Do you support open borders?

[Voltaire2]

[democratisphere]

1. No. Can't have open borders.

[Voltaire2]

2. Why not?

[democratisphere]

5. Can't have anybody and everybody just coming into the country

without controls and vetting. Want another 911 or worse?!

[Voltaire2]

6. So if we could screen out all terrorists

you would be otherwise in favor of unlimited immigration?

[democratisphere]

8. No. I said you need controls and vetting.

Unlimited immigration is never a good idea.

[Voltaire2]

9. So you agree with Sanders.

[Demsrule86]

22. No Sanders says we can't take poor people. I do not agree with that. .

[Voltaire2]

38. No actually he didn't say that. Please provide a quote of Sanders saying we can't allow any poor

people to immigrate here.

So while you are looking up a quote that might fit, do you support unlimited immigration?

[Demsrule86]

49. Here you go.

I disagree completely.

“Oh my god, there’s a lot of poverty in this world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world. And I don’t think that’s something that we can do at this point. Can’t do it,” the Vermont lawmaker continued.'

[Voltaire2]

53. That does not say "no poor people allowed".

He is saying that if you have unrestricted immigration we will be flooded with immigrants.

So do you support unrestricted immigration?

[Demsrule86]

58. The opening statement is 'there is a lot of poverty in the world'.,.

The meaning is clear. You don't want to believe it.

[Agschmid]

59. I actually disagree with you, it might be poorly worded but I don't think his intent is what you've

made it out to be.

[Demsrule86]

61. Poorly worded always the defense when someone simply refuses to believe what is

really quite clear. So what is his intent do you suppose?

[Agschmid]

64. I understand his intent as not supporting open borders.

Which seems to align with the democratic parties position.

[Demsrule86]

84. There is a vast difference between open borders and

Not taking anyone who can't ' enhance' the economy which means the poor...mostly refugees will be turned away. I can't support that.

[Agschmid]

96. Nobody said they supported not accepting the poor.

[rgbecker]

66. I think that he was pointing out that since the biggest motivator for people to

emigrate is economic, the fact that the world is full of people living in poverty, indicates that there will be a lot of people interested in coming to America. Very few people in stable economic condition are willing to pull up stakes and move without the incentive of even better economic conditions.

Without a better system of evening out the huge economic disparity between countries, the US will continue to attract people (in reverse proportion to their economic status) and that will mean eventually, unemployment numbers even here will move towards the undeveloped world's average of 30%....and that employment will be at wages a mere fraction of what they are here now.

It's the Capitalists (those with the capital) who love the idea of "Open Borders" as they then can tap an endless supply of labor to their benefit. Now they have to go to other countries to get that cheap labor so US workers are somewhat protected. However, even that movement of jobs has caused a huge upheaval in the labor market in the US and the ruin of towns and cities across the country.

A quota system to determine the number of immigrants the country can take without huge economic disruption is not new. Miss-used to exclude certain nationalities for sure, but none the less, that system has been the norm for half a century. A system of controlling those who show up in order to enforce the quotas has been supported by both parties for years.

Trump's move to curtail asylum seekers and people of Muslim heritage is the current issue. To lump Sanders in with him and Miller is pretty divisive statement and a cheap shot at a guy who is doing more to gain attention to the importance economic benefits for workers in the US than most anyone currently on the national stage.

[Demsrule86]

85. Sen . Sanders lumped himself in with Trump with the idea that we not take the poor.

[Mr Tibbs]

75. So to you that means no poor people can immigrate to the US?

You actually believe that's what he was saying?

So you have severe issues with Biden's positions on immigration then?

[Demsrule86]

82. That is what it means...too many poor will come and we can't handle this . This is what

he said.

[Mr Tibbs]

74. He was pretty clear

Regardless of your negative interpretation

[Demsrule86]

83. It is what he said.You all twist yourself in knots trying to change the meaning.

[Mr Tibbs]

89. He said we would be overrun because the world is full of poor people

He did not say the poor people wouldn't be allowed. You said that.

[Demsrule86]

90. Well that is so different yes sarcasm. His empathy is underwhelming.

I see he means we have to stop the poor from coming...how is Trump's...' the country is full' that different. I believe in having an immigration policy that is fair and help's people.

[Mr Tibbs]

95. Now lets...

Look at BIDENS RECORD on immigration and compare, shall we?

[Doreen]

80. I am in no way saying he is right.

but other countries do not take the poor. I know I would never be allowed to live in another country because I am poor.

You have to be able to work and have a certain amount of money.

I would love to move back to Germany or live in Canada.

I am not saying it is right but that is the way it is.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[Demsrule86]

81. Yes it is wrong. This is America and immigrants make us stronger.

Also, I don't want to emulate Europe ...quite racist in my view.

[atreides1]

27. Or Worse!

You mean like Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock worse?

[democratisphere]

92. No. Like Vikings and Barbarians worse.

[Demsrule86]

86. They came on planes and that sounds like the right wing.

[Blue_true]

19. We should be able to vet people entering.

This can be done by allowing people to freely apply for political of economic asylum.

I favor an immigration policy where we grant work visas to low wage workers and renew them every year if they stay out of trouble here and back home.

[democratisphere]

41. Your idea is reasonable and makes sense.

[Demsrule86]

87. And perhaps being poor should not disqualify candidates.

[democratisphere]

93. We already are overrun with the wealthiest.

We definitely need others.

[Demsrule86]

94. Not sure what you mean.

[Blue_true]

99. Definitely should not. nt

[Agschmid]

3. Nope.

It seems none of the democratic candidates do either.

[Voltaire2]

4. Why not?

[Agschmid]

10. Regulation at the points of entry is important for lots of reasons.

Don’t get me wrong I’m a huge fan of immigration, I think it does wonderful things for our country. I also think we could admit even more immigrants than we do now.

But I’m not for fully “open borders” regulation is important, we need to know why people come here, who is coming here, and what’s the planned purpose of their visit.

It’s just logical really...

[Voltaire2]

11. So even with border control how about

unlimited immigration?

[Agschmid]

12. I didn't say I supported that in any way.

This pot isn’t going to stir itself is it?

[Voltaire2]

13. I just trying to figure out if anyone here

actually supports anything resembling open borders. So far nobody does. Curious, no?

[Agschmid]

14. No not really curious at all.

No democratic candidate has said they do, and I have yet to see a DU post ever say that.

I’m sure someone here thinks it... but having a difference of opinion is a good thing.

[Voltaire2]

16. Conceptually I do.

I think the world would be a better place if everyone was free to live and work wherever they wished. I don’t see it as currently practical.

[rgbecker]

69. Until the entire world joins in to such a policy, those allowing unregulated entry

will find themselves awash in cheap labor. World wide the rate is around 30% unemployment....a third with no regular income. It would in my opinion make no sense for the US to join in with that, especially after seeing what 10% looked like in 2009/10.

I think it would be best if somehow the discussion could some how remain on the current issue not about a utopia we won't see until the end of times. What to do about those displaced by collapsed governments, climate change and racial discrimination? If the US were to spend less time and resources waging war and instead on economic development abroad (for example in central America) much pressure on the border could be relieved.

The Democratic platform about work visas, citizenship for those kids brought here as minors without a say and who have never known another home is where the energy should lie.

Divisive talk by the right wing about "Open Borders" will get us no where.

[Voltaire2]

70. which was exactly Sanders point.

And I agree, the conditions in which open borders make sense are those like the EU has, where the social and economic conditions are commonly regulated. We are a long way from a global economic union and we are moving in the opposite direction.

[LanternWaste]

23. I do not think you're trying to figure anything out.

I think you're simply attempting to validate the narrative of a particular candidate.

Self-validation, no?

[Voltaire2]

34. Er no, I'm trying to understand the curious outrage.

So do you support an open borders policy?

[applegrove]

7. Nope.

[Autumn]

15. No. "What we need is comprehensive immigration reform"

Great quote by Bernie.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

18. OM GERD!1! Just like teh looooo dobbbbbbbs!1!

Lol.

Sarcasm in case anyone is wondering

[SKKY]

17. No, I don't. You can't have open borders.

What you can have is common sense, compassionate immigration.

[MH1]

44. This. "common sense, compassionate immigration"

Question for you - and regarding your candidate, Harris, if you know:

Do you think compassionate immigration is more important than so-called "skill" based immigration?

If you were autocrat for a day, and assuming there is some finite limit to numbers of immigrants admitted: would you want to reduce the quota for "skills" based immigrants (e.g. fashion models, programmers with one year of alleged "experience&quot and replace that with added quota for accepting refugees / asylum-seekers?

If Kamala has ever spoken directly about these topics I would love some links.

[SKKY]

62. I think they're two sides of the same coin...

...and shouldn't really be conflated. How did you know I work in IT by the way?? I know we have a shortage of skilled programmers in this country, but I also know outsourcing code is taking the path of least resistance because all it really does is drive down the salary for programmers here. So, while I am certainly in favor of more STEM jobs for US workers (Especially for women), I think we need to do more to make those attractive options and recruit, starting in middle school. I've never had a problem with asylum seekers coming into this country. And as a Christian, I'm well aware of what the Lord teaches in that respect. So, I guess that answers your question. Perhaps?

[Uncle Joe]

20. Good questions on this thread Voltaire.

[blue cat]

21. No

[ehrnst]

24. That's rather vague. Define "open borders," with terms that the GOP does not use.(nt)

[LanternWaste]

25. Borders are more important than people.

A collectively shared sentiment among all people that we rationalize as both necessary and natural.

[betsuni]

26. Stop trying to make open borders happen.

[happybird]

28. Does anyone?

My understanding is the supposed left wing desire for "open borders" was Dump's effed up interpretation of and huge lie about the Abolish ICE movement during the 2018 midterms.

"Open borders" is nothing but delusional GOP fear mongering and lies being used to pander to their racist base.
"We want the Wall, THEY want open borders!!!!" Gasp!

It's bullshit. As usual.

[treestar]

29. Not sure what that means

If it means no immigration restrictions at all, probably not. If it means easier to come in legally (say anyone can so long as they can show they can work and are not a criminal, etc.) then it might be a good idea. I think it would expand the economy, as it did in the 19th century.

It worked in the 17th and 18th century. There was no restriction whatsoever then. But things were different then. And we sympathize with the Native Americans now. They had an open border policy, as least, they insofar as they could do nothing about it.

[Voltaire2]

35. It means more or less no immigration restrictions.

[WeekiWater]

30. No.

And it has little to do with "poor people".

[Voltaire2]

47. So what limits would you put on immigration?

[WeekiWater]

56. This conversation is suited for GD. NT

[brooklynite]

31. I don't know any rational person who does.

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2019, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

[Agschmid]

60. Nobody I know does.

[comradebillyboy]

32. I support greatly expanding legal immigration.

[Skidmore]

40. This. nt

[Voltaire2]

46. But not unlimited immigration, right?

So what limits would you place on immigration?

[Iggo]

33. This is dumb.

[Voltaire2]

37. why?

[Trumpocalypse]

36. No

[MineralMan]

39. Theoretically, yes. Practically? It's not practical.

In an ideal world, a world that doesn't exist, people should be free to come and go anywhere on this planet. Since we don't have that ideal world, nations have borders and control entry into those nations, to some degree or another.

That's why I have a passport, even though I have no international travel planned. The last time I was out of the country, I had to show my passport only at Heathrow, and traveled through six other countries without ever showing it at a border again. I showed it at a bank a couple of times, but never at a border, until I returned to the US, where our own border officials examined it.

Over 50 years ago, when I was in the USAF, I traveled through many countries without a passport. My military ID served that need.

People mean different things when they say "open borders." There's a whole range of definitions for that concept. Some are economic explanations. Some are immigration-focused. Every day at our land borders, north and south, thousands of people cross the border, some of them on a daily basis. Some don't leave when they are supposed to. Some aren't who their papers say they are. Our borders are not what I'd call "open borders." They're too open, though, to suit some people. Those people mean something different when they say "open borders."

[Voltaire2]

42. Yeah I agree on the theoretical vs practical.

But this isn't complicated with respect to meaning: open borders minimally means unlimited immigration. It might mean more than that - no border control at all for example, but its base meaning is clear.

[MineralMan]

63. But nobody is actually in favor of that. It's a false premise

that is being used by the GOP to demonize Democrats. That's their favorite method - they simply accuse their opposition of things by setting up straw men.

I can't change what they do. I can try to change how we approach that strategy.

For the GOP, "open borders" means the immigration policies we have now. They want "closed borders." Oversimplification is the key to their strategy.

That's what I mean by different definitions for the term. The GOP also calls Democrats "socialists." Same thing. We're not socialists, of course, but the GOP is trying to alter the definition, while retaining the negative opinion of the word.

[Voltaire2]

73. Nope, right wing libertarians like the Koch brothers are openly advocating it.

It is not a false premise.

[CTyankee]

43. Without knowing it exactly, I support Obama's policy.

He was a sane, fair president and had experience with such issues. It was unconscionable what he was put thru on the birth certificate thing...

[Voltaire2]

45. Not an open border policy.

This is a pretty easy question. Minimally, an open border policy would allow unlimited immigration.

[CTyankee]

48. Of course! It would be crazy for us not to have regulations with regards to the border.

I am talking about having a sensible, fair policy which I am fairly certain we had under the Obama administration.

[stonecutter357]

50. lol fail !

[Voltaire2]

55. so do you support open borders?

[Freethinker65]

51. No

[zipplewrath]

52. Define

Our borders are "open". They also are controlled. I think it's demonstrable that we aren't allowing nearly enough "legal" immigration, which is why there is so much illegal immigration.

[Voltaire2]

54. Minimally: unrestricted immigration.

[zipplewrath]

57. Nope

Immigration must be "orderly".

[Thomas Hurt]

65. Open Borders is one of Trump's two word fascist newspeak slogans.

What do you mean when you say that? Repealing all immigration laws, dismantling ICE, CBP, etc. Opening all the ports of entry?

Open Borders to Trump and his cult is anything besides what he wants.

Frame the narrative as we want it not as that fascist pig wants it.

[Voltaire2]

71. Well sort of but

The current champions of open borders are the right wing libertarians like the Koch brothers. The issue came up here because in this forum there was an impressive outrage yesterday over Sander's response to a question at a town hall about his support for open borders. He said that he opposed it, that it was impractical because of the huge levels of poverty in the world. It was a simple common sense response, and it became a source of manufactured outrage. Oddly, the outraged for the most part can't seem to answer the simple question I posed in the op. For good reasons. None of them support open borders either, and pretty much for exactly the same reason Sanders noted.

[stillcool]

67. where does this stuff come from?

[marylandblue]

68. I think our inability to answer your question speaks volumes about the Democratic Party.

We are not directly addressing the real issues, we are dancing around it, except for Sanders and Castro. It makes it easy for them to paint us any way they want because we don't talk about it enough.

A lot of voters are anti-immigrant, some for racist reasons, some for economic reasons.

Castro wants to increase legal immigration, presumably this would mean taking more refugees from Central America.

Sanders is worried about job competition for low-skilled workers. A lot of low-skilled workers are concerned too, so they voted for Trump. They are not racist, they are unemployed or underpaid and are losing out to an underground economy exploiting immigrant labor.

I'm in favor of REAL border security which to me means at least mandatory e-verify, visa tracking and a rapid asylum processing system.

I'm not in favor of taking large amounts of refugees from Central America. I think we could take some under a legal program where they apply in their home countries, but they shouldn't have to walk to America for asylum.

I'm also in favor of investing in Central America so that it is safer for them to stay home, but real safety in those countries seems difficult to achieve.

[Voltaire2]

72. Yup. Afraid to take a stand, we get our stand taken for us.

[Hoyt]

77. One of the main reasons I do not support Sanders. He's too America First

for me on immigration and global trade, too close to trump in those issues. One of the reasons so many of his supporters found it easy to support trump.



Good post.

[Demsrule86]

88. Your idea is good also.

And pretty much sums up why I don't support Sanders.

[ck4829]

76. Yes

[DBoon]

78. I'd support regulated borders

I have no problem with immigrants, but in a capitalist society large in-migration is used to depress wages and create an underclass of highly exploited workers. Regulating immigration is one tool to regulate labor markets to keep wages and working conditions acceptable overall.

Illegal immigration makes this worse, so I'd support raising the legal limits.

Until the economic and political situation in Mexico and Central America improves, there will always be pressure to migrate to the USA. Focusing on economic development and improving governance (less crime and corruption) would help here. Nobody should be compelled to leave their homeland due to poverty or fear of violence.

Immigration is an administrative issue. Immigrants (even ones without legal status) should not be treated as criminals. The focus should be on employers using immigration status to treat employees poorly. Employers do not have the right to hire the cheapest possible labor regardless of the consequences.

[Mike Nelson]

79. "Open Borders"

… means different things to different people. If you mean no border control, no. However, I do believe there should be forms of travel... for example, if someone lives in the US and gets a job in Mexico or visa versa. I liked being able to go to Canada to shop or visit friends - of just go out to lunch, when I live in upstate NY. The border people simply asked what I was doing and let me go through.

[USALiberal]

91. Does any industrialized country have open borders? nt

[Hortensis]

97. Apparently some of the EU member nations have open borders

for people, not goods apparently, between them. Some other nations that aren't in the EU nevertheless also have open borders with this group. Nothing can be simple. Once you're in this group area you can travel without passport and checks, but they're required for entering and leaving.

Frankly, imo, it's a stupid topic as entered in here. Much of it's just quarreling between factions, which supersedes real issues.

[Voltaire2]

98. within the EU they have open borders between member nations.