[wahnfrieden]

As Vincent Gallo put it recently re: federal debt:

> The USA can tolerate one of these two things. A system of no welfare, no social services, no socialized medicine, food or housing with open borders. OR. No open boarders and highly limited, highly controlled, assimilating immigration policy. We cannot have both. When the USA had unlimited immigration over 100 years ago, we did not have Government supporting immigrants with welfare, medical services, housing, food etc.

I don't agree with Mr. Gallo here - I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I'm just sharing what a popular RW response is on this.

The policy in my red state is to spend public funds to treat unliked immigrants as harshly as possible, deny social welfare to citizens in need and prioritize gov resources for admin loyalists. At least it is now that courts are sufficiently captured.

[tbossanova]

What does “no open borders” mean here? I’ve seen this term used but I don’t quite get it. Surely it can’t mean completely closing the borders? I.e. literally nobody can enter the country, ever.

[wmil]

No tolerance for people trying to live in the country without going through the legal process.

Public policy discussions always get boiled down to some simple wording that isn't strictly accurate.

[tbossanova]

Literally no tolerance? I always figured that like everything else, there’s a cost/benefit analysis to be done, and you try and tweak enforcement levels to the point where it gives decent results without costing the earth. No law is enforced with literally no tolerance in practice.

[wahnfrieden]

Legal immigration is also under heavy scrutiny with the "no open borders" folks. It is not as simple and law-abiding as you make it out to be.