5 ms·

What about deportation of undocumented immigrants? Isn't their existence in this country politicized? People are being killed by gun violence, police violence,

What about deportation of undocumented immigrants? Isn't their existence in this country politicized? People are being killed by gun violence, police violence, gang violence. Isn't it fair for people affected by these things to feel their lives have become political footballs?

rayiner 6y ago
> What about deportation of undocumented immigrants? Isn't their existence in this country politicized? Their presence in a country they’ve entered illegally is the subject of political debate, but that’s not equivalent to a threat to their “very existence.” Calling it that is an attempt to emotionalize a basic function of sovereign nations: policing their borders. It’s something every country does—including the countries from where these undocumented immigrants came. > People are being killed by gun violence, police violence, gang violence. Isn't it fair for people affected by these things to feel their lives have become political footballs? If you’ve been killed by gun violence or police violence or gang violence, then you’re dead. If you haven’t, then you’re debating government policy, not the fact of your “very existence.” Even mundane government policy has life or death implications. People running red lights kills six to ten times as many people each year as mass shootings. But framing a debate over stoplight timing in terms of peoples’ “existence” would be a way to shut down rational policy debate. As an Asian person, I’m much more likely to be killed or attacked by a repeat offender than by the police. But that doesn’t mean I can shut down a discussion of eliminating bail by saying it’s a “threat to my very existence.”
- katbyte 6y ago
  > If you’ve been killed by gun violence or police violence or gang violence, then you’re dead Unless it’s your family/friends who have been? “How was your weekend Mary?” “My husband/kid was shot in the back by police” I find it sad how your arguing how people’s existence can’t be political or if they are it “doesn’t matter” because they unborn or dead while neglecting people who would still be affected daily like family or a mother who wants to get an abortion but can’t/has to deal with the assholes out front protesting
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    People on parole and bail kill more unarmed people than cops do. Is any talk of bail or parole reform an existential threat that denies people's right to exist?
    - katbyte 6y ago
      Source? And no? I don’t think I gave any indication it would?
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... About 80 / year police shootings of unarmed individuals. There were about 19,000 homicides last year. 1 in 55 people people are on parole or probation. So even if we make the ludicrous assumption that people on parole or probation have exact same rate of violent crime as non probation or paroled you still end up with 345 homicides by people on parole or probation. I assume a rate 2-3x the base rate for population would be a completely reasonable assumption, giving us ~10x more homicides by people on probation/parole. The point is if police shootings rise to being an existential threat, than criminal justice reform is at least a much of an existential threat.
        katbyte 6y ago
        the very first sentence there is "985 people have been shot and killed by police in the past year" and the rest of your comment is conjecture and assumptions with no facts to back them up
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        I said unarmed. Which statistic do you think is meaningfully wrong?
- darkerside 6y ago
  Based on the way you are using terms, you are correct, nobody's existence can be politicized. If they are alive (although possibly sick, in jail, or deported), they exist so there is nothing to discuss. If they are dead, they are dead, so there is obviously nothing to discuss. Putting those semantics aside, the point was, some people's lives are affected by politics (I'd argue all are) and you can't expect them not to talk about their lives, including the effect of policy and politics on them. Well, you can, but apparently 2/3 of your workforce will decide that's not cool and leave.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    There have been times when people’s very existence has been a political issue. That’s not happening in 21st century America. Of course people’s “lives are affected by politics”—often very significantly. That’s a very different statement than saying people’s “very existence is politicized.” That’s just a rhetorical device to exaggerate the personal impact of political issues.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      I would agree with that. People exaggerate at times, and you're correct that it can lead to unclear conversation. One of the worst parts is that bad actors can seize on a couple of words and detail an entire line of reasoning based on it.
NateEag 6y ago
"Existence in this country" is completely different from "existence," even if the two ideas happen to share a word.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Not really if you're limited to talking about a particular country. Like I guess you could argue it's the difference between ethnic cleansing internally and invading a neighbor to engage in ethnic cleansing, but that's sort of not a hugely important distinction.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    I think they're arguing the distinction between "I'm not allowed to live in the u.s. so I have to live somewhere else" and "I'm not allowed to live because I shot in front of a firing squad". Which would seem like a very important distinction if it was my existence.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Does that distinction really matter if you're already here in the US? Where else do you go?
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        I'm trying to argue in good faith but you're literally asking does the distinction being having to move and being murdered matter.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        To move where? This thread was in part, but not solely, about undocumented immigrants, and sure maybe they have a place they can legally be sent to. But the same argument has been used for racial separation ("No, we don't want to subjugate black people, we just want to have a white ethnostate where the black people will be forced to move". The part not said aloud of of course, being what happens if someone wishes to stay where they have lived their whole life). So yes, I think the distinction between "will be kicked out by force" or "will simply be shot in the street" can be a lot more tenuous than you're suggesting. But even still, if we're discussing any group that isn't undocumented immigrants (or even potentially citizens whom the president wanted to strip that right from) the question of "where do they go" becomes even more important, because there usually isn't a place they can go.

rayiner 6y ago

> What about deportation of undocumented immigrants? Isn't their existence in this country politicized? Their presence in a country they’ve entered illegally is the subject of political debate, but that’s not equivalent to a threat to their “very existence.” Calling it that is an attempt to emotionalize a basic function of sovereign nations: policing their borders. It’s something every country does—including the countries from where these undocumented immigrants came. > People are being killed by gun violence, police violence, gang violence. Isn't it fair for people affected by these things to feel their lives have become political footballs? If you’ve been killed by gun violence or police violence or gang violence, then you’re dead. If you haven’t, then you’re debating government policy, not the fact of your “very existence.” Even mundane government policy has life or death implications. People running red lights kills six to ten times as many people each year as mass shootings. But framing a debate over stoplight timing in terms of peoples’ “existence” would be a way to shut down rational policy debate. As an Asian person, I’m much more likely to be killed or attacked by a repeat offender than by the police. But that doesn’t mean I can shut down a discussion of eliminating bail by saying it’s a “threat to my very existence.”

katbyte 6y ago
> If you’ve been killed by gun violence or police violence or gang violence, then you’re dead Unless it’s your family/friends who have been? “How was your weekend Mary?” “My husband/kid was shot in the back by police” I find it sad how your arguing how people’s existence can’t be political or if they are it “doesn’t matter” because they unborn or dead while neglecting people who would still be affected daily like family or a mother who wants to get an abortion but can’t/has to deal with the assholes out front protesting
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  People on parole and bail kill more unarmed people than cops do. Is any talk of bail or parole reform an existential threat that denies people's right to exist?
  - katbyte 6y ago
    Source? And no? I don’t think I gave any indication it would?
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic... About 80 / year police shootings of unarmed individuals. There were about 19,000 homicides last year. 1 in 55 people people are on parole or probation. So even if we make the ludicrous assumption that people on parole or probation have exact same rate of violent crime as non probation or paroled you still end up with 345 homicides by people on parole or probation. I assume a rate 2-3x the base rate for population would be a completely reasonable assumption, giving us ~10x more homicides by people on probation/parole. The point is if police shootings rise to being an existential threat, than criminal justice reform is at least a much of an existential threat.
      - katbyte 6y ago
        the very first sentence there is "985 people have been shot and killed by police in the past year" and the rest of your comment is conjecture and assumptions with no facts to back them up
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        I said unarmed. Which statistic do you think is meaningfully wrong?
darkerside 6y ago
Based on the way you are using terms, you are correct, nobody's existence can be politicized. If they are alive (although possibly sick, in jail, or deported), they exist so there is nothing to discuss. If they are dead, they are dead, so there is obviously nothing to discuss. Putting those semantics aside, the point was, some people's lives are affected by politics (I'd argue all are) and you can't expect them not to talk about their lives, including the effect of policy and politics on them. Well, you can, but apparently 2/3 of your workforce will decide that's not cool and leave.
- rayiner 6y ago
  There have been times when people’s very existence has been a political issue. That’s not happening in 21st century America. Of course people’s “lives are affected by politics”—often very significantly. That’s a very different statement than saying people’s “very existence is politicized.” That’s just a rhetorical device to exaggerate the personal impact of political issues.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    I would agree with that. People exaggerate at times, and you're correct that it can lead to unclear conversation. One of the worst parts is that bad actors can seize on a couple of words and detail an entire line of reasoning based on it.

NateEag 6y ago

"Existence in this country" is completely different from "existence," even if the two ideas happen to share a word.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Not really if you're limited to talking about a particular country. Like I guess you could argue it's the difference between ethnic cleansing internally and invading a neighbor to engage in ethnic cleansing, but that's sort of not a hugely important distinction.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I think they're arguing the distinction between "I'm not allowed to live in the u.s. so I have to live somewhere else" and "I'm not allowed to live because I shot in front of a firing squad". Which would seem like a very important distinction if it was my existence.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Does that distinction really matter if you're already here in the US? Where else do you go?
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      I'm trying to argue in good faith but you're literally asking does the distinction being having to move and being murdered matter.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        To move where? This thread was in part, but not solely, about undocumented immigrants, and sure maybe they have a place they can legally be sent to. But the same argument has been used for racial separation ("No, we don't want to subjugate black people, we just want to have a white ethnostate where the black people will be forced to move". The part not said aloud of of course, being what happens if someone wishes to stay where they have lived their whole life). So yes, I think the distinction between "will be kicked out by force" or "will simply be shot in the street" can be a lot more tenuous than you're suggesting. But even still, if we're discussing any group that isn't undocumented immigrants (or even potentially citizens whom the president wanted to strip that right from) the question of "where do they go" becomes even more important, because there usually isn't a place they can go.