3 ms·
Maybe we will have to agree to disagree. >For example, one can be completely in favor of x amount of immigration, and be completely opposed to illegal immigrat
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
Maybe we will have to agree to disagree.
>For example, one can be completely in favor of x amount of immigration, and be completely opposed to illegal immigration.
This proves nothing, illegal immigration can still be a subset. I like food but dont like apples. This doesnt prove an apple isnt food.
Illegal immigration has been the focus of the immigration debate in the US for at least the last 50 years. Politicians dont debate the optimal number of green cards and H1B visas on podium.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago> This proves nothing, illegal immigration can still be a subset. I like food but dont like apples. This doesnt prove an apple isnt food. This is not an analogous situation or context. It would be logically consistent to support a policy of importing food, except for apples, if you think apples are causing a problem that other foods are not. We were not discussing the existence of immigrants themselves, which yes, by definition, illegal immigrants are a subset of immigrants since they are immigrants. But that is not interesting nor useful to converse about. We were discussing the acceptance of immigrants (legal) versus the acceptance of illegal immigrants.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago>We were discussing the acceptance of immigrants (legal) versus the acceptance of illegal immigrants. Thats your take, not mine. I think the national conversation and rayiner's point is primarily about illegal immigration. If you want to talk about why a big part of the US public feels betrayed, I think illegal immigration is both relevant and useful.