And as many others have already pointed out upthread, the Dems were already willing to negotiate and provide $25B for the pointless wall to secure a DACA deal but as pointed out again and again the R’s said no thanks due to the Rush Limbaugh, Fox News influence (“amnesty”) which we all know is a real thing when it comes to influencing Trump and his base (see: current Trump shutdown).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/u...-dreamers.html

At least Social Security. Take out a few million tax payers who won't see benefits and see what happens.

Farms are already dying out at a rapid rate :)

Row crop farming wouldn't be affected all that much. I always thought vegans would be a good ally for the anti-immigration crowd. Animal agriculture would be hurt the most. Immigrants are involved in all stages of the animal/meat cycle. As Americans, we love our meat but we don't want to get dirty raising it or killing it and cutting it up. I can't say I'd want a job where I was cutting cattle throats all day either.

There's been more automation in the last decade but you still need warm bodies when you are dealing with other warm bodies of other species.

Nope, certainly not about invidividuals. If there is a country like Mexico who citizens takes up 54% (of 10-11M+) of unauthorized immigrants, that's an invasion.


Specifically on "overstays", I don't know how to utilize the metric that has been tossed around because what I read says the "overstays" statistics is only for those that come by air-and-sea, not land/border crossing. If someone has good analysis on what this means in context of total unauthorized immigration, that would be welcome.

Specific to your question, I googled but not able to find "Annual unauthorized immigration by country/region". If you can find a report, please share it. It is fact that unauthorized border crossing have been reduced, but there is that statistic of about 310K unauthorized south of the border or about 870 per day.


Lets agree to disagree re: problem is largely resolved itself w/border crossings (and current unauthorized pop in the country).


No doubt Trump is an ass.

I will say again there are others and me on this board that are not 100% supportive of Trump. Just because we agree on some policies does not make just me a one-dimensional Trump supporter.


Definitely agree.


The Border patrol folks may agree with more people and technology, but they also believe in the wall.



You know, I'm not sure I buy this. There's only so much the US can do and I think the original NAFTA helped alot. Re: Mexico and the 54%, a trend that started long before Trump, what is it you think the US should take responsibility for?

I'll take your 20 years and counter the GOP dosen't want to do immigration reform seriously with below. And what did Obama do for immigration reform his first 2 years when Dems owned Congress?

Immigration reform in the United States - Wikipedia

However, I will agree that in general, the GOP is "tougher" on immigration reform than Dems.


My gut tells me this is probably true but I've honestly haven't read any analysis on this. If you have a source beyond commentary on this thread, please provide it


If you have a statistic that shows visa overstays and how long they really overstay by country, that would be interesting. Because visa overstay statistics that I've found says its only factoring air-and-sea, not ground crossing. TBH, there doesn't seem to be good data to slice-and-dice this data but I may be wrong.

BTW, from my research, only 3 of the 19 were overstays.


Based on your answer, I assume you do believe there is a problem but the wall isn't the solution.

I absolutely agree the demand, supply problem also needs to be part of the solution.


I like the idea but TBH, but deep down, I don't think it'll ever be enough (at least in the short term < 10 years). I'm sure it'll help but will it be near enough, doubt it. I believe you need to have a non-porous border.

The problem I see with this statement is that the powers that be include these numbers in their statistics as to try to convince people that a wall is necessary and will be effective. So if they're being honest they should take these numbers out and then sell it to the people with honest stats of what's really happening. They don't because it's more about "I promised it so we must do it" although the 'Mexico paying for it part' seems to have been just exaggerated. I wonder how Trump wall fans discern a true promise versus an exaggeration that they never expected anyways. Is there an app that does that?

Mexicans doing work that US citizens won't do is definitely a good thing and they are welcome if they come legally.

If the immigration laws need to be reworked, let's do it (e.g. increase renewable, guest worker program). Unfortunately, because of the state of our Congress, it probably won't happen anytime soon. Yes, Trump is a problem here, but its not as if Obama got much done either.

Would have to do it in phases or have a process to convert/apply to "guest worker" visa.

So in the meantime spend billions on a wall that won't work anyway?

And if it does work those Mexicans stop coming.

Lets also not forget Trump is talking about closing the border, so NO Mexican labor would come in. Legally or not.

If people on the ground say they want it because it will help (and supposedly they would know best on the tactical vs strategic/policy matter because they deal with it daily), why not believe them?

Regarding closing the border, can't support and respond to every crazy thing Trump says.

Because that quote is a bit disingenuous.

They said certain strategic locations. Unless we know those locations, how far they stretch, etc...it is a bit meaningless. For all we know they are talking about a 50 mile zone that has unusually high activity.

Fair enough.

But they are saying build something. They are definitely not saying "it won't work".

I think this 4-star General sums it up perfectly, “"What I would ask every American to do is again, stand in front of that mirror and say, what are we about?," he continued. "Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like. If we want to be governed by someone we wouldn't do a business deal with because they're their background is so shady, if we're willing to do that then that's in conflict with who I think we are."

Retired 4-Star General Stanley McChrystal Says He Wouldn't Work For 'Shady' Donald Trump | HuffPost

Bush tries immigration reform later. It passed the Senate with bi[artisan support and would have passed the House, but a faction of the GOP demanded that any bill get a majority of GOP support and they kept it from getting a vote.

For about the millionth time, there has been a bipartisan majority that could pass immigration reform, but a faction of the GOP has kept that from happening.

That's the Hastert rule, named for the pervert Speaker who started it

I see the distinction you are making now. Its not GOP but a faction within the GOP. This is a fair statement.

Why don't you think Obama passed a immigration bill to address all/most of this stuff when the Dems had Congress when first elected?

I am sure the GR took top priority (and Obamacare took 2nd) which is great but here's an example of Dems being able to get something done on immigration but punted.

FWIW, the somewhat answer to my question re: Obama and his failure to do immigration reform when he had the chance.

My point is many here blame the GOP for lack of immigration reform which is deserved. They failed to act/compromise when they could have. However, the blame is shared by the Dems, its not just one-sided.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.802914f07225

Obama was too committed to a bipartisan fantasy world when McConnell was set on saying no to everything.

At this point I'm not sure there's a majority in Congress for any bill. Some of those that led the effort on the GOP side are now firmly in Trump's camp(Graham, Rubio, etc.).

Unfortunately, you are probably right but I am still hopeful. Give Trump his $25B for the "full" Wall in exchange for everything else. But the Dems won't want to do this before 2020 because it'll give Trump his "win". So my guess is 2020+ either in Trump's 2nd term or new Dem president.

But really was there an "immigration crisis" out there until Trump started talking about his Wall? I mean there were certainly reforms that needed to be done, but not as importaint as universal health care?

Universal health care doesn’t strike fear into votes like an invasion by brown people does.

Uh, they offered 25 bil for the wall in exchange for a DACA fix, but Stephen Miller and the White House said no. You're right that they aren't offering that deal again now that they have more power.

The Dems certainly could have gotten something done from '09-'11 when they had control. But it was also peak unemployment during the recession. Immigration probably isn't the smartest program to get done, politically speaking, when unemployment is high. Granted, they ended up taking a bloodbath in 2010 anyway. The time to get immigration reform done is when unemployment is low. Like right now. Unfortunately, the person sitting in the oval office will scuttle that as his idea of immigration reform will never build a strong enough coalition in Congress to get it passed.

Three things to add to that.

1) They had senators from "red" states in the coalition, which means it was hardly a case of "unified liberal caucus could have done it why didn't they do it?"

2) When you have 65 Senators, you can clear the filibuster threshold even if someone grandstands. When you have 60 Senators, the 60th Senator has immense power, and will use that power to get as much for his or her state as possible in exchange for that 60th vote. We saw that with Ben Nelson and Nebraska when the Senate was trying to pass ACA.

3) Republicans/conservatives act as though Democrats both had a unified liberal caucus (they didn't) and 60 votes continuously from January '09 through January '11. Coleman held up Minnesota's Senate seat in litigation for months before finally conceding, and then Kennedy had his cancer battle. He returned to the Senate to cast his vote on ACA, because that was his pet issue, but I'm not sure he would have done for an immigration bill even if one had been on the floor and passable.

Rudy G challenged Mueller to a duel...or something like that:


Rudy Giuliani‏Verified account @RudyGiuliani









I challenge Mueller to put up or shut up. You have no evidence of the President being involved in a conspiracy with anyone including Russia to hack. And you also have no evidence of collusion. It’s been 2 years so submit a report to DOJ and we will answer it.

Yes. As has been pointed out in the thread, there's actually somewhat less of one than there used to be, but it's definitely been there long before Trump's campaign/presidency. As someone who thinks universal health care is a good thing and quite important, I'd say it pales in comparison to the immigration issue. Not because of 'brown people' etc., but because any nation, to even deserve the name, needs to control its borders and have an enforceable line where their nation ends/another begins, etc. The United States doesn't have that, and hasn't had it for at least a matter of decades.

I also agree there was a crisis pre-Trump. I'm also for universal healthcare (baseline + private) and would put it before immigration reform. Although I do believe what you said, I'll take the then 40M uninsured/underinsured then over the 10-11M undocumented as a more pressing issue.

I'm not sure what to think of this yet.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/polit...020/index.html

Nope. Not interested.

President twitter thumbs is rather unhinged this morning.

I like her but I think she has between a 1/64 and 1/1028 chance of winning a general election

I guess we've never been a nation, then.

But there have been almost no nations the entire history of the Earth, so that makes it a little more understandable.

Wanted to see % undocumented by country and was only able to find this as of 2010. There's disclaimer that methodologies are not the same and Greece and Russia really has some wonky numbers. Russia dropped 4.5% in one year so that is suspect, Green gained and lost 1.5%+ couple separate years too (before the Syrian war).

Excluding those 2 irregularities, the US pretty much lead the list consistently.

Illegal Immigration around the World: 13 Countries Compared to the United States - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org

Wait, what?! Aside from this massive recession and trying to pass universal healthcare, why didn't they also undertake this other massive thing? Do you understand how Congress works? It basically took all of Obama's political capital to get the ACA passed and even that was just barely (and without a public option).

It's a ridiculous charge even if it was a priority for the Obama administration when he came in anyways (which it wasn't - immigration wasn't a big issue in either campaign in 2008).

Those are mostly EU countries that have freedom of movement. Brexit was largely driven by a get out the foreigners sentiment, but almost all of them were there legally.

If you look at % of population foreign born, which also has it's limitations, the U.S. is right in line or lower than most of the west.

John F. Kelly says his tenure as Trump's chief of staff is best measured by what the president did not do - Los Angeles Times

I assume the % of foreign born means "legal" vs "illegal". Brian's comment was in reference to illegal. So this does seem to be the most appropriate chart (albeit, pretty outdated and suspect).

Prior to the 1970s, the US really didn't bother with border security. That's why the charts show near zero apprehensions from the 1960s and before. Because they simply didn't bother with it. So by your standard, the US would be more of a nation now than a few decades ago.

Per the WP quote above -


It may not "really have been a priority" for Obama but he sure made it sound that way.

It was sooo hard for him. Almost not worth the effort, but at least he got to lock some kids in cages and lie about a black woman.

And then ACA became far more complicated to get through (and Obama, of course, tried to get his immigration reform policies through using executive order later after the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act failed to get through the House in 2013). Not nearly a priority as Healthcare and the Economy. And it took him a while, but he did get a bill ready to vote on by 2013.

Foreign born is both.

Brian said:


In the EU, in terms of immigration, there is no line where one ends and another begins. That's why the British right was so angry. I don't see how it being legal changes the underlying argument about immigration control.

Agreed. But by 2013, he lost the ability to push it through, a missed opportunity in his first 2 years.

If voters were willing to vote for Trump because they were so afraid of Hillary, I can't even imagine what they'd be willing to do if Warren was the nominee.

The economy and healthcare were far more important concerns. If anything the Senate is probably more to blame for dragging its feet during the ACA, preventing anything else major from being taken up.

You're responding as if this were a matter of policy.

Narrator voice: It is not a matter of policy

Hope they dont run her, Sanders, or Biden. Anyone else should have a solid chance of winning. Those three unfortunately 4 more years of trump.

One of the underrated fun things to watch over the next couple of years will be the GOP responding to AOC. The current thinking right now is that she must have been secretly rich. She is

A woman
of color
who grew up working class
but managed to succeed anyway

And they just can't handle her existence. "When we said that we are the party of opportunity and hard-work, we didn't mean for those people."

I just don't find her charismatic at all. She is going to be a tough sell outside of the north east/west coast.

Just saw a Brooking report on population growth and the U.S. is at an eighty year low, just .62 percent. We're following too many demographic trends from Russia.

I chuckled this morning at FoxNews homepage. Main story was on how the Kavanaugh accusers are no longer front and center in the news. Uhhh yea, I’m sure they’d like to move on with their lives then rehash a sexual assault experience over and over again when nothing will come of it moving forward.

The other main story was basically AOC is the boogeyman.

I mean I'd vote for her over Bernie, but yeah. Of course it's too early to see who will run, but usually Governors tend to be better options than Senators when it comes to these things.

It changes everything, inasmuch as the illegality was literally the point.

So why not make everyone legal and call it a day?

I assume your liberal philosophy also will allow 300/390/820K (pick a number) to become legal and stay?

Unauthorized Immigrants with Criminal Convictions: Who Might Be a Priority for Removal? | migrationpolicy.org

I guess I just don't get it.

We have people coming in that are a net gain on our economy and, on average, commit crimes at a lower rate than our own citizens.

We're barely at replacement level for population growth and trending down.

Why in the hell would immigration reform be more important than Healthcare, Infrastructure, or Education?

Thanks, I was pretty sure I understood the context and appreciate the confirmation.

If the only problem is the illegality it would be a hell of a lot easier, quicker and cheaper to just say it's legal and move on.

I don't think the opposition is solely about legal status.

I agree we are not making enough babies. It's really a relatively simple solution IMO.

Open up the floodgates for the highly educated (brown, yellow, black, white, mixed etc.) with some sort of agreed to definition/quota to immigrate and "they will come" ... assuming we take care of security concerns (and again, I personally would disallow dual citizenships).

I'm not sure I would toss in the wealthy (and they already have some sort of special investment visa going and many would fall under the highly educated also) but you get the idea. Replacement population problem gone.

No doubt you are right. I admit there is probably some racism (e.g. preference for Europeans) but illegality is a big part of it.

I was just wondering how far you would go with your open ended statement.

What's stopping them from coming now?

Smaller than preferred quotas

EDIT: and from my experience - long, painful, bureaucratic process

Seems like the right strategy to me. I predict the GOP will blink first but there'll be some sort of face-saving excuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/polit...own/index.html

I'm really not sure bringing the best of the best will sway the anti-immigration crowd; if anything, it would just make them more resentful when they're leapfrogged in achievement/status.

In fairness, I'm not sure that particular contingent of Trump's base is going to lose many promotions or jobs to Doctors and Scientists.

And dare I say that a good chunk of the people we need would not necessarily be highly educated?

True. The quota system will need to be re-calibrated somehow, increased guest worker programs etc.

Well no, but that's part of it. Envy that these outsiders get to be doctors and scientists (with nice houses and cars) while they don't.


Also true, of course.

This probably isn't the best place for it, but looking towards 2020 I'm trying to think more about which parts of Trump winning was uniquely American, and what is a product of the changing media climate. Brasil is adding another point in favor of the latter - Jair Bolsonaro, A Polarizing Figure, Prepares To Become Brazil's President : NPR .

My main takeaway is watch out for Sergio Moro - he'll either be president, dictator, or in jail within a decade - but it's also more confirmation that charisma matters more than ever. Cough cough Liz Warren cough.

Assume this is not just for Mexican companies but also to attract US companies into the 15 mile buffer.

I really have no idea if its workable but it is interesting.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/mexica...igration-to-us

I don't think Trump winning was uniquely American. Another example prior to Trump is Duterte in the Philippines.

No one respects our military like Trump...except when he doesn't.

“General” McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama. Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover! https://t.co/RzOkeHl3KV

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2019

I didn't know you could fire canines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.495cf887e8dd

This interview with Falwell Jr. sure is something. The political evangelical movement is all about power and morally bankrupt.

dola

Here's a great thread on the uselessness and danger of a wall.

https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/stat...24542589284353

Glad to see he is more of an expert than the guys/gals on the ground.

Wonder if he ever visited the border or spoken to the border patrol to get their opinion.

Because it's a fundamentally horrid idea to reward people for entering the country illegally, not to mention how unfair it is to those who came through the proper process.


It's that whole pesky rule of law thing. Their economic impact on the nation doesn't even register as a consideration by comparison. The very fact that we aren't even trying to enforce the laws we have is a net negative that overwhelms any other such impacts.

Senior citizens are breaking the rule of law by going to Canada, buying cheaper prescription medicine, and bringing it back across the border. How should we handle this situation - building a N wall? Maybe start arresting these law breaking old people?

Edit: We should definitely arrest this guy, right?

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/...-20180727.html

** To repeat: I'm against the wall on the Mexico border. How many times do I have to say this? Let me just get it out of the way as many times as is necessary. Disagreeing with amnesty != being for the wall, being a Trump supporter, etc.

** The question of whether people who are breaking the law should be given the punishment afforded by the statute isn't even one that should need to be asked. The answer is yes, and is independent of whether it might be a better idea to change the law going forward. The alternative of a progressively deeper slide towards anarchy is totally unacceptable.

I'm calling bullshit on it being a rule of law thing.

We have countless laws that are ignored or minimally enforced throughout the country. Why is this one more important than others?

Where's the outrage over speeding? Drunk driving? Cooperate tax fraud? Money laundering? Package theft?

White-collar crime especially gets me. The scale of how folks can get swindled is so much larger than any made-up drain on the system from immigration.

Miami's Phillip Frost Pays $100,000 SEC Stock-Fraud Settlement | Miami New Times

Saw that the other day, I recognized the name from conversations with the in-laws. Billionaire, still so hard-up for money that he needs to participate in a pump-and-dump scheme. Jail time? Nope, just pay a fine, one that's trivial for a billionaire.

Scam people Wells Fargo style? Pay a fine, carry on. Ad infinitum.

Just look at all the shit Trump would have gotten away with if he hadn't decided to run for office.

This is, without question, one of the biggest issues our society faces. Guy on the street gets choked out and killed over a black market cigarette and the message is, he should've listened to the cops. Billionaire steals a crap-ton of money via fraud, jacks the system for lawful people, pays a fine, and trump would say that he was treated very unfairly.

It's not fair, and the lack of fair treatment is what's causing a great amount of discontent today.

This reminds me of Javert in Les Miserables - it is right because it's the law. Although Javert at least seemed to be consistent, but people seem to be minimize many violations of the law that cause far more harm than undocumented people, such as the aforementioned white collar crimes and DUIs. Or heck, marijuana use.

And the fear of a 'deeper slide toward anarchy' is so hysterically ludicrous as to be laughable.

How about we be realistic about costs and benefits of laws including their enforcement? We seem to be getting there on the drug war. How about immigration? I have little patience for this law uber alles mentality that some have for a handful of laws (esp when some who are so big on the law for some things are far more lenient on those violating other laws - the opiod crisis comes to mind)

Brian: Would you be okay with punishment for all those that came illegally and then free movement from then on? If it's only about the law, I'd assume you're neutral about any changes.

You seem to be continuing to labor under a misconception that I'm somehow speaking for anti-immigration sentiment as a whole, the right, Trumpism, or some other segment of the population. I'm not. Within those groups, there's certain a racial element to some of it, and there's also the whole idea of a potential voting bloc being added and shifting demographics. It's not hard to figure, based on that, why Democrats would be pro-amnesty and Republicans against it, absent any other factors.

As for me, I totally agree that ignoring white collar-crime in some respects is a big, big problem. That's a small part of why I advocated for much stronger enforcement on employers as the way to deal with the immigration problem. It's as if people are simply bound and determined to shadow-box apocryphal things I never said.

I do think immigration enforcement is different, because when you are talking about people who don't have a legal right to be here, that's a fundamentally more basic issue than the crimes that citizens are committing. But both absolutely matter, and the ignoring of other types of crime is part and parcel of what I'm talking about when I lament the declining rule of law. All of it matters, and to the level it continues to be tolerated to a greater and greater degree, the level of civilization in this country will continue to erode.

I wouldn't go quite that far, because I think totally open borders are a mistake until and unless we get to a one-world government which I think is an inevitably eventually, despite the dangers involved. I am for dramatically increasing legal immigration, any streamlining that can be done, removal of quotas entirely, and basically allowing anyone in who wants to come that we don't have a good reason to exclude. So I'm in the 'mostly open' camp.


I'd call it 'patently self-evident' personally, for reasons that include those you yourself have mentioned.

So are the only two reasons to oppose open borders are racism and hollow adherence to the concept of law?

Which of those two reasons are why I can't just pickup and live permanently in Denmark absent finding an employer willing to through a ton of red tape (which in most cases would require me to learn Danish).

Being realistic about what the law's purpose actually is? The law doesn't exist by itself, but is a series of rules created because we as a society wanted some rules that we felt may benefit us. Sometimes we were very very wrong and those rules don't benefit us. We sometimes take them away, but there are those who believe the law is an idol or it's to onerous to remove all of the silly rules and societies around the world have determined that we don't need to formally remove the rules to not enforce them when they make no sense (think of all the silly law lists). People can be realistic about laws without being anarchy. In fact the US is anything but - plenty of people believe it is too regulated after all.

And sometimes people think parts of written law should be un or under enforced while keeping the rest.

All of which means that simply violating a law isn't actually an argument for a policy. Especially not when people are arguing costs and benefit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I was trying to get to the fundamental argument. If the argument is about the sanctity of the law, changing the law shouldn't cause an objection. Brian's interesting because he really isn't looking to reduce immigration. I think Brian is sincere in his beliefs about the law, even though I am much closer to Siddiqi's position.

But for most people that favor immigration restrictions, either for illegal or legal, I don't think the fundamental issue is the sanctity of the law. For a lot of those people, I do think racism, or culturalism if you prefer, is the driving motivation. The easy and often correct label is while nationalism. That's not the only reason to favor greater limitations, but it is what's driving the White House.

I do favor restrictions for legal and definitely illegal/undocumented immigration.

The sanctity of the law is an important portion but not the only. I do consider myself a nationalist and I do want the US to continue being the preeminent power in the world. However, nationalist is sometimes/how associated with racism and I do not consider myself a racist.

So for those that advocate open borders, spell out your position because open borders is a nebulous to me. Excluding felons (I assume), some big questions off the top of my head ...

-- Literal open borders with total free movement anytime, anywhere, any length of time?
-- Ability to work at will?
-- How will SS/Medicare/Medicaid etc. work?
-- Concern that some will come to not work and just mooch off the system?
-- What protections, if any, for US citizens competing for same job?

State your definition and any constraints on open borders and let's have the discussion.

Who is advocating open borders? We don't have anything that looks like open borders right now.


That's a trump line that has been trumped up to mean something, but it doesn't mean anything related to any policy that anyone in the US is in favor of. Using it as a talking point only serves to muddle the waters of an actual discussion.

As for me, I'm for allowing as many as want to come and don't have any red flags in their personal history (i.e., we don't your like country/religion doesn't count). Anyone coming in would be granted citizenship - I'm also against dual citizenship, they should have to pick a country - and all the rights afforded thereto.

At that point they are citizens, so they can compete with others for jobs, as far as mooching off the system there isn't really a greater concern there than with our own populace that I see, entitlements work the same for them as everyone else, etc. Equivalent rights and responsibilities and consequences if they aren't adhered to. Most of this is informed by the fact that, unlike you, I'm not a nationalist - though I definitely respect the way you've clearly laid out your opinion. I consider myself an anti-patriot; I consider it morally wrong to put the needs of someone who was born here above those who were born somewhere else. If anything we have a greater responsibility given the affluence of the United States, which is why I'm for massive increases in foreign aid in most circumstances.

Oh my bad.

What's the category/philosophy of the pro-undocumented crowd? It would be helpful to have a clear POV from each.

Dual citizenship comes up a lot, and I'll remind everyone that some countries have no way for someone to renounce citizenship. My daughter is a Chinese citizen and there's nothing she can do to change that.

So if you allow anyone without red flags to come and become citizens, how many is too many?

e.g. I'm pretty sure if immigration was wide open, plenty of refugees (economic, political, war-stricken) would be streaming into the country

BTW - I know you said you are not for totally open borders but, to me, your statement pretty much is for open borders.

Yes, I bring it up once in a while and you do remind me. Sorry.

In the future, let's assume those that are not forced to retain their former citizenship.

Wait, there are nuances between a GDR-style wall and 'open borders' ? That is like saying you can advocate to tackle gun violence with anything short of a call to seize and destroy all civilian weapons ...

The 2 discussions are weirdly similar, only somewhat slanted 180 degrees. Would be interested hoiw much overlap you get between people refusing fixing GV with the argument “no measure will work well enough to be worth the cost“ and those arguing to damn well spend against evil foreign invaders no matter the cost or effectiveness of measures.

There is also no pro-undocumented crowd from what i read. Only people not seeing it as big enough a problem to warrant the (financial and 'ethical', for lack of a better word) costs of making this into a much higher priority than it warrants. Or people having empathy for the individuals behind the statistic.