5 ms·

Absolutely not. Without large scale immigration, a slightly important country you may be familiar with wouldn't exist at all. The one where so many of these abs

Absolutely not. Without large scale immigration, a slightly important country you may be familiar with wouldn't exist at all. The one where so many of these absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes on immigration become popular.

basil-rash 3y ago
Can you snake a single significant figure in US politics who has actually advocated for zero immigration? Or are you saying zero-tolerance for illegal immigration? And if so, why would that be a bad thing?
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  "significant" is the key. How these arguments go is, I find a quote, then you say "not that person", or "that isn't what they meant", or "the law is wrong, it should be illegal". If 'valid immigration' is a-ok, then why produce so much false information re-casting it as 'illegal' in order to advocate stopping immigration? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/11/ron-desantis/debate-fact-check-ron-desantis-misleading-claim-th/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/11/ron-desant... https://www.politifact.com/immigration/ https://www.politifact.com/immigration/
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    Who recasted legal immigration as illegal? Your “citation” is of Ron Desantis complaining about too many people illegally immigrating, nothing to do with what you call “valid immigration”.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      What do you think is happening if he is using falsely inflated statistics? What is the goal of drumming up hate using false data, to rile up his followers? Is it really to promote 'valid' immigration? Wouldn't it be better to discuss 'valid' immigration, if that was in fact the goal? I think you have swallowed their dog whistle.
      - basil-rash 3y ago
        You haven’t any provided evidence of your claim that people are calling legal immigration illegal, or that anyone wants to prevent legal immigration. Please do so, or stop claiming it.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Perhaps it is phrasing. If today, Republicans are against the number and type of immigrants that are allowed in under the current law, then they can change the law. They do not agree with current law, and feel that there are situations that should be illegal. So they want to change the law, thus changing what is legal now, to become illegal. So, 'calling todays legal immigration, illegal'. I hate falling back on tropes, but this is the type of 'legal' maneuvering that was done in Germany. A lot of persecution was 'legal', once the laws were changed to make some 'people' illegal. https://theconversation.com/republicans-are-pushing-for-drastic-asylum-changes-an-immigration-law-scholar-breaks-down-the-proposal-219173 https://theconversation.com/republicans-are-pushing-for-dras... ""The Republicans’ plan is similar to both a similar rule that the Department of Homeland Security adopted in 2019 and a policy that President Joe Biden is trying to push through. I am an immigration professor and teach asylum law. I believe it’s important to understand what sets Republicans’ proposed law apart from previous iterations. The president cannot change the law, but Congress can. If these lawmakers succeed in changing federal asylum law, the law would override the court decisions striking down previous versions. Because Congress has broad power over immigration, the new laws would likely be upheld if challenged in court. "" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-wrong-with-republicans-immigration-claims https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-... https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-05-republicans-immigration-policy-fight/ https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-05-republicans-immigra... https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218935981/republican-candidates-immigration https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218935981/republican-candida...
        basil-rash 3y ago
        So we started with “absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes” and now we’re at “there exist congressional representatives performing their constitutionally-mandated job of reevaluating the specifics of what the immigration policies of the country should be going forward”. Interesting.

basil-rash 3y ago

Can you snake a single significant figure in US politics who has actually advocated for zero immigration? Or are you saying zero-tolerance for illegal immigration? And if so, why would that be a bad thing?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
"significant" is the key. How these arguments go is, I find a quote, then you say "not that person", or "that isn't what they meant", or "the law is wrong, it should be illegal". If 'valid immigration' is a-ok, then why produce so much false information re-casting it as 'illegal' in order to advocate stopping immigration? https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/11/ron-desantis/debate-fact-check-ron-desantis-misleading-claim-th/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/jan/11/ron-desant... https://www.politifact.com/immigration/ https://www.politifact.com/immigration/
- basil-rash 3y ago
  Who recasted legal immigration as illegal? Your “citation” is of Ron Desantis complaining about too many people illegally immigrating, nothing to do with what you call “valid immigration”.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    What do you think is happening if he is using falsely inflated statistics? What is the goal of drumming up hate using false data, to rile up his followers? Is it really to promote 'valid' immigration? Wouldn't it be better to discuss 'valid' immigration, if that was in fact the goal? I think you have swallowed their dog whistle.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      You haven’t any provided evidence of your claim that people are calling legal immigration illegal, or that anyone wants to prevent legal immigration. Please do so, or stop claiming it.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Perhaps it is phrasing. If today, Republicans are against the number and type of immigrants that are allowed in under the current law, then they can change the law. They do not agree with current law, and feel that there are situations that should be illegal. So they want to change the law, thus changing what is legal now, to become illegal. So, 'calling todays legal immigration, illegal'. I hate falling back on tropes, but this is the type of 'legal' maneuvering that was done in Germany. A lot of persecution was 'legal', once the laws were changed to make some 'people' illegal. https://theconversation.com/republicans-are-pushing-for-drastic-asylum-changes-an-immigration-law-scholar-breaks-down-the-proposal-219173 https://theconversation.com/republicans-are-pushing-for-dras... ""The Republicans’ plan is similar to both a similar rule that the Department of Homeland Security adopted in 2019 and a policy that President Joe Biden is trying to push through. I am an immigration professor and teach asylum law. I believe it’s important to understand what sets Republicans’ proposed law apart from previous iterations. The president cannot change the law, but Congress can. If these lawmakers succeed in changing federal asylum law, the law would override the court decisions striking down previous versions. Because Congress has broad power over immigration, the new laws would likely be upheld if challenged in court. "" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-wrong-with-republicans-immigration-claims https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/12/whats-... https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-05-republicans-immigration-policy-fight/ https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-05-republicans-immigra... https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218935981/republican-candidates-immigration https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218935981/republican-candida...
        basil-rash 3y ago
        So we started with “absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes” and now we’re at “there exist congressional representatives performing their constitutionally-mandated job of reevaluating the specifics of what the immigration policies of the country should be going forward”. Interesting.