I'm not pro 'Open Borders' - but I am pro, helping refugees trying to make better lives for themselves and applying for legitimate asylum like the ones who are frequently demonised in the right wing press.

I'm also very sympathetic to those who might have come into the US as children and be undocumented but active workers etc. ... they might technically be 'illegal' but the US is there home and to send them back to a country where they don't speak the language or understand the culture is inhumane imho.

Yeah I'm a UK citizen, I could easily become a US Citizen if I wanted - however if I did I'd be dual nationality as the UK doesn't recognize someone renouncing its citizenship.

No one that I know of at all advocates for open borders (except Brian in a hybrid way). No one. If that's the counter and thus we have to put up the wall because there are a ton of Libs that want open borders than that is Steven Miller winning and that is all.

I ,love the comment above re: gun rights arguments. The NRA and powers that be refuse to let there be an educated discussion about any in between actions because its always, "They're takin' ur guns!!!' which is just not true but it riles up those that can't think of anything other than 1 or 2, not 1.5.

Well I do know a few Christian socialists that are for open borders, but they aren't that numerous. The point is well taken that most people aren't for open borders, but they are for a more open policy than the Trump administration is for - generally a lot of people on the left are for the 2013 compromise. Some would like to go a little farther.

I don't see any need for an upper limit. If you view, as you've said, America as a nation that should be a pre-eminent world power - and I agree that with our position it's our responsibility to be that - then I think it's wrong to act in a manner than says refugees are everyone else's problem. With the power comes the attendant responsibilities.

I disagree with the board's assessment that 'nobody wants open borders'. It's pretty clear that many do want unsecured borders, an option for those who violate them to become citizens despite said violation, and the option for some jurisdictions to actively undermine our government(sanctuary cities). I think the distinction between 'open borders' and 'it's not worth the effort to secure the borders' is barely worth making. Even if you're not overtly advocating for open borders, you're ok with them if that's the position you take. I can't speak for the motives of anyone of course, but it's certainly not an argument I could personally make without realizing I was being flagrantly dishonest about the issue. It brings to mind a lot of policies in the Civil Rights Era, with all the 'I'm not for segregation, but … ' advocacies of that time.

This is only true if people also want to de-fund border security entirely (note: "Abolish ICE" wouldnt' do that, as it is Customs and Border Protection who is responsible for border enforcement). There is a marked difference between open borders and reduced penalties for those who are in the country undocumented.

Ya, I don't quite understand the difference between "not being for open borders", and, being in favor of granting citizenship for people who enter illegally; or opposition to the use of non-deadly force on the border.

It's kind of like with gun control when there's no reason to argue for more restrictive gun control than you need to - it only makes sense to to argue for "the next step", or to argue against some next step going in other direction. So there's really no way to discern what the real intent is unless you break down the logic of the arguments that are being made, and try to figure out whether they actually do address that next step (or only steps far beyond that).

And I think the argument, that I've seen pop up hear a few times, that illegal immigrants from the south are beneficial to the economy, and in fact, maybe our economy would actually collapse without their cheap, unregulated labor - is kind of fascinating. The advantages of workers who can easily be exploited is such a bizarre justification to me. It's like an argument against the minimum wage and other worker protections. According to this logic, we should not only let them in, we should specifically chose to let them in in this undocumented manner that relieves businesses of the requirement to treat them fairly. And then I guess - grant them citizenship down the road after we've gotten enough cheap labor from them.

Personally, I think the USA has a moral responsibility to take in as many refugees as we can - and I've seen in my city (one of the highest per capita refugee destinations in the U.S.) what a great impact refugees can have on a community.

The southern border is so much more complicated to me - because of the undocumented nature of those entries. It's not a problem that can be solved completely, or ever fixed or helped much by an expensive and environmentally-disastrous wall. But, I definitely think that less illegal entry, and less illegal overstaying, should always be a goal, and that that goal should be pursued with patrols, drones, deportations, more scrutiny on those who hire illegal immigrants, etc. And I'd much rather permit more to enter legally than exploit cheap labor that enter illegally.

Regarding my previous comment about encouraging the highly educated to immigrate, Canada may have a pretty good model.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I think its all a matter of degrees. Open borders like the EU countries is a 10, North Korea is a 0, allowing undocumented workers to cross over, citizenship, stay in the US etc. is maybe a 5 etc.

Its easy to say I'm not for "total" open borders, but there is a gradient of much more "flexible" border crossing (legal and undocumented) that many here is advocating above and beyond current laws.

I don't think many pro-undocumented here have clearly express what their POV is other than undocumented deserves our sympathy (true), undocumented are not all criminals and add to the economy (true), Wall is bad/won't work, many Trump supporters re: immigration or undocumented are borderline/racists etc.

Let's agree to disagree. I see "practical" limits to how many and "types" we can absorb (and TBH, want). To prevent this, we need to have some quotas to encourage more of who we want and less of who we do not.

Within the EU, sure, but coming from outside, Europe can be very restrictive, including having requirements for employment, knowing the language (which we'd consider a racist requirement in the U.S.), etc. And if you overstay your visa you're going to have a hard time getting back in.

It'd be difficult to just sneak into the EU as an American, but, if you could, they wouldn't grant you citizenship. This is one of those rare areas where the U.S. left is further left than Europe. And some European countries have moved further to the right due to a waves of mostly-documented asylum seekers - we can only guess how they'd react to millions of undocumented people just showing up and permanently residing there.

Not sure I really believe she believes this or just a way to reinforce Trump's spine by mocking him.

Don't agree about not having a legacy if there is no Wall. Maybe no visible legacy but unfortunately for us, the politics of Trumpism will be with us long after he's gone.

Looking forward to Trump's response.

Ann Coulter predicts Trump will 'fold' on border wall demand | TheHill

Oh, Trump will have a legacy. Just not the one he wants.

This sounds more like a strategy of how to build a nation in a text sim and not at all how to act as human beings in the 21st century.

Haven't played that game yet. But that's pretty much what is happening now.

You remember that Chicago Alderman who's office was raided by the FBI right as Michael Cohen was pleading guilty? And the speculation was because of his law firm's connection to Trump? Well it wasn't:


Ald. Edward Burke charged with attempted extortion of Burger King owners - Chicago Tribune

Twitter not being kind to the departing Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy. Good. Hopefully we get the chance to say goodbye to Devin Nunes soon.

House passes bill to reopen govt without new border wall money. All but 5 R's vote no, all Dems vote yes

The Russian spy case has sooo many twists and turns.

You mean the American who got arrested for spying in Russia? Yeah some seem to be a bit far-fetched-he's a spy too and arranged this to get Marina Butina in a spy swap. Going to be real crazy if its turns out to be true.

Trump says he's willing to have the shutdown last for years.

Maybe we can just shut down one particular branch for years?

How his base can literally watch him claim he would own the shut down and not blame the dems, then he shuts it down and they blame the dems is beyond me.

You're suppose to ignore his earlier claim (like his claim that Mexico would pay for the wall) and only listen to him blaming democrats.

There is also apparently 3000+ terrorists coming in via the Southern Border. They are just flowing in. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile in Mueller news-a judge has extended the grand jury's mandate for 6 months. It was set to expire on the 6th. So I guess Mueller won't be wrapping up last Thanksgiving any more.

This what the Wash Post found out about Whelan's past:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3a43cd22255c

Meanwhile in Germany, the largest hack in their history has been revealed:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...an-politicians

Or perhaps give out raises?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/polit...own/index.html

I know we're numb to everything, but Trump threatening to declare an emergency and have the military build the wall is really dangerous. It would be nice to see an elected Republican nix this idea.

In other news, the military is now saying there is no timeline for withdrawal in Syria. This after the State Department yesterday said we aren't going anywhere.

It's absolutely frickin' crazy what some people will excuse or forget he said.

There has to be a psychological word for it. One word wherein they will literally excuse or ignore everything in the past for the reasoning du jour that fits the narrative.

Power

It's an extraordinary abuse of power. Or potential one. And all of this because the wee little man wants to build a monument to himself. Yes, I'm a bit cynical.

I don’t think you are too far off. What is he known for and lived his life doing? Putting the “Trump” name up in gold letters wherever he could. Psychologically speaking there is a percentage of desire to build this wall because he knows it will keep his name living in for a long time.

On the other hand it was a major campaign promise and we the people complain all the time that we don't like it when politicians don't do what they campaign on.

Criticizing the idea, the shutdown over it, the whole 'emergency' concept, etc. is all appropriate; but while we might prefer Trump to not get the wall built and not trust his motives for desiring it, I doubt many would be favoring elected officials not trying to follow through on the things that that got them votes in the first place.

Wasn't this largely what some voting for Trump were saying though? There's no way he's going to go through with the more extreme things he campaigned on so that was their rationale for voting for him.

Sure. You can make an argument that it's better for us to ignore what politicians say during the campaign because they don't mean it anyway - I think 'suspect' would be an extremely charitable characterization of that argument, but it certainly can be made. I personally don't think that segment of the Trump electorate which didn't care what he actually said because they didn't believe he'd do it is a good model for modern politics. Anyone else care to hold forth on that and prove that I'm misguided in thinking most others wouldn't as well?

Except a major caveat to that promise was Mexico would pay for the wall. How many less votes would he have gotten if he said the taxpayers were footing the bill even if it mean shutting down the government?

Removing "...and Mexico will pay for it!" would have lost him the election, so he's not exactly following through here.

Wait a second.

His whole campaign promise was built around Mexico paying for the wall. There were chants and calls and responses at every rally.

So, the cynic might argue he’s going out of his way to break his campaign promise.

I should have clicked to the last page. What they said.

No it was a promise to have Mexico pay for it which BTW I am for. I am literally for anything that doesn't involve a quid pro quo that another country wants to build in America for Americans and America with no strings attached at no cost to the U.S. Taxpayer.

Trump had the option to get 25 billion for his wall but refused it because it came with a DACA fix. If the wall was really important, he'd make a deal and get it. Of course we don't even know anymore what he means when he says wall. Maybe it covers the whole border, but maybe it doesn't. It might be concrete, but it might be steel. In the end he's just looking for something big enough to take pictures in front of.

dola

Bolton today said we aren't leaving Syria until ISIS is defeated and the Kurds are assured of protection. A few weeks ago Trump assured us ISIS was already defeated.

It's honest to God dangerous that we have an executive branch that routinely ignores the word of the President.

double dola

From the WaPo:

do you have a link to that whole article?

This. I’m tired of hearing folks (generalizing) say they like Trump because he speaks the way he does and “tells it like it is”. However, once somebody calls him out on his BS like Mexico paying for the wall it immediately becomes “well we knew he didn’t mean that literally”.

You can’t have it both ways.

What a coincidence.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true

403 Forbiddenarticle about why trump supporters think the way they do.