“Kidnapping people, separating them from their family, locking them in prison and then exiling them from the country? That’s a horrible thing to do! Unless of course they happen to have not done some paperwork correctly and were born on the other side of this line we drew in the dirt, then its just common sense.” /s
Hell even if you did all the paperwork correctly, as an asylum seeker you would have a small window of 5 years where.
- If you leave the US your process is cancelled.
- If you don’t show up to the 3 random court calls in time your process is cancelled.
- Court takes place in the USA.
- You are not a legal citizen in the USA until you finish all the courts.
Additionally.
- You aren’t allowed to have a job until you pay a fee and wait 6-12 months for the EAD.
- You still pay taxes and can’t vote.
And if you do show up on time, ICE might just arrest you at the court appearance and sell you into slavery!
The leading reason to oppose immigration is racism. But people are embarrassed to admit it. Nobody opposes anything because it’s illegal.
You can force anyone to admit they don’t care about what’s legal by simply asking what if we changed the law?
deleted by creator
You might enjoy the phrase “Constitutional border protection.” The US had no immigration laws whatsoever for nearly a century, and none are in the Constitution, so it’s fun to push the same button that right-wingers do with the Second Amendment, but for immigration.
deleted by creator
The Constitution is not the totality of law nor was it ever intended to be. It is the guide rails that establishes the scope that the rest of the legal system exists within.
How would framing immigration in comparison to the Bill of Rights even push the same buttons as the Second Amendment? The Constitution grants Congress the authority and requirement to protect the country and to set naturalization law, which is immigration. There is, as you said, no constitutional right to become an American citizen.
Piss off right-wingers with Due Process, because Constitutionally everyone on US soil or in US custody for any reason, and that means Everyone with a capital E, is covered under Due Process.
Shouldn’t that be an easy question to answer though?
If a supermajority left-wing government changed immigration law to free and unrestricted passage across borders, making anyone who sets foot on US soil is legally a resident if they wish and further entitled to a pathway citizenship if they want it, then that would be the law and must be followed.
Anyone would still be free to run their campaign on changing immigration law back, or to something else. Economic and societal performance under that hypothetical law change would determine if a supermajority of “change immigration law to XYZ” then gets elected to do that.
There is always a possibility that putting no or too few limits on immigration causes irreversible damage to a country before course correction can happen, but the same is true for extreme polarization and unresolvable political divide.
deleted by creator
A peaceful and united world without borders would be awesome. I wish I could be as optimistic as you, but when we have so many examples of one culture completely wiping out another I can’t get there. Tibet is a “recent” example, all Native cultures in North and South America are more. Most of Africa as well.
I do think that not all cultures are equal because all cultural institutions are not equal. Child marriage, caste, women’s rights, LGBT rights, etc. are components that make up cultures, and everyone thinks their culture’s interpretation of these is superior and should be enforced as the norm. This will be THE blocker for a united one world society without borders.
Looking into why there are too many people coming from country X to fix those problems, no matter how generously you are trying to make sure their plate has enough, will invariably run into cultural clashes with fixes. International solidarity and support should increase, but at what point is that cultural colonialism? Can for example Sharia Law coexist perfectly with liberalism? Can a society made with conflicting ideas about autonomy exist?
Not to counteract that there is definitely a decent amount of racism involved, but isn’t your point about law changing hypotheticals basically useless? If the government changed any law making any currently illegal immoral thing legal, wouldn’t anyone not care about what’s legal? And just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Some states still have legal child marriage, that doesn’t mean anyone should like it and there should be mass efforts to make it illegal.
There is definitely a middle ground between open border immigration and what is happening now. Not everyone who is against illegal immigration is racist, and I would hesitate to even attempt to claim racism is a majority reason. It’s has become a thought-terminating cliche the same way “woke” or DEI is for the Right.
Removed by mod
Wanda Sykes put it best:
"If someone broke into my house… and vacuumed?
*shrug* same time next week?"
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Account’s 1h old, and all of their posts are this.
Do what you will with that information. I’m blocking them.
deleted by creator
Native Americans have entered the chat
deleted by creator
Companies hire them illegally and nobody goes after them! Why aren’t we enforcing the law for them!? Until you are willing to go out into the fields and pick crops for poverty wages, or advance legislation to enable them to do it legally, STFU about illegal immigration…
To be fair, many against illegal immigration push for going after companies who hire illegal immigrants. A lot of those many would prefer to go after the employers first, because you solve a problem at the source and not by treating symptoms. E-Verify and employment law are supposed to do that, if there is no economic incentive then most illegal immigration stops.
As for seasonal migrant workers, there are laws enabling them to do it legally. They need desperately need to be updated and expanded, but the legal groundwork is there.
Based Cozmo frfr
(His creator is not very based tho)
Really? Huh, I hadn’t expected that, and I hadn’t heard. What happened?
Hartman is an evangelical grifter.
Least morally bankrupt Nickelodeon creator
Want to know what being “illegal” constitutes as? It’s a civil misdemeanor. That’s it. It’s a low offense. But the system is made so you either get ground to a pulp to get in or sneak in then deal with the system afterwards.
So they’re trespassing? Jesus has something to say about that
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
FTFY:
Depends on how they’re seeking it. Plenty of people seek a better life through hurting others.
And not many of those are immigrants.
Conservative: “We just think that laws should matter. These people are here in violation of the law.”
Liberal: “Our immigration laws are a mess though and don’t meet anyone’s needs. Don’t you think we should overhaul that whole system?”
Conservative: “Sure. We can agree on that. But before we talk about new laws, we have to obey the laws we have.”
Liberal: “Let me get this straight: we should take a law everyone agrees is totally broken, go out and fully implement it, by force if necessary, and THEN fix it?”
Conservative: “You don’t understand. This is about rule of law. You either respect the laws of this country or you don’t.”
Liberals: “Laws like Roe v. Wade?”
Conservative: “Well that’s not a law that’s a court ruling.”
Liberal: “I see. So that one loses on a technicality. But a completely broken set of laws gets you out into the streets, up in arms?”
Conservative: “Here’s the part where you call me a racist.”
Liberal: “…”
Conservative. “We just think that laws should matter.”
There’s a huge difference between hating an individual, and wanting the rule of law respected, I think. What’s going on now is hatred and destruction, which abuses the name of the law. But saying, “this person is self-evidently in this place illegally, they should be tried and ejected”, is not hateful. You can respect a person while saying they shouldn’t be in a place.
Too bad I have this moral obligation to disobey stupid laws.
stupid
What does “false consensus” mean?
That’s certainly a choice, and one I’ve made in the past too. But I stand by the point that the law does not demand disrespect.
law does not demand disrespect.
Unjust laws do.
I don’t believe in borders man
Any law that criminalizes behavior that does not cause anyone harm is unjust, and we therefore have a moral duty to disobey it. Your insistence that “respecting the rule of law” is not hateful is no different from using “just following orders” as an excuse for immoral actions. You cannot be seriously suggesting that it is respectful to tell a person they don’t belong in this country because they don’t have the proper paperwork. Fuck borders, fuck ICE, CBP, DHS, and fuck the rule of law. I refuse to accept inhumane treatment simply because the law demands it.
wanting the rule of law respected
As an American, I would be mortified to use the phrase “rule of law” outside of a joke.
What would happen if there was suddenly no border policy whatsoever in the US? That anyone could come in at any time they like and stay as long as they like.
I would try to find another place to live, because that would lead to chaos.
Good riddance.
yea, the problem is that it’s a shitty, hateful law that is enforced for shitty, hateful reasons
I can oppose illegal migration/support going through proper channels while opposing military action.
The leading reason for hiring illegally is to exploit people in an undesirable position. In my country it’s the leading reason legally as well.
But they’re here illegally!
While doing everything they can to make it as difficult and expensive as possible yet enjoying the economic benefits of exploited (illegal) labor.
