3 ms·

I think you may find far fewer people than you expect to be fully anti-immigrant. I'm 100% pro immigration, and 100% anti illegal-immigration, and that has caus

I think you may find far fewer people than you expect to be fully anti-immigrant. I'm 100% pro immigration, and 100% anti illegal-immigration, and that has caused me to be branded as "anti-immigrant" a number of times(only online, where nuance doesn't exist)

emerged 5y ago
In threads like this, everyone who is against illegal immigration is assumed to also be against legal immigration. This has no factual basis and demonstrates this isn’t a conversation, it’s political posturing.
kelnos 5y ago
I think part of the reason might be that "illegal immigration", in the US at least, is a legal fiction that hasn't even existed for a century. The rules are entirely arbitrary and are designed to keep the legacy majority in power. They convince people that this is the right thing to do through fear-mongering and lies, telling people that immigrants take their jobs, reduce wages, have incompatible values, destroy "our" culture, etc. I've been doing genealogy research lately, and when my great-grandparents immigrated to the US (around 1910), the only requirement for "legal" immigration was that they entered the country at a designated port of entry and were identified and documented on entry. Around 10 years later they were US citizens (and that length of time was more due to them not feeling they needed it, than due to any bureaucratic nonsense). I expect that if we were to re-adopt a similar system today, it would not be catastrophic in the ways the government (both the left and right) would like us to believe. So I think you are branded anti-immigrant at times because being "anti illegal-immigration" is just kinda missing the point, and shows a lack of compassion and empathy for people who immigrate in ways that don't tick the arbitrary boxes.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  I'm not sure what legal fiction you are talking about: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 The rules are not arbitrary. At least, they are only as arbitrary as literally every law is. You probably enforce similar rules in your own domain. Or maybe you are as compassionate and empathetic as you claim, and just let uninvited people stay on your property. > and shows a lack of compassion and empathy for people who immigrate in ways that don't tick the arbitrary boxes. It appears you have a savior complex. I'll guess you imagine illegal border crossers are all poor brown women with children fleeing gang violence, just yearning for freedom. Otherwise I'm not sure how you can talk about empathy and compassion about a group of millions of people per year who all have different experiences and motivations for illegally entering the US.

emerged 5y ago

In threads like this, everyone who is against illegal immigration is assumed to also be against legal immigration. This has no factual basis and demonstrates this isn’t a conversation, it’s political posturing.

kelnos 5y ago

I think part of the reason might be that "illegal immigration", in the US at least, is a legal fiction that hasn't even existed for a century. The rules are entirely arbitrary and are designed to keep the legacy majority in power. They convince people that this is the right thing to do through fear-mongering and lies, telling people that immigrants take their jobs, reduce wages, have incompatible values, destroy "our" culture, etc. I've been doing genealogy research lately, and when my great-grandparents immigrated to the US (around 1910), the only requirement for "legal" immigration was that they entered the country at a designated port of entry and were identified and documented on entry. Around 10 years later they were US citizens (and that length of time was more due to them not feeling they needed it, than due to any bureaucratic nonsense). I expect that if we were to re-adopt a similar system today, it would not be catastrophic in the ways the government (both the left and right) would like us to believe. So I think you are branded anti-immigrant at times because being "anti illegal-immigration" is just kinda missing the point, and shows a lack of compassion and empathy for people who immigrate in ways that don't tick the arbitrary boxes.

oh_sigh 5y ago
I'm not sure what legal fiction you are talking about: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 The rules are not arbitrary. At least, they are only as arbitrary as literally every law is. You probably enforce similar rules in your own domain. Or maybe you are as compassionate and empathetic as you claim, and just let uninvited people stay on your property. > and shows a lack of compassion and empathy for people who immigrate in ways that don't tick the arbitrary boxes. It appears you have a savior complex. I'll guess you imagine illegal border crossers are all poor brown women with children fleeing gang violence, just yearning for freedom. Otherwise I'm not sure how you can talk about empathy and compassion about a group of millions of people per year who all have different experiences and motivations for illegally entering the US.