The Democrat betrayal of the working class.

[Vanoi]

There isn't really a definition of open borders. ''Experts'' who argue for it would say ''anyone who wants to come in the country is immediately given legal papers to stay, for any reason'', which article at hand is the position of 65% of Democrat voters.

Where? I just read your source and i don't see one statistic showing 65% of Democrats supporting that position.

And there may not be a solid definition for open borders but it often seems like you know the definition. So what is it?

If we go with that definition, then no borders simply mean that there are no controls to begin, because the border is abolished, which means that the state is abolished because borders are the geographical limit of legal power. Indeed the no borders are anarchists. Even then however, it can be argued that open borders can easily imply that border checks are also abolished, thus the concepts can overlap.

So you don't know the actual Democratic position on immigration?

[Basil II the B.S]

- more recent Rasmussen survey further shows that 65% of Democrats believe that opening “our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal” is better for the U.S. than tightly controlling who comes into the country (26%)

So you don't know the actual Democratic position on immigration?

You make another strawman like that and I'll ignore you for the rest of the thread.

[Vanoi]

- more recent Rasmussen survey further shows that 65% of Democrats believe that opening “our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal” is better for the U.S. than tightly controlling who comes into the country (26%)

So Democrats dont just want anyone to immigrate as you claimed. Seems they want exceptions for terrorists and criminals so they cannot immigrate here.

Funny enough that Democratic position is basically already in place. Only exception is that the US has quotas but as of right now anyone who is not a criminal or terrorist can immigrate here. So they are advocating for the status quo.

Since we have basically agreed "open borders" is a pretty subjective term do you mind mentioning that Democratic candidate that supports no borders?

[Basil II the B.S]

Discussion closed with you for blatant intellectual dishonesty on two counts:
-claiming that Democrats supporting any kind of immigration except criminals is not open borders
-asking me to specify the immigration position of a party that you know is having primaries, thus does not have a specific position

Third count actually: blatant lying.
Your claim that anyone can come to the US and get a legal paper, except for quotas or unless he's a criminal. An economic migrant needs to fullfill a set of parameters to get in, he's not getting regularized straight away. So the liberal position is not the status quo.

Noteworthy to mention how you proved the article exactly right: you support open borders but don't want it to be called open borders, just like 65% of Democrat voters.

[Vanoi]

Discussion closed with your for blatant intellectual dishonesty on two counts:
-claiming that Democrats supporting any kind of immigration except criminals is not open borders
-asking me to specify the immigration position of a party that you know is having primaries, thus does not have a specific position

We just went over the fact open borders is subjective. The Democrats support nothing but the current status quo which already allows anyone to immigrate who isnt a criminal or terrorist.

Sorry but the various presidental candidates all have made their position on immigration well known. Its not my fault you made a claim and got mad because you can't prove it.

Noteworthy to mention how you proved the article exactly right: you support open borders but don't want it to be called open borders, just like 65% of Democrat voters.

Whats noteworthy is you claiming to not know what open borders is and that there is no definition to it but continue to call my position open borders when i support the status quo.

You got caught talking out of your ass again and now are running away. Very typical debate from you Basil.

Third count actually: blatant lying.
Your claim that anyone can come to the US and get a legal paper, except for quotas or unless he's a criminal. An economic migrant needs to fullfill a set of parameters to get in, he's not getting regularized straight away. So the liberal position is not the status quo.

Anyone can immigrate here. I never said there wasn't requirements to meet. As long as you meet the requirements anyone can come here.

You just claimed you don't know the Democratic position on immigration in this very post and now you suddenly do?

Your own source doesn't say Democrats support anyone immigrating with no requirements.

So which Democratic candidate supports no requirement immigration?

[Basil II the B.S]

Anyone can immigrate here. I never said there wasn't requirements to meet. As long as you meet the requirements anyone can come here.

Look at this dude who owns himself within the same ing line. Uahahahuhauahuahuahuahauhua. Oh no no no no. This is the level of the debate. This is so unbelievably stupid. Within the same ing line he posts two things that condraddict each other.

It's exactly how Orwell described it: people who are trained in doublethink will hold as true two incompatible concepts and use them when needed.

[Vanoi]

Look at this dude who owns himself within the same ing line. Uahahahuhauahuahuahuahauhua. Oh no no no no. This is the level of the debate. This is so unbelievably stupid. Within the same ing line he posts two things that condraddict each other.

Nothing changes in what i said. Anyone technically can immigrate. There requirements depending on the way in which you choose to immigrate. Generally though anyone can immigrate. Especially on the diversity visa. Asylum too but asylum takes years.

Whats funny is that nothing in the poll you posted indicated the Democrats supported this no requirement immigration. They simply opposed tightly controlled immigration which itself not explained.

Its still the status quo.

It's exactly how Orwell described it: people who are trained in doublethink will hold as true two incompatible concepts and use them when needed.

Basil you are just deflecting. You have contradicted yourself multiple times now and still haven't sourced your claim.

[Heathen Hammer]

Anyone technically can immigrate. There requirements depending on the way in which you choose to immigrate. Generally though anyone can immigrate. Especially on the diversity visa. Asylum too but asylum takes years.

This is not how this works.

[Kritias]

Terribly sorry for jumping in, just a quick question: did someone also noticed that the tables were the quoted statistics are represented are labelled 'Democrats' under the blue line and 'non-Democrats' under the red?

Surely, there should be a red line representing Republican views on the same issues and a third line that reads Independents, as is usually the fashion, right?

Do you think the researcher stacked Republicans and people not identifying as either party on top of each other, called them conveniently 'non-Democrats' just to beef up the numbers and make the dems look extremish?

[Love Mountain]

Saying "anyone can immigrate" is a gross oversimplification of the immigration system. Actually, calling that a flat-out lie wouldn't be inaccurate. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Basil is right. Ask any immigration expert, and they will tell you the same thing. Even 10 years ago, it was a difficult task to get into the country. Many Democrats are certainly not status-quo on immigration and border control, but they are significantly split. Many conservative Democrats want more controls and less immigrants, many liberal Democrats want the exact opposite.

Of course Basil is also wrong on many other issues, like the aforementioned claim about Democrats and their supposed support for certain immigration policies, Vanoi has covered it well there. Repeating and arguing over how "anyone can technically immigrate here" lacks nuance and ultimately, is fairly useless information in regards to immigration as a national issue.

[95thrifleman]

Shouldn't the title be Democrat betrayal of the working class?

[Love Mountain]

Well the ultimate conundrum is this. Basil frequently claims that the Republican Party is now the party of the working class. Following that logic, how can Democrats betray the working class if the working class neither belongs nor trusts the Democratic party? I jest of course, because the criticism of the Democratic party in this thread is as ridiculous as Basil's analysis of the article.

[Basil II the B.S]

Well the ultimate conundrum is this. Basil frequently claims that the Republican Party is now the party of the working class. Following that logic, how can Democrats betray the working class if the working class neither belongs nor trusts the Democratic party? I jest of course, because the criticism of the Democratic party in this thread is as ridiculous as Basil's analysis of the article.

Don't misquote me. I claimed that Republicans have a chance to become the party of the working class, not that they are. Democrats only nominally are. De-facto, their policies favour coastal elites both economically and in terms of moral satisfaction.

Shouldn't the title be Democrat betrayal of the working class?

You might be right on that one. I'll change it.

[Muizer]

Basil, if you're going to post a thread with a title like "Democrat betrayal of the working class" don't you think you should actually post something relevant to the topic? Can you demonstrate that their position on immigration constitutes a 'betrayal of the working class' or is that just your personal opinion?

[Basil II the B.S]

You don't think that a distinct preference towards helping the world's poor over your own fellow citizenship who are poor is a betrayal?

[Muizer]

Pft, it's an opinion poll, not party policy. By 'cards for humanity' no less. I really recommend checking it out. If it shows anything it's that people don't know what they're talking about and are in desperate need of politicians, scientists, journalists and other professionals who tell them what they must know, not people who measure how right they are by how many agree with them.

[Vanoi]

Saying "anyone can immigrate" is a gross oversimplification of the immigration system. Actually, calling that a flat-out lie wouldn't be inaccurate. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Basil is right. Ask any immigration expert, and they will tell you the same thing. Even 10 years ago, it was a difficult task to get into the country. Many Democrats are certainly not status-quo on immigration and border control, but they are significantly split. Many conservative Democrats want more controls and less immigrants, many liberal Democrats want the exact opposite.

Difficult doesn't mean impossible and the the Democrats are basically status quo. None of the candidates have suggested any significant change except for two things. Decriminalization of crossing the border illegally and free health care for illegal immigrants.

Thats not much of a change in US immigration policy. But its early so we'll see if the Democrats make anymore suggestions.

[NosPortatArma]

An interesting observation: What would once have been consider outright treason to the nation, is today perfectly mainstream and even popular. Many, but not all, Democrats are actively supporting immigration into the US, and once immigrants are inside, those democrats explicitly champion their interests. Since politics is pretty much zero-sum, that of course at the expense of the natives. And although it's still common to hear that this is supposedly beneficial for the natives, nowadays you commonly hear that the immigrants have a right to come, regardless of what the natives think of or benefit from it.

The nation must reasonably be defined as those who live here now, and if actively championing the interests of outlanders at your own nation's expense does count as being "treasonous" toward your nation, then what does?... Funny thing, it's not at all controversial today to open proclaim you seek to further the interests of a foreign minority at the expense of the native majority. You'd get applause. But imagine going back a few decades and saying it.. you'd be laughed and booed at.

[conon394]

An interesting observation: What would once have been consider outright treason to the nation, is today perfectly mainstream and even popular. Many, but not all, Democrats are actively supporting immigration into the US, and once immigrants are inside, those democrats explicitly champion their interests. Since politics is pretty much zero-sum, that of course at the expense of the natives. And although it's still common to hear that this is supposedly beneficial for the natives, nowadays you commonly hear that the immigrants have a right to come, regardless of what the natives think of or benefit from it.

The nation must reasonably be defined as those who live here now, and if actively championing the interests of outlanders at your own nation's expense does count as being "treasonous" toward your nation, then what does?... Funny thing, it's not at all controversial today to open proclaim you seek to further the interests of a foreign minority at the expense of the native majority. You'd get applause. But imagine going back a few decades and saying it.. you'd be laughed and booed at.

Hmm by your logic I would not now be typing from the US...

[Vanoi]

Don't think advocating for immigrant rights or representing their interests makes you a traitor.