So wouldn’t you think that
is a disastrous basis for a new party platform?
Yes, it would be a disaster to have that as a party platform. Something can be supported by “many people” and still be an extreme minority position.
I don’t think global open borders is a worthwhile thing to strive for any time soon, even though it might be 100 years from now.
I mean, it wasn’t until 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act that we had any sort of immigration controls in the United States. So only 150 years ago we really did have open borders in the United States. Anyone could come here to live and work, you didn’t need any sort of special permission from the government.
Of course things are different here in the 21st century than they were back in the 19th century. But the Democratic party emphatically does not have an absolutist open borders policy, and anyone who thinks they do is insane. Or, you know, part of the Right Wing Media-Industrial Complex.
Our economy is pretty robust and unemployment is less than 4.5 percent nationwide. I understand that there has been large scale job loss over the past couple of generations in some factory towns but lack of opportunities is not the only factor.
In times of low unemployment, a large faction of the population is unemployed because they are unemployable- they have drug or alcohol problems ( the opioid crisis at work) and/ or tumultuous or abusive personal lives. Or they have intractable attitude problems and authority issues. They are unable to structure their lives in a way that prioritizes work. Get real,we all know these guys. They can’t hold down a job. These problems are worse in low income communities, both black and white.
And they will blame anyone but themselves and it’s easy to convince them that their problems are caused by Mexicans and Hillary Clinton. I look around at the crowd at some of these rallies and I’m thinking - no way any of these guys are really going to work a 40 hour week in a coal mine if given the chance -they just like to make noise.
Now I’m not saying that there aren’t communities without enough opportunity. But adding a bunch of soul-killing jobs in slaughterhouses and chicken processing and agricultural (“illegal immigrant jobs”) is just not the answer.
@Lemur866
I don’t think the Dems have an absolutist position on immigration, open borders or no. Their frankly more reasonable position on how to deal with illegal immigration, however, gives a political attack angle to the Republicans. If I was personally in charge of the Democratic party or an elected official of any stripe, I’d like to think I could hold firm to the idea that we mostly can only mitigate the bad effects of illegal immigration and attempt to embrace the positives of either type. Doesn’t make for a rousing campaign tweet I must admit.
You’ve misread my post. The claim of some people is that economic anxiety leads to anti-immigrant sentiment. A big problem with that claim is that economic status does not predict that sentiment.
Heh.
That doesn’t make much sense to me either because the only stat you use in the post divides people by racial identity and racial identity alone.
I might have skimmed the thread too quickly though - I could be misreading some of what you are saying.
This. I’d like to know what the OP thinks the Democratic policy on immigration is - because I think there’s a disconnect between that thought and the actual platform.
A study came out this week that said that not just most Democrats want a path to citizenship (75%), but so do most Republicans (55%). A change in position would likely appeal to fewer people than the current position does.
Yeah, I’m aware. I think it remains to be seen how that will end up. I expect Schengen to survive, but I might be wrong.
Stasis? I’m not particularly well-informed on most of those areas, though. It does look like there’s been some minor movement toward more open borders in Central America.
Note that I didn’t bring up the trend in Europe to say “look, we’re already on our way!”, but to ask if the person who didn’t want open borders in some possible future what they thought of that trend, as a means of continuing the conversation. I’m not saying that it’s proof that I’m right. I’m just saying, look, this has happened, is it a good thing? I think it is.
I hear you. But my point was that you can be in favor of moving toward the ideal of open borders, and hope for policy change in that direction, while recognizing that there are legitimate reasons not to just throw the doors wide tomorrow.
No, definitely not. I think that kind of world would be a disaster. For two reasons. If people have an unrestricted right to <I>leave</I> country A, that makes it impossible for Country A to maintain the kind of community it wants to have. (The Berlin Wall was built because a huge portion of the professional classes was leaving the GDR, resulting in entire communities not having a single doctor. And if people have an unrestricted right to <I>enter</I> Country B, then that country no longer is able to maintain the kind of community (economic, ideological, religious, ethnic, or whatever) they want to have, either. A world in which “people can live wherever they want” would be a sort of dystopia, at least in my book.
The trend, in most of the recent few decades, has been for freer travel and more open borders in many places (particularly Europe). Do you think that trend is a mistake in general, or maybe is ok as far as it goes, but should go no farther?
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s a very bad trend, and I would think that even if Europe wasn’t having the current issues with Middle East / Asian / African migration. Of course, this isn’t the only way in which I disapprove of trends for the last few decades, and I doubt it’s a trend that will go on forever (you’re already seeing quite a reaction against it).
It would depend on the situation, but plenty of societies historically have had internal migration controls (IIRC China still does) and I don’t think they’re inherently a bad thing.
I definitely think the Democrats should rethink their policy on illegal immigration and everyone should rethink legal immigration. You can’t run a country by saying it is fine to just ignore some fundamental laws. Bleeding hearts have their place working in churches, charities and relief organizations but they are terrible at governing. It also becomes counterproductive to human rights initiatives. Many illegal immigrants are existing as a pseudo-slave class and there is no reason for anyone other than big business types and farmers to support that. There is a reason Americans won’t do their jobs. They are purposefully isolated, horribly paid and sometimes abused. What business owner wouldn’t love that? It boggles the mind that liberals and progressives would support the Underground Railroad going in the wrong direction.
I have no particular preference for the number of legal immigrants that are allowed into the U.S. as long as the rationale is supported by data and valid arguments but I do not support illegal immigration that depends on people risking their lives to get here only to have to support themselves through extra-legal means.
I think most people see it the same way. If you want to really fix this problem, you have to do it the right way. Define immigration needs and make them happen legally. That applies to everyone from agricultural workers to the horribly broken H1-B Visa program.
The Democrats should not be rethinking their policy on immigration. Their policy is right. What the Democrats need to do is get a lot better at presenting their policy. (For starters, they should correct the notion that the Democrats want open borders with no control.)
The Republicans have become adept at winning votes by scaring ignorant people. The Democrats should not try to emulate them. On a moral level it’s wrong and on a practical level the Republicans have a fifty year head start. Instead Democrats should undermine the Republican base by educating people. Make people smart enough so they don’t fall for right wing fear tactics.
There are only three ways to stop illegal immigration:
(1) Strict enforcement, which makes all the problems you identified–danger in transit, exploitation–worse, and is relatively ineffective overall;
(2) Making our country a less desirable place to immigrate, which is obviously inherently a bad result; or
(3) More legal immigration options.
The only option someone like you can pick, consistent with the values you claim, is increase legal immigration. Right now, for example, it is extremely difficult for someone from Mexico to immigrate here legally. It should not be that way. There should be a process–even a years-long process–for healthy working-age people to move to the US.
Of course, the real question is what you do until increased legal immigration becomes politically viable. Do you attempt strict enforcement? More strict even than Obama, the strictest enforcer in recent times? Why? What good does that result in?
No, if you actually care about the humanity of people who have immigrated here illegally, and you understand how vital immigrants are to our economy, the only valid option is to put your effort into increasing legal immigration.
Well first, what is the Democratic policy on immigration? Because Clinton ran on not deporting anyone but violent felons, which is in effect open borders for all non-felons. Well, not totally, you still have to go the trouble of breaking the law, which deters some people(mainly the people we’d LIKE to have come here, which makes the policy insane.
If the Democrats’ policy is the Clinton campaign policy, which I believe it is, then yeah, they need to rethink that, or better yet, think it through in the first place, because Clinton’s immigration policy wasn’t a policy. It was pandering to an emotional response. Deportation bad, so I won’t deport.
What if the public doesn’t want more legal immigration, but less?
According to Gallup, Americans don’t want more immigration by a pretty wide margin.
I have a strong ethical preference that the Democrats not turn towards nativism even though it’s popular.
I have a strong pragmatic preference that they not take political advice from Rich Lowry – source cited in the OP and editor of the National Review. Yes, yes, liberal bubble, yes, but somehow I don’t think he is going to be giving the best advice – call me crazy.
You don’t need to be nativist to support enforcement of immigration laws.
My point was that it’s not fair to call it a trend. One economic bloc is trying it with yet to be seen success. Free movement of labour is always the low low lowest part of any free trade agreement.
That is exactly the choice that I pick. The whole immigration process is FUBAR. If the Democrats had any sense, they would be working on comprehensive immigration reform instead of supporting quasi-slavery and trying to put masking tape over the issue. It has nothing to do with racism. The whole system is broken even worse than health care.
Should the desires of a group to force individuals to continue living nearby be enforced only at the level of nations, or is it reasonable to do so at other levels as well?
Yeah, but: are you really arguing that the Berlin Wall was a social good, and a justifiable policy? That’s fairly out there. The reason people wanted to leave is that they were fleeing an oppressive regime. And, in fact, that’s generally the reason people want to leave anywhere. There are lots of cultural reasons to live near the people you were born near. When a bunch of people want to leave, there’s generally a major problem they’re fleeing.
Above, you mention nations, but the Berlin Wall was of a much smaller scale. What if all the doctors in California moved to Nevada? Would California be justified in erecting a wall to keep its doctors in-state?
Your views seem quite diametrically opposed to mine, and I appreciate you elaborating.