4 ms·

For the eleventy-millionth time: Most of those accused of being "anti-immigrant" aren't against immigrants, but are against illegal immigrants. There must be a

For the eleventy-millionth time: Most of those accused of being "anti-immigrant" aren't against immigrants, but are against illegal immigrants. There must be an orderly process to entry, primarily to prevent criminals & diseases, and also to keep the numbers assimilate-able. The headline alone seems designed to invoke consternation where none existed, or to construe a common position as anti-immigrant which isn't.

dopamean 10y ago
I have yet to see anyone prove how even illegal immigrants are a detriment to our country. Also, xenophobia is xenophobia. Let's say we actually got rid of all illegal immigrants. You really think the debate about immigration would end there?
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Yes. ETA: I married an immigrant. Stop the imputation of "xenophobia".
  - rat87 10y ago
    So did Trump Hell he married multiple immigrants (And used undocumented polish workers to build Trump tower) He is still xenophobic He also told Jed Bush not to speak Spanish in public while his wife is raising their child bilingual.
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      Apparently we have different definitions of the word "xenophobic". Conversation won't get far until that difference is resolved.
Cyph0n 10y ago
So the recent Muslim ban was anti-illegal immigrant? Hmm..
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Snarky misconstrued labelling aside: Yes. Targeted countries chosen (and approved by prior President!) due to previously-acknowledged problems with the vetting process. Timeframe for the "ban" was limited & short. "Muslim" was not specified in any way.
  - JakeAl 10y ago
    And the timeframe of the ban was based on the ability of those nations to bring their vetting process into compliance. 6/7 of those nations were failed states, meaning there is no assurance of government/legal accountability, and 1 (Iran) is the world's largest source of funding for terrorist organizations. No it was not about Muslims, as nations with 1.1B Muslims were not affected and only nations with 200M Muslims were.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    Sounds like you didn't hear about people being asked about their religious affiliation, or POTUS himself noting on a radio show that Christians would get preferential treatment.
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      Religious persecution is a thing. If you're a normal adherent to the state-sponsored by-far-majority religion of a country, claiming refugee status via "violent religious persecution" is a stretch. If you're a rare adherent of a state-persecuted tiny-minority religion being violently exterminated with the tacit (if not declared) approval of the government, then you are exactly what refugee status via "violent religious persecution" is legally recognized for. Kind of hard to discern the difference without asking someone their religious affiliation. ETA: Legitimate refugees, people actually being violently persecuted by the state for some aspect of their minority status, are unlikely to get proper vetting regardless of the quality of the vetting process, and 'tis quite humanitarian to take them in if they can be reasonably identified as such. Those not so persecuted are in the best position for their state to provide proper vetting, which if their state can't/won't provide proper vetting then we need to halt their immigration until reasonable vetting can be established. This has NOTHING to do with religion per se, especially when the allegedly discriminated-against group has over 5x as many members in other countries who can apply for properly-vetted visas without any difficulty.

dopamean 10y ago

I have yet to see anyone prove how even illegal immigrants are a detriment to our country. Also, xenophobia is xenophobia. Let's say we actually got rid of all illegal immigrants. You really think the debate about immigration would end there?

ctdonath 10y ago
Yes. ETA: I married an immigrant. Stop the imputation of "xenophobia".
- rat87 10y ago
  So did Trump Hell he married multiple immigrants (And used undocumented polish workers to build Trump tower) He is still xenophobic He also told Jed Bush not to speak Spanish in public while his wife is raising their child bilingual.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Apparently we have different definitions of the word "xenophobic". Conversation won't get far until that difference is resolved.

Cyph0n 10y ago

So the recent Muslim ban was anti-illegal immigrant? Hmm..

ctdonath 10y ago
Snarky misconstrued labelling aside: Yes. Targeted countries chosen (and approved by prior President!) due to previously-acknowledged problems with the vetting process. Timeframe for the "ban" was limited & short. "Muslim" was not specified in any way.
- JakeAl 10y ago
  And the timeframe of the ban was based on the ability of those nations to bring their vetting process into compliance. 6/7 of those nations were failed states, meaning there is no assurance of government/legal accountability, and 1 (Iran) is the world's largest source of funding for terrorist organizations. No it was not about Muslims, as nations with 1.1B Muslims were not affected and only nations with 200M Muslims were.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Sounds like you didn't hear about people being asked about their religious affiliation, or POTUS himself noting on a radio show that Christians would get preferential treatment.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Religious persecution is a thing. If you're a normal adherent to the state-sponsored by-far-majority religion of a country, claiming refugee status via "violent religious persecution" is a stretch. If you're a rare adherent of a state-persecuted tiny-minority religion being violently exterminated with the tacit (if not declared) approval of the government, then you are exactly what refugee status via "violent religious persecution" is legally recognized for. Kind of hard to discern the difference without asking someone their religious affiliation. ETA: Legitimate refugees, people actually being violently persecuted by the state for some aspect of their minority status, are unlikely to get proper vetting regardless of the quality of the vetting process, and 'tis quite humanitarian to take them in if they can be reasonably identified as such. Those not so persecuted are in the best position for their state to provide proper vetting, which if their state can't/won't provide proper vetting then we need to halt their immigration until reasonable vetting can be established. This has NOTHING to do with religion per se, especially when the allegedly discriminated-against group has over 5x as many members in other countries who can apply for properly-vetted visas without any difficulty.