In the U.S. in the 21st century, should anyone who enters without papers and doesn’t commit a crime be given a path to citizenship? Should all adversely affected by climate change be offered a path to citizenship if they make it to the border? Should every human living in violent, crime-ridden neighborhoods or countries be granted asylum in America? Is there any limiting principle at all?
I suspect that the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide. I think the courts’ expansion of the meaning of asylum would strike most Americans as excessively broad. I think many Americans will have watched these debates on immigration and concluded that the Democrats want more immigration, not less, that they support an effective amnesty of 12 million undocumented aliens as part of loosening border enforcement and weakening criteria for citizenship. And the viewers will have realized that their simple beliefs that borders should be enforced and that immigration needs to slow down a bit are viewed by Democrats as unthinkable bigotry.
To begin with, is it your view that Sullivan has
- stated correctly—or misstated—the views of Democratic presidential candidates?
- stated correctly—or misstated—the views of progressives generally?
- stated correctly—or misstated—your own views?
And if you think anyone’s views have been misstated, what changes would be necessary to correct the misstatements?
And if you think that Sullivan’s summary is correct, then what effect do you think this issue will have on the 2020 election?
And are you prepared for a glorious defeat?
Or do you have a strategy for convincing a majority of people that you are correct?