I refuse to believe that you actually believe what you wrote, upon a moment's reflection. Opposing Trump's approach to immigration doesn't equate to opposing be

I refuse to believe that you actually believe what you wrote, upon a moment's reflection. Opposing Trump's approach to immigration doesn't equate to opposing better border security. That's like equating opposition to "No Child Left Behind" with opposing "improving K-12 education." Trump's border policy promises to be both ineffective, extremely expensive, and a semi-permanent symbol of xenophobia and racism. If I had to stack-rank: (a) a literal Southern border wall motivated by President Trump's vile campaign rhetoric. (b) making the border completely open and defunding ICE entirely I'd prefer (b) - but I still think (b) is a terrible idea. I actually (unlike most people who are "afraid of immigrants") know a convicted violent felon who was deported from the United States to their home country (in Europe) after serving a prison sentence who I legitimately think is a threat to people I care about, and who I don't want re-entering the country under any circumstances (Ironically the deportee is a diagnosed pathological narcissist) - and I still prefer open borders to what the current executive leadership of the United States is pushing. The question is not whether to have controls on who/what crosses the border, the question is how and why. I personally think the marginal utility of spending additional Federal dollars policing the border and enforcing immigration controls is a net negative to the United States given our current infrastructure, so I believe we should spend less time and money doing it. That doesn't mean there aren't other avenues for controlling externalities caused by illegal immigration (such as they are).