Is Trump's immigration policy (and support for it) fundamentally racist?

[Slander and/or Libel]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

You're gonna have to back up your science on that for me, champ.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother. You're not serious about it anyway, and this is a discussion about politics and morality, not about some impersonal science.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I hate how much the right has been able to set the terms of debate by defining the other side as favoring "Open Borders," so that they've got to scramble to say that's not what they want, and then they're flat footed.

But seriously, what would be wrong with open borders? Aside from a knee-jerk "they don't deserve to be here" reaction, which itself needs some explanation, what would be the harm it would cause to the country? We shouldn't allow this stuff from nativist bigots to go unchallenged.

Moss have no borders; wolves have borders, but they're as ambiguous as those of human hunter-gatherers; modern humans have the most clearly defined borders of all. In nature and in civilization, discrimination is always associated with evolution, while assimilation is always associated with stagnation.

You're gonna have to back up your science on that for me, champ.

Actually, on second thought, don't bother. You're not serious about it anyway, and this is a discussion about politics and morality, not about some impersonal science.

You think science is impersonal - this is how you've been manipulated into supporting open borders.

No, that's not what I said at all. You're trying to talk about this as though you're only supporting the policy that "promotes evolution", which is some pseudoscientific nonsense. If you believed that, you'd be supporting segregation (which, hey, maybe, you haven't expanded yet).

But beyond that, your accounting of the science is not true. Variation is key to species' flourishing.

Anyway, you still haven't addressed the point in the slightest.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But beyond that, your accounting of the science is not true. Variation is key to species' flourishing.

This much at least is true, and it's why individuals must be allowed their differences. In other words, Machu Picchu would have never been built if the Peruvians had always been forced to live like Spaniards, yet that's exactly what all you globalists want.

WTF?

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

I think it's up to you to explain why it doesn't.

Nah, that's not really how this works. All you've offered is a platitude. It's not even an argument.

[Slander and/or Libel]

All borders are rooted in some form of fear of outsiders.

Are the doors of your house (and the locks on these doors) rooted in some form of fear of outsiders?

Your house is not the same as your country.

My house is the home of my family. My country is the home of my nation. What is the difference?

You think a personal single family home is analogous to a 3,000 mile wide nation? I think it's up to you to explain why your own metaphor works.

I think it's up to you to explain why it doesn't.

Nah, that's not really how this works. All you've offered is a platitude. It's not even an argument.

I mean, I don't particularly care what you think about it? But it's clear you're unable to rebuke it, that's for sure.

I think you mean refute, not rebuke. But ok.

And I'm not really interested in putting in a lot of time if all you've got is nativist snark. Your home is not open to tourism, not open to people looking to buy space in your den, etc. There's any number of ways that this analogy is ludicrous nonsense.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It is reasonable (but not particularly productive) to discuss whether Trump's policies are fundamentally racist or not. It is simply absurd to say, or imply, that borders are inherently wrong.

Perhaps, though it's worth asking what people think would be so awful about Open Borders (TM). Is it just that people who SHOULDN'T BE HERE might be here? Is that the fundamental argument?

[Slander and/or Libel]

It is reasonable (but not particularly productive) to discuss whether Trump's policies are fundamentally racist or not. It is simply absurd to say, or imply, that borders are inherently wrong.

Perhaps, though it's worth asking what people think would be so awful about Open Borders (TM). Is it just that people who SHOULDN'T BE HERE might be here? Is that the fundamental argument?

Saying that certain groups of people don't belong here (such as, for example, Muslims) is obviously ridiculous, but there are legitimate security reasons to not want certain individuals (such as, for example, a terrorist) in your nation. So, regardless of how liberal the immigration laws are, you need some form of border security and regulations, unless you are arguing completely against the concept of a nation-state.

Thanks, that's a good, substantive answer! Not trying to be sarcastic, I really do appreciate the engagement.

So, that seems to be based on a positive obligation on the part of the federal government to safeguard the safety of its citizens, right? I don't mean to expand the topic into stuff like whether the government should extend that obligation into screening people already in the country, like citizens, in the same way, and why or why not, but I'm trying to get my hands around the whole argument.

So, say, some kind of cursory criminal background check? Identify verification at the border? Let's say there were some kind of system whereby we gave a quick check to people's backgrounds in their country of origin. If they raise some red flags (to be determined, but the details aren't important for my purposes right now), then detain them, remand them to custody in the country they're coming from, whatever.

Saying we have that exception, what's the problem with the borders then being more or less open?