4 ms·

Okay, it seems like you're talking about me. I don't particularly support Trump and didn't vote for the guy but his immigration policy is one place I agree. I b

by _bin_ 1y ago

Okay, it seems like you're talking about me. I don't particularly support Trump and didn't vote for the guy but his immigration policy is one place I agree. I believe that every single illegal should be deported and probably barred from re-entry or citizenship as a punitive deterrent. I do not believe anyone besides Trump will actually do this. I do, however, disagree with Trump's targeting of pro-Palestinians. If Mahdawi originally immigrated illegally we should block a pathway to citizenship, as we should for every other current or former illegal. However, this appears to be done for the wrong reasons. Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive.

estebank 1y ago
There's already no path to citizenship for anyone that entered the US without a visa or parole, and if deported it already eliminates the eligibility for a visa for 5 to 20 years.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  There are periodic amnesties granted every so often. The prior administration also radically expanded temporary protected status by hundreds of thousands of people to protect them from deportation. Near the end of his second term, Obama attempted to do this for millions of immigrants. We also issue I-601A waivers, the U visa, and of course the mass abuse of the asylum system. I think this should be pretty straightforward: we need a somewhat more streamlined immigration system. However, we should still cap the overall proportion of immigration any country can represent, should limit uneducated, unskilled labor, and should block anyone who immigrates illegally from ever obtaining lawful permanent residency, any benefits or privileges, and certainly citizenship.
AlecSchueler 1y ago
> Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive. I wouldn't do that myself but when you refer to people as "illegals" you make it much more difficult.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      This is BS. I call people illegals or blacks just like I call them millennials or Christians. This is still standard parlance. You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it.
      - palmotea 1y ago
        > You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it. He (and his fellow travelers) assert it, therefore that is the way it is. It's an obnoxious but super-common way of driving ideological change (and keeping people on the outside). For the most part, all these formulations (illegal, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, person experiencing un-documentation) have an objectively equivalent meaning. The newer ones are kinda foolish attempts to use language games to change people's beliefs and perceptions, and really only function as shibboleths.
        _bin_ 1y ago
        Correct, we could ban undergrads reading Wittgenstein and half of this BS would go away. I generally ignore this because these changes both carry some level of significance in how people think, linguistic determinism wise, and because they turn into Havel’s Greengrocer type situations.
      - 1y ago

by _bin_ 1y ago

estebank 1y ago

There's already no path to citizenship for anyone that entered the US without a visa or parole, and if deported it already eliminates the eligibility for a visa for 5 to 20 years.

_bin_ 1y ago
There are periodic amnesties granted every so often. The prior administration also radically expanded temporary protected status by hundreds of thousands of people to protect them from deportation. Near the end of his second term, Obama attempted to do this for millions of immigrants. We also issue I-601A waivers, the U visa, and of course the mass abuse of the asylum system. I think this should be pretty straightforward: we need a somewhat more streamlined immigration system. However, we should still cap the overall proportion of immigration any country can represent, should limit uneducated, unskilled labor, and should block anyone who immigrates illegally from ever obtaining lawful permanent residency, any benefits or privileges, and certainly citizenship.

AlecSchueler 1y ago

> Tarring everyone who dislikes illegal immigration and believes the "soft" solutions have utterly failed as a bigot is inaccurate and unproductive. I wouldn't do that myself but when you refer to people as "illegals" you make it much more difficult.

_bin_ 1y ago
Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    This is BS. I call people illegals or blacks just like I call them millennials or Christians. This is still standard parlance. You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it.
    - palmotea 1y ago
      > You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it. He (and his fellow travelers) assert it, therefore that is the way it is. It's an obnoxious but super-common way of driving ideological change (and keeping people on the outside). For the most part, all these formulations (illegal, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, person experiencing un-documentation) have an objectively equivalent meaning. The newer ones are kinda foolish attempts to use language games to change people's beliefs and perceptions, and really only function as shibboleths.
      - _bin_ 1y ago
        Correct, we could ban undergrads reading Wittgenstein and half of this BS would go away. I generally ignore this because these changes both carry some level of significance in how people think, linguistic determinism wise, and because they turn into Havel’s Greengrocer type situations.
    - 1y ago