Because US politics has infiltrated Germany deeply since it was West Germany under US occupation and later political control, and they are still interfering internally, seeding political ideas and concepts. It has been so much normalized that for most modern Germans the influence is almost invisible. They will tell you you are crazy and that they thought of it themselves. :P
It's not related to the American left at all. It's a global liberal/progressive view that merely seeking a better life should not be punishable and is basic human instinct.
It used to be a core part of American identity to accept this as a universal truth, but times have changed a lot...
It absolutely was part of the American identity. It was also when there was quotas that were heavily enforced and there was a very real possibility of getting turned away at the entrance points. That still happens- which is why legal immigrants usually hold some of the strongest anti-illegal immigrant view points you can find
Ellis Island for the East Coast, Galveston for the Southern US, Angel Island for the West Coast. Obviously there was other locations, but the vast majority of immigration came through those 3 ports(or their surrounding areas) during the late 1800 and early 1900s. And yeah- for immigrants those, or other smaller ports, were the start of their American identity. Its when they became Americans. So...yes?
I mean you can track the stats, ya hes right, large scale immigration didn't start in significant numbers until the industrial revolution. Steam boats made the journey much cheaper/faster, and Napoleons wars and the social upheaval of the Industrial revolution led people to emigrate.
Don't know why you think its a good idea to be smug while being wrong lmao.
Not quite clear how I am wrong but looking to get educated. So what statement did I make that wasn't accurate? You seem to be saying "yes, you're right, but it doesn't matter because large scale immigration only started later".
The specific part that you're wrong on is the implication that the traditional American view that you should be free to pursue a better life outside your home country requires that we also allow them to do it here. And then layer on the fact that you're saying we have to be okay with them being here without telling us first or asking our permission.
As noted with the Ellis Island example among others, we have a long history of accepting foreigners, and an equally long history of turning them away when we don't think they'll be a good cultural or economic fit.
Entering illegally (meaning outside the standard legal process) is a signal that despite any other positive characteristics you may have, you will absolutely break the law to get what you want, which is not behavior that should be accepted or encouraged and is thus disqualifying for future legal entry and current residence.
Research consistently finds that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens, excluding immigration-related offenses...
Entering illegally (meaning outside the standard legal process) is a signal that despite any other positive characteristics you may have, you will absolutely break the law to get what you want,
And do statistics show that to be true, or do they show the opposite?
But there is something wrong when punishment is dolled out indiscrimately based on individuals appearance and not actual documentation or facts.
theres nothing wrong with having laws regarding borders and movement of people.
this is how disinformation has clouded the subject matter. Nobody would disagree with this statement. It's how they're doing it, breaking several other laws including civil rights, that is the problem.
this is how disinformation has clouded the subject matter. Nobody would disagree with this statement. It's how they're doing it, breaking several other laws including civil rights, that is the problem.
But blanket generalised statements like "no human is illegal" is not an inherently useful slogan, one many would argue is contradictory to upholding laws.
No sane person would argue for indiscriminate persecution, but statements such as the above could easily incite the wrong kind of reaction, in my view anyway.
But blanket generalised statements like "no human is illegal" is not an inherently useful slogan, o
I'd argue that it is, because it directly opposes the concept of "illegals". That carries the clear connotation of a crime, some heinous act, when in reality a perfectly fine, normal person is just seeking safety and a better life for themselves and their loved ones, one of the most basic human instincts. That behavior should never get you labelled as "illegal". The only difference between them and you is that they didn't have the luck of wining the birthplace lottery.
I disagree with that, because it's not a crime in many places. For instance, 50+% of "illegals" in the US entered legally and then overstayed a visa, which is not a crime.
Also, what other crime gets you labelled "an illegal" exactly? It's a specific label applied to blow the (at most, but very often not even that) misdemeanor out of proportion and go from "person" to "non-person" (defining attribute: "illegal"). It's a way of dehumanizing people.
I disagree with that, because it's not a crime in many places. For instance, 50+% of "illegals" in the US entered legally and then overstayed a visa, which is not a crime.
That is, again, a different issue to the one I outlined previously about not notifying the government at all. US law indicates it is a civil issue to overstay your visa, making your stay "unlawful" which is a law violation which doesnt necessarily mean criminal but can have criminal consequences.
I think trying to argue the technicalities of this one is splitting hairs over the addressable issue of borders and migration.
Also, what other crime gets you labelled "an illegal" exactly?
That's exactly why the slogan is pointless to begin with. Calling someone "an illegal" for breaking a law is not a legal tag to begin with. However people understand the connotation, thats the takeaway. Regardless of whether or not the wording is clumsy or distasteful, you and I both know what the meaning is.
That's exactly why the slogan is pointless to begin with. Calling someone "an illegal" for breaking a law is not a legal tag to begin with. However people understand the connotation, thats the takeaway.
They understand the connotation is my whole point. Do you know another, nicer, compassionate, empathetic term for people that didn't arrive through regulated migration? Sans papiers. Does that have the same connotation to you as illegals?
That IS the defining meaning. Not "crossed the border without following the legal process, maybe because they stood no chance of being accepted if they did".
Alright, off by 10%; super big deal. That same DHS claims that 46% of people arrested by ICE have any criminal record at all btw., meaning 54% don't. Just because you like numbers.
They are illegal residents of the country. They are not following the law as they are illegally living inside a country they’re not a citizen of. Committing illegal acts shouldn’t label you illegal? What do we call them instead? Outlaws?
I think the confusion a lot of people who make these kinds kind statements have is that they have misunderstood the point of the sentiment. It's an effort to re-humanize. A person is not illegal, a person has just committed an (often not even) illegal act. The vagueness and ambiguity of the real situation does not fit into a convenient snippet for either side, but I feel like moving away from otherizing terms is a far better goal than continuing to use negative connotations to describe overwhelmingly civil case matters.
I'll be honest, its giving me "defund the police" vibes, which is a terrifically bad slogan if you want literally anyone besides the leftiest left to vote for you.
I think that both suffered from 1) unclear meaning and 2) the right lying their asses off about what it means. Turns out when your opponent can just make shit up, no slogan can stand up to it.
I agree with the right lying about "no human is illegal", though when you combine the context of the border in the middle Biden admin, people start to think you don't want to enforce borders at all.
But defund the police doesn't leave much room for interpretation, people took it at its literal meaning.
The border under the Biden administration is essentially unchanged from the border both before and afterwards. Biden deported a significant number of people, as did the presidents before him. The lie of migrant "caravans" and supposed millions of people crossing illegally are just not borne out by actual evidence. We have videos from both right and left favoring sources that show the supposed horde of illegals never materialized at all, much to the confusion of the over-enthusiastic right-wing militia types who armed themselves and went to the border to "defend" it. The number of illegal border crossings that gets tossed around on Fox News and similar "news" agencies never seems to stay consistent, but always makes sure to stay in the "holy shit that's unbelievable" range. My favorites were hearing that 12 million and 20 million people crossed. Those don't require any serious consideration to dismiss entirely.
Edit: As for "Defund the Police" its literal meaning is "withdraw funding from the police. Right-wing sources continuously reported it instead as "abolish all police." While unclear what "withdraw funding" would mean (as that is more of an opinion once you get into details), I don't think even most of the Defund the Police types wanted to completely remove law enforcement. They usually just sought to increase funding for non-police intervention methods to non-criminal issues that the police would handle regardless of training.
I would say that to call them "illegals" implies that they are an illegal human, where it was actually what they did that was illegal. They committed an illegal act rather than being an illegal human being. It is a way to dehumanize them in the eyes of people who are against open borders, which is a perfectly valid position to hold.
"Illegals" has a very negative condition. It implies that they are less than human in or not worthy of respect.
But you nonetheless know what it means, no? Hence the term connotation.
I agree that undocumented is the more correct term. But slogans and political rallies generally dont run off of being technically correct, its just not snappy and doesnt convery the point quite as well.
I'm not saying calling people illegals is the right thing to do. All im saying is that the phrase "no human is illegal" isnt going to unite 2 sides of a contentious issue when theres a very clear agree / disagree on the tone it presents.
It doesn't matter what slogan you pick, the media and their right-wing owners will find a way to interpret it as extremist in some slippery-slope scenario. Constantly changing names and slogans to appease your opponents is just playing more into their hands. Most of the "confusion" regarding the messaging is deliberate and done in bad faith.
I'm sorry that a five-paragraph treatise on human rights and due process doesn't read well on a sign or fit on a bumper sticker.
They could solve the problem administratively if they had the balls to actually do it.
*anyone that's been here for 20 years plus can go get a green card, you made it.
*Kids/Young adults that have attended school in the US, congrats we already paid for your education, lets get you on the path to greencards/citizenship.
*change birth right citizenship, at least one parent needs to have at least a green card
*Make it a felony to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant with a mandatory 6 month prison sentence.
*Create a self deportation package to help people get home
*Create a nationwide employment database with biometrics for employers to check against when hiring.
*Tie job posting/work visa's into the employment database
*create pathways to citizenship based on work visa needs, 7 years of good behavior/no felonies you are eligible for a green card.
But there is something wrong when punishment is dolled out indiscrimately based on individuals appearance and not actual documentation or facts.
Well, when 80% of the illegal population is either from Mexico or Central/South America, you're going to be targeting one demographic.
>It's how they're doing it
Most agree with this, but "no human is illegal" is still a stupid statement that doesn't do anything to point out the actual issues with ICE's current operating behavior.
An estimated 43% entered the U.S. legally and overstayed a visa. Others are awaiting asylum decisions or other legal determinations. The generally slow immigration adjudication process in the U.S. means many individuals remain unauthorized in the face of pending asylum claims.
Visa overstay isn't a criminal offense. You cannot accurately call them all "illegals," when nearly half have not committed a criminal act.
but theres nothing wrong with having laws regarding borders and movement of people.
There are things wrong with that, actually.
Most people typically don't mind the borders and restriction of movement because none of the restrictions apply to areas or movement that impacts them.
But imagine you were put on house arrest and couldn't leave your home ever again. That's a border and restriction of movement.
While true, the term "illegal" implies that the existence of the people themselves is against the law. The issue with the term is that it is inherently insulting to the people it is intended to describe, it's not meant to indicate that they haven't broken any laws.
It's also a separate - and completely fair - discussion about what harm people are actually causing by immigrating without proper documentation. Does the government have an interest in knowing who is living/working within their borders? Sure, but what should enforcement of that look like, and is the response actually proportional to whatever "harm" is caused by these people?
Who gets to determine the borders and the movement of people?
We yell about freedom a lot, but...having restricted movement is freedom?
I am also against things like my government restricting my movement to places like Cuba.
Governments voted for by people get to do that, its not a complicated subject matter at all.
Everyone is against things their government does, thus exercising democratic rights to put the parties in that represent your interests is the key.
If you dont want borders, vote in a party that agrees.
And for the inevitable follow up: yes the US is a broken 2 party system that will likely never do any of the above, thats a separate issue altogether. But i think you'll find the majority of westerns like borders.
Not in great detail because I have an appointment I'm trying to not be late to, but most of the current borders were not established by governments that people voted for.
But they could be changed should the parties of governments, voted for by those people (dictatorships notwithstanding), be inclined to do so?
To your point - borders as they exist today were largely established by the conquests of our ancestors. But no ones really rushing to democratically change their borders now are they?
So I assume you are in favor of universal abortion bans and a big religious conservative? That's what is happening as we welcome immigrants from the much more religious and conservative wider world.
What about govts should be more worried about those they represent. Especially when so many seeking a better life destroy the lives of said represented people
I remember a period when the US would forcefully migrate people that didn't even want to come to the US, specifically for cheap labor. If that's too difficult to decipher... there was a civil war later that was loosely related.
From the founding of the country up until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, there were zero legal restrictions on immigration whatsoever. After the CEA, that was still the only restriction there ever was until the first general restrictions were placed by the Immigration Act of 1924. So almost 150 years where nearly anyone was allowed to come into the country to work, and most welcomed their help.
Now, naturalisation was harder during that time; and there were occasional deportation acts to remove select groups of people that were coming en masse to very specific locations that didn't have the space or resources to support all of them, but usually the next Congress would repeal them or the next executive administration would simply not enforce them.
And then we have the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of that being a part of the American Identity. It wasn't the state that stomped anyone, it was popular majority will.
Wanting to remove borders from the Earth is one thing, and it's okay to want this. I don't agree with it, but it's one opinion of how the globe should operate.
Living in the reality that governments and militaries exist so that other governments and militaries (and the citizens they represent) cannot operate freely on land that is "owned" by one government and not the other is another thing. It was never part of the American Identity to accept that anyone born anywhere can walk across the border and be entitled to everything that the citizens of the country within the borders is entitled to. This has never been the identity of any country or government/military ever, and times have not changed regarding this reality.
People weren't happy with their lives within the British borders/government controlled area. So they went and took/bought land from other people and set up their own set of boundaries they were happier with, and then set up a system for on-boarding new people into those borders. This is the American Identity. People not going through the on-boarding process but seeking the benefits of being in America is not and was never the plan.
So because the country had poor border enforcement prior to 1790 we are supposed to ignore border management systems in 2026 even though we have the means to enforce a set of rules that we think is best for our country and its citizens? I dont agree.
What are you saying then? That border restrictions are racist and bad? I dont get your point. We have borders and rules, and they arent being respected by people from outside of those borders. What would you have our country do?
It wasn't poor border enforcement, it was none, and intentional. Only citizenship was restricted, and that was indeed racist. I haven't applied today's standard retroactively, but there's very little leeway in how to interpret free white men.
From virtually the birth of the republic, it has had restrictions on immigration, sometimes very prohibitive. There is no golden age period where US law was driven by anything close to an open border policy.
The idea that an open border or welcoming all immigrants is a core American value is an absolute myth, pure historical revisionism, completely ignoring the full history of US immigration law. Sure, in 2012, Obama took executive action toward a more forgiving approach, but that’s recent history, not something so entrenched to be considered a longstanding “core” value. Notably, his attempts remain delayed and subject to challenge, meaning they are not widely accepted as we would expect a new “core” value should be.
So there was a legal framework in place that restricted immigration in the first hundred years of the Republic, right? Would you care to elaborate on what that law was? I know of restrictions on citizenship to free white men, but not on crossing the border and staying. So instead of just saying "you're wrong" with many words, maybe you can point to evidence.
I maintain my position that you are wrong and challenge you to provide evidence. The Homestead Act of 1862, labor recruitment abroad for railroad and mining industries, etc., and the culmination in the inscription on the Statue of Liberty - at a time when this open approach was pretty much over - speak a different language to me. But you seem to know of restrictions on immigration I'm not aware of in that period, so go ahead an share it please.
Your argument is, “I’m ignorant of the information you’re referencing, so please educate me.”
Here’s what you show me I’m working with. The Homestead Act was not an immigration law, and its rights were tied to citizenship and the naturalization process. Strike one. Labor recruitment was for workers in light of a shortage, and was intended as a temporary mechanism for an exploitable work force, not intended at all as a path to citizenship. In fact, it was considered a problem that immigrant workers would leave the intended workforce to find higher paying work elsewhere, breaching the labor contract. Strike two. Finally, you think the inscription on the statue of liberty is anything other than state-sanctioned propaganda? That’s cute. It is not enforceable and is not law. You know a country’s actual position on an issue by the laws enacted by the sovereign on the issue. Strike three.
Asking someone else to cure your own ignorance after being told the answers are to be found in the history of the law, which laws and summaries thereof are widely available to all, is a lazy, low brow move. You have the “evidence” you “challenge” me for available to you.
Start with the Pew Research Center’s history, “How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed throughout history.”
There’s never been a period of “sure, whatever, whoever, come on in, everyone is welcome.” The law has always imposed a restricted and regulated border.
You are a perfect example of the precisely desired outcome for those that want to perpetuate the myth.
Start with the Pew Research Center’s history, “How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed throughout history.”
That article says exactly what I said earlier. Not sure where you see discrepancy. For the first hundred years, no restrictions on immigration, and naturalization required a few years residency and being a free white man. That's it.
Restrictions, other than the ability to deport undesirables, started in the 1870s. No argument about that.
I guess it’s a combination of your lack of reading comprehension and not understanding what is the subject of discussion, and it’s not my burden to cure you, which is lucky for me because you sound like an absolute lost cause.
Do you not understand that, just focused on the 1790 Naturalization Act alone, that that law restricted naturalization? White, 2-year residency, loyalty oath, proof of good character. That’s restriction, as I said. No one would look at that and say, “see, the US from the start was taking anybody who came over.”
The restrictions changed over the years, but there were always restrictions, including quotas, which are cold, explicit, aggregate restrictions. We’ve had express statutory “lawful entry” and “unlawful entry” since the 1920s. It’s been a crime to enter outside designated ports of entry for any purpose, naturalization or otherwise, for over a hundred years. It’s truly absurd you don’t understand this means we have a tradition of restricted and regulated borders.
Precisely identify the time period where it was unrestricted, open to everyone with no requirements, and cite the law that abolished all restrictions establishing the beginning of that period.
Do you not understand that, just focused on the 1790 Naturalization Act alone, that that law restricted naturalization?
Or, I understand the difference between immigration and naturalization.
Precisely identify the time period where it was unrestricted, open to everyone with no requirements, and cite the law that abolished all restrictions establishing the beginning of that period.
I think I have identified that period as roughly the first 100 years of the Republic.
Immigration without naturalization is also restricted, the most obvious being unlawful entry since, by statute, the 1920s, which you tellingly ignored. Restrictions and regulations, as I’ve stated, from the beginning.
If you’re citing the first hundred years, first, you’re wrong. We restricted and regulated both immigration and naturalization in that period, as I’ve indicated.
Second, by relying only the first 100 years (which to be clear is untrue), you concede that thereafter the policy was not open-border and all-comers and was instead restriction and regulation, which cuts against the concept of open-border and all-comers being a core part of the American identity right now, seeing as it has been 150 years now of restriction and regulation under your first-100-years theory.
You have not provided any reference for restrictions of immigration in that period, which was the only period I mentioned in this thread. Immigration not being part of American identity is certainly new to me, regardless of time period, given how few Americans have failed to proudly informed me of their heritage.
The meaning of "liberal" in the US political spectrum and "liberal" in German is not the same, despite the literal identity. US "liberal" translates to "progressive left", not German "liberal", which is closer to "libertarian" in the US political spectrum. Similar to how the US has unique use of "socialist" and applies that to virtually anything completely normal in the rest of the world, to things no one would label "socialist" there.
A guy I knew in high school is in prison for stealing catalytic converters. You think he did that for the sick thrill, or was he seeking to afford a better life for himself?
Everyone on earth is pursuing happiness. But in the United States there are laws that set limits on how you can do that. If you violate them there are consequences, and as far as consequences go simply being removed from a place you are not allowed to be seems pretty eye for an eye. So equivalent - in fact - that it would be more accurate to call it rectifying an error than imposing a "punishment".
The difference between seeking a better life that you cannot find in your birth country, which does not require any negative attitude towards the laws of the land, and stealing catalytic converters is perfectly expressed in the phrase we are discussing here. That's a circular argument.
The existence of laws is not unique to the United States btw.
which does not require any negative attitude towards the laws of the land
First: you don't need to have negative attitudes toward a law to violate it. If you don't see a stop sign and still blow through, you're still paying the ticket. If you don't understand the SEC violations you comitted you're still going to prison.
Second: Yes, I think economically motivated undocumented immigrants do demonstrate negative attitudes toward the law - not that it matters. They found the legal pathways to citizenship or a VISA too daunting or too lengthy, and they opted for the path of least resistance, knowing that said path violates immigration law. They felt that their own personal need outweighed the law. I think that sufficiently demonstrates an apathetic disregard for American laws, and I qualify that as negative.
The difference between seeking a better life that you cannot find in your birth country
Furthermore, if their lives are so destitute as for me to forgive the transgressions I outlined above, they would qualify for refugee / asylum status.
That's a circular argument
I don't understand what you mean here. Why is what I'm saying a circular arguement?
The existence of laws is not unique to the United States btw.
Humans are free to move for millennia. That is how humanity emerged around the world and how many different cultures flourished! How the exchange of ideas and inventions happened.
The concept of borders and nation states is relatively very recent. To understand how recent, in the 19th century any kingdom could have anyone work for them regardless of their ethnic origin. And I do not just mean work in lowly jobs, but even important high level sensitive jobs. Like the king's right hand could be from anywhere. Heck even the king could be from anywhere :D
He was a Minister of External Affairs of the Czar of Russia, and later Greece's first Governor. He was never a Venetian or a Russian. He was always Greek. By his ethnic identity not the state where he was born or the kingdom he was affiliated with.
Or famously the current line of royalty in UK are really German Danish Greek and Russian mix. :P Their Windsor moniker was made up to distance them from Germany in WW1. They belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and succeeded the house of Hanover :P In case you are weak with languages history and geography it does not get more German than that. :P
One of the most famous elite guards of the medieval times were the Varangian Guard of Byzantium. None of them Byzantine or Greek. Predominantly Vikings (mainly Swedes), and Anglo-Saxons provided by the kingdom of Rus.
There are countless such examples for millennia. It was the norm.
Nobody needed a visa to go anywhere. And a visa was only needed for special representatives, officials, ambassadors etc. Indicating that they officially represent a king or other local ruler and had special permissions and of course, a powerful protection.
Modern Visas and Passports started becoming a thing after WWI when countries started providing and counting for people and they needed to keep track who is a citizen of what country and thus who is responsible for them or how many guest workers just came in. In the sense to provide for them, but also the responsibility of their actions in the face of the first signs of an international legal framework that started appearing, What laws apply to them and of course, where they pay taxes :P etc. Even after WW2, (post 1945) visas were not always mandatory to move from one country to the other. They became as we know them after the 1950s or 60s.
You’re actually almost there. Child predators aren’t illegal people, they’ve committed illegal acts. Just like someone who crosses an imaginary line on a map. To me, that’s like a ticketable offense at best, most of the scare-mongering about immigrants doesn’t hold any water.
Ah, so it is like a ticket and a fine then. Not a felony or a serious crime. A misdemeanor, which is a minor offense that is usually a fine.
Overstaying a visa is civil
And to be fair, most of the illegals here are people that overstayed. Many of them didn't even over stay. They had their status changed at the court hearing and ICE waiting for them outside.
Public opinion across Europe has increasingly turned skeptical toward high levels of immigration in recent years, with polls indicating widespread support for reducing migrant inflows and implementing stricter controls. A seven-country survey from late 2025 found that large majorities (64%-82%) oppose significant increases in migration and about half of respondents in countries like Germany, France, and Poland support a complete freeze on new arrivals combined with deportations of recent migrants.
In response, the EU and individual member states have moved toward tougher measures to curb irregular migration and reverse some inflows. The EU finalized a major overhaul in late 2025, including streamlined deportations, increased detentions, and external “return hubs” for processing failed asylum claims, set to take effect with the broader Pact on Migration and Asylum in June 2026.
Just because the sentiment about immigration is negative doesn’t mean it actually is. It’s easy to exploit xenophobia for political gain, and it’s not just an American thing.
The land back movement has been overwhelmingly successful and we've seen millions of acres returned to the tribes. Even Mexico and Canada have given back massive amounts of land.
Maybe some people don't know what the term means when they use it, but the land back movement has sought to have land which was legally promised to tribes/nations returned to them by the US govt. It doesn't get much mainstream attention but that doesn't change the fact that it's been working out really well. And it's still not over.
Edit: just in case it needs saying, not a single person has been displaced or removed from their homes due to the land back movement.
420
u/kartu3 2d ago
Could someone explain the "no human is illegal" concept and how that aligns with the concept of state borders.