Are there any groups that are actually in favor of “open borders”? It seems like that term has become co-opted to mean any border enforcement that’s anything short of what the extremists want.

The UN for instance supports open borders. This is obvious if you look at the views of those involved. The former director of the IOM was recently very involved in the UN migration compact. There's an interview with him on YouTube somewhere from the past year where he openly admits that he strongly supports mass migration into Europe, calling it "inevitable". Europeans are funding immigrantion into their countries, whether they like it or not.

I skimmed the UN migration compact and don’t see anything like “open borders” in it. It explicitly states, “We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration.”

The compact itself is ideological babble. Carefully listen to this interview and his views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88KuVlYFXsI

This guy was in many UN meetings in relation to the compact. If you watch the interview, his view is that Europe has colonized many places, so it only makes sense that Europe now open its borders. He specifically states in the interview he has no concern for nationalists or those who worry about mass migration. He says that they need to drive the fear of mass migration out of the people of Europe through public education programs. He says that it's a matter of people's viewpoints needing to change. He's very much pro-immigration. The view that mass migration into Europe is inevitable, and that the UN and its surrounding organisations need to facilitate that and make it "safe, orderly and regular", is widespread among the people writing and setting up these documents and allocating the money the UN and it's partner organisations spend. That's why I said, Europeans are funding the welfare behind the facilitation of mass migration into their countries. If you want to find out more, consider documents like these and their supporting studies. It is also largely filled with ideological babble, which is why I am less than optimistic about mass immigration and the supposed integrated Utopia that is supposed to arise from that:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/theme...

We've seen how well integration works in Britain and Sweden...

I watched it. I didn't hear anything about open borders in there. He talked a lot about accepting refugees, which has been a standard part of international law for decades now, but that is very much not the same thing.

The part about how Europe colonized many places was just a description of how Europe itself was fairly insulated from the rest of the world for a long time, which can make it hard to suddenly start accepting a lot of people from elsewhere because it's a big change. There was nothing at all about this meaning Europe should open its borders.

> pro-open borders groups

Can you provide a link/source for these groups?

I don't trust Breitbart to do factual reporting (based on their extensive history of false reporting) and this report from May 2016 shows nothing about a caravan in November 2018.

Even if it was related, this report says nothing about open borders. As I understand the migrants are looking for asylum, which is an extensive process with a low success rate. How is that "open borders"?

Puebla sin Fronteras, for one. Their name literally means no borders.

He does not advocate "open borders". He does humanitarian aid for refugees. In Europe, he supports many pro-European groups. That means open borders by extension, because the EU has abolished borders. But it's not a specific goal of his to increase migration.

The "Open" in "Open Society Foundation" also has nothing to do with "Open Borders". A open society is defined by freedom of speech, equality before the law, high social mobility, more interested in trying new ideas than in defending the status quo, etc.

It's the same ideology that made him spend his first billion on fighting the communists in the 1980.

Is this not the thesis[1] of (and motivation for) the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter? Weird to see this drivel repeated on HN.

1. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/29/18037580/pittsburgh-shooter-a...

edit: added reference for downvoters.