slug.com slug.com

5 2

Consider for a moment this truth bomb.

If we did not give welfare of any kind to new immigrants, and the entire world embraced the values of the enlightenment, we could go all-in on open borders, and it would not cause a problem.

But those are two BIG caveats.

wgarneau 5 Apr 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

You have certainly delineated two major reasons we can never have open borders. Are they the only ones. Certainly not. Controlling drug traffic is another. But obviously we can never have open borders, and it is not clear that anything other than blind hatred of everything Trump is driving the opposition. It is certainly not history. There has usually been broad bipartisan consensus on the need for secure borders, although if you go back far enough it was in practice left to the border states.

4

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts , we could have a party .

1

Reading your Bio, I am surprised you quantify open borders.

Did I quantify open borders, or the reasons we cannot have them?

0

What are "The values of enlightenment?" I only know the values of this Republic and the laws in The Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are a pretty good starting point.

the US Constitution says USA is a sovereign nation and it is the responsibility of Federal Gov't to protect its borders. Also under the US Constitution we have codified rules (aka laws) regarding immigration. FYI there is a rather large and well developed system whereby foreign peoples (in addition to legal citizens and residents) may pass legally into and out of our country. Common sense should tell you that in order to have sovereignty any and all given nations must have established and legally recognized borders. So logically speaking "wide open borders" = no sovereignty = no establishment of rule of law = a vacuum of order = a chaotic environment where without rule of codified and enforced law the law of the jungle will prevail. So if the US Constitution is your example of a document that represents the ideals you say should be followed then your argument does not hold up. @wgarneau

@iThink You must take into that without any borders/jurisdiction the constitution has no power and can not be considered to have any relevance. I believe that to be the socialists end game anyway.

1

that is fantasy - not a caveat. sorry

It was not a policy prescription, but a statement on why open borders will not work.

what does "go all in on open borders" mean? sounds like an argument for open borders to me.@wgarneau

@iThink : If those two caveats were met, it would be, but those two caveats are not met, so it is not.

To your initial post "if...the entire world embraced the values of the enlightenment we could go all in on open borders and it wouldn't cause a problem" In the first place this statement borders on incoherence. Secondly it is not a "caveat". A caveat is a warning. Your statement is not a warning but a rather odd idea that bears no relationship to the realities of living. If you organize your idea and present it in a way that we can understand your point clearly I will be happy to engage you further. @wgarneau

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:29537
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.