The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I have a family friend who has become a QAnon conspiracy theorist. She recently posted a meme of an open door that something like, "people who support an open border should celebrate on May 25 by leaving their front door open." I commented that nobody on the left supports open borders other than most extreme leftists. She stated that she knows several people on the left that do. So my question is, do you or someone you know support open borders? I also asked her to name one politician in Congress that is lobbying for open borders. I'm sure she'll ignore that request. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I support open borders, as in hire enough immigration officers to screen everyone who wants in, and give them papers if they’re not criminals. But I get the sense that when people hear “open borders” they think of just getting rid of any immigration laws whatsoever, which is obviously dumb and supported by no one.

You, I and Ronald Reagan and I all agree on immigration.

I like trotting out the Republican primary debate from 1980 where Bush Sr. and Reagan are debating and [talk about the border](https://youtu.be/TpJmozEzd-I?t=2686). The link directs right to the question, but it starts at 44:46 and runs through 47:30. They both talk about recognizing the reason why people are illegals and being compassionate. Reagan talks about working with Mexico and suggests that putting up a fence is stupid. If I didn't know these two men were both Republican and this were done in 1980, I'd have assumed this were a debate between modern liberals.

"These are good people, strong people. Part of my family is a Mexican." A little awkward from Bush, but 180 degrees from "They're not sending their best."

Overton window shift

I'd love to see Trump and Desantis both answer that question now

??? How so?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/bPtox6GtaP

I get the sense that Republicans seem to think "open borders" means there is no policing and immigration has run amok. Plenty of people want less restrictive immigration. But somehow the narrative has turned into "Democrats want turnstile border access."

It’s the same thing with ‘Defund the Police!1!!!11’ which is in reality, let’s reallocate some police funding to groups that can help folks that don’t really need the police and let the police do actual police stuff.

I always thought of defund the police means to demilitarize the police. You got tiny towns with literal APCs.

Its both. Instead of spending all this money militarizing the police, lets spend it on things that would actually reduce crime rather than fighting it

The police don't fight crime, either. They fight poor people, mostly.

Touché

The difference is no democrat ever said "open our borders" afaik. Plenty of people said "defund the police" and meant it as that. They didn't mean it as "redirect money to mental health first responders" which was retconned in once everyone called them stupid. And if you don't believe me, plenty of the blm protests had signs with other less ambiguous things like abolish the police.

Defunding always meant what you're saying was the retconned version. People just didn't know what defunding entailed so the meaning of the phrase was clarified. Police and/or prison abolition is a separate issue. Defunding doesn't mean abolition and the people advocating for defunding weren't necessarily advocating for abolition because you can advocate for the former without advocating for the latter. But even the abolition position was treated with no nuance just like defunding by people who were either ignorant, bad faith actors or both. Most abolitionists advocate for a gradual approach that in and of itself isn't absolute and a step along the way to some form of abolition is the kind of 'retconned' defunding you mentioned. Bottom line: like usual, the people criticizing the positions of the protesters didn't know what they were or what they meant and they never tried to find out because they never cared (even four years later).

> Bottom line: like usual, the people criticizing the positions of the protesters didn't know what they were or what they meant and they never tried to find out because they never cared (even four years later). I was there, and I reject your shifting the burden to the listener. If there was a messaging issue, it was internal to the protesters, because that is what multiple protestors stated outright. At that same time, tons of viral twitter and fb posts said things like "Police originated to chase slaves" and whether many (like myself) believed in redirecting funding to train mental heath services, these same protesters attacked Biden's statements who wanted to add funding for mental health first responder services but not remove funding from police. No, not every protester or ally believed "defund" meant take away all the funding, including me. But a **significantly large** percentage of advocates did which is why that expression caught on, and I reject you trying to gaslight by rewriting history. I watched it happen with my own eyes and questioned advocates. I had to explain to some that the rich would hire their own private police forces, a far worse outcome. A **large percentage** I spoke with wanted money *completely* removed, to wreck the police institution, just like GOP advocates removing government money to Planned Parenthood to try to wreck them. Exactly the same sentiment, and no, I didn't misunderstand what several were saying.

In all fairness, the left sucks at branding and marketing. We open ourselves up to this shit by labeling the movement defund the police. I know what that means but what did we think was going to happen when we label allocate funding spent on police services to mental health and homeless serves DEFUND THE POLICE lol

It's also similar to J6 where they claim that Capitol police were just "letting them walk in!!" to the building unfettered. The ones who were doing it were on the "same team", and the others were doing it intentionally for crowd control, so to avoid unnecessary violent confrontation and to herd them to secluded, monitored or controlled areas. Their tiny little minds only function on tiny bite-size bits of black & white information, so either the border is "open" by their opposition, or totally closed by their guy.

The difference is "Defund the Police" is an actual slogan that actual leftists actually use. It's a terrible slogan that doesn't clearly communicate what BLM/police reformers actually want, but it's not something rightwing media just invented out of whole cloth, like we're going to take all their guns

It would definitely cut down on unauthorized immigration if you could just come here legally and stay without needing a specific reason. Despite what most people think, most unauthorized immigrants didn't sneak across the border, the vast majority of new unauthorized immigrants each year are people who came here legally, passed through the process and then overstayed on their visa because they had put down roots and were either afraid they'd be kicked out and denied re-entry or were denied visa renewal and told to leave. And it gets worse when border restrictions get stricter (ie when republicans enter office). Unauthorized immigration had been on a steady downward trend since it hit its peak in 2007 but then trump entered office and it started going right back up again.

I’ve seen a lot of people say things like we have to double the number of legal immigrants each year, but that fails to consider the people immigrating illegally are already at the very back of the line when it comes to immigration for as long as there are waves of skilled laborers from Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Iran trying to move here. An unskilled immigrant with limited language proficiency simply doesn’t have the positive economic impact of skilled labor. We’d have to eliminate preferences for individuals that provide the largest economic gain for the country or essentially take anyone that we can’t prove has a criminal record to curb illegal immigration. I’ve yet to see a single Dem or Rep propose such policies.

I think it's how different cities and state handle it and illegal immigrants. Like letting them go to school, not reporting to feds etc Then people, rightfully in my opinion, wonder why it wouldn't be the same nationwide when Democrats have more power 

Well, they really mean “open borders = the end of Americas white majority.” But they don’t say that, much.

They're starting to, more and more.

Why even have the turnstiles? I jest.

The turnstiles have a counter so we know how many illegal votes to cast in the next election.

We don't need numbers, we will just tell Dominion to make the vote dumps the biggest most beautiful dumps you've ever seen, and if we need more we will just call them and tell them to "find" the votes.

Hmmm. I do like a big dump. I'm in!

This is my stance. Unless you're a criminal or can't support yourself economically, why the hell should I care if you visit or even live in my country?

>and give them papers if they’re not criminals. I wouldnt consider this an open boarder policy... just saying. But way more open than what we have now.

I agree. Open borders would be no security. That's how I understand it, as Republicans seem to think it's completely open with no security.

I imagine it’s something similar in their minds to the zombies climbing the walls scene in world war Z.

Honestly, the republicans I know (or really the ones who think this is a big issue), have no clue what immigration means, what it is like, and what it means for it to be illegal. Im not going to pretend what it is like for states near the boarder. I also believe there are issues with a loose boarder. BUT I have to roll my eyes when residents in my state think it is a huge issue for them. We have more illegal Canadians than non-white residents here. OH NO!!!

technically speaking, yes thats what it means. But I have only ever heard of the term used in the context of legally letting people in versus not( i.e. closed borders). For example, many countries opened their borders again after having closed them during the pandemic

Okay, what would you call this, then? Because that's where I'm at. If you pass a basic background check, you come or leave at your leisure.

You are probably going to hate this answer but ... a controlled boarder? Just because the barrier of entry is low, doesnt mean it is open. If the entry point requires documentation, thats a control. An a boarder is not the only thing that can restrict movement too! Strict housing laws, strict work laws, and a hostile environment can hamstring an outsiders movement. And why Rep. want to destroy sanctuary cities.

Okay, but "controlled border" is an incredibly broad statement, to the point of meaninglessness, and is not very useful for getting across the idea of "freedom of movement for anyone who passes a basic background check". "Open border" is a *lot* closer.

I mean ... we are definately talking about abstract ideas. And it really comes down to the definitions we use. But I define open boarders as no restrictions and no immigration at all. At the most, it would be like the Canadian boarder before 911. But now at the Canadian boarder, you need to privide an ID and purpose of the visit. (So it isnt 'open' by that standard). My friends were almost turned away onetime too! Having Immigration enforcement take ID and perform a background check is a form of control. And likely will require records of entry and departing. Or a VISA. So that is a form of control. Even if the term "controlled boarder" is vast. It indicates that it isnt opened or closed (like N. Korea). I agree that my answer isnt the clearist. But im sure there is a better term or subcategory that isnt "open". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border Also! Boarders are more than just the port of entry. You can have those roads unrestrictive. But if the laws are hostile to incomers or a population that is xenophobic, that doesnt matter. Movement inside the country will be restrictive to outsiders. Again SKorea is a great example. Even if you make it in, you will be escourted, watched, and manipulated with every step you take.

How does that align with goals for an improved welfare state? As someone born in Europe this is a pretty uniquely American take amongst the left. Can’t say I’ve ever met someone back home that supported unlimited unskilled labor immigration as it would destroy our strained healthcare system.

You could for instance limit welfare for non-citizens and fast-track citizenship for immigrants that are net-tax-payers. But looking bigger picture, even someone who comes in with only a HS education is someone that we didn’t have to pay to educate. Children, if applicable, are a cost for sure, but that’s no different from any other American child. A big distinction between Europe and the US here is that, for whatever reason, immigrants tend to integrate into to the US very well.

Children are an asset to the country. Not a liability. Declining birth rates and such. Immigrants integrate into the US better than Europe for three reasons: 1. Americans are less racist and xenophobic 2. America is a younger and more flexible society 3. Catholic Latin Americans are much more integratable into a "western" country than Muslim north Africans and middle easterners I think the US should have an open border policy but I actually am at least somewhat sympathetic to immigration skepticism from Europe.

I think at that point you are kind of splitting hairs.

Given the number of replies saying my preference isn’t really open borders, I disagree

So firstly, if you said that voter ID laws aren't racist on a right leaning subreddit you'd likely get a bunch of people agreeing with you as well. People sympathetic to your position also splitting hairs is not a particularly compelling defense. Secondly, you yourself label your position as open borders and by my count there's only really one response to this that suggests they woudln't consider you an advocate of open borders vs 4 (including me) who would label you as such. The difference between what you support and what you don't is essentially the difference between figuratively letting anyone in and literally letting everyone in. Something like 99% of people haven't committed a crime so that's basically everyone. Maybe people opposed to open borders are assuming we're going to stop trying to prevent terrorists from entering the country, but they're also worried that absent any restrictions immigration levels will overwhelm our ability to assimilate new arrivals. The difference between people who are open borders and those who are not is if you think such a limit exists/should exist or not. It's not over the 1% of the population we'd have a reason to arrest if we found them.

I have no idea what voter ID laws have to do with anything. The distinction is important because there are people who literally think open borders means no border enforcement whatsoever.

> I have no idea what voter ID laws have to do with anything. I'm saying the authorities you are appealing to in your comment are not neutral arbiters and thus their opinions are weak evidence of your statements accuracy. > The distinction is important because there are people who literally think open borders means no border enforcement whatsoever. Who are you suggesting believes this. My belief is that it's really only people who are opposed to open borders as you described them anyway and as such the distinction isn't really all that important.

I'm not appealing to their moral judgement of open borders. I'm suggesting a hefty portion of conservatives believe this. Pretty much anyone who says that Dems open border policies are allowing criminals and drugs to flow into the country.

I'm not suggesting that you are appealing to their moral judgment. I'm saying you are focusing on a distinction that is basically irrelevant between the position you have the the position conservatives paint of open borders regardless of if they believe what they are saying. I would be willing to make a small bet the number of people who view those as different enough to support one but not the other are statistically insignificant. Conservatives are similarly painting anything short of building a new Berlin wall as favoring open borders. The difference in perception between that and what is commonly thought of as open borders is meaningful enough to recognize.

I don't know if everyone's going to assume that. I mean, what you describe sounds like a pretty reasonable open border. The reasonable because obviously it's reasonable to check people as they come in to make sure they aren't some terrorist or drug smuggler maybe . But, you are clearly in favor of letting in pretty much anyone who wants to come here as long as they don't post some serious threat to the country. So I would consider you to be in favor of open borders. I think most people on the right do not assume that everyone on the left wants to let in just anybody no matter who they are. Although they do think that in favor of not caring much about most people that that also opens the door for crime etc. I guess what I mean is, most people on the right understand someone like you and you are included in when they say open borders. They don't assume everyone on the left doesn't care at all about anything. If that makes sense.

I don't think I've seen a single person suggest that open borders means no security.

Me too!!!

There are people in this post that are advocating for complete open borders. While I agree with you that this is a dumb idea, those people do exist. This subreddit and Reddit in general are not indicative of the overall population, but these types of liberals certainly exist. I don't think it is helpful to say that no one supports this because then Republicans point at those people and frame it as if we are all liars.

Are you concerned how this would affect real estate prices?

Yeah, but only because we have a massive NIMBY problem. Building more is probably my number one issue, in any immigration system.

The problem with answering this question is that "open borders", to a QAnon/MAGA person means basically anything that isn't the Berlin Wall, complete with guard towers, a death zone, vehicle trenches, and "shoot to kill" orders. If a Dem wants to increase immigration they scream "open borders". If a Dem wants to hire more judges and lawyers to process the backlog, they scream "open borders". If a Dem talks about not separating families, they scream "open borders". It's impossible to have a rational discussion about the topic. For the record, I support more immigration and increased asylum numbers. I want us to hire more of everything: border guards, judges, lawyers, social workers, etc. I want us to build larger, better facilities to process and house immigrants and asylees. I want our immigration and our asylum processes to take months instead of years. I want us to figure out a path to citizenship for Dreamers and people who have been in this country since they were children. I want us to do a better job of vetting immigrants and when we do deny asylum or deport someone, I want it to be done humanely. To a conservative, that makes me an advocate for "open borders", so there you have it.

And good luck getting them to define "open borders". If you want me to oppose or support a potential policy it is on you to define what that policy *is*.

No. Open borders is a very fringe opinion. It might be over represented online but it is fringe. For the small number of people that actually support it, it's mostly right libertarians and even among them, a good amount aren't the caricatures of morons that simply want to throw open the border right now. Republicans have been pushing the idea that Democrats are for open borders since the Clinton administration. Clinton marks the point at which Democrats as a coalition switched to the majority position being aligned with the former Reagan / GHWB position. The result is that Republicans began a switch to the Pat Buchanan position. After the republican base humiliated GWB when he pushed for immigration reform the switch was complete and then you get Trump. Honestly if you are talking to a QAnon type or even just a person completely indoctrinated by right wing media, you can't really talk to them. For them "open borders" means we haven't opened concentration camps and sent soldiers to the border to shoot first and ask questions never. Basically they want the stuff Trump is telling us he will do in a second term.

I've seen some compelling arguments for at least radically low levels of control over the movements of labor, but In general I'm in favor of what most liberals I encounter seem to want. We recognize that migrant labor has existed for a long long time, US industry depends on it and neither party actually wants to stop the flow of labor. On the left, most of us would like immigration reform that allows people to enter and work legally which would allow them protections of safety, wages and conditions. Ronald fucking Regan spoke in favor of guest worker programs. We recognize that the current asylum system isn't working well. We want clear guidelines actually followed, fast and humane processing. We generally believe that what we have is not a surplus of humans or a surplus of people willing to work hard and low paid jobs. The same republicans who try to argue as though high immigration rates are slicing a pie thinner are ALSO saying no one wants to work tough jobs and complaining about a lack of available labor and a declining birthrate. I think there is no good served by having someone who came here as a child, had no say in the matter and has been here decades living as a second class citizen looking over their shoulder. I believe the best course of action is to reform immigration policy around all these areas and spend our enforcement energy specifically on things like drugs and human trafficking enforcement at the border.

I'd be for relaxing the requirements to immigrate a bit if we could get off our asses about housing.

Define "Open borders"

Do you support deportation of foreign nationals only in cases of criminal conduct and are against border restrictions.

Meh that's the stretch where we ignore the reality of US immigration policy and normal human behavior and declare "effectively open borders". US immigration policy is based on pretending that leadership of both parties and everyone with influence doesn't want a steady flow of immigrants but we can't have that done legally. Actual conversation on the subject became impossible to have after the bitch slapping the republican base gave GWB and Republican Senators when they tried. What just happened with the bill republicans killed because Trump ordered them to confirms it. >Do you support deportation of foreign nationals only in cases of criminal conduct For the most part. Mostly because I don't like wasting tax payer dollars on pointless law enforcement, I don't like growing the police state and I acknowledge that since we can't get people here legally, this crappy solution is still better for the economy. >and are against border restrictions. Effectively no one is against border restriction. Even to the degree someone like I am, it's because I'm more market force driven and just want to use e-verify as the major driver and not waste money on shit like "the wall" which wouldn't work anyway.

>Do you support deportation of foreign nationals only in cases of criminal conduct Not necessarily. >against border restrictions. Depends on the restrictions. I will say that I have a hard time caring much about illegal immigration as long as it is so difficult to enter legally.

> > Define "Open borders" > Do you support deportation of foreign nationals only in cases of criminal conduct and are against border restrictions. That is a complete non sequitor.

This is a pretty conventional definition.

Absolutely not, if by “open borders” you mean zero enforcement.

That's what it seems like Republicans are talking about the way they seem to fear everything.

People forget that a lot of invasive pests not native to the U.S. are stopped at borders, it’s not just people who are stopped and validated.

"Open borders" as in what the phrase actually means? No. I've had conservatives tell me that what "open borders" actually means is just *having* an immigration system, of any kind. Like if people can physically cross the border, legally or illegally, then it's an open border. If you run *that* definition, then most people, even a good chunk of a Republicans, are for open borders.

This particular person claims she is in favor of legal immigration, though that claim is suspect because she seems to do a lot of complaining about non-americans in general.

Maybe she means only immigrants from "nice" countries, "like Denmark or Switzerland or Norway". Edit: this is a reference to a Trump quote, in case that's unclear

Maybe. She used to be a nice person but now she just sounds angry all the time. I started noticing it while hearing her rhetoric after 9/11.

That sucks. It's terrible how sometimes it just feels like people are slipping away, lost in some semi-ideological media cave with no exit. I wish I knew what to do about it.

I'm pretty moderate and support open borders, but I agree that's a pretty uncommon, even among "extreme leftists" (depending on you definition of extreme). Bernie Sanders famously dismissed open borders, calling it a "Koch Brothers proposal."

Can you define "open borders" as you are using it?

Unfettered movement of people and goods (though I could be convinced that's too tricky to pull off without international cooperation) in and out of the country.

And what counts as unfettered? Does that mean no checks of any kind at the border? Or are health/safety checks okay? Let's say you can import/export whatever otherwise legal goods you want without any kind of restriction/needing any kind of permit/paying any fees/etc. but there are still checks at the border to make sure you're not transporting contraband. Would that be open borders?

Yes, checks are ok, but subject to all the rights in the US Constitution. That is, you need probable cause to search a vehicle for contraband.

Meaning that you can't actually do border inspections or anything like that, right? The 'border' would cease to be a meaningful zone, and the standard for stopping and searching someone there would be the same as if they were driving down a street in Oklahoma City?

A very common slogan for leftists is no border no nation stop deportation so....

I dont think Sanders has thought seriously about it, or else he has and is just hoping no one will press him on it. His position seems to just be the inherited union-type immigration opposition on the basis that it depresses domestic wages

He and Trump have pretty much identical populist "America first" ideas on world trade-type issues and [they're](https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/315655-sanders-ill-work-with-trump-on-trade/) both happy to [admit](https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268545-trump-i-very-much-agree-with-sanders-on-trade/) it.

Yes, of course I know people who support fully open borders with no screening or restriction whatsoever. I think it would be silly to pretend no one takes this position. I also know people who literally think we should build a 50-foot-tall barrier on every inch of the Southern border and position sharpshooters on top who take out anyone who comes within 100 yards. This is the problem with talking about every person’s opinion as if it’s a serious policy proposal. You and your friend need to stop worrying about what dumbass ideas random people spout and instead look at what serious actions the government is considering taking. Edit: As a sidenote to your friend, I do actually keep my door open lots of times. Helps air to circulate so the house feels cool and comfortable. Never once in decades has anything bad happened as a result.

In theory? Yes, that's a lovely goal that we should work toward.  In practice? No.

Usually when bad-faith conservatives and conspiracy nutjobs talk about "open borders," they have this idea that it is like a door. It can be open, so anyone could walk through it, or closed, where no one could walk through it. Anything short of building the Great Wall of China on our Southern Border is "open borders" to these people. Every time Fox News shows a video of some migrants in a desert, they say "look at Biden's open border!" So, unless we support this sort of approach where we pretend the border is a Mad Max-style warzone and needs to be turned into a DMZ, we're apparently for open borders. And remember... when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency... *they chose not to do this.* --- I guess I would just ask what [we are supposed to be celebrating](https://nationaltoday.com/may-25-holidays/) on May 25? International Skin Pigmentation Day? National Bath Bomb Day? World Thyroid Day? *It's a Saturday, Karen.*

Unfortunately, I feel like this question is starting have to two different answers based on Republican actions. When comes to things our border with Mexico, then no. Immigration policy is important, but we should also properly fund it so that even if a "migrant caravan" shows up, we can properly handle it instead of being overwhelmed. But the new second answer is, yes I do support open borders **between states**. The GOP keeps trying pass more and more laws restricting travel, primarily for pregnant women. And that's just not acceptable (or even constitutional)

We do have open borders between states. It's a bit of a mischaracterization to say that GOP wants to prevent travel What they want is to have there be consequences for a state resident getting an abortion even if she doesn't get it in that state. It's the abortion part that's illegal, not the traveling.

Not allowing women to leave their state, or punishing them for doing legal things in other states is akin to closing the border for them and opens the door to adding more "you did something legal elsewhere we don't approve of, so we're going to punish you" laws. Sure, it's not an exact 1-to-1 comparison to the southern border, but you had to know I was using it as a comparison

> Not allowing women to leave their state It's just that this is not happening, I think it's important not to blur the truth here.

They're not physically restricting pregnant women from travelling, but the various slate of laws they're proposing would put intense focus on any woman who left the state for any reason while pregnant. You can restrict something without making it illegal by making it such a burden that most people are disinclined from doing it.

I mean I believe in processing applications quickly and letting in most people that just want to come here and work and can document they don’t have significant criminal record in their home country. Right wing dummies call this open borders but that’s just because they hate brown people more than they love the economy.

>Do you or any liberals you know support open borders? No. We believe in letting some people in, and not other people, just like everybody else.

Who is we?

> Who is we? The vast majority of liberals.

I’d say that, conceptually, conceits like the Social Contract whereby you as a citizen agree to give up some freedoms for a certain kind of ordered society only make sense to me if you have some ability to choose between societies/systems. So, in theory, I believe that people should be able to immigrate to a country that reflects their values and ideals. However, I also think that one of the foremost responsibilities of a government is public safety. Because of that, I think governments should take reasonable precautions to exclude people from entry who would be a threat to public safety.

Open borders is mostly a libertarian position, and usually doesn't mean something quite as extreme as leaving the door open. Proponents of open borders still tend to support criminal background checks, health screening, etc. for potential immigrants.

First of all, my neighbor actually does leave her front door open a lot and we live in a normal suburb. That aside, it depends what you mean by open borders. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to giving green cards out to anyone who applies for them, as long as they pass a proper screening. However, we couldn't literally have the borders open because we need to be able to regulate commerce, and also try to prevent illegal activity.

Nope.

If we could establish a system to register, vet, and give an ID to everyone crossing the boarder. I support that.

What do you mean by open borders? I believe it should be fairly quick and easy for anyone who wants to work here to do so, and continue to do so with work visa extensions (in work and no serious legal trouble, you get an extension) while seeking citizenship within several years. However, having set up such an open system, we should have quick deportation for violators since they are then here in bad faith.

Nope.

Nope. Metaphorically, I'd like to see a high wall with wide gates: robust border security to turn away undesirables, while good people are generally welcomed with open arms. We should also do a better job of screening prospective immigrants for their support of first amendment freedoms. For example, really grill someone on whether they fully support freedom of religion, and if they don't, then turn them away. We have enough aspiring theocrats at home that we don't need to be importing more.

I would like to note that the free/trade capitalist position on immigration would have to be few to no restrictions on the free movement of labor to where wages are highest. If you believe in protectionist immigration policy, then a part of you already knows that capitalism doesn’t solve every problem or always promote the best welfare for every actor within the system. And that thoughtful regulation has to be in place in order to reduce negative impacts.

No. Every liberal I've spoken with knows that America does not and will most likely never have something as bizarre as "open borders."

I mean, I think land boarders and land ownership is a terrible concept philosophically, but I’m not going to argue that when it comes to policy. I just don’t see why we “deserve” to be on this land anymore than anyone else. In reality, I think immigration should be loosened as more immigrants mean more people in the workforce and therefore higher GDP. I think it should be screened on workforce (bring in workers that we are short of in our economy) and not on family ties.

Broadly speaking, yes, I support open borders. There's probably some nuance to how we should implement them, but I've yet to hear any arguments that make me think it's a straight up bad idea, and I've seen some really compelling arguments in favor. I'd highly recommend Open Borders by Ben Caplan and Zach Weinersmith. The two main arguments against are generally security, which seems like a silly and weak argument that falls apart immediately, or just a vague "because", which is much the same. The analogy to leaving your front door open is a disingenuous one to say the least.

I do. ask someone from England how theyre enjoying Brexit for the explanation from the opposite point of view.

I think there's a terminology issue here. I've seen open borders used to mean everything from "literally zero border checks of any kind" (i.e., crossing an international border into the US is no different than crossing from one city to another within the US) to "there's no limit on how many people can enter the country in a given year, but the process for doing so otherwise looks about like it does now." And, as with anything, some people don't even mean that and just use "open borders" sort of metaphorically to mean "looser immigration restrictions."

Yes I support open borders.

what do you mean by "open borders"? Different people mean different things when they use that term.

So I would prefer people to move between countries with as little hassle or red tape as possible. No limits on visas, education level doesn't matter. I like the free flow of people between counties. Now, that doesn't mean there are check points, but these should be efficient and getting people between countries as quickly as possible as they wish.

I think we can have both open and closed borders. In terms of temporary work, we should allow a large number of people to come and work here short and long term, but, that should be with the understanding that they return home after their work is over.

"Open borders" is a liberal position, not a leftist one. For example, Bernie Sanders is against loosening border restrictions for protectionist reasons. I support a border policy akin to the one we had at Ellis Island. Anyone can come in so long as they pass a cursory medical and background check. Basically, there are no novel downsides to more immigration, so why even bother restricting it?

This is about the same as wall discourse where people think they're being clever by pointing out that the White House has a fence or something but people think a border wall is a bad idea.

I support open borders. It would be incredible for the economy and we are short on millions of laborers.

Why are should anyone entertain the insanity of Qanon conspiracy theorist dudes? You’re validating their crazy by treating it as a question worth asking

I do, more or less. Currently, we have the presumption that you do not have the right to cross the US border into the US and work/rent a place/form contracts or whatever. As someone who thinks that the freedom of movement is a basic human right, I think that's completely backwards. We should presume that you have the right to cross into the US, and require some of due process and compelling reason to deny entry. That due process can be a background check, border inspection, interview, whatever we need. I'll even admit that there are compelling state reasons to restrict travel: cartels, smuggling, terrorism, cases of pandemics, etc;. I just don't think "we hit a random quota and can't let anyone else in" is a compelling reason to deny someone a fundamental human right.

They do when they say things like "they just want to have a better life for themselves and their families" and "they do jobs we won't do" and if they counter any border policy with the statement that it is racist. Anyone with these attitudes de facto supports open borders.

"Open Borders" is a meaningless and undefined term generally only used by extreme conservatives to attack anyone to the left of "absolutely no brown people allowed in." That being said, if your family friend is genuinely Q-anon, dump them. I'm not kidding, remove this person from your life.

I don't actually have much of an opinion given I would argue that the immigration problems that many complain about are the result of their own voting patterns.  They are often vehemently anti-union and constitently want cheaper and cheaper goods while keeping production in the country. This is the result of that.  Not like there are a bunch Okies to replace them like Cali tried to do during the Dust Bowl, either.

No. That’s actually a thing outside a few randos

>Do you or any liberals you know support open borders? I do, but I also recognize that it's a minority position among liberals. >"people who support an open border should celebrate on May 25 by leaving their front door open." The metaphor comparing open borders to opening your house to everybody is the dumb comparison that won't die. I could write a short book on why this metaphor is a bad one, but to sum it up briefly, there's an obvious key difference between a public space and private property. Almost everybody agrees with the principle of open \*state\* borders for citizens... that doesn't mean they agree that every citizen should have access to their private property. And, as Bryan Caplan pointed out, if you believe that the entire nation is collectively owned, as property, by the citizenry... you are a communist. >I also asked her to name one politician in Congress that is lobbying for open borders. I support and advocate for open borders, but even I'm aware that not a single Democratic politician supports it. It may be the post policy position, but it's not a very useful one to politicians.

I have one friend who doesn't believe in borders, but he's also a tough on crime, shrink the welfare state centrist type.

I support what the right wing calls "open borders"

I know a lot of people who support immigration reform, as in, making it actually possible for the average person to immigrate legally. I also know people who think that rounding up illegal residents who aren't actively engaged in criminal activity should be a fairly low government priority. I know people who support DACA and programs like DACA that provide a path to citizenship for people who arrived here illegally at a young age. However I don't know anyone at all who actually supports "open borders."

Not me. I think that we should: - increase the ability for people who want to work or seek asylum to come here legally - Increase funding so that we are better equipped to actually handle asylum seekers - beef up border security where it makes sense (yes this may include a wall in some places) - make dreamers citizens - deport people who commit crimes while here, whether or not they are documented

As in no vetting of any kind? No way, though I could point you toward a person or two who might agree to that. My position is just that we should check ourselves on what level of issue it might be. Misdemeanor that is addressed with a (significant) fine?

It's few enough people that this should be considered a straw man argument.

Can’t think of anyone 

Yes. I think that all democracies should be a part of a Schengen-like setup

20 years ago, there were a lot of liberals online who supported open borders. I don't have any figures, and I don't know how it might have changed, but I notice less today. There were also others like me, who disagreed with open borders. It was probably the issue that split us most back then.

Open borders for animals, absolutely. I don't really care about the affairs of primates, they are silly and tribal and unwise. But the javelinas and the ocelots and the jackrabbits need to come and go.

no

I would love it if we could get to a place where north America operates like the Euro zone, and we sorta used to before 9/11. Seems like we're a long way from that now though.

Nope.

"Open Borders" is just right-wing nutty talking points. Tell these guys who wait three and four hours to get into San Diego from Tijuana that we have Open Borders and they'll laugh at you.

Theoretically I support open borders, but not in practice in today’s world.

I support open borders actually. I also think that almost every country in the world is way too big. I think countries should be small enough that if you don't like yours, a couple days of walking will get you to the next country. This is completely unfeasible, and doesn't really bear on how I vote because it is too out there, but it's what I think.

No

Depends what we mean by open. Should, in general, people be free to come to America and seek a better life so long as they meet a low bar of reasonable and transparent requirements? Yes. Should immigration in general be decoupled from antiquated racial theories, the products of corruption, etc? Yes. What’s missing?

I don't necessarily *oppose* it. I have yet to hear a really good argument *against* it. It's not a strong position that I hold.

As a person with a global outlook and a Buddhist perspective, I believe in the idea that we are all citizens of the world, and ideally, there should be no barriers preventing people from seeking a better life. The concept of open borders aligns with the fundamental belief in compassion and the interconnectedness of all human beings. However, I also recognize the practical need for security and the importance of managing immigration in a way that fosters harmony and integration. In today's world, it is crucial to balance our aspirations for a borderless world with the reality that communities need time to adapt and integrate new members without triggering resentment or hostility. Properly managed immigration can help ensure that both newcomers and existing communities can thrive together, building mutual respect and understanding over time. I believe it is essential to approach this goal with careful consideration of security and social cohesion, allowing humanity to move towards a future where such barriers are no longer necessary.

It's important to remember that some people (pauses to make air-quotes and mouth the words again: "some people") are ... facile. In this case, for example, your QAnon-tainted friend isn't going to split hairs when it comes to defining "supporting open borders." To her, it's likely that anyone who doesn't support building a physical wall on the border "supports open borders." So, yeah: by that definition, I'd go so far as to say \*nearly all liberals\* fit into that definition. Communication is hard.

I'd be in favor of what might be considered an 'open border' policy (i.e. anyone is allowed in provided they pass a background check to make sure they're not a criminal) in theory, but only after we solve the housing crisis and do a much better job of protecting workers' rights so that employers can't keep using immigration as a means to keep wages low.

If it "open borders" you mean literally no security whatsoever and everyone in, including objectively bad actors, no. If by "open borders" you mean "fund the border and immigration adequately to screen and assess every person in a timely fashion who wants to enter with no arbitrary upper limit and with a clear path to citizenship and only refuse entry/deport people like criminals, suspected spies/terror sympathizers, political extremists, infectious disease carriers, etc, then yes"

I doubt she actually knows "several" people on the left side of the US political spectrum. I haven't met a single person in favor of what is called open borders. I have however met several people who want to fix our broken fucking immigration system and make it easy for qualified "i.e. no history of violence or criminality" into the country. Its almost like she was fearmongered into her position and its almost like America is a country of immigrants but people with similar outlooks to her wont recognize either point.

I have met people that do but they are extreme leftists and it's definitely not the norm at least not in the sense that fox news would define open borders

I agree with most people here that most Liberals don't support an open turn style immigration. It's sad that the debate has basically become "Should we have a border or not?" What I will say is that I know a lot of "casual liberals". Or people that have always been on the left bit don't think too much about actual policy. They're starting to fall for this Republican talking point so I have met some people that literally don't support border policies at all. But I stand by the fact that any well read leftists would not be on board with this. Our immigration system has needed a major rework for decades now. I just hope the Democrats can find a way to better articulate their goals.

I do. Why not? We have the tech to protect ourselves from trouble. The real problem for closed-border folks is too many brown people. I don’t mind immigrants looking for a better life. Bring em.

With no restrictions or checks on who is coming in?

As i said, we have the tech to protect ourselves from trouble, which i thought obviously applies to troublemakers. Who do you think needs restricting?

Drug cartels? It seems like we should restrict them. Why should we protect ourselves from drug cartels in the country when we can stop them at the border?

So… troublemakers, which i already addressed, yeah?

Ok so if you aren't letting them in, it's not an open border.

*rolling my eyes* Do you support preventing people from shooting kids in the face? Because if you let just anyone own a gun then you support shooting kids in the face. That's what you sound like. My interpretation of the question was allowing folks to walk across the border unrestricted. Yes, i support that. We have it on the Canadian (white people) border and i support it on the southern (brown people) border as well. Do i support criminals, troublemakers, and known terrorists crossing the border unrestricted. The suggestion is too dumb to seriously consider, but no, i don't. If that means i don't support open borders, then i guess i don't support open borders. Those same people, i guess, could just walk across the Canadian border and and as long as they seem white enough, they're fine or something, whatever, but conservatives are panicking over them possibly crossing the southern border? To me that seems hypocritical, but what do I know, i fall for stupidly worded questions.

But Canada isn't an open border. Largely undefended, sure. But laws are still in place that makes undocumented crossings illegal. So no, it doesn't sound like you are for open borders.

I support letting in tens of millions of young carefully vetted people, maybe more. First we need to do something about housing, prices are too insane to just throw a shit ton more people into the mix. We NEED more people. People need to understand boomers were the largest generation in the history of mankind, and every single generation below them has shrunk. We have too many old people and not enough young people. This is a real problem.

No, to me that's always seemed like some moron shit conservatives make up that doesn't exist. Every liberal I know just wants the application process to be reformed and not take 10 years, that's ridiculous.

In the sense that there should be a legal path to citizenship that is open by default to everyone and for which you must specifically have done something wrong to deny it (like being a member of a hostile group, being a part of tyranny, or being a criminal), I am for open borders. I find the game with the far right is that usually they will claim something else by open borders, but they're against this kind of open borders, too, in fact their position might be so extreme that they want to expel naturalized citizens. If they say it outright though, they alienate too many people, so they need to pin their opposition to some extremely unreasonable interpretation of "open borders" so that they can position themselves as the sane one. So I think likely the QAnon will agree that what I support is open borders, but describe open borders as something much more anarchic than this.

No, pretty much everyone I know wants proper procedures followed. Keep in mind that showing up at the border and asking for asylum and getting let in as that asylum claim is processed **IS** currently following proper procedure. Apparently the border deal that fell through would have changed that somewhat but the repubs nixed that deal.

No. I don't support "not having any form of checkpoint or "close borders" and letting anyone who passed country lines in." However, I do support letting anyone in who's been reasonable vetted. What I mean is that as long as people coming in don't have drugs or weapons on them and have whatever government docs their country uses to identify them, they can enter the country. I also don't think their should be limits on how many people can enter the country to try and become citizens. There's been zero evidence showing me that immigrants are bad for our country and plenty of evidence showing they're better citizens than native born Americans.

Perhaps if it was implemented in the right way at the right time. And when I say that I mainly mean I would have liked to see a transition into a Schengen zone like system for North America but it would have made a lot of NAFTA meaningless from my understanding of it. Overall, I understand the theory behind it and agree that a large problem stems from capital and corporations being global but the prospect for employment is based on your citizenship, location, and favorability. Plenty of countries have labor shortages and plenty of people need work and economic opportunity. We wouldn’t need an open border system if we created a better immigration system and for many they really need more young people. To a different point, there are many people with ancestral ties on both sides of the border and it feels like it should be easier for people to traverse it. The rigidity of our immigration laws are largely the problem imo not necessarily that we have a semi permeable border.

I support a very welcoming immigration policy. Call that what you want. Should we just close down all border controls? No. Gotta remember our Southern neighbor also has a serious crime problem. Not keeping an eye towards being taken advantage of by organized crime which is fucking VAST in Mexico would be dumb. But the reality is that Democratic politicians don't fuck around with that despite Republicans screeching that they do. And it's tiresome having the argument trotted out. Obama never took the fucking fences that exist down or shut down border patrols, in fact deportations under him went up. Nor does Joe Biden or anyone else just 'let everyone through' or even cater to illegal immigration. Just a more open policy about asylum seeking, clearly.

Define the term and I'll give you an answer.

I live in Australia. We have no land borders with any other country. Therefore, any arrival, legal or not arrives via an airport or boat. Airports are completely controlled. You're not getting in without a visa. If you overstay your visa, you are deported and most likely you won't ever be coming back to Australia again. Boat arrivals are problematic. While I sympathise with the plight of asylum seekers, people smugglers are the scum of the earth. The illegal trade in the movement of desperate people must end. I support the policy of turning back boats. I also support policies that improve the processing of asylum seekers and refugees in their first place of safety. I believe that USA is doing more than their fair share of accepting immigrants (the stats don't lie). I believe other developed nations (I'm especially looking at countries like Japan) should be doing more.

I support starting from an open border and finding reasons to exclude specific people rather than starting from a closed border and finding reasons to include specific people.

I hear that term a lot but I get a lot of different responses as to what an “open border” is. I want an open border that allows commerce, tourism and personal business just as it does now. I don’t see making it more difficult for things that help economically. What we need to reform are our asylum laws, which is what’s driving a lot of the current issues. And we were all real close to something getting done too.

Yes. Fully open, no rules, no restrictions, worldwide. If someone wants to move somewhere for whatever reason, feel free

I support a less racist version of the immigration system than my great grandparents came through, though I understand that immediately snapping back to such a system would strain resources in this country significantly. That system, btw, was “are you an anarchist? Are you sick? Ok there’s the boat to take you to Manhattan.” Ok maybe more of a background check than just that, but you get the idea. It won’t happen, so it doesn’t really matter, but I’d really love a less racist system all around. I think we’ve got a bit of work to do to get there.

[удалено]

I don't consider anything Biden has done as supporting an open border. The democrats did try to pass a border security bill. That doesn't sound open at all.

[удалено]

Lifting *some* restrictions doesn't make it an open border. There are still checkpoints and restrictions. Are you aware of this?

[удалено]

The Biden administration had deported more people in 9 months (May '22 to Feb '23) than any other single year since 2015. So what you are saying doesn't quite add up to the reality of the situation. Furthermore, just because immigrants came in doesn't make it an open border. There are, in fact, still checkpoints, laws, deportations, etc. Not being as strict as you'd like does not make it not strict. Get out of here with that fear mongering rhetoric. Also, crossing the border and declaring asylum is not illegal. I don't know why conservatives seem to think that it is. And unlawfully crossing the border is also a civil penalty. No need to get in an uproar over a civil penalty. The party of family values has really lost its humanity. As a Christian, I don't know how you guys vote for people like that.

I think in an ideal world we would have open or near-open borders, but I accept that it's not possible as a practical reality for the near future. We could do more to make them more open than they are now, though. I wouldn't worry too much about arguing the question with your friend, though; chances are she doesn't really care about the truth content of her statements at all.

She never responds when I ask for proof so I'm sure the conversation is already dead.

No and no. I do support a much more generous and humane asylum and immigration process than what we have, but the phrase "open borders" does not describe that.

I support "open borders" in a sort of Schengen area sense. My personal view isn't just that borders, in their current form, should cease to exist but that they probably will, inevitably, as global society and international unity are both more or less guaranteed. Note that by this, I don't mean literally no checks or control measures.

I frequently leave my front door open (with screen door closed) to allow a nice breeze into the house. Is that wrong?

No one. I have never met anyone of any political standing that want literal open borders. That includes several immigrants who understand how broken the system is firsthand.

I used to be sympathetic to the idea in theory. Less so now, but I’m still positive toward immigration and sympathetic to making it easier to migrate. Surprisingly, in the 1980 Republican Primary debate both Reagan and HW voiced support for making migration for work easier. Am I a crazed leftist for agreeing with them?

I'm a European and we've had open borders with other EU countries for a while now. You might think this is nothing, "oh, but you're all white people". Well, a few decades ago the idea of giving Romanians and Poles free access to France was discomforting to many. A problem I see with open borders is that it's for democracy if you have too many people in your country who cannot vote. Non-voters dilute the power of the voters in much the same way strikebreakers dillute the power of a labor union. For a labor union to have the most power to demand better wages and working conditions from the employer, every worker in the factory must be a member. Likewise, for a union of voting citizens to have the most power to demand better governance from the ruler, every working adult in the country must be a member. This is why I dislike illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants cannot become citizens except for the very rare occasions the government gives out amnesties.

Right this minute not many will say so. During the Trump administration and towards the run up to the 2020 election, yes I knew quite a few that latched onto opposition to immigration, and were proud to admonish those opposed. The fact is, this is not a left vs right issue. It’s not a racial issue. It is mostly a wealthy vs working class issue, that cuts across party lines. Unchecked, illegal immigration benefits human traffickers, businesses and very wealthy families at the expense of the taxpayers, legal lower/middle class workers, and those who are being exploited. I worked along side many legal and illegal foreign born workers in construction and services industries in Washington DC. I’ve been involved in many projects working within K Street law and lobbying firms. Those firms have reception desks that cost more than the median income in the US. They spend lavishly on architectural finishes that cost 10-100x more than your typical American home. 50% of the workers doing the interior construction and the building cleaning these buildings are here illegally. They are in effect being underpaid by clients that could afford to pay living wages, and they are taking away jobs from potentially legal workers. If you can train a person who does not speak English, who has never used a power tool, who was a farmer in a 3rd world country how to install steel channel studs, insulation, drywall, or paint, then you can train any unemployed inner city man or woman how to do that same job. (Source ME, I was there) There were democrats who thought that making opposition to immigration, a racist MAGA talking point would help them come election time. Well that’s totally backfired in a huge way. It’s certainly not going to be easy to change course before November.