Elon Musk's opinion on why we have the open border.

Did you read my post...You asked: "Don't you think there are other factions besides the business community who want open borders?"
And I said: who wants open borders? No one I know of, but maybe you have an idea....apparently not.
Gee, I don't know how the business community is involved in current border policy, do you?

 

Whites did follow the trend. The Nation is in decline. That is what a welfare system combined with human nature does! Yes, people with white skin tones are catching up but the original target, unfortunately was those of the black culture. It came along with Civil Rights. Leo Terrell was a Civil Rights Activist in the 60's and 70's. He will back up what I am saying.

 

We would be overrun by people from all over the world if we had "open borders."

You could get a lot of Europeans agitated if you start talking about their counties as the equivalent of U.S. states.

Open borders barely works there. As I said, we could make it work with Canada--maybe work better than the EU's Schengen Area--but I'd be concerned about the effort Canada makes for border security. We're much more of a target than they are.

Check. Mexico should deal with the people they're lining up on our border.

 

Well duh! What do you think has been going on for 3 years! You think 10 million is small potatos?

Actually, Mexico did help deal with them until our Appeaser in Chief repealed "Remain in Mexico".

 

Did you know that only cynics can see others as cynics? These people had to pay, or incur debt to the cartels to get to our border. Did you know about the cartels wristbands given to those who paid so they know who to allow to pass through their territory? As the cartels use this income to expand their industry (Human trafficking, sex tourism, extortion, guns, drugs, child exploitation, etc) the need to seek asylum increases. Knowing these facts, incentivizing illegal immigration is not from a position of genuine concern for humanity.

You are right to criticize the Reps for failing to do something when they had both houses, but if you are a Democrat, you are not pointing with clean hands. Dems are worse.

Neither party wants to solve the issue and I believe its because there are too many political benefits that come with allowing it to fester. Reps can use it as a campaign stunt, and dems enjoy the votes that the pain and suffering of so many innocent people brings in.

 

Republicans at the very least, will return the border to where it was before the Appeaser in Chief came to office.

 

If you allowed a random guy on the internet to get you to question your own sanity, you were gas-lit. Otherwise, you have experienced an opinion you don't agree with. To say that our southern border is an "open border" is an understatement. Illegal immigration is encouraged by both parties and the cartels. Your example does not refute that fact.

 

Sigh... so you maintain the fiction that open borders is an imaginary trope.

OK

 

If you built the great wall of America and didn't allow anybody through legally, but they dug a tunnel underneath it where millions of people crossed, would that be an open border or a closed border?

 

Im not sure why the semantics of this are so important to you, but my choice of verbiage would be it's an open border that would require a minimal effort to close. A tunnel is not difficult to seal, and millions of people coming from one would certainly be easy to find.

Anyone that allowed such a tunnel to exist for any length of time would in fact be choosing to allow an open border.

 

An open border means people are allowed to legally cross at will. That is not what we have. Open border is just a bullshit political point in this context. Insufficiently controlled border? Maybe. But then recently republicans chose politics over trying to make the problem better.

Your thinking about the wall is pretty classic and the same kind of thinking that perpetuates the useless war on drugs. Sure, you can close a tunnel, or take down a cartel, but both actions are basically meaningless because as long as the demand is there, a new operation will take its place.

 

As I said, Im not sure why the exact semantics of this are that important to you. If you prefer to say "insufficiently controlled border" that carries the same meaning in the given context. You could also say overly porous border. These all connote the same thing.

I wouldnt get so caught up in the verbiage. It is the concept that counts. You can call it Jabberwocky if that makes you feel better. What you are doing is analogous to getting bogged down in whether to call someone a janitor or a custodial engineer, who cares? No matter how much lipstick you use, it means the same thing. I assume you are arguing for using more lipstick when referring to the Democrat's refusal to substantively attack the problem of the grossly insufficiently controlled border resulting in millions of border crossings not occurring at legal points of entry.

If your complaint is that the right is not using the lipstick that you want applied to the policies of the left.....whaaah. That is politics, and it occurs equally in both directions. They call that the war of words, which basically describes the process where one side tries to frame the debate in words that are supportive and /or complimentary to their point of view, while simultaneously being negative towards the opposite point of view.




BTW....What was your point with the tunnel?

 

Let me nip this in the bud. That is in no way my definition.
We have an open border where this administration allows them to come in "illegally". There are laws on the books that require certain adherences which this Administration chooses, for reasons Elon has shown, to circumvent. Obviously they have opened the border in spite of laws of entry. By those laws they are "illegal".

Your definition does not apply here. I understand it's application however.

Our laws state we have "ports of entry" where foreign Nationals must apply for entry and enter when granted. As we know, they now, under this Administration's guidelines enter where ever they damn well please and so-called border security scrambles to meet them, accepts whatever ID they can get (though not verified) and requests they appear at a much later date (around 5 years) to a court appearance to have their entry granted. There are no I.D. verifications, no vaccination verifications or background checks. Then they are given transportation to whatever sanctuary city they desire. Because our border is not made secure and border security is tied up admitting those that present themselves, thousands more sneak across without any recognition. In addition, these illegal entries are not deported!

There, I have outlined for you why our border is open AND illegal!

 

The words matter and they're being used dishonestly, that's the point. The point isn't the left never does it. The point is it should be corrected.

The tunnel. You had previously said that millions crossing proves the border is open. The tunnel to circumvent the wall was just using a more extreme example of a truly closed border to show that people getting past it doesn't mean it's an "open border." Closed border doesn't mean impenetrable or else there would be no such thing.

I get that you're concerned about the border and that's why you don't care about the semantics. Unfortunately for you, republicans in congress and Trump have shown their hand that the border isn't truly an urgent or important issue to them by not allowing the compromise bill to pass, but rather a political tool to get certain kinds of people to be motivated to vote.

If the border were an urgent issue their position would be to take the imperfect bill to help with the urgent problem, and then try to pass an even better bill after winning the election. But no, avoiding passing a bill while a democrat is in office is more important than fixing the so-called urgent problem.

 

It is. Single parents often don't make enough money to take care of themselves and their children.

Starving them out by cutting welfare, from cash to healthcare premium support, won't make things better.

The system is rigged against lower- and middle-income groups. Instead of having an income sufficient to support themselves, they are forced to rely on government charity.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

The workers' share is declining. Output per worker has doubled over the past 4+ decades. Wages have barely gone up.

I haven't run across the guy.

 

You are arguing meanignless semantics. The words used dont matter. Everyone knows what i=s being reffered to. Call it an open boder. Call it purposefully overly porous. It means the same thing.

This would be like me saying that pot is legal in Michigan, and then you retorting that it is not legal because it is illegal federally. The federal part of that equation is irrelevant because the feds have no intention of enforcing that law. You can technically say that is is still illegal, but for all intents and purposes, it most certainly is not.

Similarly, yes it is still illegal to enter this country from anywhere other than a legal point of entry, but that claim rings hollow when they are not running away from the border agents, rather they are walking TO them. That tells you everything you need to know. The law is not being enforced, and thus is essentially an open border, just as marijuana is essentially legal in Michigan or any other recreational legal state.

You are doing nothing other than arguing irrelevant semantics. The parameters and meanings in this debate are already well known. Going to the mat arguing that the border is not open when 2.8 million have crossed it in the last year alone is truly an exercise in meaningless semantics. Just as with legal marijuana states, whether it it technically illegal means nothing. What matters in this context is whether it is being enforced. There is currently not an effort to stem the tide of people coming into this country from places other than legal points of entry. To call that an open border is every bit as valid as claiming that marijuana is legal in Michigan.

You are arguing truly meaningless semantics.

I actually did not say that 2.8 million proves it is open. I asked that person that with 2.8 million crossing it, how many would have to do so before they called it an open border. I guess that it is your contention that it could be 100 million crossing annually, and as long as the law remains on the books, that it is therefore not open. I think that position is perhaps technically correct, but from a practical standpoint, utterly preposterous. If unlimited numbers are crossing and they are walking to border agents as opposed to running from, that can for all intents and purposes be called an open border.

 

For anyone, regardless of skin color, anything less than a two parent family usually ends in poverty. The Great Society that LBJ promoted suggested that single moms don't need a husband and government would pay to have children out of wedlock. That was a way, as I said earlier to get them on the "government plantation". Now we have almost the same thing. Come to America. You get free transportation, a $5000 gift card, free healthcare (even a sex change if you desire) free housing and other perks. In exchange, the Democrat Party that gave you all this gets your vote. This is the m"Government Plantation" of today!

 

Obrador wasn't going to play ball. Trump would have had a problem with the guy, too.

 

Well perhaps but Trump knew he had the authority to seal it off and he would have done it. Trump had leverage over Mexico and he knew how to use it. I don't have a problem with completely eliminating foreign aid.

 

For obvious reasons.

This is horseshit. There was an effort to support poor people. Rural poverty in many parts of the country was horrible.

Who the hell told you that? It's crazy to think pols look years, even decades into the future. There was never a plan to turn these poor folks into future Democrats.

The "same thing" that never happened.

They come here for a better life, not a gift card. Egads.

 

If Trump knew how to deal with Mexico, how come the NAFTA renegotiation got nowhere and ended up as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

If Trump is such a genius, how come the economy in Obama's last three years grew as fast as Trump's first three?

 

Something else you don't understand--gaslighting.

This is not an "open border"...


USA-Mexico Border

No, it's a factually incorrect claim.

 

Maybe most of the people in your "beautiful picture" have tried to fo it right. There are many more "beautiful pictures" of those on foot. Mostly single males of fighting age. A lot of them are from China pushing expensive travel bags. I am just thankful that a majority of Americans are not drinking the same kool-aid you seem to enjoy.

 

Bribed Joe threatens to increase illegal entry even more in an attempt to blackmail Congress to give him the Ukrainian Slush Fund to the folks who bribed the Biden Crime Family so handsomely.

WH: ICE Will Reduce Deportations If Republicans Don't Pass Border Bill

We have a president running for re-election who knows how to close the border without being bribed to do so.

 

But I wasn't duped by the gaslighting. In fact, I pointed it out.

It's an absurd claim given this...



... and the effort we make to turn aside unwanted visitors. You might consider...



Our problem could be a lot worse if we actually opened our borders. You're supposedly interested in stopping illegal entry into the country, but you seem more interested in trashing Biden with your "open border" BS than actually identifying how bad our situation is despite inadequate efforts to stem the tide.

Why would I suddenly refute what I've saying? Both parties have refused to even propose effective enforcement measures.