Open borders vs criminal deportations only.

Great Debates
1

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.

2

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.

3

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.”

4

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

I never said they did. But that’s not the question.

6

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?

7

Oh, I’m not for Trump’s wall. But again, that has nothing to do with the question.

8

“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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

Being openly for open borders is politically risky. Other than that no real difference.

12

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.

13

Please stick to the topic. Whether harm is caused or not or why is not the topic.

[/moderating]

14

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.

15

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.

16

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

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

red herring much?

To what purpose does this address his question?

19

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

Which is all well and good for those who come over here , LEGALLY. What about the ones who didn’t and/or don’t?