@Serraph105: You cant be serious.

He's using Twitter to inform you of what he's instructing his administration to do. He's not issuing commands from his Twitter account.

The ignorance is mind boggling. Especially when people who are so clueless profess to have an informed opinion.

I guess they'll have to take that money they spend on illegals and instead use it on better forest management.

If they don't like it they should secede.

Fairly easy if I wanted to, but I don't enjoy going out anymore. I also have no patience for people. I had a lot of friends throughout school/college but have only kept up with a few since - frankly I don't really miss having all those people around all the time anyway. Being a misanthrope and a nihilist, these days I prefer the company of video games and my pets.

It isn't generalizing when a significant portion of the left support open borders.

And let's not mince words here - if you're against border security then you're for open borders. If you won't take a position on border security then you are for open borders.

Illegal Immigration: We've been seeing a lot of articles these days defending Democrats against charges that they are for open borders. But recent events show that the party has, in fact, morphed into one that reflexively opposes virtually any attempt to secure the southern border.

For years, Democrats tried to portray themselves as tough on border security, even as they argued for amnesty for all illegal immigrants currently in the country. Sometimes they slipped, as Hillary Clinton did when, in a paid speech in 2013, she talked about her dream of open borders. (She quickly tried to explain away her comment, once it surfaced, as having to do with energy.)

But several events over the past few days have blown the party's cover on illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, the House voted on a bill that simply expressed Congress' "continued support for all United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and personnel who carry out the important mission of ICE" and "the efforts of all Federal agencies, State law enforcement, and military personnel who bring law and order to our Nation's borders."

Such nonbinding resolutions don't have the force of law. They're just a statement.

Just 18 Democrats voted for this resolution. Thirty-five voted no. And the other 133 dodged the issue altogether by voting "present." Democrats complained that the vote was just a political stunt.

[snip]

Democrats want to neuter the one agency responsible for enforcing border security. They want to make it easy for illegals who cross to stay in the country. And they want to give them the right to vote.

Leading Democrats also adamantly oppose building a secure border wall. They support "sanctuary cities" that actively protect illegals from deportation. And they want to grant every illegal in the country amnesty.

And we're supposed to believe that Democrats aren't for open borders simply because they say so?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/illegal-immigration-democrats-open-borders/

Cool argument bro.

AKA "quick, we're losing, so lets start calling everybody who disagrees with us a Nazi until we've changed the subject!!"

What's your point, genius? I said Democrats (supporters of the Democrat party, including certain members of the party itself) are in favor of open borders. Opinions on the matter, particularly opinions from democrat columnists read primarily by democrat party supporters, are entirely relevant.

Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/31/open-borders-help-economy-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/

The new guard of the Democratic Party absolutely supports open borders

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-new-guard-of-the-democratic-party-absolutely-supports-open-borders

Your political illiteracy and poor comprehension skills amuse me.

"Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh unexpectedly aligned with four liberal justices in declining to review the petitions that would have placed a ban on abortion providers."

For those who have a hard time comprehending the English language, that means they wouldn't hear the case. They didn't rule in favor of anything. They just opted not to open that particular can of worms.

In any case, it wasn't about restricting access to abortions. It was about funding them.

But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.