The world at large is better off with open borders. Free migration has brought millions out of poverty. It also has saved millions of people from conflict. And it is in fact beneficial for most recipient countries as well.
I wish it were just that simple sometimes. I don't know if I'm a full on open borders guy, but I'm pretty close.
This is a good summation of my view as well. Immigration is generally a force that does a lot of good and enriches countries and peoples.
That said, the reason why I started this thread is because it disturbs me when people people denounce the legitimacy of practicing immigration control at all-- and it seems that many of Trump's would-be-well-meaning-detractors too easily act as if it is a given that denouncing that practice all together is fine and correct. While I'm in favor of more liberal policies for immigration (in the US), voices that denounce the legitimacy of a country's right to practice control of its borders and immigration, and choose its own path as a country, are not helping. Immigration control is one more power of a sovereign state, and we should be able to respect an individual country's rights to make decisions about it.
For instance, I wouldn't take the same stance on immigration for Japan as the US, and I wouldn't disdain the Japanese for having a more conservative policy that respects the needs of their people. A country with thousands of years in relative isolation (for its unique culture to evolve), half the population of the US living in a space equal to California (and only 1/4th habitable), and a resulting rigid set of traditions, decor and hierarchy that highly govern people's expectations and daily interactions in order to avoid conflict should not have the same stance on immigration as a melting-pot country. That is a choice that should be respected.
In regards to accepting refugees for either Japan or the United States, my opinion is that being prudent, skeptical, and realistic is not being evil.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/terror-in-europe/
In my opinion, the more Cultural variety a country has, the more attractive it looks. As long as those cultures don't clash into each other, but rather respect each other, I think it benefits everyone equally. The problem is when one culture tries to impose over any other, thus creating the typical belief that letting other cultures get into a country makes things worse.
Cultures can potentially "[avoid clashing] and respect each other" when there is
common ground-- often in the form of a 3rd, shared culture.
Common ground and the ability to co-exist is not a given-- in the history of humanity, it's a happy coincidence most of the time.
And culture is far more rigid than a lot of people give it credit for. Being culturally aware means acknowledging that while individuals can change, culture is often as core to them as the color of their skin. It means knowing that while we have to work towards common ground, any change can be slow, and change for good is an accomplishment, not inevitability.
Being sensitive and respectful, but also realistic and objective would be my creed. For instance, the ideal policy maker on the Middle East for me would be someone who has studied and appreciated the history of Islam and the Arab world, who has a knowledge and appreciation for the people, communities and their history-- but is also not blind to real problems with the Koran itself, and how that influences Muslim communities; aware that Islam needs to change, it needs a secular awakening to modernize, but the process will be slow and sensitive and needs Western support.
Obviously, Trump is none of the above...