Big words considering the rest of your comment.
> If it permits just anyone to enter or exit, it is technically not a nation anymore.
You cannot "permit" something you do not control, so this is a contradiction in terms. If you mean that the constraints put on the US by itself to not police immigration in overly violent or cruel ways mean that it does not control immigration, then by the same logic the 4th amendment implies that there is no rule of law in the US (since certain criminals can't be convicted due to bad actions by the state).
> But being choosy about who gets in and who does not.
Nobody really denies this. The question is how violent or cruel you can be in the exercise of this choosiness.
> Look at the riots in Europe right now
The riots in Europe are not primarily about immigration. Get off twitter.
[–] slashdev 15 hours ago
[–] tempfile 13 hours ago
> I don’t mean that.
So you actually think the USA, the most powerful and richest country in the history of the world, is unable to police its borders? That is the only alternative to what I said (which is that they are able but not willing).
> I’m saying you do have to control the borders and you do have to deport people who break the rules and enter our stay illegally.
Again, nobody really denies this, if I interpret you charitably. But the question is always how rigid the laws should be, how many other rights you are willing to sacrifice in order to hit the "deport illegals" metric. If you overstay one day, what happens. If you overstay due to a medical emergency, what happens. If you are in danger in your home country and need to enter illegally in order to claim asylum, what happens. How much of a soviet-style "papers, please" dungeon are you prepared to turn your country into in order to find all the illegals.
You will never ever police any crime to 100%. Immigration is very hard to police effectively without adding literal military-style checkpoints and sending in the gestapo (as is happening in the US). Besides that, if you look at the big picture, the vast majority of these people are harmless and have perfectly reasonable reasons for wanting to come. Remember that it is an accident of history that you get to live in a rich country.
The US in particular has had massive unregulated immigration through most of its history, by the way, and it didn't cause the place to burn to the ground. So please keep a bit of perspective.
> If you mean that the constraints put on the US by itself to not police immigration in overly violent or cruel ways mean that it does not control immigration.
I don’t mean that. I’m saying you do have to control the borders and you do have to deport people who break the rules and enter our stay illegally.
It seems we agree that at least some of that is necessary, and we can both disagree, at least partly, with the way it’s currently being handled.
> The riots in Europe are not primarily about immigration.
Where did you get that idea? The riots are caused by the immigrants. Look at them, there’s hardly a single European among them. These are undesirables they let into their country and they’ve been paying a price for it ever since.