Of course I would and do. By free speech and by voting. Heck I don’t rule out non violent noncompliance of unjust laws, accepting the legal consequences.
If you are referencing sanctuary cities, I do not believe those are in fact breaking laws.
Otherwise another perplexed person here: what are you talking about here?
The amount of cruelty that can be dispensed by a nation because “enough voters agree” is virtually unbounded. There’s no debate to that point, the answer is “Yes, you can do literally whatever you want to people if enough voters agree.”
Step #1 is to equate people applying for asylum with meth heads breaking into your house while you’re asleep to steal your copper pipes. Convince “enough voters” that folks who want to rent an apartment and spend their day building houses are basically the same as serial rapists climbing into your daughter’s bedroom window, and you can do whatever you want to them.
Three more differences between homes and nations that make the metaphor fatally flawed:
Wait, not that last one! Nobody ever breaks into your house so they can cook for you and fix your house! It’s only the first three, and overwhelmingly the first two, and it means that people entering your house without permission intend to make your life a lot worse and have a very good chance of doing so.
Whereas when people enter the nation without papers? Overwhelmingly, they’re making you food and fixing your house. They’re intending to join the society in a productive way. Their purpose is totally different.
The Welcome. When someone enters your house without permission, they know they’re not welcome, and they do so anyway, knowing that everyone in the house will be terrified of them and possibly out to hurt them. That means they’re ready for violence. When someone enters the nation without permission, they usually expect to find someone who wants them there: someone who will hire them, a community that will feed them and support them. Although you may not welcome them, and although the law may not welcome them, they nevertheless face welcome from many people who live here legitimiately. The welcome is totally different.
The expectation of privacy. Everyone needs a place to shit, shower, and shag, and most of us really don’t want to be watched doing these things. (No shame if you wanna be watched, let your freak flag fly). That’s what our home is for: it gives us privacy for when we do private things. Having that privacy violated is upsetting on a bone-deep level to most people, which is a huge reason why home invasions are such violations. Your nation as a whole doesn’t give you privacy, and someone entering your nation without papers isn’t committing that level of bone-deep violation. The expectation of privacy in a home and in a nation are totally different.
Really, homes and nations are almost nothing alike. The strained metaphor tying them together serves a xenophobic purpose and legitimizes violence against innocent people and should be avoided by rational and decent people.
But the question, to my mind, isn’t what someone intends; the question, in both contexts, is whether consent is given.
If someone tells me they want to make me food and fix my house, and I say, “thanks, but I don’t want you to come in here and do that; you don’t have my permission,” then — what?
Are you talking about your personal home, or your nation? Because they are completely separate things and should not be used as a metaphor for one another. Which is my point!
My point — metaphor or not — is that, if someone shows up at my personal home, and asks to come in, and I refuse to give them permission, and they explain that they want to do things for me, my reply is that what matters isn’t what they want; it’s that permission hasn’t been given.
And if someone shows up at the border, and asks to come in, and we refuse to give permission, and they explain that they want to do things for us, my reply is that what matters isn’t what they want; it’s that permission hasn’t been given.
I don’t, strictly speaking, have to make the first point to make the second point; I don’t really need a metaphor; I just happen to make the same reply in both scenarios.
Then my point has nothing to do with what you say!
I believe consent is the important thing at the border, whether or not they want to help; you, as far as I can tell, don’t. I could shrug and say we disagree and leave it there, but I want to understand your position and so I add that I believe consent is important when folks are looking to enter my property, whether or not they want to help; maybe I should stick to just saying “I think you’re wrong about the border, and you think I’m wrong about the border” while making no effort to see where else you don’t think consent matters more than a desire to help.
Given your past posts on immigration, I believe that I can’t respond to you appropriately in this forum.
Are we discussing immigration or the validity of metaphors?
A metaphor is an immigrant in your language. Some do a lot of heavy lifting that other comparisons don’t want to do, whereas others just repeat lazy stereotypes. But you can’t ban metaphors: they’ll always sneak in, and they end up enriching the language. The original metaphor was an immigrant from Greece.
Very meta. 
Anyway. The question intended for discussion is not whether or not a country has right to decide whether or not to let any specific individual in or to decide how many.
To drive LHOD a bit batty, it is what sort of bouncer to have at our house’s pot luck party door, and if they should only be keeping clear troublemakers (and those bring hard drugs) out, or do they make sure we aren’t exceeding some legal capacity, should we be having them enforce who is cool enough or at least bringing a good enough dish to share? Are we okay with party crashers?
IMHO my bathroom can only handle so many joining the party and I don’t want so many I can’t hear people talk but up to that limit point the more the better, more different dishes, more interesting conversations, a better party. And Iwhile party crashers are not a horrible thing I do want the bouncer keeping out the obvious troublemakers, the hard drugs, and maybe fast tracking someone whose dish to share seems like it will be especially tasty!
It’s obvious that in many nations this exact question would be yes and yes. Like Switzerland or the Vatican or Taiwan or perhaps most any other country. Practically, no country allows open borders as a de facto or de jure policy. Why is that? Because nations have the ability to control their borders and the folks who inhabit said nations like the border controlled. Is it just? As just as any law or policy could be.
Make it a block party and I’m down :).
There’s definitely a legitimate question about infrastructure capacity. I’ve seen no persuasive evidence that the US infrastructure can’t handle a huge number of immigrants, certainly the number we’ve got; on the contrary, there’s pretty good evidence that our infrastructure depends on these immigrants, and can’t handle many fewer. However, if we started getting 20 million immigrants a year, the hypothetical might become reality.
I’m in favor of solving that problem when it looms, and separating it strictly from the “BUT THEY NEED PERMISSION” nonissue.
Perhaps the nation should vote on whether permission is an issue or a nonissue.
Perhaps those who realize that that is not the most pressing issue right now should do as LHOD is doing, and help spread that knowledge?
As someone who believes that having the permission system in place is appropriate I also recognize that the priority action is on the efficiency of the legal side, and that at current circumstances more legal immigration is preferred over less.
I cannot bring myself to so easily prioritize other concerns over consent.
My impression is there are multiple factions within the modern right.
The plutocrats, who like large scale immigration (both legal and illegal) since illegal immigrants have less protections, no benefits, less pay.
White nationalists who don’t want non-white, non-christian, non-english speaking immigrants
Libertarians who probably don’t care one way or another as long as they don’t have to pay taxes and they can keep their drugs and guns.
At the end of the day, the plutocrats usually end up getting what they want.
It is recognition of reality. Those in without consent are, overall, a BENEFIT, to this country. The shoemaker didn’t ask for the elves to come into his shop …
Meanwhile efficient legal entry decreases new illegal entry. Helps the country much more.
I’m not really a fan of people doing things while being denied consent, and then insisting that it was, overall, a benefit to those who denied consent.