4 ms·

I'm completely unbothered by the implied accusations of racism (e.g. "only racists oppose my position. You oppose my position. The remainder of the problem is l

I'm completely unbothered by the implied accusations of racism (e.g. "only racists oppose my position. You oppose my position. The remainder of the problem is left as an exercise to the reader.") and it shows that you're increasingly unable to justify your stance. >you can't have it both ways We have a system of government and that through that system we've defined legal immigration. That system is no longer being enforced, which is less of a system-problem and more of a meta-problem. I don't have any solutions to the meta-problem[1], but it is self-evident to me that even if we have immigration reform the system won't work if those who are sworn to uphold it neglect to do their part (that is, if there is a meta-problem, no within-system solutions will work). [1] I hope it will work itself out in the polls but I guess we'll see

worstspotgain 2y ago
> it shows that you're increasingly unable to justify your stance. Funnily I'm making the same claim about you. > the system won't work if those who are sworn to uphold it neglect to do their part As is, the system is only serving the interests of the restrictionist minority. The situation is similar to where marijuana enforcement was a decade ago, and LGBTQ rights a decade before that. Many states have had to make-do with the situation and ended up building their own mini-immigration systems. If this is the context in which someone is thinking "gee, but I'd really like to get millions of people deported and lock the rest out, how can I accomplish that?", well, it's just possible that perhaps they haven't come to terms with the reason why. They can call a spade a spade if and when they're ready.