Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

"Build the wall" should've been "control the border". More intellectually honest, more reasonable.

Democrats aren’t in favor of open borders, but evidence-based border security. The president’s platform is attacking anyone who doesn’t want his proposed “solution” as dismissing border control and immigration reforms.

It’s dishonest and in bad faith, but it works on lazy or decided individuals.

For example: https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/immigration

> Democrats aren’t in favor of open borders

Citation needed. Cutting the enforcement budget for border patrol to zero (as Julian Castro proposes) is open borders in all but name.

> It’s dishonest and in bad faith

... To pretend that some Democrats aren't for open borders.

No democrat with standing in the party is for open borders.

Julian Castro isn’t even an elected official.

Does Keith Ellison not count? He famously wore a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders." He was a congressman from 2007 to 2019. What about Cortez who's slogan is "abolish ICE"? If there's a difference between open borders and completely defunding border enforcement, it's not a distinction that means anything to me.

Also, Castro is a 2020 primary contender. To count him out because he doesn't currently hold office is a bit silly. I guess Hillary Clinton wouldn't have counted in 2014 either?

There are a lot of different views on the left, but the view of the Democratic leadership is unambiguously for border security.

Abolishing ICE is different from wanting open borders. You can disagree with the methods and still believe in the mission - much of the current administration’s stance is an attempt to conflate the methods they have chosen with the concept of border security, as painfully evidenced by the 2018 shutdown meeting between Pelosi, Schumer and Trump.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/trump-meets-with-pelosi-and-...

ICE is a relatively new organization, that many believe does not have a great track record of either effectiveness or respect for human rights. There are many ideas of how we would accomplish border security more humanely. https://pelosi.house.gov/issues/immigration

> I guess Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have counted in 2014 either?

No, the clear forerunner and a senator would count. Herman Cain wouldn’t have spoken for the Republican Party though.

Organizations are historically composed of people, some of whom are more radical and some of whom are less radical than the overall organization. Claiming that Keith Ellison or Julian Castro are representative of the Democratic party or the left as a whole strikes me as very reductive. I'd like to live in a world where borders don't exist, but to claim that it's possible if we just stop enforcing our borders is pretty ludicrous.

> Claiming that Keith Ellison or Julian Castro are representative of the Democratic party

Don't slide the goalposts. This is not a claim I've made. The exhaustive claim ("no Democrat with standing") came from the person I responded to.

is that to say that Ron Paul speaks for the Republican party?

I didn't know they hated wars and spying.

Some republicans are too; why does it matter, when the democrats and republicans with power are not?

Aha - but the goal of the "Build the wall" slogan was to get elected. It wasn't a carefully crafted policy for border control. That slogan achieved it's primary goal

Good point, and somewhat similar to President Obama's "Hope and Change" slogan.

it was successful: there was hope, then there was change to stop Congress from doing any work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com