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.
Let’s take these facts:
- Americans overwhelmingly want to gain the benefits of immigrant labor
- Immigration is overall a substantial benefit to the United States
- 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.
What are you seeing?
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.
.
But that’s the point. Why should they have to come illegally, if everyone seems to want them to come? As you say below:
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.
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.
This
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.
It’s being willfully not seen in order to score political points, and avoid having to concede an argument with one’s opponents.
With open borders, you wouldn’t have to sneak.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?