The Left Case Against Open Borders

[metis]

...pushing for free trade (which itself implies "open borders").

Even though I generally agree with your entire post, this part I can't agree with because "free trade" I don't see as being the same as "open borders" since they cover two different things. However, I believe we went in the wrong direction on "free trade" as I'm a firm believer in greater emphasis on emphasizing "cottage industries".

I was opposed to the formation of NAFTA but now am reluctantly for it because we can't put the genie back into the bottle at this time without causing more problems. It can and should be severely adjusted, imo, but it would take a lot of mutual cooperation between countries to make it work, but that I don't see being in the cards, at least as of now.

 

[columbus]

But many in the Democratic Party have also been against legalization, including both the Clinton and Obama Administrations.

Here's a bit of reality.
The Democrats are masters of leading from behind on social issues.

Back in the 90's, the Clintons courted the gay vote promising progress. What we got was DOMA and DADT.
Eff them.

Much later, gay marriage became politically popular. Then the Clintons and the rest of the Democrats suddenly noticed our lack of basic equality, and started pretending that they cared.
Eff them.

I see the same thing going on with the pot issue.
Tom

ETA~ To get back to the OP, I remember when NAFTA was the brain child of the Republicans. One of their points trying to beat Slick Willy in 1992 was "Clinton is in the pocket of Big Labor, he won't sign NAFTA!(much pearl clutching)"

 

[Stevicus]

Even though I generally agree with your entire post, this part I can't agree with because "free trade" I don't see as being the same as "open borders" since they cover two different things. However, I believe we went in the wrong direction on "free trade" as I'm a firm believer in greater emphasis on emphasizing "cottage industries".

I was opposed to the formation of NAFTA but now am reluctantly for it because we can't put the genie back into the bottle at this time without causing more problems. It can and should be severely adjusted, imo, but it would take a lot of mutual cooperation between countries to make it work, but that I don't see being in the cards, at least as of now.

I think open borders and free trade might still be related to some extent, though, even though they are different things. That is, in terms of overall policy, it seems incongruous when we tell countries like Mexico that their people are "undesirables" and "dangerous" but then turn around and say "But we still want to trade with you and make money." We've militarized our southern border apparently because we believe that what's on the other side is so horrible and frightening, and yet, we want free and open trade along the same border.

 

[metis]

I think open borders and free trade might still be related to some extent, though, even though they are different things. That is, in terms of overall policy, it seems incongruous when we tell countries like Mexico that their people are "undesirables" and "dangerous" but then turn around and say "But we still want to trade with you and make money." We've militarized our southern border apparently because we believe that what's on the other side is so horrible and frightening, and yet, we want free and open trade along the same border.

What is consistent is that with Trump it's all about $.

 

[Shad]

Much later, gay marriage became politically popular. Then the Clintons and the rest of the Democrats suddenly noticed our lack of basic equality, and started pretending that they cared.
Eff them.

Obama flipped as well. As a Senator he supported "traditional marriage". Running for POTUS he changed his tune.

 

[columbus]

Obama flipped as well. As a Senator he supported "traditional marriage". Running for POTUS he changed his tune.

I believe that the term I used to describe Democrats was "masters of leading from behind on social issues".
Obama is a Democrat. Even if his signature achievement was implementing the Republican's version of Healthcare Reform.
Tom

 

[Shad]

I believe that the term I used to describe Democrats was "masters of leading from behind on social issues".
Obama is a Democrat. Even if his signature achievement was implementing the Republican's version of Healthcare Reform.
Tom

Sure. I was just adding a more recent name to the pile.

 

[columbus]

Sure. I was just adding a more recent name to the pile.

How about the rather more recent name, Trump?
Didn't he promise his Evangelical Christian supporters some SCOTUS judges who could rule against gay marriage and abortion?
So they dropped their opposition to The High Priest of Mammon long enough get him elected?
Tom

 

[Shad]

How about the rather more recent name, Trump?
Didn't he promise his Evangelical Christian supporters some SCOTUS judges who could rule against gay marriage and abortion?
So they dropped their opposition to The High Priest of Mammon long enough get him elected?
Tom

Yup. He does run on a rough form of populism based on the audience at the time so flipped a few times. Four or five times since 2011. If you look at the Robertson interview he passed the buck on to the AG thus the Evangelicals were tricked to believe support of the idea was the same as policy and proposing legislation.

 

[columbus]

Yup. He does run on a rough form of populism based on the audience at the time so flipped a few times. Four or five times since 2011. If you look at the Robertson interview he passed the buck on to the AG thus the Evangelicals were tricked to believe support of the idea was the same as policy and proposing legislation.

Four or five?
Didn't he vehemently oppose allowing people from violently Islamic countries supporting terrorism in the USA into the USA, unless they were Saudi Arabians?

You know, the country that sponsored 9/11.
Tom

 

[Shad]

Four or five?

Since 2011. Against in 2011, for in 2014, against in 2015, for in 2016.

Didn't he vehemently oppose allowing people from violently Islamic countries supporting terrorism in the USA into the USA, unless they were Saudi Arabians?

This was nothing different than standard US policy. KSA has been ignored for decades when it comes to terrorism, human rights issues and religious fanatics