5 ms·

> "No human is illegal" can be reasonably interpreted to imply "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy." Reasonably? No.

palmotea 1y ago
> Reasonably? No. Sorry, yes. Given the political charge around the term "illegal," the sign repudiates the status of "illegal immigrant," and if you can't have illegal immigrants (or whatever euphemism of the day is), you can't have an immigration policy.
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all. No it isn't. It's what you need to interpret the sign. It's not list of literal statements statement of clear positions, but a thing that plays off vibes and associations to send a political message without being super direct (at least when it was new). But if you think my interpretation absurd (which it is not), what you you think "no human is illegal" means, in the context of the sign? The problem may be that the wide use of these kinds of vague signals and slogans invited misinterpretation.
    - alabastervlog 1y ago
      See my explanation a couple posts away. It means the thing that many on the left often express on this topic, not the thing that almost none ever do. [EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >[EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that. I don't get it. Are you conceding that independents and Republicans might genuinely believe that "No human is illegal" means all migration should be legal? By "genuinely believe ", I don't mean a maximally uncharitable interpretation either, but at the same time I also don't expect them to go out of their way to figure out exactly what is meant by "No human is illegal".
      - Izkata 1y ago
        The only context where "illegal" was ever used to describe a person was "illegal immigrant" (or the older term, "illegal alien"). It was explicitly about immigration policy.
        alabastervlog 1y ago
        Yes, in that context. It was extremely common to shorthand that to "illegals", as in, "Bob says he's gotta hire illegals or he can't find anyone who'll shingle houses for him", or, "I don't know why they can't mine the border to stop the illegals" (I guess I can assign that as a position the Republicans "shifted" to and then blame them for it since I've heard multiple actual Republican voters say it, no interpretation required, they literally stated they want a minefield on the border? That'd be more connected to reality than the rest of this nonsense thread). Democrats have been pushing back on the language of that, because "illegals" had plainly become a slur and tool for othering and dehumanizing. I think democrats focus on that horse-shit way too much—though, then again, shifting language that way as that kind of political tool is something Republicans do and had done in this case, so maybe I'm wrong and they're right for trying to stop it—but that's what the sign's about, it's a topic they've had a bug up their ass about for like twenty damn years.
        Izkata 1y ago
        That doesn't fit with how they've started trying to replace the term "illegal immigrant" with "undocumented immigrant".
- AStonesThrow 1y ago
  There are many ridiculous debates around immigration, and the trouble with public discourse is that it cannot be too, too specific or detailed about the demands/requirements of voters, and I think we know that if it were specific or detailed, those details would look extremely racist, xenophobic, classist or a combination thereof. Many people on both sides of the aisle have cried out for "immigration reform", even "comprehensive immigration reform". What do they mean by that? We've seen various keywords fly by, like "amnesty" or "quotas" or something. So why do we need that reform? Are too many domestic jobs occupied by foreigners? Are illegals committing violent/sexual crimes at an alarming rate? Are foreigners dangerous to national security or stability? Which foreigners and why? People protested the so-called "Muslim ban" but in reality, all immigration policy must differentiate among regions and nations and allocate resources/quotas appropriately. People on the left can go down to "The Wall" and give "humanitarian aid" to immigrants who may "die in the desert" but that's not really where the immigration crisis is [if indeed there is one at all,] because most "illegals" are people who got here legally and then ... overstayed their visa for some reason. I believe that immigration is just another wedge issue and talking point, without enough substance presented to the public for us to make real decisions about it. Real immigration policy is complex, nuanced, and someone in Congress is going to need to stack up a "Reform Bill" the size of Obamacare and then pass it, so that we'll know what's in it.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >and I think we know that if it were specific or detailed, those details would look extremely racist, xenophobic, classist or a combination thereof. Really? This time around the discourse around Trump's immigration polices seem to be based around practicalities (eg. American competitiveness, impact on the labor market) rather than principles. Even in the cases where it's based on principles, they're principles like due process rather than "-isms" you listed.
    - alabastervlog 1y ago
      Trump's rhetoric around illegal immigration has mostly been about how tons of them are violent criminals, about reducing fentanyl smuggling (that's overwhelmingly done by US citizens for obvious reasons, but whatever), "invasions", and gangs, no less so in this campaign than the last. Effects on the labor market get some attention, but nothing like those other aspects. [EDIT] From the Trump campaign's "2024 GOP Platform" doc: ---- 1. Secure the Border Republicans will restore every Border Policy of the Trump administration and halt all releases of Illegal Aliens into the interior. We will complete the Border Wall, shift massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement to Immigration Enforcement, and use advanced technology to monitor and secure the Border. We will use all resources needed to stop the Invasion— including moving thousands of Troops currently stationed overseas to our own Southern Border. We will deploy the U.S. Navy to impose a full Fentanyl Blockade on the waters of our Region—boarding and inspecting ships to look for fentanyl and fentanyl precursors. Before we defend the Borders of Foreign Countries, we must first secure the Border of our Country. 2. Enforce Immigration Laws Republicans will strengthen ICE, increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying Visas, and reinstate “Remain in Mexico” and other Policies that helped reduce Illegal Immigration by historic lows in President Trump’s first term. We will also invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of Illegal Alien gang violence once and for all. We will bring back the Travel Ban, and use Title 42 to end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children to their families in their Home Countries immediately. 3. Begin Largest Deportation Program in American History President Trump and Republicans will reverse the Democrats’ destructive Open Borders Policies that have allowed criminal gangs and Illegal Aliens from around the World to roam the United States without consequences. The Republican Party is committed to sending Illegal Aliens back home and removing those who have violated our Laws. 4. Strict Vetting Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted. 5. Stop Sanctuary Cities Republicans will cut federal Funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that release dangerous Illegal Alien criminals onto our streets, rather than handing them over to ICE. We will require local cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement. 6. Ensure Our Legal Immigration System Puts American Workers First Republicans will prioritize Merit-based immigration, ensuring those admitted to our Country contribute positively to our Society and Economy, and never become a drain on Public Resources. We will end Chain Migration, and put American Workers first! ---- This basically fits with his proxies' rhetoric on e.g. Fox News, and his points at rallies: a little about the jobs aspect, but most of it's about how dangerous illegal immigrants are.
- dakr 1y ago
  An act can be illegal. I don't see how a person can be illegal. Being in a country illegally is an act, not an inherent property of a person. Trying to say a person is illegal seems like a non-starter for useful reasoning because it seems to absolve people of responsibility for their actions, since nothing can be done about who a person inherently is.
gruez 1y ago
So how was that supposed to be interpreted? "everyone should receive due process?" Why don't they just say that, instead of trying to do a motte and bailey where the sign makes an absolutist statement on immigration policy, that then gets walked back on to something anodyne?
- alabastervlog 1y ago
  It's a (I agree somewhat silly) rejection of labelling people "illegals". I assure you that very few of the people with those signs want open borders. That's a position held by almost nobody. Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't. That's a distinction without a difference. If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position, it's cold comfort to the independent or Republican that it's not an official position of the Democratic party (whatever that might mean). Just look at Project 2025. It was produced by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that is technically independent of the GOP. Trump even distanced himself from it during the campaign. Does that mean Democrats aren't right to worry about it, because it wasn't an official position?
    - alabastervlog 1y ago
      This is absurd. Look at the things you're comparing: a misreading of a somewhat-common yard sign plus what Fox News and Mark Levin say the democrats support, versus a concerted effort by a highly influential prominent think-tank that involved so very many top folks in Trump's campaign that his statements distancing himself from it were never anything but blatant lies. Show me something actually equivalent, and you'll have a point. Find me the most-influential think tank you can that supports stuff like "abolishing the police force" or "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". CFR? Brookings? Atlantic Council? IDK, find one. Find a policy statement on that stuff, Democrats usually put tons of policy docs on their campaign websites because they're nerds who incorrectly think normal people both can and are willing to read, so it should be well-documented. After all, the claim was that they shifted their campaign focus to that! To "abolishing the police force" (?!) and such. Not that a few individual democrats with little or no power said some things, maybe. > That's a distinction without a difference. Once you erase the long list of material fucking differences, sure. > If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position ALMOST NONE ARE. The person who "deny[ies] the basic right for country to have an immigration policy" is vanishingly rare and you'll have at least as much luck finding them among the committed libertarian sorts as even the farther-left end of democrats—still not much luck, but about as much. It's correct to say it's a problem for democrats that people think they hold these positions. It's incorrect to say it's because they in-fact do. It's because of effective propaganda. You folks are assigning a caricature of their positions to them and then blaming them for adopting those caricatured positions. WT literal F.
ggariepy 1y ago
The hell it isn't reasonable.

palmotea 1y ago

> Reasonably? No. Sorry, yes. Given the political charge around the term "illegal," the sign repudiates the status of "illegal immigrant," and if you can't have illegal immigrants (or whatever euphemism of the day is), you can't have an immigration policy.

alabastervlog 1y ago
This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > This is pretzel-logic to justify the original absurd claim. No, it’s not reasonable at all. No it isn't. It's what you need to interpret the sign. It's not list of literal statements statement of clear positions, but a thing that plays off vibes and associations to send a political message without being super direct (at least when it was new). But if you think my interpretation absurd (which it is not), what you you think "no human is illegal" means, in the context of the sign? The problem may be that the wide use of these kinds of vague signals and slogans invited misinterpretation.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    See my explanation a couple posts away. It means the thing that many on the left often express on this topic, not the thing that almost none ever do. [EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >[EDIT] To ground this, the claim is that it's reasonable to interpret "no human is illegal" as "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". This is a "reasonable" leap reached by following "what you need to interpret the sign". Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that. I don't get it. Are you conceding that independents and Republicans might genuinely believe that "No human is illegal" means all migration should be legal? By "genuinely believe ", I don't mean a maximally uncharitable interpretation either, but at the same time I also don't expect them to go out of their way to figure out exactly what is meant by "No human is illegal".
    - Izkata 1y ago
      The only context where "illegal" was ever used to describe a person was "illegal immigrant" (or the older term, "illegal alien"). It was explicitly about immigration policy.
      - alabastervlog 1y ago
        Yes, in that context. It was extremely common to shorthand that to "illegals", as in, "Bob says he's gotta hire illegals or he can't find anyone who'll shingle houses for him", or, "I don't know why they can't mine the border to stop the illegals" (I guess I can assign that as a position the Republicans "shifted" to and then blame them for it since I've heard multiple actual Republican voters say it, no interpretation required, they literally stated they want a minefield on the border? That'd be more connected to reality than the rest of this nonsense thread). Democrats have been pushing back on the language of that, because "illegals" had plainly become a slur and tool for othering and dehumanizing. I think democrats focus on that horse-shit way too much—though, then again, shifting language that way as that kind of political tool is something Republicans do and had done in this case, so maybe I'm wrong and they're right for trying to stop it—but that's what the sign's about, it's a topic they've had a bug up their ass about for like twenty damn years.
        Izkata 1y ago
        That doesn't fit with how they've started trying to replace the term "illegal immigrant" with "undocumented immigrant".
AStonesThrow 1y ago
There are many ridiculous debates around immigration, and the trouble with public discourse is that it cannot be too, too specific or detailed about the demands/requirements of voters, and I think we know that if it were specific or detailed, those details would look extremely racist, xenophobic, classist or a combination thereof. Many people on both sides of the aisle have cried out for "immigration reform", even "comprehensive immigration reform". What do they mean by that? We've seen various keywords fly by, like "amnesty" or "quotas" or something. So why do we need that reform? Are too many domestic jobs occupied by foreigners? Are illegals committing violent/sexual crimes at an alarming rate? Are foreigners dangerous to national security or stability? Which foreigners and why? People protested the so-called "Muslim ban" but in reality, all immigration policy must differentiate among regions and nations and allocate resources/quotas appropriately. People on the left can go down to "The Wall" and give "humanitarian aid" to immigrants who may "die in the desert" but that's not really where the immigration crisis is [if indeed there is one at all,] because most "illegals" are people who got here legally and then ... overstayed their visa for some reason. I believe that immigration is just another wedge issue and talking point, without enough substance presented to the public for us to make real decisions about it. Real immigration policy is complex, nuanced, and someone in Congress is going to need to stack up a "Reform Bill" the size of Obamacare and then pass it, so that we'll know what's in it.
- gruez 1y ago
  >and I think we know that if it were specific or detailed, those details would look extremely racist, xenophobic, classist or a combination thereof. Really? This time around the discourse around Trump's immigration polices seem to be based around practicalities (eg. American competitiveness, impact on the labor market) rather than principles. Even in the cases where it's based on principles, they're principles like due process rather than "-isms" you listed.
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    Trump's rhetoric around illegal immigration has mostly been about how tons of them are violent criminals, about reducing fentanyl smuggling (that's overwhelmingly done by US citizens for obvious reasons, but whatever), "invasions", and gangs, no less so in this campaign than the last. Effects on the labor market get some attention, but nothing like those other aspects. [EDIT] From the Trump campaign's "2024 GOP Platform" doc: ---- 1. Secure the Border Republicans will restore every Border Policy of the Trump administration and halt all releases of Illegal Aliens into the interior. We will complete the Border Wall, shift massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement to Immigration Enforcement, and use advanced technology to monitor and secure the Border. We will use all resources needed to stop the Invasion— including moving thousands of Troops currently stationed overseas to our own Southern Border. We will deploy the U.S. Navy to impose a full Fentanyl Blockade on the waters of our Region—boarding and inspecting ships to look for fentanyl and fentanyl precursors. Before we defend the Borders of Foreign Countries, we must first secure the Border of our Country. 2. Enforce Immigration Laws Republicans will strengthen ICE, increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying Visas, and reinstate “Remain in Mexico” and other Policies that helped reduce Illegal Immigration by historic lows in President Trump’s first term. We will also invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of Illegal Alien gang violence once and for all. We will bring back the Travel Ban, and use Title 42 to end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children to their families in their Home Countries immediately. 3. Begin Largest Deportation Program in American History President Trump and Republicans will reverse the Democrats’ destructive Open Borders Policies that have allowed criminal gangs and Illegal Aliens from around the World to roam the United States without consequences. The Republican Party is committed to sending Illegal Aliens back home and removing those who have violated our Laws. 4. Strict Vetting Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted. 5. Stop Sanctuary Cities Republicans will cut federal Funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that release dangerous Illegal Alien criminals onto our streets, rather than handing them over to ICE. We will require local cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement. 6. Ensure Our Legal Immigration System Puts American Workers First Republicans will prioritize Merit-based immigration, ensuring those admitted to our Country contribute positively to our Society and Economy, and never become a drain on Public Resources. We will end Chain Migration, and put American Workers first! ---- This basically fits with his proxies' rhetoric on e.g. Fox News, and his points at rallies: a little about the jobs aspect, but most of it's about how dangerous illegal immigrants are.
dakr 1y ago
An act can be illegal. I don't see how a person can be illegal. Being in a country illegally is an act, not an inherent property of a person. Trying to say a person is illegal seems like a non-starter for useful reasoning because it seems to absolve people of responsibility for their actions, since nothing can be done about who a person inherently is.

gruez 1y ago

So how was that supposed to be interpreted? "everyone should receive due process?" Why don't they just say that, instead of trying to do a motte and bailey where the sign makes an absolutist statement on immigration policy, that then gets walked back on to something anodyne?

alabastervlog 1y ago
It's a (I agree somewhat silly) rejection of labelling people "illegals". I assure you that very few of the people with those signs want open borders. That's a position held by almost nobody. Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Back to the point: when did the democrats shift to any of these alleged positions? They didn't. It's what the opposition says they did, but they in-fact didn't. That's a distinction without a difference. If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position, it's cold comfort to the independent or Republican that it's not an official position of the Democratic party (whatever that might mean). Just look at Project 2025. It was produced by the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that is technically independent of the GOP. Trump even distanced himself from it during the campaign. Does that mean Democrats aren't right to worry about it, because it wasn't an official position?
  - alabastervlog 1y ago
    This is absurd. Look at the things you're comparing: a misreading of a somewhat-common yard sign plus what Fox News and Mark Levin say the democrats support, versus a concerted effort by a highly influential prominent think-tank that involved so very many top folks in Trump's campaign that his statements distancing himself from it were never anything but blatant lies. Show me something actually equivalent, and you'll have a point. Find me the most-influential think tank you can that supports stuff like "abolishing the police force" or "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy". CFR? Brookings? Atlantic Council? IDK, find one. Find a policy statement on that stuff, Democrats usually put tons of policy docs on their campaign websites because they're nerds who incorrectly think normal people both can and are willing to read, so it should be well-documented. After all, the claim was that they shifted their campaign focus to that! To "abolishing the police force" (?!) and such. Not that a few individual democrats with little or no power said some things, maybe. > That's a distinction without a difference. Once you erase the long list of material fucking differences, sure. > If Democratic voters and activists are pushing for a given position ALMOST NONE ARE. The person who "deny[ies] the basic right for country to have an immigration policy" is vanishingly rare and you'll have at least as much luck finding them among the committed libertarian sorts as even the farther-left end of democrats—still not much luck, but about as much. It's correct to say it's a problem for democrats that people think they hold these positions. It's incorrect to say it's because they in-fact do. It's because of effective propaganda. You folks are assigning a caricature of their positions to them and then blaming them for adopting those caricatured positions. WT literal F.

ggariepy 1y ago

The hell it isn't reasonable.