Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:57 PM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494

Open borders vs criminal deportations only.


For a long time I've been wondering what the difference between having open borders, and leaving immigrants alone if the only law they break is crossing illegally (asylum seekers are allowed by law to stay until their asylum hearing, and I think dreamers who were brought here as kids should have a path to citizenship because it was their parent(s) who made the decision for them.).

In the thread Let's talk about 'rational' immigration policy. Velocity gave a well thought out and detailed post that mostly matches what I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The reason why the Democratic Party is often accused of supporting "open borders" is because, to the ears of many voters, the practical implications of Democratic policy sounds awfully like......open borders.

Very few Democrats say that they actually support "open borders." But when asked if the United States should have a wall on its border, most Democrats say "No." (There are already fences on some parts of the border, but many voters don't know that.) And when asked if illegal immigrants in America should be deported, most Democrats also say "No."

The result is that many voters add these two things together, and the product sounds a lot like....."open borders." To use an analogy, it would be like someone saying, "I do not support shoplifting at Walmart." But when asked, "Do you support Walmart installing an anti-shoplifting system at its stores?" this person says "No." When asked, "Should shoplifters be prosecuted?" the person also replies "No." Then these two things, combined, make it sound like the person does, in fact, condone shoplifting at Walmart, even if that's not his intention.
I thought that it would lead to to an equally detailed explanation why this is incorrect. Instead, the response was this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yeah, many people are stupid, we already knew that.
Yeah, way to poison the well. Anyway, think of my intelligence as you like, but if anybody would care to explain the difference I'd be glad to hear it.
__________________
End of Line.
  #2  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:14 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,262
How are illegal immigrants, as a whole, harming you? Please backup your thoughts and feelings with cites that they, as a whole, are actually doing so.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #3  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:36 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,371
Indeed, I don't think I've seen a pro-deportation argument that went beyond (or certainly not far beyond) the tautological "we have to kick them out because we have to kick them out."
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #4  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:37 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,920
Have you ever considered the possibility that some people might oppose the Wall because it's a waste of tax dollars to spend sixty billion dollars on something that won't have a serious effect on illegal immigration?
  #5  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:41 PM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
How are illegal immigrants, as a whole, harming you? Please backup your thoughts and feelings with cites that they, as a whole, are actually doing so.
I never said they did. But that's not the question.
__________________
End of Line.
  #6  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:43 PM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Indeed, I don't think I've seen a pro-deportation argument that went beyond (or certainly not far beyond) the tautological "we have to kick them out because we have to kick them out."
Pretty much every other country has rules on who can enter, and they deport those who don't do it properly. But again, that's not the question.

The question is, what's the difference between, if you can sneak in you can stay, and open borders?
__________________
End of Line.
  #7  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:44 PM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Have you ever considered the possibility that some people might oppose the Wall because it's a waste of tax dollars to spend sixty billion dollars on something that won't have a serious effect on illegal immigration?
Oh, I'm not for Trump's wall. But again, that has nothing to do with the question.
__________________
End of Line.
  #8  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:48 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Pretty much every other country has rules on who can enter, and they deport those who don't do it properly. But again, that's not the question.

The question is, what's the difference between, if you can sneak in you can stay, and open borders?
"Open borders" would suggest to me that it's either policy or law to allow entry and, therefore, nobody would need to "sneak in"; they could enter openly and legitimately.

Last edited by UDS; 09-12-2019 at 11:50 PM.
  #9  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:54 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Pretty much every other country has rules on who can enter, and they deport those who don't do it properly. But again, that's not the question.

The question is, what's the difference between, if you can sneak in you can stay, and open borders?
Well, with open borders (coupled with a rational approach to the issue, which I don't see happening any time soon), the immigrants who are working in the U.S. could be considered "guest workers" and their impact on the economy more accurately tracked. Making them sneak in and turning a blind eye to their presence makes it more likely they'll continue to be abused and exploited by American employers because the (nominally illegal albeit tolerated) immigrants will clearly have no legal recourse or oversight. The less-ethical employers prefer the latter, I gather.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #10  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:56 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
I never said they did. But that's not the question.
So there's no harm, so why do people care?

But I'm not saying there aren't individuals that cause problems who shouldn't be let in. What those problems are and what should be done with them is all debatable. So that itself means the borders aren't completely open.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #11  
Old 09-12-2019, 11:58 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
For a long time I've been wondering what the difference between having open borders, and leaving immigrants alone if the only law they break is crossing illegally (asylum seekers are allowed by law to stay until their asylum hearing, and I think dreamers who were brought here as kids should have a path to citizenship because it was their parent(s) who made the decision for them.).

In the thread Let's talk about 'rational' immigration policy. Velocity gave a well thought out and detailed post that mostly matches what I think.

I thought that it would lead to to an equally detailed explanation why this is incorrect. Instead, the response was this.

Yeah, way to poison the well. Anyway, think of my intelligence as you like, but if anybody would care to explain the difference I'd be glad to hear it.
Being openly for open borders is politically risky. Other than that no real difference.
  #12  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:00 AM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, with open borders (coupled with a rational approach to the issue, which I don't see happening any time soon), the immigrants who are working in the U.S. could be considered "guest workers" and their impact on the economy more accurately tracked. Making them sneak in and turning a blind eye to their presence makes it more likely they'll continue to be abused and exploited by American employers because the (nominally illegal albeit tolerated) immigrants will clearly have no legal recourse or oversight. The less-ethical employers prefer the latter, I gather.
Although I'm not convinced on open borders, you make an excellent point on the practical difference there could be. And that's what I'm looking for. The practical difference(s). Whether I agree with them or not.
__________________
End of Line.

Last edited by Nobody; 09-13-2019 at 12:02 AM.
  #13  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:03 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,015

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
So there's no harm, so why do people care?

But I'm not saying there aren't individuals that cause problems who shouldn't be let in. What those problems are and what should be done with them is all debatable. So that itself means the borders aren't completely open.
Please stick to the topic. Whether harm is caused or not or why is not the topic.

[/moderating]
  #14  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:03 AM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Being openly for open borders is politically risky. Other than that no real difference.
Without any other reforms, like Bryan Ekers gave, I don't see much difference either. Then again, I believe we could have reforms without opening the border.
__________________
End of Line.
  #15  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:52 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,371
Well, I didn't really name any specific reforms. If I were to do so, and it wasn't considered beyond the scope of the thread, I'd note the following premises:

1. There are a number of jobs that Americans citizens won't do, or at least won't do in sufficient supply to meet demand. The single biggest sector for these jobs is in agriculture, but construction and domestic service are significant as well.

2. Americans enjoy the low prices they pay for these goods and services - cheap food products, relatively cheap construction labor, cheap nannies and hotel maids, etc. There is little appetite to start paying significantly more for these just to allow salaries to increase to make these jobs more attractive to citizens.

3. Employers in these industries this have a major incentive to hire the undocumented or turn a blind eye to whether or not the person they've hired is a citizen or a documented - i.e. "legal" - immigrant.

4. Engaging in mass arrests and deportations accomplishes little beyond grandstanding for headlines. It certainly doesn't magically make these jobs more attractive to citizens. It may drive some employers into bankruptcy. The plausible economic result of enforcement that goes beyond token effort is to drive up prices for these goods and services, running afoul of premise #2.

The above premises are simplified and reductionist, I cheerfully admit, but I don't think any of them are blatantly incorrect.

For proposals:

A. Create a category (or expand existing categories) of guest workers that virtually any immigrant not known to be a criminal in his or her own home country and not carrying an infection disease can fast-track apply for. Collect biometric information like fingerprints and retinal scans and whatnot. Build a database of guest workers.

B. Allow the employers of these guest workers to pay a reduced minimum wage and free them from certain employment regulations that American citizens and skilled immigrant laborers will continue to enjoy. Collect a reduced but nonzero payroll tax. Acknowledge (and inform the guest worker) that these jobs will not pay as well and will not be as safe as a citizen or full-visa worker would get. They will not contribute to nor ever draw from Social Security as long as they have guest-worker status.

C. Allow someone who has worked under these conditions for some period, say a decade, without any hint of criminal activity, an shot at citizenship if they want it, with the understanding that they'll no longer be eligible for the guest-worker jobs they've been doing. They'll have to decide if they've assimilated enough to seek other employment with the greater rewards but greater responsibilities of a citizen.

D. Let them bring their children, who can also be biometrically recorded. Increase funding to education to rapidly assimilate said children. If their parent can achieve citizenship, let the children also apply upon turning 18. Military service, if they are suitable for it, will significantly hasten the process, with citizenship an automatic option after completion of a three- or five-year hitch, or some similarly suitable duration. If the child does not or cannot qualify, they can only stay in the U.S. by adopting the same guest-worker status their parent has or had, which will limit their employment to the above-mentioned economic sectors and attendant limited employment rights. I'm debating whether or how they should be considered eligible for college education (and if so, if the completion of an undergraduate degree should be given comparable weight to military service), and on whether or not to extend citizenship automatically to children born in the U.S. to guest workers.

The gist is to acknowledge that there are jobs in America for immigrants, jobs that do not and likely never will pay well enough to attract citizens. These jobs will not cease to exist no matter how many anti-immigrant laws are passed or walls are built. The choice is simply whether or not to waste resources on trying to get between the people who offer these jobs and the people willing to take them.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #16  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:27 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,253
The problem is, the GOP is presenting it as a false dichotomy. You either let everyone in, or you kick everyone out. As you've pointed out, a lot of Democrats don't want to kick everyone out, so the GOP declares that they must, as a matter of course, want to let everyone in. That's just wrong, but it's the underlying assumption behind all this "They love murderers and rapists!" propaganda.

You'll have a hard time finding any non-fringe Democrats who would refuse to deport a rapist or murderer.

What they do want is, as mentioned, rational immigration policy. A policy that not only acknowledges that lots of people want to move to the US, either temporarily or permanently, but that there are a lot of people in the US who also want this, including families that have already immigrated, and businesses that cannot find sufficient employees among the current population. A policy that defaults to letting people in, in the absence of a compelling reason to reject them, doesn't mean an "open border". People would still present themselves at a border crossing, and be assessed, and if they didn't have any disqualifying characteristics, they'd be allowed in legally.

And this would actually help with keeping out the murderers&rapists&drugdealers&methodists that Trump et al. keep going on about, because it would allow the border patrol and ICE to focus on finding and deporting those people who really should be deported, instead of spending months planning mass raids on people just earning a living.
  #17  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:59 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Oh, I'm not for Trump's wall. But again, that has nothing to do with the question.
To be fair, your OP didn't make it very clear what the question is. You seem to be saying that opposition to building the Wall is support for open borders. Which isn't technically a question but I was trying to address it.

So could you explain what it is you're asking?
  #18  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:06 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
How are illegal immigrants, as a whole, harming you? Please backup your thoughts and feelings with cites that they, as a whole, are actually doing so.

red herring much?

To what purpose does this address his question?
  #19  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:11 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
To be fair, your OP didn't make it very clear what the question is. You seem to be saying that opposition to building the Wall is support for open borders. Which isn't technically a question but I was trying to address it.

So could you explain what it is you're asking?
I am not the OP but I gathered that his question was what exactly do the Democrats want to happen. They don't openly advocate open borders, but then they don't want to enforce border controls, nor do they want to deport those who came over here illegally.

I thought the question was a pretty simple, then what?
  #20  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:13 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
The problem is, the GOP is presenting it as a false dichotomy. You either let everyone in, or you kick everyone out. As you've pointed out, a lot of Democrats don't want to kick everyone out, so the GOP declares that they must, as a matter of course, want to let everyone in. That's just wrong, but it's the underlying assumption behind all this "They love murderers and rapists!" propaganda.

You'll have a hard time finding any non-fringe Democrats who would refuse to deport a rapist or murderer.

What they do want is, as mentioned, rational immigration policy. A policy that not only acknowledges that lots of people want to move to the US, either temporarily or permanently, but that there are a lot of people in the US who also want this, including families that have already immigrated, and businesses that cannot find sufficient employees among the current population. A policy that defaults to letting people in, in the absence of a compelling reason to reject them, doesn't mean an "open border". People would still present themselves at a border crossing, and be assessed, and if they didn't have any disqualifying characteristics, they'd be allowed in legally.

And this would actually help with keeping out the murderers&rapists&drugdealers&methodists that Trump et al. keep going on about, because it would allow the border patrol and ICE to focus on finding and deporting those people who really should be deported, instead of spending months planning mass raids on people just earning a living.
Which is all well and good for those who come over here , LEGALLY. What about the ones who didn't and/or don't?
  #21  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:27 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I am not the OP but I gathered that his question was what exactly do the Democrats want to happen. They don't openly advocate open borders, but then they don't want to enforce border controls, nor do they want to deport those who came over here illegally.

I thought the question was a pretty simple, then what?
I don't think there is any objection by most Democrats to "Border Controls." We have boarder controls on our Northern and Southern borders. Like every other country, we will continue to have border controls. No one has said, "Mr. Trump, tear down that wall [or fence]." Despite border controls, some people will come in, or overstay their visas. Some will come by plane, some by boat, some from the North and some from the South. Debating how to deal with those people is not the same as advocating an open border. I hope that answers the OP's question.
  #22  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:32 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I don't think there is any objection by most Democrats to "Border Controls." We have boarder controls on our Northern and Southern borders. Like every other country, we will continue to have border controls. No one has said, "Mr. Trump, tear down that wall [or fence]." Despite border controls, some people will come in, or overstay their visas. Some will come by plane, some by boat, some from the North and some from the South. Debating how to deal with those people is not the same as advocating an open border. I hope that answers the OP's question.
Right! When said debate is enshrined into law, are the laws followed regarding deportation though? I think the Democrats do themselves a grave disservice (while hoping to keep the minority voters with them) by stating otherwise.

Ie, they don't want to deport many, if any. Don't want deportations, change the laws.
  #23  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:44 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I am not the OP but I gathered that his question was what exactly do the Democrats want to happen.
Let's take these facts:

1. Americans overwhelmingly want to gain the benefits of immigrant labor
2. Immigration is overall a substantial benefit to the United States
3. Some Americans don't want immigrants who don't look like them

"Close the border" types talk a lot about 3, usually by framing it in nationalistic rather than racial terms -- and yet silently agree with 1. This puts them in a weird position, so they try to deny 2.

Dems look at 1 and 2 and say that there's got to be a better way to address those things as a practical matter, and think that the people in group 3 should go pound sand.
  #24  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:53 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Let's take these facts:

1. Americans overwhelmingly want to gain the benefits of immigrant labor
2. Immigration is overall a substantial benefit to the United States
3. Some Americans don't want immigrants who don't look like them

"Close the border" types talk a lot about 3, usually by framing it in nationalistic rather than racial terms -- and yet silently agree with 1. This puts them in a weird position, so they try to deny 2.

Dems look at 1 and 2 and say that there's got to be a better way to address those things as a practical matter, and think that the people in group 3 should go pound sand.
I honestly think that a very sizeable majority is on board with 1 and 2. (For sure with #1) So I agree with this in theory, but it isn't what is seen of the Democrats.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 09-13-2019 at 12:53 PM.
  #25  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:58 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I honestly think that a very sizeable majority is on board with 1 and 2. (For sure with #1) So I agree with this in theory, but it isn't what is seen of the Democrats.
What are you seeing?
  #26  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:08 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
What are you seeing?

The OP talks about what is seen. Therefore the questions.
  #27  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:18 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The OP talks about what is seen. Therefore the questions.
The OP quotes another who says that Democratic candidates who are against a WALL and against wholesale deportations are viewed (mistakenly) as advocating open borders. The question, as I understood it, is "what is the difference between advocating open borders and advocating for criminal deportations only. The answer, I believe, is that advocating for "criminal deportations only" is not the same as advocating for "open borders." We would not have open borders if we only deported undocumented people who committed crimes. We can have border control and still not deport everyone who came here without authorization. They are two separate things, and if people are confused, the answer can also be found in the OP.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender
Yeah, many people are stupid, we already knew that
.
  #28  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:30 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Which is all well and good for those who come over here , LEGALLY. What about the ones who didn't and/or don't?

But that's the point. Why should they have to come illegally, if everyone seems to want them to come? As you say below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
change the laws.

The problem with this, though, is that any attempt to change the laws will be met by GOP cries of "Open borders!", because we've already seen that the GOP has no problem with engaging in disingenuous propaganda to win elections. You want an open and honest debate leading to changes in the law that improve the situation? Then punish the GOP each and every time they try to pull this stunt. Until their lies start to lose them elections, they're just going to keep lying.
  #29  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:50 PM
Nobody is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,494
Besides a lot of liberals/progressives not wanting to deport people here illegally, there are sanctuary cities, and in some places like here in Oregon where they've been offered lower college/university tuition, and I'm not sure if it passed, but the legidlature wants to create driver's licences for those without the proper documentation.

With the attempts to normalize the status of those here illegally, as well as not wanting to deport them, the current position of a lot of liberals and progressives doesn't differ too much practically from open borders.
__________________
End of Line.
  #30  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:56 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Besides a lot of liberals/progressives not wanting to deport people here illegally, there are sanctuary cities, and in some places like here in Oregon where they've been offered lower college/university tuition, and I'm not sure if it passed, but the legidlature wants to create driver's licences for those without the proper documentation.

With the attempts to normalize the status of those here illegally, as well as not wanting to deport them, the current position of a lot of liberals and progressives doesn't differ too much practically from open borders.
When I cross into the U.S. from Mexico or Canada I have to go through an Immigration check. I don't hear anyone proposing changing that. I envision "open borders" as being like passing from Ohio to Kentucky.
  #31  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:06 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Pretty much every other country has rules on who can enter, and they deport those who don't do it properly. But again, that's not the question.

The question is, what's the difference between, if you can sneak in you can stay, and open borders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
"Open borders" would suggest to me that it's either policy or law to allow entry and, therefore, nobody would need to "sneak in"; they could enter openly and legitimately.
This

Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
When I cross into the U.S. from Mexico or Canada I have to go through an Immigration check. I don't hear anyone proposing changing that. I envision "open borders" as being like passing from Ohio to Kentucky.
and this.

We have lots of laws. None of them is perfectly, 100% enforced. There are some laws we try very hard to enforce, like laws against murder. There are other laws that we keep on the books but have no intention of enforcing 100%, like speed limits.

The difference between open borders and less enforcement (no one is proposing absolutely zero enforcement) is the difference between no speed limits and speed limits.

But it's more than that in practice. If you can't legally immigrate here, you can't get most of the good jobs. I need to show proof that I can legally work here to get any good salaried position. You can't vote. You can't run for elected office. You can't collect welfare. Personally, I would give you a library card, let you earn a drivers' license, and give you access to emergency medical care and stuff like immunizations, but in practice you can't do most of those without open borders, either.

I hope this actually addresses the OP's question.
  #32  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I honestly think that a very sizeable majority is on board with 1 and 2. (For sure with #1) So I agree with this in theory, but it isn't what is seen of the Democrats.
It's being willfully not seen in order to score political points, and avoid having to concede an argument with one's opponents.
  #33  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:09 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
The question is, what's the difference between, if you can sneak in you can stay, and open borders?
With open borders, you wouldn't have to sneak.
  #34  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:09 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Besides a lot of liberals/progressives not wanting to deport people here illegally, there are sanctuary cities, and in some places like here in Oregon where they've been offered lower college/university tuition, and I'm not sure if it passed, but the legidlature wants to create driver's licences for those without the proper documentation.
The legislature is attempting to deal with the fact that refusing to grant driver's licenses to those without proper documentation isn't going to stop them from driving. The State of Oregon couldn't deport them even if the state wants to; the state has to figure out how to deal with their presence somehow, including their presence behind the wheel.

The Tuition Equity Law says that people who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents of the US, but who reside in Oregon, graduated from an Oregon high school, and meet certain other requirements are treated as Oregon residents for tuition purposes and will pay the same tuition rates as other graduates of Oregon high schools.
  #35  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:56 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,168
Let's say you work in an office building, with typical US office building rules -- doors are locked after business hours, visitors need to sign it at the front desk during business hours. Generally speaking, everyone is allowed to enter the building after signing in, as long as you're not there to cause trouble. The front desk is a pretty low barrier to entry that only exists to keep an eye on the riff raff.

You're in your office one day talking to a visitor, and you ask her what she thought of the security guard's vest that day. "What security guard? I came in the side door," she says. This is a clear violation of building policy. Do you go apoplectic, call security to have this person thrown out? Of course not. If it's really a high security facility, you might escort them back to the front desk to sign in properly, or you might just tell them to make sure they do it next time.

Does your lack of willingness to throw this person out mean you don't think the front desk or locked doors should be there in the first place?


To the OP's question, I think true libertarian open borders wouldn't even have a checkpoint -- just an empty road where anyone could drive on in. That's pretty much the only thing I'd consider "open borders." I think most democrats are OK with a very permissive immigration policy, as long as people identify themselves, undergo a background check, and are willing to prove some basic things once they're here like they have a job and/or a place to live. This is most definitely NOT open borders. But what do you do if you find someone in the country who didn't go through that minimal process? Do you throw them out? Why? What's the point when they can just turn around and come back in via proper channels? It makes more sense just to slap them on the wrist for not following protocol and then make them follow protocol right there on the spot.


So the real difference is, Republicans right now want to deport people for not following the protocols, and then not let them back in because the proper protocols are actually unavailable to most people. Democrats, I think it's safe to say, want to make those protocols available to more people. AIUI, this used to not be a partisan issue, and people's willingness to expand immigration quotas wasn't a predictor of political leaning. Like all things in the modern age, though, it's all team sports now.
  #36  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:02 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
You're in your office one day talking to a visitor, and you ask her what she thought of the security guard's vest that day. "What security guard? I came in the side door," she says. This is a clear violation of building policy. Do you go apoplectic, call security to have this person thrown out? Of course not. If it's really a high security facility, you might escort them back to the front desk to sign in properly, or you might just tell them to make sure they do it next time.

Does your lack of willingness to throw this person out mean you don't think the front desk or locked doors should be there in the first place?
But to make the analogy suit better, imagine that a sizable percentage of people in the building are visitors who aren't authorized to be in the building; furthermore, there are many visitors coming in and out of the side door every day, day in and day out, 365 days of the year. The side door has practically become a front door of its own.

At that point, you ought to make a binary choice: Either make the side door an official door and just say "If you want to come in the side door, it's fine - we allow it now" or clamp down hard and do something security-wise to prevent people from getting in the side door. But to say "the side door is off-limits, but if you and your friends want to come in any day and every day, we won't object," that's farcical.

Last edited by Velocity; 09-13-2019 at 03:04 PM.
  #37  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:09 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It's being willfully not seen in order to score political points, and avoid having to concede an argument with one's opponents.
That doesn't change the fact of the what is and the right now. I am fine with us/you/them talking policy changes, LATER. But the right now is currently what it is and people see Democrats doing exactly the things the OP states. Sanctuary cities, unwilling to deport law breakers etc

It's a bad look.
  #38  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:11 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
That doesn't change the fact of the what is and the right now. I am fine with us/you/them talking policy changes, LATER. But the right now is currently what it is and people see Democrats doing exactly the things the OP states. Sanctuary cities, unwilling to deport law breakers etc

It's a bad look.
Perhaps. But it's not open borders.
  #39  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:11 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But to make the analogy suit better, imagine that a sizable percentage of people in the building are visitors who aren't authorized to be in the building; furthermore, there are many visitors coming in and out of the side door every day, day in and day out, 365 days of the year. The side door has practically become a front door of its own.
I don't believe any such gaping hole in security exists in the US. Our "side door" is, what, a grueling trek across open desert that costs thousands of dollars and often results in death? And the wall is spending billions of dollars to put extra locks on the already very well locked side door while ignoring the fact that 60% of the "unauthorized" visitors signed in properly but stayed past 5 o'clock?

The analogy falls apart when people can't agree on the facts, and Republicans have been waging a war on the real facts about immigration for decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
At that point, you ought to make a binary choice: Either make the side door an official door and just say "If you want to come in the side door, it's fine - we allow it now" or clamp down hard and do something security-wise to prevent people from getting in the side door. But to say "the side door is off-limits, but if you and your friends want to come in any day and every day, we won't object," that's farcical.
Back to my analogy, you may very well tell this visitor that the side door is off-limits and she shouldn't have come in that way, but you're also not throwing her out. Does that mean you don't really believe the side door is off-limits? Of course not -- you support keeping the side door locked, you disapprove of people coming in the side door, and yet, when face to face with a visitor who didn't follow the procedure, you're behaving like a normal human and not a jack-booted thug. Have I caught you in a contradiction, or do you understand how silly it is now?
  #40  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:13 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
"Open borders" would suggest to me that it's either policy or law to allow entry and, therefore, nobody would need to "sneak in"; they could enter openly and legitimately.
On this note, why don't Democrats simply directly embrace "open borders?" Why do they treat "open borders" as if it's a shameful policy position to hold?
  #41  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:19 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
On this note, why don't Democrats simply directly embrace "open borders?" Why do they treat "open borders" as if it's a shameful policy position to hold?
Maybe they don't embrace it because they don't favor it. Not that's its "shameful," but simply not the best policy.

Personally, (and I don't speak for all Democrats) I like the idea of some type of border security. I'm not offended by the concept. On the other hand, I wouldn't start rounding up millions of people who don't have proper documentation. I don't think this is that complicated. The Right seems to think the Left is advocating positions that I haven't seen advocated.
  #42  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:23 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
That doesn't change the fact of the what is and the right now. I am fine with us/you/them talking policy changes, LATER. But the right now is currently what it is and people see Democrats doing exactly the things the OP states. Sanctuary cities, unwilling to deport law breakers etc
Of course it changes the facts. Because your version of the facts are not actually facts at all.

If a thousand people show up at my doorstep and complain that I'm part of the Illuminati conspiracy to control their precious bodily fluids, it matters a lot that they are fucking crazy people. Just because they really really believe what they are saying does not mean that I have an extra responsibility to correct their delusions.
  #43  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:38 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Let's say you work in an office building, with typical US office building rules -- doors are locked after business hours, visitors need to sign it at the front desk during business hours. Generally speaking, everyone is allowed to enter the building after signing in, as long as you're not there to cause trouble. The front desk is a pretty low barrier to entry that only exists to keep an eye on the riff raff.

You're in your office one day talking to a visitor, and you ask her what she thought of the security guard's vest that day. "What security guard? I came in the side door," she says. This is a clear violation of building policy. Do you go apoplectic, call security to have this person thrown out? Of course not. If it's really a high security facility, you might escort them back to the front desk to sign in properly, or you might just tell them to make sure they do it next time.

Does your lack of willingness to throw this person out mean you don't think the front desk or locked doors should be there in the first place?


To the OP's question, I think true libertarian open borders wouldn't even have a checkpoint -- just an empty road where anyone could drive on in. That's pretty much the only thing I'd consider "open borders." I think most democrats are OK with a very permissive immigration policy, as long as people identify themselves, undergo a background check, and are willing to prove some basic things once they're here like they have a job and/or a place to live. This is most definitely NOT open borders. But what do you do if you find someone in the country who didn't go through that minimal process? Do you throw them out? Why? What's the point when they can just turn around and come back in via proper channels? It makes more sense just to slap them on the wrist for not following protocol and then make them follow protocol right there on the spot.


So the real difference is, Republicans right now want to deport people for not following the protocols, and then not let them back in because the proper protocols are actually unavailable to most people. Democrats, I think it's safe to say, want to make those protocols available to more people. AIUI, this used to not be a partisan issue, and people's willingness to expand immigration quotas wasn't a predictor of political leaning. Like all things in the modern age, though, it's all team sports now.
That's a long paragraph (or multiple ones) saying that you'd rather not follow or have the rule of law.

If things change, then they change and so will our border enforcement policies. They aren't, they haven't.

As an aside, I doubt you could get many Democrats on record that go as far as your idea of more open borders. They will almost ALL want some sort of quota, not many at all will espouse not having one.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 09-13-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #44  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:43 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Of course it changes the facts. Because your version of the facts are not actually facts at all.

If a thousand people show up at my doorstep and complain that I'm part of the Illuminati conspiracy to control their precious bodily fluids, it matters a lot that they are fucking crazy people. Just because they really really believe what they are saying does not mean that I have an extra responsibility to correct their delusions.
Huh?

There are not sanctuary cities, Democrats willingly deport illegal entrants to the US?
What fact isn't a fact and who's crazy?
  #45  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:46 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW.
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post

As an aside, I doubt you could get many Democrats on record that go as far as your idea of more open borders. They will almost ALL want some sort of quota, not many at all will espouse not having one.
That's what we've been trying to tell you. Most Democrats do not want open borders.
  #46  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:47 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Maybe they don't embrace it because they don't favor it. Not that's its "shameful," but simply not the best policy.

Personally, (and I don't speak for all Democrats) I like the idea of some type of border security. I'm not offended by the concept. On the other hand, I wouldn't start rounding up millions of people who don't have proper documentation. I don't think this is that complicated. The Right seems to think the Left is advocating positions that I haven't seen advocated.
I don't think the Right really sees that, I think the Left leaves itself open to the Right portraying it that way BECAUSE of the things they do in regard to illegal immigration. And the fact that you have some fringe but vocal Dem's talking about more open borders (as long as they go elsewhere)

The Left wants policy change but instead of advocate for the policies they want and push to get them through, they would rather dick around and have sanctuary cities and scream bloody murder about deportations. Why? Because it garners them votes.

And honestly that is what sickens me about the last few decades of politics.
  #47  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:48 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
That's what we've been trying to tell you. Most Democrats do not want open borders.
I evidently have done a bad job of espousing my position. I don't think Democrats WANT fully open borders. What I think they do though is allow this narrative to be pushed because of the things they allow.
  #48  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:51 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Huh?

There are not sanctuary cities, Democrats willingly deport illegal entrants to the US?
What fact isn't a fact and who's crazy?
It's obscenely crazy to think anything other than that Democrats willinging deport illegal immigrants to the US. Obama was derided as the "deporter in chief."

And just because you don't know what a sanctuary city is, doesn't make your opinion of what it is a "fact."
  #49  
Old 09-13-2019, 03:59 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
That's a long paragraph (or multiple ones) saying that you'd rather not follow or have the rule of law.

If things change, then they change and so will our border enforcement policies. They aren't, they haven't.
Nonsense. Every cop who's ever let someone off with a warning has done the exact same thing I'm describing. Are police officers unwilling to follow or have the rule of law?


Immigration is somewhat unique in that the offense is small, a misdemeanor in most cases, but strict enforcement is extremely costly, both financially and morally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
As an aside, I doubt you could get many Democrats on record that go as far as your idea of more open borders. They will almost ALL want some sort of quota, not many at all will espouse not having one.
A more permissive immigration policy, not "more open borders." I don't think the two are analogous.
  #50  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:01 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It's obscenely crazy to think anything other than that Democrats willinging deport illegal immigrants to the US. Obama was derided as the "deporter in chief."

And just because you don't know what a sanctuary city is, doesn't make your opinion of what it is a "fact."
Uh, I live in one
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017