3 ms·

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

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).

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).