Maybe the sticking point is the definition of open borders. Perhaps Democrats insist they aren't for open borders because they still want Americans on the border watching the people come in and trying to stop those running drugs or tracking in sex slaves or rolling across the border in tanks and such but the Republicans define open borders as letting mass migration of immigrants take place without any noticeable limits except the limits the immigrants place on themselves as far as how many want to make the trip to our border and into our country.
This may be a reasonable explanation for the disagreement in terms. I do agree with Seriati that it seems the plan thus far has been to tolerate certain amounts of illegal immigration but not to allow it to go much further. That doesn't mean "zero enforcement" but it does mean they have no intention of reigning in the probably significant amount of illegal immigration that does happen. It seems illogical to me to accept significant amounts of such activity, and if it *is* going to be accepted, then allowing it should become official policy rather than unofficial policy.
I also think there's some kind of weird logic going on when the "tearing apart families" argument is made against deportation. Is there a numerical term attached to when it's "cruel" versus when it's "not cruel" to send people back to the country they came from? I'll give a few scenarios to explain what I mean:
1) A family comes through Mexico to the U.S. and is caught immediately by border security. They are processed quickly and sent back.
2) A family comes through Mexico, is caught immediately, but before they are processed they escape and vanish into the country. They are re-caught in 6 months, at which time they're sent back.
3) A family comes through Mexico, isn't caught immediately but is tracked down in 6 months, at which time they're sent back.
4) A family comes through Mexico, isn't caught immediately, but is caught 3 years later, at which time they're sent back.
5) A family comes through Mexico, isn't caught immediately, but one of them is caught 10 years later and is sent back.
Sticking within these 5 (not exhaustive) cases, let's decide which is or isn't "cruel". I think most would agree that 1 & 2 aren't cruel at all. Or at least, if liberals and Democrats are telling the truth, they'd be obliged to say that 1 & 2 are the law being enforced, fair and square. (3) begins to get into the territory of a person or family beginning to make a life for themselves. They have laid down some minor roots, maybe established a reliable source of illegal income, made a few friends. Is it cruel to deport one or more members of this family at this juncture? If it isn't, then does that mean the law is only applicable for a few months, at which time they 'get out of jail free' and have "made it"? And if it isn't cruel, then we must surely discount the relevance of those ties they've made thus far and conclude that they have no business being in the U.S. (4) is similar to (3), except more roots have been laid down and they're perhaps now "used to" living in the U.S. Similar questions apply, except now the issue is whether the law shouldn't apply any more after 3 years since it would be cruel to remove them from the life they've begun to get used to.
The last case is the hardest - or is it? After this much time there's no doubt been time to have children who have now been born and raised in the U.S. entirely. Now if the father or mother is caught, is it cruel to separate them from their family? They've surely been here a long time, and consider the U.S. by now to be their home. What about this case? But now let's backtrack quickly and change the numbers: what if the children were had within a year of stealing into the country? Is the 10 years what was relevant, or the existence of the children? And what about 10 years but without children? In the case of the children, does that mean that having children is a shield from the law? And if it's the time, does that mean that anyone who's successfully avoided being caught for X+ years (where X is some arbitrary number) that they now have unofficial amnesty? And if that's going to be unofficial policy, why not make it official policy as well so they can start paying taxes?
My point in all of this is I find the appeal to emotion on this subject quite understandable, and yet when inspected closely does the argument retain coherence?
I'll add one more point, if I may: I find it most troubling to focus entirely on the issue of illegal immigration without giving attention to the issue of what's become of Mexico. That nation has been held down at every turn, and I believe that through an intentional series of policies and unofficial strategies it's been made to be a drug-smuggling cesspool that seems unable to recover. And it's not just that there was a one-time event creating that infrastructure and they've been in a bad cycle ever since. No: active forces to this day within the U.S. keep pushing them down and propping up the cartels. Anyone seen the film Traffic? I hear the events as depicted are scarily accurate. Anyone hear about the news story of a bunch of DEA agents caught as a party put on by cartel bosses, featuring cocaine and hookers? There are other drug-oriented things I could bring up but this isn't the place. My point is that not only has Mexico been turned into a cartel paradise but that this was intentional. I can't entirely take seriously complaining about people wanting to leave Mexico, or those who want to go through Mexico to get to the U.S. (implying that Mexico itself is no great shakes) when the U.S. agencies and other parties making all of this happen get a free pass. I would fully support tightening border security, so long as it's accompanied by steps to make Mexico a better place and to remove drug affiliations from U.S. agencies. The internal corruption is much worse of a problem than is the illegal immigration, in my opinion.
