flyangler

Team Biden: National Borders Are No Longer Worth Defending as Literal

Rate this topic

62 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Get this? Borders are no longer strict lines of national demarcation, they are zones to make connections to those on the other side. 
 

DHS Chief: We Should Not See Borders as ‘Lines that Mark National Boundaries and Divide Us’

 

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, on Tuesday told the annual Washington Conference on the Americas the Western Hemisphere should not see borders as lines that divide nations, but rather “as a point of connection” that brings countries together.

 

“Rather than viewing borders solely as the lines that mark national boundaries and that divide us from one another, we should see borders as a point of connection, as the place where the flow of people and goods from different countries interact and intersect,” Mayorkas declare  during the annual conference hosted by the Council of the Americas (COA) on Tuesday.

 

C112408F-FCEA-497E-B1ED-78EBEF0E3D9C.jpeg.b42b0212cebea3d062dd503a1f5f6f3e.jpeg

Edited by flyangler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like he is a closet Libertarian.

 

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slacker said:

Sounds like he is a closet Libertarian.

Ya think? What do you think odds are he supports these sections of the Platform? 

 

1.9 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

 

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded in a voluntary manner.

2.5 Government Debt

Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.6 Government Employees

We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment. We advocate replacing defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, as are commonly offered in the private sector, so as not to impose debt on future generations without their consent.

 

2.12 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability, and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slacker said:

Sounds like he is a closet Libertarian.

 

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

But back to your derailing point, note that the Platform says "unreasonably restrained" which suggests some restraint and control of the national border crossing flow. It does not suggest unrestricted or lack of enforcement of the existing laws. 
 

Interestingly, the Platform is free of the words "immigration" and any reference to undocumented border crossers. 

Me thinks you are stretching a bit too far, and avoiding the issue of a Homeland Security chief who sees not need to defend The Homeland. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is a reach brother.

 

He did not say they were not worth defending.  This is where we need to be better.  Normal people knew what Trump meant by 'good nazis' and 'light inside the body'.

 

Partisan hacks changed context, words and trolled endlessly (some still) with the BS.

 

I dont have a problem with what he said.  I too would like to see borders a place that enables commerce and are places to be celebrated.

 

Lets not be :bucktooth:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

1 hour ago, Shipwreck said:

This one is a reach brother.

 

He did not say they were not worth defending.  This is where we need to be better.  Normal people knew what Trump meant by 'good nazis' and 'light inside the body'.

 

Partisan hacks changed context, words and trolled endlessly (some still) with the BS.

 

I dont have a problem with what he said.  I too would like to see borders a place that enables commerce and are places to be celebrated.

 

Lets not be :bucktooth:

Trump never said "good nazis" so why even use that as an example? If you want to use Charlottesville as an example of his subsequent words being twisted, at least quote it correctly. 

 

You read it one way, I read it another. Trump believed our southern border's violations were such that he wanted a wall built, a hard defense. This guy sees it differently such that a wall might send the wrong message vis-a-vis what he thinks borders could mean.

 

In case you haven't noticed, it has been reported the cartels are running TV ads in countries telling the people down south that they can come to the USA and be accepted, no questions asked. Is that the type of "commerce" and "celebration" you think should be considered acceptable?

Edited by flyangler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 mins ago, flyangler said:

Trump never said "good nazis" so why even use that as an example? If you want to use Charlottesville as an example of his subsequent words being twisted, at least quote it correctly. 

 

That was the whole point Tom.  What he said and what people here and everywhere say he said is wrong.  Just like saying this dude said borders are not worth defending.  Its a reach.

 

Wouldnt you like a secure border that was a point of commerce and collaboration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 mins ago, dena said:

If borders are not worth defending, what is?

Who said that?  It is used in the thread title but is in no way a "quote" from the Biden administration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

"Rather than viewing borders solely as the lines that mark national boundaries and that divide us from one another, we should see borders as a point of connection, as the place where the flow of people and goods from different countries interact and intersect,” 

 

That sounds great.  Good for him. 

Edited by KnewBee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who's paying for the illegals ...oooh the taxpayer again...bring in the illegals ,abuse them in the work place,let the contractors hire the illegals and not pay any tax .no benefits when they get to the hospital which is paid by your social security,education ?....let the dems sponsor the illegals in their white privileged homes and vote at 16.....,open borders with illegals being housed in concentration camps just doesn't make sense,we have woke and deculturd who don't work and on the the social I st government's money t I t....Will these illegals be woke or deculturd...tell it to c n n and the propaganda specialist....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.