-million-worldwide-desire-migrate-permanently.aspx