We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The New York Review of Books thinks the problem with the Biden-Harris administration is that it has been too tough on immigration. No—seriously, they really think this:

Activists—and asylum seekers—have good reason to be outraged at what they see as the Biden administration’s betrayal on asylum. . . In 2022 at least 853 people died crossing the US–Mexico border, compared to 227 in 2020. While numbers haven’t been officially tallied for 2023, a further increase seems likely.

None of this has prompted a rethinking on immigration within the Democratic Party. If anything, the Biden administration is doing more to push migrants back into danger. . . Harris seems to believe that by cracking down on immigration, she will establish the necessary nationalist bona fides to win over right-wingers, which in turn might pave the way for comprehensive immigration reform. But that’s a failed strategy.

The author of this piece, John Washington, is an open-borders advocate, which fits with the other core leftist belief that the nation-state is obsolete and should be abolished, along with borders:

For the journalist John Washington, in The Case for Open Borders, to be born on one side of a border rather than another should bestow no inherent right. Borders are mutable; nations are questionable constructs. . . How is it, Washington wonders, that the UN Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to leave your country but not to enter another?

Oh I don’t know—maybe that old-fashioned concept called sovereignty?

The future envisaged by The Case for Open Borders will evolve, in Washington’s heady vision, by an incremental process in which contiguous regions—some already sharing treaties and affiliations—open their doors. Washington charts this potential domino effect with almost jaunty optimism.

This doesn’t look “incremental” to me: