...
He tends to exaggerate most things. In his book, "The Art of the Deal" he actually lists this as a strategy people ought to use for success.
It's like rule number one of propaganda: repeat the lie loudly and often enough, and people will believe it.
Amnesty. It doesn't mean there is no border. I have been across the border many, many times. It exists. I have seen it. Saying it doesn't exist is false. It's only said to mislead people into feeling afraid of people from other countries.
It might not be official policy to have zero border enforcement (yet), though the border is so easy to circumvent it's effectively open.
Why does the left always turn politics into bickering over semantics? I'd say that a border is "open" when it ceases to be effective. Language is subjective. When people say "the border is open" they mean it's "too open". You are either being very obtuse or deliberating building a straw man.
Besides it's not really about how things are now, but the direction things are heading in. It's about how things will be in 10 or 20 years.
Why do people assume it's always the left when the borders are as they were when GW Bush was in power as well as Clinton, Bush #1, and Ronnie "Jesus" Reagan?
I believe there was an operation a while back affectionately called, "Operation Wetback" to remove illegals coming from Mexico. It seems the border wan't porous at that time and Mexicans used telportation to get in.
During the great depression, Americans were horribly concerned about illegals coming of ther border to steal jobs and commit crime. Mexicans had access to teleportation even then. Americans were so upset that they created the prohibition on Marijuana so they could arrest Mexicans as they were the majority of pot smokers besides black blues musicians. As an added bonus, they used that to say that marijuana made White women have sex with the "Negro" so they killed two birds with one stone.
Nope...this is both a left and a right created problem. It's a narrative that has been used by both parties to obtain votes for almost 100 years. .
He isn't lying. We don't have closed borders. We have controlled borders with Mexico and Canada meaning they are open with correct documentations and in some cases visas, however these borders are not completely secured. We have 88,000 miles of coastline which is largely open. All of our borders pose problems for us.
So don't listen. I haven't listened in months. No need to hear anything they are saying.
And yet there's estimated to be how many million illegal interlopers, illegal invaders in the US? That would seem to contradict the statement that the USA doesn't have open borders.
He is lying. He has said many times that there is no border. Controlled borders are what typically exist between neighbouring countries unless there is a hostile relationship between them. That's why it's incorrect to say that there is no border. A closed border is not a thing to strive for between countries that are allies and have trade relationships. No border can ever be totally secure. Of course borders can pose problems, but borders aren't only a source of problems. And the coastline is a perfect example of why the wall is useless. People would continue to enter the US illegally even if there was a 1000 foot high steel plate wall.
Characterizing people who mostly just want to come to the US to make enough money to feed their families, and enter illegally out of desperation or even out of sheer ignorance, as "invaders", is misleading and unhelpful.
There's nothing ignorant, misleading or unhelpful about calling them invaders. It's a true statement.
They are invaders and criminals. And it's damned well time people like you own up to that fact instead of trying to gloss over it with some flimsy underpinning of false humanitarianism. They are here illegally. They have no right to commit criminal acts in violation of US law for any reason, including a perceived need "to feed their families". Next you'll be trying to justify committing armed robbery for the same reason. (Or perhaps you believe that's OK too, to hold up the neighborhood Citibank or Chase branch to get money to buy "food"?)
If you're so concerned about them you should be working on protesting the governments of their home lands that are oppressing them to begin with. Maybe supporting missionary work (religious or secular) to help those people on their own turf. But you damned well have no right to be volunteering the livelihoods and hard-earned money of the rest of us to make yourself feel "good".
I never said it was just the left that has failed to secure borders.
I said it was the left that plays games with the meaning of words. To accuse Trump of lying by saying that the border is "open" is a completely unfair statement. Trump's meaning is obvious.
Hello again, AS:
I dunno if you noticed, but I tell you what he SAYS, and you tell me what he MEANS.. Don't you get tired of doing that?
excon
Very. If you can't see the subjective and figurative nature of language, comprehension is going to be a problem.
I think you understand emphatic exaggeration just fine when it's your own side doing it. You only get obtusely literal minded when it suits you.
Hello Red:
50 years ago, when my friend Tio got to the border, he didn't see a DO NOT CROSS sign.. He saw a HELP WANTED sign.. His family was starving, so he COULD have gone to Mexico, D.F. to protest. OR he could have crossed that line and got a job...
You suggest that he shouldn't have come.. But, he did, and you would too.. Or, would you let your family starve????
excon
Hello again, AS:
You're right.. When he says Mexicans are rapists, I SHOULD consider the figurative nature of what he was saying.. But, I don't.. I don't even know what that is.
excon
When the current Administration has a 'catch and release' program and lacks tracking those released, you have an open border. It's NOT a lie!
That's not figurative, it was a generalisation about the immigrants being responsible for social problems that the left has twisted.
When someone makes a positive generalisation like "That Japanese are polite", everyone knows they just observing a statistical correlation and nobody takes it to refer to 100% of the Japanese population. Obviously some Japanese are rude.
When someone makes negative generalisations, identity politics kicks in and perspective is lost.
If the group being generalised about happens to be a different color to person making the generalisation, then it's about 100 times worse. You see racism in everything.
He will contend that is his interpretation of policy and apparently purposefully distorting facts is considered contributing to rational discussion these days.
