I really fear running on decriminalizing the border will come back and haunt certain candidates...

[Drunken Irishman]

I don't get it. I think it's an unforced error. There are strong measures you can take at the border without decriminalizing crossings. It just feels like something the Democrats will struggle to defend - and, politically, it's a landmine. Even in the most recent Marist poll, a plurality of Democrats opposed decriminalizing border crossings. All registered voters? Only 27% support it.

I just feel there's a better way to articulate the need for strong, humane border control than advocating for decriminalization. Taking a stance like this will put certain candidates on the defensive and undercut any strong policy because of it.

[customerserviceguy]

1. Agreed

You know Trump will hammer hard about the Democratic Party being the party of amnesty, etc.

[highplainsdem]

2. I agree.

[elleng]

3. Of course the premise is WRONG,

crossing the border without documents is NOT criminal NOW.

There is nothing to DEFEND, we must not ACCEPT an incorrect premise.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. This is not true.

If you fail to cross through the port of entry, it is against the law. This is where most the issue has arisen from. During Obama's administration, they utilized a catch and release enforcement with low-risk immigrants - Trump locks 'em up. There's a better way to articulate the subject than by saying you will decriminalize all border crossings.

[elleng]

5. It is not CRIMINAL, however;

it's a CIVIL violation.

There IS a better way to articulate the subject, that's for sure.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Then there's no point in saying you want to decriminalize it.

The connotation there is that we're going to let 'em enter unchecked. It's bad optics. Warren should not get caught up in the trap of these buzzwords when, in the last administration, it was still illegal to cross the border but we handled it in a fairly humane way that allowed for low-risk refugees and aliens to enter the community while they awaited trial. But saying you'll decriminalize it makes it sound like you're going to legalize it.

[elleng]

8. Exactly.

[mr_lebowski]

14. +2 exactly nt

[Blue_true]

7. Right now people are being jailed without investigation in why they are there.

That is criminalizing them. The correct approach would be to buttress up the asylum application process there and better sort through who has a good case for humanitarian entry.

A longer term approach will be to set up agreements with southern countries where people can get work visas to come here and work, as long as they went home when the visa expires -with the knowledge that if they followed the rule of law while here, they can immediately get the visa renewed.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. The optics are horrible on both sides with this argument...

The best approach is to emphasize a humane border policy that doesn't punish those seeking asylum. When Obama was president, the US operated a catch and release policy that allowed for low-risk aliens and asylum seekers to enter the community while they awaited trial. Pushing for a similar policy approaches it from a sensible, less divisive view than saying decriminalize border crossings.

[Blue_true]

18. I agree. How it is said matters. Decriminalizing, if left to stand on it's own as a term, turns a

lot of people off. Your statement is better, fully explain that the goal is not open borders, but a humane approach that seperates dangerous people from people that are not dangerous and want their asylum applications fairly investigated.

[emmaverybo]

9. Well that and Bernie saying anyone who comes here no matter their immigration status should

have healthcare, something no other country does. Sure, for refugees, asylum seekers who have been processed (under a new Prez, they will be), and with comprehensive immigration reform, DACAs, and those undocumented workers who have been here some time and should get a pathway to citizenship. But everyone?

That is a recipe for fiscal disaster, single payer healthcare doom, and a surefire way to lose the
election.

[peggysue2]

11. x1000, emmaverybo

I cringed listening to the decriminalization rants and healthcare for . . . everyone argument. There are how many millions of uninsured/underinsured American citizens but we're talking about offering healthcare to everyone who approaches our border?

Want to lose 2020? That's the easy way to do it.

This is in the same vein as allowing all incarcerated inmates to vote. Not simply those who have paid their time (perfectly reasonable) but . . . everyone behind bars. Regardless of crime. Because freedom of speech or something.

Ludicrous!

La-la land stuff does not play well to the vast majority of Americans. Hello???

If we want to kick Trump to the curb, it's time to come back to earth, start talking real policy efforts that can actually be achieved, passed, turned into reality. Stop the unicorn promises. Otherwise we'll be stuck with the Mad King for another 4 years, and then?

God help us all.

[emmaverybo]

12. Agree and agree. NT

[mr_lebowski]

17. +2

The general public is going to hear 'decriminalization' of crossing the border w/o proper docs as 'open borders', even though that's not technically what it means. If you, as a politician, have to stop and explain in details, at length, why John Q. Public misunderstands your stance? You've already lost.

I mean, I AGREE with decriminalizing border crossings (in the actual, proper sense of the term) ... But just because I'd defend the idea in a fcuking bar argument ... doesn't mean I'd recommend a Democratic POTUS candidate go out and SAY THAT on the campaign trail.

[Raine]

10. TOTALLY agree. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I don't get it either. It's a hot button that doesn't have to be pushed...

Since crossing the border isn't a felony, why bring up criminality?

Personally, I believe in open borders, but fat chance that will get anywhere. What will get somewhere is talk about efficient and humane border policies.

[BootinUp]

16. It's ridiculous and if by chance one of them

Wins the nod, it would be walked back in short order.