In recent weeks, Immigrations and Custom Enforcement has ramped up enforcement of immigration laws, detaining and often deporting persons who are in the United States without legal permission to be in the U.S.
There are estimates ranging from 10 to 20 million people in the U.S. are not here legally. By law, persons not in the country legally may be subject to deportation.
For decades, the U.S., has, starting with an amnesty program in the 1980s, offered many paths to residency visas for those who entered the country illegally.
This seems to have become a de facto open border policy. How? About 50+/-% of those in the U.S. illegally enter on a valid visa and stay after the expiration date on their visa. Per politicians and the media, once you are in the U.S. you should not be deported.
The effect is we have a de facto open border policy – enter on a valid visa, overstay your authorization, and thereafter, deportations are evil so we should not do deportations. That is the message from politicians and the media.
Do we want open borders?
No one is asking that question, but that is what politicians and media seem to be saying: we should have open borders.
Let us start with this “sob story” from USA Today – the clear implication is that even if her father attempted to murder a large group of elderly Jews, and set many of them on fire – we should have sympathy for his daughter, who is in the country illegally: Boulder suspect’s daughter faces deportation, aimed to save lives (The spin on this story is utterly bizarre.)
Her life had been headed in a positive direction before the attack on the weekly demonstration in support of Israeli hostages held in Gaza, which came three days after her high school graduation.
Many people’s lives were headed in a positive direction until her father dropped firebombs on them.
But her dream of attending medical school, the story says, is now at risk – ignoring that she can attend medical schools in other countries, including the two dozen or more located in her birth country, where she is legally entitled to live.
Many people’s lives were headed in a positive direction until her Dad (accused) attempted to murder a group of elderly Jews in Boulder, CO last weekend (per allegations in multiple news reports).
On my Travel blog, for years I have been very pro legal immigration – and have not given much thought about how to handle illegal immigration. I do not know what we should do – but we do need to first ask – Do we want to have fully open borders? That is what we have now, particularly when we argue that all deportations are wrong.
The media is promoting sympathetic stories that are baffling. The Oregonian ran a story this week about two grandparents in the country illegally and who are self-deporting. Only late in the story do we learn about his past convictions, their past deportation in 2009, and then they paid coyotes to get them across the border again in 2010, and that 3 of their 4 kids then immigrated to the U.S. illegally as well.
Now that they are here, goes the story, they should get to stay. In other words, it’s an open border.
What is the goal of these stories?
An estimated 42% to 60+% of those in the U.S. without permission enter the U.S. on a valid visa but then overstay that visa’s ending date. (This is why “the Border Wall” does not make a lot of sense.)
Per media stories, like the above, and many political and activist comments, once anyone is inside the United States, they should be permitted to stay forever.
All that is needed to gain a de fact U.S. residency permit, therefore, is to enter the U.S. legally, and then overstay the visa.
This is de facto open borders: Should the U.S. have no border controls at all – anyone can come in and stay?
Anyone else baffled by these stories?
The USA Today story ends with a brief item about the siblings of the killer of Laken Riley, who were taken into ICE custody and for which, the implication is, we should feel sympathy:
Argenis Ibarra and Flores-Bello were immediately placed into Immigrations and Customs Enforcement custody following the March 19 announcement. Diego Ibarra is expected to be turned over to immigration officials following completion of a 48-month federal prison sentence.
It is sad when illegal immigrants convicted of Federal crimes are slated for deportation?
The USA Today story is written by Michael Loria who seems disconnected from the real world.
Where are the sob stories about those who were badly injured in the Boulder CO fire bomb attack?
Where are the sob stories about their (likely adult) children and their families?
From comments on X: “Another chapter in the “You Don’t Hate the Media Enough” saga.”
Out of over 12,000 comments at the time of this writing, I have not seen one that is supportive of USA Today’s reporting on this. That is how out of touch the doomer media has become.
Update
Gov. Newsom of California is says no one in the country illegally should be deported as long as they have a job – if you come in on a tourist visa and stay, thereafter you are free to stay forever:
Here is another story: U.S. Salvadoran family’s tough journey to Canada: ‘We didn’t want to be deported’. The illegal immigrant family believes they are entitled to permanent residency because they’ve been in the U.S. for many years.
The gist of an AP story – Trump administration gives immigrant Medicaid data to deportation officials | kgw.com – is that those in the country illegally are ethically and morally entitled to free health care and should not be deported. I am not comfortable with the sharing of this data between government agencies, but the AP spin implies the U.S. should have open borders and controlling who enters the country (and stays, regardless of legal authorization to do so) should be avoided.
In my state, Oregon, 1 in 3 people receive free health care via Medicaid, and an estimated up to 300,000 of those are living in Oregon without legal authorization to do so.
Thus, per the media, no one should be deported, and the U.S. is a de facto open borders country to which anyone can migrate.
- California, Oregon and five other states offer free health care to those in the U.S. without permission: GOP tax and spending bill dings states that offer health care to some immigrants here legally • Oregon Capital Chronicle. This care is paid for by taxpayers.
- In Oregon, “undocumented immigrants” in the country without permission may obtain Oregon State Driver’s licenses: Oregon starts issuing driver licenses to undocumented immigrants – JURIST – News
- Oregon, like many states, has codified rights for those in the country without permission: Oregon House passes bill to prohibit housing discrimination based on immigration status • Oregon Capital Chronicle
In some jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, non-citizens in the country illegally are authorized to vote in some local elections.
Can a country exist as an independent country if it has open borders and no control over who is part of the country?
I have no idea what the best way is to address the problem that was created by this policy – I have no expertise in this. BUT we need to ask: Do we want open borders because that is what we have and what proponents are pushing us to do?
Should we deport persons who were children when they were illegally brought into the U.S.?
Seems unfair to blame children who had no control over their destiny:
Polls and surveys have consistently found that most U.S. adults favor granting permanent legal status and a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers.
ICE detains Utah college student after brief traffic stop, raising questions
And College student in US since she was 7 detained by ICE
“Open Borders” Do Not Exist Anywhere in the World
From Grok AI:
No country in the world currently has a fully open borders policy that allows unrestricted emigration for anyone to settle permanently without conditions. However, some countries and regions have agreements or policies that facilitate relatively free movement for specific groups, often within regional blocs or under certain circumstances. Below, I outline the closest examples of “open borders” policies or arrangements, focusing on emigration (leaving a country) and immigration (entering a country), as the term “open borders” often relates to both:
1. Schengen Area (Europe)
Description: The Schengen Agreement, implemented by 29 European countries (including 25 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein), allows for free movement of people across internal borders without passport controls. Citizens of Schengen countries can live, work, and settle in any other Schengen country without a visa or permit.
Details:
Applies primarily to citizens of Schengen member states (e.g., Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc.).
Non-Schengen citizens may require visas or permits, but EU citizens face no restrictions within the zone.
Example: A German citizen can emigrate to Sweden or Spain without any immigration barriers.
Limitations: While internal borders are open, external borders (for non-EU/Schengen citizens) are controlled, and immigration policies for third-country nationals vary by country. Asylum seekers or non-EU migrants face stricter requirements.
Relevance: This is the most prominent example of a regional open borders arrangement, but it’s limited to member state citizens.
2. Common Travel Area (UK and Ireland)
Description: The Common Travel Area (CTA) allows citizens of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands to move freely, live, and work without immigration controls.
Details:
UK and Irish citizens can emigrate to each other’s countries without visas or work permits.
No passport checks are required for travel between these regions, though identity verification may be needed at airports or seaports.
Limitations: Non-CTA citizens (e.g., from outside the UK or Ireland) face standard immigration controls. The policy is bilateral and not global.
Relevance: Similar to the Schengen Area, this facilitates open movement but only for a small group of countries.
3. Union State (Russia and Belarus)
Description: The Union State agreement between Russia and Belarus allows citizens of both countries to move, live, and work freely in either country without visas or permits.
Details:
No physical border controls exist for citizens of Russia or Belarus.
Citizens can settle and work without restrictions.
Limitations: This applies only to citizens of Russia and Belarus. Foreigners from other countries face strict immigration controls.
Relevance: A limited bilateral open borders policy, not applicable to global emigration.
4. Nordic Passport Union (Nordic Countries)
Description: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden allow citizens of these countries to live and work in any Nordic country without a visa or residence permit.
Details:
Predates and complements the Schengen Agreement.
Citizens have access to social services and can settle freely.
Limitations: Restricted to Nordic citizens; non-Nordic citizens face immigration controls.
Relevance: Similar to Schengen, this is a regional arrangement for specific nationalities.
5. Conditionally Open Borders for Refugees or Asylum Seekers
Description: Some countries have policies that allow entry for refugees or asylum seekers under international law (e.g., 1951 Refugee Convention). These are not “open borders” in the traditional sense but allow entry for specific groups fleeing persecution or danger.
Examples:
Germany (2015): During the 2015 refugee crisis, Germany temporarily opened its borders to Syrian and other refugees, allowing significant inflows. This led to economic benefits by addressing labor shortages, though it was not a fully open policy.
Portugal and Sweden: These countries rank high for integrating migrants and refugees, with relatively open policies for asylum seekers.
Limitations: These policies are conditional (e.g., proof of persecution) and do not allow unrestricted emigration for all. Asylum seekers may face quotas or vetting processes.
Relevance: These are not true open borders but reflect more permissive entry for specific humanitarian cases.
6. Countries with Lenient Immigration Policies
Some countries have relatively easy immigration requirements, though not fully open borders:
Ecuador: Requires a guaranteed monthly income of USD $800 (plus $100 per dependent) for residency, making it accessible for many.
Argentina: Requires a guaranteed monthly income of USD $850 for residency, with a straightforward process.
Uruguay: Requires proof of a guaranteed income and evidence that the country is your “center of life” for residency or citizenship.
Limitations: These policies require financial proof and are not unrestricted. Citizenship processes are more complex and not guaranteed.
Relevance: These are among the least restrictive immigration policies, but they still impose conditions and are not true open borders.
7. Historical or De Facto Open Borders
Historical Examples: In the past, countries like the early United States had relatively open borders due to a lack of immigration controls or enforcement, allowing large-scale immigration. This is no longer the case.
De Facto Open Borders: Some countries, due to lack of resources or enforcement, have unintentionally open borders (e.g., porous borders in conflict zones or underfunded regions). However, this is not a deliberate policy and often leads to irregular migration rather than legal emigration.
Key Points:
No Fully Open Borders: As of 2025, no country has a policy allowing unrestricted global immigration for anyone to settle permanently without conditions. All countries impose some form of control (e.g., visas, financial requirements, or citizenship restrictions).
Regional Agreements: The Schengen Area, Common Travel Area, and similar regional pacts come closest to open borders but are limited to specific nationalities or member states.
Human Rights Perspective: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) guarantees the right to leave any country but does not guarantee the right to enter another, creating an asymmetry in global migration policy.
Economic and Security Concerns: Even in lenient systems, concerns about economic strain, security risks, or public services limit fully open policies.
Conclusion:
No country allows unrestricted emigration or immigration for all people globally. The Schengen Area, Common Travel Area, and Union State are the closest approximations, but they apply only to citizens of member countries. Countries like Ecuador, Argentina, and Uruguay have relatively lenient immigration policies, but these still require financial or other conditions. If you’re seeking to emigrate, researching specific country requirements (e.g., income thresholds or visa processes) is essential, as policies vary widely. For further details, you can explore resources like the World Economic Forum’s Open Borders Index or specific country immigration websites.