Hi Scott, I’m lost. I see no parallel with flat earthers. What is going on? https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB994028904620983237 … https://www.economist.com/openborders https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/393771-a-case-for-open-borders-and-how-it-can-boost-the-world-economy … https://openborders.info/open-borders-manifesto/ … https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/862185002 … https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjolcnTgvPfAhXoQ98KHQevATAQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2018%2Ffeb%2F16%2Fdemocrats-immigration-policy-open-borders-dreamers&psig=AOvVaw3IwmzKD-8NKNrtnVkApE5J&ust=1547752807452774 … https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/keith-ellison-sports-i-dont-believe-in-borders-t-shirt … This isn’t subtle, Eric
-
-
Replying to @EricRWeinstein
My standard reply to laundry list persuasion is the same. What is your one strongest link/article supporting your point? If it looks solid, I accept your position.
25 replies 1 retweet 79 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @EricRWeinstein
Scott. I think you could pick the first one from Eric’s list. I don’t think he intends the laundry list. He lists to make point that open borders is not fringe pos. I’m not sure sure how many people are real open borders but so many confuse legal / illegal (sort of open borders)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @ManishPamwar @EricRWeinstein
Okay. The first one isn't about open borders. It's about a better process for letting workers work here, documented and controlled. That wouldn't meet my test of open.
4 replies 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @ManishPamwar
Scott, the Wall Street Journal literally called for a “five word constitutional amendment” so as to make their position crystal clear and nuance free. Those five words were “There shall be open borders.” What do you imagine this is? It’s not persuasion. It’s fact. Simple fact.
13 replies 7 retweets 110 likes -
Replying to @EricRWeinstein @ManishPamwar
Sounds like a definition difference. Would the WSJ allow known terrorists and criminals to come and stay without issue? I'd call that an open border. If the issue is efficient labor markets, I'm all for that if we have our own employment situation under control.
16 replies 1 retweet 25 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @ManishPamwar
Scott, this isn’t remotely persuasive. Assume you have the label or string “Open Borders” and you bind it to a large & influential movement. Then you have a large & influential “Open Borders” movement. It’s that simple. Also the movement itself eschews nuance: it’s just 5 words.
4 replies 3 retweets 78 likes -
I don’t care for whack-a-mole persuasion. You can admit that you are just wrong on this point. Not wrong as a person or a mind. You are simply wrong on a matter of decidable fact. What I‘m waking up to is that there are a huge number of folks, all wrong on this one weird point.
22 replies 3 retweets 107 likes -
Replying to @EricRWeinstein @ManishPamwar
I agree that some libertarians/intellectuals argue for open borders. Maybe the same number as flat earth believers, but with smarter arguments. I contend they are trivial in numbers and influence and will stay that way.
26 replies 6 retweets 82 likes -
Most libertarians who take that stance do so in combination with advocating elimination of the welfare state.
6 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
That's why I don't take them seriously. They don't have a path.
-
-
And yet, they still have a more realistic plan the Leftists who want open borders AND a full welfare state.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.