3 ms·
No, no it wouldn't. Undocumented immigrant is far from a neutral term. They haven't just forgotten their documents, or oops! the government hasn't gotten aroun
by huhkerrf 1y ago
No, no it wouldn't.
Undocumented immigrant is far from a neutral term. They haven't just forgotten their documents, or oops! the government hasn't gotten around to documenting them.
They are in the country when they aren't supposed to.
If you really hate the term "illegal immigrant", fine then call them unauthorized immigrants, but the "no person is illegal" slogan is just a motte and balley.
- ktallett 1y agoNo person is illegal as borders are arbitrary, enforced by other humans, not by any real natural divide, hence why they change.
- huhkerrf 1y agoSpeed limits are also arbitrary, enforced by other humans, not by any real natural divide, hence why they change. Again, motte and bally.
- ktallett 1y agoSpeed limits aren't required by nature, we happen to have built machines that are deadly and need control.
- throw10920 1y agoMeanwhile, borders are required by nature, because cultures are not interchangeable and cultural friction exists, rendering borders and controlled assimilation necessary. You also committed a logical fallacy: > No person is illegal as borders are arbitrary That's fallacious. All laws are arbitrary, as the GP pointed out, and you somehow failed to read: > Speed limits are also arbitrary, enforced by other humans So, it's factually true that borders are both necessary due to nature, and exist in the legal realm such that "illegal immigrants" is a factually correct label.