A columnist for the New York Times finally admitted what many on the right have long suspected: there’s a growing taste for open borders among progressives, and it’s taken Donald Trump’s hardline stance on the Southern border to get them to drop the facade. Be sure to take note of the title of this piece:

The writer, himself an immigrant from South Africa, says that morally, economically, strategically, and culturally the case for open borders is clear and Democrats just need to have the courage to push it. “Here’s hoping Democrats respond with creativity and verve,” he says of the new caravan moving up from Honduras that already numbers in the 1,000s.  “Not just ‘No wall.’ Not just ‘Abolish ICE.’ Instead: ‘Let them in.'”

In fact, this writer argues, we are going against our own ideas about natural rights if we don’t throw the doors wide and welcome everyone who wants to come with a hug. Just as you would anyone who came to the front door of your house, presumably.

There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.

Where to start…

Wait, no. Rather than going down the rabbit hole here, I’ll just let the great Peter Sellers, doing a hilarious (but exceedingly politically incorrect by today’s standards) bit, speak for me in a scene from the under-appreciated 1976 ensemble comedy Murder By Death:

At risk of being cynical — which is better than being stupid — this writer seems to believe that everyone who wants to come here is a great friend to liberty and has no designs on weakening this nation and her ideals.

And that’s a foolish and dangerous belief to hold. That’s not to say there isn’t room to have faith in people searching for a better situation. Having a secure border and checking legal immigrants through the process protects them as well as the people already here.

And while the writer does make a good point about stagnating birth rates in this country and how immigrants might actually help solve some of that problem, there’s no reason that can’t be the case with a legal system. In fact, it’s strategically much better if we know the people coming here want the opportunity to live in a place that recognizes their natural rights and will raise their children to believe and cherish the same.

Europe is struggling to figure out what to do in the aftermath of their open borders policy to the extent that this piece in The Hill wishes (I think) to be much friendlier about their problems than it can reasonably be and still be accurate.

Unfortunately we live in a world where peepholes on doors and gated communities are preferred for good reason. And people don’t leave their doors unlocked or open for anyone that wishes to come in.

It’s absurd to ask that of a nation.