UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

And decriminalizing staying beyond the terms of a visa.

Therefore, there becomes no basis for removal from the U.S.

(no message)

This is most accurate definition Since it's literally correct. Wall can be natural barriers like mountains, rivers and oceans or man-made barriers like wall, fence....

(no message)

I do not believe there are plans for a barrier to Canada.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

after looking around means anything

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

No issue no need to have wall, there should be wall on theory though.

Most borders in the world use natural barriers. This is called natural border, such as the top spot of Mount Everest is the border between Nepal and China.

...wouldn't it be good to know if their opponent supports open borders as well.

Some on this board use it as a cudgel.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Some of the far lefties could qualify but the vast majority are not.

The exaggeration is used for political reasons hence the comment.

It would be like characterizing the majority of R’s as white nationalists like Banning.

(no message)

(no message)

Of course, none of the Democrat cowards running for the Oresidency will use the words “open borders”.

If it walks like a duck ......

“Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J) has taken things further and vowed — if elected — to essentially eliminate any kind of border detention through an executive order. His campaign released an 11-page policy document explaining the details. “

“Today, Cory Booker is outlining executive actions he will take beginning on day one of his presidency to virtually eliminate immigration detention and put an end to the humanitarian crisis at the border and in detention centers across the country,” Booker’s campaign said. “Without waiting for Congress to act, Cory will stop the treatment of immigrants as criminals, close inhumane DHS facilities, end the use of for-profit detention facilities and end unnecessary barriers for refugees and those seeking asylum to virtually eliminate immigrant detention.”

Considering Democrats now believe any kind of detention is “inhumane,” under Booker’s plan all detention centers would be closed.

Immigrants should not be treated as criminals. Seems reasonable.

It seems that closing inhumane DHS facilities is a good idea. If they are inhumane, then they should be closed. He says nothing about closing the humane facilities. Ending "for-profit" detention facilities does not open the border up (why is it "open borders" if you do not let private companies profit from detaining refugees?). Removing unnecessary barriers for refugees seems logical. We should only have barriers that are necessary. Unnecessary barriers are, well, unnecessary. Virtually eliminate immigration detention? I assume that is for refugees? That doesn't allow them to stay in the country, it just keeps them from being in a detention center. Not sure where I stand on that, but that does not make it open borders.

Open borders means that you let everyone in, period, to stay. If he meant that, he would have said it.

I mean, like, he's, like, a politician. They say what they mean. It's not like he did a photo op walking illegal immigrants over the border or anything like that.

An obvious question is, "Whom would you prohibit from taking up residence here?" Lemme guess, killers and rapists? If a person is for letting everyone in except for violent criminals, does that small exception render them "closed border" folks?

It's a major talking point of the Democrats, but they are ashamed of it?

that the candidates explicitly state that they celebrate "open borders."

But what do you think the answer would be to "which groups would you prohibit from immigrating here?" Just as importantly, why isn't our esteemed Fourth Estate asking that obvious question of them in these debates?

(no message)

I rest my case.

Next time, try just being honest from the outset rather than playing little games like this. You understood from the outset that these candidates effectively support open borders.

I've explained my case for why we should not be bringing in more and more immigrants. The time you save in not responding to direct questions and in providing one-sentence answers can be devoted to finding those posts.

That's not my read.

(no message)

You just drive across it and wouldn't know you had except that the speed limit signs are in MPH instead of KPH.

I don't think anyone is suggesting tearing down the checkpoints, immigration lines for international flights, or eliminating the customs bonding facilities. That's how they differ from open borders.

(no message)

that retarded wall? You can’t deport all of the DACCA folks and he knows it.

The deal is simple. Real border security, pathway for legit peeps, deport criminals.

But no he wants to run on the idiocy that arseholes like Booker are talking about.

(no message)

You really think she is more rational than Booker?

Maybe he would have vetoed the Dem bill if he had gotten a chance- he didn’t

He’s referring to a 2018 bill backed by Senate Democrats and a few Republicans that would have provided $25 billion over a decade to significantly expand the wall and fund other programs to improve Southern border security.

Trump vehemently opposed the bill and threatened to veto it because it did not contain two immigration reforms he demanded: ending the visa lottery and deeply restricting family-based immigration.

We quibble, however, with Kaine’s use of the term "deal," which suggests everything was guaranteed for passage if the president went along. Republicans lawmakers never made that promise. It was really a proposal.


Link: https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2019/jan/15/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-mostly-accurate-about-trump-nixing-25-bi/

it. He didn’t. He’s full of shit and wants a campaign issue.

In other words, no restriction whatsoever on who can physically enter the country. I can't speak for everyone who opposes this, but some of the larger concerns with such a policy are:

1 - Crime - If non-citizens are coming into the country with criminal/violent behavior, deportation is obviously not an option with open borders. Pursuing and detaining criminals who have zero documentation is also a significant challenge.

2 - Resource consumption - Resources are finite, and most require taxpayer funding to some degree. An inflow of non-citizens who pay no taxes puts a strain on the availability of those resources to those are citizens who taxes fund said resources. This would become an enormous issue if the U.S. were to move towards any form of government-funded healthcare, for example. Bottom line, you create a supply/demand issue by leaving immigration unchecked.

3 - Disease - We have a pretty standard set of vaccinations in this country. Our Immigration laws prevent non-citizens from entering the country with certain diseases and without proper vaccinations. This protects the general public's health. Open borders would essentially nullify this protection.

I could go on, but I can't tell if you really wanted to discuss this or are baiting someone.

The plan is that you just show up, and they let you in?

So when I fly to Ireland, and they let me in with a U.S. Passport, is that an example of an open border policy?

You just described the restriction: The documentation you needed to get into the country in the form of the passport. From an "open borders" standpoint, that would be unnecessary.

You've defined it as "no restriction whatsoever on who can physically enter the country."

So if the restriction is that you must actually have a passport, would that be enough?

I guess I am still not sure what you mean by "no restriction whatsoever on who can physically enter". I don't seem to have any restrictions to physically entering Ireland - I just have to show a passport and answer some questions.

If migrants were let to come in and do as they please simply by showing a passport and answering questions, would that then be a non-open border?

Is someone proposing we no longer require anything (any ID, answers to questions, etc)? "I'd like to get across this bridge". "Who are you and why do you want to come the United States?" "None of your business". "Thank you, and welcome to the US".

Ireland, like every other country, has a general rule of no entry without (a) a passport (valid and not expiring soon), and (b)(i) a visa or (ii) a visa exception.

For example, to go to China, I need a valid passport that will not expire in the next 6 months. I am not aware of any visa exceptions for US citizens who want to go to China, so as far as I know, you need to mail your passport to a Chinese embassy/consulate, and have them stick a visa in your passport. They will most assuredly put your name in a database, and run a check on you. Those visas used to be only short term, requiring constant new visas to be obtained. But, as China has become more reliant on international trade, they started issuing visas which allow short stays, but limitless re-entry during a 10 year period. You have to leave and come back; you can't stay for 10 years. If you have no passport, or if you have a passport without a visa, then the PRC will deny entry. If you stay too long, you will be imprisoned/deported. Obviously, this is not open borders.

Every country is this way by default, unless the country unilaterally passes visa exceptions (or negotiates them with other nations). Common visa exemptions are by citizenship. For example, the UK might grant a blanket visa exemption to any US citizen with a valid passport, to come for a term (e.g., 30 days) for a specific purpose (e.g., business, or tourism). If you are not going for a specifically exempted purpose, you need a visa. If you plan on staying beyond the exemption term, you need a visa. Visas are granted at the discretion of the country you want to visit (within their discretionary statutory guidelines). Just because you traveled to a country like Ireland who granted a visa exemption to US citizens for short visits does not mean that Ireland has open borders. You can easily be deported by them by violating your visa exemption rules...like, if you stay a year and get a job or claim government benefits.

I am fine with this for Mexico, or any other Latin American country. The Democrat candidates are asking for much more, though, don't you agree?

After my daughter interned at the EU for her study abroad a few years back, a group of the interns went to the UK and Ireland before coming back.

Most of them had their plane reservations to leave from Shannon with them when they got there. One smart ass kid from Philly (imagine that) didn’t have his yet and was picking up a wire of money from his parents. When asked his visit purpose he said to get drunk in the pubs. Bad answer. When they found he had no money on him to get out of the country and no plane ticket or reservations, he was detained until his parents contacted the consulate over here and sprang him. He was a guest of the Garda for at least 24 hours. No open border there.

You asked what "Open Borders" meant. I'm telling you that to most, it means a flat-out unrestricted access into a country. I'm not sure why you're trying to angle that requiring a Passport is akin to unrestricted entry. It isn't. You know as well as I do that you wouldn't be allowed into Ireland had you not presented that valid Passport. So, no, requiring a passport to enter the U.S. would not be how most people would view the idea of open borders. They would view it as requiring nothing at all - zero documentation.

To your other question, which I think you were ultimately trying to lead someone into a debate over, I'm not aware of anyone directly advocating for this among the democrat candidates. I think many are interpreting the positions of a few of them of decriminalizing unauthorized entry as a somewhat de facto open borders position.

It's just that "open borders" has been thrown around a lot. And to the unindoctrinated, it could mean...

1. Any one can enter the country without being stopped, asked questions or required to do anything;
2. There are no barriers to entry to drugs or, shit, goods from any country.
3. Any foreign country can move troops here and establish a military base.

But no, it means something less, like giving healthcare to people who sneaked over the, well, open border that apparently you didn't need to sneak over.

It's like the "war on women". It could me that one may kill women at will, because we are at war with them. Or it could mean that you have a different opinion as to whether mothers should be allowed to murder their unborn children. It's a bullshit incendiary term that trivializes a complex topic.

(no message)

Abolish ICE, eliminate detention centers, provide healthcare and other benefits to undocumented immigrants without taxation is essentially open borders.

On having a southern border wall, I could possibly be swayed that it isn't worth the cost (though in the grand scheme of govt spending it isn't much), but the idea that it is immoral is also essentially open borders. A sovereign country has a responsibility to its citizens to control illegal entry and secure the country from foreign security threats, IMO. If a person wants to argue for and vote for politicians that allow more legal immigration, cool. But that's a different argument than to not control entry, not enforce federal laws and not require documentation.

The provision or non-provision of healthcare has nothing to do with borders. Full stop. ICE has only existed since 2003, right? So abolishing that cannot be support of "open borders". Eliminated detention centers? I don't know. Is that the only thing we do with people trying to cross the border? Maybe it is. But surely eliminating the detention centers does not open the borders to everyone. Ireland does not have detention centers. How do they do it?

Was there some reason besides racism that ICE was created in the first place?

Of course, we frown on such things now...

If Ireland had a million people coming from one country per year, you can guarantee they would have detention centers and walls...unless their politicians supported open borders.

The only way to implement a border without detention centers and/or walls is to start shooting the first few hundred people as they come across the border so that the 1,999,700 would-be immigrants behind them decide not to come.

Promising those one million per year illegal immigrants free healthcare is the opposite of building a wall; it is sending them a personal invitation to violate our laws. And this from a party that repeatedly says, "No one is above the law."

(no message)

(no message)

Every one of the democrats in the first round of debates raised their hand when asked if their H.C. plan would cover illegal immigrants. How is this even a consideration??? There are a finite number of such resources, because they're funded by a finite number of citizen taxpayers. If these services are free to whoever wants them, we will run up a deficit that grows exponentially in perpetuity. The basic math just does not work.

How can anyone possibly support this idea?

The problem is that our government as it's currently constituted will completely fuck it up and open borders plus nationalized HC would only add to our fiscal disaster.

And that’s by treaty signed by the 26 nations.

Of course if you are flying there from the US or another non Shengen nation, you need your passport to get into any of those. If you are stoping to change planes at Heathrow, and then heading to a Schengen nation you need to go through passport control at Heathrow and also the final destination.

Trump tells Rube Nation that the Democrats want to let in a giant horde of unwashed who will vote immediately.

....you either don’t know what they are saying at times, or at other times you dismiss what they say as something they don’t really mean.

the definition of political asylum is no different than saying open borders. Calling ICE the SS when they only are doing what they have been legislated to do is hardly a fair depiction, as well.

As long was we are making up names for things that make things seem really bad.

We kill with toilet water!

(no message)

Don't blindly parrot their bullshit.

(no message)

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=507509

I appreciate the link and the fact that you've addressed this before. I think we can all agree that a) some of those individual policies might be exaggerations; b) some of those aren't even policies; and b) they do not equate to "open borders".

We'd do well not to paraphrase that "Dems are for open borders". I think it probably makes you sound like a Foxnews viewer.

Message brought to you by VIAGRA ®.

(no message)

(no message)