Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious as to how people define an "open border" or a "closed border".
Often I read posts in this forum in which people say they want an open border for anyone freely enter the country. Then I read posts in which people want a closed border to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to enter as well as the half any type of business with the neighboring country.
I am not pro open borders and I feel that closing the border with the exception of the ports of entry, is necesary to maintain order in both countries for illegal immigration, drug trade, weapons...as well as maintaining business.
I wonder what your preference is (open or closed border), what that entails and why. Please share.
A closed border: one sealed off with a Berlin style wall and the Border Patrol authorized to use 'shoot-to-kill' orders.
Dealing with Mexico; that is fast becoming essential for a multitude of reasons. (Hispanic) Spain already has similar fortifications on its borders between its N African enclaves and the rest of Africa.
Ask Northern Europe what kind of foolishness their open border policies have wreaked. A sovereign nation must have the right and duty to decide who will be allowed into their country and who will not. I fail to understand why this concept is so difficult for so many people to grasp.
Ask Northern Europe what kind of foolishness their open border policies have wreaked. A sovereign nation must have the right and duty to decide who will be allowed into their country and who will not. I fail to understand why this concept is so difficult for so many people to grasp.
Agreed, Kele. I am not for open or closed borders just that we secure them from illegal entry but still have open ports for those who have papers to enter legally.
Agreed, Kele. I am not for open or closed borders just that we secure them from illegal entry but still have open ports for those who have papers to enter legally.
Exactly. "Securing" our borders in the interest of our national security is a better description of what needs to be done for our protection rather than "closing" or "opening" our borders. "Securing" our borders simply means closing our borders to unlawful entry into the country by anyone not authorized to come into our country. Anyone authorized to come into our country can enter through open ports.
Open border = Unlimited and uncontroled access to our country. This is a no win senario for the USA.
Closed border= A controled border where entry is controled. Only those with a valid VISA will be allowed to enter. The routes used by drug smugglers would be eliminated as would illegal immigration.
This is a win senario for the USA.
Open border = Unlimited and uncontroled access to our country. This is a no win senario for the USA.
Closed border= A controled border where entry is controled. Only those with a valid VISA will be allowed to enter. The routes used by drug smugglers would be eliminated as would illegal immigration.
This is a win senario for the USA.
I have to ditto anyone/everyone with these definitions.
I don't believe either term is correct at all...certainly not in the case of most countries.
"Open border" would be an oxymoron of sorts. If it was TOTALLY open, it would cease to be a border....(border being synonymous with 'limit' or 'boundary'); therefore a truly "open" border would make no more sense than a bank with 'open vaults'...
On the other hand, no modern nation could survive with a "closed" border....North Korea is probably one of the most 'closed' societies on earth...(and even they let a FEW people in...on rare occasions). Of course, North Korea is probably ALSO one of the most repressive countries on earth, too.
How about a "controlled" border vs an "uncontrolled" one? Obviously, I think its incumbent on ANY nation to control its borders...particularly if that nation has something a great many people want. I think that's just common sense. Anyone who has anything of value, must control the access to it, or it will rapidly be lost. You can do this in a thoughtful, humane way....but you can't relinquish control of your property, or your possessions, or your country..unless you plan to lose it.
I don't believe either term is correct at all...certainly not in the case of most countries.
"Open border" would be an oxymoron of sorts. If it was TOTALLY open, it would cease to be a border....(border being synonymous with 'limit' or 'boundary'); therefore a truly "open" border would make no more sense than a bank with 'open vaults'...
On the other hand, no modern nation could survive with a "closed" border....North Korea is probably one of the most 'closed' societies on earth...(and even they let a FEW people in...on rare occasions). Of course, North Korea is probably ALSO one of the most repressive countries on earth, too.
How about a "controlled" border vs an "uncontrolled" one? Obviously, I think its incumbent on ANY nation to control its borders...particularly if that nation has something a great many people want. I think that's just common sense. Anyone who has anything of value, must control the access to it, or it will rapidly be lost. You can do this in a thoughtful, humane way....but you can't relinquish control of your property, or your possessions, or your country..unless you plan to lose it.
Thanks, I scrambled with the open/closed term as well being so black and white.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.