20, 30 years ago many of the same people clamoring for open borders now were speaking against globalization, corporate imperialism, cultural imperialism, but speaking for and on behalf of the cause of American workers who were being swapped out for offshoring, etc. But now the credo is open borders and strong companies which can stand against nation states and dictate values.... It’s as if the political magnetosphere swapped poles.

Who is clamoring for open borders? I don't know of any prominent examples of political figures who take that position, just examples where their opponents falsely characterise the position as "open borders".

The ptogressive base makes arguments for it. They make arguments against ICE, make arguments agaist enforcing immigration laws, make arguments for “sanctuary cities”. What other country, even poor countries who, for consistency’s sake, should espouse such policy had such policies? Most othet countries I’ve been to the police have the power to deport; depening on case, on the spot. I have known of people who worked abroad who were given hours to arrange for their stuff and get out after staying beyond their visas.

Neither "abolish ICE" nor "sanctuary cities" are equivalent positions to "open borders". That's my point. I just searched again, and find only one example of a politician coming anywhere close to advocating open borders (Keith Ellison, representative for MN, wore a shirt saying "yo no creo en fronteras." He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders".) The mainstream liberal/progressive position isn't to clamor for open borders. It is to clamor for every individual to be treated with dignity and respect and compassion for their circumstances. The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically. (In the progressive view, what is "just" is a different question to what does the law say.) All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views.

"sanctuary city" is essentially equivalent to open borders. If you deny the ability to enforce immigration policy, then having immigration policy is just a waste of money and effort. It's like having a door but no walls around, so if you are not allowed in the door, you just go around it.

> He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders"

Come on. If the person does not say "open borders" for tactical reasons, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the concept, especially if he says "no creo en fronteras".

> The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically.

So let's say police and courts do an injustice (that happens a lot) and you say you want now to abolish police and courts. Would it be unfair to say you object to law enforcement? If yes, then you'd have to explain how do you see law enforcement absent police and courts. Or recognize that - for whatever reasons you arrived to this position - you are now doing exactly that. Somebody who objects to enforcement of immigration laws - as a whole, not in specific cases - must either explain how it is not "open borders" - and the burden of proof is on them - or recognize that's what they are for. Even if it is tactically uncomfortable.

> All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views

Please explain how "open borders" is mischaracterizing "yo no creo en fronteras". Maybe my Spanish is worse than I thought it is - what exactly does it mean then?

Just in this topic there is several commenters that take exactly that position. There are many more. Of course, not every person who opposes immigration restrictions is for open borders, and not every politician that is ultimately for open borders would think it is a good tactics to proclaim it right now. But proponents of unlimited (and essentially unlimited - i.e. guarded by checks that anyone with two brain cells can pass or limited by mechanism that lacks enforcement in practice) immigration obviously and prominently exist. You can see people with slogans proclaiming that on any pro-immigration protest. Surely, not everybody thinks so. But denying that there are many people saying so is denying the obvious.

> I'm curious why these countries don't receive the same flak for their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants. There are no boycotts against buying goods from these countries as they are with Trump hotels.

This is text book whataboutism. Just because someone isn't publicly complaining about Y doesn't make their criticism of X any less relevant.

Y is more far oppressive but is coddled while X gets all the flak and is stifled. Conservative sites like Breitbart are essentially stifled on Google while the oppressive Chinese government can manipulate any Google search results it wants. What is Google's reasoning for this?

This isn’t a fair comparison. The Chinese government cannot manipulate search results outside of China, where companies must either comply with local law or be eliminated via the Great Firewall.

This policy, while controversial in itself, has nothing to do with what you perceive as “stifling” of Breitbart in, I presume, American search results. I’d argue that this is nearly blatantly untrue - try searching for a term that Breitbart has written about, and you’ll find results at the top [0] or for Breitbart itself, and you’ll get a full-featured overview of Breitbart content and articles [1].

What evidence is there that Breitbart is stifled by Google?

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+may+use+military+to+bu...

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=breitbart

And just because one Party is really "evil" I can be as "evil" as I want unless I become the most "evil"? Really?

And you really Need an Explanation why a company adopts to reuls in specific country (not saying it is good thing) and treats a (fringe) news outlet differently (not sure if they actually do, so)?