Reply #41: open borders?

[theobscure]

I'm afraid this whole debate has descended, like abortion and so many others, into a pseudo debate. You are either for completely open borders or you are a racist isolationist. Once you enter the debate you are either pigeonholed as one or the other. No wonder this country is so devoid of enlightened ideas.

I don't understand how you can have a functioning country and government without having some idea of who and how many people have claim to representation and the advantages of the government's functions. The only possible outcome of open borders is anarchy or one world government.

I understand that this is a progressive forum so maybe anarchy or one world government has mainstream appeal within the progressive community. Fine, it's an interesting debate to have. But I don't hear many progressives staking themselves to one of those end goals to lend some context to their positions on this debate.

On the other hand, you have the fundamentalist view which is, as usual, simple minded at best and fascist at worst.

As for me, I love the melting pot concept. I believe we should welcome as many people from every region of the world as we can economically absorb. There should be some legal procedure for this that includes a coherent, fair policy for any would-be immigrant to understand. We should also encourage temporary worker and educational visa programs that again have a legal process that must be followed.

One of the only reasons to have a government is for security purposes. If it were up to me, we'd adapt a non-interventionist foreign policy which would include bringing our troops home and dismantling the military industrial complex. Protecting our borders in my mind would be the only legitimate function of our scaled down military. They should be in position to thwart foreign aggression and prevent individuals from entering our country illegally.

I'm not the smartest person in the world by a long shot. But it boggles my mind that my view of immigration is unworthy of recognition as a legitimate and reasonable solution. While at the same time, the two "legitimate" camps of debate are guilty of intellectual dishonesty on one side and an intellectual dearth or depravity on the other.