Your definitions of "open" and "partially secure" were variable, deceptive, and impossible to actually, you know, define. That makes deciding rational policy impossible.

To get a closed border, you'd need Iron Curtain-style security with massive cost and logistical nightmares. It'll never happen. More likely can't.

You provided faulty data as to the necessity and advisability of increased border security in the first place.

So, you want to set policy without justification, goals, or defined terminology, all on the basis of hand-waving and faulty data. Sorry, but that's not serious thinking. It's a great way to reverse engineer talking points, win "debates" and run dishonest campaigns, though. You've got that going for you. Which is nice.

But it's pointless for rational discussions or finding solutions. Now, if you'd care to prove me wrong by laying out a logical and consistent policy, have at it. I'd be pleased to finally find a functioning conservative mind at work.

Otherwise, you're just grist for my next story (in case you were wondering why I'm still at this - it's not because you've trolled me into some sort of psychological trauma you guys like to do, but just drawing you out to gather more material). If I remember, I'll tag you so you can get credit.