OK, I'll keep it more straightforward.

Overriding concern: having a rational discussion of national issues.

A multiple-choice "all of the above" definition has a problem. Well, several. The purpose of language is communication, so flexible definitions make communication impossible…which defeats the purpose of language. Your response illustrates this well: I do want to control the border, but not as much as your (unknown) definition, so I'm in favor of "open borders."

It's impossible to have a national discussion under those terms, as evidenced by the way it misinformed a large chunk of the electorate who (quite reasonably) interpreted "open" as "wide open, no controls."

Discussion:

"Hey, we came up with a border plan!"

"Sorry, that's open borders."

"Says who?"

"Says me."

"So what should we do to improve it?"

"Make it not open."

"What does that mean?"

"It means what I want it to mean."

"So what is that? And please don't say, "Elect my guy.'"

"Welll..."

If you are "aware I oppose whatever President-elect Trump advocates," you are aware incorrectly. I'm not a partisan - if Democrats and Republicans switched sides, I would too.

My analysis is that even a cursory examination of the evidence indicates your numbers don't work, so your arguments don't make sense. Therefore, a rational discussion is impossible.

There you go.