2 ms·

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

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.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  That is how the 'right' is winning, isn't it? Playing both sides of crazy and reasonable? Dream up crazy situations, be intolerant, get everyone riled up and ready to riot and burn the constitution. Then turn around and be "well, indubitably, my dear chap, lets discuss the matter". Then dance around in circles because they don't actually want anything solved, because then they wont have any issues to get their base angry. Then anybody that tries to engage with them starts looking just as crazy. Seriously, these tactics are strait verbatim out of mein kampf. I fell for it again, getting pulled into a seemingly innocent exchange, and it really is just trolling. You haven't provided any argument either way, just questions, to make me run around.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration. I cannot prove a negative (unless you want me to somehow iterate through every statement ever made by an elected official), but you cannot prove the positive. Your claim was the positive, you have not been able to provide any proof of it, therefore any logical analysis would be left with the negative. Now I’m left to wonder why you made the claim in the first place, given you have no proof. Were you simply repeating what some liberal media narrative said the “big bad right” was plotting, without having attempted to find any proof of it until now?
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Ok. I see problem. You: ""My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration."" I never said anything like that. I had to go back and re-read to figure out what argument you were talking about. You kind of fantasized something I said, and all subsequent arguments didn't really make sense since I was never trying to prove that. I made a comment about 'sea peoples' in the bronze age. To then try and infer some stance on very specific legal standing today seems a stretch. So to me, it seemed kind of crazy that someone is claiming the 'right' doesn't have some pretty radical views on immigration. But yes, I do agree, the right is pretty awful. I don't need any media to tell me that, when I have my own eyes. Get out of the bubble, I flip channels to conservative media now and then to see what they are being told, and it is full of lies. Like really blatant lies someone could debunk just by looking up the truth if they wanted to.

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.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
That is how the 'right' is winning, isn't it? Playing both sides of crazy and reasonable? Dream up crazy situations, be intolerant, get everyone riled up and ready to riot and burn the constitution. Then turn around and be "well, indubitably, my dear chap, lets discuss the matter". Then dance around in circles because they don't actually want anything solved, because then they wont have any issues to get their base angry. Then anybody that tries to engage with them starts looking just as crazy. Seriously, these tactics are strait verbatim out of mein kampf. I fell for it again, getting pulled into a seemingly innocent exchange, and it really is just trolling. You haven't provided any argument either way, just questions, to make me run around.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration. I cannot prove a negative (unless you want me to somehow iterate through every statement ever made by an elected official), but you cannot prove the positive. Your claim was the positive, you have not been able to provide any proof of it, therefore any logical analysis would be left with the negative. Now I’m left to wonder why you made the claim in the first place, given you have no proof. Were you simply repeating what some liberal media narrative said the “big bad right” was plotting, without having attempted to find any proof of it until now?
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Ok. I see problem. You: ""My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration."" I never said anything like that. I had to go back and re-read to figure out what argument you were talking about. You kind of fantasized something I said, and all subsequent arguments didn't really make sense since I was never trying to prove that. I made a comment about 'sea peoples' in the bronze age. To then try and infer some stance on very specific legal standing today seems a stretch. So to me, it seemed kind of crazy that someone is claiming the 'right' doesn't have some pretty radical views on immigration. But yes, I do agree, the right is pretty awful. I don't need any media to tell me that, when I have my own eyes. Get out of the bubble, I flip channels to conservative media now and then to see what they are being told, and it is full of lies. Like really blatant lies someone could debunk just by looking up the truth if they wanted to.