What's the DNC Policy Regarding Border Security?

Granting that the tactics against the border wall are well known – basically, don’t give in to domestic terrorism from the White House, and wait it out for a week.

But from a policy perspective, what is the actual message? Keeping to tradition, our policy position certainly doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, but it obviously could fit on a web page, somewhere. But even if it existed, no Dems are referencing it in their tweets. Running a google search for Democratic position on border security … first link is the 2-year old party platform. There are various fact-check sites, which are not where policy positions ought to live.

Alex Shephard of TNR poked at this problem at the end of December:


Any thoughts on this from the bullpen? Serious discussion is welcome even if you disagree. The point of me posting this here is we all have to start talking again. I’m doing my part.


For decades now the Ds have had this two-part public, official stance on immigration. We’re for a pathway to citizenship for the 11-20 million undocumented, and we’re 110% for securing our borders.

Everyone knows we are, on the down low, actually for amnesty, and that’s what the “pathway” dodge is about. We are way too timid to just come out and say what we think and feel, because “amnesty” doesn’t poll well. I’d say approx 100% of us believe that of course deportation is a breathtakingly unjust consequence to impose on someone who’s lived here and contributed for even a year, much less 30 years. But the alternatives to deporting them all are only two;

  1. make all 20 million citizens
  2. leave the 20 million in legal limbo

We won’t choose even here, this far down the decision tree. We’re not for citizenship because that’s amnesty, we’re only for a pathway to citizenship whose chief and defining characteristic is always that it remain so nebulous as to be effectively limbo. I think the Catholic Church recently had to abandon limbo as an unsustainably ridiculous intellectual compromise, so it is available for our expropriation.

Maybe if the Rs decide to commit electoral suicide and join us in actual amnesty, maybe we’d take that pathway to giving the 20 million citizenship, but no way do we do it on our own. If we did it on our own, without R cover, their noise machine would denounce the effort as amnesty, and we are absolutely 110% against amnesty, at least publicly and officially.

Most Ds are also really for borders open to economic migration, This isn’t nearly as unanimous among us as being for amnesty, because some of us are worried about the competition for jobs. Our failure to have an honest ideology on immigration is part of a wider failure to have an ideology about anything, so many of us are susceptible to comic book supply-side nonsense that completely discounts the demand-side effects of millions of new immigrant consumers spending their paychecks generating the demand that creates even more jobs. We can’t point out that leaving 20 million in legal limbo helps the owners suppress wages for everybody, because second-class citizens can’t protect any of their rights, not even the right to higher wages that would also lift all boats. But even those of us who aren’t completely in thrall to supply side and crony capitalist thinking are afraid to be for open borders because it polls almost as badly as amnesty. Thus we are for “securing our borders”. Against what? Smugglers and terrorists, sure. But against people who want jobs that will otherwise go unfilled, and, remaining unfilled will keep down the real tide that lifts all boats, increased demand? I don’t want our borders secured against that. No reasonable person does.

Sniping this hypocritical mess is beyond easy. Of course we’re not really for securing our borders against economic migration, because we’re for rewarding people who break the laws controlling entry into the US by giving them citizenship. Most voters aren’t paying sufficient attention to the reality of this or any other issue to judge politicians based on the fidelity of their positions to that reality. They have to judge by flop sweat, and our side hands down wins the competition to have the most flop sweat on immigration. It’s a wonder we haven’t all been carted off to jail, but the Trump administration is young yet, so give it time.


I know that both parties have done the immigration 2-step for years. But let’s just consider the straightforward question, that policy (particularly this important) ought to have detailed explanation beyond saying that the other side is acting dickish.

Here’s the joint Pelosi-Schumer statement from Dec 22nd: all of “include funding for strong, sensible, and effective border security – not the president’s ineffective and expensive wall.”

Ok, what are those? Assume that I had to argue this with somebody in the middle who buys and subscribes to the refrain from the old Robert Frost poem about good fences making good neighbors (which we know isn’t all there is to this).

(Also, whatever happened to the undocumented maid working at the Bedminster golf club?)

What’s the Dems position on:

  1. How many immigrants are to many immigrants asylum seekers/illegals included?

  2. How do we pay for all the new arrivals after all congress is currently responsible for 22 trillion in debt. the cost for 11 million illegals is estimated to be 130 billion a year. A study was just released saying there are 22 million and other estimates of 30-40 million.

  3. How can we morally allow more people that are now and will not be self sufficient when we have American citizens we cannot take care of?

  4. The left screams for single payer healthcare. How do we pay for the millions of people here illegally or new asylum seekers? Our healthcare system today is faltering.

  5. An excess of low wage workers causes wage stagnation. We will never get out of this hole as long as there is an unlimited supply of people entering the country.

  6. If you’re for Illegal immigration, asylum for the masses crossing into the US would you be willing to contribute 50% of your earnings to pay for the new arrivals?

Th democrats policy for border security is to obstruct anything Trump wants to do as they dislike him and want him gone. They dm leadership could care less about Americans ad this country just themselves.

1 Like

Damn @GGG that was the most honest and straightforward assessment I’ve ever heard from a Democrat. We likely agree on nothing, but I commend your honesty.

It’s a lot like approaching terrorism as a criminal problem instead of as a war. Border surveillance isn’t rocket science, and it’s not particularly glamorous. But it’s also not just border security. There’s the matter of following US and international law for asylum seekers (instead of forcing them to cross in the deserts because they’ll be physically barred at official ports of entry). There’s the matter of dealing with employers (one way or another). There’s the question of why people are leaving their home countries with next to nothing. (and we’d better get ahead of that now, because climate is going to make the next few decades way interesting for migration.)

The real problem is that phrasing as only a problem of border security is ultimately self-defeating.

No talk…secure the border that was promise 32 years ago.

Then we can talk. Until then it’s nothing but more lies from centgov.

As for citizenship…no dice.

Why should society reward law breakers?


Well said. The biggest problem with the immigration we are getting particularly from Central and South America is that economically it is contributing to a growing underclass that is not sustainable economically. Look at what is happening at the LA public school district for example.

The people seeing fake asylum from south of the border as well as illegals contribute little to the US and take far more than they contribute.