Summary: The Left’s adoption of open borders is one of the major – if unremarked – political developments in modern America. The Daily Signal is a far-right voice, but this article captures some of the dynamics of this event. The decisions we make now will ripple out through future generations.
“The Left Goes Full Open Borders“
By Jarrett Stepman (editor). At the Daily Signal, 26 October 2018.
It wasn’t long ago that both sides of the aisle believed America’s border laws should be enforced. As President Donald Trump pointed out on Twitter, even former President Barack Obama, at least rhetorically, said that illegal immigrants couldn’t be let into the country en masse and without restrictions. (He said that as a senator.)
I agree with President Obama 100%! pic.twitter.com/PI3aW1Zh5Q
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 23, 2018
“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country,” Obama said. This dynamic has dramatically shifted, as the American left now increasingly sees any level of border enforcement as beyond the pale.
The migrant caravans originating in Honduras and heading north to the U.S. border are testing just how far the left will go in embracing this new narrative. The position Obama held just over a decade ago is now considered offensive in some circles. Some are even demanding that the U.S. let the caravan into the United States.
“Every one of these people are coming from a real fear. These are refugees,” Cambridge, Massachusetts Mayor Marc McGovern said, according to the Boston Herald. “These are people who really are facing real problems and we have to let them through.” The left is sending a message that concern over unchecked immigration is illegitimate. Yet this is out of step with the American people in general. Americans are clearly divided when it comes to the issue of immigration. Some want more high-skilled immigrants, others don’t. Some think a wall is necessary for border security, others don’t.
But one thing that Americans tend to agree on, strongly, is the idea that we have a right to control our border and determine who comes into the country. This belief flows from the concept that we are a sovereign nation that must maintain law and order for the safety of everyone.
The idea that thousands of people can just arrive at the border, demand entrance to the United States, and possibly force their way in by overwhelming U.S. authorities offends our idea that America is a nation of laws, and it undermines the idea that the American people have the right to set their own immigration policies.
America has very specific laws regarding legal immigration and asylum – which generally only applies in cases of state-based repression. Allowing a gaggle of thousands of people into this country with little oversight and little legal standing would only encourage more of this sort of tactic.
This worry is fueled by an increasingly aggressive left-wing stance that any level of border enforcement is tantamount to racism and nativism. This view is no longer held by just a few radicals. It is increasingly the stance of more mainstream progressives and Democrats. Earlier this year, the call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, morphed into a mainstream movement embraced by prominent Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
One can see how this public position actually encourages more illegal immigration, including the massive caravans.
As The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for Latin America, Ana Quintana noted, many of these migrants have been manipulated by South American left-wing parties into believing this is their path to the United States. It’s a political tactic used to sow chaos, and unfortunately puts lives at risk – including the migrants who travel thousands of miles through dangerous locations to get to the U.S. border. “This caravan antic is right out of the left’s disorder and chaos playbook,” Quintana wrote. “The timing before the U.S.’s midterm elections and the change of presidency in Mexico is not coincidental. It is also clear the caravan organizers are more interested in creating turmoil than the well-being of the migrants.”
We are paying the price of the world believing we won’t enforce our border laws.
The issue now at stake with the caravan is not merely immigration, but whether the United States is in fact a sovereign country whether the American people have the power to decide their immigration laws, and whether our government will – enforce those decisions.
All of this shows just how far progressives have moved away from the mainstream when it comes to immigration.
———————————–
Editor’s conclusions
For an example of the Left’s love of open borders, see Matt Taibbi’s new article: “How do you solve an issue like xenophobia?” As in the Soviet Union, disagreement with the Left’s beliefs is mental illness. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Left said that increased population would destroy us. Now they advocated open borders to boost the population. Much of Taibbi’s article is intellectually dishonest, such as this.
“Meanwhile, here in America, the entire country is up in arms about a caravan of 7,000 people who actually want to come here.”
He pretends not to understand that allowing in a few caravans means that many more will come. This process has already begun. Our current border security and immigration machinery is already overwhelmed. Plus, of course, the cost of admitting so many dirt-poor and poorly educated people.
As for the reasons to open the borders, most of them are based on lies (see links in the next section). This has become today’s defining political issue.
- Immigration is the key political battle of our time.
- The Democrats will open the borders & make a New America.
For More Information
Ideas! For some shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See about immigration, and especially these…
- Essential reading: See the hidden history of immigration into America (it ruins the narrative).
- Migration from the south into America: new people, new foods, new political systems.
- Immigration as a reverse election: our leaders get a new people.
- Look at immigration policy to see our government respond to its masters.
- Trump wants to defend our borders. Democrats protest.
- The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
- Debunking the hysteria about kids in concentration camps.
- Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
- William Lind: a crying child opens our borders.
- Prepare for mass migrants, the greatest challenge to America.
- See the lies that keep the borders open.
Two books about immigration, both well worth reading
Europe is our future. We can watch them to avoid their mistakes.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
Thanks Larry – it’s a good posting.
I wonder how the refugee advocates will react when large numbers of white South Africans start showing up at our airports and asking for political asylum? I’ve heard one leftist state that such people are not “real refugees”.
Raymond,
Now that’s an interesting thought! They are very real refugees, by any rational standard.
There’s nothing in this post I would take issue with. I would expand on it to make a more general point. It takes a moment, but bear with me.
“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country,” Obama said. This dynamic has dramatically shifted, as the American left now increasingly sees any level of border enforcement as beyond the pale….
But he never meant it. I remember the endless wrangling debates on gay marriage, and I had gay friends who were very strongly pro Obama because they assumed that he didn’t mean a word of it. That he was tacking until the winds shifted. (They’s made the same assumption about John Kerry) And now that we’ve had a Supreme Court case finding a Constitutional right to something that was illegal since before the founding of the Republic…
Here’s another example. I’ll test your knowledge of American political trivia. What’s something you never saw the Democratic Presidential candidate do in 2016 that you saw the previous two do? The answer is shoot a gun. Bill Clinton assassinated ducks in order to reassure gun owners that he wasn’t coming for their guns. (When you kill for political purposes its assassination) Barack Obama shot skeet. Now no one was rally fooled by this, but they felt it necessary to maintain the pretense. By 2016, the democrats were supremely confident of victory without the votes of the bitter clingers.
Note: I’m not seeking to ignite debates on gun control or gay marriage, I’m, just making an observation about the Democratic Party.
I don’t believe a word Obama said then. He was tacking until the winds shifted. You say that the Democratic Party has changed. I’m not so sure. I think maybe 2016 was the year the Democrats decided to hoist the Jolly Roger.
I would list some of the stuff the Republicans said but never meant, but doing so would far exceed the space limitations of the site.
The Man,
“But he {Obama} never meant it.”
I tend to be skeptical about claims of massive policy changes between presidents. They do happen, but far more rarely than reported. A bipartisan consensus of the 1% rules America, and the differences between their Left and Right factions are smaller than partisans believe.
As for Obama’s immigration policy, see this rebuttal to your claim in the graph here: “Tracking Obama’s deportation numbers” by Mike Corones at Reuters, 25 February 2015. Once Trump became President, the “narrative” changed – and Obama’s deportations went down the memory hole. Our amnesia – living in the now, like sheep – makes us easy to manipulate.
For a follow-up, see “Trump’s Immigration Approach Is Less Draconian than Obama’s” by Deroy Murdock at National Review, 24 February 2017.
“What’s something you never saw the Democratic Presidential candidate do in 2016 that you saw the previous two do? The answer is shoot a gun.”
That’s because Hillary is a woman. She can’t prove herself a tough man, and was too smart to try. Sarah Palin tried that, and looked ridiculous (the equivalent of Mike Dukakis riding in a tank, the worst photo-op in the 1988 campaign).
“I remember the endless wrangling debates on gay marriage”
This is politics, and done with equal frequency by Democrats and Republicans. Politicians hate these emotional, irrational, binary issues – such as abortion and gay marriage. GOP campaigns overflow with promises to social conservatives about the Scriptural policies to be enacted if elected. But they get only scraps.
“This is politics, and done with equal frequency by Democrats and Republicans. Politicians hate these emotional, irrational, binary issues – such as abortion and gay marriage. GOP campaigns overflow with promises to social conservatives about the Scriptural policies to be enacted if elected. But they get only scraps.”
No argument. The fact that I didn’t list the GOPs empty promises was due to space considerations. (My go to vote music this year was Empty Promises by The Dreaming. That’s the music blaring out through the open windows when I roll up at the polling place)
The deportation numbers are accurate, but don’t refute my point.It’s not about relative numbers it’s about who these people are. The Left has been making stone soup for a long time. They get what they can now and come back for more later. Obama’s deportation numbers are a reflection of what he thought he could get away with at the time. And no, if by some malign miracle John McCain could have become President, his numbers wouldn’t have been very different.
I don’t have a memory hole, you’ve got a blind spot. These people have always been this way, but the mask has come off.
By the way, Tim Kaine was a guy, and he could have shot the gun.
Good post. But I take issue with “This has become today’s defining political issue.” It may well be that it should be today’s defining political issue. It may be on the way to becoming the defining political issue. But it is not now the defining political issue. If it were, the Democrats would be heading for a wipeout on Tuesday.
Mike,
By “defining issue” I mean the major issue that most clearly distinguishes the two parties. Climate change, abortion, gun control, taxes, the WOT, treatment of the transgendered – all cross party lines to some degree. Open borders, I believe (I’ve yet to see good surveys on this), does so less than the other big hot issues.
“Defining issue” does not “most important to the public.”
Kummer: “ ‘Defining issue’ does not ‘most important to the public’.”
Fair enough.
Kummer: “By ‘defining issue’ I mean the major issue that most clearly distinguishes the two parties. Climate change, abortion, gun control, taxes, the WOT, treatment of the transgendered – all cross party lines to some degree. Open borders, I believe (I’ve yet to see good surveys on this), does so less than the other big hot issues.”
Immigration is Trump’s defining issue. And Trump is the defining issue for the Democrats, so right now the parties are lining up on that issue. But that is based on perceived transient advantage, not principle.
There is a great deal of support for near open borders among establishment Republicans, like Bush (pick one) and Rubio as well as among the libertarian types like Paul. During the primaries in 2016, Trump really stood out from the other candidates on immigration. Trump is ascendant in the party, so the open borders types are keeping their heads down and their knives sharp. The Republicans are far more unified on reducing taxes, reducing regulation, opposing increased government involvement in medical care, and opposing late term abortion.
Most of Trump’s immigration policies, such as improved border security, ending chain migration, eliminating the visa lottery, and creating a merit based immigration system, are supported by 70-80% of the public. So that must include a lot of Democrats. The Establishment is using anti-Trump hysteria to force public unity on near open borders among Democrats. I suspect that will only last until Trump is either victorious or defeated.
Mike,
“There is a great deal of support for near open borders among establishment Republicans,”
Thank you for raising this important point, one that I have often mentioned (but didn’t here, and probably should have). Open borders has been a bipartisan strategy. Which is why Trump has received so little support from the GOP Congress on this.
But rising publish opposition is pushing the GOP towards limiting immigration. And the Left is pushing the Democrats to fully opening the borders, as Merkel and other EU leaders did to their nations in 2051-16 (with massive and far-reaching consequences).
Mike,
Both replies appeared (I just now deleted the first one, which was out of sequence on the thread). Sometimes WordPress takes a few minutes to process comments.
Politicians do change their views, to toe the party line. The only way to win an election is all the members sing the leaders political rhetoric. I am sure this rhetoric is often not their actual view, but the view they must present to the public.
As workers we follow the Senior Management Plan even if we would do something very different if in-charge, the best Managers follow out plans they hate often, while waiting for their promotion and chance to try their ideas.
I had a lesbian boss, who used to say she was a widow, to explain her kids to the students, all the staff room knew she had a wife. There were teachers among us who were not gay friendly in their normal life, due to their cultural and religious beliefs, but said nothing to the Head of School or the students.
My brother knew a gay man who stood for Local Council in a very Conservative area, he had a relative who was a single Mum and they agreed to say she was his ex Partner and the kids were his. In return she and kids would visit occasionally and he being a specialist dentist paid their school fees to a good school and helped them rent in a better area. The reality was he was in a long term relationship with another gay Dentist. Being a divorced father paying maintenance and school fees was a great cover for his gay single life in the Conservative area. He was ultra conservative in every other way.
I have a cousin who is gay and know how hard it still is in some work and life areas, he is 61 and he puts divorced as his status with some jobs.
Somehow, and in someway, I don’t think this post was about who you knew as gay, or your brother, or that your cousin is gay. Unless they are immigrants. Are they?
Hey, my niece is black, really black. She’s really pretty and damn sharp. And that has nothing to do with immigration…
Dang, I was hoping you’d written on Scott Beirele recently. Can’t think of anyone more qualified than you to understand the motives of a sad mra/incel type who went postal. Please post something soon!
SoMaMa,
As the collapse of all values continues (as Nietzsche predicted), we have torn up the guiderails along with most people ran. The most unstable of our society cannot function in our brave new world. Hence the numbers of crazies on our streets, increasingly numbers of people behaving wierdly, and mad violent people.
Many will act out according to the prevalent ideologies floating around. Attributing their actions to those ideologies is just more folly by people who see only tribal truths.
Nietzsche was a philosopher not an oracle, I would love the cite where he “predicted” ” the collapse of all values ” in regard to our times. His values were the values of the 19th Century, so we probably collapsed those values decades ago.
Since you did Nietzsche: “State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lies it also; and this lie creeps from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.” That doesn’t mean that a particular state lies, it means that all and any state is a lie. By Nietzsche, the USA is a lie and any change you make of it is still a lie. I know the quibble, the authoritarian state or the totalitarian state claims it is the people when it isn’t but a democratic state is because…well, Nietzsche disputed the because. But Nietzsche was a philosopher not an oracle.
“we have torn up the guiderails along with most people ran.” For most of our history that was a good thing. We tore up the guiderails over heretics in the 20th. We tore up the guiderails of Jim Crow in the South and the softer Jim Crow in the rest of the USA, which includes in the 20th all the laws where Polynesians, Micronesians, and Asians couldn’t marry Whites, We tore up the guiderails of conformity that were worse after WWII than they were before.
Do you mean the liberal concepts of the rights of Man (genderless usage) and all that entails? Or do you mean the social concepts that have changed with every century, and from decade to decade? Really, I want you to actually define the terms you use. Granted, once you do you are constrained by your definitions, but isn’t that a good thing? It gives clarity.
The previous caravan: “According to data and congressional testimony from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, 401 members of that caravan requested asylum at ports of entry, a legal right enshrined in U.S. law and international conventions the U.S. is party to…Federal officials interviewed those asylum-seekers and found 374 of them, or 93 percent, passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data.” – https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-how-many-sought-asylum/1741030002/ . That caravan had gone down to about those 401 plus about 120, the latter did bust the borders.
Again, if I missed it, what is your definition of “open borders”? I spoke elsewhere to what I saw as your animus against immigrants, or immigration, and from what I see here you continue it with further distortions. Again, if I missed it, what is your definition of “open borders”?
From your cites: “Warren wrote, “The President’s deeply immoral actions have made it obvious that we need to rebuild our immigration system from top to bottom, starting by replacing ICE with something that reflects our values,” not abolish ICE with no replacement but by replacing ICE as it replaced what was INS. And this ““Abolishing ICE has suddenly become a touchstone in our politics and our larger body politic,” said Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at NYU School of Law, “and in the absence of having any sort of thoughtful, reasoned policies on what enforcement we should have, people have focused their anger on ICE, as if ICE disappeared from the face of this Earth all our problems would be solved.” Notice that this quote acknowledges that there are some that want to abolish ICE without any thought to enforcement of borders, but it still doesn’t support that the Democrats want “open borders” (still no definition from you), nor does it support that all that amorphous “the Left” wants “open borders” (still no definition from you).
“America has very specific laws regarding legal immigration and asylum – which generally only applies in cases of state-based repression. Allowing a gaggle of thousands of people into this country with little oversight and little legal standing would only encourage more of this sort of tactic.” One, it can also apply to when a state is over-run by gangs, like Honduras. Two, we don’t allow people into this country with little oversight and little legal standing. We don’t, we haven’t since we started passing immigration laws. The INS then ICE, the Border Patrol, the 100 mile exclusion zone (which encompasses all the most populated regions of the USA), the 400 or so immigration judges (not the thousands Trump claimed), are all there to enforce the laws.
What we do have is 11 million people, down from about 12.5 million, in this country. What we don’t is a rational way of dealing with the complexity of them being here, including jus soli from the 14th and the more taxing issue of children born elsewhere but knowing only this country, and our too-vaunted and so ahistorical belief in how wonderful and compassionate we are.
I apologize for what may be confusing. I use RaymondbyEllis and Ariel, and I probably just used Ariel here for the first time. I’ll try to stick to RaymondbyEllis, it’s so much more pertinent.
Raymond,
Rather than apologize for that, try to give replies to the actual points raised here.
“I spoke elsewhere to what I saw as your animus against immigrants,”
Try less bs like that, and at least attempt a rational response to what’s said here.
Nope, I’ve used both elsewhere. I’m sorry for the confusion.
Ariel,
The asylum process is theater, people telling tales — grade by judges. It’s a joke.
The caravan system is a brilliant tactical innovation, allowing people to flood in by the thousands. Overwhelming America’s complex — and increasingly baroque — judicial systems.
You also ignore the core issue about limits on our ability to assimilate migrants.
These things are too obvious to need stating. Congrats on keeping your eyes so tightly closed!
“You also ignore the core issue about limits on our ability to assimilate migrants.” Would that be the same arguments made from around 1840 to now? We’ve always argued about our ability to assimilate immigrants, the first being Catholics, the second being about Slavic cultures. Oh, wait, I forgot about the arguments after the Mexican-American War. Those people would never assimilate.
Neither you or I know the limits on our ability to assimilate immigrants. The history to this day is that immigrants have within a few generations of their arrival. Do you know any Hindus? I do and their children are already becoming Americans even if their parents haven’t (Hindus started coming here in real numbers in the 80s). In Phoenix we have about 16,000 Assyrians, and their children are assimilating just fine. You sell this nation short through a fear you can’t prove “the core issue about limits on our ability to assimilate migrants.” Now if 100 million Italians moved here tomorrow…
I’m sorry that you’re doing the same stale arguments from the time of Eugenics and Social Darwinism, wrapped in a pretty bow about culture. How about this argument: how many people can live in the contiguous US before it breaks our ability to provide food and above-subsistence jobs? How many to when it ends the middle-class? But that has nothing to do with immigration.
Mr. Kummer,
“I spoke elsewhere to what I saw as your animus against immigrants,”. That is the only thing you saw? Five paragraphs, including showing that what you cited isn’t what was actually written, and you comment to only that. That is the true bullshit here.
An animus to immigration leads to all sorts of false claims to justify it. An objective view doesn’t need to make false claims, nor does it need to cite essays hoping someone won’t read the entire essay. Each time I’ve checked your cites, they haven’t met your claims. I quoted from them, and you gave me in response “I spoke elsewhere to what I saw as your animus against immigrants,”
Five paragraphs and that’s all you could do. I guess I should have known that given you haven’t yet defined “open borders”. That definition would likely make many of your posts inconvenient.
It’s your blog and you can make it whatever you want. I’m seeing what you want it to be. I guess I need to make the free market choice.
One more failed blog I need to ignore. Not like that isn’t typical of the Internet.
As I was reading the responses to this post I realized how fundamental an issue is this with the Americans (Je suis canadien, merci beaucoup). Most people just sweep this under the carpet, but thanks to this site it remains on top of all agendas, as it should (even after being delayed for a week or so by circumstances).
On the personal note:
I support stopping the caravan and returning the people peacefully back to their homes.
However, I also believe that no nation on Earth should back out of the responsibility it has for their actions (especially including those in the past). Honduras, as well as El Salvador etc. had been always governed by people friendly with a certain fruit company, a US corporation to be exact. Now, if the conditions in the nations ruled by the US (somewhat) imposed governments does result in massive emigration, this Fruit Company should be made to face the consequences — e.g. pay the relocation expenses and take the “fruit of their business” and employ these people or something, whatever would work out.
Also, I’d go a bit further with this migration business — if I had any say in this — I would make the US take at least 50% of the Afghan, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian refugees as well. Perhaps the drain on resources, the degradation of the workforce etc. etc. would make some hawks to reconsider any further aggressions…
OTOH:
(a) US-Mexico border is just below 2,000 miles, it should be quite cheap to make that wall!
(b) US Canada border is 5,500 miles, the price of building that wall would be quite prohibitive…
Please, do the (a),,,
Oh, damn, a Canadian noticing the fruits of our past actions. You can name the company, the United Fruit Company, and a lot of the problems in Central America come from that company and all the US did to support that company. To put it quite frankly, we, the USA, controlled their economies from the 1890s well into the 1950s. We did a coup in Guatemala in 1954 to remove a “soft-on-communism” democratically elected president.
We ignore the crop we sowed, something Americans are really good at. We make Central America puppet states and just can’t understand why they aren’t democratic states. We destabilize the Middle-East and are so surprised that ISIS came into existence.
What I can give the British is that they pretty much left stable, democratic states. Hell, they have a Commonwealth of fairly performing states. The USA not so much.
Larry,
The problem was not slow response, it was that the site kept giving me error 400 messages. And my script blocker thought you were attempting a “cross-site scripting attack”.
Mike,
Thanks for the additional information. I’ve seen increasing problems when commenting, as if my PC’s (heavy-duty) defenses were dueling with WordPress’s heavy duty defenses. That’s our world.
“As the collapse of all values continues (as Nietzsche predicted), we have torn up the guiderails along with most people ran. The most unstable of our society cannot function in our brave new world. Hence the numbers of crazies on our streets, increasingly numbers of people behaving wierdly, and mad violent people.
Many will act out according to the prevalent ideologies floating around. Attributing their actions to those ideologies is just more folly by people who see only tribal truths.”
……..
Well said.
Quite simple and accurate.
Sadly in the 80’s many Mental Health facilities were shut down; verify or ask any Caregiver old enough to have experienced such.
One can seek respite in Ideology or telling the truth, learning by considering the feedback from others.
Good stuff.
Breton,
See this review in the New York Review of Books of recent books about the sad history of America’s mental health institutions.
Pingback: D'ici 2020, l'Amérique pourrait reprendre la révolution : D'ici 2020, l'Amérique pourrait reprendre la révolution – Formation Site internet
Pingback: Escouade localité web : Emboîture the slow-mo revolution by the Left - Formation Création Site internet Web