Will Democrats ever concede on immigration?

[Manopolus]

I never suggested Republicans aren't also to blame. But if they started enforcing this I bet you'd complain about that too.

Most likely, because the problem isn't enforcement. It's the fact that one party wants checks and balances in the process and then the other party wants to fire and defund everybody doing that job. And the immigration enforcement legislation we're working with is antiquated. And Republcians refuse to even consider comprehensive legislation for reforming that system (they had an opportunity to do that under Biden, as I remember... and it was mostly a Republican-designed bill, as a matter of fact). They do this sort of crap mainly because it is more to their political benefit for the problem to continue to exist (and even get worse) than it is to fix it. The problem, itself, is a reason to vote for them as long as they manage to blame the other side convincingly enough to fool the racists.

And the results are that you get some guy that migrates - entirely legally - to take a job and then can't manage to legally get his wife and children up here with him, despite sometimes years of trying, so they visit on a visitor visa and just never go home. That's about half of our "illegal" immigrants, possibly more. The other half would probably be the same guy's brothers and cousins who were alerted that there might be a job for them.

And yeah, there are probably some drug runners in the mix. That's not the majority, though. And the mass border rushes aren't even how most of them get here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do the new gen leftists talk about it?

Sanctuary cities

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is a middle ground somewhere between "throw all the foreigners out," and "open the doors and let them in."

That middle ground is 1) enforcement of visa limits and 2) following the legal process to become a citizen.

That middle ground is certainly not just letting tons of people enter illegally then giving them sanctuary and refusing to enforce existing immigration laws.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Sanctuary cities

Ah, yet another broad generalisation used to strawman "the enemy".

 

[Norman Alexander]

That middle ground is 1) enforcement of visa limits and 2) following the legal process to become a citizen.

Sure. And what is that legal path to citizenship? And what rights do people on that path have? Why are they vilified and frankly abused? And why are some politicians intent on delaying that process with all their might?

That middle ground is certainly not just letting tons of people enter illegally then giving them sanctuary and refusing to enforce existing immigration laws.

Again, sure. So which lefties are saying that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, my main point is that I've not heard progressives argue for open borders.

Do you consider democratic socialists to be progressives?

https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/ten-arguments-for-open-borders-the-abolition-of-ice-and-an-internationalist-labor-movement/

https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/open-borders-the-once-and-future-immigration-policy/

The Question of Borders

The abolition of borders is a basic socialist principle. Yet with a liberal establishment concerned mainly with “protecting” the most upstanding of the 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, framing the ongoing fight for migrant justice around open borders, as advocated...

catalyst-journal.com

 

[Norman Alexander]

Do you consider democratic socialists to be progressives?

https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/ten-arguments-for-open-borders-the-abolition-of-ice-and-an-internationalist-labor-movement/

https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/open-borders-the-once-and-future-immigration-policy/

The Question of Borders

The abolition of borders is a basic socialist principle. Yet with a liberal establishment concerned mainly with “protecting” the most upstanding of the 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, framing the ongoing fight for migrant justice around open borders, as advocated...

catalyst-journal.com

From that essay:

The call for open borders can sound like a utopian dream, but it was the reality in the U.S. for much of its history. Until 1875, the U.S. did effectively have open borders. That year, the Page Act barred the immigration of Chinese women. It was followed seven years later by the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibiting the entry of Chinese men as well. The 1917 Immigration Act implemented basic literacy requirements for immigration and further excluded a larger Asiatic Barred Zone. The 1924 Immigration Act established quotas for future immigration at 3% of 1910 foreign-born populations, later amended to 2% of 1890 populations.

 

[Manopolus]

Do you consider democratic socialists to be progressives?

https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/ten-arguments-for-open-borders-the-abolition-of-ice-and-an-internationalist-labor-movement/

https://sfarchive.dsausa.org/issues/fall-2019/open-borders-the-once-and-future-immigration-policy/

The Question of Borders

The abolition of borders is a basic socialist principle. Yet with a liberal establishment concerned mainly with “protecting” the most upstanding of the 10 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, framing the ongoing fight for migrant justice around open borders, as advocated...

catalyst-journal.com

Do you consider your sources to be progressive or democratic socialist? Doesn't matter, really. Just because you can find SOME who advocate for it does not mean that it is the official position of the group. So it's not particularly relevant either way.

But yes, if you want to know somebody's opinion, you should ask THEM, not somebody that is disagreeing with them or even just describing them. I couldn't really tell either way with the source you provided. Among other things, I'm not going to subscribe just to see the rest of the article.

As mentioned before, it's not a situation where you can just open the borders willy-nilly. You would have to change quite a few other regulations in both countries before that comes anywhere close to making sense. It would probably take a decade just to prepare, and would depend upon agreements that the other country (Mexico, I presume) might not be willing to agree to.

So... "yeah, it would be nice" doesn't equate to having any plan that could get it done.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you consider your sources to be progressive or democratic socialist? Doesn't matter, really. Just because you can find SOME who advocate for it does not mean that it is the official position of the group. So it's not particularly relevant either way.

But yes, if you want to know somebody's opinion, you should ask THEM, not somebody that is disagreeing with them or even just describing them. I couldn't really tell either way with the source you provided. Among other things, I'm not going to subscribe just to see the rest of the article.

As mentioned before, it's not a situation where you can just open the borders willy-nilly. You would have to change quite a few other regulations in both countries before that comes anywhere close to making sense. It would probably take a decade just to prepare, and would depend upon agreements that the other country (Mexico, I presume) might not be willing to agree to.

So... "yeah, it would be nice" doesn't equate to having any plan that could get it done.

I provided three sources - two of which are literally published by DSA.

And yes, I consider DSA to be "progressive". They consider themselves to be progressive and I don't disagree with their assessment.

As far as "having a plan" goes... well, that doesn't really seem to be a strong suit among progressives. So far as I can tell, they have utopian wishes and a hammer.

 

[Manopolus]

I provided three sources - two of which are literally published by DSA.

And yes, I consider DSA to be "progressive". They consider themselves to be progressive and I don't disagree with their assessment.

As far as "having a plan" goes... well, that doesn't really seem to be a strong suit among progressives. So far as I can tell, they have utopian wishes and a hammer.

Unfortunately, you seem to be using "they" in the singular while referring to millions of people. It's not a hive mind. It's just a bunch of people with vaguely similar ideas who often even disagree with each other. Each one is every bit as capable of independent thought as you are.

Are there some opinions that seem to be common among all of them? Yes, there are a few. Is wanting open borders one of those things? No. And half of them are just liberals that got tired of "liberal" being a dirty word on the right. The progressive parts would be the complaints that came out of Occupy Wall Street,,, eat the rich kind of stuff (or tax the rich, at least) and getting pissed that their student loans were basically scams that didn't actually lead anywhere. All sorts of stuff, but that's a place to start.

Doesn't traditionally have a whole lot to do with immigration, but where it does, it tends to be a civil rights issue, not a foreign policy one.