There are people who have organized to promote open borders. From Vox:
…in recent years, a small but devoted group of advocates have succeeded in turning open borders from a dirty word to a real movement with strong arguments backing it up. The team at OpenBorders.info — Vipul Naik, John Lee, Nathan Smith, Paul Crider — has led the charge, as Shaun Raviv wrote in an excellent profile of the group in the Atlantic. The University of Colorado’s Michael Huemer honed Carens’ moral case, while the Center for Global Development’s Michael Clemens has been hugely influential in arguing that we’re leaving trillions in potential economic growth on the table by enforcing border restrictions.
Two quick quotes that sum up the argument for, and the rebuttal to the main objection:
“What would you think about a law that said that blacks couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or women couldn’t get a job without the government’s permission, or gays or Christians or anyone else?” George Mason economist Bryan Caplan asks. It’s a pretty easy question. Obviously, such a law is discriminatory on its face, serves no rational purpose, and is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. But Caplan continues: “So why, exactly, is it that people who are born on the wrong side of the border have to get government permission just to get a job?”
…think about what happened in the 1960s and ’70s as more and more women joined the workforce in the United States. Was the result mass unemployment for men, as women took all their jobs? Of course not — the economy adjusted, and we’re all better off for it. “Would we really be a richer society if we kept half the population stuck at home?” Caplan asks. “Isn’t it better to take people who have useful skills and let them do something with it, than to just keep them locked up someplace where their skills go to waste?”
In addition, Caplan argues for more of what Obama just did with his executive order:
More incrementally, he wants Obama to take as expansive a view of executive power as possible for the sake of benefiting immigrants. “I think my first step would be, if not legislative amnesty, then presidential fiat amnesty,” he says. “Essentially, the kind of things that Republicans accuse Obama of secretly plotting to do are what I think should be done.”
Same goes for the Central American migrant crisis. “I would be against any effort to curtail what’s going on with the child migrant crisis,” he says. “This is a loophole, and I believe in pushing loopholes as far as you can possibly can.” He also wants Obama to fill the asylum quota — bafflingly, something that hasn’t been done in most years. “You’re telling me there aren’t 100,000 people on earth who are going to be horribly persecuted by their governments and who want to come here?” he asks. “Come on.”
Great idea. It’s not about whether or not you like Obama, or what he says he plans to do, or any of what he has actually done, or whether or not any of it is actually legal. At this point, given the toxic environment in Washington, it’s about getting something, anything, done. Toxic environment is defined as not only the D vs. R circus, but also the corporate cronyism that keeps things at a standstill or worse, and the what they say vs. what they do that is in evidence everywhere.
Also, it seems nearly criminal that we haven’t allowed in more of the people who foolishly helped the coalition during the Iraq and Afghan wars, especially if there are asylum spots open. These are people who helped us and now need our help and we’re bringing no one rather than them. Well, these are the same people who manage the VA.