Brian, I love your photos and I hope you post lots more. Especially photos of Japan. You always pick great subjects.

This is your best photo yet, Brian. Nice work!

I gotta say: this is exactly why I come to deadspin.

Apple will give folks who buy any Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, or Mac a year of Apple TV+ for the low, low price of free.

They won every road game they played at the Warriors’ soon-to-be-abandoned dump of an arena.

So it’s like the new NSX but without everyone reflexively shitting on it?

If you’re trying edibles:

So what the Angels learned from the Pujols deal was... ?

Whenever I see a car driving towards me with a single LED headlight illuminated I think: “Volkswagen”.

I’m guessing the largest mass grave wins.

That’s misleading and inaccurate. Please edit this. Immigrant children were not “jailed”; they were caged. If you prefer: “kenneled” would also be accurate.

As you stated earlier: “nations grouping together to allow unrestricted travel is comparable to interstate travel within the US...much smaller “independent” entities that work together to allow the whole area to function.” So calling “open borders” “an unrealistic pipe dream” is also hyperbole.

As far as: “the worst people out there will absolutely find ways to use any opening for their advantage and ruin it for the rest of us.” This applies no matter what the border situation is. “International terrorism” will still be a factor whether borders are less restrictive or more restrictive.

I don’t know that 100% open borders are manageable either. And I definitely agree that there would be some negative impact on current US citizens. However, as I cited in the studies above, I think the economic impact would be less severe than you might expect.

No countries currently have an “open border” policy (at least not open to any nationality). There are many examples of nations grouping together to allow unrestricted travel within those countries, though: Schengen Agreement nations, Nordic Passport Union, etc.

I agree, that we’re not really unique in how we patrol the US/Mexico border. However, I think a better solution might not be in the middle and might in fact be closer to the “open borders” camp. We should have laws that reflect what we believe to be morally right, not laws that uphold injustice as a “necessary evil”.

There would be a decrease, but I’m not sure I’d use “plummeting” here. See: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.9.2.23 or https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/116/4/1373/1903234

One alternative would be to marginally reduce the quality of life for the average American so that the life of an immigrant family could be greatly improved. It would require Americans to become less selfish so it’s not feasible. But it would be a morally superior alternative.

This is true. However, the US has a large number of impoverished that is growing so I’m not sure our current system is all that effective.

“Everyone else does it so we should too” doesn’t seem like a strong counter-argument.