Let's be honest: Most Dems and Some Pub politicos Support Illegal Immigration and Open Borders (1 Viewer)

[maxparrish]

In every discussion of immigration in this forum, be it "the wall", asylum, or enforcement - one side is for promoting and protecting illegal conduct and some form of open borders, and the other is not.

Yes...yes... I am sure the squeals of denial from Dems and the left with be forthcoming, followed by a bottomless well of excuses for non-enforcement of the law and the defense of illegal aliens will be advanced - but let's be honest, actions speak far louder than words - at least in the last 15 to 20 years those actions have underscored the pro-immigrant lobby as mostly charlatans, flim-flamming grifters and useful idiots determined to do what they can to erase US sovereignty and resistance to unlimited migration.

For many years Democrats and some Republicans tried to at least portray themselves as tough on border security and illegal immigration, even as they insisted that border enforcement was negotiable in trade for amnesty, increased chain migration, and much higher quotas of legal immigration. On occasion they have slipped, such as Hillary in 2013 when she talked about her dream of open borders, but more often than not the talk was not the walk - quite the opposite (well at least until they demanded ICE be abolished).

To be fair, there are a few unhappy voices on the left that confess that the Democratic party has abandoned the interests of the heritage working class, and joined the Koch brothers libertarian right in squealing for "MORE"; left authors such as Peter Beinert, Angela Nagle, and Mickey Kaus acknowledge it. And in the meantime, cloistered liberal academics such as Joseph Carens and others busy themselves sermonizing on theories as to why open borders is the only just direction to immigration reform. But by an large the cover story is no longer plausible.

Surely the rest of us can be honest, honest not only too each other but to oneself. Be it Pelosi, Schumer, or the hundreds of towns and communities politicians that have declared themselves sanctuary cities (including mostly white and blue communities) the actions send one overwhelming din "Don't enforce the law and open the borders".

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

 

[Rexedgar]

Lost me at “squeals of denial!”

 

[Hawkeye10]

"Let's be honest"?

What a Wild Hair idea!

 

[ttwtt78640]

You left out a large, and therefore important group, which also favors inaction on increased border security and interior immigration law enforcement - those that see immigration (legal or not) as necessary to avoid increased labor costs (typically republicants or conservatives). They often use (squeal?) terms like "jobs that US citizens will not do" or "jobs that require skills not available locally" when the real problem is that the wages/benefits offered are simply insufficient to attract and retain qualified labor or they wish to avoid the costs of training their workforce.

 

[Helix]

Lost me at “squeals of denial!”

yep, good scroll past point.

 

[Saladin4]

In every discussion of immigration in this forum, be it "the wall", asylum, or enforcement - one side is for promoting and protecting illegal conduct and some form of open borders, and the other is not.

Yes...yes... I am sure the squeals of denial from Dems and the left with be forthcoming, followed by a bottomless well of excuses for non-enforcement of the law and the defense of illegal aliens will be advanced - but let's be honest, actions speak far louder than words - at least in the last 15 to 20 years those actions have underscored the pro-immigrant lobby as mostly charlatans, flim-flamming grifters and useful idiots determined to do what they can to erase US sovereignty and resistance to unlimited migration.

For many years Democrats and some Republicans tried to at least portray themselves as tough on border security and illegal immigration, even as they insisted that border enforcement was negotiable in trade for amnesty, increased chain migration, and much higher quotas of legal immigration. On occasion they have slipped, such as Hillary in 2013 when she talked about her dream of open borders, but more often than not the talk was not the walk - quite the opposite (well at least until they demanded ICE be abolished).

To be fair, there are a few unhappy voices on the left that confess that the Democratic party has abandoned the interests of the heritage working class, and joined the Koch brothers libertarian right in squealing for "MORE"; left authors such as Peter Beinert, Angela Nagle, and Mickey Kaus acknowledge it. And in the meantime, cloistered liberal academics such as Joseph Carens and others busy themselves sermonizing on theories as to why open borders is the only just direction to immigration reform. But by an large the cover story is no longer plausible.

Surely the rest of us can be honest, honest not only too each other but to oneself. Be it Pelosi, Schumer, or the hundreds of towns and communities politicians that have declared themselves sanctuary cities (including mostly white and blue communities) the actions send one overwhelming din "Don't enforce the law and open the borders".

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

Babbling Alt Right Non sense

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In every discussion of immigration in this forum, be it "the wall", asylum, or enforcement - one side is for promoting and protecting illegal conduct and some form of open borders, and the other is not.

Stop lying.
Name one liberal member here on DP who is for open borders.
You can't, because there aren't any.

 

[Bucky]

Stop lying.
Name one liberal member here on DP who is for open borders.
You can't, because there aren't any.

Like half of the posters here.

 

[JackA]

Lost me at “squeals of denial!”

Lost me with his opening sentence. I know of no liberals who want open borders. Modifying the term with "some form" is an admission the OP doesn't know of any either.

 

[WillyPete]

OP is true, but my understanding is that between our rapidly aging population, and lower birth rates we have a situation where we need to import unskilled labor to provide the services we need long-term.

We could certainly be more honest about this, and simply expand legal immigration to a point that would give us the benefit, and accepting that actually reducing immigration would be devastating to the economy in the long run.

It's about our economy weathering these demographic shifts, and requires long-term planning.

That's a tough sell to many Americans, who broadly prefer the "**** you, I got mine!" school of thought.

 

[Bucky]

Lost me with his opening sentence. I know of no liberals who want open borders. Modifying the term with "some form" is an admission the OP doesn't know of any either.

Here you go:

Trump, however, has it exactly backwards: The solution to America’s immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. If the U.S. adopts this policy, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/

 

[azgreg]

Like half of the posters here.

Prove it.

 

[maxparrish]

You left out a large, and therefore important group, which also favors inaction on increased border security and interior immigration law enforcement - those that see immigration (legal or not) as necessary to avoid increased labor costs (typically republicants or conservatives). They often use (squeal?) terms like "jobs that US citizens will not do" or "jobs that require skills not available locally" when the real problem is that the wages/benefits offered are simply insufficient to attract and retain qualified labor or they wish to avoid the costs of training their workforce.

Actually I left out two huge groups - people who are not politicos, right and left. I did so specifically because many of those folks have viewpoints far different than those in the politico class - the politicians, supporters, activists, interest groups and lobbyists.

So as I stated, most democratic and some Republican politicos support illegal immigration and open borders which, if it is not obvious, includes the chamber of commerce and many farmers. While the business conservatives have chosen to at least pretend to support Trump on illegal immigration and asylum, that has not been their historical sentiment.

 

[Saladin4]

Like half of the posters here.

Name One......

 

[Bucky]

Name One......

I am replying to one.

 

[Rexedgar]

OP is true, but my understanding is that between our rapidly aging population, and lower birth rates we have a situation where we need to import unskilled labor to provide the services we need long-term.

We could certainly be more honest about this, and simply expand legal immigration to a point that would give us the benefit, and accepting that actually reducing immigration would be devastating to the economy in the long run.

It's about our economy weathering these demographic shifts, and requires long-term planning.

That's a tough sell to many Americans, who broadly prefer the "**** you, I got mine!" school of thought.

Interesting analogy; I have often likened the situation to a game of musical chairs where all the contestants think there will be a seat for them when the music stops.

One of the arguments that I disagree with (re. immigration) is that the growers need to bring the wages up to entice more Americans to perform these jobs. IMO, this is not based in any reality, as Buffy and Jody have been raised to look down on menial jobs.

/rant

 

[Barnacle]

Stop lying.
Name one liberal member here on DP who is for open borders.
You can't, because there aren't any.

Open border or "porous" border is the same.

Everybody who is not for a non-walk-through/jump-over border is subsequently for an open border ... which means almost every liberal on this board.


Arizona/Mexico border:

 

[jnug]

Lost me at “squeals of denial!”

You did better than I did. He lost me at "Lets be Honest"

 

[Phys251]

I am replying to one.

Link us to the exact post where Saladin clearly advocates for an open border with Mexico.

 

[JackA]

Here you go:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/

Okay, now we both know of one.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

In every discussion of immigration in this forum, be it "the wall", asylum, or enforcement - one side is for promoting and protecting illegal conduct and some form of open borders, and the other is not.

Yes...yes... I am sure the squeals of denial from Dems and the left with be forthcoming, followed by a bottomless well of excuses for non-enforcement of the law and the defense of illegal aliens will be advanced - but let's be honest, actions speak far louder than words - at least in the last 15 to 20 years those actions have underscored the pro-immigrant lobby as mostly charlatans, flim-flamming grifters and useful idiots determined to do what they can to erase US sovereignty and resistance to unlimited migration.

For many years Democrats and some Republicans tried to at least portray themselves as tough on border security and illegal immigration, even as they insisted that border enforcement was negotiable in trade for amnesty, increased chain migration, and much higher quotas of legal immigration. On occasion they have slipped, such as Hillary in 2013 when she talked about her dream of open borders, but more often than not the talk was not the walk - quite the opposite (well at least until they demanded ICE be abolished).

To be fair, there are a few unhappy voices on the left that confess that the Democratic party has abandoned the interests of the heritage working class, and joined the Koch brothers libertarian right in squealing for "MORE"; left authors such as Peter Beinert, Angela Nagle, and Mickey Kaus acknowledge it. And in the meantime, cloistered liberal academics such as Joseph Carens and others busy themselves sermonizing on theories as to why open borders is the only just direction to immigration reform. But by an large the cover story is no longer plausible.

Surely the rest of us can be honest, honest not only too each other but to oneself. Be it Pelosi, Schumer, or the hundreds of towns and communities politicians that have declared themselves sanctuary cities (including mostly white and blue communities) the actions send one overwhelming din "Don't enforce the law and open the borders".

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

Interesting but how does this fact fit your narrative?

Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President

Do you understand what a sanctuary city is and why cities choose to be sanctuary cities?



I hope you watched the video and at least learned something new.

 

[Greenbeard]

Here you go:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/

Miron is a libertarian.

 

[maxparrish]

Stop lying.
Name one liberal member here on DP who is for open borders.
You can't, because there aren't any.

First, I didn't mention any posters. I mentioned politicos, people engaged in politics as a avocation of some form - activists, organizers, opinion leaders, politicians, lobbyists, leaders, protestors, etc. I have no interest in exploring this backwater, or to characterize the opinion of the hoi poli. That said, you are free to apply a litmus test to those who do post pro-immigrant nonsense.

If you are for sanctuaries for law breakers, to protect illegals from deportation or lawful punishment you support illegal immigration.
If you are for crippling or eliminating ICE, you are for illegal immigration.
If you are against immediate deportation of illegals, or their full prosecution, you are for illegal immigration.
If you don't want ICE to go after illegals if the illegals successfully penetrate the borders, you are for illegal immigration.
If you don't want to punish employers for knowingly hiring illegals, you are for illegal immigration.
If you don't want mandatory E-Verify, you are for illegal immigration.
If you don't want proven double or triple security fences and walls as used in Israel, or other nations, you are for illegal immigration.
If you don't want tracking of visas and arrest warrants for those who overstay their visas and don't turn themselves in you are for illegal immigration.

In other words, if you meet every serious proposal to secure the borders and legal residency (as in Australia or New Zealand) you are for illegal immigration.

And if you support illegal immigration, deductively, you support open borders - whether or not you have the self-awareness to know that.

 

[Mycroft]

In every discussion of immigration in this forum, be it "the wall", asylum, or enforcement - one side is for promoting and protecting illegal conduct and some form of open borders, and the other is not.

Yes...yes... I am sure the squeals of denial from Dems and the left with be forthcoming, followed by a bottomless well of excuses for non-enforcement of the law and the defense of illegal aliens will be advanced - but let's be honest, actions speak far louder than words - at least in the last 15 to 20 years those actions have underscored the pro-immigrant lobby as mostly charlatans, flim-flamming grifters and useful idiots determined to do what they can to erase US sovereignty and resistance to unlimited migration.

For many years Democrats and some Republicans tried to at least portray themselves as tough on border security and illegal immigration, even as they insisted that border enforcement was negotiable in trade for amnesty, increased chain migration, and much higher quotas of legal immigration. On occasion they have slipped, such as Hillary in 2013 when she talked about her dream of open borders, but more often than not the talk was not the walk - quite the opposite (well at least until they demanded ICE be abolished).

To be fair, there are a few unhappy voices on the left that confess that the Democratic party has abandoned the interests of the heritage working class, and joined the Koch brothers libertarian right in squealing for "MORE"; left authors such as Peter Beinert, Angela Nagle, and Mickey Kaus acknowledge it. And in the meantime, cloistered liberal academics such as Joseph Carens and others busy themselves sermonizing on theories as to why open borders is the only just direction to immigration reform. But by an large the cover story is no longer plausible.

Surely the rest of us can be honest, honest not only too each other but to oneself. Be it Pelosi, Schumer, or the hundreds of towns and communities politicians that have declared themselves sanctuary cities (including mostly white and blue communities) the actions send one overwhelming din "Don't enforce the law and open the borders".

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

I'm not sure if you are talking about rank and file Dems and Pubs or Congressional Dems and Pubs.

If you are talking about the rank and file, you are wasting your time. They have very little influence on what happens concerning illegal immigration and the border. Heck, most of them don't even care. They are perfectly willing to let the government tell THEM what to do. (It should be the other way around.)

If you are talking about Congress, then you are getting closer to the meat of the issue...except that it's not just "some Pubs". It's most of the Congressional GOP along with ALL of the Congressional Dems who have no desire to do ANYTHING about illegal immigration or the border.

There is only one person in our government who is determined to deal with this issue: Trump. Everyone else opposes him because he is a threat to them.

Don't be fooled by anyone in Congress when they talk. If their lips are moving, they are only saying what is politically advantageous at the moment.

Take Sen. Graham...he comes out with big talk about the wall. It gets funded or the government stays shut down. And yet, he...along with McCain...was one of the biggest supporters of the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which would have created a new class of visa, the "Z visa", that would be given to everyone who was living without a valid visa in the United States on Jan. 1, 2010; this visa would give its holder the legal right to remain in the United States for the rest of their lives, and access to a Social Security number.

Face it...NOTHING will be done until the people get rid of these lifetime politicians and inject new blood into Congress.

 

[azgreg]

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-con...P_Jun2018_RegisteredVoters_Crosstabs_Memo.pdf

IM7 Do you think we should have basically open borders or do you think we need secure borders?

R: Yes: 13% No: 87%
D: Yes: 36% No: 64%

Sure, that looks like "most".