Open borders vs criminal deportations only.

[Procrustus]

@Velocity

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.

[Ravenman]

@Kearsen1

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.

[Kearsen1]

@steronz

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.

[Kearsen1]

@Ravenman

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?

[Procrustus]

@Kearsen1

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.

[Kearsen1]

@Procrustus

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.

[Kearsen1]

@Procrustus

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.

[Ravenman]

@Kearsen1

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.”

[steronz]

@Kearsen1

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.

@Kearsen1

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.

[Kearsen1]

@Ravenman

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

[Procrustus]

@Kearsen1

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.

I guess I’m missing it. I think the Democrats are advocating for policies they want, but the Right is calling that “support for open borders.” (Which it isn’t)

There’s nothing wrong with sanctuary cities or complaining about deportations. At the same time, the candidates I hear are also calling for “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Here’s what Warren says (There’sa lot more):

We need expanded legal immigration that will grow our economy, reunite families, and meet our labor market demands. We need real reform that provides cost-effective security at our borders, addresses the root causes of migration, and provides a path to status and citizenship so that our neighbors don’t have to live in fear. That’s why today I’m announcing my plan for immigration reform — to create a rules-based system that is fair, humane, and that reflects our values.

Mayor Pete:

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, says he believes there should be a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“The reality is we can’t have comprehensive immigration reform that works unless it addresses the status for those 11 some million undocumented immigrants. So what we need make sure there’s a pathway to citizenship for them, too,” he said.

Buttigieg then outlined what he said would be in a comprehensive immigration plan, which includes:

A pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in US. 
"A level of protection for dreamers."
"A set of reforms to clear up the bureaucracy and the back logs in the lawful immigration system ..."
"And reasonable measures on border security."

Harris
Booker
I don’t see any “open border” positions here.

[doreen]

@Kearsen1

Uh, I live in one

OK, so what do you think it means? I live in one too and an absolutely astounding number of people think it means that city and state agencies actively hide undocumented immigrants from the Federal government and won’t allow them to be arrested , like the myth about how you can’t be arrested in a church. It doesn’t mean that at all.