I found this BBC article, EU immigration policies condemned, a useful compendium of open-borders rhetorical devices:
- Attribute concern about immigration to the “far right.”
- Call for “strong leadership” (i.e., ignoring popular concerns).
- Request the strong leadership to “dispel popular misconceptions and fears” (i.e., engage in obfuscation and shut down discussion).
- Call excluding illegals “sealing borders” or “Fortress Europe.” Say it’s xenophobic and can’t be done anyway, so what’s needed are legal channels of entry.
- Say “anti-immigrant” and not “anti-immigration.”
- Otherwise refer to everything that might be done as ineffective, counterproductive, or against human rights, and claim all immigration is either beneficial to the receiving country, required by human rights, or both.
- Never vary from the key point: there are no legitimate arguments, and can be no legitimate arguments, against essentially open borders. The only problem worthy of public discussion is xenophobia and how to fight it. Thus EU proposals to do something about illegal immigration can only be understood as a way of dealing with the far right.
Similar rhetorical devices are of course used with regard to other elements of the left/liberal agenda.