3 ms·

Neither "abolish ICE" nor "sanctuary cities" are equivalent positions to "open borders". That's my point. I just searched again, and find only one example of

by dzdt 8y ago

Neither "abolish ICE" nor "sanctuary cities" are equivalent positions to "open borders". That's my point. I just searched again, and find only one example of a politician coming anywhere close to advocating open borders (Keith Ellison, representative for MN, wore a shirt saying "yo no creo en fronteras." He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders".) The mainstream liberal/progressive position isn't to clamor for open borders. It is to clamor for every individual to be treated with dignity and respect and compassion for their circumstances. The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically. (In the progressive view, what is "just" is a different question to what does the law say.) All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views.

smsm42 8y ago
"sanctuary city" is essentially equivalent to open borders. If you deny the ability to enforce immigration policy, then having immigration policy is just a waste of money and effort. It's like having a door but no walls around, so if you are not allowed in the door, you just go around it. > He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders" Come on. If the person does not say "open borders" for tactical reasons, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the concept, especially if he says "no creo en fronteras". > The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically. So let's say police and courts do an injustice (that happens a lot) and you say you want now to abolish police and courts. Would it be unfair to say you object to law enforcement? If yes, then you'd have to explain how do you see law enforcement absent police and courts. Or recognize that - for whatever reasons you arrived to this position - you are now doing exactly that. Somebody who objects to enforcement of immigration laws - as a whole, not in specific cases - must either explain how it is not "open borders" - and the burden of proof is on them - or recognize that's what they are for. Even if it is tactically uncomfortable. > All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views Please explain how "open borders" is mischaracterizing "yo no creo en fronteras". Maybe my Spanish is worse than I thought it is - what exactly does it mean then?

by dzdt 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago

"sanctuary city" is essentially equivalent to open borders. If you deny the ability to enforce immigration policy, then having immigration policy is just a waste of money and effort. It's like having a door but no walls around, so if you are not allowed in the door, you just go around it. > He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders" Come on. If the person does not say "open borders" for tactical reasons, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the concept, especially if he says "no creo en fronteras". > The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically. So let's say police and courts do an injustice (that happens a lot) and you say you want now to abolish police and courts. Would it be unfair to say you object to law enforcement? If yes, then you'd have to explain how do you see law enforcement absent police and courts. Or recognize that - for whatever reasons you arrived to this position - you are now doing exactly that. Somebody who objects to enforcement of immigration laws - as a whole, not in specific cases - must either explain how it is not "open borders" - and the burden of proof is on them - or recognize that's what they are for. Even if it is tactically uncomfortable. > All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views Please explain how "open borders" is mischaracterizing "yo no creo en fronteras". Maybe my Spanish is worse than I thought it is - what exactly does it mean then?