Though not sure, now in hindsight, if I should've said "White telephone", some folks (And you know they're out there) will take that I meant pro-caucasion. This of course, is not the case (I myself, for the record, am part Latino). Open borders proponents seem to not grasp the entire costs of adopting such measures. No other nation does this to the extent that some are proposing. The EU, despite it's goals of having "Polish Plumbers in Paris", is wraught with exceptions to the rule. I'd wager that a GP from Estonia could not practice in the Benelux nations like he or she did back home.

I would say this about open borders, if it is to be adopted. We need to be honest and frame it to what it really means, Open Benefits. Not Free Benefits, because in some way, migrants pay some kind of tax (though not enough to cover expenses). So, if we're to have Open Benefits, then we have to accept that this something that the "host nation" is allowing entrance to a "labor provider nation" which is facilitating the migration of people through no restrictions of movement across stated territories. Secondly since this is in a sense, a symbiotic partnership, then if we are to have "Open Benefits", then there needs to be the application of "Open Costs." You can send us your people, but you will provide for the reinburstment of certain costs if said emigration is to be of a temporary nature (regardless of length). We would, in a sense, be renting out our employment prospects and economic resources. There must be rules in place, and mutual understanding that this is a business relationship and nothing more.

Of course, RO, I'm not in favor of such a thing. I highly doubt we would ever see the Open Costs portion of the partnership ever promoted let alone enforced. In the end, sadly, we would have a 21st century plantation system. Actually, in many ways, we do have that now.

Also, for the record, I've been toying around with thinking of myself as a Progressive-Nationalist. The latter part has had a negative connotation for a long time, especially links towards racism. I've included the term Progressive because I am open to new pragmatic solutions and the advancement of civil rights. Nationalism, for me, is wanting to put this country's welfare first. Now I guess to other readers I need to make a clarification here. One could make the claim that by putting the nation's welfare first could be interpreted as meaning waging imperialistic wars to secure resources for such welfare. That has been the case in past nationalist efforts (i.e. Nazi Germany and "lebensraum"). But for me, and this is where the Progressive elements should influence nationalism, it is removing a nation from foreign entanglements because it has cost us blood and treasure. Instead of pouring resources into wars in Viet Nam or Iraq, I say allocate towards improving our economy and healthcare and education. Like many other words that have been corrupted by an evil Right, we need to take this word back. I want to look out for this nation's children, be they of any race, creed, color, religion, or what have you. Let China worry about China, I know they don't worry about us, and I suspect neither do any of our friends and trading partners. It's time we worry about ourselves instead of meddling in the affairs of others. That to me is Progressive-Nationalism!