3 ms·

> Well said. Just like how anti-illegal-immigration (an unremarkable position) is now synonymous with anti-Mexican. Have you considered this is because the som

> Well said. Just like how anti-illegal-immigration (an unremarkable position) is now synonymous with anti-Mexican. Have you considered this is because the some of the loudest voices on the right have wrapped up the immigration debate with some nasty rhetoric based on race, nationality and nationalistic emotion, not policy or fact? Do any of the statements linked below, which were well reported on, seem like productive ways to discuss immigration? http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-presidential-bid-trashing-mexico-mexicans-n376521 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-pr... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-don... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countries-in-oval-office-meeting-on-immigration-1134990403518 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countr...

bassman9000 9y ago
Guilt by association. Not an argument.
- aaomidi 9y ago
  He's saying the definition of the word being used is currently changing. When racist people start talking about illegal immigrants and they refer to all people of a specific race or nationality, they effectively change the definition of the word.
- dashundchen 9y ago
  I'm not sure why that isn't an argument to be considered. The fact is these statements (referring to Mexicans as rapists and murders, "shithole countries") keep being made by the president, who historically has some sway over the legislative debate, especially when their party controls both chambers of congress. I'd like to know, do you think these are reasonable, good-faith openers for debate? I don't, especially when so few on the right seem to be able to rebuke them and move on to a real discussion.
  - bassman9000 9y ago
    If being anti-illegal-immigration automatically makes you aligned with Trump, yes, it's a bad opener. And still not an argument.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Yes, it is, especially if you're not doing anything to make them not the loudest voices. If you don't like being associated with them, then you need to tell them off, and call them out when they say terrible things like that.

bassman9000 9y ago

Guilt by association. Not an argument.

aaomidi 9y ago
He's saying the definition of the word being used is currently changing. When racist people start talking about illegal immigrants and they refer to all people of a specific race or nationality, they effectively change the definition of the word.
dashundchen 9y ago
I'm not sure why that isn't an argument to be considered. The fact is these statements (referring to Mexicans as rapists and murders, "shithole countries") keep being made by the president, who historically has some sway over the legislative debate, especially when their party controls both chambers of congress. I'd like to know, do you think these are reasonable, good-faith openers for debate? I don't, especially when so few on the right seem to be able to rebuke them and move on to a real discussion.
- bassman9000 9y ago
  If being anti-illegal-immigration automatically makes you aligned with Trump, yes, it's a bad opener. And still not an argument.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Yes, it is, especially if you're not doing anything to make them not the loudest voices. If you don't like being associated with them, then you need to tell them off, and call them out when they say terrible things like that.