The issue of "Open Borders" is getting asked. A Harvard Harris poll thankfully made the much needed jump. This poll was of adults presented with questions that had 1 of 2 options
76% opposed Open Borders
But the same poll said:
36% favored allowing illegal immigrants to stay if they managed to into the country (the alternative was deportation and it got 64% support).
39% favored allowing women with children to stay if the got past the border (61% said to deport).
So almost 40% favor something of an (my words) "Open Borders lite" policy.
The same Harvard Harris poll did, however, display some hard core pro-deportation sentiment towards illegal immigrants in our country when we get around to seeing the answers to the survey after it offered the polled adults to choose from 2 options:
The choice of inflicting "deportation" verses allowing the undocumented immigrants to wait for a trial.
This was the disturbing part.
Deportation of illegal/undocumented immigrants was chosen by 55% of the polled adults, and 45% chose to let the immigrants wait for a trial. (for undocumented women with children, we still saw 53% support for deportation verses 47% allowing the immigrants to wait for a trial).
The Trump factor is no doubt responsible for the more hard core pro-deportation sentiment than we have seen in the past.
Link to Harvard Harris June poll in link below. It has a direct PDF link.
But the absolutely massive poll causes me to think the those polled were simply too exhausted to properly think through the options. This was already question 32 and the questions were a bit too long IMO (Considering how many questions there were).
Things look much better for the pro immigration side when one looks at legal immigrants.
This comprehensive Pew poll is very telling as this poll has a long history.
The Gallup poll is interesting in that is first asks people to choose from the exact same 3 options but then asks again with the adjective "LEGAL" added before the immigration noun.
Without specifying that immigrants are "LEGAL" , 39% of those polled said to keep immigration levels the same, while 28% said to increase the levels, and 29% said to decrease yearly immigration.
With the LEGAL adjective in this Gallup, the exact same 38% (like the Pew poll) said to keep yearly immigration levels the same), and 34% said to increase levels, with 25% saying to decrease yearly levels of immigration.
Trump seems to have turned most against illegal immigration (though the level of support for sanctuary cities (46%) and support for letting successful border-crossing illegal immigrants stay (36%-39%) verses being deported is moving ever closer toward being a position held by half of the American society) , but (more numerous!) legal immigration has a much better odor than ever before among Americans.
Open borders is even on the map.
Trump was a strong supporter of open borders as recently as 2013 (I suspect he still does secretly), as we just found out.
Here are parts of three articles, which take this issue to consideration.
One is from a good guy. The second is from a so-so sorta-good kinda guy. The third is from a downright creep.
Here is the article from (what I would call) one of the "good guys"
January 16, 2019
There's Nothing Wrong With Open Borders
Farhad Manjoo By Farhad Manjoo Opinion Columnist
The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers.
Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.
I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.
Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.
There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.
It would be a change from the stale politics of the modern era, in which both parties agreed on the supposed wisdom of “border security” and assumed that immigrants were to be feared.
Open the borders? Yes, but … - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/17/open-borders-yes/ Jan 17, 2019 - New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo calls for an American politician somewhere to be fully honest about open borders: All but eliminating ...
Those are the good ones.
Now the worst one you could possibly read.
Here is an article from a real turd. This guy should be punched (not literally).
This guy not only lies about the exact percentage of Democrats supporting Open Borders, but he actually seems to be a fear mongering type (while back patting himself for humanity and claiming to be an opponent of trolls and fear-mongers)
It is a long article.
There is a good bit between my quoted paragraphs, also after I stop quoting.
Homepage Politics FEATURED STORIES
Few Americans Want Open Borders— Democrats Included Trump and his supporters often label his critics as believers in “open borders.” Most aren’t. Robert A Stribley Feb 22
The reaction is now predictable: Argue for treating undocumented immigrants humanely on American soil and you’ll find yourself accused of believing in “open borders.” As if it’s a binary, either/or position. You either believe in building Trump’s “Great Wall.” You believe in separating children from their parents at the U.S. border. You believe in removing undocumented immigrants from the country who have lived here for decades. Or you believe in “open borders.” It’s a blunt rhetorical trick. It’s crass. But it works. So it’s employed by everyone from the current president down to the many supporters and trolls who carry his water on social media.
Fear mongering, of course, lies at the heart of this accusation. The implication being that critics of Trump’s policies, Democrats in particular, don’t care about safety. They don’t mind who comes into the country. And in turn, that accusation comes coupled with insinuations that those immigrants sneaking across our borders are scary, violent people.
In fact, the vast majority of Americans—including most Democrats—don’t believe in so-called “open borders.” That’s not to say that no one believes in open borders. Certainly, there are people who do. But most don’t. And open borders is not a policy the Democratic party supports; it’s not part of their platform. Regardless of how many times Trump and his supporters may claim otherwise.
Trump repeatedly claims that Democrats “want open borders.” But nobody in leadership on the left promotes open borders. Nobody. Let’s clarify: not one or two people. Zero percent of the elected leadership of Democrats or independents have suggested the U.S. should have open borders. And there’s certainly no policy of open borders embraced by the Democratic Party.
In reality, both primary political parties embrace pretty strict immigration policies. And neither promotes anything remotely like “open borders.”
Recently, some conservatives pounced on a poll that said that 32 percent of Democrats believed in “basically open borders.” A few things to note: 1) These were not elected Democrats; they were voters, so that does not reflect the Democratic platform. 2) That figure still means the majority of Democrats polled were not in favor of open borders. 3) The question was vaguely, even poorly, worded and did not offer any particular definition of “open borders.” Including the word “basically” further muddied the waters. We don’t know how these respondents interpreted the term “open borders.” It’s entirely possible that upon further questioning, many respondents may have said they believe “basically” in open borders, but also in border protection and a fence. We don’t know.
The June 2018 poll has almost 24.5% supporting Open Borders, and the opponents (65 and older only were 12% for Open Borders) are dropping dead fast. 43% of all 1448 people polled 18-34 support Open Borders.
So at least 25% of everybody, in 2019, surely support Open Borders.
I think that 34% of everybody 18-49 is for Open Borders
It looks like less than 15% of 50+ year-old people support Open Borders.
So 10% more under 50 seem to support Open Borders.
That could be extrapolated in a way that could perhaps make Democrats 47% supportive if they are under 50.
The poll does not go into that microscopic level of detail.
Striking age dichotomy numbers in Open Borders poll.
There were 1448 people polled.
380 were 18-34 years old
340 were 35-49
431 were 50-64
297 were 65 and older
The numbers were striking:
Only 35 of the 65+ age group were for open borders (11.784%)
262 against (88.2%)
This is striking when you consider:
165 of the 380 18-34 year olds were for open borders (43.421%)
215 were against (just under 56.6%)
THE OTHER 2 GROUPS:
The 35-49 age group was an even 25% (exactly 25.0%) for open borders (85 out of 340)
The 50-64 group was 71 out of 431 (16.473%)
NUMBERS TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT DEATHS AND NEW ADULTS (18th birthday folks).
The numbers are 1093 opposed and 354 for Open Borders.
(the poll says 354 but the numbers add up to 356)
There will be about 20 of the 88.2% Anti-Open-Borders group vanishing every year.
There will be perhaps 22-23 of the 45% Pro-Open-Borders group entering adulthood every year.
So a group 18-2 opposed will die every year and be replaced by a group 12-10 opposed.
The net difference will be perhaps 6 less opposed and 8 more supportive (averaging 7).
The average difference will only amount to 0.5% more support a year if the death/adulthood entry factor is considered. Only about 5% more support (30% instead of 25%) over 10 years (by 2028), but there are other factors to consider. One is that immigrants becoming newly sworn-in citizens could be a group that adds to the hypothetical 30% support. That would still not add a large amount of support to the hypothetical 2028 "30%" support level. The second factor is the possibility that Democrats will actually give the issue justice, which means the party argues the case for more immigration (and perhaps even Open Borders itself) thus ensuring higher support among all age groups. That would make the biggest difference since the debate is totally one-sided presently.
Same-gender marriage was an example of an issue that got much higher support once more (younger especially) people were able to reduce the large mass opposing marriage equality. The equilibrium swung away from a critical mass of opposition, and there was a resulting run-away shift toward the other side ONCE ENOUGH BALANCE IN THE DEBATE ENSUED.
(The amazing thing is that there is already a much larger difference among age groups than any racial group difference. It seems that Whites and Hispanics only differ by 38% against 21% support. A 17% difference. Compare that to the 43.4 support among 18-34 year-olds vs. 11.8% support among 65 plus year-old folks. A much larger 32% difference. Hispanics are capable of seeing their support go up if the Open Border issue might not have an "anti-American" stigma which probably deters many of them from taking a Pro-Open-Border position on the question.)
In These Times March 21 article: Idea on Democratic strategy in anti-Open Border time
The polls show a (still) tough climate when it comes to supporting Open Borders
The article is titled:
The Case for Opening Our Borders
Democrats cannot have it both ways. If you oppose jailing and exiling people for crossing an invisible line, you must be in favor of significantly opening our borders. Fortunately, that’s fine.
BY BRIANNA RENNIX
MARCH 21 | APRIL 2019 ISSUE
About 10 paragraphs into the long article, this was said:
quote: TOWARD OPENING BORDERS
In recent months, Trump and other Republicans have begun to wield “open borders” as a cudgel against Democrats, despite the fact that few (if any) Democrats advocate it. The Right is well aware that for most of the public, “open borders” triggers a xenophobic fear of invasion.
As a short-term political calculation, Democrats may be able to use a more neutral term like “decriminalization” until the public sees, in practice, that these fears are largely unfounded. However, any reforms Democrats advocate should follow abolitionist principles: that immigration restrictions have devastating human consequences that significantly overshadow the few, highly questionable benefits, and that we should aim to do away with as much of our immigration enforcement system as possible and in no way expand it.
An easy start is for Democrats to put forward a bill expanding humanitarian categories of immigration relief to encompass people fleeing violence, extreme poverty and natural disasters, and people with long-standing social or family ties to the United States. This is entirely in line with international practice; courts in places like Canada and the EU, for example, routinely use a “balancing test” to decide whether someone is deportable, weighing their immigration offense against other compelling factors in their favor. This approach is so commonsensical that many Americans believe it is how our immigration system already works, and that only “criminals” are deported.
I was just reading about the dreadfully anti-immigration 1990s. I knew it was bad but
I am reading a book WHERE AMERICA STANDS 1997 by Michael Golay.
It was even worse than I thought.
Only 7% wanted to increase immigration levels, while 61% wanted to decrease them.
(That means that no more than 7% could possibly support "open borders", and it was probably closer to 5%)
50% wanted all immigration halted for 5 years.
Most wanted all services cut off.
60% wanted national identification cards for the purpose of hurting immigrants.
The ironic thing is that The Wall was pretty much the only anti-immigration policy that Americans opposed (and it was opposed by a massive 62%), perhaps because many anti-immigration folks saw it was largely irrelevant among the range of possible policy changes.
The nativist current in America is flowing strongly in the 1990s, quickened by persistent illegal immigration...
Immigration has become a more potent political issue in the United States than at any time since the restrictionist 1920s. ... More than 60% believe the level of immigration should be decreased.
In 1994, California's Proposition 187 denied government benefits to illegal immigrants. Welfare reform legislation in 1996 cut assistance to legal immigrants. A new antiterrorism law provided for the automatic deportation of legal immigrants convicted of felonies. ...some Republicans in 1996 campaigned for a five-year freeze on legal immigration and for repeal of the 14th Amendment's birthright guarantee of citizenship.
In a 1996 Gallup poll, respondents divided rough;y down the middle on the Republicans' proposal for a moratorium on legal immigration. Fifty percent favored a five-year freeze, 46 percent were opposed.
immigrants arrived in their millions - nearly 9 million during the Great Wave of 1901-1910. This influx gave new impetus to the decades-long nativist agitation and led to the passage of the nations first sweepingly restrictive law, the openly discriminatory Immigration Act of 1924, which set strict quotas for all countries outside the Western Hemisphere. That act had such drastic effects that in 1933 only 23,000 immigrants entered the United States.
The 1965 Reforms
The restrictive system stood until 1965, when Congress set aside national quotas and made it easier for refugees and others claiming asylum to settle permanently in the United States. In a significant departure from past practice, the 1965 act altered the preference system for immigrants, giving highest priority to family reunification and a lesser priority to people with job skills of special scientific or artistic talents.
The sponsors of the 1965 measure had no particular object in mind other than the laudatory and benevolent one of deleting explicitly racist provisions from the statutes. They saw it, too, as a sort of appendix to the epochal civil right legislation of the period. "It was not," writes economist Vernon M. Briggs, "the product of careful design or public debate."
According to Briggs, the 1965 act and its successors replaced social and economic goals with political goals. To secure passage, Congress accommodated conservative groups such as the American Legion, which lobbied for the family priority on the largely unspoken grounds that this would preserve the old national quota system favoring immigrants from northwest Europe. Refugees from nations with which the United States had political and ideological differences - such as Vietnam, Cuba, and the Soviet Union - received preference over refugees from right-wing dictatorships allied to America.
Obviously, family preference did not work out the way the American Legion intended.
Calls for Restriction
The Republican Congress in 1996 considered measures to tighten U. S. borders, particularly the 2,000-mile-long frontier with Mexico, to crack down on illegal immigrants living in this country, and to restrict some welfare and other public services even to legal immigrants.
The actions seem to fall in line with public opinion on the issue. In the 1995 poll, for example, Gallup found that more than six of every ten respondents favored a decrease in the number of immigrants entering the country. Only 27 percent thought the flow should remain steady; 7 percent favored an increase in immigration levels.
Gallup's samples were divided on measures to curb illegal immigration. Only 35 percent favored fortifying the Mexican frontier to keep illegal immigrants out; 62 percent were opposed. An even half of respondents would deny illegal immigrants the use of schools and hospitals; 45 percent were opposed. More than 60 percent favored national ID cards for citizens and legal immigrants; 37 percent were opposed.
By a landslide, Californians in 1994 approved Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that sharply reduced illegal immigrants' use of public services. The measure has been held up in the courts ever since. But in August 1996, Governor Pete Wilson, citing the new federal welfare law, moved to implement parts of Proposition 187, issuing an executive order barring illegal immigrants from a broad range of state programs.
Wilson's order covered prenatal care programs, child-abuse prevention programs, and public housing, among other California benefits.
A sidebar on page 136 was titled "Fortifying the Frontier"
Trade barriers may be coming down along the U.S.-Mexico frontiere, but physical obstacles to the movement of people are going up.
High steel fences have gone up at major crossing points in San Diego; Nogales, Arizona; and El Paso, Texas. More than 4,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents prowl the frontiere, a 50 percent increase from 1993. Army and National Guard units assist in some sectors. Congress in 1996 considered a bill that would double the strength of the Border Patrol, to 10,000 agents.
Such measures draw widespread public support. But most Americans are skeptical of proposals to seal the border completely. Only around a third, 35 percent, said in a July 1995 Gallup survey that they favored building a high wall to separate the United States and Mexico. Sixty-two percent were opposed.
Critics say, too, that putting up a fence and wire mocks the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which promises strengthened economic ties between the two countries.
"At the same time that the U.S. government says to Mexico, 'We are your partner,' it is taking actions that say, 'We fear you, distruct you, and reject you,' " said Rick Ufford-Chase, who directs a church-sponsored program called Borderlinks in Tucson, Arizona.