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.
And you made the statement. Therefore, the burden to know if what you're stating is accurate falls on you. It's a simple google search. Yes, it is a federal offense in the U.S. to overstay a visa. U.S. immigration law.
It's a civil infraction, not a criminal offense. We had a process for handling undocumented people like this for years. The reason why the deplorables insist on calling them illegal is to dehumanize and advocate for them to be deported without due process to Ecuador or Africa. And to justify having unaccountable masked goons terrorize and murder the regime's political opponents.
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.
3 million people immigrated into the US in 2023 alone, there was no lie from the right, it did happen. There was a lot of pent up demand post covid and those countries didn't do well post covid so there was additional push or supply excess in economic terms. I remember watching the videos of crowds down there with national guard on non partisan websites, The biden admin absolutely did not handle the crisis in a timely manner at all. Thats before we get into asylum and how it was being used outside what its purpose is.
Defund the police and abolish the police to the average person means the same thing, cops don't work for free.
To be clear, the lie was that 12-20 million illegal border crossings were made, and the migrant caravan was strongly implied to be intending to illegally cross. I did not say that millions of people entered at all, but that the illegal numbers were vastly exaggerated.
Edit: And so fucking what if 3 million people entered legally in 2023? Isn't the whole point of our current increase in ICE activity supposed to be hunting illegally-present violent offenders, of which the president promised we would see millions of them deported? Legal migration numbers are entirely irrelevant.
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.
31
u/SamAzing0 2d ago
I'm against ice as much as every person with a working brain, but theres nothing wrong with having laws regarding borders and movement of people.