A Brief Summary

 "There's no reason that I can think of to defend very closed borders, and certainly not borders closed to refugees... and refugees, broadly defined, not so narrow as they often are"

 

Dan posted a bunch of regurgitated driven about immigration at the cesspool, and at Art's.   This sentence encapsulates pretty much all we need to know.  

"There is no reason I can think of..."

Once again Dan grounds his political views in himself.  His position seems to be that if he can't think of something, then he must be 100% correct and everyone else must be wrong.  This notion of grounding his beliefs solely in himself cuts across many topics and is always amusing for the amount of hubris it shows.  

"...to defend very closed borders..."

A (purposely) vague and undefined term, which he assumes represents the views of others (I guess, he's never very clear).     In one of his comments at Art's he says "I am not at all opposed to MANAGING moving from one place to another.".   It seems that one way to effectively MANAGE the flow of people across the US border is to "close" the borders, while designating specific places where one can cross the border and the flow can be MANAGED.   What we had during the Biden/Harris administration was a complete lack of MANAGING the border and ended up with untold millions of people who crossed without being MANAGED.    It also seems like (especially post COVID) that it would be a good move to MANAGE those who have various communicable diseases in terms of allowing them into the country.  I can't think of how one would MANANGE to check people, if one allows unfettered entry.  

"and certainly not borders closed to refugees..."

For the purposes of this response, I will say that I do not believe that any of the commenters reacting to Dan's drivel advocate border completely closed to refugees.   So, if it is necessary to misrepresent the position of your opponents in order to make your point, it seems as if you've already lost the argument. 

"...and refugees, broadly defined, not so narrow as they often are"

This right here is what it's all about.  It's about redefining the term refugee so broadly that it essentially becomes meaningless.    It's about being able to refer to the MS13 member crossing to engage in criminal activity as a refugee because maybe it's not safe to engage in criminal activity in their home country.   

I'll close with this.  It would be so helpful if we could actually look at countries that have adopted Dan's theory on immigration and evaluate the results.  I am confident that if we had the ability to do so, and had multiple examples of countries that threw open their borders to refugees, that we might be able to determine whether or not we wanted to replicate the experiences of those other countries here.

" If the gangs in a certain nation or city were so dangerous that you had a greater chance of dying young... or your children had a greater chance of rape..."

If only we could find some examples, and look at the data.  Perhaps compare pre open borders to post open borders.   If only there were examples...

It seems clear that Dan's construct of immigration (really migration) places no value on actually assimilating to the country one migrates to.   Obviously, this can (as does) lead to the migrants settling in enclaves where they live according to the laws and customs of the places they came from, not those of where they end up.   It seems reasonable to conclude that as these migrants destroy the places they migrate to, by turning them into where they left, that they will simply move along  and repeat the process.