It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
So what you’re saying is “open borders” is used to describe a “feeling” you have about the border. Its not a factual description, its not an objective description, its an emotional invokation of a feeling you have regarding the border and like tourists from mexico or something.
I don’t understand. The idea that inadequate border control policies & immigration policies can lead to mass migration into a country seems quite objective to me.
I’d say I’d be making an empirical claim thingo there, no? Did I mess up some phrasing or something earlier?
You understood “open borders” is subject to wildly different interpretations yet you still used it because it represents what you want to convey the best: Your personal feelings.
There’s no way to measure the following as they are weasel words for people’s feelings because they represent goals or thresholds nobody agrees on and people can always say they’re upset about them regardless of measurable outcomes.
border patrol ‘adequacy’
‘openness’ of borders
‘mass migration’
There’s way to measure:
legal immigration numbers
misdemeanor border crossings
costs and results of border enforcement
asylum seekers and rejection rates
tourist crossings
visa types and issues
immigration quotas
visa and tourist overstays
enforcement actions
Which measurable outcomes are you actually upset about?
It’s one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term “democratic socialism.” The literal definition of “open borders” would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn’t understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population’s norms, culture, etc.
So what you’re saying is “open borders” is used to describe a “feeling” you have about the border. Its not a factual description, its not an objective description, its an emotional invokation of a feeling you have regarding the border and like tourists from mexico or something.
I don’t understand. The idea that inadequate border control policies & immigration policies can lead to mass migration into a country seems quite objective to me. I’d say I’d be making an empirical claim thingo there, no? Did I mess up some phrasing or something earlier?
You understood “open borders” is subject to wildly different interpretations yet you still used it because it represents what you want to convey the best: Your personal feelings.
There’s no way to measure the following as they are weasel words for people’s feelings because they represent goals or thresholds nobody agrees on and people can always say they’re upset about them regardless of measurable outcomes.
There’s way to measure:
Which measurable outcomes are you actually upset about?