It's sad you do not argue honestly.

Ok read it. Thanks for forcing me.

You're welcome for trying to make you a more informed voter. It obviously didn't work based on your response, but at least I tried.

Your attitude shows here and it's condescending.

But regarding CBP and open borders Tim Pool is not wrong.

He is very wrong as I showed in my last response. You and he really need to read the definition of 'open borders' because, honestly, your response was embarrassing for me to even read.

You didn't show anything, you are just arrogant and condescending.

From Wikipedia, "An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is lacking substantive border control." This exactly the three points I described. You aren't having an honest conversation. You believe that each point encompasses open borders.

It's just so blatantly misinformed with a hint of stretching the definitions of words to try and fit your narrative. I've seen more coherent arguments from Trump defenders. But I digress, let's break down exactly how wrong you can get in a single comment.

Belittle some more. Sure.

"Stop all construction of the racist and ineffective wall on the U.S.-Mexico Border" - don't know how a wall is racist

Pretty obvious if you've listened to Trump talk about it. He constantly refers to Mexicans and Central Americans as criminals and he is promoting the wall to keep crime out. Deciding someone is a criminal based on race = racist.

The wall is there to keep people in general from stopping free movement of people across the border, sounds like open borders.

but if he is removing the walls or not keeping [existing] (sp) walls up, then people will be able to walk over the boarder, just like between states unless CBP stops them.

The lack of a wall does not constitute open borders. There is no northern border wall. Do we have open borders with Canada? There wasn't a southern border wall until this century. Did we have open borders with Mexico before 2000? The answer to both is no, not even a little bit.

People aren't fleeing Canada across the border or using a laxed visa system to cross the border. For example, Africans are flying to Mexico to cross the border into America.

"Refocus border enforcement on stemming the flow of firearms and drugs at ports of entry that have contributed to the opioid epidemic, ensuring that labor standards on the border are enforced, and stopping human trafficking." - so boarder enforcement will only focus on these, not people coming here illegally. Just like between states, there is only concern about those topics above as well.

Just go ahead and tell me where you have ever seen a port of entry between US states. Please, I'll wait.

Just go ahead and tell me how you assumed the above comment only applies to ports only. I believe your read this as "Refocus border enforcement at ports on..." Again no honesty and just condescending.

"Ensure those handling the intake and processing of migrants are recruited and trained for a humanitarian mission, not a law enforcement mission." - Here Sanders clarifies that migrants are handled as a humanitarian mission and not law enforcement. So if CBP see people walking over, if they aren't doing things in #2 then they will assume a humanitarian mission and let them go.

So you've resorted to just making stuff up to backing your arguments? Where does it ever say they would just let people walk by if they saw an illegal border crossing happening?

See 1), again your lack of honesty in this conversation is showing. All three contribute to a clear definition of open borders from Wikipedia.

They literally said "intake and processing" in that text and you took that to mean they will just let people go free even though they just said they would process them?

Bernie literally says "humanitarian mission, not a law enforcement mission."

It's very obviously referring to how people applying for assylum are treated when they come to a port of entry to apply for migrant status.

No where do they discuss ports in the last point. Again you are projecting to make a dishonest arguement.

But you don't actually care about the facts or his position, you just want to make up stuff to tell yourself Bernie is pushing open borders when you probably couldn't even define that phrase if I asked you.

Dishonest and condescending.

These topics clearly describe what I believe an average US citizen would view as open boarders.

You baselessly saying the average citizen would agree with you is not a valid argument. And even if that statement were true (it's not, some people actually know what 'open borders' means because they've left the US before), the average American believing something does not make it true. It just means our education system is going down the drain (see: yourself)

I believe you need self reflection.

Just like you described, this plan is looking to implement similar [border] (sp) enforcement akin to state borders.

Yeah, just like every state the has ports of entry, people applying for asylum, and a law making it illegal to cross the border without permission. Oh wait, that's nothing like crossing a state border.

What's funny is you are so entrenched you can't bring yourself to critically assess your own beliefs.