4 ms·

> 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 hav

> 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".
        alabastervlog 1y ago
        You wrote "doesn't fit" and then described something that fits entirely. I'm not following.
    - palmotea 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. And "abolish the police" doesn't mean literally abolish the police, and it's absurd to think it does, amirite? > Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that. Interpreting "no human is illegal" as implying "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy," is not a "hostile interpretation." In fact, I'd say denying that as a reasonable interpretation requires a pretty high degree of bias and motivated thinking (akin to the attempts to calm the slogan "abolish the police" does not actually indicate support for literally abolishing the police).
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.

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".
        alabastervlog 1y ago
        You wrote "doesn't fit" and then described something that fits entirely. I'm not following.
  - palmotea 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. And "abolish the police" doesn't mean literally abolish the police, and it's absurd to think it does, amirite? > Not a hostile interpretation by someone who already decided what's what and is working backwards from that. Interpreting "no human is illegal" as implying "denying the basic right for country to have an immigration policy," is not a "hostile interpretation." In fact, I'd say denying that as a reasonable interpretation requires a pretty high degree of bias and motivated thinking (akin to the attempts to calm the slogan "abolish the police" does not actually indicate support for literally abolishing the police).

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.