>

That wasn't an anti-immigrant comment, it was an comment about illegal immigration.
Using immigrant % of total population is even further from that.
I saw a documentary about Colorado shipping homeless people to California years ago. Even had a song about it. >

I remember when that kid used his skate board and jumped over at least 40 homeless >

Relevant text:

Polis announced on Jan. 3 that Colorado would facilitate in transporting of migrants who arrived in Denver to their "final destinations," noting that about 70% of the migrants did not consider Denver as their destination. The release added that weather and workforce shortages at the time attributed to travel cancellations for many migrants.
New York Mayor Eric Adams had responded before Polis issued that announcement. Joining 77WABC's "Sid and Friends in the Morning," Adams informed listeners that Polis notified him on Monday about busing migrants from Colorado.
"This is just unfair for local governments to have to take on this national obligation," Adams said. "We've done our job. There's no more room at the end, but we are compelled by local laws here that we must provide shelter."

So yes, unlike with Abbot, Polis was literally facilitating these folks getting to where they were trying to go.  But Republicans have to try to "both sides" with something, and this is the best they got. >

Migrant: I'm heading to New York
Mayor of NYC: This is Colorado's fault >

I moved from Co a few years ago, but this behavior seems weird from Polis. I get the struggle of having people and no resources, but I’m surprised to see he took this route. >

Yeah I’ve been asking around because I know quite a few people who are immigrants or work with immigrant communities, and it seems like these folks were unable to get to Chicago and NYC because transportation was a mess from the winter storm, but they wanted to go. It’s very different than kidnapping people like Abbott did. 
If they were trying to get to other cities where they have family or friends, then chartering a bus to help them get there is a good thing. People are not going to need much assistance in the form of emergency shelters if they have community support at their destination. >

Yeah, I'm trying to point out the distinctions but I'm getting downvoted. >

Shouldn't those that support open borders enthusiastically support helping migrants reach their final destination? 
Because if you don't then you actually don't support open borders. You're just supporting opening one border then hoping that the "border" of expenses/language barrier is closed keeping them from crossing the borders of your own city/county/state. 
It is demeaning when some states trick people onto buses and do stunt dropoffs but in this case we're dealing with hypocrisy. >

In the words of Karl Marx in regard to 19th century Irish immigration to England:

Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labor market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class. >

They didn't care about immigrants until they were on there doorstep, how ironic >

Do you really think that NYC and Chicago don't get immigrants? >

The difference was they did it legally like my family did >

Considering the process has changed drastically since your family did it, maybe you should reconsider.  After all criminal prosecutions for illegal border crossing didn't happen until 2004.
Immigration law has drastically changed within our lifetimes, and become incredibly restrictive relative to what it was for the entirety of American history.  For all the poeple decrying "semi-open borders" we have the most shut borders America has ever had in its history.  And that's not even tackling the question of "Was it even smart to change our immigration policy away from the one under which we became the world's foremost superpower, or were we just in shock from 9/11?" >

I'm actually quite familiar with the system. I know how expensive it is, how long it takes and that it needs an overhaul. I also know that the vast majority of Americans couldn't pass the test. However now it has become a political point with sanctuary cities, locking people in cages, pandering to certain demographics, those seeking asylum or whatever other rhetoric you wish to include. 
To gain access to one of the greatest countries in the world you just have to claim asylum since Central America is in it's current state.
I feel bad for them just as I do those that can't afford basic necessities. However we turn a blind eye to those already here and send aid and attention elsewhere which makes zero sense to me. >


However now it has become a political point with sanctuary cities, locking people in cages, pandering to certain demographics, those seeking asylum or whatever other rhetoric you wish to include. 

Right, the political point being that one side is anti-immigrant nativists who have extreme overlap with the racist elements in the nation, and the other side just treats them like normal people?
It should be easy to immigrate to America, that is the immigration policy under which we became the world's foremost economic powerhouse. >

So you think the right has either of our best interests at heart?! Stop with the us verses them mentality please. Have you compared how other developed nations in the world deal with citizenship and immigration? >

I have, but I didn't find it particularly relevant, because America is not those countries.  Our historical identity was practically formed on immigration and free trade, very reflective of the Netherlands during its glory days.  The Dutch was of economics was a very strong component of the fabric of American identity, the idea that people should be able to trade and exist freely within the territory.  While other countries closed themselves off and restricted who could enter, we accepted just about everyone.  And for that we became the greatest economic powerhouse in world history.  Until 9/11, and then we decided to start prosecuting illegal border crossers criminally instead of civilly.  How have we been doing since then?
Imagine being a passenger on the MS St. Louis in 1939.  You're Jewish, and you've managed to get all the way from Germany to the shores of America, along with 900 others.  Then, you're informed that you'll have to turn around and seek asylum elsewhere, because the US won't take you.  Imagine that.  Now imagine a family fleeing cartel violence, showing up at the border, and being told to wait in line because right wing Americans think the country is "too full".  History rhymes. >

Polis is one of the most popular governors in the country and even he doesn't want to deal with the impacts of semi-open borders.  I wonder when Congress will do something and why the Dems did not prioritize this when they controlled both Houses of Congress? >

If you think we have semi-open borders now, you must not take much pride in American history. >

4M refugees or illegals have entered the country in the last two years. >

Yes, and we're only now just normalizing back to the level of immigrants we had back in the 1850's.
You think this is a lot because you don't understand that historically America's entire national identity was "We'll take you even if nobody else will".  It's only for the past sixty to seventy years that a growing political backlash against immigrants has become politically empowered enough to restrict immigration.
I'm telling you, for all you anti-immigration folks' talk about how you like this country, you seem to like more the pale illusion of it in your head.  And that's not even getting into the question of "Who's the real immigrants in a country which has native Americans?"