This is definition shifting, no? "Open Borders" means open borders, i.e. no quotas. Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces. Proponents of these slogans often explain that they really mean more limited, reasonable changes when questioned, but they mean what the words say. That's how language works. If the intended policies are "raise the quotas," say so. If it's "do away with controlled borders," stand behind it and explain why. Don't switch from one to the other as is convenient.
> Like how "Defund the Police" means stop paying for and therefore disband police forces.
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. It means to reduce the funding (i.e. defund) the police in the same way that education has been defunded. That doesn't mean that a group is entirely disbanded, rather than the scope gets similarly restricted. When education is defunded, this means that after-school programs get cut, and school lunch programs are reduced. It doesn't mean that the school itself gets shut down. Should police be defunded, it means that extraneous use of police force, such as for mental health checks, are no longer part of the budget. It also means those funds can be shifted to programs specifically designed for mental health checks.
You are assuming that "defund" means to completely remove funding rather than partially remove funding.
I guess that’s fair, it’s used both ways in different contexts. I most associate the word with its use in universities, in which “x program/department has been defunded” means that it’s gone. There’s only one definition of “open borders,” though.
I'd agree there, though with the caveat that there are very similar phrasings that can have differences. I don't often hear people advocating for "open borders", but rather for "more open borders" or to "open up the borders". The former means to have no restrictions on movements between countries, while the latter two mean to have fewer restrictions, but still allow for a non-zero number of restrictions.
I simply meant that open borders can be implemented by a straightforward increase in quotas. Nothing else has to change. The quotas doesn't even have to be removed, they just need to be made arbitrarily high so that they don't materially distort the free movement of people on the long term. (Ie. it might take a few years to get through in busy times, but if it happens legally, great. Also the real problem is that asylum seeking is inextricably linked to this. And ideally it'd be great if asylum seekers wouldn't have to live in some godforsaken tent city for years if they are legally allowed to move to the US in a few years anyway.)
With regards to "defund the police" I'm perfectly happy to accept that it means different things to different people marching side by side with the same banners. And similarly with BLM.
I think it would be great if people would question others who use slogans without explaining what they actually mean. (For example even if someone is full abolish the police yesterday, sure, there's still a lot of explaining to do. How would this happen? By a federal law? Is that even constitutionally sound? Oh, by a change in the constitution? Oh, just a local thing? So the FBI/ATF/DEA are still on? Okay, so what will happen with all the police staff, and their hardware? And naturally what will be done to .. um ... fight crime? Neighborhood watches? Random deputyzation every time a crime is committed? Is there going to be a standing committee that handles this? How are the members chosen? Etc.. etc..)
It's a classic motte-and-bailey routine. The bailey are "open borders" or "defund the police" at face value. The motte are the more defensible positions they fall back on when challenged: "Actually when I say 'defund' I mean they should continue getting funding but we just need some reform is all"
Often this is paired with gaslighting. When called out, somebody employing the motte-and-bailey may refuse to admit the bailey exists at all. People who argue against the bailey get ridiculed for thinking the bailey exists.
